JFK Assassination Forum 
Logo
HomeThe Robin Unger JFK Assassination GalleryYoutube JFK Assassination Video ChannelSearchNotepadLoginRegister

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 26, 2017, 07:17:22 AM
News: Posts and threads containing swear words, personal insults or crudities, content considered by Admin to be spamming, when reported or observed, may be edited or deleted.
The perpetrator of any offense may receive a posting suspension of a period to be determined by Admin in relation to the considered severity of the offense.
Questions relating to deletions or edits will not be answered by Admin via any communication method here or elsewhere.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 06:17:37 AM 
Started by Billy Carr - Last post by Howard Gee
It's a good thing the conspirators forgot to use their blur machine on every frame, otherwise the forgery would have never been detected.

 2 
 on: Today at 06:10:14 AM 
Started by Bob Prudhomme - Last post by Jerry Organ
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Mr. RYDER. This is what I was talking about the other day. This is not as plain a picture as Mr. Horton had. Evidently that is a reprint, but there are two screws, one here and one here, where on the tag I have charged for three holes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are indicating the screws on Exhibit No. 3, that hold the scope mount to the rifle; is that correct?
Mr. RYDER. Mr. Horton, the FBI man, on the rifle he had it was real plain and you could see these two screws, and this was a hole, but there wasn't any screws. There was just two screws in the mount.
Mr. LIEBELER. The mount had three holes but only two screws?
Mr. RYDER. That is apparently in the picture you have here, and this is what I was referring to as a cheap mount. This looked to me like even in this picture it was real thin gage metal. I can show you something like that, that we use on a .22 scope, and that is all we use.
Mr. LIEBELER. But in your opinion it is too light a mount?
Mr. RYDER. Yes; it is too easy to get jarred off on a high-powered rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would throw the accuracy of the rifle off, wouldn't it?
Mr. RYDER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is all I have, Mr. Ryder. I just wanted you to look at the pictures, and I thank you very much."

They're talking about the mount, not the quality of the scope.
_____

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't get it Jerry. First of all, this is a Carcano SHORT rifle. It is basically nothing more than a miniaturized version of the original Carcano LONG rifle, and fires the same cartridge. By reducing the size of the rifle, they also reduce the weight, thus meaning there is less mass to absorb the recoil. What do you think happens to that recoil if not absorbed?


Yep, they chopped a whopping one pound (about 11%) off the weight of the original M91 Carcano Long Rifle. Among high-powered rifles, the Carcano is near the bottom rung of recoil.

Quote

Second, this was not just a .22 rimfire rifle scope, it was a CHEAP .22 rimfire rifle scope made in Japan, LONG before Japanese manufacturing was synonymous with good quality. It would likely be difficult to keep this scope sighted in if it was mounted on a .22 rimfire rifle, let alone a rifle kicking out 162 grain slugs at 2200 fps.


Right, Bob. To add the "cheap" scope to the rifle in 1963 cost the equivalent of about $35-40 current dollars. Do you really know how comparable in quality the Oswald scope was to the $5.28 China scopes?

Quote

My next project on this thread is to begin looking at the testimony of the great rifle expert; the FBI's SA Robert A. Frazier. Mr. Frazier had a devil of a time sighting in the scope on C2766, and I really don't believe he ever was successful at getting it anywhere near properly zeroed.

If an expert could not zero the scope on C2766, how could Oswald, who had never owned a scoped rifle and who never took training with scopes in the USMC, ever get the scope on C2766 past the point of being absolutely useless?

 3 
 on: Today at 04:57:40 AM 
Started by Bob Prudhomme - Last post by Bob Prudhomme
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I am nothing more than an armchair expert. I never claimed to be anything else. Unlike a lot of people here. And yes, I admit my ignorance about rifles and what Oswald knew.

For instant, I didnít know that when Oswald ordered his rifle, he knew that he would be shooting at a moving target at close range, under 100 yards. I thought he didnít know that until within a week of the assassination.

My beliefs are simple. I speculate that Oswald bought a rifle with a scope because for all he knew, the scope would be useful in a future assassination, at some target, at some range, possibly moving or not moving. After he bought the rifle, he discovered the scope was not too useful. But it did no great harm. And I speculated that he thought it looked cool. He thought it would help people see him as a dangerous assassin. Plus, it might be useful anyway. He could study a target and insure correct identification a few seconds before firing.



It is Bobís theory that is sorely based on speculation. Bob speculates that Oswald would have removed the scope. This might be true. Or it might be false. But I think that in Bobís mind, itís not speculation. It is a probable truth. A very probable truth. Essentially an established fact.

So the fact the rifle was found with a scope that would not be too useful means that Oswald could not have used this rifle. There must be some other explanation. Most likely, it was planted by conspirators who didnít really think things through and plant the kind of rifle that Oswald would have used.



This is a garbage theory. It is no more relevant than a theory that I will now make up. That Oswald was a dedicated Communist. He did not care who knew he was. He would even pass out pro Communist leaflets on street corners. So the real Oswald would never use this type of rifle, but a rifle that he had painted bright red. To show absolutely his dedication to Communism. So the fact that the rifle discovered at the sniperís nest was not bright red means that it could not have been used by a dedicated Communist like Oswald. There must be some other explanation. It must have been planted by someone else.



As a final point, fundamentally, Bob is right. My arguments are based on speculation. But they have to be in order for me to combat his arguments, which are based on speculation. Bob speculates that Oswald would never use a rifle with a nearly useless scope. I cannot possibly fight his logic. His logic is iron tight. Unless I speculate that maybe Oswald would use a rifle with a nearly useless scope. For reasons that are not important to Bob or most people but may have been important to Oswald. Who had pictures taken of himself with his rifle with the scope that he could show to his friends and sent to the Communist party in New York, to show how dangerous he could be.

And I donít understand how Bob could think his arguments are so rock solid while mine are based on nothing but speculation.


Unfortunately, Joe, unless you have experienced something for yourself, it is difficult to communicate to you what a person would run into in this situation.

Look closely at these photos:

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The 1st photo is, of course, a photo of C2766 with the 4x18 scope mounted on it. the next three photos are of people shooting rifles, using open sights. looking at the photo of C2766, it is possible to see the shooter would have his head behind the eyepiece of the scope, much like the shooter in the photo below:

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It should be obvious, even to an armchair expert such as yourself, that shooting a rifle equipped with a scope is far different than shooting a rifle using the open sights. When using open sights, shooters tend to get much closer to the receiver of the rifle than they do when shooting with a scope.

Looking again at C2766, it becomes quite clear the eyepiece of the scope will be poking you in the head if you attempt to get close enough to use the open sights. While possible, I cannot think of anyone in his right mind who would WILLINGLY do this, when the solution is as simple as undoing the two slotted screws holding the scope mount onto the rifle, and removing the scope and scope mount.

It's true that one can remove the seat from a bicycle and ride it around. It's also true one can still pedal that same bicycle with the seat post stuck up one's butt. The question still stands, though.

WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD DO SOMETHING SO STUPID, WHEN THE SIMPLE SOLUTION IS TO PUT THE SEAT BACK ON?


 4 
 on: Today at 02:44:42 AM 
Started by Bob Prudhomme - Last post by Bob Prudhomme
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A quality rimfire scope will survive on an high-powered rifle. They're not commonly used because of parallax and range issues.

There aren't many high-powered rifles whose recoil energy is lower than the Carcano's 7.8 foot pounds ( As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ). The vast majority are much higher.

Klein's scope option for the Carcano was a 4X 3/4" for about $7 more. Looking at some of the Klein's offerings back then, they offered 4X scopes on ...

     -- M1917 Enfield .30-06 (3/4" scope for about $10 more)
     -- Enfield Sporter (No.1, Mark III) .303 (3/4" scope for about $8 more)


You don't get it Jerry. First of all, this is a Carcano SHORT rifle. It is basically nothing more than a miniaturized version of the original Carcano LONG rifle, and fires the same cartridge. By reducing the size of the rifle, they also reduce the weight, thus meaning there is less mass to absorb the recoil. What do you think happens to that recoil if not absorbed?

Second, this was not just a .22 rimfire rifle scope, it was a CHEAP .22 rimfire rifle scope made in Japan, LONG before Japanese manufacturing was synonymous with good quality. It would likely be difficult to keep this scope sighted in if it was mounted on a .22 rimfire rifle, let alone a rifle kicking out 162 grain slugs at 2200 fps.

My next project on this thread is to begin looking at the testimony of the great rifle expert; the FBI's SA Robert A. Frazier. Mr. Frazier had a devil of a time sighting in the scope on C2766, and I really don't believe he ever was successful at getting it anywhere near properly zeroed.

If an expert could not zero the scope on C2766, how could Oswald, who had never owned a scoped rifle and who never took training with scopes in the USMC, ever get the scope on C2766 past the point of being absolutely useless?

 5 
 on: Today at 02:33:30 AM 
Started by Bob Prudhomme - Last post by Bob Prudhomme
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
A quality rimfire scope will survive on an high-powered rifle. They're not commonly used because of parallax and range issues.

There aren't many high-powered rifles whose recoil energy is lower than the Carcano's 7.8 foot pounds ( As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ). The vast majority are much higher.

Klein's scope option for the Carcano was a 4X 3/4" for about $7 more. Looking at some of the Klein's offerings back then, they offered 4X scopes on ...

     -- M1917 Enfield .30-06 (3/4" scope for about $10 more)
     -- Enfield Sporter (No.1, Mark III) .303 (3/4" scope for about $8 more)


"Mr. RYDER. This is what I was talking about the other day. This is not as plain a picture as Mr. Horton had. Evidently that is a reprint, but there are two screws, one here and one here, where on the tag I have charged for three holes.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are indicating the screws on Exhibit No. 3, that hold the scope mount to the rifle; is that correct?
Mr. RYDER. Mr. Horton, the FBI man, on the rifle he had it was real plain and you could see these two screws, and this was a hole, but there wasn't any screws. There was just two screws in the mount.
Mr. LIEBELER. The mount had three holes but only two screws?
Mr. RYDER. That is apparently in the picture you have here, and this is what I was referring to as a cheap mount. This looked to me like even in this picture it was real thin gage metal. I can show you something like that, that we use on a .22 scope, and that is all we use.
Mr. LIEBELER. But in your opinion it is too light a mount?
Mr. RYDER. Yes; it is too easy to get jarred off on a high-powered rifle.
Mr. LIEBELER. That would throw the accuracy of the rifle off, wouldn't it?
Mr. RYDER. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. That is all I have, Mr. Ryder. I just wanted you to look at the pictures, and I thank you very much."

 6 
 on: Today at 02:00:44 AM 
Started by Billy Carr - Last post by Billy Carr
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In terms of forensic photogrammetry, Costella is like the lowest hanging fruit. His analysis lacks anything sufficient to prove the Z-film was a fabrication.

"His analysis lacks anything..."

Ok! We're getting somewhere. Then... Just. Name. Anything lacking that would change his proof that said there was impossible sharpness in at least one frame.

As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The obvious explanation for the blurs are:

(1) Zapruder reacting to sudden loud sounds in the environment (e.g., the gunshots which killed the president)
(2) Normal camera malfunctioning

"The obvious explanation for the blurs are..."
Uhh, have you read anything Costella wrote? What are the obvious explanation for the non-blurs? He explained the blurs... like the ones in frame 302/303/304 (see p. 178 of the book referenced above).

"Normal camera malfunctioning"
How does a particular malfunction sharpen the resulting image?



 7 
 on: Today at 01:08:03 AM 
Started by Walt Cakebread - Last post by Jerry Organ

 8 
 on: Today at 12:59:48 AM 
Started by Rob Caprio - Last post by Rob Caprio
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Really?.....  Your posts reveal an addled brain.   I just assumed that you had a couple too many.   

For example......You're a WC defender for sure IMO.

If there is another member of this forum who agrees with Mr Caprio's opinion ..... Please stand up, and be recognized.

Most of the CTers probably just think you are the one with an addled mind. I know better. I have seen your act for too many years. No real CTer familiar with the evidence would find the need to fabricate so many false claims. They are designed to confuse and make CTers look bad IMO.

 9 
 on: Today at 12:50:59 AM 
Started by Rob Caprio - Last post by Rob Caprio
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Of course he was not arrested at 1:40.  That doesn't matter.  What matters is whether the report and the information it contains was written at 1:40 before he was arrested as you stupidly claimed.  If it was written later, after Oswald's arrest, it shows nothing other than they got the arrest time wrong by a few minutes on the report.  How difficult is that to understand?

Of course it matters. LHO was not arrested at 1:40 p.m. so that time should not be on the report. If this was a normal investigation that time wouldn't have been on it, but this wasn't a normal investigation. That time shows foreknowledge. That points to a conspiracy.

A few minutes? It was off by ELEVEN minutes. Your claims have not been supported at all. They are empty claims meant to distract. Either put up evidence for them or move along.

 10 
 on: Today at 12:36:26 AM 
Started by Bob Prudhomme - Last post by Paul Ernst
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Warren Commission apologists are usually referred to as LNers ( Lone Nutters)  but in reality the should be called Lone Nut THEORISTS because the entire case that LBJ's Committee presented was based on THEORY. .....and lies.

Walt... Don't forget the outstanding handling of the so called evidence, reporting system, incompetend investigators and spoiling 1 millions dollars tax money for a crap report!!!! [sarcasm[!

  celebrate

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963

JFK Assassination Photographs Gallery

JFK Assassination Forum Assassination of JFK discussion and debate surrounding the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy In Dealey Plaza Texas on November 22nd 1963
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines