Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted  (Read 93501 times)

Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
What you expect, Pete, might be influenced by your personality, mindset and other characteristics unique to you.
That would not stand up in court.

Ross, I didn't say Mauser until they said, Mauser.  That is where I am.

What is this meant to convey?

Making the rules up as you go along.
Example Mauser Explanation= oh I forgot, Seymour said it was an honest mistake. All fixed now.
Guess what? No trial No Guilt

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451

Making the rules up as you go along.
Example Mauser Explanation= oh I forgot, Seymour said it was an honest mistake. All fixed now.
Guess what? No trial No Guilt

Illogical musings abound.  :o

If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:

-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?

-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?

-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?

-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?

Additionally the most important question of all:

-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being in the TSBD?

Those are legitimate questions that arise when someone claims there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD.


Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Illogical musings abound.  :o

If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:

-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?

-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?

-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?

-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?

Additionally the most important question of all:

-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being in the TSBD?

Those are legitimate questions that arise when someone claims there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD.
They certainly are legitimate questions for you to ask of those who started this. First, you will need to find out who Seymour's eye doctor was.

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
They certainly are legitimate questions for you to ask of those who started this. First, you will need to find out who Seymour's eye doctor was.

Dodging.

Why do you believe the Mauser story without any evidence to assess its credibility?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 03:44:21 AM by Ross Lidell »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Basis of Oswald's skill as a competent shooter: Training and assessment of marksmanship ability while in the US Marine Corp. Oswald attained the status of "Sharpshooter".

In 1956.  Right after 3 weeks of intensive training. With an M-1. At a stationary target.

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
In 1956.  Right after 3 weeks of intensive training. With an M-1. At a stationary target.

That's correct John.
Do you believe that alone proves it's impossible for Oswald to make the "kill" shots attributed to him by the Warren Commission and the HSCA?

If it's YES, explain why?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 06:39:50 AM by Ross Lidell »

Offline Peter Kleinschmidt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
Dodging.

Why do you believe the Mauser story without any evidence to assess its credibility?
So now you think acting dumb as a fox is a sure win.
"Hey, everybody, Seymour said it was "an honest mistake"!
He sure does not speak to it being anything other than a Mauser at all in his WC testimony.
Flimsy Shame on you