Debunking Griffith's ridiculous claims!

[Paul J Cummings]

You will be ignored from here on in. Go find some KGB agents TG.

Dear Paul,

The witting ones have pretty much all been uncovered by now whereas the "useful idiot" ones like you and Michael T. Griffith are legion, like a horde of locusts.

-- Tom

[Lance Payette]

None of which is tied to LHO. You just keep regurgitatig the Warren Commission. I guess affidavits don't mean shit to you when both Weismann and Craig said it was a a Mauser.

Paul, you are making the classic “epistemological” (thinking) error that CTers make. I would refer you to my last post on MTG’s “Fragile House of Cards” thread.

No one is ignoring the identification of the rifle as a Mauser. The Carcano’s action is very similar to a Mauser’s. In the context of the evidence as a whole, the identifications were simply good-faith mistakes (with the possible exception of Craig, who became increasingly erratic). Weitzman admitted as much.

Given the huge body of evidence that Oswald’s Carcano was found on the sixth floor and fired the shots, “the gun was actually a Mauser” is not a rational conclusion. “The witnesses were mistaken” is the rational conclusion (Craig being an outlier whom, I believe, was simply lying in his post-JFKA days).

As I point out on the “Fragile House of Cards” thread, you are doing what CTers do: In MTG’s terms, “If the gun was a Mauser … the lone-gunman narrative collapses!” First, the LN narrative is not a single piece of evidence; it is a vast body of evidence, reasonable inferences and logic. Weighed against that vast body, the claim that the gun was a Mauser simply isn’t credible. “The witnesses were mistaken” is what’s credible. Indeed, “the gun was actually a Mauser” would raise an entire host of problems in its own right as to what happened to the Mauser and so forth.

In my “Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game,” I pointed out that if three eyewitnesses say the hit-and-run car was “dark,” “bluish” and “reddish,” then in Conspiracy World there were three cars and a garden-variety hit-and-run becomes a conspiracy. When a suspect is later arrested in a maroon car, the CTers will forever insist he was a patsy or at best only one of the three conspirators.

It simply isn’t rational to attach significant weight to the Mauser identification – but this is the sort of flawed reasoning in which MTG specializes and CTers engage all the time. Literally, all the time. Up is really down, white is really black, the Carcano was really a Mauser.

[Paul J Cummings]

But it's totally rational to ignore signed affidavits as mistakes.

Paul, you are making the classic “epistemological” (thinking) error that CTers make. I would refer you to my last post on MTG’s “Fragile House of Cards” thread.

No one is ignoring the identification of the rifle as a Mauser. The Carcano’s action is very similar to a Mauser’s. In the context of the evidence as a whole, the identifications were simply good-faith mistakes (with the possible exception of Craig, who became increasingly erratic). Weitzman admitted as much.

Given the huge body of evidence that Oswald’s Carcano was found on the sixth floor and fired the shots, “the gun was actually a Mauser” is not a rational conclusion. “The witnesses were mistaken” is the rational conclusion (Craig being an outlier whom, I believe, was simply lying in his post-JFKA days).

As I point out on the “Fragile House of Cards” thread, you are doing what CTers do: In MTG’s terms, “If the gun was a Mauser … the lone-gunman narrative collapses!” First, the LN narrative is not a single piece of evidence; it is a vast body of evidence, reasonable inferences and logic. Weighed against that vast body, the claim that the gun was a Mauser simply isn’t credible. “The witnesses were mistaken” is what’s credible. Indeed, “the gun was actually a Mauser” would raise an entire host of problems in its own right as to what happened to the Mauser and so forth.

In my “Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game,” I pointed out that if three eyewitnesses say the hit-and-run car was “dark,” “bluish” and “reddish,” then in Conspiracy World there were three cars and a garden-variety hit-and-run becomes a conspiracy. When a suspect is later arrested in a maroon car, the CTers will forever insist he was a patsy or at best only one of the three conspirators.

It simply isn’t rational to attach significant weight to the Mauser identification – but this is the sort of flawed reasoning in which MTG specializes and CTers engage all the time. Literally, all the time. Up is really down, white is really black, the Carcano was really a Mauser.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Paul, you are making the classic “epistemological” (thinking) error that CTers make. I would refer you to my last post on MTG’s “Fragile House of Cards” thread.

No one is ignoring the identification of the rifle as a Mauser. The Carcano’s action is very similar to a Mauser’s. In the context of the evidence as a whole, the identifications were simply good-faith mistakes (with the possible exception of Craig, who became increasingly erratic). Weitzman admitted as much.

Given the huge body of evidence that Oswald’s Carcano was found on the sixth floor and fired the shots, “the gun was actually a Mauser” is not a rational conclusion. “The witnesses were mistaken” is the rational conclusion (Craig being an outlier whom, I believe, was simply lying in his post-JFKA days).

As I point out on the “Fragile House of Cards” thread, you are doing what CTers do: In MTG’s terms, “If the gun was a Mauser … the lone-gunman narrative collapses!” First, the LN narrative is not a single piece of evidence; it is a vast body of evidence, reasonable inferences and logic. Weighed against that vast body, the claim that the gun was a Mauser simply isn’t credible. “The witnesses were mistaken” is what’s credible. Indeed, “the gun was actually a Mauser” would raise an entire host of problems in its own right as to what happened to the Mauser and so forth.

In my “Beginner’s Guide to the Conspiracy Game,” I pointed out that if three eyewitnesses say the hit-and-run car was “dark,” “bluish” and “reddish,” then in Conspiracy World there were three cars and a garden-variety hit-and-run becomes a conspiracy. When a suspect is later arrested in a maroon car, the CTers will forever insist he was a patsy or at best only one of the three conspirators.

It simply isn’t rational to attach significant weight to the Mauser identification – but this is the sort of flawed reasoning in which MTG specializes and CTers engage all the time. Literally, all the time. Up is really down, white is really black, the Carcano was really a Mauser.

Conspiracy Groundhog Day. It's the same things over and over and over again. No matter how many times they are shown to be wrong they still repeat them.

The DPD took in situ photos of the rifle. It's a Carcano. A news cameraman, Tom Alyea, filmed the search of the floor when they found the rifle. It's a Carcano.

Here's a still frame from the Alyea film. Are we supposed to ignore this?

[Jack Nessan]

None of which is tied to LHO. You just keep regurgitatig the Warren Commission. I guess affidavits don't mean shit to you when both Weismann and Craig said it was a a Mauser. Harold Norman never identified LHO. I'm done and clearly the only homework you've done is via the Warren Commission.

"If you studied this case and come to the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, you're either ignorant to the facts or lying." J. Gary Shaw

J, Gary Shaw is someone important?

If you have to have someone do your thinking for you, why would you want it to be Michael? He has repeatedly shown he has the mentality acuity of a box of rocks. He has given up on all of his experts and now he only quotes himself.

As far as a Mauser stamped rifle, why don’t you pick up where Michael left off and provide us with a picture or example of the rifle seen by Weissman and Craig. It should not be hard to post a picture of a Mauser stamped rifle like the M38 carcano. Make sure it is a Mauser rifle that can fire 6.5mm carcano rounds.   

[Lance Payette]

But it's totally rational to ignore signed affidavits as mistakes.

I was a lawyer for 40 years. I have prepared and filed hundreds of affidavits. There is nothing sacred or especially evidential about an affidavit. It is simply what the affiant is willing to swear to at that point in time. The affiant may later change his mind or be shown to be wrong. Happens all the time. No big deal. The "Mauser" affidavits are not being "ignored" as mistakes. They are being "explained" as mistakes because they are contrary to a vast body of other evidence.

Weitzman explained at the WC that he just glanced at the rifle and that he was incorrect that it had a 2.5 Weaver scope. What is your explanation for this - that they "got to him" and "intimidated" him? Read the WC testimony - it certainly doesn't read that way.

It's not that LN apologists are "ignoring" the affidavits. It's that you're attaching decisive weight to them that simply isn't rational. Think through all the things that would have had to happen for a Mauser to be found and made to disappear and Oswald's Carcano substituted for it. It's science fiction.

[Paul J Cummings]

Original affidavits hold more weight with me. Just a glance but detailed enough to put on his affidavit later along with Craig. Just happy to see the confidence you have in the DPD getting the truth out.