Debunking Griffith's ridiculous claims!

[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.

[John Mytton]

No serious researcher still brings up the Mauser because as Lance and Steve have pointed out, it goes nowhere.

The original Weitzman Affidavit and Boone's Sheriff report. Both describe the rifle in the NW corner, and/or near stairwell and between some boxes. Where Oswald's Carcano was found, photographed and filmed.
Also Boone refers to Weitzman as Whiteman, does that mean we have a missing Whiteman or that specific details were not that important?




Roger Craig's 1968 interview where he was the only person to describe that the 3 shells in the sniper's nest were facing the same direction and were all an inch apart. Roger also says that he didn't name the rifle because he doesn't know foreign rifles! Very interesting.



How Roger Craig described the orientation and location of the shells in Oswald's sniper's nest. LOL!



Oswald's Carcano rifle was indeed discovered in the NW corner between some boxes.



Boone's WC testimony.

Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. BALL - Thank you.

Weitzman's WC testimony.

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.
----------------------------------
Mr. BALL - In this statement, it says Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber.
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - He did eject one live round?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; he did eject one live round, one live round, yes, sir. You said remove anything from the rifle; I was not considering that a shell.
Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.


So in conclusion;
• Did anybody at all recall 2 rifles being discovered on the 6th floor?
• Did anybody state that the rifle discovery was filmed twice with enough time so that Alyea's footage of the Carcano rifle extraction could be shown in the early afternoon on WFAATV?
• How does an additional Mauser type rifle be explained and how does it advance the conspiracy?
• Couldn't in the CT World, a 7.65 Mauser be equally linked to Oswald?
• If the DP were in full control, how come the Weitzman and Boone affidavit/report were not simply lost and/or replaced? Or did the DP not care enough because there was never any evil intentions from the start?
• After the rifle was discovered and handled very carefully by the strap, would it have been customary for Fritz or Day to let everyone on the 6th floor to closely examine the evidence? Or as Weitzman says they could get a glance at it.
• With the outside of the TSBD covered with reporters and cameras which happened to photograph Oswald's rifle and Oswald's rifle carry bag being taken out, why wasn't the Mauser photographed or is it still inside till this day?

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

I just went through a (hopefully respectful) version of this exercise on Royell's "Officer Haygood" thread, and here as well I would ask Paul to consider the broader picture.

OK, a Mauser was found stashed where the LN narrative says the Carcano was found. Take your pick: (1) both a Mauser and the Carcano were found, or (2) only a Mauser was found.

Take us through how either scenario would have worked. Precisely how and why did the Mauser find its way to the sixth floor and what became of it? Precisely how and why did the Carcano enter the picture? Precisely how and why does all the other evidence point to a Carcano and not a Mauser? Just from this one factoid - "a Mauser was found on the sixth floor" - I think you will find that you are immediately catapulted into a huge multi-faceted conspiracy and cover-up that quickly starts to sound like science fiction.