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.

[Tim Nickerson]

Since the evidence against Oswald is rock solid, CT's like Griffith are reduced to claiming the Mountain of Evidence is faked, manipulated or is simply misrepresented but as I will amply demonstrate his/their claims are just amateur observations and nonsense.

No boxes were moved in the time between Powell and Dillard taking their respective photos and is just a matter of differing perspective. In fact can any CT give a legitimate reason for moving any boxes in the minutes following the assassination and especially when many eyes in Dealey Plaza were fixated on these windows?



There was no hole in the windscreen of Kennedy's Limo as can be seen in the corresponding glass crack in the same position in Altgens photo and the later official photo which shows no hole.





Many stereoscopic photos were taken of Kennedy's injuries so as to give a better 3D representation of these injuries and as a by-product these stereoscopic images by definition rule out any manipulation because any attempt at simultaneous fakery would literally "stick out" on a different plane. These genuine impossible to alter back of head photos show no exit wound.



The "red spot" bullet entrance was also photographed twice and when the skin was stretched with differing tautness between the two photos, the back of head entrance wound can be seen to slightly open and close, thus proving the red spot was not merely a pool of blood.



Kennedy's neck exit wound was located directly behind his tie knot. This is important because CT's are constantly trying to manipulate the neck wound position to further their anti-SBF BS.



The backyard photos have been proven 7 ways to Sunday but still there is CT's amateurish analysis like the square chin which was simply a product of overhead lighting and the subsequent shadow.



Some time later a back yard photo was discovered IIRC at the Dallas Police Headquarters with a cut-out and the CT's say this is proof that it was one of the templates for the backyard photos but the cut-out photo obviously was taken many months later because of the significant plant growth to Oswald's left.
But as we know the genuine backyard photos were taken just after Oswald ordered and received his rifle and just before the Walker assassination attempt. BTW how likely is it that someone had the foresight to take at least three empty photos of the backyard at Neely street eight months before the assassination and then later have at least three differing heads of Oswald which individually magically match the lighting and shadows of the Neely street backyard photos?



The following ballistics study shows that a shot from behind, high and above shows a close correlation between the expelled matter and resulting exit wound seen in the Zapruder film and this recreation.



These Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses who were interviewed within hours, simply described what they saw and their descriptions closely match the Zapruder film which in turn are further proof that the autopsy photos and X-Rays are genuine.



It only happened one way!



Further proof that this Autopsy photo is genuine is that the scalp flap and ragged edge is an exact match of Moorman's photo which was taken a split second after.



The Moorman photo was on the UPI network on Saturday and was on the front page of newspapers on Sunday.





Real life isn't a Hollywood movie with exaggerated physics but as can be seen when a FMJ bullet is fired into a head and as is graphically demonstrated in the following footage, a relatively lightweight penetrating bullet lacks the kinetic energy to throw anybody anywhere. These brave soldiers simply fall straight down, they don't even fall forward and in fact they move back towards the shooters.



The first eyewitnesses who ran towards the Knoll didn't run up the steps! The first eyewitnesses ran right past the fence and supposed smoke and were just following Haygood who ran up to the railway overpass.





And where did the majority of the "steps crowd" come from? It appears that the majority came from across the Plaza and simply sheep-like were just mindlessly following the flock.





For every claim of conspiracy in the JFKA, there is a always a simple, logical and/or scientific level of refutation, so CT's like Griffith "shotgun" their braindead claims in an attempt to overwhelm the reader.
It's easy to make a single sentence conspiracy claim like Kennedy's head moves back and to the left due to a bullet like a Hollywood movie but researching scientific principles such as momentum, inelastic/elastic collisions, kinetic energy, physiology and researching WW2 films of FMJ strikes takes time which most lay people couldn't be bothered with.
And another example is saying everyone ran immediately to the steps of the grassy knoll because of the Bell film but when did this happen, who was in this crowd and did they know from where the gunshot sounds originated, but again researching the chronological order based on photos and testimony takes time.

So in conclusion dear reader don't take the CT's claims as gospel, but use your brain and do a little research and ask yourself do their claims make sense because they usually don't, for instance why have your "lone nut" high and behind yet still have another assassin in front, how does that make sense or why use different types of bullets when your "lone nut" is exclusively using full metal jacket bullets?

JohnM

That one is long overdue. A compilation on some of your best. I've added it to my speed dial. I trust that the CIA is still paying you well?