Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence  (Read 59605 times)

Offline Matt Grantham

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 902
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2018, 11:53:31 PM »
The Argentine Mauser was designed to fire the 7.65 cartridge ......Thus the Argentine mauser is commonly referred to as a 7.65 mauser....  The Argentine mauser and the model 91/38 mannlicher carcano look similar.

Seymour weitzman simply made the mistake of misidentifying the carcano as a 7.65 mauser......It's as simply as that.

Weitzman realized that he had made a mistake and admitted it......  Roger Craig couldn't bear the embarrassment of being wrong....so he lied and embellished the tale.....

 Walt I am open to this question, but it did not seem like you answered this

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle?

 

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2018, 12:26:08 AM »
Walt I am open to this question, but it did not seem like you answered this

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle?


The Argentine mauser resembles a model 91/38 carcano... At first glance it's easy to mistake the Argentine mauser ( also known as a 7.65 mauser)...because the carcano and the 7.65 ( Argentine) mauser do look similar.      Just as a deer hunting rifle is often called a "high powered rifle".... the Argentine is often called a 7.65 mauser.....

Nobody read 7.65 stamped on the Carcano....Weitzman simply referred to the rifle that he could only see a mall portion of as a 7.65 mauser ( meaning an Argentine mauser ...same thing just different way to identify the gun) 

Later Weitzman recognized that he was in error and admitted it.....But Roger Craig wouldn't back off....Craig didn't know the 7.65 ( Argentine) mauser from a 03 Springfield ....but he respected Weitzman's first erroneous identification and believed that was what they had found... Craig was wrong....and a pathetic mental case.         
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 12:30:11 AM by Walt Cakebread »

Offline Denis Pointing

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 362
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2018, 01:16:14 AM »

Unfortunately Roger Craig had a mental problem....   He could never admit that he was wrong....  So rather than admit he was in error he would embellish his stance in an effort to make his tale more convincing.

Hmn, kinda reminds me of someone else..not sure who. lol


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2018, 01:30:05 AM »
Hmn, kinda reminds me of someone else..not sure who. lol

An intelligent and wise man readily admits that he is wrong when in fact he is in error.   Admitting to being being wrong is the mark of a wise man, for no human is ever always right.   

A man who cannot admit an error is a fool.....
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:39:13 AM by Walt Cakebread »

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #46 on: May 07, 2018, 01:24:55 PM »
Walt I am open to this question, but it did not seem like you answered this

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle?

Do you now understand ?

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #47 on: May 10, 2018, 10:00:11 PM »
Splitting hairs John... and then splitting them again!!!

So what do you think Amos Euins saw... a pipe or a rifle?

So what do you think Bob Jackson saw... a pipe or a rifle?

It's not splitting hairs.  You claimed that "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  That's just flat out false.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11351
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #48 on: May 10, 2018, 10:04:51 PM »
An intelligent and wise man readily admits that he is wrong when in fact he is in error.   Admitting to being being wrong is the mark of a wise man, for no human is ever always right.   

A man who cannot admit an error is a fool.....

You mean like admitting your error about "red signal rings"?