JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on April 30, 2018, 02:14:40 AM
-
Test 1: Spectrographic Analysis
Oswald's paraffin casts were subjected to two analyses. Spectrographic analysis , the method normally used by the police, showed evidence of barium and antimony on Oswald's hands , but not on his cheek .
Test 2: Neutron Activation Analysis on Oswald
Spectrographic analysis was considered sufficiently reliable for criminal investigations, but in this case a more incisive test was also used. Neutron activation analysis, which is capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities much to small to be captured by spectrographic analysis, also showed no incriminating quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek. The result was reported in an internal Warren Commission memo: " At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. ... There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle."
Test 3: Controlled Neutron Activation Analysis
In order to check the validity of the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts, a controlled test was made. Seven marksmen fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor. The standard paraffin test was administered, and the paraffin casts were subjected to neutron activation analysis. All seven subjects showed substantial amounts of barium and antimony on their hands and more impotantly , on their cheeks.
The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.
-
Test 1: Spectrographic Analysis
Oswald's paraffin casts were subjected to two analyses. Spectrographic analysis , the method normally used by the police, showed evidence of barium and antimony on Oswald's hands , but not on his cheek .
Test 2: Neutron Activation Analysis on Oswald
Spectrographic analysis was considered sufficiently reliable for criminal investigations, but in this case a more incisive test was also used. Neutron activation analysis, which is capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities much to small to be captured by spectrographic analysis, also showed no incriminating quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek. The result was reported in an internal Warren Commission memo: " At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. ... There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle."
Test 3: Controlled Neutron Activation Analysis
In order to check the validity of the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts, a controlled test was made. Seven marksmen fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor. The standard paraffin test was administered, and the paraffin casts were subjected to neutron activation analysis. All seven subjects showed substantial amounts of barium and antimony on their hands and more impotantly , on their cheeks.
The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.
In 1963: The Paraffin test was known to be essentially worthless. It was prone to false positives and false negatives. It was used to trick naive suspects into giving a confession.
However, you seem to believe in the effectiveness of the paraffin test. Does that mean that you accept that Lee Harvey Oswald fired "a gun" on Friday 22 November 1963? You know... the Smith & Wesson revolver with which he shot Office JD Tippit. The discarded bullet hulls from the gun being found near the crime scene were matched to the weapon to the exclusion of all others.
If not: How do you think Oswald got "nitrates" on his hands on Friday 22 November 1963?
-
The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.
The lame LN excuse for this is that he scrubbed his face when he was at the rooming house.
-
The lame LN excuse for this is that he scrubbed his face when he was at the rooming house.
But not his hands apparently
-
Yes
-
But not his hands apparently
His (Oswald's) hands got nitrates on them when he used his Smith & Wesson revolver to murder Office JD Tippit.
-
His (Oswald's) hands got nitrates on them when he used his Smith & Wesson revolver to murder Office JD Tippit.
Just barium and antimony which you apparently could get from handling books
-
Just barium and antimony which you apparently could get from handling books
As I said: In 1963 paraffin tests were essentially worthless.
Did Lee Harvey Oswald do any work on the morning of Friday 22 November 1963? If he didn't, your theory is worthless.
Incidentally, can you prove the books/barium & antimony assertion?
-
As I said: In 1963 paraffin tests were essentially worthless.
Did Lee Harvey Oswald do any work on the morning of Friday 22 November 1963? If he didn't, your theory is worthless.
Incidentally, can you prove the books/barium & antimony assertion?
Nope It looks like the quote came from the idea that they are relatively ubiquitous Can't find anything to establish what a baseline amount would be for the average non shooter
-
Did Lee Harvey Oswald do any work on the morning of Friday 22 November 1963?
Yes.
Mr. BALL - On the 22d of November 1963, did you see him come to work that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, he was at work when I got there already filling orders.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald at any time during that day?
Mr. TRULY. I am almost certain that I saw him early that morning as I came in, and spoke to him.
Mr. BELIN. And where was he when you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. I think he was around the front part of the Scott, Foresman bins.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. TRULY. On the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. Was he filling orders?
Mr. TRULY. Apparently; yes, sir. I don't recall too close. But I am almost certain that I talked to him that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - I did.
Mr. BALL - When?
Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time it was.
Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten?
Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say.
Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders.
-
In an April 3 [2000] telephone interview with Regh Templin, an expert in firearms and tool mark analysis at the Wisconsin State Crime Lab for over 17 years, Templin stated that there is not now and never was a test to administer on a firearm to give an approximate time period as to when a firearm has been fired.
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid1.htm
-
There isn't evidence showing that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963, let alone LHO fired it.
It was just one of my jests. I drew attention to "fried" instead of "fired"... in the original post before a spelling correction. For something to be "fried" it has to be hot.
-
Okay...So does it bother you at all that it was never shown that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963?
No Rob... it does not bother me (that it was never shown that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963).
In 1963 there was no test available to prove that a rifle was fired recently. There is no test available today that can prove a rifle was fired recently.
-
He scrubbed his face without using his hands I guess. 🤣
Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.
1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.
JohnM
-
Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.
1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.
JohnM
His room had washing facilities?
-
Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.
1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.
Isn't story time fun?
-
Oh please Ross. In movies from the 1930s and 1940s the police smell a gun to see if it has recently been fired. Furthermore, the barrel of a gun shows different residue from one that has not been fired for some time.
Oh please Rob: You are referring to a movie script. That's not a scientific test. The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?
The expended cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the TSBD were matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD during the assassination. Do we really need an inconclusive test to support that reality?
-
Oh please Rob: You are referring to a movie script. That's not a scientific test. The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?
The expended cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the TSBD were matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD during the assassination. Do we really need an inconclusive test to support that reality?
"The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano"
Actually a 7.65 Mauser was found by Sheriff Department Deputy Boone. The crime scene
was turned over to the (DPD) Dallas Police Department almost immediately. The rifle later became Ozzie's
Carcano.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765m001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
-
Oh please Rob: You are referring to a movie script. That's not a scientific test. The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?
Just saying "Oswald's Carcano rifle" over and over again doesn't actually make it true.
Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD during the assassination.
Oh really? Name them.
-
"The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano"
Actually a 7.65 Mauser was found by Sheriff Department Deputy Boone. The crime scene
was turned over to the (DPD) Dallas Police Department almost immediately. The rifle later became Ozzie's
Carcano.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765m001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
You are quoting an error caused by Deputy Sheriff Boone's cursory "look" at the rifle before it was examined. Boone later admitted his error: he assumed the rifle was a "Mauser" based on the bolt-action.
Like every other amateur attorney: you have no interest in explaining the whys and wherefores of the Mauser theory. Even the most obvious, rudimentary questions are never asked.
-- Was the German Mauser used to make the assassination shots?
-- Where is the ballistics evidence that links a German Mauser to the assassination shots?
-- Why was Oswald's Carcano unavailable to make the assassination shots?
-- How did Oswald's Italian Carcano appear very soon after the Boone "find" for Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day to examine the rifle?
-- Were Fritz and day part of a conspiracy to murder JFK? Before the fact? After the fact?
Well Mister defense attorney?????
-
Just saying "Oswald's Carcano rifle" over and over again doesn't actually make it true.
Oh really? Name them.
-- Howard Brennan (the rifle and the shooter)
-- Amos Euins (the rifle)
-- Bob Jackson (the rifle)
-
The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?
Why did it take 45 minutes to find it?
-
-- Howard Brennan (the rifle and the shooter)
-- Amos Euins (the rifle)
-- Bob Jackson (the rifle)
Hang on. Didn't you just say that "Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"?
-
The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?
Why did it take 45 minutes to find it
The police sealed the building about 15 minutes after the assassination. The police proceeded to conduct a floor by floor search. I assume they went up to the 6th floor in the freight elevator. The rifle was hidden between some boxes near the entry to the 6th floor stairs.
Law enforcement found the rifle when they found it. Do you consider it suspicious that they did not find the rifle sooner?
-
Yes if we are to believe all the reports identifying the snipers nest
-
Hang on. Didn't you just say that "Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"
Splitting hairs John. Rifles don't fire themselves.
-
Splitting hairs John. Rifles don't fire themselves.
Seeing a rifle or some kind of pipe-like projection is not the same as seeing that projection being fired.
-
Seeing a rifle or some kind of pipe-like projection is not the same as seeing that projection being fired.
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?
-
Yes if we are to believe all the reports identifying the snipers nest
What reports?
What is it about these reports that concern you... specifically?
-
Yes if we are to believe all the reports identifying the snipers nest
The Carcano rifle was not found in the sniper's nest.
The Carcano rifle was not left in the sniper's nest.
Neither was a Mauser!!!
-
The Carcano rifle was not found in the sniper's nest.
The Carcano rifle was not left in the sniper's nest.
Neither was a Mauser!!!
I did not said it was left in the snipers nest How far away was it?
-
"The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano"
Actually a 7.65 Mauser was found by Sheriff Department Deputy Boone. The crime scene
was turned over to the (DPD) Dallas Police Department almost immediately. The rifle later became Ozzie's
Carcano.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765m001.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
There was no 7.65 Mauser found on the sixth floor at about 1:22 that afternoon.....The rifle that Boone saw a small portion of the butt of ...was a Mannlicher Carcano.
Any serious student who is searching for the truth is handcuffing himself by believing the mauser nonsense.....
This tale has become interwoven with the facts of the case and there's probably no way to remove the idea from the legend..... A pity.
-
If I understand you Walt you feel that Mauser was never found first? I have no opinion though I now there was a picture of the original gun that was being called a Mauser. I assume that photograph can be shown to be off the MC?
The second part is not really addressed to you, but if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?
-
If I understand you Walt you feel that Mauser was never found first? I have no opinion though I now there was a picture of the original gun that was being called a Mauser. I assume that photograph can be shown to be off the MC?
The second part is not really addressed to you, but if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?
if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?
You're exactly right in your choice of words describing the way the carcano was found ....the rifle was found neatly tucked beneath boxes of books stacked on the pallet. It was NOT hastily discarded by any fleeing person....
"if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?"
Absolutely right!! IF? IF ? Lee had been on the sixth floor ( he wasn't) at the SE corner window with that carcano at the time of the shooting...He could not have hidden the rifle in the manner it was hidden and reached the lunchroom in 75 seconds.....
-
You are quoting an error caused by Deputy Sheriff Boone's cursory "look" at the rifle before it was examined. Boone later admitted his error: he assumed the rifle was a "Mauser" based on the bolt-action.
Like every other amateur attorney: you have no interest in explaining the whys and wherefores of the Mauser theory. Even the most obvious, rudimentary questions are never asked.
-- Was the German Mauser used to make the assassination shots?
-- Where is the ballistics evidence that links a German Mauser to the assassination shots?
-- Why was Oswald's Carcano unavailable to make the assassination shots?
-- How did Oswald's Italian Carcano appear very soon after the Boone "find" for Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day to examine the rifle?
-- Were Fritz and day part of a conspiracy to murder JFK? Before the fact? After the fact?
Well Mister defense attorney?????
You are quoting an error caused by Deputy Sheriff Boone's cursory "look" at the rifle before it was examined. Boone later admitted his error: he assumed the rifle was a "Mauser" based on the bolt-action.
This is a fact!.......
Were Fritz and day part of a conspiracy to murder JFK? Before the fact? After the fact?
I believe that Fritz was a key component in the coup d e'tat...... Day was his hand puppet.....
-
Boone says on his supplementary Investigation report on Nov. 22nd that the rifle appears to be a 7.65mm Mauser.
Seymour Weitzman says this rifle was a 7.65 bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope.
We know that Roger Craig said that stamped on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser which , Fritz and Weitzman and Craig all saw the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel and Weitzman says it is a Mauser as he pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.
What happened to the bullet that was ejected out of the Mauser when the rifle was found?
As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano . The shell casings found in the shooters nest were for a 6.5 rifle and as Craig said the two don't match . That is the 6.5 shell casings and the 7.65 Mauser don't relate to each other . If Craig had made a mistake , he would have owned up to it , but Craig , Weitzman and Fritz all looked at the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel at to which point , Weitzman said as he pointed to the writing on the barrel , "it is a Mauser" ! When you look at it having two things that don't add up , like the 7.65 Mauser and the 6.5 shells at the nest , then you can put together 2 shooters in one area . That's a conspiracy within itself. You tube--JFK murder cop & hero Roger Craig tells it all
-
Boone says on his supplementary Investigation report on Nov. 22nd that the rifle appears to be a 7.65mm Mauser.
Seymour Weitzman says this rifle was a 7.65 bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope.
We know that Roger Craig said that stamped on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser which , Fritz and Weitzman and Craig all saw the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel and Weitzman says it is a Mauser as he pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.
What happened to the bullet that was ejected out of the Mauser when the rifle was found?
As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano . The shell casings found in the shooters nest were for a 6.5 rifle and as Craig said the two don't match . That is the 6.5 shell casings and the 7.65 Mauser don't relate to each other . If Craig had made a mistake , he would have owned up to it , but Craig , Weitzman and Fritz all looked at the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel at to which point , Weitzman said as he pointed to the writing on the barrel , "it is a Mauser" ! When you look at it having two things that don't add up , like the 7.65 Mauser and the 6.5 shells at the nest , then you can put together 2 shooters in one area . That's a conspiracy within itself. You tube--JFK murder cop & hero Roger Craig tells it all
Mike do you know off hand if there was corroboration that Craig was there
-
Mike do you know off hand if there was corroboration that Craig was there
Roger Craig was there on the sixth floor at the time the Carcano was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books. And the site where it had been carefully hidden was out of reach from the aisle at the top of the stairs.
The conspirators in the DPD didn't have to move the site very far to the north to make it feasible for a fleeing person to deposit the rifle as they fled .....but the fact is they DID move the site about two feet closer to the aisle where they claimed the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald ( BOOOOO HISSS )ran by and tossed the rifle as he fled.
-
There was no 7.65 Mauser found on the sixth floor at about 1:22 that afternoon.....The rifle that Boone saw a small portion of the butt of ...was a Mannlicher Carcano.
Any serious student who is searching for the truth is handcuffing himself by believing the mauser nonsense.....
This tale has become interwoven with the facts of the case and there's probably no way to remove the idea from the legend..... A pity.
Regardless of what one believes was found there is a first day record of affidavits and LE reports clearly
stating a 7.65 Mauser was found. The farther away from an event you get the less accurate are the
accounts and recollections of what happened.
Pulling the "any serious researcher" BS out of your arse to defend your point is a tactic usually reserved
for bottom feeding LNers.
-
Boone says on his supplementary Investigation report on Nov. 22nd that the rifle appears to be a 7.65mm Mauser.
Seymour Weitzman says this rifle was a 7.65 bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope.
We know that Roger Craig said that stamped on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser which , Fritz and Weitzman and Craig all saw the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel and Weitzman says it is a Mauser as he pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.
What happened to the bullet that was ejected out of the Mauser when the rifle was found?
As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano . The shell casings found in the shooters nest were for a 6.5 rifle and as Craig said the two don't match . That is the 6.5 shell casings and the 7.65 Mauser don't relate to each other . If Craig had made a mistake , he would have owned up to it , but Craig , Weitzman and Fritz all looked at the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel at to which point , Weitzman said as he pointed to the writing on the barrel , "it is a Mauser" ! When you look at it having two things that don't add up , like the 7.65 Mauser and the 6.5 shells at the nest , then you can put together 2 shooters in one area . That's a conspiracy within itself. You tube--JFK murder cop & hero Roger Craig tells it all
As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano .
Anybody with at least one good eye can see for themselves that the rifle that was found by deputy Boone where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano. There are dozens of photos that prove the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Caqrcano
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.
It is a fact that Roger Craig was never close enough to the carcano on the sixth floor to allow him to see "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 mauser"... That's simply a damned lie.
-
As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano .
Anybody with at least one good eye can see for themselves that the rifle that was found by deputy Boone where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano. There are dozens of photos that prove the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Caqrcano
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.
It is a fact that Roger Craig was never close enough to the carcano on the sixth floor to allow him to see "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 mauser"... That's simply a damned lie.
Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle? Who would have known that a Mauser was 7.65mm caliber? You sound like a LNer who claims Roger Craig's mental problems caused him to pull 7.65 out of his keister. Why is that more likely than the DPD screwing up and finding the Mauser by accident? Because if any shots came from the TSBD it would have come from a rifle that was sighted in, unlike the MC, which wasn't even shot.
-
Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle? Who would have known that a Mauser was 7.65mm caliber? You sound like a LNer who claims Roger Craig's mental problems caused him to pull 7.65 out of his keister. Why is that more likely than the DPD screwing up and finding the Mauser by accident? Because if any shots came from the TSBD it would have come from a rifle that was sighted in, unlike the MC, which wasn't even shot.
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.....
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.....
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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"?
-
Do you now understand ?
Walt Yes thank you I assume close comparisons were done on the original police photo of what they called a Mauser and no expert has been able to prove it was such a Mauser?
-
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.
John,
Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.
-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial... in this debate.
-- Amos Euins saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).
-- Bob Jackson saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).
Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.
You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?
Note: I addressed the matter of "man or woman" because I anticipated more hair-splitting from you. Something like: "It could have been a woman shooter... you lied!!!".
-
John,
Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.
-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial--in this debate)
-- Amos Euins saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).
-- Bob Jackson saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).
Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.
You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?
Note: I addressed the matter of "man or woman" because I anticipated more hair-splitting from you. Something like: "It could have been a woman shooter... you lied!!!".
Maybe it is just me but if I see a gun in a window I don't take my eyes off of him
-
John,
Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.
Please, Ross. These people either saw a man firing a rifle or they did not. Why do you need to embellish the evidence to make your arguments?
-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial... in this debate)
Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.
Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.
That's lying with vague statistics. Two words: Squeaky Fromme.
You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?
No, you're making claims that aren't true and trying to rationalize it with rhetoric -- which is pretty much par for the entire case against Oswald.
-
Maybe it is just me but if I see a gun in a window I don't take my eyes off of him
Brennan somehow managed to see the shooter fire the rifle and see JFK's head explode nearly simultaneously.
-
The Warren Commission?s Case Against Oswald
By Leo Sauvage
The New Leader, 22 November 1965, pages 16?21
"...Howard L. Brennan?one of the Commission?s star witnesses, along with Marina Oswald and Helen
Markham?was presented as an apparent discovery of the Commission.
Yet Brennan?s statements had appeared in the press from the start of the investigation in Dallas.
Nobody at that time took him seriously, and it was necessary to await the Warren Report to learn
that ?Howard L. Brennan made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.?
Leafing back in the Report to the chapter on ?The Assassin,? and its section titled ?Eyewitness
Identification of Assassin,? we learn that ?Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots,? while the Report is obliged to recognize that ?the half-open window, the
arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position.?
The conclusion of the Commission is that Brennan was mistaken in saying that the man was standing,
but not mistaken in identifying (from the sidewalk opposite the building) the man sitting behind a
half-open sixth-floor window..."
-
The Warren Commission?s Case Against Oswald
By Leo Sauvage
The New Leader, 22 November 1965, pages 16?21
"...Howard L. Brennan?one of the Commission?s star witnesses, along with Marina Oswald and Helen
Markham?was presented as an apparent discovery of the Commission.
Yet Brennan?s statements had appeared in the press from the start of the investigation in Dallas.
Nobody at that time took him seriously, and it was necessary to await the Warren Report to learn
that ?Howard L. Brennan made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.?
Leafing back in the Report to the chapter on ?The Assassin,? and its section titled ?Eyewitness
Identification of Assassin,? we learn that ?Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots,? while the Report is obliged to recognize that ?the half-open window, the
arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position.?
The conclusion of the Commission is that Brennan was mistaken in saying that the man was standing,
but not mistaken in identifying (from the sidewalk opposite the building) the man sitting behind a
half-open sixth-floor window..."
I am a little unclear on the last paragraph The WC is just asserting that the man was half sitting and ignoring the discrepancy while still ascribing the complete significance of a reliable ID of Oswald? Sounds about right
-
I am a little unclear on the last paragraph The WC is just asserting that the man was half sitting and ignoring the discrepancy while still ascribing the complete significance of a reliable ID of Oswald? Sounds about right
LBJ's Special Select Cover Up committee (aka The Warren Commission) knew full well that Howard Brennan was a key witness who had to be discredited...and those of you who sneer at Howard Brennan are playing right into the WC hands, just as they planned.
Howard Brennan had gave a a sworn affidavit about an hour after the coup d e'tat and in that affidavit he reported that the man he had seen with a "HIGH POWERED RIFLE" ( aka hunting rifle) not an old military rifle, and the man was dressed in light colored khaki clothing. Lee Oswald didn't even own any light colored khaki clothing.....and he certainly didn't own a big game hunting rifle.
On that basis alone LBJ's cover up committe needed to discredut Howard Brennan....but in addition to Brennan describing a man who clearly was NOT Lee Oswald ...He also described the man as STANDING and aiming the hunting rifle ( He thought it could have been a 30-30 Winchester) out of a window that could NOT have been the SE corner window.....because that SE window was not open far enought tp allow a man to stand behind it and aim a rifle down onto Elm street.
-
Please, Ross. These people either saw a man firing a rifle or they did not. Why do you need to embellish the evidence to make your arguments?
Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.
That's lying with vague statistics. Two words: Squeaky Fromme.
No, you're making claims that aren't true and trying to rationalize it with rhetoric -- which is pretty much par for the entire case against Oswald.
Still with the hair-splitting John!!!
You reveal a lack of "an honest search for the truth" in your absurd ripostes. There is a difference between a description that does not fit your idea of accuracy and intentionally making a deceitful statement.
Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.
Brennan saw a man shooting. He provided a description to law enforcement in Dealey Plaza.
That's lying with vague statistics. Two words: Squeaky Fromme.
My statement about people assuming that an assassin would most likely be a man mentioned women circa 1963. The evil Ms Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975--more than a decade later than '63. Really John: you must be more accurate in your statements or people will accuse you of lying.
The fact is: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins and Bob Jackson saw "someone" shooting a rifle from an upper floor of the TSBD.
-- Brennan described a man.
-- Euins thought it was man.
-- Jackson would have assumed it was man*.
* All previous assassins (and those whom attempted assassinations) of US Presidents were men. Assassinating US President's was a "man" thing.
Man-up John and admit you are wrong.
-
Brennan told them that Lee Oswald WAS NOT the man.....(Brennan knew that before he went to the line up because he'd seen Lee on TV and knew that lee was not the man that he'd seen.) The police tried to twist his arm and threaten him into putting the finger on Lee but he refused....The police became frustrated and wanted to know how he could be so certain that Lee wasn't the man and Brennan told them he knew that Lee was not the man because the man was dressed differently than Lee Oswald. He said the man that he saw was wearing light colored khaki clothing but definitely not a suit. The cops then told Brennan that Lee had gone home and changed his clothes...which was true ...but what the cops didn' ell Brennan was the fact that the clothes they had recovered wer NOT ligh colored khaki clothes.
Cool story, bro.
-
Still with the hair-splitting John!!!
You reveal a lack of "an honest search for the truth" in your absurd ripostes. There is a difference between a description that does not fit your idea of accuracy and intentionally making a deceitful statement.
Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.
Brennan saw a man shooting. He provided a description to law enforcement in Dealey Plaza.
No he didn't. He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle. Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.
My statement about people assuming that an assassin would most likely be a man mentioned women circa 1963.
The evil Ms Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975--more than a decade later than '63. Really John: you must be more accurate in your statements or people will accuse you of lying.
Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz? It doesn't matter anyway. Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.
And he did not.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
You're wrong, Ross. Admit it.
-
No he didn't. He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle. Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.
Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz? It doesn't matter anyway. Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.
And he did not.
Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.
You're wrong, Ross. Admit it.
No he didn't. He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle. Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.
Silly... actually ultra-silly hairsplitting John. How often do shooters "take aim" and not "pull the trigger"... which means shoot.
Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz? It doesn't matter anyway. Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.
I don't need data John... just knowledge and understanding "the way it was back then".
So Euins and Jackson saw "a person" firing a rifle from the TSBD. A rifle does not fire itself John.
In 1963, the notion that the shooter would have been a woman was incredibly unlikely. The average witness would have assumed it was a man. It turned out to be a man.
You have not responded to my noting your error positing Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin before 1963.... though her attempted crime occurred in 1975.
I'm keen to know John: were you honestly mistaken or lying?
-
Silly... actually ultra-silly hairsplitting John. How often do shooters "take aim" and not "pull the trigger"... which means shoot.
You're equating assuming something happened" with seeing something happen which is highly dishonest.
And yes, people take aim without taking the shot all the time. Are you serious? Go talk to some hunters.
I don't need data John... just knowledge and understanding "the way it was back then".
In other words you completely made it up.
You have not responded to my noting your error positing Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin before 1963.... though her attempted crime occurred in 1975.
I never said that Squeaky Fromme was an example of a female assassin before 1963. But I'm curious to know exactly how your made up "the way is was back then" was so radically altered between 1963 and 1975.
-
You're equating assuming something happened" with seeing something happen which is highly dishonest.
And yes, people take aim without taking the shot all the time. Are you serious? Go talk to some hunters.
In other words you completely made it up.
I never said that Squeaky Fromme was an example of a female assassin before 1963. But I'm curious to know exactly how your made up "the way is was back then" was so radically altered between 1963 and 1975.
I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).
Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.
You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?
-
I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).
And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not? Really?
Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.
That's not my argument -- that's your strawman. You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD". The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing. No, Ross, you're wrong. Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle. Jackson did not see a man at all. He said so.
It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume. Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle. And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window". And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.
You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?
I'm not responsible for what you think I implied. You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful. If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?
-
For debaters who play fast and loose with logic buzzwords
Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Proof: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Judgment: the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Supposition: an uncertain belief.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound.
Soundness: the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment.
Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing.
Lucidity: clarity of expression.
Intelligible: ability to comprehend.
Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.
Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
-
And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not? Really?
That's not my argument -- that's your strawman. You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD". The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing. No, Ross, you're wrong. Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle. Jackson did not see a man at all. He said so.
It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume. Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle. And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window". And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.
I'm not responsible for what you think I implied. You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful. If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?
John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.
Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?
-
John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.
Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?
Sigh....
Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"? Or is that a false statement?
-
Sigh....
Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"? Or is that a false statement?
John... You're one of the most prolific contributors to the JFK Assassination Forum. It's inconceivable that you don't have an opinion on the most fundamental aspect of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
I ask again: Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?
-
John... You're one of the most prolific contributors to the JFK Assassination Forum. It's inconceivable that you don't have an opinion on the most fundamental aspect of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
I ask again: Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?
So you're going to change the subject, rather than admit that you made a false claim about the witnesses? Noted.
I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was. There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.
-
I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was. There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.
That's because at least one witness reported what he thought was a gun barrel being withdrawn into the window, Euins and Brennan reporting they saw a man shooting from there, witnesses on the fifth floor reporting they could hear the rifle being worked directly above them and particles from the rifle concussion falling on them -- in addition to 3 expended cartridges being found in the SE corner exactly where they said the shots came from is 'insufficient evidence' to conclude shots were fired from there.
-
That's because at least one witness reported what he thought was a gun barrel being withdrawn into the window, Euins and Brennan reporting they saw a man shooting from there, witnesses on the fifth floor reporting they could hear the rifle being worked directly above them and particles from the rifle concussion falling on them -- in addition to 3 expended cartridges being found in the SE corner exactly where they said the shots came from is 'insufficient evidence' to conclude shots were fired from there.
But if Oswald was the patsy then the odds he was actually doing the shooting was nearly zero, right?
-
So you're going to change the subject, rather than admit that you made a false claim about the witnesses? Noted.
I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was. There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.
Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"? Or is that a false statement?
Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window being fired from the SN. Three witnesses below the SN heard the rifle being fired. Harold Norman heard the rifle bolt action being operated three times after three shots were fired. Three shells were found on the floor of the SN. Bob Jackson and Mrs. Cabell saw what looked like the barrel of a rifle projecting from the SN. The rifle that fired CE399 was found in the SN.
One does not need several witnesses seeing the rifle being fired from the SN to conclude that a rifle was fired from the SN.
-
Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window being fired from the SN. Three witnesses below the SN heard the rifle being fired. Harold Norman heard the rifle bolt action being operated three times after three shots were fired. Three shells were found on the floor of the SN. Bob Jackson and Mrs. Cabell saw what looked like the barrel of a rifle projecting from the SN. The rifle that fired CE399 was found in the SN.
One does not need several witnesses seeing the rifle being fired from the SN to conclude that a rifle was fired from the SN.
Perhaps you should THINK about what the witnesses actually said. None of he witnesses saw a rifle being fired from the SE corner window. Only one person saw a man in the act that could have been the firing of a rifle....Howard Brennan said that he saw a man AIMING a HUNTING RIFLE out of a window. Brennan said that the man was STANDING and aiming the hunting rifle. Therefore the man was NOT behind the SE corner window.... Because that SE corner window was hot open far enough to allow a man to STAND and aim a rifle down toward Elm street.
Amos Euins saw a "pipe like" thing sticking out of a window
Harold Norman is a blatant liar..... He said that he heard the rifle being operated on the sixth floor above his head but Bonnie Ray Williams and Junior Jarman were right there with Norman and they heard nothing on the floor above their heads. And what's more Norman described the sounds as quote.." Boom...click...clack...boom...click...clack....boom " Liar Norman also said that he heard the sounds of the shells falling on the floor.... but He did not....Because if he had heard the sounds of the shells falling on the floor the noise he heard would have been ....
Boom...click...PING...clack...boom...click...PING...clack....boom.....
-
Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window being fired from the SN. Three witnesses below the SN heard the rifle being fired. Harold Norman heard the rifle bolt action being operated three times after three shots were fired. Three shells were found on the floor of the SN. Bob Jackson and Mrs. Cabell saw what looked like the barrel of a rifle projecting from the SN. The rifle that fired CE399 was found in the SN.
One does not need several witnesses seeing the rifle being fired from the SN to conclude that a rifle was fired from the SN.
Show us where Mrs Cabell said she saw what looked like the barrel of a rifle projecting from t he SN, Andrew.
-
Show us where Mrs Cabell said she saw what looked like the barrel of a rifle projecting from the SN, Andrew.
Mrs. Cabell said she heard the sound and jerked her head up and saw a "projection" from the sixth floor window and immediately said ?Earle, it is a shot?. So she observed something projecting out of the window that caused her to conclude that a shot had been fired. Now let me see, I wonder what that could be.
Here is what she said (7H486):
Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and I just jerked my head up.
Mr. HUBERT. What did you see?
Mrs. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.
Mr. HUBERT. What was this projection?
Mrs. CABELL. I cannot tell you. It was rather long looking, the projection.
....
Mr. HUBERT. What did it seem like? An arm of an individual, or something
mechanical?
Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a
human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head
up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle,
?Earle, it is a shot?,
-
Amos Euins saw the rifle in the window being fired from the SN.
How exactly does one see a rifle being fired? Did Euins see any kind of discharge? Brennan didn't.
Three witnesses below the SN heard the rifle being fired. Harold Norman heard the rifle bolt action being operated three times after three shots were fired.
Jarman's original affidavit didn't mention any shots at all. Williams' affidavit only mentioned two shots which "sounded like they came from above us". Norman's affidavit mentioning hearing the bolt being operated and shells hitting the floor didn't come until December 4th.
But what did they do after allegedly hearing shots being fired from directly above them? They ran to the west side of the building right in front of the descending staircase and looked out the window towards the grassy knoll.
Three shells were found on the floor of the SN.
That tells you nothing about when/where they were fired.
Bob Jackson and Mrs. Cabell saw what looked like the barrel of a rifle projecting from the SN.
That tells you nothing about whether this projection was a rifle that was fired.
The rifle that fired CE399 was found in the SN.
There's nothing that links CE399 to the assassination. It was found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital.
-
Mrs. Cabell said she heard the sound and jerked her head up and saw a "projection" from the sixth floor window and immediately said ?Earle, it is a shot?. So she observed something projecting out of the window that caused her to conclude that a shot had been fired. Now let me see, I wonder what that could be.
Here is what she said (7H486):
Mrs. CABELL. Because I heard the direction from which the shot came, and I just jerked my head up.
Mr. HUBERT. What did you see?
Mrs. CABELL. I saw a projection out of one of those windows. Those windows on the sixth floor are in groups of twos.
Mr. HUBERT. What was this projection?
Mrs. CABELL. I cannot tell you. It was rather long looking, the projection.
....
Mr. HUBERT. What did it seem like? An arm of an individual, or something
mechanical?
Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a
human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head
up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle,
?Earle, it is a shot?,
You skipped a bit, brother.
Mr. HUBERT. In which window did you see the projection?
Mrs. CABELL. I have always been a little confused about that, but I think it was the first window.
Mr. HUBERT. On what floor?
Mrs. CABELL. On the top floor. Now I cannot take oath and say which window. There was some confusion in my mind.