JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael Welch on May 04, 2022, 12:25:36 AM
-
Next to Mr. Oswald's rifle in the DPD, we have a sketch of a man who looks a lot like Armando Romero Martinez. Earlier the picture was identified as Herminio Diaz Garcia. Both were well known Cuban assassins who died on May 29, 1966. This sketch, along with pictures of Remegio Arce, Frank Sturgis, and E. Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza; and Seymour Weitzman's later identification of Bernard Barker behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll on 11-22-63, makes one think that an Operation 40 style assassination plot, perhaps under the direction of Richard Nixon, took out JFK. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49667/m1/1/med_res_d/)
-
What evidence do you have to make an accusation like this against Nixon?
-
Hi Rick, According to H. R. Haldeman every time Nixon talked about the whole Bay of Pigs thing he was talking about the assassination of President Kennedy. According to John Ehrlichman whenever he did talk about the whole Bay of Pigs thing to CIA Director Helms, Helms exploded and said he did not care about it. Nixon knew Jack Ruby since the late 1940s. Hunt, Sturgis, and Barker, were used again by Nixon in the Watergate break-in. Sincerely yours, Michael
Here is E. Howard Hunt crossing Elm Street at the far left of the picture on 11-22-63.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Cancellare_Lee_Forman.jpg)
Here is Frank Sturgis wearing the dark sunglasses standing in front of the Dal-Tex Building on 11-22-63.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/mURI_temp_754a10e5.jpg)
Here is Remegio "Cuku" Arce standing in front of the TSBD wearing the dark sunglasses.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/mURI_temp_3d615643.jpg)
Here is Richard Nixon and Jack Ruby in the late 1940s.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/vice-president-richard-nixon-and-senator-prescott-bush-wearing-panama-picture-id515388662?s=2048x2048)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/cJDfWKhQ/Sturgis-at-PD2.jpg)
I think Jim Fetzer posted this image a long time ago. Frank Sturgis (if I remember right it was supposedly taken at the Dallas Police HQ, on the 22nd)
-
Hi Robert, Wow! That is a great picture! I haven't seen it before. Thank you so much! Two days ago, I was listening to Gerry Patrick Hemming, and he said that Frank was in Dallas on 11-22-63. I think it is definite! Thank you for everything, Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Next to Mr. Oswald's rifle in the DPD, we have a sketch of a man who looks a lot like Armando Romero Martinez. Earlier the picture was identified as Herminio Diaz Garcia. Both were well known Cuban assassins who died on May 29, 1966. This sketch, along with pictures of Remegio Arce, Frank Sturgis, and E. Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza; and Seymour Weitzman's later identification of Bernard Barker behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll on 11-22-63, makes one think that an Operation 40 style assassination plot, perhaps under the direction of Richard Nixon, took out JFK. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49667/m1/1/med_res_d/)
Thank you for posting the photo...... Clearly the sketch of the suspect was made BEFORE Lee Oswald was in custody---- Because they wouldn't have needed to make a sketch of the suspect AFTER they had Lee Oswald in their custody....unless?
AND ....The sketch doesn't look like Lee Oswald.... So what the hell is going on ?? Did they realize that they weren't going to be able to pin the crime on Lee Oswald because he had presented Captain Fritz with an air tight alibi, when he told Fritz that he was in the first floor lunch room at the time that JFK passed by the TSBD, and he had seen Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom at that time.
The photo presents a real mystery......
-
Thank you for posting the photo...... Clearly the sketch of the suspect was made BEFORE Lee Oswald was in custody---- Because they wouldn't have needed to make a sketch of the suspect AFTER they had Lee Oswald in their custody....unless?
AND ....The sketch doesn't look like Lee Oswald.... So what the hell is going on ?? Did they realize that they weren't going to be able to pin the crime on Lee Oswald because he had presented Captain Fritz with an air tight alibi, when he told Fritz that he was in the first floor lunch room at the time that JFK passed by the TSBD, and he had seen Jarman and Norman walk by the lunchroom at that time.
The photo presents a real mystery......
If they were involved in a frame up of Oswald, why wouldn't the sketch look exactly like him? Those silly conspirators. Hard to believe they assassinated a President in broad daylight in front of witnesses, arranged for the hit team to escape, framed Oswald, arranged to have him killed, somehow ensured his killer would not talk, but they provided a sketch of someone else as the suspect? HA HA HA. What an interesting world you live in where the conspirators can pull off miracles but screw up the easy stuff.
-
If they were involved in a frame up of Oswald, why wouldn't the sketch look exactly like him? Those silly conspirators. Hard to believe they assassinated a President in broad daylight in front of witnesses, arranged for the hit team to escape, framed Oswald, arranged to have him killed, somehow ensured his killer would not talk, but they provided a sketch of someone else as the suspect? HA HA HA. What an interesting world you live in where the conspirators can pull off miracles but screw up the easy stuff.
Yer an idiot Mr "Smith".... Any elementary school kid has superior reasoning.
-
Yer an idiot Mr "Smith".... Any elementary school kid has superior reasoning.
Did you get past elementary school because I don't see any rebuttal to the points made. Use your powers of "reasoning" to provide an explanation for how your fantasy conspirators pulled off a complex plan to assassinate the president and frame an innocent person but then provide a sketch of someone who doesn't look like Oswald as the suspect (assuming that is even what is depicted). Maybe you can also find those photos of the TSBD without the red rings.
-
Hi Robert, Wow! That is a great picture! I haven't seen it before. Thank you so much! Two days ago, I was listening to Gerry Patrick Hemming, and he said that Frank was in Dallas on 11-22-63. I think it is definite! Thank you for everything, Sincerely yours, Michael
I think it's a screenshot from a film of when (the night of 22nd) Oswald is brought down a corridor at DPD and there's a bunch of reporters shouting questions. Maybe David Von Pein has a copy of the recording on his Youtube channel. He has a lot of good stuff there.
-
Thank you Robert! I will look. Sincerely yours, Michael
-
It's Strawman "Smith"'s favorite argument: the "conspirators" that I just made up in my head would never do something like that, therefore Oswald did it.
-
Next to Mr. Oswald's rifle in the DPD, we have a sketch of a man who looks a lot like Armando Romero Martinez. Earlier the picture was identified as Herminio Diaz Garcia. Both were well known Cuban assassins who died on May 29, 1966. This sketch, along with pictures of Remegio Arce, Frank Sturgis, and E. Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza; and Seymour Weitzman's later identification of Bernard Barker behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll on 11-22-63, makes one think that an Operation 40 style assassination plot, perhaps under the direction of Richard Nixon, took out JFK. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49667/m1/1/med_res_d/)
Mr Welsh, I believe that you've opened a "can o worms" ...... With the posting of this photo.
The photo poses many questions.
1) It appears to have been taken before Lee was arrested because the sketch of the suspect is NOT Lee Oswald ....???
But the carcano was NOT at the DPD until AFTER Lee was arrested so that photo had to have been taken BEFORE the rifle had been brought into the DPD headquarters.... HOW is that possible?? Did the DPD have the carcano in their possession BEFORE the assassination and take the photo before the assassination?
There are many more questions but this one needs to be answered first.
-
Hi Walt, Just call me Michael. Thank you for your input! When Anthony Summers put out this video, I believe he identified Armando Romero Martinez on the far left as Herminio Diaz Garcia. Doesn't the assassin on the far left look like the sketch! Many Thanks, Michael
-
Next to Mr. Oswald's rifle in the DPD, we have a sketch of a man who looks a lot like Armando Romero Martinez. Earlier the picture was identified as Herminio Diaz Garcia. Both were well known Cuban assassins who died on May 29, 1966. This sketch, along with pictures of Remegio Arce, Frank Sturgis, and E. Howard Hunt in Dealey Plaza; and Seymour Weitzman's later identification of Bernard Barker behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll on 11-22-63, makes one think that an Operation 40 style assassination plot, perhaps under the direction of Richard Nixon, took out JFK. Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49667/m1/1/med_res_d/)
Is it possible to read what is written on the card that is posted above the rifle?
-
Hi Walt, Somebody with good computer skills should be able to read both what is on the card and the sketch. Unfortunately, I do not have these skills. Many thanks kind sir, Sincerely yours, Michael
(http://blob:chrome-untrusted://media-app/7d0432ef-dbf4-4ef5-b9ae-b9ecca3bcf05)
-
Hi Walt, Somebody with good computer skills should be able to read both what is on the card and the sketch. Unfortunately, I do not have these skills. Many thanks kind sir, Sincerely yours, Michael
(http://blob:chrome-untrusted://media-app/7d0432ef-dbf4-4ef5-b9ae-b9ecca3bcf05)
I hope someone will post a legible picture of the card.
-
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49695/m1/1/high_res/)
-
This is the best I can come up with;
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv02Xv7R/Screenshot-219.png) (https://postimages.org/)
11 - 22 - 63
1940 Made
In Italy Dallas
6.5 CAL C2766
Scope 4 x 18
Coated
Hollywood Calif.
ORDINANCE
OPTICS INC JDW
[??] too small for me to make out]
LATER EDIT: Changes made after clarification of some words
-
This is the best I can come up with;
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv02Xv7R/Screenshot-219.png) (https://postimages.org/)
11 - 22 - 63
1940 Made
In Italy Dallas
6.5 CAL C2766
Scope 4 x 18
?? [looks like "Civited"??]
Hollywood [??not sure]
ORDINANCE
OPTICS[?? looks like "1M"] JDW
[??] too small for me to make out]
Dan, your "civited" looks more like "coated" to me.
-
Dan, your "civited" looks more like "coated" to me.
Nice one Ray - "Coated" it is.
-
Dan, your "civited" looks more like "coated" to me.
Hi Dan and Ray, Thank you for your help! I think it says: Hollywood Calif.[for California]; Coated like Ray says; and Optics INC[for incorporated]. Everything else that Dan has looks right, and I cannot read the right bottom stuff either. Thank you both for everything, Sincerely yours, Michael
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv02Xv7R/Screenshot-219.png) (https://postimages.org/)
11 - 22 - 63
1940 Made
In Italy Dallas
6.5 CAL C2766
Scope 4 x 18
Coated
Hollywood Calif.
ORDINANCE
OPTICS INC JDW
[??] too small for me to make out]
I've seen the initials JDW on another photo of the shells being handed over to Vince Drain.
I believe it's an FBI agent called Williams but will have to double check.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/htNSrfZW/Screenshot-220.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/htQnfKDC/Screenshot-221.png) (https://postimages.org/)upload img (https://postimages.org/)
I believe these pics were taken late on the 22nd, just before Drain took the items off to Washington. They were taken by SA John Doyle Williams. They were released with the cover sheet description below but I can't find a reference to the hand drawn picture next to the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNpPwpQx/Screenshot-222.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/htNSrfZW/Screenshot-220.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/htQnfKDC/Screenshot-221.png) (https://postimages.org/)upload img (https://postimages.org/)
I believe these pics were taken late on the 22nd, just before Drain took the items off to Washington. They were taken by SA John Doyle Williams. They were released with the cover sheet description below but I can't find a reference to the hand drawn picture next to the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNpPwpQx/Screenshot-222.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I believe these pics were taken late on the 22nd, just before Drain took the items off to Washington. They were taken by SA John Doyle Williams. They were released with the cover sheet description below but I can't find a reference to the hand drawn picture next to the rifle:
I'm sure that your correct, Dan.... Yo da man, Dan!! :-*.
That photo has always intrigued me.... What was the purpose of the sketch of the man in the photo??
The photo had to have been taken AFTER Lee Oswald was in the custody of the DPD, so if that sketch was supposed to be of the owner of the rifle, it wouldn't have made sense to pose a sketch, because they could have used a photo of Lee and there would have been no need for a sketch... ( the sketch doesn't look like Lee Oswald anyway. ) Sooooo WHO is this guy??? As Michael said the sketch has a very strong resemblance to " the "Spanish boy " ( Cuban ?) .
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv02Xv7R/Screenshot-219.png) (https://postimages.org/)
11 - 22 - 63
1940 Made
In Italy Dallas
6.5 CAL C2766
Scope 4 x 18
Coated
Hollywood Calif.
ORDINANCE
OPTICS INC JDW
[??] too small for me to make out]
I've seen the initials JDW on another photo of the shells being handed over to Vince Drain.
I believe it's an FBI agent called Williams but will have to double check.
What do you make of the difference between the numeral "2" in the photo ..... In the upper numeral the "2" looks like it was originally a numeral "1" but it was altered to make the 1 look like a numeral 2. Notice the "2" in the rifle serial number C2766.
-
I believe these pics were taken late on the 22nd, just before Drain took the items off to Washington. They were taken by SA John Doyle Williams. They were released with the cover sheet description below but I can't find a reference to the hand drawn picture next to the rifle:
I'm sure that your correct, Dan.... Yo da man, Dan!! :-*.
That photo has always intrigued me.... What was the purpose of the sketch of the man in the photo??
The photo had to have been taken AFTER Lee Oswald was in the custody of the DPD, so if that sketch was supposed to be of the owner of the rifle, it wouldn't have made sense to pose a sketch, because they could have used a photo of Lee and there would have been no need for a sketch... ( the sketch doesn't look like Lee Oswald anyway. ) Sooooo WHO is this guy??? As Michael said the sketch has a very strong resemblance to " the "Spanish boy " ( Cuban ?) .
The photo had to have been taken AFTER Lee Oswald was in the custody of the DPD,
If the photo of the rifle was taken around the same time as the one of the shells it had to be taken some time between 10:00PM and 11:45PM on the night of the assassination.
Note in the pic of the shells - the two hulls are a darker colour than the live round. The darker colour is caused by the dusting powder Day used to look for prints but the live round is clean, even though Day testified to having used the black powder on this as well.
Oswald had been in custody for hours by this point and was already being viewed as the sole assassin of JFK so the "artist's sketch" is a mystery indeed. As I say, I can find no reference to it as part of the evidence being taken by the FBI but it is there in the photo, so what gives with that? It really is baffling.
-
What do you make of the difference between the numeral "2" in the photo ..... In the upper numeral the "2" looks like it was originally a numeral "1" but it was altered to make the 1 look like a numeral 2. Notice the "2" in the rifle serial number C2766.
I don't think there's too much to it. SA Williams wasn't the greatest when it came to writing big numerals, although he does do a far better job of it in the picture with the shells.
-
I don't think there's too much to it. SA Williams wasn't the greatest when it came to writing big numerals, although he does do a far better job of it in the picture with the shells.
Question:..... Could the authorities have had the rifle on 11-11-63 and took the photo at that time? That might explain the altering of the numeral "1'" and it could explain the sketch of the "suspect".....
-
Question:..... Could the authorities have had the rifle on 11-11-63 and took the photo at that time? That might explain the altering of the numeral "1'" and it could explain the sketch of the "suspect".....
To be honest Walt, I really can't see the conspirators dating a picture of the rifle 11 days before the assassination.
It's just a poorly made sign. If they needed to change the numerals they would've just changed the sign.
-
To be honest Walt, I really can't see the conspirators dating a picture of the rifle 11 days before the assassination.
It's just a poorly made sign. If they needed to change the numerals they would've just changed the sign.
Ok, Dan, thanks for your input..... But I continue to suspect that there's something not right about that photo.
And now let's shift gears..... You posted the FBI photos of TWO tarnished rifle shells and a live round..... I'd bet that they only had TWO spent shells on the evening of 11/22/63..... Because the plot called for just two shots to be accounted for, but when the majority of witnesses swore that there were ay least THREE shots fired the conspirators were compelled to produce a third spent shell..... And I'm sure you know that one of the spent shells was scratched by the rifle's elevator ( that would mean that it was the last cartridge in the clip and the live round was NOT served into the bolt and breech by the rifle's elevator.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/htNSrfZW/Screenshot-220.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/htQnfKDC/Screenshot-221.png) (https://postimages.org/)upload img (https://postimages.org/)
I believe these pics were taken late on the 22nd, just before Drain took the items off to Washington. They were taken by SA John Doyle Williams. They were released with the cover sheet description below but I can't find a reference to the hand drawn picture next to the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNpPwpQx/Screenshot-222.png) (https://postimages.org/)
FBI agent Doyle Williams said that he received TWO spent rifle shells and a live cartridge from the DPD on the evening of 11/22/63. This is the evidence that was being sent to the FBI lab in Washington DC ..... They had only TWO spent shells at that time.
Also notice that in Williams description of the rifle he does NOT identify it as a Mannlicher Carcano. The reason that he didn't identify it as a carcano is because it was such an unusual rifle that very few knew anything about the rifle. They learned the name of the rifle Saturday morning, and therefore in reports written after 11/22/63 the rifle is referred to as a "Carcano". This seemingly insignificant fact is a very important indicator as to the date the report was written. As you've said, Dan, .... The evidence list that was prepared on 11/22/63 lists only TWO spent shells and the rifle is NOT referred to as a "carcano". THIS IS IMPORTANT!
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNpPwpQx/Screenshot-222.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Ok, Dan, thanks for your input..... But I continue to suspect that there's something not right about that photo.
If the "sketch" is part of the haul of evidence to be taken by the FBI then something is very wrong with the picture, as it is not mentioned in the list of evidence taken on the night of the 22nd and is never seen again.
SA Williams is focused solely on taking pictures of the evidence being transferred to the FBI and I find it hard to imagine that he is accidently including a sketch that just happens to be there.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the sketch is something that is accidentally included but, to me at least, it seems unlikely.
And now let's shift gears..... You posted the FBI photos of TWO tarnished rifle shells and a live round..... I'd bet that they only had TWO spent shells on the evening of 11/22/63..... Because the plot called for just two shots to be accounted for, but when the majority of witnesses swore that there were ay least THREE shots fired the conspirators were compelled to produce a third spent shell
The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce. It really is incredible and highlights something that is beyond incompetence.
Carl Day testifies as follows:
In his "pre-hearing interview" he states he marked the shells at the scene, where they were found.
On the day of his WC hearing he examines the shells again and decides that the shells were not marked at the scene.
He describes two shells being brought to him with the rest of the evidence being transferred to the FBI, that Fritz has kept one shell and that he never sees this shell again.
He then changes this story to all three shells being brought to him, that he dusts the shells again (even though he's already done it) and that he releases one of the shells back to Fritz. He then marks the two shells he has but not the one released back to Fritz.
He then changes this story to one where he marks all three shells at the same time but cannot remember if he marked them all at the scene or in his office.
He also testifies that he gives possession of the shells to Det. Sims at the scene but Sims testifies that he did not take possession of the shells. Sims has to go back in front of the WC a couple of days later where he reveals Fritz has told him to remember that he, Sims, took possession of the shells at the scene. This is not a joke. Sims is told by Fritz to remember he took possession of the shells.
There's more to it but the whole thing is like a sick joke. There is something being covered up regarding the shells and it takes the participants a few goes to get their stories straight. Even a detail like the live round being dusted at the scene but then showing up in the photo clean, shows something isn't right. Fritz pocketing the live round at the scene and deciding to keep one of the empty shells for himself is incredible. What is he thinking in terms of "chain of custody"? Why does he need both a live round and an empty shell?
..... And I'm sure you know that one of the spent shells was scratched by the rifle's elevator ( that would mean that it was the last cartridge in the clip and the live round was NOT served into the bolt and breech by the rifle's elevator.
I'm vaguely aware of this Walt but would like to hear your opinion about it in more detail.
-
If the "sketch" is part of the haul of evidence to be taken by the FBI then something is very wrong with the picture, as it is not mentioned in the list of evidence taken on the night of the 22nd and is never seen again.
SA Williams is focused solely on taking pictures of the evidence being transferred to the FBI and I find it hard to imagine that he is accidently including a sketch that just happens to be there.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the sketch is something that is accidentally included but, to me at least, it seems unlikely.
The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce. It really is incredible and highlights something that is beyond incompetence.
Carl Day testifies as follows:
In his "pre-hearing interview" he states he marked the shells at the scene, where they were found.
On the day of his WC hearing he examines the shells again and decides that the shells were not marked at the scene.
He describes two shells being brought to him with the rest of the evidence being transferred to the FBI, that Fritz has kept one shell and that he never sees this shell again.
He then changes this story to all three shells being brought to him, that he dusts the shells again (even though he's already done it) and that he releases one of the shells back to Fritz. He then marks the two shells he has but not the one released back to Fritz.
He then changes this story to one where he marks all three shells at the same time but cannot remember if he marked them all at the scene or in his office.
He also testifies that he gives possession of the shells to Det. Sims at the scene but Sims testifies that he did not take possession of the shells. Sims has to go back in front of the WC a couple of days later where he reveals Fritz has told him to remember that he, Sims, took possession of the shells at the scene. This is not a joke. Sims is told by Fritz to remember he took possession of the shells.
There's more to it but the whole thing is like a sick joke. There is something being covered up regarding the shells and it takes the participants a few goes to get their stories straight. Even a detail like the live round being dusted at the scene but then showing up in the photo clean, shows something isn't right. Fritz pocketing the live round at the scene and deciding to keep one of the empty shells for himself is incredible. What is he thinking in terms of "chain of custody"? Why does he need both a live round and an empty shell?
I'm vaguely aware of this Walt but would like to hear your opinion about it in more detail.
Hi Dan, I think you've summed it up very nicely in your statement... T "The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce." I can't improve on that!
The DPD and the FBI were a pack of God damned LIARS, ( and I mean that literally ) I can only hope and pray that Saint Peter turned them away.....
-
Besides Walt Cakebreads theory , what other alternatives to explain why an MC rifle with rusty barrel and dysfunctional scope was pre planted?l
Let’s consider that Malcom Wallace was the hit man. What reason Wallace did not at least fire a couple rounds thru the MC rifle and fix or remove the faulty scope? Did Wallace not have enough time because he waited until 3am Nov 22/63 to steal the MC rifle from Oswald’s boarding room? Would this explain Oswald’s hurried return to his boarding room , suspecting his rifle stolen, and upon finding it gone, Oswald panicked, taking his revolver and heading towards hiding out in the Marsales Zoo, only to run into Tippet while heading that way?
-
If the "sketch" is part of the haul of evidence to be taken by the FBI then something is very wrong with the picture, as it is not mentioned in the list of evidence taken on the night of the 22nd and is never seen again.
SA Williams is focused solely on taking pictures of the evidence being transferred to the FBI and I find it hard to imagine that he is accidently including a sketch that just happens to be there.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the sketch is something that is accidentally included but, to me at least, it seems unlikely.
The saga of the shells and their journey from the TSBD to the possession of the FBI is an unbelievable farce. It really is incredible and highlights something that is beyond incompetence.
Carl Day testifies as follows:
In his "pre-hearing interview" he states he marked the shells at the scene, where they were found.
On the day of his WC hearing he examines the shells again and decides that the shells were not marked at the scene.
He describes two shells being brought to him with the rest of the evidence being transferred to the FBI, that Fritz has kept one shell and that he never sees this shell again.
He then changes this story to all three shells being brought to him, that he dusts the shells again (even though he's already done it) and that he releases one of the shells back to Fritz. He then marks the two shells he has but not the one released back to Fritz.
He then changes this story to one where he marks all three shells at the same time but cannot remember if he marked them all at the scene or in his office.
He also testifies that he gives possession of the shells to Det. Sims at the scene but Sims testifies that he did not take possession of the shells. Sims has to go back in front of the WC a couple of days later where he reveals Fritz has told him to remember that he, Sims, took possession of the shells at the scene. This is not a joke. Sims is told by Fritz to remember he took possession of the shells.
There's more to it but the whole thing is like a sick joke. There is something being covered up regarding the shells and it takes the participants a few goes to get their stories straight. Even a detail like the live round being dusted at the scene but then showing up in the photo clean, shows something isn't right. Fritz pocketing the live round at the scene and deciding to keep one of the empty shells for himself is incredible. What is he thinking in terms of "chain of custody"? Why does he need both a live round and an empty shell?
I'm vaguely aware of this Walt but would like to hear your opinion about it in more detail.
If the "sketch" is part of the haul of evidence to be taken by the FBI then something is very wrong with the picture, as it is not mentioned in the list of evidence taken on the night of the 22nd and is never seen again.
SA Williams is focused solely on taking pictures of the evidence being transferred to the FBI and I find it hard to imagine that he is accidently including a sketch that just happens to be there.
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the sketch is something that is accidentally included but, to me at least, it seems unlikely.
I believe the DPD had the carcano on 11-11-63 and they had found it at a scene where someone was supposed to be shot at ( Adlai Stevenson, perhaps ??) And the sketch is the suspect who would have been sought for questioning?
Doyle Williams didn't know so he simply altered the numeral "11" to make it look like "22"... I only propose this theory as a possibility ..... But whether the proposed theory is valid ...I definitely DO believe that the key conspirator at the DPD did in fact have the carcano PRIOR to 11/22/63.
-
If there was an MC rifle with a rusty barrel and a dysfunctional scope in the possession of FBI,DPD, or CIA, prior to 11/22/63, then why didn’t they at least shoot a few rounds to clean out the rust and fix or replace the scope before this rifle was pre planted?
Its almost like the conspirator shooter had some kind of respect for the patsy he was setting up, thus chose to give the patsy a chance Of acquittal by a jury due to reasonable doubt.
Thus the reason for a rusty barrel, bad scope rifle to be placed inside the 4” space of a pallet stacked full with boxes, which is absurd enough to virtually guarantee doubt that MC rifle was fired by the assassin.
If this speculation is correct, then the conspirator shooter may be a CIA operative who had once been a friend of Oswald’s especially if Oswald was also a CIA operative whom had worked with the shooter on previous missions.
-
If there was an MC rifle with a rusty barrel and a dysfunctional scope in the possession of FBI,DPD, or CIA, prior to 11/22/63, then why didn’t they at least shoot a few rounds to clean out the rust and fix or replace the scope before this rifle was pre planted?
Its almost like the conspirator shooter had some kind of respect for the patsy he was setting up, thus chose to give the patsy a chance Of acquittal by a jury due to reasonable doubt.
Thus the reason for a rusty barrel, bad scope rifle to be placed inside the 4” space of a pallet stacked full with boxes, which is absurd enough to virtually guarantee doubt that MC rifle was fired by the assassin.
If this speculation is correct, then the conspirator shooter may be a CIA operative who had once been a friend of Oswald’s especially if Oswald was also a CIA operative whom had worked with the shooter on previous missions.
There is no evidence that there was a "bad scope" at the time of the assassination. We only know the condition of the scope after it was hastily hidden (perhaps dropped) behind some boxes and removed to check for prints. And even if it were misaligned, any shooter trained in the USMC who practiced with that rifle could easily make an adjustment to account for any misalignment.
-
It’s possible the scope was aligned, and it’s possible that he could make the shot anyway, and it’s possible he practiced, therefore it happened. :D
-
If there was an MC rifle with a rusty barrel and a dysfunctional scope in the possession of FBI,DPD, or CIA, prior to 11/22/63, then why didn’t they at least shoot a few rounds to clean out the rust and fix or replace the scope before this rifle was pre planted?
Its almost like the conspirator shooter had some kind of respect for the patsy he was setting up, thus chose to give the patsy a chance Of acquittal by a jury due to reasonable doubt.
Thus the reason for a rusty barrel, bad scope rifle to be placed inside the 4” space of a pallet stacked full with boxes, which is absurd enough to virtually guarantee doubt that MC rifle was fired by the assassin.
If this speculation is correct, then the conspirator shooter may be a CIA operative who had once been a friend of Oswald’s especially if Oswald was also a CIA operative whom had worked with the shooter on previous missions.
There is no evidence that there was a "bad scope" at the time of the assassination. We only know the condition of the scope after it was hastily hidden (perhaps dropped) behind some boxes and removed to check for prints. And even if it were misaligned, any shooter trained in the USMC who practiced with that rifle could easily make an adjustment to account for any misalignment.
There is also no evidence of rust on the rifle.
Robert Frazier examined the rifle and said it showed the effects of wear and corrosion; nothing about rust.
-
There is also no evidence of rust on the rifle.
Robert Frazier examined the rifle and said it showed the effects of wear and corrosion; nothing about rust.
Describe "corrosion" on steel.....
-
Describe "corrosion" on steel.....
All rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust.
Robert Frazier said the barrel showed the effects of wear and corrosion. Frazier did NOT say the barrel was rusty.
You can decide for yourself if you want to understand this very simple concept or not.
-
All rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust.
Robert Frazier said the barrel showed the effects of wear and corrosion. Frazier did NOT say the barrel was rusty.
You can decide for yourself if you want to understand this very simple concept or not.
It's a word game...
Corrosion is the process by which certain materials, including iron, deteriorate as a result of oxidation.
Rusting is oxidation of iron in the presence of air and moisture.
Corrosion being present in the barrel indicates the same as rust being there. Had the weapon been fired, the first shot would have removed the corrosion or rust.
-
It's a word game...
Corrosion is the process by which certain materials, including iron, deteriorate as a result of oxidation.
Rusting is oxidation of iron in the presence of air and moisture.
Corrosion being present in the barrel indicates the same as rust being there. Had the weapon been fired, the first shot would have removed the corrosion or rust.
Correction: Had the rifle been recently fired, the first shot would have removed any rust. However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion".
This is not a word game. There is a big difference.
-
Correction: Had the rifle been recently fired, the first shot would have removed any rust. However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion".
This is not a word game. There is a big difference.
However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion".
Cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion.
-
At the very least, Bill and Richard concede the scope was out of alignment AFTER the fact when the rifle was found.
And at the very least, the barrel was corroded and not in the best condition.
So this is still the question I have IF the Premise from Walt Cakebread that the MC rifle was pre planted, WHY would the conspirator(s) place such a rifle when they could have found a better quality MC rifle with more pristine bore and an a perfectly good scope in alignment. AND, they could had fired.a few rounds prior to planting the rifle , thus leaving some gunpowder residue in the chamber/breech and bore.
What alternatives besides Walt’s theory of Oswald part of CIA plan to have Oswald infiltrate into the Castro regime in Cuba?
A. The conspirator shooter took an MC rifle from Oswald and for some reason pre-planted it without checking it out.
B. Oswald pre planted a mail order MC purposely with corroded bore and bad scope, while actually using some semi auto rifle with folding stock This option would entail an escape plan using the East elevator to the 2nd floor in 50 secs. (Thus not seen by Ms Garner) An accomplice would be necessary to take the elevator back up 3 floors in 20 secs locking it there approx 70secs post shots.(Dougherty?)
C. The MC rifle with corroded bore and bad scope was planted after the fact hastily. There is an 18 minute delay of Lt.Day arriving to the 6th floor after a rifle was supposedly discovered on the 6th floor at 1:22 pm (Boone) . This is according to Tom Aleya’s account.
-
It's a word game...
Corrosion is the process by which certain materials, including iron, deteriorate as a result of oxidation.
Rusting is oxidation of iron in the presence of air and moisture.
Corrosion being present in the barrel indicates the same as rust being there. Had the weapon been fired, the first shot would have removed the corrosion or rust.
EXCELLENT, Martin!... Depending on how tightly the projectile ( bullet) fit in the barrel some of the "corrosion ( rust) would probably have remained in the bottom of the grooves in the barrel after a bullet was fired through the barrel .....But The theory is that THREE bullets had been fired through the barrel..... It's highly doubtful that any rust (corrosion) would have remained in the barrel after three bullets were fired through the barrel.
Bottom line:..... There was rust present in that barrel..... Conclusion; That rifle was not fired on 11/22/63
-
At the very least, Bill and Richard concede the scope was out of alignment AFTER the fact when the rifle was found.
And at the very least, the barrel was corroded and not in the best condition.
So this is still the question I have IF the Premise from Walt Cakebread that the MC rifle was pre planted, WHY would the conspirator(s) place such a rifle when they could have found a better quality MC rifle with more pristine bore and an a perfectly good scope in alignment. AND, they could had fired.a few rounds prior to planting the rifle , thus leaving some gunpowder residue in the chamber/breech and bore.
What alternatives besides Walt’s theory of Oswald part of CIA plan to have Oswald infiltrate into the Castro regime in Cuba?
A. The conspirator shooter took an MC rifle from Oswald and for some reason pre-planted it without checking it out.
B. Oswald pre planted a mail order MC purposely with corroded bore and bad scope, while actually using some semi auto rifle with folding stock This option would entail an escape plan using the East elevator to the 2nd floor in 50 secs. (Thus not seen by Ms Garner) An accomplice would be necessary to take the elevator back up 3 floors in 20 secs locking it there approx 70secs post shots.(Dougherty?)
C. The MC rifle with corroded bore and bad scope was planted after the fact hastily. There is an 18 minute delay of Lt.Day arriving to the 6th floor after a rifle was supposedly discovered on the 6th floor at 1:22 pm (Boone) . This is according to Tom Aleya’s account.
"If the MC rifle was pre planted, WHY would the conspirator(s) place such a rifle when they could have found a better quality MC rifle with more pristine bore and an a perfectly good scope in alignment. AND, they could had fired.a few rounds prior to planting the rifle , thus leaving some gunpowder residue in the chamber/breech and bore."
The Carcano was linked to Lee Oswald by the BY photo which the DPD knew existed....Therefore they used the carcano as a "throw down gun."
The conspirators were unconcerned about anybody checking the carcano to see if it had been fired.....The conspirators and the in chief investigators were one and the same.
-
At the very least, Bill and Richard concede the scope was out of alignment AFTER the fact when the rifle was found.
And at the very least, the barrel was corroded and not in the best condition.
So this is still the question I have IF the Premise from Walt Cakebread that the MC rifle was pre planted, WHY would the conspirator(s) place such a rifle when they could have found a better quality MC rifle with more pristine bore and an a perfectly good scope in alignment. AND, they could had fired.a few rounds prior to planting the rifle , thus leaving some gunpowder residue in the chamber/breech and bore.
What alternatives besides Walt’s theory of Oswald part of CIA plan to have Oswald infiltrate into the Castro regime in Cuba?
A. The conspirator shooter took an MC rifle from Oswald and for some reason pre-planted it without checking it out.
B. Oswald pre planted a mail order MC purposely with corroded bore and bad scope, while actually using some semi auto rifle with folding stock This option would entail an escape plan using the East elevator to the 2nd floor in 50 secs. (Thus not seen by Ms Garner) An accomplice would be necessary to take the elevator back up 3 floors in 20 secs locking it there approx 70secs post shots.(Dougherty?)
C. The MC rifle with corroded bore and bad scope was planted after the fact hastily. There is an 18 minute delay of Lt.Day arriving to the 6th floor after a rifle was supposedly discovered on the 6th floor at 1:22 pm (Boone) . This is according to Tom Aleya’s account.
What alternatives besides Walt’s theory of Oswald part of CIA plan to have Oswald infiltrate into the Castro regime in Cuba?
Whoa!!....I've never suggested that the scheme to set Lee Oswald up to infiltrate Lee into Cuba was a CIA plot....In fact I don't believe that the scheme originated in the CIA. I strongly suspect the plot originated with the Kennedy boys, Jack and Bobby, who used George De M . as their contact with Lee Oswald. After the BOP debacle JFK knew damned well that he couldn't trust the CIA and avoided working with the CIA on any of it's harebrained schemes..... But he (JFK) was desperate to know for sure that all of the Russian missiles and the Russian technicians associated with those missiles had been removed from Cuba. Lee Oswald was an ideal candidate for the job..... He had publicly posed as a friend of Cuba and he spoke and understood Russian.
-
Correction: Had the rifle been recently fired, the first shot would have removed any rust. However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion".
This is not a word game. There is a big difference.
However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion".
Cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion.
Frazier said that the interior of the surface of the barrel was roughened from corrosion or wear. Pitting is an example of the effects of corrosion; holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel. Holes in the metal would obviously not be removed when the rifle fires off a shot.
It's very important to never state that the inside of the barrel was rusty when examined, for if true it would mean that the rifle did not fire off a shot because if it had, then the rust would have been removed during the process. Since Frazier did not say the barrel was rusty, for a member here to claim the barrel was rusty is irresponsible.
However, again, holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel (the effects of corrosion) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot.
-
IMO the pictures are not of Sturgis. Why would Sturgis hang around Dallas after participating (IMO one of the shooters) in gunning down Kennedy. That team (Cubans) got the hell out of dodge.
-
At the very least, Bill and Richard concede the scope was out of alignment AFTER the fact when the rifle was found.
And at the very least, the barrel was corroded and not in the best condition.
So this is still the question I have IF the Premise from Walt Cakebread that the MC rifle was pre planted, WHY would the conspirator(s) place such a rifle when they could have found a better quality MC rifle with more pristine bore and an a perfectly good scope in alignment. AND, they could had fired.a few rounds prior to planting the rifle , thus leaving some gunpowder residue in the chamber/breech and bore.
What alternatives besides Walt’s theory of Oswald part of CIA plan to have Oswald infiltrate into the Castro regime in Cuba?
A. The conspirator shooter took an MC rifle from Oswald and for some reason pre-planted it without checking it out.
B. Oswald pre planted a mail order MC purposely with corroded bore and bad scope, while actually using some semi auto rifle with folding stock This option would entail an escape plan using the East elevator to the 2nd floor in 50 secs. (Thus not seen by Ms Garner) An accomplice would be necessary to take the elevator back up 3 floors in 20 secs locking it there approx 70secs post shots.(Dougherty?)
C. The MC rifle with corroded bore and bad scope was planted after the fact hastily. There is an 18 minute delay of Lt.Day arriving to the 6th floor after a rifle was supposedly discovered on the 6th floor at 1:22 pm (Boone) . This is according to Tom Aleya’s account.
At the very least, Bill and Richard concede the scope was out of alignment AFTER the fact when the rifle was found.
No.
The scope was removed in order to test the rifle completely for prints. When the FBI received the rifle, Frazier said the scope was loose. The scope was not necessarily "out of alignment" when the rifle was found. It could have happened when the scope was loosely put back on after searching for prints before being sent off to the FBI.
-
Frazier said that the interior of the surface of the barrel was roughened from corrosion or wear. Pitting is an example of the effects of corrosion; holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel. Holes in the metal would obviously not be removed when the rifle fires off a shot.
It's very important to never state that the inside of the barrel was rusty when examined, for if true it would mean that the rifle did not fire off a shot because if it had, then the rust would have been removed during the process. Since Frazier did not say the barrel was rusty, for a member here to claim the barrel was rusty is irresponsible.
However, again, holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel (the effects of corrosion) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot.
Pitting might be an example of the effects of corrosion, but Frazier never said he found pitting. In fact, he did say;
Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Since Frazier said that he did not find pitting, for a member here to even suggest that the corrossion or wear in the barrel was or could have been pitting is irresponsible.
-
IMO the pictures are not of Sturgis. Why would Sturgis hang around Dallas after participating (IMO one of the shooters) in gunning down Kennedy. That team (Cubans) got the hell out of dodge.
Why not? Why would Frank Sturgis give a flying you know what about yours or anyone else and their perception of the possible consequences re the assassination of JFK? Did this man EVER really truly face the consequences for his actions whilst an employee of the CIA? The CIA officially deny he ever was employed by the agency. The man knew he was untouchable.
Someone posted this interview where Bill O'Reilly questioned Frank Sturgis about Nixon's attempts to get his hands on the bay of pigs and JFK assassination CIA files. I'd never seen it before, it's shocking. The look of Sturgis' face as he replies is astonishing. On national tv this man is threatening Nixon's life.
Frank Sturgis: several times the president (Nixon) asked Mr Helms for the files (Bay of Pigs & JFK's assassination) and Mr Helms refused a direct order from the president of the united states
Bill O'Reilly: what good would it do Richard Nixon to get those files??
Frank Sturgis: I believe that Nixon would have uncovered the true facts that have been covered up for many years about the assassination of president JFK, to take the heat off of him over Watergate.
Bill O'Reilly: Do you think that Richard Nixon was ever in any physical danger?
Frank Sturgis: YES! ABSOLUTELY! He's lucky he didn't get killed. He's lucky he didn't get assassinated like president Kennedy got assassinated
Throw into the mix E.H. Hunt's confession he was involved in the assassination of JFK. Voilà!
-
Pitting might be an example of the effects of corrosion, but Frazier never said he found pitting. In fact, he did say;
Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Since Frazier said that he did not find pitting, for a member here to even suggest that the corrossion or wear in the barrel was or could have been pitting is irresponsible.
McCloy asks two questions and Frazier answers the second Question first.
Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn
"and"
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?
JohnM
-
You believe not giving a rats ass is why Sturgis would hang around because he's untouchable? By some readings I've done it's likely that Sturgis left right after the murder via a car. Some reports (not Sturgis) have people flying out of Red Bird in Dallas. Marita Lorenz told HSCA Sturgis, Oswald, Bosch, Diaz brothers and two others drove from Miami to Dallas. I suspect that these individuals left immediately and let the Military intelligence operations take over.
Why not? Why would Frank Sturgis give a flying you know what about yours or anyone else and their perception of the possible consequences re the assassination of JFK? Did this man EVER really truly face the consequences for his actions whilst an employee of the CIA? The CIA officially deny he ever was employed by the agency. The man knew he was untouchable.
Throw into the mix E.H. Hunt's confession he was involved in the assassination of JFK. Voilà!
-
McCloy asks two questions and Frazier answers the second Question first.
Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn
"and"
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?
JohnM
Regardless if it were two questions or one, Frazier never confirmed that the barrel was pitted.
Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?
Of course, the question is when
-
Pitting might be an example of the effects of corrosion, but Frazier never said he found pitting. In fact, he did say;
Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Since Frazier said that he did not find pitting, for a member here to even suggest that the corrossion or wear in the barrel was or could have been pitting is irresponsible.
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Thank you for posting Frazier's statement...." the corners were worn,"
Now take a good photo of "The magic bullet" ( CE 399) to a gun repair shop and ask the gunsmith if the barrel through which the bullet CE 399 had been fired was worn with the corners of the lands worn .......
The photo of CE 399 is of a bullet that has been fired through a barrel that was in good condition.
-
Pitting might be an example of the effects of corrosion, but Frazier never said he found pitting. In fact, he did say;
Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Since Frazier said that he did not find pitting, for a member here to even suggest that the corrossion or wear in the barrel was or could have been pitting is irresponsible.
Nice try, but No.
Zeon Mason said the rifle was rusty.
I then posted that Frazier never said the rifle was rusty, only that it showed the effects of corrosion and wear; huge difference.
Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part. If the rifle barrel was rusty when found, then it would mean that the rifle had not been fired (since firing the rifle would have removed the rust in the barrel). Big difference between rust and corrosion. Like I said, all rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust (a point still totally lost on Walt Cakebread's dumb ass).
Then I basically said that the signs of wear and corrosion (like pitting) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot. Rust? Yes. Pitting? No.
Then you said "cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion".
I then responded to that with by saying that pitting inside the barrel would obviously not be removed no matter how many times the rifle had been fired (I mean, how do you remove holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel?).
Then you couldn't resist making another dumb ass comparison to one's claim that the barrel was rusty (which I called an irresponsible comment, which it was) to my stance that small tiny holes on the metal on the inside of the barrel is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired.
You also had to go and raise the dumb ass meter by posting a portion of Frazier's testimony which you had no idea how to read correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.
But, did you admit you were wrong to Mytton? Of course you didn't. You skirted right around it.
It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.
-
Nice try, but No.
Zeon Mason said the rifle was rusty.
I then posted that Frazier never said the rifle was rusty, only that it showed the effects of corrosion and wear; huge difference.
Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part. If the rifle barrel was rusty when found, then it would mean that the rifle had not been fired (since firing the rifle would have removed the rust in the barrel). Big difference between rust and corrosion. Like I said, all rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust (a point still totally lost on Walt Cakebread's dumb ass).
Then I basically said that the signs of wear and corrosion (like pitting) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot. Rust? Yes. Pitting? No.
Then you said "cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion".
I then responded to that with by saying that pitting inside the barrel would obviously not be removed no matter how many times the rifle had been fired (I mean, how do you remove holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel?).
Then you couldn't resist making another dumb ass comparison to one's claim that the barrel was rusty (which I called an irresponsible comment, which it was) to my stance that small tiny holes on the metal on the inside of the barrel is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired.
You also had to go and raise the dumb ass meter by posting a portion of Frazier's testimony which you had no idea how to read correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.
But, did you admit you were wrong to Mytton? Of course you didn't. You skirted right around it.
It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.
Only a dumb ass would write such a dumb ass post.
Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part.
But true nevertheless. It's not my problem that you can't handle the truth and need to resort to insults.
Then I basically said that the signs of wear and corrosion (like pitting) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot. Rust? Yes. Pitting? No.
Frazier specifically said he found no pitting. I'm sorry if you don't like it. But then, recent experience has shown that you are pretty good at hearing/interpreting things people have not said....
You also had to go and raise the dumb ass meter by posting a portion of Frazier's testimony which you had no idea how to read correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.
But, did you admit you were wrong to Mytton? Of course you didn't. You skirted right around it.
But I read it correctly nevertheless, despite your dumb ass biased opinion. And I didn't have to admit to Mytton I was wrong because I wasn't and that clown only tried and failed to misrepresent Frazier's testimony.
And as far as skirting around it, it clearly is a subject youi know much about (as you do it so often) but even projecting isn't going to help you this time, as Frazier clearly answered the question "Was it what you would call pitted" with "No sir" and then moved on to answer the question about the lands.
Nice try though....
It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.
Get over your embarrassing debate performance soon, Bill. It's clouding your judgement and your anger is making you look foolish and bitter.
-
Frazier specifically said he found no pitting. I'm sorry if you don't like it.
Again, you have no idea how to read Frazier correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.
-
Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part.
But true nevertheless. It's not my problem that you can't handle the truth and need to resort to insults.
A member here said the rifle barrel was rusty.
The rifle barrel was not found to have been rusty.
However, the barrel did show signs of corrosion.
Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.
This is only "word games" to one who has nothing else to fall back on. It's not word games. The rifle showed the effects of corrosion.
That doesn't mean the barrel was rusty. This matters.
-
Again, you have no idea how to read Frazier correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.
Just like I have no idea how to interpret the audio recording of the DPD radio, right? LOL
You're a funny man, Bill...
-
A member here said the rifle barrel was rusty.
The rifle barrel was not found to have been rusty.
However, the barrel did show signs of corrosion.
Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.
This is only "word games" to one who has nothing else to fall back on. It's not word games. The rifle showed the effects of corrosion.
That doesn't mean the barrel was rusty. This matters.
Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.
So, you keep saying, but you can not show where Frazier said he found pitting, so it's a pretty meaningless comment.
This also matters!
-
If you want to discuss another topic, we can do that.
It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.
What made you change your mind so quickly?
Was it this;
After this disappointing reply, I have to say I've lost interest. Against my better judgement, I accepted your invitation to debate this topic here, because in my mind there is always a possibility that my opinion is wrong and, just maybe, you would present something that would make me change my opinion. From our discussion in this thread it has, sadly, become obvious that you never even considered the possibility that you could be wrong, when in fact, as is painfully clear, you are.
It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with an LN who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that LN.
I noticed you stopped short of using my entire text, but then, perhaps that's understandable, because it also said;
because in my mind there is always a possibility that my opinion is wrong and, just maybe, you would present something that would make me change my opinion.
And that's something that doesn't even cross your mind, right?
-
McCloy asks two questions and Frazier answers the second Question first.
Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn
"and"
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?
JohnM
"
"Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?"
Duh!.... Do you actually believe that the spent shells had to have been fired at the time of the coup d'etat? In reality there is good reason to doubt that the spent shells were fired that day......
-
Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.
So, you keep saying, but you can not show where Frazier said he found pitting, so it's a pretty meaningless comment.
This also matters!
Now you're changing your argument.
The rifle was not found to be rusty.
The rifle showed signs of corrosion.
Pitting is an example of corrosion.
This is not word games at all. A rusty rifle barrel would be huge. Rust present in the barrel when it was found up on the sixth floor would pretty much prove that that C-2766 didn't fire shots that day. This is important.
Zeon Mason should have said the rifle showed signs of corrosion. He should not have said the barrel was rusty. I like Zeon and hate beating this dead horse, but you're so hell-bent on anything Bill Brown-related, that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You're like a jilted lover.
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SPm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vm4VpYsl.jpg)
-
Now you're changing your argument.
The rifle was not found to be rusty.
The rifle showed signs of corrosion.
Pitting is an example of corrosion.
This is not word games at all. A rusty rifle barrel would be huge. Rust present in the barrel when it was found up on the sixth floor would pretty much prove that that C-2766 didn't fire shots that day. This is important.
Zeon Mason should have said the rifle showed signs of corrosion. He should not have said the barrel was rusty. I like Zeon and hate beating this dead horse, but you're so hell-bent on anything Bill Brown-related, that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
You're like a jilted lover.
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SPm.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Vm4VpYsl.jpg)
Why mention that pitting is an example of corrosion if you didn't want to introduce it into the discussion as the corrosion Frazier found?
Or is it just your habit to make purposeless comments in a conversation?
Btw, insinuating something by making a statement in such a way that the meaning is clear without actually saying the words is a perfect example of a word game.
You're like a jilted lover.
Project much? All people have to do is read my previous post and they will know who is the one feeling jilted....
But thanks for the laugh...
Do yourself a favor, Bill. Take a deep breath and count to ten.... you might feel better then.
-
Now Weidmann is once again acting like a child. This is typical when he becomes frustrated.
The bottom line... The barrel was not found to be rusty and the claim that it was rusty should not have been made. Pitting is a perfect example of "wear and corrosion" that would NOT be removed from the barrel when the rifle was fired.
However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion". -- Bill Brown
Cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion. -- Martin Wedimann
Frazier said that the interior of the surface of the barrel was roughened from corrosion or wear. Pitting is an example of the effects of corrosion; holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel. Holes in the metal would obviously not be removed when the rifle fires off a shot. -- Bill Brown
Question: Why has any of this turned into such a big deal?
Answer: Because Weidmann, who clearly cannot correctly decipher testimony, wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill and has the free time required to bog down the thread with nonsense.
I've made my point and stand by everything I have said here.
The barrel was not found to be rusty and pitting is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired. Interesting that this, in a nutshell, is all that I am really saying (both are correct) but has somehow been turned into much more. That's what happens when the kook-spin is added.
Nothing more to say on this subject. I'm moving on. Weidmann can have the last word (watch and see).
-
Now Weidmann is once again acting like a child. This is typical when he becomes frustrated.
The bottom line... The barrel was not found to be rusty and the claim that it was rusty should not have been made. Pitting is a perfect example of "wear and corrosion" that would NOT be removed from the barrel when the rifle was fired.
However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion". -- Bill Brown
Cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion. -- Martin Wedimann
Frazier said that the interior of the surface of the barrel was roughened from corrosion or wear. Pitting is an example of the effects of corrosion; holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel. Holes in the metal would obviously not be removed when the rifle fires off a shot. -- Bill Brown
Question: Why has any of this turned into such a big deal?
Answer: Because Weidmann, who clearly cannot correctly decipher testimony, wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill and has the free time required to bog down the thread with nonsense.
I've made my point and stand by everything I have said here.
The barrel was not found to be rusty and pitting is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired. Interesting that this, in a nutshell, is all that I am really saying (both are correct) but has somehow been turned into much more. That's what happens when the kook-spin is added.
Nothing more to say on this subject. I'm moving on. Weidmann can have the last word (watch and see).
Now Weidmann is once again acting like a child. This is typical when he becomes frustrated.
So, falling of my chair, from laughter is an expression of frustration? :D Keep 'm coming, Bill... This is hilarious.
I understand that trying to save face is difficult for somebody who suffers from the delusion that he is always right, but you surely can come up with some better material than this, can't you?
I've made my point and stand by everything I have said here.
As it turns out, that's what Bill says when he gets stuck and has nothing left to counter .. It's the precursor to him bailing out!
Nothing more to say on this subject. I'm moving on.
And there it is..... :D
Weidmann can have the last word
Thank you, very kind of you.... says the "dumb ass" :D
-
Jake, you posted the incorrect photo of Dick Nixon and Jack Ruby in '47. Here is the correct, undoctored photo of them smiling and laughing as Prescott Bush initiates Nixon into the world of the Deep State. Dick and Jack were already planning JFK's assassination at this point. Hence, the smiles and laughs. The man on the left is Frank Sturgis with aging makeup on to disguise himself.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdgIPEbCw893oPEbaUXH3wL9o8dftRG-9njZ6M6CS2nTnYUDMnAVVnIKf6oDNmU16HTPo-5SBuB7q2crLU5xxAUNJd1dIB57spqLpnMUZrciHnkMD-Guz-RkJ-umy6ippvm9FxBc3J1tq_YsAaC8pyHaXngSMBuZa-o23Tfjiosul2xHUpZ534n2dW/s16000/nixon-and-ruby.jpg)
-
Jake, you posted the incorrect photo of Dick Nixon and Jack Ruby in '47. Here is the correct, undoctored photo of them smiling and laughing as Prescott Bush initiates Nixon into the world of the Deep State. Dick and Jack were already planning JFK's assassination at this point. Hence, the smiles and laughs. The man on the left is Frank Sturgis with aging makeup on to disguise himself.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdgIPEbCw893oPEbaUXH3wL9o8dftRG-9njZ6M6CS2nTnYUDMnAVVnIKf6oDNmU16HTPo-5SBuB7q2crLU5xxAUNJd1dIB57spqLpnMUZrciHnkMD-Guz-RkJ-umy6ippvm9FxBc3J1tq_YsAaC8pyHaXngSMBuZa-o23Tfjiosul2xHUpZ534n2dW/s16000/nixon-and-ruby.jpg)
undoctored photo
;)
I know you're only joking but that is a very poor composite, Ruby's head is lit wrong, with a different film grain and his face been cut and pasted from a magazine or book. What this fake photo does show is that finding photos of someone's face and pasting it over a different body needs many different variables absolutely spot on to achieve an undetectable photo realistic result.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MHdtp0JD/ruby-cutpaste.jpg)
JohnM
-
"
"Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?"
Duh!.... Do you actually believe that the spent shells had to have been fired at the time of the coup d'etat? In reality there is good reason to doubt that the spent shells were fired that day......
The spent shells exclusively came from Oswald's rifle,
bullet fragments found in Kennedy's limo exclusively came from Oswald's rifle
a man matching Oswald description was seen with a rifle in the sniper's nest window,
shells were found at this window,
Oswald's prints were found on Oswald's rifle,
3 types of fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt matched 3 types of fibers found on the rifle,
Oswald's prints were found on the boxes in the snipers nest and the prints were recent,
Oswald immediately left work, killed a cop and tried to kill more cops when he was arrested.
JohnM
-
“Oswald's rifle”. LOL
“found in Kennedy's limo”. LOL
“matching Oswald description”. LOL
“Oswald's prints were found on rifle”. LOL
“fibers matched”. LOL
“prints were recent”. LOL
“killed a cop”. LOL
“tried to kill more cops”. LOL
-
The spent shells exclusively came from Oswald's rifle,
bullet fragments found in Kennedy's limo exclusively came from Oswald's rifle
a man matching Oswald description was seen with a rifle in the sniper's nest window,
shells were found at this window,
Oswald's prints were found on Oswald's rifle,
3 types of fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt matched 3 types of fibers found on the rifle,
Oswald's prints were found on the boxes in the snipers nest and the prints were recent,
Oswald immediately left work, killed a cop and tried to kill more cops when he was arrested.
JohnM
Oswald got what he deserved.
-
This photo of Ruby looks photoshopped.
-
This photo of Ruby looks photoshopped.
No it's absolutely real. Please go to the very first post of this thread where Jake says here's a photo of Nixon and Ruby. Jake must have forgotten that the photo he posted was the Shopped one. The one I posted with Ruby is the correct one. As I mentioned this is where Dick and Jack first met during Dick's Deep State initiation and they greedily went into a back room with Sturgis to start planning Kennedy's murder in '47. They thought he was going to be president in '56 but it fell through so they put the plan on the back burner until '63.
-
No it's absolutely real. Please go to the very first post of this thread where Jake says here's a photo of Nixon and Ruby. Jake must have forgotten that the photo he posted was the Shopped one. The one I posted with Ruby is the correct one. As I mentioned this is where Dick and Jack first met during Dick's Deep State initiation and they greedily went into a back room with Sturgis to start planning Kennedy's murder in '47. They thought he was going to be president in '56 but it fell through so they put the plan on the back burner until '63.
So, you weren't joking??
Compare the shadow under Ruby's nose as compared to the original man and the man on the far left.
Compare the texture of the Ruby pasted insert.
Compare the lower resolution of the Ruby insert.
The outer ear of the original man wasn't removed in the Ruby version.
Just look at the edges of Ruby's face which was clipped out with garden shears.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pd0LvXLj/reallya.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TP23BWfG/reallyaclose.gif)
JohnM
-
My Apology to Bill Brown for using the word “rusty” instead of the word“corrosion”. There was some previous discussion of the condition of the barrel in another thread and I had asked the question if the word “corrosion” pertained only to pitting or could it also indicate a layer of oxidation was found.
Unless there is some other testimony specifically referencing “a layer of oxidation” which is a form of rust that COULD be removed from firing 3 rounds, then there does not appear to be a suitable rebuttal to Mr Browns posting of the FBI “expert” defining corrosion” as specifically pertaining to the pitting of the barrel.
-
My Apology to Bill Brown for using the word “rusty” instead of the word“corrosion”. There was some previous discussion of the condition of the barrel in another thread and I had asked the question if the word “corrosion” pertained only to pitting or could it also indicate a layer of oxidation was found.
Unless there is some other testimony specifically referencing “a layer of oxidation” which is a form of rust that COULD be removed from firing 3 rounds, then there does not appear to be a suitable rebuttal to Mr Browns posting of the FBI “expert” defining corrosion” as specifically pertaining to the pitting of the barrel.
Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn
"and"
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn
"and"
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
-
Walt imo, , it’s not quite enough to prove beyond doubt that the MC rifle that Lt.Dau is lifting up from the floor was NOT fired at 12:30 pm 11/22/63.
However the WC does NOT prove beyond doubt that the rifle WAS fired at 12:30 on 11/22:/63.
So it seems that what remains is the question of why there’ was apparently no commentary offered by the expert)s) about gunpowder residue found in the breech/ camber and in the grooves of the bore that could prove the rifle was fired at 12:30 previous to its discovery by Boone at 1:22pm.
There does not appear to be any statement by the “experts” made about the residual odor of gunpowder that should have been noticeable when the rifle was in proximity to the noses of Will Fritz and Lt Day as they were closely examining the rifle per the Aleya film.
the WC proposes that the shells found in the SN were matched exclusively to the MC rifle Lt. Day is lifting up in the Aleya’s film. IDK if this is true or if it proves those shells were fired at 12:30 11/22/63 or if they were fired a day or week or month earlier and simply left at the SN.
There is still the question if the CE 399 bullet matches with the worn corroded barrel grooves and firing pin of the MC rifle Lt Day lifted off the floor per Aleya film.
-
Walt imo, , it’s not quite enough to prove beyond doubt that the MC rifle that Lt.Dau is lifting up from the floor was NOT fired at 12:30 pm 11/22/63.
However the WC does NOT prove beyond doubt that the rifle WAS fired at 12:30 on 11/22:/63.
So it seems that what remains is the question of why there’ was apparently no commentary offered by the expert)s) about gunpowder residue found in the breech/ camber and in the grooves of the bore that could prove the rifle was fired at 12:30 previous to its discovery by Boone at 1:22pm.
There does not appear to be any statement by the “experts” made about the residual odor of gunpowder that should have been noticeable when the rifle was in proximity to the noses of Will Fritz and Lt Day as they were closely examining the rifle per the Aleya film.
the WC proposes that the shells found in the SN were matched exclusively to the MC rifle Lt. Day is lifting up in the Aleya’s film. IDK if this is true or if it proves those shells were fired at 12:30 11/22/63 or if they were fired a day or week or month earlier and simply left at the SN.
There is still the question if the CE 399 bullet matches with the worn corroded barrel grooves and firing pin of the MC rifle Lt Day lifted off the floor per Aleya film.
There is still the question if the CE 399 bullet matches with the worn corroded barrel grooves
FBI agent Frazier testified that the lands in the barrel of the TSBD Carcano, C2766 were WORN and the edges were ROUNDED....
The photo of CE 399 ( The Magic Bullet) shows that it was fired through a barrel the was in good condition and the edges of of the lands in that rifle were NOT worn and rounded.
and firing pin of the MC rifle Lt Day lifted off the floor per Aleya film.
-
There is still the question if the CE 399 bullet matches with the worn corroded barrel grooves
FBI agent Frazier testified that the lands in the barrel of the TSBD Carcano, C2766 were WORN and the edges were ROUNDED....
The photo of CE 399 ( The Magic Bullet) shows that it was fired through a barrel the was in good condition and the edges of of the lands in that rifle were NOT worn and rounded.
Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn
Photos of "The magic bullet" CE 399 clearly show that it was fired through a barrel that was in good condition and the corners of the lands were NOT worn or rounded....
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
-
My Apology to Bill Brown for using the word “rusty” instead of the word“corrosion”. There was some previous discussion of the condition of the barrel in another thread and I had asked the question if the word “corrosion” pertained only to pitting or could it also indicate a layer of oxidation was found.
Unless there is some other testimony specifically referencing “a layer of oxidation” which is a form of rust that COULD be removed from firing 3 rounds, then there does not appear to be a suitable rebuttal to Mr Browns posting of the FBI “expert” defining corrosion” as specifically pertaining to the pitting of the barrel.
No worries, Zeon. Unlike many "mistakes" around here, I know yours was an honest one.
-
Walt, maybe you can offer some evidence to support that CE 399 could not possibly have fired from an MC rifle in the worn grooves condition as described.
Or someone who
Had an MC rifle with worn grooves and pitting could put to the range and video record test firing some ball nosed MC bulliets of same tile as CE 399 and then compare the bullets.
-
Walt, maybe you can offer some evidence to support that CE 399 could not possibly have fired from an MC rifle in the worn grooves condition as described.
Or someone who
Had an MC rifle with worn grooves and pitting could put to the range and video record test firing some ball nosed MC bulliets of same tile as CE 399 and then compare the bullets.
maybe you can offer some evidence to support that CE 399 could not possibly have fired from an MC rifle in the worn grooves condition as described.
Zeon I can see in photos of CE 399 ( the "Magic Bullet" ) that it was fired through a rifle barrel that was in good condition. Anybody who wants to verify this observation merely has to take a good clear picture of CE 399 to any gunsmith or gun enthusiast and ask their opinion about the condition of the rifle barrel through which CE 399 had been fired.
I guess I could fire a bullet through the barrel of one of my carcanos with a worn bore and then take a photo of the bullet but the naysayers (truth deniers) wouldn't believe me anyway so it would be a waste of time.
-
So, you weren't joking??
Compare the shadow under Ruby's nose as compared to the original man and the man on the far left.
Compare the texture of the Ruby pasted insert.
Compare the lower resolution of the Ruby insert.
The outer ear of the original man wasn't removed in the Ruby version.
Just look at the edges of Ruby's face which was clipped out with garden shears.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pd0LvXLj/reallya.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TP23BWfG/reallyaclose.gif)
JohnM
There is a shift between the Ruby face and the other person, which means you did not do a good job of aligning the genuine Ruby photo and the other person. The other person was pasted over the Ruby one and I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to muddle the record creating very poorly done GIFs.
Dick and Jack were already planning the assassination back during this initiation meeting with Bush and Sturgis. Hence, the smiles and laughter.
-
There is a shift between the Ruby face and the other person, which means you did not do a good job of aligning the genuine Ruby photo and the other person. The other person was pasted over the Ruby one and I'd appreciate it if you would stop trying to muddle the record creating very poorly done GIFs.
Dick and Jack were already planning the assassination back during this initiation meeting with Bush and Sturgis. Hence, the smiles and laughter.
Someone needs help.
-
Totally disagree. Any other photo to corroborate this one perhaps taken at the same time? Again it looks photo shopped.
-
Oswald had been in custody for hours by this point and was already being viewed as the sole assassin of JFK so the "artist's sketch" is a mystery indeed. As I say, I can find no reference to it as part of the evidence being taken by the FBI but it is there in the photo, so what gives with that? It really is baffling.
Oswald had been in custody for hours and was already being viewed presented as the sole assassin of JFK ...
(https://ruadventures.com/forum/Smileys/animated/tiphat.gif)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNpPwpQx/Screenshot-222.png)
I fail to see any explanation as to the absence of a third spent round.
Mr Brown...Mr Mytton....Mr Smith....anyone?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/VNpPwpQx/Screenshot-222.png)
I fail to see any explanation as to the absence of a third spent round.
Mr Brown...Mr Mytton....Mr Smith....anyone?
Please notice that on November 22, 1963 FBI Agent Doyle Williams did NOT know that the rifle was called a Mannlicher Carcano thus when the carcano was turned over to the FBI on November 22 1963 it was described as a 6.5 caliber 1940 model rifle made in Italy , Serial number C2766, bearing a 4X18 coated scope.
That's all the authorities knew about the rifle as of midnight.....And thus any document that listed the rifle as Doyle described it was written on 11/22/63. On Saturday 11/23/63 they learned that the rifle was called a Mannlicher Carcano carbine and thus documents that were written after 11/22/63 describe the rifle as a carcano carbine.
Why is this so important you ask? Because.... The original evidence inventory list which was created on 11/22/63 also has the "palm print off the under side of the barrel" listed as item #14. The authorities have always said that detective Day didn't turn over that "palm print" along with all of the other evidence. nor did detective Day tell the FBI that he had found that print on 11/22/63. This is a blatant lie.....As verified by the FACT that the index card with the cellophane tape "lift of the palm print"Is clearly listed on the list that was created and released to the FBI on 11/22/63.