JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Duncan MacRae on October 26, 2023, 11:40:09 AM
-
-
When I watch this interview I really want Craig to be telling the truth.
He seems like a completely decent, stand up, straight-talking guy.
A quiet type who gets on with things in an honest and humble way.
But then he starts talking about the discovery of the rifle. He describes in detail exactly what we see in the Tom Alyea film of the rifle's discovery - the rifle is photographed in situ, Day picks it up, hands it to Fritz who has hold of it by the strap.
In Alyea, the rifle is a Mannlicer Carcano, there is zero doubt about that. But Craig insists he sees "Mauser" stamped on the barrel. And that is impossible.
By the time of this interview he must surely be aware of the Alyea footage.
I just don't understand why he would lie about it.
Note - As Fritz steps into the enclosure at the beginning of the clip we can see Craig on the other side of the boxes, so we know he was really there at that moment.
-
When I watch this interview I really want Craig to be telling the truth.
He seems like a completely decent, stand up, straight-talking guy.
A quiet type who gets on with things in an honest and humble way.
But then he starts talking about the discovery of the rifle. He describes in detail exactly what we see in the Tom Alyea film of the rifle's discovery - the rifle is photographed in situ, Day picks it up, hands it to Fritz who has hold of it by the strap.
In Alyea, the rifle is a Mannlicer Carcano, there is zero doubt about that. But Craig insists he sees "Mauser" stamped on the barrel. And that is impossible.
By the time of this interview he must surely be aware of the Alyea footage.
I just don't understand why he would lie about it.
Note - As Fritz steps into the enclosure at the beginning of the clip we can see Craig on the other side of the boxes, so we know he was really there at that moment.
Hi Dan, You could also ask why did so many think it was a 7.65 Mauser? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://d3au0sjxgpdyfv.cloudfront.net/a-93992651-7pu6h0mziyvmjh9n.jpeg)
-
Hi Dan, You could also ask why did so many think it was a 7.65 Mauser? Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
(https://d3au0sjxgpdyfv.cloudfront.net/a-93992651-7pu6h0mziyvmjh9n.jpeg)
It was just a first impression made by guys who never examined the rifle properly.
The Tom Alyea film captures the moment the rifle is lifted from its hiding place. It's a Mannlicher Carcano, that's not up for dispute.
The rumour about the Mauser spread like wildfire because everyone was being constantly pressed for any kind of information.
The thing that I don't get is that Craig describes what we see in the Tom Alyea film in great detail.
There can be no doubt he is talking about the moment Alyea captured on film.
So why would he insist it was a Mauser when it was clearly a Mannlicher Carcano?
It would be interesting to hear some non-Tinfoil speculation on this.
-
It was just a first impression made by guys who never examined the rifle properly.
The Tom Alyea film captures the moment the rifle is lifted from its hiding place. It's a Mannlicher Carcano, that's not up for dispute.
The rumour about the Mauser spread like wildfire because everyone was being constantly pressed for any kind of information.
The thing that I don't get is that Craig describes what we see in the Tom Alyea film in great detail.
There can be no doubt he is talking about the moment Alyea captured on film.
So why would he insist it was a Mauser when it was clearly a Mannlicher Carcano?
It would be interesting to hear some non-Tinfoil speculation on this.
So why would he insist it was a Mauser when it was clearly a Mannlicher Carcano?
Some people believe what they want to believe (despite the evidence that indicates otherwise). This phenomenon is not uncommon. There are a lot of people who believe there was a conspiracy (despite no credible evidence of one, after almost 60-years of trying to dream up some evidence).
”The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.” Aldous Huxley
-
So why would he insist it was a Mauser when it was clearly a Mannlicher Carcano?
Some people believe what they want to believe (despite the evidence that indicates otherwise). This phenomenon is not uncommon. There are a lot of people who believe there was a conspiracy (despite no credible evidence of one, after almost 60-years of trying to dream up some evidence).
”The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence.” Aldous Huxley
HSCA sealed the testimony of White House Photog Robert Knudsen and his seeing photo(s) of probes in the body of JFK running FRONT-TO-BACK. This was uncovered by the ARRB. That's Fact and Conspiracy after-the-fact. Stop with the BS:
-
I have notes that say Craig died of a suicide, with a rifle shot to the chest.
Anyway, Alyea is an interesting witness, as is Roger Craig, which I will get to in a bit. Let's see what Alyea says about the rifle and shells.
Tom Alyea (WFAA-TV) claimed that he was the first one to discover the three shells "in an area that could have been covered by a bushel basket," and filmed them without being able to use his eyepiece due to the height of the box barricade. He then asked Capt. Fritz, standing beside him, to go behind the barricade and film. Instead, Capt. Fritz went inside the barricade, picked them up, and held them for Alyea to film. Fritz most likely pocketed the shells, which came in handy later.
"Over thirty minutes later, after the rifle was discovered and the crime lab arrived, Capt. Fritz reached into his pocket and handed the casings to Det. Studebaker to include in the photographs he would take of the sniper's nest crime scene. Studebaker never saw the original placement of the casings so he tossed them on the floor and photographed them."
Alyea further stated that all subsequent pictures of the shells and box positions were mock-ups. His testimony contradicts every officer on the scene in fact.
To wit:
- Fritz handled the hulls before the official photographer arrived (backed up by Mooney), Alyea found the shells, and Lt. Day lifted prints from Oswald’s rifle (confirmed by Day).
Fritz pocketed the live round he ejected (not Day and Sims), and his testimony about the chicken bones is astounding. - Alyea said that the chicken was not there and that the initial report was from WFAA-TV, and it was in error.
- As for the rifle find, Alyea says that the sixth floor sniper’s nest and shells had been found, but nothing else there. So they all took an elevator on Fritz’s orders to the 7th floor and the roof.
- Upon returning to the 6th, Alyea says that is when Dep. Boone found the rifle.
- He says Dep. Mooney came to the floor after the discovery of the rifle.
For the photos of the shells, Alyea said: "Neither Lt. Day nor Det. Studebaker had seen the original placement, so they procured my film from the TV station to get it right. The high angle shot (shots) were made to show the original placement. Their reconstruction was close, but not exact. However, they did not bring the casings with them so they did not make the correction of the original placement of the shell casings."
Alyea’s first reel of footage of the scene containing the search and the discovery of the shells, was passed out of the front door of the TSBD to another reporter. A second reel was passed out a window to a waiting reporter, and it was developed and shown on WFAA-TV later that day. In the second reel, you can see a plainclothes detective wielding a "riot" shotgun or possibly a rifle, lots of people searching on top of boxes, the hidden Carcano rifle, and the moment Lt. Day extracts the rifle and shows it to Capt. Fritz.
Alyea claims that everyone waited 15 minutes for Lt. Day and Det. Studebaker to photograph and extract the weapon as of course the famous Alyea footage shows. He indicates that the discovery of the rifle was about an hour after the shells were found, and that they had just heard the news of the President’s death. Day immediately dusted the rifle and lifted some prints. Lt. Day went to the crime lab at City Hall, leaving Studebaker to take care of the photos of the shells and the dusting of the Dr Pepper bottle. (And subsequently, the paper sack.)
The Dr Pepper bottle and the chicken bones were brought up from the 5th floor. Alyea says that all of the reports of Lt. Day being on the 6th floor prior to the rifle discovery are lies (and collusion) to protect Capt. Fritz. He says that Day had to wait on the 1st floor until the 6th floor had been secured or the gunman found.
Alyea says that Lt. Day returned to the 6th floor after he had locked away the rifle to continue his evidence gathering. Alyea’s timeline covers the fact that flashlights were needed to conduct a thorough search of the poorly-lit book warehouse. He remembers Capt. Fritz being impatient, and that it was with the help of the flashlights that made discovery of the rifle possible a few minutes after they arrived in a place that had already been searched.
(See THE SNIPER'S NEST: INCARNATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS by Allan Eaglesham) https://manuscriptservice.com/SN/officialsn.htm
I am wondering how much of Alyea's yarn is believed? Like his film of the shells in Captain Fritz's hand and the original location of them, some of his testimony may end up on the cutting room floor.
One final thing. Rumor alert: I thought Alyea stated that the film of the extraction of the rifle was a re-enactment. I can't find the source of that right now.
-
It was just a first impression made by guys who never examined the rifle properly.
The Tom Alyea film captures the moment the rifle is lifted from its hiding place. It's a Mannlicher Carcano, that's not up for dispute.
The rumour about the Mauser spread like wildfire because everyone was being constantly pressed for any kind of information.
The thing that I don't get is that Craig describes what we see in the Tom Alyea film in great detail.
There can be no doubt he is talking about the moment Alyea captured on film.
So why would he insist it was a Mauser when it was clearly a Mannlicher Carcano?
It would be interesting to hear some non-Tinfoil speculation on this.
1. LN: The old dudes inspecting the rifle, as shown in the Alyea film, may have needed their reading glasses on, and made some wrong assessments. (Day & Fritz of course)
2. CT: The DPD was said to have "brought out rifles" from the homicide car "to assist them in securing the building." Quote from none other than Sheriff Bill Decker. But obviously no one has offered any way for this guarded rifle location to have been infiltrated by a rifle-switcher.
3. CT/Undecided: There are three witnesses of a Mauser 7.65 mm rifle. But ... they all seem to be relying on what appears to be questionable authority, with Craig being the outlier. Or, they are all untouched by the conspiracy/corruption of the DPD.
Mauser men:
1. Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman (Dallas County Constable Robie Love office)
2. Deputy Eugene L. Boone (DCS). He testified that good ole' Capt. Fritz said it looked like a 7.65 mm Mauser. See #1, above above. (Fritz and Day vehemently denied this.)
3. Dep. Roger Craig (DCS) – partner of Ralph Walters (some researcher may have asked him at some point?)
See also, WH10 - Howard Price testimony.
Also, I don't think foil has been made of tin for the better part of a century.
-
1. LN: The old dudes inspecting the rifle, as shown in the Alyea film, may have needed their reading glasses on, and made some wrong assessments. (Day & Fritz of course)
2. CT: The DPD was said to have "brought out rifles" from the homicide car "to assist them in securing the building." Quote from none other than Sheriff Bill Decker. But obviously no one has offered any way for this guarded rifle location to have been infiltrated by a rifle-switcher.
3. CT/Undecided: There are three witnesses of a Mauser 7.65 mm rifle. But ... they all seem to be relying on what appears to be questionable authority, with Craig being the outlier. Or, they are all untouched by the conspiracy/corruption of the DPD.
Mauser men:
1. Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman (Dallas County Constable Robie Love office)
2. Deputy Eugene L. Boone (DCS). He testified that good ole' Capt. Fritz said it looked like a 7.65 mm Mauser. See #1, above above. (Fritz and Day vehemently denied this.)
3. Dep. Roger Craig (DCS) – partner of Ralph Walters (some researcher may have asked him at some point?)
See also, WH10 - Howard Price testimony.
Also, I don't think foil has been made of tin for the better part of a century.
Do you agree that the Alyea film shows a Mannlicher Carcano?
-
I think that if the Alyea showed something else besides a M-C, it would be front-page news and the top story of the century. So yeah.
The Alyea film is a bit grainy. But the Lt. Day photos, with and without his knee, seem to show a rifle that matches CD-1, yes.
For those of you seeing this at a later point: there are two photos of the rifle in situ on the 6th floor, before it was picked up and famously broadcast by ABC. These are my GIFs of the two photos that were taken, with a comparison to the rifle as photographed by the FBI and published in Commission Document 1.
I believe that there is a match, although I understand that there is an issue with whether a scope is shown in the photo. If Robin is around, you have my permission to add these to the gallery if you like them. It's from a study I did several years ago.
"In-situ-sharpen-zoom" and "ToKneeOrNotToKnee" have been linked. The 2nd one is a huge file.
Also, Alyea commented about the "Mauser" controversy and said it was absurd. Said it was essentially made up by Weitzman.
(https://imgur.com/QzDrqRo) https://imgur.com/QzDrqRo (https://imgur.com/QzDrqRo)
(https://imgur.com/gTdVvtq) https://imgur.com/gTdVvtq (https://imgur.com/gTdVvtq)
-
I think that if the Alyea showed something else besides a M-C, it would be front-page news and the top story of the century. So yeah.
The Alyea film is a bit grainy. But the Lt. Day photos, with and without his knee, seem to show a rifle that matches CD-1, yes.
For those of you seeing this at a later point: there are two photos of the rifle in situ on the 6th floor, before it was picked up and famously broadcast by ABC. These are my GIFs of the two photos that were taken, with a comparison to the rifle as photographed by the FBI and published in Commission Document 1.
I believe that there is a match, although I understand that there is an issue with whether a scope is shown in the photo. If Robin is around, you have my permission to add these to the gallery if you like them. It's from a study I did several years ago.
"In-situ-sharpen-zoom" and "ToKneeOrNotToKnee" have been linked. The 2nd one is a huge file.
Also, Alyea commented about the "Mauser" controversy and said it was absurd. Said it was essentially made up by Weitzman.
(https://imgur.com/QzDrqRo) https://imgur.com/QzDrqRo (https://imgur.com/QzDrqRo)
(https://imgur.com/gTdVvtq) https://imgur.com/gTdVvtq (https://imgur.com/gTdVvtq)
The rifle Day pulls up from the boxes is no doubt a Mannlicher Carcano.
So, what do you make of Roger Craig's comment that he was stood inches from the rifle when it was given to Fritz and saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel?
[Excellent gifs by the way]
-
The rifle Day pulls up from the boxes is no doubt a Mannlicher Carcano.
So, what do you make of Roger Craig's comment that he was stood inches from the rifle when it was given to Fritz and saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel?
-Excellent gifs by the way
Craig was just a patsy!
Ok, just kidding. I have no idea what to make of it, so I just add it to the information that is problematic for the Kennedy case. I think some of his other testimony: the Nash Rambler and the comment reported by Craig that he met with Lee Harvey Oswald and heard him state that the Rambler belonged to Mrs. Paine. Also, his failure to see the rifle bag.
"The most striking inquiries, however, concern the statements in Gemberling's
report by three people whose information the Bureau apparently did not want to
believe: Roger Craig, Arnold Rowland and Albert Bogard (Craig claimed to see
Oswald entering a car at the TSBD shortly after the assassination, Rowland said
he saw a gunman at the southwest 6th floor window of the TSBD, and Bogard
claimed to have witnessed an auto test-drive by the non-driving Oswald.) The
Bureau asked, in effect, that Craig's "reliability" be impugned and that Bogard
be subjected to a lie detector test. To the credit of Dallas FBI, the 12/11
response indicates that in all three cases the men stuck by their stories and
Craig was given an honesty testimonial by Sheriff Decker."
(I found this in a follow-up concerning an article in The Third Decade, January 1985, "THE PAPER BAG: AN FBI BLUEPRINT FOR REVISED DOCUMENTS
by Edgar F. Tatro. There were later developments. I think this was in an April or later 1985 edition, but I am unsure when, because my copy doesn't say when the quoted text was written or by whom. It's in a PDF that says Gimberling Report: CD5 proved fake on the paper sack)
Craig does seem:
1) Somewhat reliable
2) Sure that his testimony was modified by the FBI
I'm not sure when he was first recorded as stating his theory on the Mauser, but in his book, it's blamed on the identification of Weitzman (who we take as a rifle expert) and Fritz, who agreed with Weitzman, that it was a 7.65 mm Mauser. By the time the Warren Omission interviewed Weitzman, he is "fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile" and that his observation of the rifle was "in a glance" versus the "close examination" characterization of the event by Craig. I don't know how Craig maintained the Mauser label after the other testimonies were adapted to make the Mauser identification an honest mistake due to haste ... except that due to all of the other problems that he experienced with his testimony and how the FBI altered it, Roger Craig got more and more cynical about whether we should trust anything the government did.
If I was to put words in Craig's mouth to defend him, I think he would say that if the FBI was in the habit of changing* testimony, why not the rifle, too? In his mind, two reliable witnesses a few feet from him had identified the rifle as being a 7.65 mm Mauser.
*I am loosely referring to Craig's unpublished book, When They Kill a President, 1971.
"Combine the foregoing with the run-in I had with Dave Belin, junior counsel for the Warren
Commission, who questioned me in April of 1964, and who changed my testimony fourteen
times when he sent it to Washington, and you will have some idea of the pressures brought to
bear."
-
Craig was just a patsy!
Ok, just kidding. I have no idea what to make of it, so I just add it to the information that is problematic for the Kennedy case. I think some of his other testimony: the Nash Rambler and the comment reported by Craig that he met with Lee Harvey Oswald and heard him state that the Rambler belonged to Mrs. Paine. Also, his failure to see the rifle bag.
"The most striking inquiries, however, concern the statements in Gemberling's
report by three people whose information the Bureau apparently did not want to
believe: Roger Craig, Arnold Rowland and Albert Bogard (Craig claimed to see
Oswald entering a car at the TSBD shortly after the assassination, Rowland said
he saw a gunman at the southwest 6th floor window of the TSBD, and Bogard
claimed to have witnessed an auto test-drive by the non-driving Oswald.) The
Bureau asked, in effect, that Craig's "reliability" be impugned and that Bogard
be subjected to a lie detector test. To the credit of Dallas FBI, the 12/11
response indicates that in all three cases the men stuck by their stories and
Craig was given an honesty testimonial by Sheriff Decker."
(I found this in a follow-up concerning an article in The Third Decade, January 1985, "THE PAPER BAG: AN FBI BLUEPRINT FOR REVISED DOCUMENTS
by Edgar F. Tatro. There were later developments. I think this was in an April or later 1985 edition, but I am unsure when, because my copy doesn't say when the quoted text was written or by whom. It's in a PDF that says Gimberling Report: CD5 proved fake on the paper sack)
Craig does seem:
1) Somewhat reliable
2) Sure that his testimony was modified by the FBI
I'm not sure when he was first recorded as stating his theory on the Mauser, but in his book, it's blamed on the identification of Weitzman (who we take as a rifle expert) and Fritz, who agreed with Weitzman, that it was a 7.65 mm Mauser. By the time the Warren Omission interviewed Weitzman, he is "fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile" and that his observation of the rifle was "in a glance" versus the "close examination" characterization of the event by Craig. I don't know how Craig maintained the Mauser label after the other testimonies were adapted to make the Mauser identification an honest mistake due to haste ... except that due to all of the other problems that he experienced with his testimony and how the FBI altered it, Roger Craig got more and more cynical about whether we should trust anything the government did.
If I was to put words in Craig's mouth to defend him, I think he would say that if the FBI was in the habit of changing* testimony, why not the rifle, too? In his mind, two reliable witnesses a few feet from him had identified the rifle as being a 7.65 mm Mauser.
*I am loosely referring to Craig's unpublished book, When They Kill a President, 1971.
"Combine the foregoing with the run-in I had with Dave Belin, junior counsel for the Warren
Commission, who questioned me in April of 1964, and who changed my testimony fourteen
times when he sent it to Washington, and you will have some idea of the pressures brought to
bear."
(https://i.postimg.cc/XJ2920RT/Craig-Report.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I find it interesting that in his report, made the day after the assassination, Craig outlines the Rambler story and identifying Oswald as the man he saw running down the incline.
It's the very next day after the assassination and Craig has to submit a report. I find it difficult to believe he would make this story up but his insistence, many years later, that he saw Mauser stamped on the rifle, really does undermine his credibility in general as far as I'm concerned.
But I do believe he saw someone who he believed to be Oswald running down the incline. This doesn't mean it was Oswald, just that Craig believed it was. I also suspect Craig felt there was something really crooked going on with the DPD and the investigation of the assassination and he wanted to show it up for the lie he believed it was.
-
It was just a first impression made by guys who never examined the rifle properly.
How is squinting at poor quality film footage "examining the rifle properly"?
-
Some people believe what they want to believe (despite the evidence that indicates otherwise). This phenomenon is not uncommon. There are a lot of people who believe there was a conspiracy (despite no credible evidence of one, after almost 60-years of trying to dream up some evidence).
And a lot of people believe that Oswald killed Kennedy, despite no credible evidence that he did.
-
How is squinting at poor quality film footage "examining the rifle properly"?
??
They were in the room with the rifle.
I am unaware that those who made the initial claim about a Mauser had examined the rifle properly.
-
??
They were in the room with the rifle.
I am unaware that those who made the initial claim about a Mauser had examined the rifle properly.
No, but those who are squinting at poor quality film footage are declaring things like "the rifle Day pulls up from the boxes is no doubt a Mannlicher Carcano".
-
No, but those who are squinting at poor quality film footage are declaring things like "the rifle Day pulls up from the boxes is no doubt a Mannlicher Carcano".
Not this bullsh%t again? ::)
Here's some close-ups of the rifle in the Alyea film courtesy of DVP.
Your bizarre implication, that there is not enough detail in the imagery to be certain whether it's an MC or not, is just that - bizarre.
Get squinting -
(https://i.postimg.cc/0Nw108TH/Carcano2.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Not this bullsh%t again.
How do these "closeups" tell you that this is "no doubt" a Mannlicher Carcano? I mean, beyond you think it looks like one?
I mean, Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser.
-
Not this bullsh%t again.
How do these "closeups" tell you that this is "no doubt" a Mannlicher Carcano? I mean, beyond you think it looks like one?
I mean, Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser.
You can tell that the Alyea rifle is a Carcano just by the magazine housing extending underneath the forestock. Carcanos are one of the few bolt action rifles where the magazine housing and trigger guard are integrated into a single visible unit. Carcanos are easily distinguished from other rifles with that same feature by the profile of the magazine housing. The Aylea film rifle has just that profile. In the film, you can also see the funky thumb-tab for the odd push-push safety that is unique to Salvatore Carcano designs. If you take the time to learn about vintage rifles, there's no question as to what it is.
-
Thanks. Just so we're clear though: "one of the few" means there are others, right? Like the Nagant, or Enfield, or M95, or 35M.
-
Thanks. Just so we're clear though: "one of the few" means there are others, right? Like the Nagant, or Enfield, or M95, or 35M.
Lee Enfields have a box magazine that's separate from the trigger guard. Nagants have vertical ridges that run up the side of the magazine housing, plus there's a noticeable step from the side of the magazine housing to the side of the trigger guard. Steyr-Mannlicher M95s have a pronounced rebated curve between the bottom of the magazine proper and the trigger guard. Der Gewehr 88 "commission rifle" is probably the closest (and probably not by accident), but has a different, more tapered profile, and there are very pronounced flanges that run along the bottom of the magazine housing.
-
Do not forget the 1891 Argentine Mauser which very closely resembles the 1891 Carcano. The Argentine Mauser is a 7.65 caliber vs the 6.5 caliber Carcano. The 6.5 vs 7.65 stampings is maybe what caught his eye.
-
Not this bullsh%t again.
How do these "closeups" tell you that this is "no doubt" a Mannlicher Carcano? I mean, beyond you think it looks like one?
I mean, Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser.
Note the deceptive shift in emphasis.
Originally the problem was the quality of the film - "those who are squinting at poor quality film footage".
So, I posted clear images from the Alyea film and all of a sudden the problem is with "closeups".
That constant slipping and sliding I know so well.
Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.
Why don't you actually demonstrate that the quality of the film isn't good enough to make such a comparison.
{I Love doing this to you because I know you will do f^ck all about it other than try a sneak out of it}
I mean, Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser.
How sneaky you are.
I shouldn't have to point out that Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser "in a glance" but we get to examine clear pictures, from various angles, of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor. We get to examine it for as long as we wish and in as much detail as we wish.
I know you know the difference but you just can't help yourself, can you?
Below is a picture of a 7.65 Mauser. It's the closest version to the Carcano I can find. If anyone can dig out a closer match please do.
The differences between the two rifles are too many to get into. They are clearly not the same rifle and any claims that the Alyea footage is not clear enough to make such a comparison are bogus.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Zq14RBcL/Carcano-Mauser.png) (https://postimages.org/)
You're a very slippery customer, John, but you forget how many times I've already dealt with you.
-
Do not forget the 1891 Argentine Mauser which very closely resembles the 1891 Carcano. The Argentine Mauser is a 7.65 caliber vs the 6.5 caliber Carcano. The 6.5 vs 7.65 stampings is maybe what caught his eye.
The Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor is the same Carcano rifle being shown to the press later that day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zrXwjjp/gougeinforestockalyeadayz.gif)
And HSCA expert eyewitness Cecil Kirk determined that the same rifle was photographed with Oswald at Neely street.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tyKC6p1/Photo-hsca-ex-206a.jpg)
JohnM
-
The Carcano rifle found on the 6th floor is the same Carcano rifle being shown to the press later that day.
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zrXwjjp/gougeinforestockalyeadayz.gif)
And HSCA expert eyewitness Cecil Kirk determined that the same rifle was photographed with Oswald at Neely street.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5tyKC6p1/Photo-hsca-ex-206a.jpg)
JohnM
Hi John, I hope that you are doing well my friend! Have you noticed that in the backyard photos of the rifle there appears to be a strap holder more underneath the rifle in the front rather than at the left side like it is supposed to be. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, I hope that you are doing well my friend! Have you noticed that in the backyard photos of the rifle there appears to be a strap holder more underneath the rifle in the front rather than at the left side like it is supposed to be. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Hi Michael, sometime in the eight months between the two events Oswald upgraded the strap, why is that a problem?
JohnM
-
Hi Michael, sometime in the eight months between the two events Oswald upgraded the strap, why is that a problem?
JohnM
Hi John, Wow, I was not sure it was different! Thank you for your input! The problem is we cannot know that Oswald upgraded it. That simply would solve the matching problem, but Oswald does not seem to be putting extra money in the rifle. He probably was not putting extra money into much of anything. As always this is my opinion. With Much Gratitude and Admiration, Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, I hope that you are doing well my friend! Have you noticed that in the backyard photos of the rifle there appears to be a strap holder more underneath the rifle in the front rather than at the left side like it is supposed to be. Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
The strap mount in this backyard photo is on the side. And as for the strap itself it's believed to be a strap from a United States Air Force holster. I'll do some research to make sure the backyard photo has this sling or something else.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZK5HYZzp/Oswald-rifle-side-mounts.png)
JohnM
-
The strap mount in this backyard photo is on the side. And as for the strap itself it's believed to be a strap from a United States Air Force holster. I'll do some research to make sure the backyard photo has this sling or something else.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZK5HYZzp/Oswald-rifle-side-mounts.png)
JohnM
Hi John, Very good! I think the mount underneath would have been a big deal! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
-
Hi John, Very good! I think the mount underneath would have been a big deal! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
No worries Michael, the same rifle that Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box was photographed with Oswald and was later found on the 6th floor of his workplace with his prints.
(https://i.postimg.cc/L5PTjLLr/i-p120.jpg)
JohnM
-
??
They were in the room with the rifle.
I am unaware that those who made the initial claim about a Mauser had examined the rifle properly.
whether one asserts the rifle was a carcano or mauser or that both types were found i feel that weitzmans testimony in relation to the rifle is contradictory . and i am not the only one who feels this .he starts by telling that he MERELY GLANCED at the rifle . this is the rifle that that has just killed the president , and he a man familiar with weapons and who i believe ran a sporting goods store has barely a passing interest in the rifle ? barely glancing at it ? . my own opinion for what it may be worth is NO . later in his testimony he described the rifle even down to the texture of the wood in a manner in which i say contradicts his original glance testimony . and we know for several days he maintained that it was a mauser . didnt this guy look at the news , listen to the radio , read a paper that tragic weekend ? .
the following is an excerpt from an online article .
"Seymour Weitzman testified before the WC on April 1, 1964. Far from clearing up doubts over the true identity of the rifle he found his testimony served only to raise suspicions:
Mr. Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Mr. Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
On the surface Weitzman's claim that he had only glanced at the rifle seems a fair enough explanation of how the misidentification occurred but later in his testimony he was able to describe that rifle in far greater detail than he could possibly have done if he had only seen it "at a glance".
Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. Ball: Mauser bolt action.
Mr. Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. Ball: You also said it was a gunmetal color?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes.
Mr. Ball: Gray or blue?
Mr. Weitzman: Blue metal.
Mr. Ball: And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?
Mr. Weitzman: That's right.
Mr. Ball: And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?
Mr. Weitzman: It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.
Mr. Ball: Rough wood, was it?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; rough wood.
Mr. Ball: And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. Weitzman: I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
This segment of testimony seriously compromises Seymour Weitzman. I have had the benefit of inspecting a Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 carbine fitted with the same model of Ordinance Optics scope as C2766. This scope bears the following information in highly readable white print against the black cylinder of the scope:
4 x 18 coated
Ordinance Optics Inc
Hollywood, California
010 Japan. OSC
I do not believe for one minute that Seymour Weitzman could have gleaned the information he did about the colour, texture and degree of wear and tear on specific components of C2766 "at a glance" or that he could remember these in such detail 5 months later. Nor do I believe that having been able to glean so much detail about the appearance and condition of C2766 he could have failed to read the information on the scope and confuse this Japanese instrument with a Weaver. "
the article has no name for the author that i can see , but according to the site was published online by bill mcdowal with permission of the author .
if he could see the wood was rough , that part of the bolt was worn in my mind he could see MADE IN ITALY stamped right on it quite near the bolt .and even a novice (which weitzman was not ) seeing made in italy stamped on a weapon could never mistake it for a mauser .
all that said as it stands i know of no proof that a mauser was found in the depository . but in this case it is extremely difficult to trust evidence . we have two different times given for a bullet (supposedly ce399) being handed to frazier . we have two witnesses to the bullet found at parkland wright and pool saying the bullet they saw was POINTED TIPPED . ce399 is anything but pointed . wright was ex DPD and both he and pool were familiar with weapons and ammo . how do we explain such things ? . could they both have made a mistake ? the same mistake ? . to be human is to err , humans make mistakes but not all the time . so its not impossible they both made the SAME mistake and thought the bullet was POINTED . but if they made no error then that can only mean the pointed bullet was disappeared and replaced with the bullet in evidence .can i prove that ? no but something smells . if they can make a pointed bullet disappear why not a mauser ? . and we must add in the information for what it may be worth that a 7.65 shell was found in or around dealey . placed in an evidence envelope . later in the archives that envelope was found but empty . it read 7.65 shell found in dealey plaza , destroyed .
-
Hi John, Very good! I think the mount underneath would have been a big deal! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rp5mv9xh/slingmystery-thumb-png-6e0e9e4f122da39516eed405f017b9ec.png)
Btw to me, the sling in the backyard photo looks like a piece of rope?
JohnM
-
And HSCA expert eyewitness Cecil Kirk determined that the same rifle was photographed with Oswald at Neely street.
BS:
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
That's not to the exclusion of all other rifles. That's not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shaneyfelt: "I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification."
-
whether one asserts the rifle was a carcano or mauser or that both types were found i feel that weitzmans testimony in relation to the rifle is contradictory . and i am not the only one who feels this .he starts by telling that he MERELY GLANCED at the rifle . this is the rifle that that has just killed the president , and he a man familiar with weapons and who i believe ran a sporting goods store has barely a passing interest in the rifle ? barely glancing at it ? . my own opinion for what it may be worth is NO . later in his testimony he described the rifle even down to the texture of the wood in a manner in which i say contradicts his original glance testimony . and we know for several days he maintained that it was a mauser . didnt this guy look at the news , listen to the radio , read a paper that tragic weekend ? .
the following is an excerpt from an online article .
"Seymour Weitzman testified before the WC on April 1, 1964. Far from clearing up doubts over the true identity of the rifle he found his testimony served only to raise suspicions:
Mr. Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Mr. Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
On the surface Weitzman's claim that he had only glanced at the rifle seems a fair enough explanation of how the misidentification occurred but later in his testimony he was able to describe that rifle in far greater detail than he could possibly have done if he had only seen it "at a glance".
Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. Ball: Mauser bolt action.
Mr. Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
Mr. Ball: You also said it was a gunmetal color?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes.
Mr. Ball: Gray or blue?
Mr. Weitzman: Blue metal.
Mr. Ball: And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?
Mr. Weitzman: That's right.
Mr. Ball: And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?
Mr. Weitzman: It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.
Mr. Ball: Rough wood, was it?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; rough wood.
Mr. Ball: And it was equipped with a scope?
Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball: Was it of Japanese manufacture?
Mr. Weitzman: I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.
This segment of testimony seriously compromises Seymour Weitzman. I have had the benefit of inspecting a Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 carbine fitted with the same model of Ordinance Optics scope as C2766. This scope bears the following information in highly readable white print against the black cylinder of the scope:
4 x 18 coated
Ordinance Optics Inc
Hollywood, California
010 Japan. OSC
I do not believe for one minute that Seymour Weitzman could have gleaned the information he did about the colour, texture and degree of wear and tear on specific components of C2766 "at a glance" or that he could remember these in such detail 5 months later. Nor do I believe that having been able to glean so much detail about the appearance and condition of C2766 he could have failed to read the information on the scope and confuse this Japanese instrument with a Weaver. "
the article has no name for the author that i can see , but according to the site was published online by bill mcdowal with permission of the author .
if he could see the wood was rough , that part of the bolt was worn in my mind he could see MADE IN ITALY stamped right on it quite near the bolt .and even a novice (which weitzman was not ) seeing made in italy stamped on a weapon could never mistake it for a mauser .
all that said as it stands i know of no proof that a mauser was found in the depository . but in this case it is extremely difficult to trust evidence . we have two different times given for a bullet (supposedly ce399) being handed to frazier . we have two witnesses to the bullet found at parkland wright and pool saying the bullet they saw was POINTED TIPPED . ce399 is anything but pointed . wright was ex DPD and both he and pool were familiar with weapons and ammo . how do we explain such things ? . could they both have made a mistake ? the same mistake ? . to be human is to err , humans make mistakes but not all the time . so its not impossible they both made the SAME mistake and thought the bullet was POINTED . but if they made no error then that can only mean the pointed bullet was disappeared and replaced with the bullet in evidence .can i prove that ? no but something smells . if they can make a pointed bullet disappear why not a mauser ? . and we must add in the information for what it may be worth that a 7.65 shell was found in or around dealey . placed in an evidence envelope . later in the archives that envelope was found but empty . it read 7.65 shell found in dealey plaza , destroyed .
It doesn't matter that a couple of people mistakenly referred to the rifle as a Mauser.
What matters is that the rifle was photographed in situ and was filmed before it was removed by Day.
The rifle that Alyea filmed being removed from the boxed enclosure is a Mannlicher Carcano. It is not a Mauser.
I'm completely baffled why some "researchers" prefer to give weight to this mis-identification rather than actual film footage of the rifle being removed from it's place of discovery.
What am I missing?
The rifle is filmed in situ, Day is filmed picking it up and inspecting it, Fritz is filmed holding it by the strap.
It's all filmed.
It's all on film.
Look:
Weitzman or Boone or both mis-identified the rifle.
So what?
What's the big deal?
-
Note the deceptive shift in emphasis.
Originally the problem was the quality of the film - "those who are squinting at poor quality film footage".
So, I posted clear images from the Alyea film and all of a sudden the problem is with "closeups".
There's no shift. It's still poor quality film footage despite your cries of "clarity".
Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.
Why not stop shifting the burden of proof?
I shouldn't have to point out that Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser "in a glance" but we get to examine clear pictures, from various angles, of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor.
Well, I got my answer. This is just a dressed up way of saying that that you think it looks like one.
Yeah, it was such a "glance" that Weitzman went on to describe it and the scope in detail.
"This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."
That's some "glance".
You're a very slippery customer, John, but you forget how many times I've already dealt with you.
And I've dealt with you enough to know that your subjective opinions are always "clear", "obvious", "proven", "no doubt".
-
In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting. Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45.
Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15. Craig responded with "Oh? Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory)
The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.
Then, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff. In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.
Does anyone really believe that Craig heard of the shooting over in Oak Cliff, looked down at his watch and noted that the time was 1:06.... And then less than five years later, he is being interviewed and easily accepts the correction that the time of the shooting occurred at 1:15, only to then tell the story a few years later (early '70s) that his watch said it was 1:06 when he heard of the shooting?
In the 1968 interview with the LA Free Press, it is painfully obvious that Craig had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred. So then why would he say the shooting happened at 1:06 when he was writing his "manuscript" in the early '70s? Answer? Because he was trying to sell the manuscript.
-
Note the deceptive shift in emphasis.
Originally the problem was the quality of the film - "those who are squinting at poor quality film footage".
So, I posted clear images from the Alyea film and all of a sudden the problem is with "closeups".
That constant slipping and sliding I know so well.
Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.
Why don't you actually demonstrate that the quality of the film isn't good enough to make such a comparison.
{I Love doing this to you because I know you will do f^ck all about it other than try a sneak out of it}
I mean, Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser.
How sneaky you are.
I shouldn't have to point out that Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser "in a glance" but we get to examine clear pictures, from various angles, of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor. We get to examine it for as long as we wish and in as much detail as we wish.
I know you know the difference but you just can't help yourself, can you?
Below is a picture of a 7.65 Mauser. It's the closest version to the Carcano I can find. If anyone can dig out a closer match please do.
The differences between the two rifles are too many to get into. They are clearly not the same rifle and any claims that the Alyea footage is not clear enough to make such a comparison are bogus.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Zq14RBcL/Carcano-Mauser.png) (https://postimages.org/)
You're a very slippery customer, John, but you forget how many times I've already dealt with you.
Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.
Why don't you actually demonstrate that the quality of the film isn't good enough to make such a comparison.
(https://i.imgur.com/IkJr1ZGs.jpg)
-
There's no shift. It's still poor quality film footage despite your cries of "clarity".
Why not stop shifting the burden of proof?
Well, I got my answer. This is just a dressed up way of saying that that you think it looks like one.
Yeah, it was such a "glance" that Weitzman went on to describe it and the scope in detail.
"This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."
That's some "glance".
And I've dealt with you enough to know that your subjective opinions are always "clear", "obvious", "proven", "no doubt".
Lies, misrepresentation and deceit.
I won't bother alerting the media.
There's no shift. - This is a falsehood. An untruth. How typical of you.
Why not stop shifting the burden of proof? - ?? What "burden of proof" am I shifting? The quality of the closeups are more than enough to make a comparison between various rifles. I did exactly that in the part of the post you 'forgot' to reproduce. I am adamant the quality of the images I posted are more than enough to establish the make of the rifle [and what rifle it is not]. It is you who seems to believe it can't be done but rather than demonstrate your point you hide behind snide comments. It's really cowardly.
This is just a dressed up way of saying that that you think it looks like one. - D'uuuh. It looks exactly like a Mannlicher Carcano for a reason.
That's some "glance". - Wow! He managed to see it was a rifle with a scope and it had a sling! All in one glance!! Who is this guy? Rain Man? How could he pick up so much information with a single glance?
Okay, so he got the make and model of the rifle wrong but come on. It's like something out of the Matrix how he could just look at something, for hardly any amount of time, and almost correctly describe what he saw.
A truly staggering achievement.
It really is one for books.
I'm almost as impressed as you are by this guy's uncanny ability to look at something and just, like, y'know - see it ???
It is a fact that the images of rifle I posted in this thread are good enough to establish, for a fact, that the rifle seen in the Alyea footage is not a Mauser of any description. Thumb1:
-
It is a fact that the images of rifle I posted in this thread are good enough to establish, for a fact, that the rifle seen in the Alyea footage is not a Mauser of any description. Thumb1:
It's a fact, because you say it's a fact.
QED
::)
By the way, I'm not the one here making snide remarks. You seem to think that sarcasm somehow turns opinion into fact.
-
It's a fact, because you say it's a fact.
I'm just pointing out that it is a fact.
Just because you don't think it is a fact means nothing.
Literally, nothing.
By the way, I'm not the one here making snide remarks. You seem to think that sarcasm somehow turns opinion into fact.
:D :D
I like the way you start off by saying it's not you making snide remarks and then you make a snide remark!!
You really are priceless.
The rifle removed from the boxed enclosure as filmed by Tom Alyea is a Mannlicher Carcano - fact.
It is not a Mauser - fact.
There's nothing you can do about it - fact.
-
I'm just pointing out that it is a fact.
Just because you don't think it is a fact means nothing.
Literally, nothing.
Priceless, indeed.
Just because you do think it is a fact means nothing.
-
BS:
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
That's not to the exclusion of all other rifles. That's not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shaneyfelt: "I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification."
Sorry Johnny boy but as usual your limited.ability to understand plain English is on display.
"yes, indeed it is the same rifle." By definition is to the exclusion of ALL other rifles.
You Lose!
JohnM
-
BS:
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
That's not to the exclusion of all other rifles. That's not even beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shaneyfelt: "I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification."
Let's look at this in a bit more detail.
Kirk and Shaneyfelt are talking about a flaw on the upper edge of the stock just above the top of the finger groove. It's somewhere between 3/4" and 1" in length. The perimeter of the stock is a bit over 75".
From my own experience with a few dozen Carcanos, at least 10% have such a flaw and as many as 1/3 of them do. The probability of another rifle having a flaw like that is given by the size of the flaw divided by the perimeter of the rifle times the prevalence of Carcanos with such a flaw. Using the figures already given, we can calculate and upper and lower limit on the probability of any other rifle randomly have a matching defect,
The lower limit is given by 1" / 75" * 0.33 = 0.44%
The upper limit is given by 0.75"/75" * 0.10 = 0.1%
By this, there's better than a 99.5% --and maybe a 99.9%-- chance that the rifle in the BYPs is C2766/CE139. These are back-of-the-envelope calculations, but still it gives an idea as the relative uniqueness of the rifle in the photo.
-
Yeah, it was such a "glance" that Weitzman went on to describe it and the scope in detail.
"This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."
That's some "glance".
I've noted before, and maybe you forgot, the scope has the following text engraved into it in nice, big, friendly white letters:
4 x 18 COATED
ORDANANCE OPTICS INC
HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA
010 JAPAN
I doubt it's hard for someone to recognize "4 x 18" "at a glance."
Oh, I figure that he got more than a merest glance, but I also figure that he wasn't the expert on firearms that certain later writers claimed that he was. More likely, he knew just enough to get himself into a small bit of trouble. Among the gun cognoscenti such folks are referred to by many appellations. Like "gun store expert." Or, more succinctly, "Fudd".
-
Sorry Johnny boy but as usual your limited.ability to understand plain English is on display.
"yes, indeed it is the same rifle." By definition is to the exclusion of ALL other rifles.
You Lose!
You can pretend he didn't say "tilt the scales", but you can't make it go away.
-
Kirk and Shaneyfelt are talking about a flaw on the upper edge of the stock just above the top of the finger groove. It's somewhere between 3/4" and 1" in length. The perimeter of the stock is a bit over 75".
From my own experience with a few dozen Carcanos, at least 10% have such a flaw and as many as 1/3 of them do. The probability of another rifle having a flaw like that is given by the size of the flaw divided by the perimeter of the rifle times the prevalence of Carcanos with such a flaw. Using the figures already given, we can calculate and upper and lower limit on the probability of any other rifle randomly have a matching defect,
I don't know...maybe Shaneyfelt was wise enough not to base his professional judgment on personal anecdotes.
-
i know there is film , ive seen film and stills . i also know that what a lot of people think is actual footage or actual stills are in fact recreations at different points in the hours or even days after the event .
my point here was that weitzman obviously had more than a glance at that rifle . we know he still said it was a mauser i believe from memory up to about november 24 . this despite the tv news , radio and print media and the DPD now saying its a mauser . it is unfathomable to me that he saw , read or heard no news about the rifle that weekend or that one of his superiors or fellow detectives did not take him aside and tell he HE WAS WRONG , ITS A CARCANO . does any of this prove anything ? no , but it should make people think .
-
i know there is film , ive seen film and stills . i also know that what a lot of people think is actual footage or actual stills are in fact recreations at different points in the hours or even days after the event .
my point here was that weitzman obviously had more than a glance at that rifle . we know he still said it was a mauser i believe from memory up to about november 24 . this despite the tv news , radio and print media and the DPD now saying its a mauser . it is unfathomable to me that he saw , read or heard no news about the rifle that weekend or that one of his superiors or fellow detectives did not take him aside and tell he HE WAS WRONG , ITS A CARCANO . does any of this prove anything ? no , but it should make people think .
i also know that what a lot of people think is actual footage or actual stills are in fact recreations at different points in the hours or even days after the event .
Are you talking about the Alyea film being faked?
Some of the DPD crime scene shots were recreations due to the profoundly incompetent nature of the investigation but I've never heard that the footage taken by Alyea was faked.
Obviously there are stills taken by the DPD as part of the investigation and then there is the Alyea footage. They are completely different things.
-
i know there is film , ive seen film and stills . i also know that what a lot of people think is actual footage or actual stills are in fact recreations at different points in the hours or even days after the event .
my point here was that weitzman obviously had more than a glance at that rifle . we know he still said it was a mauser i believe from memory up to about november 24 . this despite the tv news , radio and print media and the DPD now saying its a mauser . it is unfathomable to me that he saw , read or heard no news about the rifle that weekend or that one of his superiors or fellow detectives did not take him aside and tell he HE WAS WRONG , ITS A CARCANO . does any of this prove anything ? no , but it should make people think .
1.) The Alyea film was aired on WFAA at roughly 3 PM on November 22. It's pretty far fetched to think that they could have re-shot the rifle discovery and got it on air so quickly.
2.) Who said Weitzman was an expert in identifying weapons? He never claimed to be one. He also was a deputy Constable, not a detective. The primary role of the Constables office is to serve court documents and assume the role of bailiff forth the Justice of the Peace.
-
1.) The Alyea film was aired on WFAA at roughly 3 PM on November 22. It's pretty far fetched to think that they could have re-shot the rifle discovery and got it on air so quickly.
2.) Who said Weitzman was an expert in identifying weapons? He never claimed to be one. He also was a deputy Constable, not a detective. The primary role of the Constables office is to serve court documents and assume the role of bailiff forth the Justice of the Peace.
1.) The Alyea film was aired on WFAA at roughly 3 PM on November 22. It's pretty far fetched to think that they could have re-shot the rifle discovery and got it on air so quickly.
I just don't get why people are still talking about a Mauser.
Everyone knows about the Alyea footage and that it shows a Mannlicher Carcano not a Mauser.
It's a simple mistake. I just don't get how it can still be an issue.
It is one of the few aspects of this case for which we have actual footage regarding a piece of key evidence but it doesn't seem to be enough.
-
The only way to vindicate Craig seeing a Mauser stamp at 1:06 pm would be to construct a very complicated coordinated “switch” plot.
It might be possible using the Deconstuctivist methodology , but it may cause stomach upset and some disorientation before you exit the building :)
-
i never used the word fake nor did i even infer fake , i clearly said RECREATION . that was quite a leap .
-
"2.) Who said Weitzman was an expert in identifying weapons? He never claimed to be one. He also was a deputy Constable, not a detective. The primary role of the Constables office is to serve court documents and assume the role of bailiff forth the Justice of the Peace. " mitch todd
sigh another one leaping and putting words in my mouth . to my knowledge i never used the word EXPERT to describe weitzman . i think i was pretty clear in what i did say .
-
i never used the word fake nor did i even infer fake , i clearly said RECREATION . that was quite a leap .
You were being asked a question, that's all. There was no leap, just a request for clarification which I hoped could happen without any hysterics.
Just so I understand this correctly, you are insinuating that the Alyea footage involving the discovery of the rifle was staged?
Where are you getting this silly idea from?
Is it something you've heard about or is it a product of your own imagination?
Do you have any evidence that could support this insinuation?
Is it just a load of bollocks?
-
"2.) Who said Weitzman was an expert in identifying weapons? He never claimed to be one. He also was a deputy Constable, not a detective. The primary role of the Constables office is to serve court documents and assume the role of bailiff forth the Justice of the Peace. " mitch todd
sigh another one leaping and putting words in my mouth . to my knowledge i never used the word EXPERT to describe weitzman . i think i was pretty clear in what i did say .
I didn't say you said that. My point was, and is, Weitzman wasn't any sort of firearms expert, and never claimed to be one. So there's no reason to hang on what he said about the rifle that day.
-
I didn't say you said that. My point was, and is, Weitzman wasn't any sort of firearms expert, and never claimed to be one. So there's no reason to hang on what he said about the rifle that day.
well with the greatest respect mitch if you had been there at the time , and had looked at the rifle and saw made in italy on it i would be only too happy to accept your word for it . but therein lay the problem , neither you nor i were there , mr weitzman was right there , so like them or not we are stuck with those who were there at the various scenes that tragic day . he was not an expert , perhaps considered something of an expert by his colleagues , based on having ran a sporting goods store . does that make him an expert in fact ? no of course not . one does not have to be EXPERT . it would help for sure . i mean im no EXPERT when it comes to the jfk assassination , there are many who know far far more than me , but that does not mean i am a novice . i have been looking at this case a great many years and i know a lot about this case . but YES i am not an expert . would i have to be considered an weapons expert in order to be able to read the words made in italy and mauser and determine that mauser is german , also argentinian of course , but traditionally german ? .very simply it does not take a weapons expert to understand that mauser and MADE IN ITALY dont match . i am just trying to make a point that one does not necessarily have to be an expert in a particular field . as an example i have been told that neurosurgeons , doctors , nurses at parkland were not pathologists and thus could not / did not determine cause of death . now i never claimed they did determine cause of death / perform an autopsy . but given their respective medical training and medical fields with which they were qualified it is then not unreasonable to state that they should be able to determine if they are looking at the front or rear or side of a human head . indeed even you or i could make such a determination .
-
You were being asked a question, that's all. There was no leap, just a request for clarification which I hoped could happen without any hysterics.
Just so I understand this correctly, you are insinuating that the Alyea footage involving the discovery of the rifle was staged?
Where are you getting this silly idea from?
Is it something you've heard about or is it a product of your own imagination?
Do you have any evidence that could support this insinuation?
Is it just a load of bollocks?
there was no hysterics what so ever on my part . i neither insinuated nor even mentioned fakery of any kind . and with the greatest of respect here do you know everything about this case ? i mean it was you who asked me for a cite i believe regarding statements made on film by brehm on another thread was it not ? , because you were unaware of these statements , correct me if i am wrong . i and another poster (i believe mr organ but i apologize if i am mistaken ) pointed out that he (brehm) made the statements in question in an interview on film with mark lane . my point simply is that neither you nor i know everything about this case , we can both educate some people and also learn a lot from others . and we can do so im certain without any need for insult or profanity , or via putting words in each others mouths .
-
well with the greatest respect mitch if you had been there at the time , and had looked at the rifle and saw made in italy on it i would be only too happy to accept your word for it . but therein lay the problem , neither you nor i were there , mr weitzman was right there , so like them or not we are stuck with those who were there at the various scenes that tragic day . he was not an expert , perhaps considered something of an expert by his colleagues , based on having ran a sporting goods store . does that make him an expert in fact ? no of course not . one does not have to be EXPERT . it would help for sure . i mean im no EXPERT when it comes to the jfk assassination , there are many who know far far more than me , but that does not mean i am a novice . i have been looking at this case a great many years and i know a lot about this case . but YES i am not an expert . would i have to be considered an weapons expert in order to be able to read the words made in italy and mauser and determine that mauser is german , also argentinian of course , but traditionally german ? .very simply it does not take a weapons expert to understand that mauser and MADE IN ITALY dont match . i am just trying to make a point that one does not necessarily have to be an expert in a particular field . as an example i have been told that neurosurgeons , doctors , nurses at parkland were not pathologists and thus could not / did not determine cause of death . now i never claimed they did determine cause of death / perform an autopsy . but given their respective medical training and medical fields with which they were qualified it is then not unreasonable to state that they should be able to determine if they are looking at the front or rear or side of a human head . indeed even you or i could make such a determination .
Where do I start with this mess?
OK
Weitzman never quite claimed to "run a sporting goods store. He did say that he "was in the sporting goods business awhile." This was during his tenure at a "discount operation" chain of half a dozen stores named the "Lamont Corp." I've never been able to find out exactly whether the Lamont was specifically a sporting goods outfit, or a department store that sold sporting goods among other things. In either case, Weitzman's tenure was short. Less than a year, and Weitzman concluded his general managership when he "closed up all the stores, [and] retired from the discount operation." When you add up what Weitzman said about his own experience, there is very little reason to see him as the sort of guy who could immediately identify some random rifle at first sight.
It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them. At least he got the text on the scope, but those words are white on a back background, and easy to read.
-
there was no hysterics what so ever on my part . i neither insinuated nor even mentioned fakery of any kind . and with the greatest of respect here do you know everything about this case ? i mean it was you who asked me for a cite i believe regarding statements made on film by brehm on another thread was it not ? , because you were unaware of these statements , correct me if i am wrong . i and another poster (i believe mr organ but i apologize if i am mistaken ) pointed out that he (brehm) made the statements in question in an interview on film with mark lane . my point simply is that neither you nor i know everything about this case , we can both educate some people and also learn a lot from others . and we can do so im certain without any need for insult or profanity , or via putting words in each others mouths .
i neither insinuated nor even mentioned fakery of any kind
When you posted the following, what "actual footage " were you referring to?
"i also know that what a lot of people think is actual footage or actual stills are in fact recreations..."
correct me if i am wrong
You're wrong and you're being corrected.
I asked you to cite the Brehm quote and it was me who asked whether you were referring to the Lane interview, not you or anyone else.
You attributed these words to Brehm:
"...a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD"
The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected.
Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind.
-
Did the witnesses who initially referred to the rifle as a Mauser continue to stand by that claim or did they acknowledge that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor was the rifle discovered and they were mistaken? I know Boone said over and over that he was mistaken to refer to the rifle as a Mauser and that the MC rifle was the rifle found. And think of the absurdity of the narrative behind this scenario. Oswald is linked to a specific rifle via real or faked evidence by the conspirators for the purpose of framing him for the crime. This rifle is linked to the crime by, for example, the shell casings left at the scene. But the conspirators are going to use an entirely different rifle to commit the crime? Leave it at the scene where it will be discovered and taken by the police, Likely photographed and filmed. They must then somehow switch the rifle in evidence for the one linked to Oswald including recovery of the bullets and shells to match Oswald's rifle. They do all of this instead of just linking Oswald to the Mauser in the first place or using the MC to commit the assassination. It's laughable.
-
Did the witnesses who initially referred to the rifle as a Mauser continue to stand by that claim or did they acknowledge that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor was the rifle discovered and they were mistaken? I know Boone said over and over that he was mistaken to refer to the rifle as a Mauser and that the MC rifle was the rifle found. And think of the absurdity of the narrative behind this scenario. Oswald is linked to a specific rifle via real or faked evidence by the conspirators for the purpose of framing him for the crime. This rifle is linked to the crime by, for example, the shell casings left at the scene. But the conspirators are going to use an entirely different rifle to commit the crime? Leave it at the scene where it will be discovered and taken by the police, Likely photographed and filmed. They must then somehow switch the rifle in evidence for the one linked to Oswald including recovery of the bullets and shells to match Oswald's rifle. They do all of this instead of just linking Oswald to the Mauser in the first place or using the MC to commit the assassination. It's laughable.
On top of this there are about a dozen officers milling about the area where the rifle was discovered and we are supposed to believe they all held their positions until Ayea shouted "Action".
8)
-
the brehm stuff is all on the brehm thread , i made my self crystal clear there . i accurately quoted brehm , what he said IS ON FILM . and another posted accurately quoted mark lane who DID NOT QUOTE BREHM VERBATIM , he lane added in his opinion as to what he felt what brehm saw meant . as i said the brehm comments are on the brehm thread , this is a different thread . and no you did not correct me re brehm , i quoted him accurately . you can feel free to correct me if i am wrong and i will be only too happy to correct my self after that . any opinion that i am wrong is not the same as proof that i am wrong . you are entitled to disagree with me , that is your right , and i wont attack or insult you for doing so .
but as you decided too drag another thread into this one , here is the relevant exchange
"As a ww2 veteran and a man / witness who lone nut advocates say was well experienced in terms of the sounds of gun fire (and i am sure that he was ) if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood . and then asked him if he could explain that via a shot or shots ONLY from the rear . " fergus obrien
at no point in the above did i quote brehm verbatim , had i done so i would have done so within quotes .
here is your reply
a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD
Hi Fergus, where/when did Brehm make this statement?
mr organ then replied and posted information and telling you the statement was made in lanes rush to judgement .
i had not seen mr organs above reply before i had posted mine , here it is
"you are seriously asking me this ? , he is on film stating this .for the record i have no problem helping a person IE if they genuinely dont know something and need directing to where they can see or find info .but if i could say one thing dan you are no novice , so i cant understand why you would not know about what brehm said on film ." fergus obrien
here is your reply
"Just checking whether this was the Lane interview where Brehm says "whatever it was", meaning he didn't actually know what it was.
So, was it the Lane interview you were referencing.
BTW, it is customary to cite your sources as a matter of practice, You shouldn't have to be asked at all."
yes brehm did mention during the interview WHAT EVER IT WAS , i will grant you that and i would not deny that . but then i posted the relevant segment of the lane / brehm interview verbatim , it is important to have context .here it is again .
LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .
that was my last post there on that thread , indeed it is the final post on that thread . so NO you did not correct me , i was not wrong , i never originally quoted brehm verbatim .
"The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected." dan
the above VERBATIM quote of the lane / brehm interview proves otherwise .
"LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING ."
"Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind." dan
i think you should concern yourself with what you post and the accuracy of that . and please dont clutter topics by talking about stuff that does not belong here . when i mentioned the other thread i did so only because you asked a question that would lead one (whether right or wrong ) to infer you did not know about what was said . and given your previous posts that i read i gave you the respect of believing you to be knowledgeable , so i was surprised to think you were unaware of this .
in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite .
-
the brehm stuff is all on the brehm thread , i made my self crystal clear there . i accurately quoted brehm , what he said IS ON FILM . and another posted accurately quoted mark lane who DID NOT QUOTE BREHM VERBATIM , he lane added in his opinion as to what he felt what brehm saw meant . as i said the brehm comments are on the brehm thread , this is a different thread . and no you did not correct me re brehm , i quoted him accurately . you can feel free to correct me if i am wrong and i will be only too happy to correct my self after that . any opinion that i am wrong is not the same as proof that i am wrong . you are entitled to disagree with me , that is your right , and i wont attack or insult you for doing so .
but as you decided too drag another thread into this one , here is the relevant exchange
"As a ww2 veteran and a man / witness who lone nut advocates say was well experienced in terms of the sounds of gun fire (and i am sure that he was ) if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood . and then asked him if he could explain that via a shot or shots ONLY from the rear . " fergus obrien
at no point in the above did i quote brehm verbatim , had i done so i would have done so within quotes .
here is your reply
a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD
Hi Fergus, where/when did Brehm make this statement?
mr organ then replied and posted information and telling you the statement was made in lanes rush to judgement .
i had not seen mr organs above reply before i had posted mine , here it is
"you are seriously asking me this ? , he is on film stating this .for the record i have no problem helping a person IE if they genuinely dont know something and need directing to where they can see or find info .but if i could say one thing dan you are no novice , so i cant understand why you would not know about what brehm said on film ." fergus obrien
here is your reply
"Just checking whether this was the Lane interview where Brehm says "whatever it was", meaning he didn't actually know what it was.
So, was it the Lane interview you were referencing.
BTW, it is customary to cite your sources as a matter of practice, You shouldn't have to be asked at all."
yes brehm did mention during the interview WHAT EVER IT WAS , i will grant you that and i would not deny that . but then i posted the relevant segment of the lane / brehm interview verbatim , it is important to have context .here it is again .
LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .
that was my last post there on that thread , indeed it is the final post on that thread . so NO you did not correct me , i was not wrong , i never originally quoted brehm verbatim .
"The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected." dan
the above VERBATIM quote of the lane / brehm interview proves otherwise .
"LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING ."
"Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind." dan
i think you should concern yourself with what you post and the accuracy of that . and please dont clutter topics by talking about stuff that does not belong here . when i mentioned the other thread i did so only because you asked a question that would lead one (whether right or wrong ) to infer you did not know about what was said . and given your previous posts that i read i gave you the respect of believing you to be knowledgeable , so i was surprised to think you were unaware of this .
in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite .
but as you decided too drag another thread into this one
It was YOU who dragged the other thread into this, not me.
What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?
And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:
"if i spoke to him [Brehm] i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"
YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement.
You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not.
So I asked you a civil question about where you were getting this quote from because it's not in any of Brehm's recorded testimony.
Instead of receiving a civil answer I got a rant beginning with - "you are seriously asking me this ?" - as if I have no right to even ask the question.
in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite
And I have replied with similar politeness.
When I ask a civil question I expect a civil answer.
You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".
-
"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan
LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .
"if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"fergus
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
once again i have to state what is patently obvious above that I NEVER QUOTED BREHM VERBATIM , but some time the patently obvious is not so obvious to some it would seem .
so what did i say in my post that dan says i should not have , that he disputes ? . lets review it .
"his undeniable statement " fergus
the above simply means that he spoke on film , logically one cant speak on film and be recorded and deny they did so .because the film is proof they did so .
"You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".dan
that he spoke on film is undeniable .
"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
"You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not." dan
i attributed HIS OWN WORDING to him nothing else .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
"What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?
And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:" dan
if there is any attempts to deceive here it has nothing to do with me . my original comment whether you happen to like that or not did not quote brehm .but it was not inaccurate as can be seen from HIS OWN WORDS .
in regards my comment about direction . here it is
"fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward" fergus
now lets see what brehm said on film .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .
lane even asked brehm for clarification and brehm clarified it by saying " UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE "
as far as i am concerned that is where this nonsense ends .now i wont reply any further in this thread in reply to dan on this matter . i will let the other people posting here carry on with the original topic this thread was intended to have . my apologies to the other posters here and to duncan , it was never any intention of mine to alter the thread , but one some times find they need to defend them selves against unfair or untrue comments . i hope the thread can now get back on topic .
-
"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan
LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .
"if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"fergus
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
once again i have to state what is patently obvious above that I NEVER QUOTED BREHM VERBATIM , but some time the patently obvious is not so obvious to some it would seem .
so what did i say in my post that dan says i should not have , that he disputes ? . lets review it .
"his undeniable statement " fergus
the above simply means that he spoke on film , logically one cant speak on film and be recorded and deny they did so .because the film is proof they did so .
"You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".dan
that he spoke on film is undeniable .
"YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement" dan
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
"You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not." dan
i attributed HIS OWN WORDING to him nothing else .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
"What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?
And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:" dan
if there is any attempts to deceive here it has nothing to do with me . my original comment whether you happen to like that or not did not quote brehm .but it was not inaccurate as can be seen from HIS OWN WORDS .
in regards my comment about direction . here it is
"fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward" fergus
now lets see what brehm said on film .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .
lane even asked brehm for clarification and brehm clarified it by saying " UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE "
as far as i am concerned that is where this nonsense ends .now i wont reply any further in this thread in reply to dan on this matter . i will let the other people posting here carry on with the original topic this thread was intended to have . my apologies to the other posters here and to duncan , it was never any intention of mine to alter the thread , but one some times find they need to defend them selves against unfair or untrue comments . i hope the thread can now get back on topic .
they need to defend them selves against unfair or untrue comments
The only person making untrue comments was you.
-
1.) The Alyea film was aired on WFAA at roughly 3 PM on November 22. It's pretty far fetched to think that they could have re-shot the rifle discovery and got it on air so quickly.
2.) Who said Weitzman was an expert in identifying weapons? He never claimed to be one. He also was a deputy Constable, not a detective. The primary role of the Constables office is to serve court documents and assume the role of bailiff forth the Justice of the Peace.
i just wanted to return to comments directed at me in this thread , where i said that there were photos at the least taken at different times that tragic friday and later . i said photos taken at later times and recreation photos , i said not one word about faking of any photo or film . it is truly quite extraordinary how a person such as my self can write PHOTOS TAKEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES THAT DAY and perhaps on different days there after and LN morph that into FAKED PHOTO AND FILM .let me show here what my original comment was speaking of . i will use an online article also to highlight what i was talking about . i should note of course it is not my article .
"Notice the far window in the two exhibits (above) and the Studebaker photo (right). Notice that it is completely black, showing absolutely no detail. Compare that with the other window, which clearly shows a daylight scene showing the crowd and traffic in front of the County Records Building.
Keep in mind that these photos were allegedly taken at approximately 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination. How can you have possibly have a daylight scene in one window, while the other window shows darkness consistent with midnight rather than mid-day??? We should be able to see the north face of the light colored County Records Building through that window. I believe these photos were taken at a later time, and that they were altered to hide the fact they were taken during the night. The daylight scene we see through the near window was added to the photos to make it appear that they were taken in the afternoon.
The photo on the left shows the same area taken from the opposite direction. Notice the corner of the near window (white rectangle). It shows the same absolute blackness as the other photos. I include this to dispel any notion that the extreme darkness seen through the window was caused by a shadow on the north face of the Records building. The photo on the right was taken by a newsman on the afternoon of the assassination, and shows just how much sunlight filtered through those windows. "
now here are the photos in question
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/natural3hulls.jpg) (http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/studebaker.jpg)
There are more indications that Dallas Police Department's sniper's nest photos were not taken the afternoon of the assassination. Notice the object on the window ledge in the photo top right (see circle). This appears in several of the photos taken by newsmen that afternoon after Day & Studebaker took their evidence photos. Closer examination of these photos reveal that the item is a hammer.
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/hammer.jpg)
Lieutenant Day told the Warren Commission that they took several reconstruction photos on Monday, November 25th. Among the photos, were Commission Exhibits 733 and 734:
Although Day told the Commission that one photograph was taken Monday morning (CE 727). But these two photos were obviously not taken in the morning, for once again we see the black of night through the window. Here's another photo taken at that session:
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/733734.jpg) (http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/recon.jpg)
NOTE THE DARKNESS OUTSIDE THE WINDOW ? , NOTE THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BOXES AT THE WINDOW ? . so i said photos were taken at different times and days , i used the wording reconstruction photos . i was completely correct in saying this . AT NO POINT DID I EVER SAY PHOTOS AND FILM WERE FAKE .my thanks to the original author for the above segments of the article and the photos provided .
-
Where do I start with this mess?
OK
Weitzman never quite claimed to "run a sporting goods store. He did say that he "was in the sporting goods business awhile." This was during his tenure at a "discount operation" chain of half a dozen stores named the "Lamont Corp." I've never been able to find out exactly whether the Lamont was specifically a sporting goods outfit, or a department store that sold sporting goods among other things. In either case, Weitzman's tenure was short. Less than a year, and Weitzman concluded his general managership when he "closed up all the stores, [and] retired from the discount operation." When you add up what Weitzman said about his own experience, there is very little reason to see him as the sort of guy who could immediately identify some random rifle at first sight.
It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them. At least he got the text on the scope, but those words are white on a back background, and easy to read.
"It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them."
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/CE541com.jpg)
i appreciate the above photo is enlarged (my thanks again to the original author / content provider , i will provide a link ) but even so even with some glare from a light source the MADE ITALY is readable .
here is a link to the original content that the photo came from
http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html
-
"It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them."
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/CE541com.jpg)
i appreciate the above photo is enlarged (my thanks again to the original author / content provider , i will provide a link ) but even so even with some glare from a light source the MADE ITALY is readable .
here is a link to the original content that the photo came from
http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html
You seem to have a problem with basic logic. What is wrong with you ????
-
you seem to have a problem in pointing out exactly what it is that you are taking issue with , and doing so in a polite and courteous manner . so what exactly is it that you are complaining about here ? . in this thread i have been asked if i was claiming photographic or indeed film fakery , i never claimed anything of the kind . i was accused in essence of inventing statements that brehm made , i backed up what i posted by posting brehms ACTUAL words RECORDED ON FILM . in this filmed interview he clearly not only stated he saw the affects of the head shot and saw particles fly , but that he saw one fly rearward and leftward and land in the area of the curb where he stood . STILL the previous poster tried to assert that i made this all up that brehm never said it . when he is on film saying it . but i see no comment from you directed at that poster questioning THEIR logic . and lastly i decided to address the comments directed at me in terms of the photos of the snipers nest and clarify what i originally stated . all very simple stuff .
also some threads have interesting topics , contain some good information and i believe it is a good thing to revive these threads every now and then .
-
It was just a first impression made by guys who never examined the rifle properly.
The Tom Alyea film captures the moment the rifle is lifted from its hiding place. It's a Mannlicher Carcano, that's not up for dispute.
The rumour about the Mauser spread like wildfire because everyone was being constantly pressed for any kind of information.
The thing that I don't get is that Craig describes what we see in the Tom Alyea film in great detail.
There can be no doubt he is talking about the moment Alyea captured on film.
So why would he insist it was a Mauser when it was clearly a Mannlicher Carcano?
It would be interesting to hear some non-Tinfoil speculation on this.
Both Roger Craig's story and the Alyea footage have been around a very long, long, time. Once again, the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community FAILED to definitely resolve the Craig mauser issue by simply asking Roger Craig. I am also intrigued by the Roger Craig timeline when he is seen inside the train yard on the Darnell Film. His Clay Shaw testimony is far more detailed than the WC Sleep Walking Job they did. Did you know that in his Clay Shaw Testimony he detailed climbing the picket fence in order to enter the parking lot? And this was BEFORE he got to the train yard as filmed by Darnell. Craig had to of been 1 of the very 1st Law Enforcement officers to enter that parking lot behind the picket fence. What did he see, who did he see, did he smell gun smoke, etc ? According to Craig, he encountered a woman attempting to drive a car out of that parking lot. Craig's encounter with this woman had to of been only minutes after the Kill Shot. Again, the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community NOT pursuing this "encounter" while Craig was alive is another epic FAILURE inna long line of epic failures by this body of so called "researchers".
-
Don't forget that there was this interview with Craig (March 1968 - L.A. Free Press), where he says that they found a Mauser on the roof.
(https://i.ibb.co/z844m2K/Rifle-on-roof.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wJzzdQD)
FP: Did you handle that rifle?
RC: Yes, I did, I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.
FP: A Mauser of the roof? Who found it?
PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence. Captain Glen King, the Public Relations Officer for the Dallas Police Department, told a reporter that "The Mauser found on the roof of the Depository was a bit of momentary confusion." He stated that the rifle was dropped by a security officer.
Craig apparently later changed his mind (He was confused? He wanted more attention?) and said that a Mauser was found on the 6th floor. A totally unreliable witness.
-
Weitzman calling it a Mauser also didn't help matters:
(https://i.ibb.co/SsjF40h/Weitzmann.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NVvcdp8)
(https://i.ibb.co/HG1W31t/Weitzman.gif) (https://ibb.co/mh1Lg19)
-
Don't forget that there was this interview with Craig (March 1968 - L.A. Free Press), where he says that they found a Mauser on the roof.
(https://i.ibb.co/z844m2K/Rifle-on-roof.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wJzzdQD)
FP: Did you handle that rifle?
RC: Yes, I did, I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.
FP: A Mauser of the roof? Who found it?
PJ: I don't know who found it, but I do know that a police officer verified its existence. Captain Glen King, the Public Relations Officer for the Dallas Police Department, told a reporter that "The Mauser found on the roof of the Depository was a bit of momentary confusion." He stated that the rifle was dropped by a security officer.
Craig apparently later changed his mind (He was confused? He wanted more attention?) and said that a Mauser was found on the 6th floor. A totally unreliable witness.
" L.A. Free Press". Really? It was regarded as being "underground" and they embraced that reputation. Not a legit "News" source. On top of that, WHERE is the Byline? Total garbage, throw-away publication.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/2S7mXSn/demo2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
What is that on top of the rear metal housing? Look like a big rivet or nail head.
Identical model? (no rivet/nail head):
(https://i.ibb.co/dGPp9hR/Stock-zoom.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kQ4Dndt)
https://www.gunsinternational.com/guns-for-sale-online/rifles/military-rifles---non-us/carcano-91-38-short-rifle-6-5x52mm-mannlicher-carcano-sniper---identical-to-lee-harvey-oswald--39-s-jfk-assasination-rifle---sold.cfm?gun_id=101727707
-
Perhaps it's a piece of rust or it's a photographic anomaly? It's definitely not the head of a screw.
Not a screw because there is no recess for a screwdriver. It's a perfectly circular dome shape, like dome topped nail:
(https://i.ibb.co/hcRKDm1/Decorative-Nail-15-16-head.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RNpCzD4)
A home repair job to secure a loose rear bracket?
-
it was only what he had thought to be the case . he was wrong , and penn jones corrected him on that . it was a simple matter basically of him pretty much hearing a rifle had been found on the roof , but he never ever saw such a rifle nor did he claim he saw it . it an error based on something incorrect that he had heard , jones pointed that out , you can see that if you read the full interview .
-
The butt plate of C2766, as seen at the National Archives. Rust is visible, and what appears to be a minuscule crater, likely caused by corrosion.
It can't be a crater. The shadow reveals that it is/was a dome shape.
-
i just wanted to return to comments directed at me in this thread , where i said that there were photos at the least taken at different times that tragic friday and later . i said photos taken at later times and recreation photos , i said not one word about faking of any photo or film . it is truly quite extraordinary how a person such as my self can write PHOTOS TAKEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES THAT DAY and perhaps on different days there after and LN morph that into FAKED PHOTO AND FILM .let me show here what my original comment was speaking of . i will use an online article also to highlight what i was talking about . i should note of course it is not my article .
"Notice the far window in the two exhibits (above) and the Studebaker photo (right). Notice that it is completely black, showing absolutely no detail. Compare that with the other window, which clearly shows a daylight scene showing the crowd and traffic in front of the County Records Building.
Keep in mind that these photos were allegedly taken at approximately 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination. How can you have possibly have a daylight scene in one window, while the other window shows darkness consistent with midnight rather than mid-day??? We should be able to see the north face of the light colored County Records Building through that window. I believe these photos were taken at a later time, and that they were altered to hide the fact they were taken during the night. The daylight scene we see through the near window was added to the photos to make it appear that they were taken in the afternoon.
The photo on the left shows the same area taken from the opposite direction. Notice the corner of the near window (white rectangle). It shows the same absolute blackness as the other photos. I include this to dispel any notion that the extreme darkness seen through the window was caused by a shadow on the north face of the Records building. The photo on the right was taken by a newsman on the afternoon of the assassination, and shows just how much sunlight filtered through those windows. "
now here are the photos in question
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/natural3hulls.jpg) (http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/studebaker.jpg)
There are more indications that Dallas Police Department's sniper's nest photos were not taken the afternoon of the assassination. Notice the object on the window ledge in the photo top right (see circle). This appears in several of the photos taken by newsmen that afternoon after Day & Studebaker took their evidence photos. Closer examination of these photos reveal that the item is a hammer.
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/hammer.jpg)
Lieutenant Day told the Warren Commission that they took several reconstruction photos on Monday, November 25th. Among the photos, were Commission Exhibits 733 and 734:
Although Day told the Commission that one photograph was taken Monday morning (CE 727). But these two photos were obviously not taken in the morning, for once again we see the black of night through the window. Here's another photo taken at that session:
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/733734.jpg) (http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/recon.jpg)
NOTE THE DARKNESS OUTSIDE THE WINDOW ? , NOTE THE DIFFERENT POSITIONS OF THE BOXES AT THE WINDOW ? . so i said photos were taken at different times and days , i used the wording reconstruction photos . i was completely correct in saying this . AT NO POINT DID I EVER SAY PHOTOS AND FILM WERE FAKE .my thanks to the original author for the above segments of the article and the photos provided .
None of this addresses my point about the Alyea film. It was broadcast by WFAA midafternoon on the 22nd, and is shows a Carcano, no doubt about it.
As for the photos with apparent dark-window anomalies, this affect can be caused by bright flash and/or fill lighting during exposure. It can also be caused be contrast adjustment during development using magenta filters, which increase contrast in B&W film.
-
"It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them."
(http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/CE541com.jpg)
i appreciate the above photo is enlarged (my thanks again to the original author / content provider , i will provide a link ) but even so even with some glare from a light source the MADE ITALY is readable .
here is a link to the original content that the photo came from
http://www.freehomepage.com/jfkresearch/c2766.html
This is from CE 541. You can see the whole set here:
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_541.pdf (https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_541.pdf)
It's not uncommon to apply contrast enhancers to engraved metal to bring out detail. Talc, finely ground chalk, common white glue, and light colored tempera paint --among other agents-- are brushed into the depressions left by the engravings, then any covering the rest of the service is wiped off. This makes it much easier to read, interpret and photograph the engravings. In FE 541, the use of a white contrast agent is most clearly seen on the "TNI" proofmark at the bottom of page 239. What you think is easy-to-read text is the result of a bit of clever artifice, intended to make markings easier to read in a photograph.
-
Both Roger Craig's story and the Alyea footage have been around a very long, long, time. Once again, the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community FAILED to definitely resolve the Craig mauser issue by simply asking Roger Craig. I am also intrigued by the Roger Craig timeline when he is seen inside the train yard on the Darnell Film. His Clay Shaw testimony is far more detailed than the WC Sleep Walking Job they did. Did you know that in his Clay Shaw Testimony he detailed climbing the picket fence in order to enter the parking lot? And this was BEFORE he got to the train yard as filmed by Darnell. Craig had to of been 1 of the very 1st Law Enforcement officers to enter that parking lot behind the picket fence. What did he see, who did he see, did he smell gun smoke, etc ? According to Craig, he encountered a woman attempting to drive a car out of that parking lot. Craig's encounter with this woman had to of been only minutes after the Kill Shot. Again, the Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community NOT pursuing this "encounter" while Craig was alive is another epic FAILURE inna long line of epic failures by this body of so called "researchers".
Craig was asked in '68 by Warren Hinkle in the LA Free Press, though you simply refuse to believe it. He was also asked in the Shaw trial.
-
Craig was asked in '68 by Warren Hinkle in the LA Free Press, though you simply refuse to believe it. He was also asked in the Shaw trial.
For starters, I specifically referenced the JFK Assassination Old Guard Researcher Community. The Clay Shaw trial is not that body. Also, the Clay Shaw trial did NOT get into detail regarding Craig's encounter. The LA Free Press was an underground publication. They have NO Credibility whatever they might have thrown out onto the street.
-
None of this addresses my point about the Alyea film. It was broadcast by WFAA midafternoon on the 22nd, and is shows a Carcano, no doubt about it.
As for the photos with apparent dark-window anomalies, this affect can be caused by bright flash and/or fill lighting during exposure. It can also be caused be contrast adjustment during development using magenta filters, which increase contrast in B&W film.
and exposure caused the boxes to be in different positions and caused the hammer on the ledge to appear ? . some of these photos were not taken at the same time .
-
This is from CE 541. You can see the whole set here:
https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_541.pdf (https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_541.pdf)
It's not uncommon to apply contrast enhancers to engraved metal to bring out detail. Talc, finely ground chalk, common white glue, and light colored tempera paint --among other agents-- are brushed into the depressions left by the engravings, then any covering the rest of the service is wiped off. This makes it much easier to read, interpret and photograph the engravings. In FE 541, the use of a white contrast agent is most clearly seen on the "TNI" proofmark at the bottom of page 239. What you think is easy-to-read text is the result of a bit of clever artifice, intended to make markings easier to read in a photograph.
what you have stated is q photographic aid if you will . that does not rule out that the print was so faint as to not be seen with the naked eye sufficient to be able to read it .
-
(https://i.imgur.com/5U9zIIl.png)
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the rifle found on the sixth floor was a 6.5 x 52 mm Italian Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 bolt-action rifle, bearing the serial number C2766, owned and used by Lee Harvey Oswald, to assassinate President John Fitzgerald Kennedy on Friday, 22 November 1963. Oswald, after being jilted by his estranged wife Marina on the eve of the assassination, not once, not twice, but thrice, was the final nail in his coffin of a long list of lifelong failures. The murder of JFK by an angry, psychopathic Marxist ideologist who despised the United States and its capitalism was a tragic happenstance of history.
that a rifle was found is a fact , however you claim to know that which you cant possibly know unless you were A up on the 6th floor at 12.30 that tragic day and B sat in the paines living room the evening before with lee and marina . also please spare us the psycho babble because you know and i know that you have zero proof to support it .
-
For starters, I specifically referenced the JFK Assassination Old Guard Researcher Community. The Clay Shaw trial is not that body. Also, the Clay Shaw trial did NOT get into detail regarding Craig's encounter. The LA Free Press was an underground publication. They have NO Credibility whatever they might have thrown out onto the street.
The Shaw trial was initiated by and prosecuted by Jim Jolly Green Giant Ego. Last I checked he would still be considered to be an "old guard researcher," if a deceased one. One of Garrison's prosecutors showed Craig a Carcano. Craig affirmed the the rifle he saw found in the Depository looked like the rifle shown to him. More important is what Craig did not say: anything about "Mauser 7.65" stamped on the barrel. Nor did he testify about the rifle ever being identified as a Mauser by anyone else. That's quite a (non) admission, given some of Craig's later Ramblings.
And your attempt to discredit the Jones/Craig interview in the LA Free is nothing more than a baseless bag of hot air. The only reason you don't like it is that you don't like what it says, and that discredits what you want to believe.
-
what you have stated is q photographic aid if you will . that does not rule out that the print was so faint as to not be seen with the naked eye sufficient to be able to read it .
My fundamental point is that the engravings on the rifle are small and engraved blued-metal-on-blued-metal characters and are not easy to make out even in decent light.
-
The Shaw trial was initiated by and prosecuted by Jim Jolly Green Giant Ego. Last I checked he would still be considered to be an "old guard researcher," if a deceased one. One of Garrison's prosecutors showed Craig a Carcano. Craig affirmed the the rifle he saw found in the Depository looked like the rifle shown to him. More important is what Craig did not say: anything about "Mauser 7.65" stamped on the barrel. Nor did he testify about the rifle ever being identified as a Mauser by anyone else. That's quite a (non) admission, given some of Craig's later Ramblings.
And your attempt to discredit the Jones/Craig interview in the LA Free is nothing more than a baseless bag of hot air. The only reason you don't like it is that you don't like what it says, and that discredits what you want to believe.
The transcript of Craig's Clay-Shaw Testimony did Not specifically mention whether the rifle shown to Craig was a Mauser. Craig did mention that the difference between the rifle he saw at the TSBD and the one shown to him at Clay Shaw was that the rifle inside the TSBD had a strap connected to it.
The LA Free Press was an underground throwaway. Indisputable.