JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mark Carter on September 04, 2018, 12:14:32 AM
-
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
-
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
Didn't Fritz say Craig had never been in the interrogation room so couldn't have had this exchange?
-
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
Craig was mental. Ask his daughter.
-
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
I agree with you, Mark. Btw ... Welcome to the Forum.
To me the whole Kennedy case hinges on Craig's testimony and what the SS agents - Outside - the motorcade group
did that day. To me, the two who stayed at Love Field and the head of the reserve SS who was also at Love Field assisted
the police in capturing those suspects in that station wagon at Redbird Airfield. Just read the link, if you're interested.
Oh, by the way again. Do you remember in Craig's story when he relayed the info re that station wagon to a SS agent
and how that guy turned out to be a nut job. I believe he really was an SS agent. One of the reserve unit.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,120.msg1503.html#msg150
-
Craig was mental. Ask his daughter.
Also supposedly from Craig's daughter about her father, Dallas County Sheriff's Office "Man of the Year" for 1960.
"I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported."
and this from Dave Reitzes.....
"Now, the Rambler episode is a whole separate issue. It happened; Craig was not the only person who saw it. Ten minutes after the assassination, a man described as being in his twenties did leave Dealey Plaza in a Nash Rambler. The question is, did this individual have anything to do with the assassination? There's no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence specifically against it.
It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this, as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he had been "off duty," so to speak.
To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing."
-
Tantalizing, huh ?
Yeah, I guess if you think part of the conspiracy plan was to have Saint Patsy leave the scene of the crime by getting picked up in Ruth's Rambler.
I'm tantalized, are you ?
-
Tantalizing, huh ?
Yeah, I guess if you think part of the conspiracy plan was to have Saint Patsy leave the scene of the crime by getting picked up in Ruth's Rambler.
I'm tantalized, are you ?
Ask Dave.....his words not mine. Do you believe Fritz would not have talked to "1960 Man of the Year" Craig that afternoon and had him observe Oswald in custody? I seem to remember seeing a video of Chief Curry telling the media that the suspect was seen leaving the scene in a car and that they were looking for Oswald's accomplice. Seems like he had heard Craig's story.
-
Ask Dave.....his words not mine. Do you believe Fritz would not have talked to "1960 Man of the Year" Craig that afternoon and had him observe Oswald in custody? I seem to remember seeing a video of Chief Curry telling the media that the suspect was seen leaving the scene in a car and that they were looking for Oswald's accomplice. Seems like he had heard Craig's story.
Sure I believe Fritz and Craig would have spoken, and Roger might have told Will he saw Saint Patsy leave the scene in (according to Buddy) Ruth's Rambler.
I just don't believe there's any chance that's actually how Saint Patsy departed the scene.
Do you ?
-
Sure I believe Fritz and Craig would have spoken, and Roger might have told Will he saw Saint Patsy leave the scene in (according to Buddy) Ruth's Rambler.
I just don't believe there's any chance that's actually how Saint Patsy departed the scene.
Do you ?
Not the point Howard......was just responding to your portrait of the man...nothing more....seems Dave R also believes Craig was just relaying what he saw that day when he testified before the WC in '64. I don?t believe Fritz's account of events regarding Craig.
-
Not the point Howard......was just responding to your portrait of the man...nothing more....seems Dave R also believes Craig was just relaying what he saw that day when he testified before the WC in '64. I don?t believe Fritz's account of events regarding Craig.
I'm not sure which man you're referring to.
I haven't drawn any portrait of Roger Craig. I think he was wrong about Saint Patsy scrambling down the knoll and leaving in the Rambler. I have sympathy for his apparent mental problems later in life. I certainly don't think he was any kind of martyr though.
If you're talking abt Reitzes, I think Dave has done some very good investigative work and is quite articulate. I just think his conclusion of a conspiracy is completely wrong.
-
I'm not sure which man you're referring to.
I haven't drawn any portrait of Roger Craig. I think he was wrong about Saint Patsy scrambling down the knoll and leaving in the Rambler. I have sympathy for his apparent mental problems later in life. I certainly don't think he was any kind of martyr though.
If you're talking abt Reitzes, I think Dave has done some very good investigative work and is quite articulate. I just think his conclusion of a conspiracy is completely wrong.
I was referring to your initial dismissal of Craig as being mental. My reading of Dave R is that he was a CT and what I posted was from his now LN assessment of Craig.
-
I was referring to your initial dismissal of Craig as being mental. My reading of Dave R is that he was a CT and what I posted was from his now LN assessment of Craig.
Didn't think I initially dismissed Craig as being mental, just that his assertion that it was Saint Patsy that he saw scrambling down the knoll and getting into the Rambler was clearly incorrect.
It gets even worse when the Rambler becomes Ruth Paine's Rambler and this is somehow considered a tantalizing theory.
Laughable, yes. Tantalizing, no.
I didn't realize Reitzes has become a LN. Good for him.
-
Sure they got a blue CHEVY wagon and photographed Paine standing next to the wagon to hide her guilt. I believe that the Oswald that Craig saw was the Oswald that Marina Oswald had taken a photo of in Ruth Paine's backyard holding the M Carcano and the pistol that he supposedly shot Tipper with.
-
Sure they got a blue CHEVY wagon and photographed Paine standing next to the wagon to hide her guilt. I believe that the Oswald that Craig saw was the Oswald that Marina Oswald had taken a photo of in Ruth Paine's backyard holding the M Carcano and the pistol that he supposedly shot Tipper with.
This is obviously a joke account. You'll need to hang out better bait than this to entertain the folk (LN, neutral and CT) here.
-
How about we ask your daughter about you?
How about we ask you kids about you?
Gee, anyone can play this game can't they.
-
How about we ask your daughter about you?
You certainly have seen his daughter's comments about him. Or were those faked as well?
You ought to be banned for what you're implying, John. But I don't snitch on people, unlike you who encouraged C-E Ernie to snitch on me some months ago. And recently, also accused me of plagiarism, yet gave Tom Sorenson, who also didn't provide a link to the same article, a pass (by omission).
You would be the last person on earth that I'd give a positive character reference for, John.
-
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter. Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
Just a glance...a fleeting second.
If it was Oswald that rode in the Rambler...he was taken to the rooming house.
A perplexing story...
A man walks into the Lucas B & B at 1:30 AM (11/22/?63) and sits down at a table. About an hour goes by, then Jack Ruby comes into the B & B, looks at the young man, then takes a table behind the cash register. Jack says he did not feel good, so just orders a large glass of orange juice. A few minutes later, the young man sits down with Ruby. Afterwards, Ruby pays the tab for himself and the young man, who has actually eaten a meal.
Mary Lawrence, the Lucas B & B waitress, thought that, after Oswald was arrested, she recognized this man as the same individual who had dined with Ruby earlier that morning. The night shift cashier had agreed with her identification. Mary told the FBI ?that he appeared very similar to Lee Harvey Oswald.? She described him as a man ?in his 20?s, 5?7″-9,? medium build, 140 lbs.,? with ?dark hair.? This is a close description of the real Oswald (Contract on America-by David E. Scheim-p. 264-note: the actual Commission document is 223).
Mary?s account to the Dallas Police approximated the one she gave to the FBI. She also reiterated her point that the man had a ?small scar near his mouth, either on the right or left side.? Oswald had no such scar. But Mary positively identified Lee as the man who had met with Ruby at the eatery. She then seemed to back off somewhat, some doubt was expressed, possibly after being pressured by her interrogators.
On December 3, 1963, two days before her FBI interview, Mary got a call from an unknown male. It was a threatening call, ?If you don?t want to die, you better get out of town.? Somebody wanted Lawrence to button up her lip (ibid p. 264).
Well, that is mainly all of it. True, a shadow of doubt has been cast on Mary?s story. Marina had seen him awake at 12:30 AM at Ruth Paine?s house. This is one hour before he purportedly entered the B & B. Also true, the next morning Wesley Frazier had driven Lee to work to the Depository Building. So maybe Mary was lying, just as the owner, Pete Lucas, had stated. Yet the cashier had corroborated Mary Lawrence?s story.
https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/ruby-and-oswald-rendezvous-at-lucas-b-b_11034/
There you have it...doppleganger
-
How about we ask you kids about you?
Gee, anyone can play this game can't they.
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.
-
You certainly have seen his daughter's comments about him. Or were those faked as well?
As well as what?
You ought to be banned for what you're implying, John.
I don't know what you think I'm implying, but that's not my problem.
But I don't snitch on people,
By all means, go ahead and snitch on me because of what you think I'm implying...
unlike you who encouraged C-E Ernie to snitch on me some months ago.
You personally attack people all the time here. You know it's against the rules.
And recently, also accused me of plagiarism, yet gave Tom Sorenson, who also didn't provide a link to the same article, a pass (by omission).
Did you or did you not post somebody else's words without attribution? "Tom did it too once" is hardly a justification.
You would be the last person on earth that I'd give a positive character reference for, John.
I'll try to contain my disappointment.
-
As well as what?
>>> As well as everything else from the WC according to you lot
I don't know what you think I'm implying, but that's not my problem.
>>> Your suggestion that people ask my 'daughter' about me. Ask 'her' about what, John?
By all means, go ahead and snitch on me because of what you think I'm implying
>>> There you go again, twisting what I said, this time to make it look that I threatened to snitch on you. I clearly stated that I don't snitch on people.
You personally attack people all the time here. You know it's against the rules
>>> Says the primo CT attack-dog
Did you or did you not post somebody else's words without attribution? "Tom did it too once" is hardly a justification.
>>> Show us where I said 'Tom did it too once'. Where did I say 'once'? Seems you are giving Tom's identical non-link yet another get-out-of-jail card.
Did you give Tom a free pass* or not? Tell us why you keep avoiding that fact. Man up, hypocrite.
I'll try to contain my disappointment.
>>> See above
*By omission
-
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.
@ Lurkers: I stated that Craig was mental. And said ask his daughter. Her email noted below is the reason one should ask her.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig's Daughter
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/3-PfhXeqrj0
<quote on>
Back in 2008 John Simkin posted an e-mail he'd received from Michelle Palmer, nee Deanna Craig, daughter of Roger Craig:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&st=30
<QUOTE ON>-----------------------------------------
John Simkin, on Jun 13 2008, 05:26 PM, said:
Email from Roger Craig's daughter:
[Quote on]
There are a few items in your article about Roger Craig you just might want to correct for the sake of accuracy and truth in reporting. i) His marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment or threats - unless you count his repeated threats to end his own life. ii) The man was disturbed. As his daughter I would place money on the fact that he suffered from either Borderline Personality Disorder or Bi-polar depression. Those last two attempts on his life? The husband of the woman he was fooling around with. Trust me, I met her AND her daughters before the xxxxxx killed himself. The husband met him at the door with that shoulder shot.
Articles like yours only serve to continue the myth. My father was a disturbed man. I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported. But let's face it, my dad didn't know a Mauser from a whatever. He was a Wisconsin farmboy who joined the army illegally, and was released from duty because he kept injuring himself - I note you don't mention all the self-inflicted scars from his tour of duty. Furthermore, it is EXACTLY this kind of dramatic license that killed my father. It fed his disease. It fed his paranoia. And in the end, it contributed to his self-destruction. You should be ashamed of yourself for perpetuating this garbage.
<Quote off>
-
As well as what?
>>> As well as everything else from the WC according to you lot
There you go with your "you lot" nonsense again.
I don't know what you think I'm implying, but that's not my problem.
>>> Your suggestion that people ask my 'daughter' about me. Ask 'her' about what, John?
Ask her if you are "mental" of course. That's what you said about Craig.
>>> Says the primo CT attack-dog
Completely false. And an attack in an of itself.
Did you give Tom a free pass* or not? Tell us why you keep avoiding that fact. Man up, hypocrite.
Why would you assume that I even saw Tom's post? And how does that change what YOU did?
-
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.
Was played threads ago. Happens redundantly.
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Arguing.gif)
It starts up every time someone posts Craig's name.
It has nothing to do with anything.
-
I've been doing some research on Michelle Palmer. Her mother Mollie (Molly) Humphreys was married to Roger Craig until they divorced in 1973, but the Texas Birth Index shows Michelle's father as Jetty Andy Hahn, not Roger Craig. There is no birth record at all for a "Deanna Craig". Michelle was born in 1963 and was 10 when her mother divorced Roger Craig.
-
I'm glad that you agree that it's a game that Chapman started with his whole "ask his daughter" nonsense.
You are a disgrace. The 'he started it' excuse doesn't wash when you refer to another poster's family when all Bill did was reference the words of Craig's daughter from decades ago ... words that are reported elsewhere. If this was my site I'd ban you.
-
How about we just stick to the facts rather than unsubstantiated gossip from somebody's alleged child?
-
How about we just stick to the facts rather than unsubstantiated gossip from somebody's alleged child?
Red herring alert.
How about you apologize for entering into speculation about a poster's family situation. I expect you now regret doing so but you should still make an apology.
-
You are a disgrace. The 'he started it' excuse doesn't wash If this was my site I'd ban you.
You ought to be banned for what you're implying, John.
People who don't agree with the wannabe moderators will be banned?
Then who would be left to argue with?
-
People who don't agree with the wannabe moderators will be banned?
Then who would be left to argue with?
Take it up with the site mod.
-
Red herring alert.
How about you apologize for entering into speculation about a poster's family situation. I expect you now regret doing so but you should still make an apology.
I didn't "speculate about a poster's family situation". I don't even know if Chapman has a daughter. Or Roger Craig for that matter.
How about Chapman apologize for using unsubstantiated gossip to smear an inconvenient witness?
-
People who don't agree with the wannabe moderators will be banned?
Then who would be left to argue with?
They can't argue the facts and evidence so they resort to trying to censor the opposition instead.
-
How about Chapman apologize for using unsubstantiated gossip to smear an inconvenient witness?
You are a laugh a minute.
-
How about we just stick to the facts rather than unsubstantiated gossip from somebody's alleged child?
OK. What about this:
"TIME: 8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE
I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with some of the 'stories' he told following the events of that November weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and, possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig.
When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that 'they' prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had 'seen something or other.'"
Or, how about Weisberg's opinion of Craig: "Roger Craig may be a brave guy and all of that, but he is also full of what is generally reserved for toilets."
-
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff? Or was that episode made up too?
Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental(see his upper jaw also, looks wired up).
What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.
I still rather be arrested by a Craig than most robocops.
Sure his story get's distorted, changed and has additions, name one witness who doesn't suffer the same problems, case is littered with 'em.
Robert Jackson has given five reasons for not leaving his car. FIVE! At Least.
IDK about the Rambler sighting but what happens with Fritz/Ossie/Craig is a most strange thing to make up, when it leads nowhere. If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing? Involving the Paines? Why?
-
If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing? Involving the Paines? Why?
Big noting himself on both counts.
-
There you go with your "you lot" nonsense again.
Ask her if you are "mental" of course. That's what you said about Craig.
Completely false. And an attack in an of itself.
Why would you assume that I even saw Tom's post? And how does that change what YOU did?
Pretty sure my post came directly after Tom's, maybe on the same page. I think I even took a screen shot of both as soon as you started your petty little rant. By the way, I haven't added a link to that post of mine, and won't.
And stop squirming. You cannot weasel your way out of this one. You didn't see his post..? Yeah sure. If not, you've just confirmed that you are only here to attack anyone that challenges your claims.
-
I didn't "speculate about a poster's family situation". I don't even know if Chapman has a daughter. Or Roger Craig for that matter.
How about Chapman apologize for using unsubstantiated gossip to smear an inconvenient witness?
Tell us you knew about her email before I posted it.
-
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff? Or was that episode made up too?
Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental(see his upper jaw also, looks wired up).
What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.
I still rather be arrested by a Craig than most robocops.
Sure his story get's distorted, changed and has additions, name one witness who doesn't suffer the same problems, case is littered with 'em.
Robert Jackson has given five reasons for not leaving his car. FIVE! At Least.
IDK about the Rambler sighting but what happens with Fritz/Ossie/Craig is a most strange thing to make up, when it leads nowhere. If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing? Involving the Paines? Why?
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff?
Mary's point wasn't that Craig couldn't work, but that he didn't want to. She knew him at the time, and was therefore a far better judge of what he was capable of (and of his character, generally) than you or I could ever hope to be. Ditto for Weisberg.
Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental
You mean here? Doesn't look like his jaw is wired shut to me. As for agility, how can you tell in a talking-head interview? And how do you define "looks mental?"
What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
Did Weisberg or Ferrell ever even meet her? She didn't explode onto the Education Forum until after both were dead.
She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.
I'll bet it's pretty normal for the children whose parents commit suicide tend to carry a lot of the emotional turmoil with them through their lives. It doesn't make them dishonest.
-
I think that the Marine Oswald was never in Dealey plaza on Nov 22. The Backyard Oswald had to be the person that Craig saw. Then there was Billy Lovelady who was another Oswald lookalike. He is seen in the Altgens photograph out on the street during the assassination. The multiple Oswalds prove the conspiracy.
The moderators deleted my website about the JFK assassination that I had posted on the forum. I was just on a JFK assassination forum on Facebook with 1400 other people and the entire forum was shut down. The CIA is upset with these forums.
-
Take it up with the site mod.
Hard to do if someone is banned.
Meanwhile about Craig... Questions or complaints about his police service [before the assassination] have never surfaced. His testimony about the station wagon can be supported by photographs of the suspected car. There were two other observers who were found that reported this same [type] vehicle had stopped and someone got in. One of these people noted that they almost ran into it.
Quote Barry Pollard on Today at 01:04:00 AM
If he was making it up what do you think he was he doing? Involving the Paines? Why?
Craig did not "involve the Paines".
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then, what did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and what did the suspect say?
Mr. CRAIG - Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he said, "What about this station wagon?"
And the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."
And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody will know who I am now."
And he was leaning over the desk. At this time, he had risen partially out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly at Captain Fritz.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
-
This is why I question everything produced by the LNers.
What year did Benavides die ?
-
What year did Benavides die ?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Image62~0.jpg)
Caprio once wrote that the car Johnson was riding in was a sedan.
-
I've been doing some research on Michelle Palmer. Her mother Mollie (Molly) Humphreys was married to Roger Craig until they divorced in 1973, but the Texas Birth Index shows Michelle's father as Jetty Andy Hahn, not Roger Craig. There is no birth record at all for a "Deanna Craig". Michelle was born in 1963 and was 10 when her mother divorced Roger Craig.
So if that were true, who are the following kids he referred to in his WC testimony?
Mr. BELIN - Are you married?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Family?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I have a girl and a boy and a stepboy.
-
Roger Craig is a salve for those who are attracted to unverified, unverifiable BS that make his boosters look desperate. Who do
you expect would be persuaded by anything Craig claimed who was not already all in on the Mauser switch suspicion and the Oswald
exit transport from the TSBD in a mysterious car driven by a mysterious, unidentified person?
A guy with a family to feed would not act like he did not actually want to work. Why then, did Dallas Sheriff hire Craig's son?
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
When They Kill A President
By Roger Craig
....My family and I made the trip to New Orleans, where I was interviewed by Willard Robertson, the owner of the company. Mr. Robertson told me he was looking for a Personnel Manager and because of my background of dealing with the public he hired me. After a long trip back to Dallas where we gathered up our meager belongings we moved to New Orleans and I felt good?I was working again!
We had been there but a few days when all of our neighbors and half the people where I was working knew who I was. This was due to the newspaper and television coverage of Jim Garrison?s probe into the assassination. Again came the never-ending questions, which I did not mind because outside of Dallas people were sincerely interested and I certainly did not mind doing what I could to clear up any doubts they had. The people at the office treated me very well.
Unfortunately, after about a month I realized that I was not doing anything but going in to the office and coming home?nothing in between. Although I appreciated Jim Garrison recommending me for the job, I knew by this time that he had done this because he was concerned about my safety and wanted me out of Dallas. Because this company did not really need a Personnel Manager and I couldn?t take the money for a job I was not doing, I submitted my resignation to Mr. Robertson and my family and I returned to Dallas.
We arrived back in Dallas on a cold and snowy seventh of January, 1968, and moved in with Molly?s parents as we had very little money and nowhere to stay. The next few days I spent looking for work. I tried every ad and every lead I could find. The people who interviewed me always seemed interested but like all companies, they wanted to check out my references. When I failed to receive any results from my efforts, I called some of the places where I had placed applications to see what was wrong. I always received the same answer, ?the position had been filled.? Finally, I decided something was wrong and I suspected one employment reference, Bill Decker. I had a friend write Decker asking for an employment reference?he never received an answer! ...
-
OK. What about this:
"TIME: 8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE
I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with some of the 'stories' he told following the events of that November weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and, possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig.
When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that 'they' prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had 'seen something or other.'"
Or, how about Weisberg's opinion of Craig: "Roger Craig may be a brave guy and all of that, but he is also full of what is generally reserved for toilets."
I said "facts" not more gossip and armchair psychoanalysis.
-
Pretty sure my post came directly after Tom's, maybe on the same page. I think I even took a screen shot of both as soon as you started your petty little rant.
Now who's twisting things? What "rant"? I merely and correctly pointed out that you posted yet another cut-and-pasted paragraph and did not provide any source attribution.
That's not even an attack. But your defensive posturing and attempts to make it all about me sure are.
-
So if that were true, who are the following kids he referred to in his WC testimony?
Mr. BELIN - Are you married?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Family?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; I have a girl and a boy and a stepboy.
Thanks to Mr Scully's pointing out that Craig mentions his family in "When They Kill A President," we already know the names of his kids.
"I worked twelve hours a day and Molly did all of the washing, ironing, cooking and cleaning?in addition to caring for Terry, Deanna and Roger Jr. "
Roger, Jr, is obviously RC's son and Deanna has to be his daughter, leaving Terry as the "stepboy." BTW, Craig's, er, memoir and the divorce records both render his wife's name as "Molly." I figure he would know, and the state would require, the proper spelling of her legal name.
-
I said "facts" not more gossip and armchair psychoanalysis.
"Gossip" and "Armchair" imply indirect acquaintance. Both Ferrell and Weisberg knew him firsthand:
"I have met Roger, and he is a fine looking, clean-cut kind of guy who appears to be truthful, serious and all that [...] He does not impress me as the kind of guy who is out to make trouble. But he is"
"I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. [...] When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that 'they' prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work."
And, you don't have to be Sigmund Freud to note that someone's story changes in contradictory ways, or that they are simply lazy.
-
"Gossip" and "Armchair" imply indirect acquaintance. Both Ferrell and Weisberg knew him firsthand:
Their qualifications to diagnose mental illness is another matter entirely.
-
Roger, Jr, is obviously RC's son and Deanna has to be his daughter, leaving Terry as the "stepboy." BTW, Craig's, er, memoir and the divorce records both render his wife's name as "Molly." I figure he would know, and the state would require, the proper spelling of her legal name.
Her name is spelled "Mollie" in the 1940 census, and by her granddaughter in the Craig family tree on Ancestry. Not worth quibbling about though, it doesn't really matter.
But the question then becomes, what is the reason for believing that this Michelle Andrea Hahn Palmer person is the same person as "Deanna Craig"?
-
How could he work if he was crippled from that spill over a cliff?
Mary's point wasn't that Craig couldn't work, but that he didn't want to. She knew him at the time, and was therefore a far better judge of what he was capable of (and of his character, generally) than you or I could ever hope to be. Ditto for Weisberg.
Doesn't look too agile in that interview that Lane used and far from mental
You mean here? Doesn't look like his jaw is wired shut to me. As for agility, how can you tell in a talking-head interview? And how do you define "looks mental?"
What did Weisberg and MF think of the daughter?
Did Weisberg or Ferrell ever even meet her? She didn't explode onto the Education Forum until after both were dead.
She sounds more than a little jealous to me and rather angry about it.
I'll bet it's pretty normal for the children whose parents commit suicide tend to carry a lot of the emotional turmoil with them through their lives. It doesn't make them dishonest.
Something about the way he's sitting in the chair looks off to me, look a little harder and there's a few times you do see more than just his head, also his right hand in his pocket the entire time. I said upper jaw wired, wired up, not wired shut :)
On mentality, he is asked about "the man RC" "how does he feel today?" and his answer to this and indeed throughout the entire interview is thoughtful, relaxed and lucid.
He's sat in that same position througout, doesn't even switch cheeks. Body looks busted and if it was, then who could blame him for not wanting to pick fruit, hump lumber or w/e?
Anger/jealousy can make you many things, dishonest is indeed one of them, in fact it's top of the list.
-
...Craig did not "involve the Paines". http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
Well, the idea is that he was full of it and this is one of the things he invented and yes, sorry but to me it looks like if he made it up then he was, for some reason, involving the Paines by mentioning their name.
"Don't involve them they have nothing to do with it", coming from the prime suspect in a murder case he denies involvement in. "I think I'll go pay them a visit right now" says any cop worth a damn.
Ignore the Paines then and tell me why this cop, one of the first "not taking part" to react and reach the RRY, who then orders the public pushed back as to not impede their search is making this crap up.
-
He wasn't making anything up the day the assassination happened. Craig was murdered in 1975. The reason is that what he saw that day. It was Buddy Walters who involved the Pained because he saw the tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Walters also died a mysterious death.
-
He wasn't making anything up the day the assassination happened. Craig was murdered in 1975. The reason is that what he saw that day. It was Buddy Walters who involved the Pained because he saw the tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Walters also died a mysterious death.
Opinion rather than fact of course.
-
Their qualifications to diagnose mental illness is another matter entirely.
What mental illness did Ferrell or Weisberg diagnose in Craig?
-
Her name is spelled "Mollie" in the 1940 census, and by her granddaughter in the Craig family tree on Ancestry. Not worth quibbling about though, it doesn't really matter.
But the question then becomes, what is the reason for believing that this Michelle Andrea Hahn Palmer person is the same person as "Deanna Craig"?
My question is, if you couldn't find Deanna, are you looking in the right spot in the first place?
-
Very few people know this but the Dallas PD solved the assassination the same day that it happened. About 15 minutes after the assassination happened two Dallas Cops Roger Craig and Buddy Walter were examining a bullet mark on the sidewalk down by the triple underpass. 15 minutes after the assassination happened Roger Craig saw Oswald walk down the Grassy Knoll and get into a tan station wagon and drive away. Later on that day at about 5 pm after Oswald was arrested Roger Craig identified Oswald as the same person he saw get into the tan station wagon earlier in the day. Buddy Walters said that earlier in the day he saw that same tan station wagon parked on Ruth Paine's driveway. Oswald replied" Don't try and tie her into this" she had nothing to do with it. So the Oswald that Craig saw wasn't the same Oswald that was arrested at the Texas Theatre. This proves the two Oswald theory. You can read Craig's testimony here. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
I don't think that Craig ever said the station wagon was tan:
[Sheriff's Dep. affidavit, Nov 22, 1963] I saw what I think was a light colored Rambler Station [sic] wagon with [a] luggage rack on top
[CE1967 Nov 22, 1963] ...a white rambler station wagon...
[CE1993 nov 25, 1963] ...a white white Nash Rambler station wagon with a luggage rack on top...
[WC testimony, 1964]
Mr. BELIN - What kind and what color station wagon was it?
Mr. CRAIG - It was light colored--almost--uh--it looked white to me.
Mr. BELIN - What model or make was it?
Mr. CRAIG - I thought it was a Nash.
Mr. BELIN - Why would you think it was a Nash?
Mr. CRAIG - Because it had a built-in luggage rack on 'the top. And--uh--at the time, this was the only type car I could fit with that type luggage rack.
Mr. BELIN - A Nash Rambler-is that what you're referring to?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; with a rack on the the back portion of the car, you know.
[Shaw trial] ...a light green Rambler station wagon with a chrome luggage rack on the top...It was a light green Rambler station wagon with the luggage rack on the back portion
[When They Kill a President, 1971] A light green Rambler station wagon
-
My question is, if you couldn't find Deanna, are you looking in the right spot in the first place?
Yes. Michelle Palmer, daughter of Molly Humpheys, is the one who claims in those old emails posted to the Education Forum that she is "Deanna Craig", daughter of Roger.
-
What mental illness did Ferrell or Weisberg diagnose in Craig?
Do you think by "very sick young man", Mary Ferrell meant that he had the flu?
-
Do you think by "very sick young man", Mary Ferrell meant that he had the flu?
You don't need a doctor to know someone's sick. Diagnosis of the specific condition is what the doctor does.
-
The most complete Roger Craig resource here:
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
-
The most complete Roger Craig resource here:
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
Thanks for the link, Denis... Interesting stuff. BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)
But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
I copied the below from your blog....
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.
I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening.... (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....) But I believe it happened.
Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,
This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....
Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. ) LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers. And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30 .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.
Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater????? I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....
I misunderstood Roger Craigs description of the position of the rifle that was LYING ON THE FLOOR......
having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.
Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
-
Thanks for the link, Denis... Interesting stuff. BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)
But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
I copied the below from your blog....
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.
I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening.... (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....) But I believe it happened.
Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,
This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....
Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. ) LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers. And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30 .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.
Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater????? I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....
Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times and that his 12.30 entry could have been anytime between 12.30 and 12.45. He also told them the passenger had a brown shirt on with a T shirt underneath.
I was wondering about the reference to LHO wearing grey trousers when at work. Where is this mentioned? Whaley described the trousers as faded blue.
-
Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times and that his 12.30 entry could have been anytime between 12.30 and 12.45. He also told them the passenger had a brown shirt on with a T shirt underneath.
I was wondering about the reference to LHO wearing grey trousers when at work. Where is this mentioned? Whaley described the trousers as faded blue.
Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times
Nick....You would be doing yourself a big favor if you refrain from using information that you obtain from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee
Whaley said that he arrived at the Bus Station at about 12:30 and he confirmed that time by KNOWING the distances and travel times between various points in Dallas by rote. He KNEW what time he'd been at various sites in Dallas and he knew how long it took to travel between points....( he's been transporting passengers between points for years)
LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee would like us to believe that Whaley didn't know precisely what time He arrived at the Bus Station.....But it is a fact that he knew he'd arrived at 12:25 and his passenger who was dressed on BLUE twill clothing ( Jacket and trousers) entered his cab at about 12:30.
-
Whaley told the WC that he didn't keep accurate times
Nick....You would be doing yourself a big favor if you refrain from using information that you obtain from LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee
Whaley said that he arrived at the Bus Station at about 12:30 and he confirmed that time by KNOWING the distances and travel times between various points in Dallas by rote. He KNEW what time he'd been at various sites in Dallas and he knew how long it took to travel between points....( he's been transporting passengers between points for years)
Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.
LBJ's Special Blue Ribbon Cover Up Committee would like us to believe that Whaley didn't know precisely what time He arrived at the Bus Station.....But it is a fact that he knew he'd arrived at 12:25 and his passenger who was dressed on BLUE twill clothing ( Jacket and trousers) entered his cab at about 12:30.
He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.
-
Whaley claimed that he rounded his times to the nearest 15 minutes. Not only do the other entries on the timesheet belie this claim, but even if that was true then he would have put 12:45, not 12:30.
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
-
He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.
He said "a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it AND he had on some kind of jacket".
-
Whaley claimed that he rounded his times to the nearest 15 minutes. Not only do the other entries on the timesheet belie this claim, but even if that was true then he would have put 12:45, not 12:30.
He said 'I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.'
If this is true it doesn't seem a good idea to use a timing argument against the passenger being Oswald. Do you agree?
-
He said 'I think it is marked 12:30 to 12:45. Now that could have been 10 minutes off in each direction because I didn't use a watch, I just guess, in other words, all my trips are marked about 15 minutes each.'
The official story has Oswald entering the cab at 12:46. "10 minutes off in each direction" doesn't get you to 12:30 either.
-
The official story has Oswald entering the cab at 12:46. "10 minutes off in each direction" doesn't get you to 12:30 either.
True, but do you agree it isn't a good idea to use timing arguments when someone says they don't wear a watch and guess the times?
-
True, but do you agree it isn't a good idea to use timing arguments when someone says they don't wear a watch and guess the times?
Maybe. But what if he gets the time wrong, the description wrong, the clothing wrong, the drop off point wrong, and the position in the lineup wrong? At what point do you just decide he's unreliable?
-
Maybe. But what if he gets the time wrong, the description wrong, the clothing wrong, the drop off point wrong, and the position in the lineup wrong? At what point do you just decide he's unreliable?
I agree if every detail can be shown to be wrong then you have to decide someone is unreliable. Could we go through the other points - starting with the clothes - then maybe we could agree on what we think about his evidence. You say the clothing was wrong. He does mention a brown shirt and T-shirt underneath, which I believe is correct, yes? Faded blue trousers - I think we talked about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work that day but don't think we were sure, is that correct. Was it a blue jacket which he said which is the biggest problem?
-
Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.
He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.
Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
The trip log indicates that he left the Bus Station (with the man who was dressed in the BLUE work clothes) at 12:30 and arrived at 500 N. Beckley at 12:45.....
He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.
That's irrelevant ...... Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a BLUE workman's uniform........
-
You say the clothing was wrong. He does mention a brown shirt and T-shirt underneath, which I believe is correct, yes?
Not unless you can find a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.
-
Where did he say that please? I watched an interview with him saying what he said to the WC.
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
The trip log indicates that he left the Bus Station (with the man who was dressed in the BLUE work clothes) at 12:30 and arrived at 500 N. Beckley at 12:45.....
He described a brown shirt with t shirt underneath too.
That's irrelevant ...... Lee Oswald was NOT wearing a BLUE workman's uniform........
He told the WC.
'Mr. Ball.
Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. Whaley.
Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there.'
In his evidence he was asked if he could identify the brown shirt which was Commission Exhibit No. 150
'Mr. Ball.
I have some clothing here. Commission Exhibit No. 150, does that look like the shirt?
Mr. Whaley.
That is the shirt, sir, it has my initials on it.
Mr. Ball.
In other words, this is the shirt the man had on?
Mr. Whaley.
Yes, sir; that is the same one the FBI man had me identify.
Mr. Ball.
This is the shirt the man had on who took your car at Lamar and Jackson?
Mr. Whaley.
As near as I can recollect as I told him. I said that is the shirt he had on because it had a kind of little stripe in it, light-colored stripe. I noticed that.'
He was asked about the trousers but wasn't sure CE152 - couldn't find a photograph). He identified jacket exhibit 162. He mentioned another blue jacket, that is true.
-
Not unless you can find a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.
CE150, which he identified - particularly mentioning the silverlike stripe on it as being something he recognised?
-
CE150, which he identified - particularly mentioning the silverlike stripe on it as being something he recognised?
I'll bite. Where's the silverlike stripe?
(https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6392801.1383967120!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.jpg)
-
CE150, which he identified - particularly mentioning the silverlike stripe on it as being something he recognised?
Did this shirt have a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR?...... Lee Oswald told the interrogators that the brownish red shirt that he was wearing at work that morning had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR.
The brownish red shirt that the DPD Detectives found in Lee Oswald's dresser had a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and NO silver stripe .....
-
I'll bite. Where's the silverlike stripe?
(https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.6392801.1383967120!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.jpg)
Its not a question of biting, its discussing.
I don't know what he meant by a silverlike stripe, but when shown the shirt he identified it and sadi it was because he recognised that feature. If you look at the material it has that glossy two tone look I remember all too well from hideous 80s fashion - maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.
-
Its not a question of biting, its discussing.
I don't know what he meant by a silverlike stripe, but when shown the shirt he identified it and sadi it was because he recognised that feature. If you look at the material it has that glossy two tone look I remember all too well from hideous 80s fashion - maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.
Sure, maybe.
And maybe he just identified that shirt because it's the shirt the FBI told him that Oswald was wearing.
-
Its not a question of biting, its discussing.
I don't know what he meant by a silverlike stripe, but when shown the shirt he identified it and sadi it was because he recognised that feature. If you look at the material it has that glossy two tone look I remember all too well from hideous 80s fashion - maybe that's what he meant. I don't know.
Mr Turner, When are you going to face the facts and stop citing the Cover up committe?
-
Sure, maybe.
And maybe he just identified that shirt because it's the shirt the FBI told him that Oswald was wearing.
So he could have possibly identified the shirt correctly?
-
Thanks for the link, Denis... Interesting stuff. BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)
But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
I copied the below from your blog....
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.
I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening.... (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....) But I believe it happened.
Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,
This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....
Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. ) LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers. And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30 .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.
Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater????? I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....
I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
Watch closely at the 45 second point of the Alyea film.
Notice that the sling is UP as Detective Day reaches down and grabs the sling.....That sling says that Roger Craig was a damne4d liar....When he said that the scope was to the north and the trigger was to the south....
The sling is mounted on the LEFT side of a Carcano..... If the left side of the rifle was up as it is seen at the 45 second point of this film when Day picks the rifle up, then the scope would be to the SOUTH and the trigger would be toward the North which is exactly the opposite of what liar Roger Craig said.
-
I'll bite. Where's the silverlike stripe?
Mr. BALL. I have here a bracelet which is marked 383. Take a look at it and tell me if you have ever seen it before.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; as near as I can tell that is the bracelet he was wearing the day I carried him, the shiny bracelet I was talking about.
Mr. BALL. You mentioned the fact that the man who sat in the front seat of your cab, which you drove from the Greyhound Station on Lamar Street over to 500 North Beckley, had an identification bracelet on him.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, it looked like an identification bracelet. It looks like this one, sir, it was shiny, I couldn't tell exactly whether that was the bracelet or not.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49673/m1/1/med_res/)
Whaley was into jewelry because that what his thing and instantly recognized Oswald's shiny and perhaps silverlike bracelet.
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir; I noticed it; yes, sir. I always notice watchbands, unusual watchbands, and identification bracelets like these, because I make them myself. I made this one.
Representative FORD. In other words, you have a particular interest in them?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, I particularly notice things like that.
And to top it off according to Fritz, Oswald admitted to getting on and off a bus then catching a cab.
Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.
And Bookout.
Mr. STERN - Yes. Did he ever complain that, "We have been over that ground before," or make any such statement?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.
JohnM
-
Mr Turner, When are you going to face the facts and stop citing the Cover up committe?
I am always happy o face facts when they are presented, not unsupported opinions though. The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).
Whaley described a brown shirt with a white T shirt underneath and identified the brown shirt recovered from Oswald as the one he had seen. This is a fact. On what basis do you dismiss this, as you seem to?
-
Notice that the sling is UP as Detective Day reaches down and grabs the sling.....That sling says that Roger Craig was a damne4d liar....When he said that the scope was to the north and the trigger was to the south....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
-
Whaley was into jewelry because that what his thing and instantly recognized Oswald's shiny and perhaps silverlike bracelet.
??
Are you saying that the bracelet was the little silverlike stripe that Whaley saw on the brown shirt that Ball showed him?
-
The learning curve is way too steep for you, why don't you save Duncan some bandwidth?
When you drive a taxi that long you learn to judge people and what I actually thought of the man when he got in was that he was a wino who had been off his bottle for about two days, that is the way he looked, sir, that was my opinion of him.
That's your expert witness right there.
Why so angry? I'm not here to argue and am open to discuss stuff, but not with people with attitude.
-
I am always happy o face facts when they are presented, not unsupported opinions though. The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).
Whaley described a brown shirt with a white T shirt underneath and identified the brown shirt recovered from Oswald as the one he had seen. This is a fact. On what basis do you dismiss this, as you seem to?
The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).
The WC report is a repository of evidence.
Yes, that's exactly right.... Unfortunately the Warren REPORT is NOT supported by the information in the 26 volumes. Students of the case have found hundreds of examples where the FACTS in the volumes have been twisted into something unrecognizable to the witnesses.
You may consider it a bad place to refer
No, I do NOT consider the Warren Report "a bad place to refer" In fact the Warren Report is an excellent document for demonstrating how LBJ's Cover Up committee operated..... and twisted the facts to frame an innocent man.
It seems to me that you, Mr Turner, refuse to see the truth.... I've pointed out the FACTS about what William Whaley said but you refuse to accept those facts.
Whaley said that his passenger got in his cab at about 12:30.... Lee Oswald was seen in the second floro lunchroom of the TSBD at about 12:32.
Whaley said his passenger was wearing a BLUE uniform which consisted of a BLUE jacket and matching BLUE trousers.
Lee Oswald was wearing a brownish red shirt and dark gray trousers, and he didn't even own any clothing like the clothes described by Whaley
-
The WC report is a repository of evidence. You may consider it a bad place to refer to but you can't dismiss it all just because the report was flawed (as I have repeatedly said).
The WC report is a repository of evidence.
Yes, that's exactly right.... Unfortunately the Warren REPORT is NOT supported by the information in the 26 volumes. Students of the case have found hundreds of examples where the FACTS in the volumes have been twisted into something unrecognizable to the witnesses.
You may consider it a bad place to refer
No, I do NOT consider the Warren Report "a bad place to refer" In fact the Warren Report is an excellent document for demonstrating how LBJ's Cover Up committee operated..... and twisted the facts to frame an innocent man.
It seems to me that you, Mr Turner, refuse to see the truth.... I've pointed out the FACTS about what William Whaley said but you refuse to accept those facts.
Whaley said that his passenger got in his cab at about 12:30.... Lee Oswald was seen in the second floro lunchroom of the TSBD at about 12:32.
Whaley said his passenger was wearing a BLUE uniform which consisted of a BLUE jacket and matching BLUE trousers.
Lee Oswald was wearing a brownish red shirt and dark gray trousers, and he didn't even own any clothing like the clothes described by Whaley
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?
He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.
There is a lot of discussion about the jackets (CE162 & 163) I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.
-
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?
He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.
There is a lot of discussion about the jackets (CE162 & 163) I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?
Obviously you are ignorant of the fact that Taxi's have a clock as part of the meter........And any bus station I've been in has clocks on the walls so passengers won't miss their bus. Whaley Knew.... that the man in Blue.... entered his cab, at 12:30. (A little poetry for you)
You can bet that Whaley knew where every public clock in Dallas was located.
He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.
It is a FACT that Whaley said the man was wearing BLUE clothing.....Lee Oswald was NOT wearing BLUE clothing.
I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.
Who is dismissing Whaley's statements?..... Whaley said the man was wearing a blue colored workman's uniform.....Lee Oswald didn't even own any Blue Workman's uniform.
-
Where did you pick up the foolish idea that I'm angry? ....... you have NFI what you're dealing with when it comes to evidence.
Sound angry to me.
-
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?
Obviously you are ignorant of the fact that Taxi's have a clock as part of the meter........And any bus station I've been in has clocks on the walls so passengers won't miss their bus. Whaley Knew.... that the man in Blue.... entered his cab, at 12:30. (A little poetry for you)
You can bet that Whaley knew where every public clock in Dallas was located.
Maybe, but he did say he guessed the time didn't he?
It is a FACT that Whaley said the man was wearing BLUE clothing.....Lee Oswald was NOT wearing BLUE clothing.
He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct. I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.
Who is dismissing Whaley's statements?..... Whaley said the man was wearing a blue colored workman's uniform.....Lee Oswald didn't even own any Blue Workman's uniform.
Did he own a blue jacket as Marina said?
-
Sounds like you're in the wrong forum.
Maybe you're right.
-
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Why would you post a fake picture in an attempt to refute the Tom Alyea film which clearly shows the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling side (left side) up. ????
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
This is a fake in situ photo that the DPD created to support their lie about Lee dashing by the boxes and tossing the rifle aside as he fled.
-
I know I am:
Yes you are, about this anyway. Bye then. Enjoy.
-
Maybe, but he did say he guessed the time didn't he?
He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct. I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.
Did he own a blue jacket as Marina said?
he did say he guessed the time didn't he?
I honestly don't know.....The shyster lawyers on LBJ's cover up committee probably did lead him into saying that he guessed at the time...BUT...What does that mean? Does it mean that he didn't look at the man in blue clothes and then look at the bus station clock to determine PRECISELY what time it was??? Or does it mean that He knew the time was approximately 12:30 but he didn't know the PRECISE time???
The DPD detectives who searched Lee's room at about 4:00 pm that afternoon took photos of the evidence and compiled a list of the items they found in Lee's room at 1026 N. Beckley.
Among the items listed are: a reddish brown long sleeve man's shirt with a BUTTON DOWN collar and a pair of dark gray trousers.
Although the conspirators have managed to confuse the shirt issue they have overlooked the trousers...The trousers are shown in color in official police photos of the evidence and the trousers are dark gray.
-
Maybe, but he did say he guessed the time didn't he?
He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct. I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.
Did he own a blue jacket as Marina said?
Who the hell cares?.... It's irrelevant whether Lee owned a blue workman's type jacket..... He was NOT wearing a blue jacket ( or a jacket of any color) when he left the TSBD
-
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?
No it's not. He said 10 minutes.
Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.
That was the one supposedly found by Frankie Kaiser in the TSBD domino room either a few days later or 4 weeks later (depending on which report you believe), coincidentally the same guy who found the alleged "Oswald clipboard" on the sixth floor that nobody else noticed either.
But how could Whaley have seen his passenger wearing that?
-
He did say. He was wearing blue clothing, yes, as I have said before. He also mentioned other clothing which was correct.
You mean that brown shirt with the "little silverlike stripe"?
I think I asked before about what colour trousers Oswald wore to work but don't remember being shown the evidence. Would be happy to see it.
Black. CE 158
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0271b.jpg)
But he supposedly told Fritz that he changed his pants at the rooming house. However, I don't see any blue pants in the evidence exhibits.
-
Why would you post a fake picture in an attempt to refute the Tom Alyea film which clearly shows the rifle was laying on it's right side with the sling side (left side) up. ????
I know that's the Walt Fabrication, but you don't know what boxes they moved before the Alyea clip starts. In fact the whole Alyea clip could be a recreation.
-
You mean that brown shirt with the "little silverlike stripe"?
Black. CE 158
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0271b.jpg)
But he supposedly told Fritz that he changed his pants at the rooming house. However, I don't see any blue pants in the evidence exhibits.
he supposedly told Fritz that he changed his pants at the rooming house.
Why supposedly?? There are several reports of the interrogations from several sources that confirm that Lee told them that he went to his room and changed his clothes before going to the theater. (See Hosty / Bookhout report for 11/ 23 /63 on page 612 of WR) On page 622 FBI agent James Bookhout's report says....quote...He stated after arriving at the apartment he changed his shirt and trousers because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothing as being a reddish colored, long sleeved shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and gray colored trousers.
And on page 626 Inspector Kelly writes in his report... "He went home changed his trousers and shirt, put his shirt in a dresser. This was a red shirt and he put it with his dirty clothes. He described the shirt as having a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and of a reddish color. The trousers were gray colored.
There's no good reason to doubt that Lee went to his room and changed his clothes....and he was NOT wearing any BLUE workman's clothing... And to those who argue that he was wearing the same shirt the entire day and did not change his clothes....Then show me the BUTTON DOWN COLLAR on the arrest shirt. I know the FBI found fibers on the butt of the rifle that they said matched the shirt that Lee was wearing at the theater when he was arrested....BUT .... Their tale does not add up .....
-
I know that's the Walt Fabrication, but you don't know what boxes they moved before the Alyea clip starts. In fact the whole Alyea clip could be a recreation.
I know that's the Walt Fabrication,
Thank you.... It certainly DID take a lot of study and effort to construct that "fabrication" ...and it's nice of you to recognize the sturdy construction.
you don't know what boxes they moved before the Alyea clip starts.
You're right.... But the police all swore that NOTHING was touched and no boxes moved prior to Alyea Detective Day lifting the rifle ....Based on your statement here, I assume that you agree with me that they were lying....and boxes were in fact moved prior to Day picking up the rifle.
The Alyea film clip definitely shows the rifle laying on it's right side with the left side up .... Now then let's see if I can get this through your thick skull.... If the rifle had been positioned as it is seen in the "on situ" photo With the trigger guard / magazine down and the left hand mounted scope up and supported by boxes ...Then if the boxes were removed the laws of physics would cause the rifle to topple to the left ( because of the weight of the scope off to the left of center)... Thus the LEFT side of the rifle would have been down and detective Day could not have reached down and grabbed the leather sling, because it would have been on the opposite side of the rifle.
-
Thank you.... It certainly DID take a lot of study and effort to construct that "fabrication" ...and it's nice of you to recognize the sturdy construction.
I recognize your sturdy imagination...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)
You're right.... But the police all swore that NOTHING was touched and no boxes moved prior to Alyea lifting the rifle ....Based on your statement here, I assume that you agree with me that they were lying....and boxes were in fact moved prior to Day picking up the rifle.
I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right: we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.
The Alyea film clip definitely shows the rifle laying on it's right side with the left side up .... Now then let's see if I can get this through your thick skull.... If the rifle had been positioned as it is seen in the "on situ" photo With the trigger guard / magazine down and the left hand mounted scope up and supported by boxes ...Then if the boxes were removed the laws of physics would cause the rifle to topple to the left ( because of the weight of the scope off to the left of center)... Thus the LEFT side of the rifle would have been down and detective Day could not have reached down and grabbed the leather sling, because it would have been on the opposite side of the rifle.
Wouldn't that depend on which boxes were moved?
-
I recognize your sturdy imagination...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)
I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right: we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.
Wouldn't that depend on which boxes were moved?
I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right: we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.
I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle,
Ha ha..Ya caught me.... I meant Detective Day lifting the rifle....
-
I recognize your sturdy imagination...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,99.0.html)
I didn't know that Alyea ever lifted the rifle, but you're right: we have plenty of reasons not to trust anything that the Dallas police officers swore to.
Wouldn't that depend on which boxes were moved?
WF9: Tom Alyea filmed the rifle after the clip had slid out.
Please correct this entry..... Tom Alyea DID NOT film the rifle AFTER the clip slid out.....
Tom Alyea was filming Day as Day dusted the rifle for finger prints behind the sunlit window at the NW corner of the sixth floor. As detective Day worked with the rifle and turned it in various positions the clip which was loose in magazine was sliding around inside the magazine. At one point the clip slid out far enough so that the light colored brass was visible. The clip was about 1/4 inch out of the magazine when Tom Alyea's camera recorded it in that position.
-
Whaley said he didn't wear a watch and guessed the time, and gave an approximation which could be 15 mins out. That's a fact isn't it?
He didn't only mention the blue items of clothing but mentioned a brown shirt, which he later identified, and a white T shirt underneath. Marina said LHO owned a blue jacket.
There is a lot of discussion about the jackets (CE162 & 163) I know and there are questions to be answered but don't think you can dismiss Whaley's testimony as it stands.
Was this age "discrepancy" unremarkable (SoP, of a guy seen below correcting the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS over a single year) or was fraud committed against Whaley's military draft board?
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
Testimony Of William Wayne Whaley
.....
The CHAIRMAN. The witness has been driving a taxicab in Dallas for 36 years.
Mr. WHALEY. Thirty-seven, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Thirty-seven. ....
(http://jfkdebate.com/images/WhaleyDOB1940DraftCard.jpg)
Whaley demonstrating his precision about dates/age was at work again, here, as in the first
statement attributed to witness Whaley included his description of his passenger as 25 or 26 years of age.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Whaley23Nov.jpg)
As proven in the page linked below, some time after 1940, William Wayne Whaley added (or cooperated in) three years to his age.:
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaley
-
There wasn't a clip until the Mauser changed into a Mannlicher Carcano. The BS they put Roger Craig through was totally uncalled for. He was railroaded !
-
There wasn't a clip until the Mauser changed into a Mannlicher Carcano. The BS they put Roger Craig through was totally uncalled for. He was railroaded !
Mike, are you unaware that there are photos of Detective Day leaving the TSBD with the carcano at about 2:30 that afternoon, and the clip is clearly visible sticking out from he magazine / trigger duard of the carcano?
Roger Craig put himself through the wringer......
-
Or "white spots of something", in his final more detailed affidavit. He did two drafts, so his "white streaks" changed to spots:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/?q=whaley (first)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340356/?q=whaley
Needless to say BALL didn't feel like asking why the streak had turned into spots in his affidavit.
Mr. BALL. Is that the same shirt you saw here?
Mr. WHALEY. I think it is, sir. I am not positive but it had the same kind of silver streak in it.
Maybe we shoulda asked Daryl Click.
-
Or "white spots of something", in his final more detailed affidavit. He did two drafts, so his "white streaks" changed to spots:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340663/?q=whaley (first)
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340356/?q=whaley
Needless to say BALL didn't feel like asking why the streak had turned into spots in his affidavit.
Mr. BALL. Is that the same shirt you saw here?
Mr. WHALEY. I think it is, sir. I am not positive but it had the same kind of silver streak in it.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Whaley23Nov.jpg)
Notice that Whaley opens his affidavit with the statement .... Yesterday 11 22 / 63 I was sitting at Lamar and Jackson at the Greyhound Bus Station at 12:30 pm waiting for a fare....(when) this boy walked up to to the cab.
This affidavit clearly states that the time was 12:30........Lee Oswald was in the Lunchroom at the TSBD at 12:30.....
-
WF9: Tom Alyea filmed the rifle after the clip had slid out.
Please correct this entry..... Tom Alyea DID NOT film the rifle AFTER the clip slid out.....
Tom Alyea was filming Day as Day dusted the rifle for finger prints behind the sunlit window at the NW corner of the sixth floor. As detective Day worked with the rifle and turned it in various positions the clip which was loose in magazine was sliding around inside the magazine. At one point the clip slid out far enough so that the light colored brass was visible. The clip was about 1/4 inch out of the magazine when Tom Alyea's camera recorded it in that position.
Unfortunately, the forum archives were lost, but you did make this statement early on in the original Alyea discussion and then later changed your mind when somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film (they're not).
I'll note your retraction.
-
Unfortunately, the forum archives were lost, but you did make this statement early on in the original Alyea discussion and then later changed your mind when somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film (they're not).
I'll note your retraction.
Huh?? What retraction??....I simply wanted a clarification and posted truthfully.
The way you've posted it it appears that the clip slipped completely out of the magazine....I've never ever proposed that the clip slipped completely out while Day was examining the rifle .....
I believe Day was totally ignorant to the fact that there was a clip in that magazine.....
Tom Alyea's film shows a small bit of the brass clip extending out of the magazine.
-
Tom Alyea's film shows a small bit of the brass clip extending out of the magazine.
No it doesn't.
-
No it doesn't.
Extract your head so you can see....
-
Extract your head so you can see....
They ain't enough drugs in the world to see what you see.
-
There are photos showing,i guess the police digging from the ground what most say is a bullet by the sidewalk about 50 feet before,you get to the over past.His superiors did nit want to hear anything other,than,case solved,with Oswald being the shooter. You can thank Hoover for that.
-
There are photos showing,i guess the police digging from the ground what most say is a bullet by the sidewalk about 50 feet before,you get to the over past.His superiors did nit want to hear anything other,than,case solved,with Oswald being the shooter. You can thank Hoover for that.
His superiors did not want to hear anything other,than,case solved,with Oswald being the shooter. You can thank Hoover for that.
Yes, you're right, Hoover was the all powerful puppet master who made the puppets dance to his tune. And many of those who refused to be manipulated wound up in the dead puppet pile....
-
Even today technology and video,probably take longer to actually catch a killer. Only took 90 minutes to arrest Oswald.Hoover,would not allow them to look for anyone else.
-
This is all good and nice but Oswald had to get from McWatters bus to the Rooming House somehow and Whaley not only positively ID'd Oswald but he also recognised Oswald's bracelet and his work manifest describes the same journey that Oswald had to take.
And Oswald even admitted taking a cab, where can your speculation possibly go from here?
Mr. BALL. I don't want you to say he admitted the transfer. I want you to tell me what he said about the transfer.
Mr. FRITZ. He told he that was the transfer the busdriver had given him when he caught the bus to go home. But he had told me if you will remember in our previous conversation that he rode the bus or on North Beckley and had walked home but in the meantime, sometime had told me about him riding a cab.
So, when I asked him about a cab ride if he had ridden in a cab he said yes, he had, he told me wrong about the bus, he had rode a cab. He said the reason he changed, that he rode the bus for a short distance, and the crowd was so heavy and traffic was so bad that he got out and caught a cab, and I asked him some other questions about the cab and I asked him what happened there when he caught the cab and he said there was a lady trying to catch a cab and he told the busdriver, the busdriver told him to tell the lady to catch the cab behind him and he said he rode that cab over near his home, he rode home in a cab.
And Bookout.
Mr. STERN - Yes. Did he ever complain that, "We have been over that ground before," or make any such statement?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - No; I don't recall anything along that line, but I can recall one subject matter probably in the first interview where he talked about his method of transportation after leaving the Texas Book Depository, having gotten on a bus, and then that subject was taken up again, as I recall, in the second interview, expressed the same answer at that time, and then subsequently to that interview he backed up and said that it wasn't actually true as to how he got home. That he had taken a bus, and due to the traffic jam he had left the bus and got a taxicab, by which means he actually arrived at his residence.
JohnM
This is all good and nice but Oswald had to get from McWatters bus to the Rooming House somehow and Whaley not only positively ID'd Oswald but he also recognised Oswald's bracelet and his work manifest describes the same journey that Oswald had to take.
Oswald had to get from McWatters bus to the Rooming House somehow
Correction....Lee had to get from the TSBD to the Rooming house somehow..... There is no solid proof that Lee was ever on Mc Watters bus.... Lee could easily have walked from the TSBD to the Taxi Stand at the Greyhound bus depot and hired Darryl Glick's taxi to take him to the rooming house.
Whaley not only positively ID'd Oswald
No, Whaley DID NOT positively Identify Lee Oswald as the man who entered his cab at 12:30... he couldn't have, because Lee was in the TSBD lunchroom at 12:30 and furthermore.... Whaley definitely described the man as dressed in Blue Workman uniform type clothes.... Lee was definitely NOT dressed in a BLUE workman uniform.
he also recognised Oswald's bracelet
Utter nonsense....Whaley had seen Lee Oswald's picture on TV, as he was brought into the police station. and he could easily have noticed that Lee was wearing a bracelet.... IF IF Whaley noticed that the man who was wearing the BLUE clothing was wearing a bracelet...it means absolutely nothing.... Two different men and two different bracelets.
his work manifest describes the same journey that Oswald had to take.
HUH?? What is that stuff yer smokin?? What leads you to believe that a Cab Driver was restricted to a particular route??? The Taxi that Lee took could have traveled from the taxi stand at the Greyhound Bus Depot to the rooming house by any number of routes....AND I would remind you that Whaley said that the man in blue, departed his cab several blocks BEYOND the rooming house and when he walked away from the cab he was walking AWAY from the Rooming house....
BOTTOM LINE..... Lee Oswald was NOT Whaley's passenger.
-
"Darryl Glick". LOL.
-
"Darryl Glick". LOL.
Hey...Didn't yo mama ever tell you it's rude to laugh at peoples names?
Do you happen to know the Hogg family from the Austin area.... As I recall their first names were Ima and Ura .....
-
Hey...Didn't yo mama ever tell you it's rude to laugh at peoples names?
"In Oak Cliff" was not somebody's name.
Do you happen to know the Hogg family from the Austin area.... As I recall their first names were Ima and Ura .....
Also a fabrication! There was no "Ura".
-
"In Oak Cliff" was not somebody's name.
Do you happen to know the Hogg family from the Austin area.... As I recall their first names were Ima and Ura .....
Also a fabrication! There was no "Ura".
Could be you're right about Ura Hogg..... But that's the way it was written in the Readers Digest many years ago....
-
Could be you're right about Ura Hogg..... But that's the way it was written in the Readers Digest many years ago....
Definitely a persistent myth.
-
Help! He just keeps dusting himself off and doing it again. Will it ever stop? Forty-two percent of voters follow the instruction, "Only listen to me," the press is the enemy of the state, I'm the only one who matters.... trust diplomats from Ukraine, not "Obama diplomats," and they eat it up, tricked out in their MAGA merchandise!
Vince Palamara - Posted December 10, 2019
The author, Steve Cameron (also an actor), became fascinated by Roger Craig at an early age (relatively speaking- he was a toddler when Roger Craig passed away). He obtained exclusive interviews with Roger's lookalike son Roger Craig Junior (who was also a Deputy Sheriff after his dad's tenure-1978 thru the 1980's), as well as other close relatives who, to my knowledge, never spoke before (he has photos of them, as well [Roger Junior presented with him at the conference]). His book contains everything remotely connected to Roger Craig- his manuscript When They Kill A President, rare photos, all relevant documents, etc. It is also a very good read; well put together. He also makes a compelling case that Roger did not commit suicide (or, in the off chance he did, he was compelled to do so via coercion as Gary Shaw eludes in the book, as Roger had several attempts on his life)- the rifle was not his, he was in a good mood that day, he just renewed his fishing license in anticipation of a trip, etc.
The autopsy report was a sophisticated effort of fiction?
Roger, Jr. was not separated from the Sheriff's Dept. in reaction to an alleged sex offense?
Gary Shaw is credible again because he finally shared this? ("special" copy of Rose Cheramie death certificate indicating a bullet wound to the skull.)
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/
And Roger Craig's daughter contradicts her brother on their Dad being "all there".
-
Help! He just keeps dusting himself off and doing it again. Will it ever stop? Forty-two percent of voters follow the instruction, "Only listen to me," the press is the enemy of the state, I'm the only one who matters.... trust diplomats from Ukraine, not "Obama diplomats," and they eat it up, tricked out in their MAGA merchandise!
The autopsy report was a sophisticated effort of fiction?
Roger, Jr. was not separated from the Sheriff's Dept. in reaction to an alleged sex offense?
Gary Shaw is credible again because he finally shared this? ("special" copy of Rose Cheramie death certificate indicating a bullet wound to the skull.)
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/
And Roger Craig's daughter contradicts her brother on their Dad being "all there".
Damned if I can see any entry saying that there was; "a bullet wound to the skull" Could you point out that entry?
-
Damned if I can see any entry saying that there was; "a bullet wound to the skull" Could you point out that entry?
Hit List: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious ...
https://books.google.com (https://books.google.com/books?id=WHGCDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&dq=conspiracy+of+silence+%E2%80%9Cdeep+punctate+stellate+wound+above+her+right+forehead.%E2%80%9D&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWzPuX0bDmAhVmUN8KHWEnBwoQ6AEwAXoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=conspiracy%20of%20silence%20%E2%80%9Cdeep%20punctate%20stellate%20wound%20above%20her%20right%20forehead.%E2%80%9D&f=false) › books
Richard Belzer, David Wayne - 2016
Found inside
... to researcher J. Gary Shaw in the book Conspiracy of Silence, the official autopsy of Cheramie has now disappeared. ... her other injuries, she had suffered a “deep punctate stellate wound above her right forehead” (Dateline Dallas, 1993).
The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X
edited by James DiEugenio, Lisa Pease
Link: Page 220 (https://books.google.com/books?id=VZDrXQK1LxIC&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=cheramie+%E2%80%9Cdeep+punctate+stellate+wound+above+her+right+forehead.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=LJRlqXSiNE&sig=ACfU3U3EoQzRiHD4tZhTXLvw-uQ56gWjGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQ55m6z7DmAhXxlOAKHdCDCC8Q6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
-
Was played threads ago. Happens redundantly.
It starts up every time someone posts Craig's name.
It has nothing to do with anything.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,948.msg20973.html#msg20973
http://www.conspiracybomb.com/killapresident.htm
-
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,948.msg20973.html#msg20973
http://www.conspiracybomb.com/killapresident.htm
Jerry, It's unfortunate that you accept Roger Craig's story as the gospel ....
I believe Roger Craig was an honest man with honorable intentions.... But he was a bit "off key" in singing his song.
I don't know why he insisted on embellishing his tale of seeing a mauser being examined by Detective's Day and Fritz. He could not have seen a Mauser because there is photographic proof that the rifle being examined by the detectives is a Model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.
It's a real shame that Roger Craig's ego would not allow him to admit an error......
-
Jerry, It's unfortunate that you accept Roger Craig's story as the gospel ....I believe Roger Craig was an honest man with honorable intentions.... But he was a bit "off key" in singing his song. I don't know why he insisted on embellishing his tale of seeing a mauser being examined by Detective's Day and Fritz. He could not have seen a Mauser because there is photographic proof that the rifle being examined by the detectives is a Model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. It's a real shame that Roger Craig's ego would not allow him to admit an error..
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.
-
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.
I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
I doubt that you are able understand.... Not many rational folks can understand the irrational.
I would guess Craig had people who were encouraging him to stick to his story... Craig absolutely knew that the Dallas Law authorities were involved in the murder of JFK, and he was trying to expose them.... But unfortunately he also had a gargantuan ego and a mental problem that destroyed his credibility.
-
I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
I doubt that you are able understand.... Not many rational folks can understand the irrational.
I would guess Craig had people who were encouraging him to stick to his story... Craig absolutely knew that the Dallas Law authorities were involved in the murder of JFK, and he was trying to expose them.... But unfortunately he also had a gargantuan ego and a mental problem that destroyed his credibility.
The guy was out of work and had a family to support. What was his primary concern?..... He'd rather starve, or in his case, relocate to mooch off of his in-laws.
Craig even seemed to miss the point of what a personnel manager does, investigate the backgrounds of prospective hires to protect the business and identify
who was likely a threat vs who likely was a contributor to growth and reputation of a customer service driven company.
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
When They Kill A President
By Roger Craig
....My family and I made the trip to New Orleans, where I was interviewed by Willard Robertson, the owner of the company. Mr. Robertson told me he was looking for a Personnel Manager and because of my background of dealing with the public he hired me. After a long trip back to Dallas where we gathered up our meager belongings we moved to New Orleans and I felt good?I was working again!
We had been there but a few days when all of our neighbors and half the people where I was working knew who I was. This was due to the newspaper and television coverage of Jim Garrison?s probe into the assassination. Again came the never-ending questions, which I did not mind because outside of Dallas people were sincerely interested and I certainly did not mind doing what I could to clear up any doubts they had. The people at the office treated me very well.
Unfortunately, after about a month I realized that I was not doing anything but going in to the office and coming home?nothing in between. Although I appreciated Jim Garrison recommending me for the job, I knew by this time that he had done this because he was concerned about my safety and wanted me out of Dallas. Because this company did not really need a Personnel Manager and I couldn?t take the money for a job I was not doing, I submitted my resignation to Mr. Robertson and my family and I returned to Dallas.
We arrived back in Dallas on a cold and snowy seventh of January, 1968, and moved in with Molly?s parents as we had very little money and nowhere to stay. The next few days I spent looking for work. I tried every ad and every lead I could find. The people who interviewed me always seemed interested but like all companies, they wanted to check out my references. When I failed to receive any results from my efforts, I called some of the places where I had placed applications to see what was wrong. I always received the same answer, ?the position had been filled.? Finally, I decided something was wrong and I suspected one employment reference, Bill Decker. I had a friend write Decker asking for an employment reference?he never received an answer! ...
https://jfkfacts.org/fact-check-was-a-mauser-found-in-the-texas-school-book-depository/#comment-21104
Paul May April 9, 2013 at 5:04 pm
Leslie, no doubt you are familiar with Mary Ferrell. Mary had a relationship of sorts with ... Craig. Here is what Mary had to say:
I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief
that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a
very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with
some of the “stories” he told following the events of that November
weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and,
possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of
the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig. When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that “they” prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger
did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had
“seen something or other.”
I have made enemies because I have continued to say that I have never
really believed him.
Mary Ferrell
I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.
-
The guy was out of work and had a family to support. What was his primary concern?..... He'd rather starve, or in his case, relocate to mooch off of his in-laws.
Craig even seemed to miss the point of what a personnel manager does, investigate the backgrounds of prospective hires to protect the business and identify
who was likely a threat vs who likely was a contributor to growth and reputation of a customer service driven company.
I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.
Mary was an unusually intelligent and perceptive lady.... She could see through Roger Craig's shenanigan's ......
-
I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.
Mary was an unusually intelligent and perceptive lady.... She could see through Roger Craig's shenanigan's ......
You've got to feel for Roger Craig. Made a fool of himself in front of his colleagues.
-
I'm not sure which man you're referring to.
I haven't drawn any portrait of Roger Craig. I think he was wrong about Saint Patsy scrambling down the knoll and leaving in the Rambler. I have sympathy for his apparent mental problems later in life. I certainly don't think he was any kind of martyr though.
If you're talking abt Reitzes, I think Dave has done some very good investigative work and is quite articulate. I just think his conclusion of a conspiracy is completely wrong.
It's not difficult to prove that Roger Craig had a mental problem. He was a liar, who would make up things to support something that may or may not have been true.
IOW....Craig would embroidery a vague or unproven event. And by embroidering he could convince the unwary that what he was saying was the gospel truth.
As an example, Craig said that he saw 7.65 Mauser stamped "right there on the barrel of the rifle" as Captain Fritz and Detective Day were examing the rifle.
This bit of embroidering ( lying) sounds very convincing.....However there are photos that show that Craig was not anywhere close to Captain fritz and Lt Day while they were examining the rifle.... Then later Craig said that they Mauser was found later that afternoon on the roof of the TSBD..... Now wait jest a damned minute Roger.....You've already said that the rifle had 7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel when Fritz and Day were examining it at about 1:50 pm .....and you left the TSBD shortly after that so you couldn't have been referring to the imaginary mauser that was found on the roof.
-
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.
I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day.
I agree.....I suspect that there was in fact a Mauser in the TSBD that afternoon..... But Roger Craig never saw it. And whether the suspected Mauser was connected in any way to the murder of JFK is completely unknown.....
-
The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.
I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
Of course you'll never understand ..... Who knows how a mis-wired brain functions?? Roger Craig had a mental problem..... and I doubt that even a psychiatrist could tell you why Roger Craig was ruining his life.
-
If everybody is finished squawking out their backside about someone they had never met and only knew about from the diss posts they read...they might consider that--- if Roger Craig was so far off and so mental [as these mental clowns have been saying]...then why did it take Sheriff Bill Decker four years after the assassination to fire him?
I will provide the answer to this right now---
Penn Jones ..who certainly did not agree with the official story and therefor must have been [automatically by definition] mental also ---
started rocking the boat big time in this area.
Penn was very persuasive...and encouraged RC to join forces with those who had questions. The powers that were had Decker fire Craig and discredit him regardless of the officer's otherwise unblemished public service.
Who here can attest to anything Roger Craig did that was out of line in his conduct as a deputy sheriff?
So there was a daughter that said Roger Craig was crazy. How do we know that she wasn't?
Craig said it was a Mauser...so did two other deputy sheriffs and a homicide captain. One of them [Weitzman] described a '7.65 caliber' why was that so specifically stated?
-
If everybody is finished squawking out their backside about someone they had never met and only knew about from the diss posts they read...they might consider that--- if Roger Craig was so far off and so mental [as these mental clowns have been saying]...then why did it take Sheriff Bill Decker four years after the assassination to fire him?
I will provide the answer to this right now---
Penn Jones ..who certainly did not agree with the official story and therefor must have been [automatically by definition] mental also ---
started rocking the boat big time in this area.
Penn was very persuasive...and encouraged RC to join forces with those who had questions. The powers that were had Decker fire Craig and discredit him regardless of the officer's otherwise unblemished public service.
Who here can attest to anything Roger Craig did that was out of line in his conduct as a deputy sheriff?
So there was a daughter that said Roger Craig was crazy. How do we know that she wasn't?
Craig said it was a Mauser...so did two other deputy sheriffs and a homicide captain. One of them [Weitzman] described a '7.65 caliber' why was that so specifically stated?
Jerry, I value your input and contributions to the forum, and I consider you a friend.... Therefore I'm disappointed that you accept Roger Craig's tales as the truth.
IMO you're nailing one of your feet to the floor and trying advance ..... IOW you're handicapping yourself in believing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser.....
-
If everybody is finished squawking out their backside about someone they had never met and only knew about from the diss posts they read...they might consider that--- if Roger Craig was so far off and so mental [as these mental clowns have been saying]...then why did it take Sheriff Bill Decker four years after the assassination to fire him?
I will provide the answer to this right now---
Penn Jones ..who certainly did not agree with the official story and therefor must have been [automatically by definition] mental also ---
started rocking the boat big time in this area.
Penn was very persuasive...and encouraged RC to join forces with those who had questions. The powers that were had Decker fire Craig and discredit him regardless of the officer's otherwise unblemished public service.
Who here can attest to anything Roger Craig did that was out of line in his conduct as a deputy sheriff?
So there was a daughter that said Roger Craig was crazy. How do we know that she wasn't?
Craig said it was a Mauser...so did two other deputy sheriffs and a homicide captain. One of them [Weitzman] described a '7.65 caliber' why was that so specifically stated?
Jerry, readers deserve to be informed of the following.....
Roger Craig was given a job in New Orleans by multi-millionaire Willard Robertson. Roger quit that job, knowing his employment options back in Dallas, by his own claims, were slim to none.
He was also claiming he felt physically unsafe in Dallas. He claimed he quit his job as personnel manager at Robertson's regional Volkswagen distributorship because he believed he was not giving Mr. Robertson
his money's worth! I describe below that Roger next moved his family in with his in-laws, after making the effort and expense to uproot his family out of NOLA and move them back to Dallas?
Consider that this behavior is in synch with Mary Ferrell saying he was offered a job by her husband, but did not want to work.
Consider how different your opinions of Roger Craig and Penn Jones are from mine. I attempt to support my opinions with facts, even though I certainly wish Roger Craig and Penn Jones were consistent sources.
The guy was out of work and had a family to support. What was his primary concern?..... He'd rather starve, or in his case, relocate to mooch off of his in-laws.
Craig even seemed to miss the point of what a personnel manager does, investigate the backgrounds of prospective hires to protect the business and identify
who was likely a threat vs who likely was a contributor to growth and reputation of a customer service driven company.
...Unfortunately, after about a month I realized that I was not doing anything but going in to the office and coming home?nothing in between. Although I appreciated Jim Garrison recommending me for the job, I knew by this time that he had done this because he was concerned about my safety and wanted me out of Dallas. Because this company did not really need a Personnel Manager and I couldn?t take the money for a job I was not doing, I submitted my resignation to Mr. Robertson and my family and I returned to Dallas.
We arrived back in Dallas on a cold and snowy seventh of January, 1968, and moved in with Molly?s parents as we had very little money and nowhere to stay. The next few days I spent looking for work. I tried every ad and every lead I could find. ...
Penn Jones was the Donald Trump of his days, a shameless promoter attempting to make a living from an inadequate business platform, a newspaper in a geographical area too small to generate adequate revenue from its advertising base. Fact checking was never Penn Jones's SOP !
Ask Eddy Benavides or "Jack Zangretti "..... not saying Penn Jones was always unreliable. I'm saying he was very flawed because his primary motive may have been pursuing money and attention.
Compare Penn Jones to Harold Weissberg, as far as overall accuracy and pursuit of money and attention, vs investigating what actually happened and reporting about it.
http://archive.newsok.com/olive/apa/oklahoman/get/pdf.ashx?pdf=Q%2FfgObTGN3TVs%2FBbg3tfCWM%3D
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ZanghettiPennJones1973_1of3.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/ZanghettiPennJones1973_2of3.jpg)
........
Contrary to claims Penn Jones made about "Jack" Zangretti, the actual person Jones UNDOUBTEDLY described and published about in his newspaper, newsletters, and book(s), did not die in 1963.....
Zanghetti was a long time dyin' .... more than eleven years, by the actual, facts supported look of it!
.......
(http://trumpnormal.com/images/CaprioBenavidesRedux.jpg)
-
Therefore I'm disappointed that you accept Roger Craig's tales as the truth. IOW you're handicapping yourself in believing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser.....
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.
-
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
In His warren commission testimony, Craig said that he was there on the sixth floor when the spent shells were discovered..... and he heard Mooney call out that he had found evidence of the place where the shots had been fired from.
The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm..... Roger was NOT on the sixth floor at that time....He arrived with the flashlights from the Sheriff's
office at around 1:15 / 1:20 ......
Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
-
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
In His warren commission testimony, Craig said that he was there on the sixth floor when the spent shells were discovered..... and he heard Mooney call out that he had found evidence of the place where the shots had been fired from.
The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm..... Roger was NOT on the sixth floor at that time....He arrived with the flashlights from the Sheriff's
office at around 1:15 / 1:20 ......
Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
"The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm.....
If you decipher the 1st day "supplemental investigation reports" from Dallas Sheriff's Department below, they found the shells and the rifle,
you'll see the shells were discovered at 1:12pm and the rifle 10 minutes later at 1:22pm.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
-
Just as an example to show how details will mutate over time....
Seymour Weitzman worked in a sporting goods store for some length of time. He may have sold rifles, pistols, basketballs, & tennis rackets.
Then in recent years... He was as much as actually owning a gun store in some accounts.
From a JFK blog---Weitzman clearly changed his story. His sworn affadavit that he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts. He had to dictate the affadavit and present the truth. And that document corroborates deputy Craig’s statement to Mark Lane that, “stamped right on the barrel” were the words “7.65 Mauser”. How could two officers – one, Weitzman, who formerly owner a sporting goods store, have conceivably made such a gross error? Let’s not call a square a round hole here.
-
Just as an example to show how details will mutate over time....
Seymour Weitzman worked in a sporting goods store for some length of time. He may have sold rifles, pistols, basketballs, & tennis rackets.
Then in recent years... He was as much as actually owning a gun store in some accounts.
From a JFK blog---
Weitzman clearly changed his story. His sworn affadavit that he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts. He had to dictate the affadavit and present the truth. And that document corroborates deputy Craig’s statement to Mark Lane that, “stamped right on the barrel” were the words “7.65 Mauser”.
he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts.
I agree that Seymour Weitzman DID in fact see ( and examine )a 7.65 Mauser sometime between 2:30 pm 11/22/63 and 12:00 pm 11/23 /63 .... The FBI report that was written by FBI agent A1bert Sawyer on 11/23/63, and the description of the rifle in that report, leaves no doubt that Weitzman was describing a 7.65 Mauser.
So the question becomes..... Who presented a Mauser to Weitzman, and had him describe it for the FBI report?? And what was the motive for getting Weitzman on record as saying the rifle was a mauser?
PS.... What day did Weitzman write the affidavit in which he retracted his identification of the TSBD carcano as a Mauser.?
-
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.
Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Good Point!!..... But it wasn't Arnold Rowland alone who saw a rifle that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano....Howard Brennan also saw a rifle being aimed out of a sixth floor window that he described as a "High Powered Rifle ( ie; a hunting rifle) Brennan told the cop who asked him if he knew what kind of rifle the man was aiming, and Brennan told him that he didn't know much about rifles, but he guessed that the rifle could have been a 30-30 Winchester. Thus the early DPD radio dispatches said that the suspect was armed with a 30 caliber rifle.
-
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.
-
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.
A 30.06 Sporterized Mauser?? When was any Mauser produced in the 30.06 caliber. I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that there never ever was a Mauser manufactured that would fire the 30.06 cartridge.
-
A 30.06 Sporterized Mauser?? When was any Mauser produced in the 30.06 caliber. I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that there never ever was a Mauser manufactured that would fire the 30.06 cartridge.
https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=mauser%2030%2006
(https://p1.gunbroker.com/pics/858950000/858950738/pix386635551.jpg)
-
Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.
Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
Mr. BALL. Who owned them?
Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.
A 30.06 Sporterized Mauser?? When was any Mauser produced in the 30.06 caliber. I'm no expert, but I'm fairly sure that there never ever was a Mauser manufactured that would fire the 30.06 cartridge.
Just in case you're thinking of replying to Jerry that rechambered Mausers in 30 "aught six" must be some new thing.....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/TSBDCasterSporterizedMauser30_06.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield
The .30-06 Springfield cartridge (pronounced "thirty-aught-six"), 7.62×63mm in metric notation and called ".30 Gov't '06" by Winchester,[3] was introduced to the United States Army in 1906 and later standardized; it remained in use until the late-1970s. The ".30" refers to the caliber of the bullet in inches. The "06" refers to the year the cartridge was adopted, 1906. .....
-
https://www.gunbroker.com/All/search?Keywords=mauser%2030%2006
(https://p1.gunbroker.com/pics/858950000/858950738/pix386635551.jpg)
Jerry, these rifles are not MANUFACTURED as 30.06 ....These are custom rifles using the Mauser action and a 30.06 barrel.....
-
Jerry, these rifles are not MANUFACTURED as 30.06 ....These are custom rifles using the Mauser action and a 30.06 barrel.....
Isn't that what sporterizing is? Modifying or converting?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporterising.
Anyway I took the Warren Caster affair to that other thread.
-
Isn't that what sporterizing is? Modifying or converting?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporterising.
Anyway I took the Warren Caster affair to that other thread.
Jeeez Jerry!..... Yes sporterizing is the act of converting a military rifle into a high powered big game hunting rifle. BUT nobody would simply change the barrel to convert a 7.65 Mauser and leave the rest of the rifle with the military trappings.
If Warren Caster had a sporterized military rifle that was customized to utilize the 30.06 cartridge .... Then you can bet that the rifle no longer looked like military rifle.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
I guess I read that differently than you.... As I see it that says.... The rifle was a 30.06 Mauser that was sporterized.... While you apparent interpret it as saying The rifle was a metric mauser that had been sporterized ( converted ) to fire the 30.06 cartridge. ( and honestly I do believe that is what Caster intended to say...But it certainly is not what he said.)
-
Jeeez Jerry!..... Yes sporterizing is the act of converting a military rifle into a high powered big game hunting rifle. BUT nobody would simply change the barrel to convert a 7.65 Mauser and leave the rest of the rifle with the military trappings.
If Warren Caster had a sporterized military rifle that was customized to utilize the 30.06 cartridge .... Then you can bet that the rifle no longer looked like military rifle.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
I guess I read that differently than you.... As I see it that says.... The rifle was a 30.06 Mauser that was sporterized.... While you apparent interpret it as saying The rifle was a metric mauser that had been sporterized ( converted ) to fire the 30.06 cartridge. ( and honestly I do believe that is what Caster intended to say...But it certainly is not what he said.)
Where was Mr caster at the time of the assassination i wonder. He should have been considered a suspect, even if only a very slight possibility of being the shooter.
-
Where was Mr caster at the time of the assassination i wonder. He should have been considered a suspect, even if only a very slight possibility of being the shooter.
I believe that Warren Caster had solid alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder.....A better question would be WHERE was his mauser??
-
I believe that Warren Caster had solid alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder.....A better question would be WHERE was his mauser??
I don’t know how solid it was, but he claimed to be at North Texas State University in Denton, TX having lunch with Dr. Vernon V. Payne.
-
I don’t know how solid it was, but he claimed to be at North Texas State University in Denton, TX having lunch with Dr. Vernon V. Payne.
Not solid at all, according to Caster's recollection.....
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407094020/http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Meeting%20Warren%20Caster.htm
Meeting Warren Caster - by Rick Caster
.........
Warren Commission testimony
In March 1964, Warren was contacted by Special Agent E.J. Robertson, of the Dallas FBI. Robertson told Warren that he had to ask him some questions on behalf of the President’s Commission which had been set up to establish the facts pertaining to the death of President Kennedy. Warren attended the questioning, which was carried out at the Post Office Building in Dallas, and he answered the agent’s questions to the best of his ability.
Shortly afterwards, on the afternoon of 14th May 1964, Warren again attended at Room 301 of the Post Office Building where he testified before Joseph A. Ball, an Assistant Counsel with the President’s Commission (commonly known as the Warren Commission). I specifically asked Warren how he was treated by Mr Ball during his testimony. Warren replied: “He was very polite and acted as though he did not want to impose on me. I just answered what he asked me and that was that.” (Warren’s testimony is at 7H 386-388).
Warren did bring up one interesting point about his testimony. To his knowledge, the Warren Commission never confirmed his alibi with Dr Payne or with anyone else at the University. As Warren said: “They got off my back pretty quick.” He was never contacted again.
Warren continued to work at the TSBD for a further eight years, being promoted to the position of Manager of the Southwestern Publishing Company. He eventually moved on to become the Regional Vice-President before retiring in 1983...
Obits of Warren Dee Caster, of his wife, and of his brother. (Links in that order.) :
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20010924&id=2wJPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Th8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=4544,2852046
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/starnewsonline/obituary.aspx?n=ruthanna-walz-caster&pid=141082166
http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=CASTER&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=34&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=54204920&df=all&[/quote]
-
Jeeez Jerry!..... Yes sporterizing is the act of converting a military rifle into a high powered big game hunting rifle. BUT nobody would simply change the barrel to convert a 7.65 Mauser and leave the rest of the rifle with the military trappings.
If Warren Caster had a sporterized military rifle that was customized to utilize the 30.06 cartridge .... Then you can bet that the rifle no longer looked like military rifle.
Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?
Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.
I guess I read that differently than you.... As I see it that says.... The rifle was a 30.06 Mauser that was sporterized.... While you apparent interpret it as saying The rifle was a metric mauser that had been sporterized ( converted ) to fire the 30.06 cartridge. ( and honestly I do believe that is what Caster intended to say...But it certainly is not what he said.)
Quotes from a gun forum discussing Argentine Mausers.
"My son was given a 1903 (Argentine?) Mauser chambered in .30-06. All serial numbers, including barell, matched. The barell
appears to be factory marked as .30-06. It doesn't shoot worth a crap, and the casings show "ridges" on the shoulder as if
the chamber reamer was really worn out. Any suggestions for a decnnt fix? I thought maybe rechambering to .30-06 A I might
be plausible."
"The Argentine mauser is considered the finest mauser action ever built. However they were chamber in the 7.65 Argentine
cartridge. This was a .312" diameter bulleted cartridge. This cartrige was the same head size as the 30-06, but the Argentine
cartridge was shorter. Since ammo was scarce and expensive, many importers simply rechambered them for the 30-06, leaving the
barrel .312" diameter. The 30-06 being .308" diameter the bullets were rather loose going down the barrel."
-
Quotes from a gun forum discussing Argentine Mausers.
"My son was given a 1903 (Argentine?) Mauser chambered in .30-06. All serial numbers, including barell, matched. The barell
appears to be factory marked as .30-06. It doesn't shoot worth a crap, and the casings show "ridges" on the shoulder as if
the chamber reamer was really worn out. Any suggestions for a decnnt fix? I thought maybe rechambering to .30-06 A I might
be plausible."
"The Argentine mauser is considered the finest mauser action ever built. However they were chamber in the 7.65 Argentine
cartridge. This was a .312" diameter bulleted cartridge. This cartrige was the same head size as the 30-06, but the Argentine
cartridge was shorter. Since ammo was scarce and expensive, many importers simply rechambered them for the 30-06, leaving the
barrel .312" diameter. The 30-06 being .308" diameter the bullets were rather loose going down the barrel."
Thank you for confirming my point, That the Argentine mauser never ever was manufactured to fire the 30.06 cartridge.... Many were converted to accept the 30.06 cartridge but the Argie never was manufactured as a 30.06.
-
Thank you for confirming my point, That the Argentine mauser never ever was manufactured to fire the 30.06 cartridge.... Many were converted to accept the 30.06 cartridge but the Argie never was manufactured as a 30.06.
Apparently there were some 30.06 Mausers manufactured, (Belgium and Brazil) but none were the Argentine.
-
From post #157 by Tom Scully---
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407094020/http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Meeting%20Warren%20Caster.htm
Meeting Warren Caster - by Rick Caster
From that link---------
In the building, on his way back to his office, Warren met his friend Roy Truly, the TSBD Superintendent, and he showed the two rifles to Mr Truly, who picked up the larger rifle (the Mauser). Also present at this time while the guns were being examined were William Shelley, Manager of the Distribution Department, and a small group of employees, one of whom, Warren recalled, was Lee Harvey Oswald. After approximately ten minutes of handling and studying the rifles, the group broke up and Warren replaced the weapons in their boxes. He took them to his office where they remained until 4 o’clock when he put them into the boot of his car and drove home.
As we may recall...Oswald's name was not even mentioned by anyone in Warren Caster's WC testimony.
-
From post #157 by Tom Scully---
http://web.archive.org/web/20070407094020/http://www.dealeyplazauk.co.uk/Meeting%20Warren%20Caster.htm
Meeting Warren Caster - by Rick Caster
From that link---------As we may recall...Oswald's name was not even mentioned by anyone in Warren Caster's WC testimony.
Oswald's name was not even mentioned by anyone in Warren Caster's WC testimony.
That's true, ....but...... Lee Oswald told the interrogators that he'd see this rifle ( the carcano) and two other rifles outside Mr Truly's office at lunchtime on Wednesday November 20, 1963. So I believe that Lee was there.... He may not have been part of the group, and he could have been watching from the distance, but he definitely saw the rifles.....( and he probably heard remarks like "Boy, I'd like to get these sights on that SOB JFK" ) Caster was good friends with HL Hunt the billionaire oilman who hated JFK. and Hunt often visited Caster in the TSBD.. ) If we could know the truth I would not be surprised If I were to learn that after seeing the rifles, Lee Oswald took a note to Hosty at the FBI office in an effort to get Hosty to contact him.
PS..... If Lee recognized the Carcano as being like the one that he and De Mohrenschildt had ordered from Kleins he may have wanted to verify that the carcano was still in the blanket and that might have been his reason for the trip to Irving on Thursday afternoon.
-
The spent shells were found by Luke Mooney at about 1:05 pm..... Roger was NOT on the sixth floor at that time....He arrived with the flashlights from the Sheriff's
office at around 1:15 / 1:20 ......
Its not really possible to determine where people were at any given time with a degree of certainty. Dealey Plaza is a very small area so someone could move around quiet quickly from one spot to the next. This is especially so while running around which they would have been doing given the chaotic circumstances in the plaza at that moment in time.
-
Its not really possible to determine where people were at any given time with a degree of certainty. Dealey Plaza is a very small area so someone could move around quiet quickly from one spot to the next. This is especially so while running around which they would have been doing given the chaotic circumstances in the plaza at that moment in time.
The point is:...Roger Craig said that he was there with Luke Mooney when Mooney spotted the spent shells. So I ask you ; Was Roger Craig there with Mooney when Mooney spotted the shells.?
-
Dealey Plaza is a very small area so someone could move around quiet quickly from one spot to the next.
You really think it is "very small"? How many times have you been?
At any rate...it was an excellent location for an assassination.
-
The point is:...Roger Craig said that he was there with Luke Mooney when Mooney spotted the spent shells. So I ask you ; Was Roger Craig there with Mooney when Mooney spotted the shells.?
Craig kept changing his story so you have to listen to other people as to what Craig was doing that day rather than listening to Craig himself.
-
Craig kept changing his story so you have to listen to other people as to what Craig was doing that day rather than listening to Craig himself.
IOW...Roger Craig was a liar..... I totally agree with that conclusion.
If Roger had been with Mooney at the time (1:06) Mooney discovered the spent shells...then he could not have been on the street to hear the citizen using Tippi's radio.
The Primary lie that Roger Craig invented was his lie about seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was ----7.65 Mauser"
-
IOW...Roger Craig was a liar..... I totally agree with that conclusion.
If Roger had been with Mooney at the time (1:06) Mooney discovered the spent shells...then he could not have been on the street to hear the citizen using Tippi's radio.
The Primary lie that Roger Craig invented was his lie about seeing "stamped right there on the barrel was ----7.65 Mauser"
How do you know this? Are were there no rifles with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel? And don't cite the Alyea film as your proof, because it isn't. And who wasn't a liar? Even the non-conspirators lied to recant their stories after they realized they were being swept up in a conspiracy and their lives were in danger. Wouldn't YOU lie?
ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?
-
How do you know this? Are were there no rifles with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel? And don't cite the Alyea film as your proof, because it isn't. And who wasn't a liar? Even the non-conspirators lied to recant their stories after they realized they were being swept up in a conspiracy and their lives were in danger. Wouldn't YOU lie?
ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?
Jack,... Roger Craig said that at the time that Captain Fritz and Detective Day were examining the rifle ( when Fritz removed a live round of 6.5mm carc cartridge from the carcano) He (Roger Craig) saw "stamped right there on the barrel ---was 7.65 mauser " He emphasized the words 7.65 mauser. ( this strong emphasis on the "7.65 mauser" is typical of a liar who is desperate to convince his listeners that he's telling the truth.)
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
-
How do you know this? Are were there no rifles with "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel? And don't cite the Alyea film as your proof, because it isn't. And who wasn't a liar? Even the non-conspirators lied to recant their stories after they realized they were being swept up in a conspiracy and their lives were in danger. Wouldn't YOU lie?
ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?
ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?
I don't doubt that the mauser that Weitzman examined and provided a detailed description for to Sayer was stamped 7.65 mauser.
To be candid,..... I've long suspected that Weitzman talked to Craig sometime after Weitzman's interview with Sayer, and Weitzman told Craig that "stamped right there on the barrel were the words 7.65 mauser. And that's where Craig got that information....Unfortunately Craig and his gargantuan ego wanted it to appear hat he had seen the stamp, so rather than tell the truth he made up the tale about how he had seen the stamp on the barrel.
-
Jack,... Roger Craig said that at the time that Captain Fritz and Detective Day were examining the rifle ( when Fritz removed a live round of 6.5mm carc cartridge from the carcano) He (Roger Craig) saw "stamped right there on the barrel ---was 7.65 mauser " He emphasized the words 7.65 mauser. ( this strong emphasis on the "7.65 mauser" is typical of a liar who is desperate to convince his listeners that he's telling the truth.)
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
Jesus tap dancing Christ!
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How do you know this?
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.
-
ps. I wonder if "7.65 Mauser" was stamped on the rifle that Fritz handed Weitzman. What happened to that Mauser?
I don't doubt that the mauser that Weitzman examined and provided a detailed description for to Sayer was stamped 7.65 mauser.
To be candid,..... I've long suspected that Weitzman talked to Craig sometime after Weitzman's interview with Sayer, and Weitzman told Craig that "stamped right there on the barrel were the words 7.65 mauser. And that's where Craig got that information....Unfortunately Craig and his gargantuan ego wanted it to appear hat he had seen the stamp, so rather than tell the truth he made up the tale about how he had seen the stamp on the barrel.
I don't doubt that the mauser that Weitzman examined and provided a detailed description for to Sayer was stamped 7.65 mauser.
Then where did Weitzman get the "7.65" part from?
To be candid,..... I've long suspected that Weitzman talked to Craig sometime after Weitzman's interview with Sayer, and Weitzman told Craig that "stamped right there on the barrel were the words 7.65 mauser. And that's where Craig got that information....Unfortunately Craig and his gargantuan ego wanted it to appear hat he had seen the stamp, so rather than tell the truth he made up the tale about how he had seen the stamp on the barrel.
Long suspected? You sound uncertain to me. Why do you assume Craig had a gargantuan ego? Because he lied? Admit it, you don't have a clue how it went down and it was POSSIBLE that Craig read the same barrel that Weitzman saw. Fritz handed him the Mauser so he could attribute Weitzman's testimony to that event instead of the crime scene. Isn't that where critical thinking should take you? Otherwise, what other hypothesis fits all the evidence? Not yours.
-
Jesus tap dancing Christ!
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How do you know this?
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.
I give up, Jack..... You believe what ever floats yer boat..... I had hopes of flushing the Mauser crap down the toilet where it belongs...but with people like you around that BS is probably going to continue to stink up the atmosphere for a long time..
-
I give up, Jack..... You believe what ever floats yer boat..... I had hopes of flushing the Mauser crap down the toilet where it belongs...but with people like you around that BS is probably going to continue to stink up the atmosphere for a long time..
Don't give up Walt :)
Just tell them that the Mauser is not necessary to explain that the whole snipers nest business is useless to start with.
The snipers nest is not workable otherwise the reenactment would have been carried out from here .. Not even has any Hollywood movie been able to place an Oswald in a valid shooting position in a similar snipers nest.
The snipers nest was not necessary. You just need a little open space and sitting in a kneeling position using open sights for this distance. A scope for this distance and a moving target makes it difficult to regain the sight picture.
The scope could not be sighed in correctly and had a faulty or not military configured trigger. Since the scope was not sighed in correctly you may had to put the cross hairs on Kellermann to hit JFK. When experts were to repeat the shooting were they furnished with a by then sighed in rifle?
I probably forgot a lot but the snipers nest business is definitely wrong.
It's easy to determine if a rifle has been recently fired or the day before or a week ago (I've checked many rifles when I'm in the army)
Why wasn't such a test carried out?
*Sighted in*, my spellchecker is not friendly today 😊
-
Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Walt could you locate and paste where he said that?
When Fritz testified..he would have said his own mother was up there on the 6th floor if he had to.
Mr. BALL. What did you do?
Mr. FRITZ. I told them not to move the cartridges, not to touch anything until we could get the crime lab to take pictures of them just as they were lying there and I left an officer assigned there to see that that was done, and the crime lab came almost immediately, and took pictures, and dusted the shelfs for prints.
Mr. BALL. Which officers, which officer did you leave there?
Mr. FRITZ. Carl Day was the man I talked to about taking pictures.
Mr. BALL. Day?
Mr. FRITZ. Lieutenant Day; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Do you know whether he took the pictures or not?
Mr. FRITZ. I feel like he did but I don't know because I didn't stay to see whether he could.
Really on top of things there Capt Will Fritz.
We should put the Mauser thing to bed grave..it has been discussed to death. But the cop's lies are never ending.
-
Walt could you locate and paste where he said that?
When Fritz testified..he would have said his own mother was up there on the 6th floor if he had to.Really on top of things there Capt Will Fritz.
We should put the Mauser thing to bed grave..it has been discussed to death. But the cop's lies are never ending.
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?
Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.
Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
This isn't exactly what I was looking for, but perhaps it will do to answer your question.... I recall Fritz saying that the shells were stamped 6,5 Carc
Do you want me to look some more?
-
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?
Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.
Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mediocre rehearsal of testimony? Perhaps not.
Those ambiguous convoluted statements are exactly what I meant. Fritz was probably crapping his pants that he would accidentally say something that was factually correct.
Fritz didn't initial the rifle, the ejected cartridge, the spent shells, or the paper bag.
Like Pilate..he was more than ready to wash his hands of the whole mess.
I don't see anybody's initials on this sucker.....
(https://i.insider.com/59f1fc3bbcf93d1d008b4981?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
(http://publiusvaleri.us/wp-content/gallery/switched-shells-at-nara/thumbs/thumbs_Fig08-1968-CE543544545.jpg)
(http://publiusvaleri.us/wp-content/gallery/switched-shells-at-nara/thumbs/thumbs_Fig01-1963-FBI-CD1.jpg)
Upper photo..closeup of the items in the lower-note the dent in one casing. That would have screwed up the action [I would think]
http://publiusvaleri.us/switched-shells-gallery/ Click photos to enlarge & go figure. I don't see initials on anything.
-
Jesus tap dancing Christ!
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How do you know this?
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How do you know this?
In he video of Roger Craig boasting of having seen the inscription "7.65 Stamped right there on the barrel " Craig is superimposed on the Alyea flim that shows Craig in the back ground.
-
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How could you possibly know that?
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Where? I just went through his testimony and I don't see anything like this.
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
How is that supposed to tell you anything about what Roger Craig saw?
-
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
John I beat me to it.
How do you know this?
In he video of Roger Craig boasting of having seen the inscription "7.65 Stamped right there on the barrel " Craig is superimposed on the Alyea flim that shows Craig in the back ground.
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?
-
John I beat me to it.
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?
Why would the Dallas police be covering for the proposed assassins?
-
Why would the Dallas police be covering for the proposed assassins?
1. Cops were involved. 2. Cops cover for cops.
-
John I beat me to it.
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
-
Jesus tap dancing Christ!
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How do you know this?
B) Captain Fritz testified that the live round was stamped "6,5mm carc"
Do you hear yourself? "Captain Fritz" said...anything! Besides, what does that have to do with anything?
C) The photos taken of Day departing the TSBD show that he was carrying a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
And? Do you think they would have carried out the Mauser the same way? And do you think they wouldn't have squirreled away the Mauser until the heat was off? Give your head a shake and ask yourself where the Mauser that Weitzman described came from? Answer that before you claim that Craig was lying about seeing a Mauser.
A) Roger Craig was not close enough to the rifle to read any inscriptions on the rifle.
How do you know this?
Open your eyes and LOOK .....Starting at the 9:52 point in the you tube video ....... Do you see Roger Craig " NOT MORE THAN SIX or EIGHT INCHES FROM THE RIFLE" and looking at the rifle??
-
At the first of the clip..the guy with the arrow pointed at him is not Roger Craig.
He turned out to be an FBI. Somewhere I saw his name and other pictures of him.
-
John I beat me to it.
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO?
THIS is the video that I'm referring to.....
Get your eyes open and LOOK.... starting at the about the 9: 52 point ..... Do you see Roger Craig just "Six or eight inches" from the rifle?
-
Open your eyes and LOOK .....Starting at the 9:52 point in the you tube video ....... Do you see Roger Craig " NOT MORE THAN SIX or EIGHT INCHES FROM THE RIFLE" and looking at the rifle??
a) a rifle isn’t even visible in the film segment that focuses on a man that the maker of the YouTube video is apparently identifying as Craig by circling his face in a blue tint.
b) why do you keep assuming that the extant Alyea film captured everything that happened with a rifle or rifles on the sixth floor that afternoon?
-
Craig had to have his reputation completely destroyed because he was saying stuff that was inconvenient for the narrative. Same with Arnold Rowland.
-
a) a rifle isn’t even visible in the film segment that focuses on a man that the maker of the YouTube video is apparently identifying as Craig by circling his face in a blue tint.
b) why do you keep assuming that the extant Alyea film captured everything that happened with a rifle or rifles on the sixth floor that afternoon?
a) a rifle isn’t even visible in the film segment that focuses on a man that the maker of the YouTube video is apparently identifying as Craig by circling his face in a blue tint.
Thank you for proving that you are simply a contrarian AH ..... Because anybody watching the Vid can see Fritz examining the MANNLICHER CARCANO....and Roger Craig is not six or eight inches from the rifle.
-
Craig had to have his reputation completely destroyed because he was saying stuff that was inconvenient for the narrative. Same with Arnold Rowland.
Craig created his reputation..... And it's a shame, because he might have provided us with some very good information.
-
Thank you for proving that you are simply a contrarian AH ..... Because anybody watching the Vid can see Fritz examining the MANNLICHER CARCANO....and Roger Craig is not six or eight inches from the rifle.
Are you the same Walt Cakebread who just wrote this?
Jack, Apparently you are of the mind set that thinks insults and name calling will win the debate.
Go ahead, Walt, point out the rifle in this screen shot of the alleged Craig.
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/craig-alyea.png)
-
You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO?
THIS is the video that I'm referring to.....
Get your eyes open and LOOK.... starting at the about the 9: 52 point ..... Do you see Roger Craig just "Six or eight inches" from the rifle?
Will you f*ck off with the open your eyes crap. All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there. Why do you keep insisting that all the footage you refer to shows the complete picture or even the correct sequence of events? A film can't show you what didn't happen. Everyone that was caught up in the conspiracy lied and that included Craig and Weitzman. At least Craig had the guts to blow the whistle and for that you slander him with fabricated evidence. You haven't even proven that he lied about the Mauser. Why would Fritz have asked Craig and Weitzman to leave the CRIME SCENE? Knowing that this was a conspiracy, don't you think Craig thought his life was in danger? Wouldn't that explain his erratic behavior and his "mental illness"? And why do you assume he committed suicide? Is it because you hate him? Open your mind and THINK.
-
Will you f*ck off with the open your eyes crap. All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there. Why do you keep insisting that all the footage you refer to shows the complete picture or even the correct sequence of events? A film can't show you what didn't happen. Everyone that was caught up in the conspiracy lied and that included Craig and Weitzman. At least Craig had the guts to blow the whistle and for that you slander him with fabricated evidence. You haven't even proven that he lied about the Mauser. Why would Fritz have asked Craig and Weitzman to leave the CRIME SCENE? Knowing that this was a conspiracy, don't you think Craig thought his life was in danger? Wouldn't that explain his erratic behavior and his "mental illness"? And why do you assume he committed suicide? Is it because you hate him? Open your mind and THINK.
All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there.
Clip???? Did you view the video? I would guess from your response that you didn't..... But I'm tired of arguing with you....You're hopeless.
-
All that clip shows is that Fritz lied about Craig being there.
Clip???? Did you view the video? I would guess from your response that you didn't..... But I'm tired of arguing with you....You're hopeless.
Do you not know what "clip" means? It has no size restrictions. It is a section of film taken from the reel. It can be the whole reel or it can be a single frame. Carry on thinking that you know what you are looking at. Trust me, your lying eyes don't.
-
Do you not know what "clip" means? It has no size restrictions. It is a section of film taken from the reel. It can be the whole reel or it can be a single frame. Carry on thinking that you know what you are looking at. Trust me, your lying eyes don't.
Here's a real simple question.... Do you see Captain Fritz with the carcano there on the sixth floor.... Is Roger Craig anywhere in the close proximity?....Like "six or eight inches from the rifle" so that he could read "right there on the barrel"...the inscription ..... 7 .65 Mauser. ?
-
Here's a real simple question.... Do you see Captain Fritz with the carcano there on the sixth floor.... Is Roger Craig anywhere in the close proximity?....Like "six or eight inches from the rifle" so that he could read "right there on the barrel"...the inscription ..... 7 .65 Mauser. ?
Walt, you seem obsessed with film footage. You don't seem capable of accepting that it doesn't show everything that happened. Why do you think it does?
-
Walt, you seem obsessed with film footage. You don't seem capable of accepting that it doesn't show everything that happened. Why do you think it does?
Of course the footage most certainly does show that Roger Craig was nowhere near Captain Fritz at the time Fritz was examining the Carcano.
-
Of course the footage most certainly does show that Roger Craig was nowhere near Captain Fritz at the time Fritz was examining the Carcano.
What about the parts where the camera wasn't filming? And what does any footage have to do with whether Craig read the barrel of the Mauser at the crime scene? Do you think Craig should be in this footage 6" from the rifle for his story to be true? Because that's BS. First off, all film must be taken with a grain of salt. You need to know the provenance of the film footage and set the scene to put it into context before you use it to make any claims. And a film cannot show you what didn't happen. EOS.
-
You need to know the provenance of the film footage and set the scene to put it into context before you use it to make any claims. And a film cannot show you what didn't happen. EOS.
Very hard to fake film footage. Especially as it was aired on the actual day itself.
-
Here's a real simple question.... Do you see Captain Fritz with the carcano there on the sixth floor.... Is Roger Craig anywhere in the close proximity?....Like "six or eight inches from the rifle" so that he could read "right there on the barrel"...the inscription ..... 7 .65 Mauser. ?
Again, Walt, you don't know that this film segment reflects the time that Craig said he was 6 or 8 inches from the rifle.
-
Again, Walt, you don't know that this film segment reflects the time that Craig said he was 6 or 8 inches from the rifle.
Craig only stated this YEARS later. Never mentioned it in his WC testimony.
-
There are film clips that shows Lee standing on the stub street in front of the TSBD.
No there aren’t.
-
No there aren’t.
We have differing opinions..... But you don't even know what I'm referring to.....
-
I have not been able to find any original source of the Helen Forest/Forrest claim.
-
Roger Craig committed suicide.....
That's how they killed him.
-
That's like asking a monkey not to fling poo.
:D :D :D
-
That's how they killed him.
Perhaps you're right..... "They" may have drove Roger Craig to suicide but he committed the act. This is exactly what I think happened to George De M ....
In some circles of society there is a creed of "death before dishonor".... And I believe George De M was of that creed. De M knew the truth about the coup d e'tat, and he knew that Lee had been made the scapegoat....but he couldn't tell the truth to the whole wide world because he would have been putting a noose around his own neck and bringing shame to his kids and grandkids.
-
Everyone that was caught up in the conspiracy lied and that included Craig and Weitzman. At least Craig had the guts to blow the whistle and for that you slander him with fabricated evidence. You haven't even proven that he lied about the Mauser.
Craig DID see a mauser on the 6th floor. The only problem was that he saw it there in 1968 in his own imagination.
He also really DID see 3 spent shells neatly lined up in the snipers nest (in 1968 in his own imagination).
If people can imagine their own genders, why can't Craig imagine a mauser on the 6th floor?
-
Craig DID see a mauser on the 6th floor. The only problem was that he saw it there in 1968 in his own imagination.
He also really DID see 3 spent shells neatly lined up in the snipers nest (in 1968 in his own imagination).
If people can imagine their own genders, why can't Craig imagine a mauser on the 6th floor?
If we could know the truth, I'd bet that Weitzman talked to Craig about his interview with FBI agent A1bert Sayers and Weitzman told Craig that he'd been handed the rifle that he and Boone had discovered and it was a 7.65 mauser, and that identification of the caliber was "STAMPED RIGHT THERE ON THE BARREL"
But Craig with his gargantuan ego made up the tale that he had seen that stamp when he was "not more than six or eight inches from the rifle" when Day held it up to Fritz.
PS.... It is reported that Seymour Weitzman had psychological problems for the rest of his life following the coup d e'tat. Can anybody verify the rumor ?
-
He also really DID see 3 spent shells ...
Mr. BELIN - Do you recall any of the shells right up against the wall at all---- or, don't you recall?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I don't; I didn't look that close.
:-\
-
:-\
Some DPD photos show only TWO spent shells..... But the DPD mixed the authentic photos in with the fake photos so I'm sure there will be those who point out that other photos show three spent shells.
-
With people like you posting nonsense.... We never will get to the bottom of it....
As if you are going to get to the bottom of it. There is a very good chance that some token shots were taken from the 6th floor so witnesses could direct the cops to where they thought the shots came from. This was crucial so the DPD could converge on Oswald in record time. So that being the case, then an Oswald surrogate took a few shots with a Mauser, ditched it then escaped the scene. You acknowledge that Oswald didn't take any shots himself, so someone else must have. The conspirators would have used a surrogate who looked somewhat like Oswald. What is so nonsensical about that scenario? I think your claim that no shots came from the 6th floor is equally ludicrous because the conspirators needed to draw attention to the 6th floor so Fritz could do his magic. Otherwise, why else did the DPD go there, find the rifle(s) and converge on Oswald in the theater an hour after he supposedly took the shots? Do you think that Fritz was a genius and the DPD were crackerjack cops? Get real.
You need to extract your head and open your lyin' eyes to how the Big Event must have went down rather than focus exclusively on the so-called "evidence" that you glean from the internet, fed to you by the conspirators, which you consider gospel.
-
As if you are going to get to the bottom of it. There is a very good chance that some token shots were taken from the 6th floor so witnesses could direct the cops to where they thought the shots came from. This was crucial so the DPD could converge on Oswald in record time. So that being the case, then an Oswald surrogate took a few shots with a Mauser, ditched it then escaped the scene. You acknowledge that Oswald didn't take any shots himself, so someone else must have. The conspirators would have used a surrogate who looked somewhat like Oswald. What is so nonsensical about that scenario? I think your claim that no shots came from the 6th floor is equally ludicrous because the conspirators needed to draw attention to the 6th floor so Fritz could do his magic. Otherwise, why else did the DPD go there, find the rifle(s) and converge on Oswald in the theater an hour after he supposedly took the shots? Do you think that Fritz was a genius and the DPD were crackerjack cops? Get real.
You need to extract your head and open your lyin' eyes to how the Big Event must have went down rather than focus exclusively on the so-called "evidence" that you glean from the internet, fed to you by the conspirators, which you consider gospel.
You're fool Mr Trojan.
-
You're fool Mr Trojan.
And you're an idiot. Checkmate, fool! :-*
ps. Let he who claims "nonsense" cast the 1st stone. Extract your head and try again.
-
And you're an idiot. Checkmate, fool! :-*
ps. Let he who claims "nonsense" cast the 1st stone. Extract your head and try again.
I tried to engage you in a disscussion about the 7.65 mauser...... but you insist that it was found along with the carcano and there were actually two rifles there on the sixth floor.... I believe that is absurd.
-
I tried to engage you in a disscussion about the 7.65 mauser...... but you insist that it was found along with the carcano and there were actually two rifles there on the sixth floor.... I believe that is absurd.
First off, I never insisted there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor, only that you don't know that there weren't. I'm playing the devil's advocate that you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage. You think it's absurd because you buy into the testimony from the conspirators and you think that the Alyea film tells the whole story. But Alyea didn't film the hulls at the SN so does that mean they didn't exist? You know damn well the provenance for ALL the evidence is crap as well as shady. The DPD planted all the evidence, didn't they? They certainly weren't worried about getting their prints all over EVERYTHING.
I tried to have a discussion about the 7.65 Mauser with you but you glazed over. I only have a couple of questions for you:
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Answer my 2 absurd questions and we'll take it from there, if you dare.
-
First off, I never insisted there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor, only that you don't know that there weren't. I'm playing the devil's advocate that you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage. You think it's absurd because you buy into the testimony from the conspirators and you think that the Alyea film tells the whole story. But Alyea didn't film the hulls at the SN so does that mean they didn't exist? You know damn well the provenance for ALL the evidence is crap as well as shady. The DPD planted all the evidence, didn't they? They certainly weren't worried about getting their prints all over EVERYTHING.
I tried to have a discussion about the 7.65 Mauser with you but you glazed over. I only have a couple of questions for you:
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Answer my 2 absurd questions and we'll take it from there, if you dare.
you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mause in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage.
But it's not only not seen in the Alyea footage NOBODY reported seeing another rifle .... That is a fact. We know that Boone Weitzman Craig, and others saw a rifle that they thought was a 7.65 Mauser but Alyea's footage shows the rifle was a carcano....and photographers outside the TSBD verified the Alyea footage.
you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD
I said Craig was lying.....I said NOTHING about Weitzman....except he was mistaken....and he admitted it.
I have two questions for you....
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Please answer the questions
-
you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mause in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage.
But it's not only not seen in the Alyea footage NOBODY reported seeing another rifle .... That is a fact. We know that Boone Weitzman Craig, and others saw a rifle that they thought was a 7.65 Mauser but Alyea's footage shows the rifle was a carcano....and photographers outside the TSBD verified the Alyea footage.
Would you expect a conspirator to report seeing another rifle? How many non-conspirators were there and did Fritz keep any of them at bay, including Alyea?
you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD
I said Craig was lying.....I said NOTHING about Weitzman....except he was mistaken....and he admitted it.
Right, Weitzman was mistaken and "guessed" it was a 7.65 Mauser almost like he read the caliber off a barrel. ::) You do realize that before he recanted, Weitzman must have known he was caught up in a coup d'etat? Wouldn't you be "mistaken" like him once the light bulb turned on?
I have two questions for you....
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Please answer the questions
I assume you didn't answer them yourself because you're afraid to. You leave me no choice but to speculate what your answers would be. It's on your head if I'm wrong.
Jack: Hey Walt, why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!
-
RDC did testify Arnold Rowland told him that he observed some guys moving around some other window. Rowland verified this description. He thought that they were security.
One of them had a rifle he said. [Doubtfully the one the cops found] I believe this unknown guy fired this rifle.
If he hit anything...we will never know.
-
Craig DID see a mauser on the 6th floor. The only problem was that he saw it there in 1968 in his own imagination.
He also really DID see 3 spent shells neatly lined up in the snipers nest (in 1968 in his own imagination).
Hey, I can do that too. Brennan did see Oswald aiming a rifle. In his own imagination. Markham did see Oswald shooting Tippit. In her imagination.
If people can imagine their own genders, why can't Craig imagine a mauser on the 6th floor?
Transphobe.
-
Would you expect a conspirator to report seeing another rifle? How many non-conspirators were there and did Fritz keep any of them at bay, including Alyea?
Right, Weitzman was mistaken and "guessed" it was a 7.65 Mauser almost like he read the caliber off a barrel. ::) You do realize that before he recanted, Weitzman must have known he was caught up in a coup d'etat? Wouldn't you be "mistaken" like him once the light bulb turned on?
I assume you didn't answer them yourself because you're afraid to. You leave me no choice but to speculate what your answers would be. It's on your head if I'm wrong.
Jack: Hey Walt, why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you? ......However...How do you know that Weitzman was shown the mauser.....FBI agent Sayers is the author of the report.... How do you know that it wasn't Sayers who created the description? The only hint that Weitzman might have been the author is Weitzman's reply to Ball ( A QUESTION).....Quote... " I said it was a mauser didn't I "???....unquote Why would Weitzman ask if he was the author?
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.
Sayers report appears to have been created from the affidavits and statements.....He said that Boone was in the NW corner of the sixth floor while Weitzman was in the SW corner when Boone discovered the rifle and Boone called out to Weitzman....."Here it is" ( or something like that) Was Weitzman in the SW corner of the sixth floor when the rifle was discovered? And another point.....Sayers said that Fritz apeared and took the mauser from Weitzman and then ejected a live round from the mauser..... Do you believe that?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Yes, I agree that would make sense, but It didn't happen on the sixth floor ..... Weitzman was called to police headquarters later that afternoon....
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: What does this have to do with the Mauser debate???
Walt: The physical layout of the so called "Sniper's Nest" speaks volumes....and it would take a complete book to describe all of the reasons that the tiny nook couldn't have been used as a "Sniper's nest.... But reason #1 is the fact that a sniper who was sitting on a box behind the "rifle rest" could not have rested a rifle on the top box of Rolling Readers and declined the muzzle down onto Elm Street.
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Walt:...I don't have a "no mauser " argument..... There definitely was a 7.65 mauser being introduced into the evidence stream.....What was the reason for that?
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
What does this have to do with the mauser debate?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Walt: I've never proposed any such theory.... Please don't put words in my mouth....
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!
-
First off, I never insisted there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor, only that you don't know that there weren't. I'm playing the devil's advocate that you can't be 100% certain that Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser in the TSBD just because it wasn't shown on Alyea's film footage. You think it's absurd because you buy into the testimony from the conspirators and you think that the Alyea film tells the whole story. But Alyea didn't film the hulls at the SN so does that mean they didn't exist? You know damn well the provenance for ALL the evidence is crap as well as shady. The DPD planted all the evidence, didn't they? They certainly weren't worried about getting their prints all over EVERYTHING.
I tried to have a discussion about the 7.65 Mauser with you but you glazed over. I only have a couple of questions for you:
1) Why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
2) Why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Answer my 2 absurd questions and we'll take it from there, if you dare.
I posted this a couple of weeks ago.....
Jerry: The old saying... Believe half of what you see and even less of what you hear.
The photo is the "6th floor rifle". I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day. I will never understand why a man would deliberately ruin his life based on what he said he saw and insisting upon it ceaselessly.
That he was just another nut is such a worn out platitude.
Walt; I would not wager that there was not any other rifle in that building that day.
I agree.....I suspect that there was in fact a Mauser in the TSBD that afternoon..... But Roger Craig never saw it. And whether the suspected Mauser was connected in any way to the murder of JFK is completely unknown.....
-
Whaley claimed that he rounded his times to the nearest 15 minutes. Not only do the other entries on the timesheet belie this claim, but even if that was true then he would have put 12:45, not 12:30.
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
The fare entered Whaley's taxi at 12:30.....and exited at 12:45.....
(https://nebula.wsimg.com/cf74ef484ade1018da0a49d76c67491c?AccessKeyId=9CD8649F35FCA7653E81&disposition=0&alloworigin=1)
-
But the cab journey didn't take exactly 15 minutes and 0 seconds. Whaley was just rounding things off.
-
But the cab journey didn't take exactly 15 minutes and 0 seconds. Whaley was just rounding things off.
I agree..... But the point is LBJ's Special Select Blue Ribbon cover up committee said that Lee entered Whaley's cab at about 12:42 ( if I remember right) that's just three minute before Whaley said the man got ot of his cab. Whaley said the man entered his taxi at 12:30 ( Lee was still in the TSBD)
-
It’s not rounding to the nearest 15 minutes to change “12:42” to “12:30”.
And if he rounded everything to the nearest 15 minutes then why are there entries that say 9:40, 10:50, and 3:10?
Where do you find the patience to deal with Mr Nonsense?
-
Would you expect a conspirator to report seeing another rifle? How many non-conspirators were there and did Fritz keep any of them at bay, including Alyea?
Right, Weitzman was mistaken and "guessed" it was a 7.65 Mauser almost like he read the caliber off a barrel. ::) You do realize that before he recanted, Weitzman must have known he was caught up in a coup d'etat? Wouldn't you be "mistaken" like him once the light bulb turned on?
I assume you didn't answer them yourself because you're afraid to. You leave me no choice but to speculate what your answers would be. It's on your head if I'm wrong.
Jack: Hey Walt, why would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser if it had nothing to do with the Big Event?
Walt: I haven't got a clue. Not even a guess. How about you?
Jack: As I told you before, it was for plausible deniability. Weitzman had to be shown the Mauser on a separate occasion so he could "mistake" it for the one in his affidavit.
Walt: Mr. Trojan you are a fool.
Jack: Perhaps, but why do you think the conspirators would not have placed a shooter in the SN so they could frame Oswald?
Walt: Because it works against my "No Mauser" argument. I realize that if there was a shooter in the SN then he was probably using a more reliable weapon than the MC, such as a Mauser. Since I think a Mauser on the 6th floor is batspombleprofglidnoctobuns absurd, I reject a shooter being on the 6th floor.
Jack: But how did the DPD know to search the building if no shots came from there and where did the shots come from then?
Walt: The shots probably came from the Dal Tex building, the grassy knoll and maybe the overpass. But definitely NOT from the TSBD! NO WAY!!!
Jack: Ok, if you say so. Check Please!
You never answered any questions, Jack. Where did the Mauser come from?.....and why did they try to trick Weitzman into believing the Mauser was the rifle that He and Boone had discovered?
-
You never answered any questions, Jack. Where did the Mauser come from?.....and why did they try to trick Weitzman into believing the Mauser was the rifle that He and Boone had discovered?
I answered both your questions. Extract your head and have another look. You didn't ans my question because you claimed it had nothing to do with the Mauser discussion, as if that meant you could ignore it. Here it is again.
Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?
-
I answered both your questions. Extract your head and have another look. You didn't ans my question because you claimed it had nothing to do with the Mauser discussion, as if that meant you could ignore it. Here it is again.
Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?
Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?
I'll get to that....But I thought you had the answer to the mauser conundrum ......But if you're going to insist that two rifles ( a carcano and a 7.65 mauser) were discovered by Weitzman and Boone ....then don't bother.....Because I'm not going to accept that for an answer.
-
I heard a news report that they had found a .303 British Enfield up there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Enfield
-
Why do you assume there was no shooter on the 6th floor?
I'll get to that....But I thought you had the answer to the mauser conundrum ......But if you're going to insist that two rifles ( a carcano and a 7.65 mauser) were discovered by Weitzman and Boone ....then don't bother.....Because I'm not going to accept that for an answer.
Why didn't you go back and read my ans? I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't. Your powers of deductive reasoning aren't the last word here. You don't have enough info to conclude everything went down exactly like the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film implies. That's just piss-poor critical thinking at work. You also don't know whether Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser because non-conspirators recant, conspirators tend to lie and film can't show you what isn't on it.
If you think Weitzman recanted his sworn affidavit because he was "mistaken" then you have a "no Mauser" agenda. And I don't mean the Mauser that Weitzman was shown so he could be "mistaken" about it on his affidavit. IMO he was shown a Mauser to give the DPD plausible deniability because he had seen one earlier in the TSBD. The DPD were just covering up their gaffes.
That's my hypothesis, which I know you don't agree with, but you also can't refute. At least not with ad homs and ignorance.
Now stop dodging and ans my foolish, ludicrous, nonsensical question, if you dare. Why didn't the conspirators put a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
-
Why didn't you go back and read my ans? I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't. Your powers of deductive reasoning aren't the last word here. You don't have enough info to conclude everything went down exactly like the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film implies. That's just piss-poor critical thinking at work. You also don't know whether Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser because non-conspirators recant, conspirators tend to lie and film can't show you what isn't on it.
If you think Weitzman recanted his sworn affidavit because he was "mistaken" then you have a "no Mauser" agenda. And I don't mean the Mauser that Weitzman was shown so he could be "mistaken" about it on his affidavit. IMO he was shown a Mauser to give the DPD plausible deniability because he had seen one earlier in the TSBD. The DPD were just covering up their gaffes.
That's my hypothesis, which I know you don't agree with, but you also can't refute. At least not with ad homs and ignorance.
Now stop dodging and ans my foolish, ludicrous, nonsensical question, if you dare. Why didn't the conspirators put a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
I want to know How the mauser ties in......And I don't want nonsense......
-
Why didn't you go back and read my ans? I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't. Your powers of deductive reasoning aren't the last word here. You don't have enough info to conclude everything went down exactly like the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film implies. That's just piss-poor critical thinking at work. You also don't know whether Craig and Weitzman were lying about seeing a Mauser because non-conspirators recant, conspirators tend to lie and film can't show you what isn't on it.
If you think Weitzman recanted his sworn affidavit because he was "mistaken" then you have a "no Mauser" agenda. And I don't mean the Mauser that Weitzman was shown so he could be "mistaken" about it on his affidavit. IMO he was shown a Mauser to give the DPD plausible deniability because he had seen one earlier in the TSBD. The DPD were just covering up their gaffes.
That's my hypothesis, which I know you don't agree with, but you also can't refute. At least not with ad homs and ignorance.
Now stop dodging and ans my foolish, ludicrous, nonsensical question, if you dare. Why didn't the conspirators put a shooter on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't.
I most certainly do know that Weitzman and Boone did NOT discover two rifles..... That idea is simply absurd.....
-
I want to know How the mauser ties in......And I don't want nonsense......
So you won't ans my question unless you like my ans? I replied to your nonsense, so you are either too entrenched in your own nonsense to understand my ans or too chickenspombleprofglidnoctobuns to ans mine. Just say so instead of playing childish games, cuz you are no good at it.
-
I never said 2 rifles were discovered by Weitzman and Boone, only that you don't know they didn't.
I most certainly do know that Weitzman and Boone did NOT discover two rifles..... That idea is simply absurd.....
I have access to the same info you do and I know for a fact that you most certainly know squat. Now extract your head and ans MY question or STFU.
-
I have access to the same info you do and I know for a fact that you most certainly know squat. Now extract your head and ans MY question or STFU.
You simply can't understand an honest appeal for information. I'm convinced that there was a 7.65 Mauser that was being introduced into the evidence stream. But Roger Craig never saw it...... You seem to think that you have the answer but your answer so far is utter nonsense. If you don't know WHO introduced the mauser and why they were attempting to introduce the mauser into evidence, then please don't pretend that you do......
-
You simply can't understand an honest appeal for information. I'm convinced that there was a 7.65 Mauser that was being introduced into the evidence stream. But Roger Craig never saw it......
If a Mauser was introduced into the evidence why couldn’t Roger Craig have seen it?
-
You simply can't understand an honest appeal for information. I'm convinced that there was a 7.65 Mauser that was being introduced into the evidence stream. But Roger Craig never saw it...... You seem to think that you have the answer but your answer so far is utter nonsense. If you don't know WHO introduced the mauser and why they were attempting to introduce the mauser into evidence, then please don't pretend that you do......
Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.
-
If a Mauser was introduced into the evidence why couldn’t Roger Craig have seen it?
The only place where Craig could have seen a mauser if it had been there was in the NW corner of the sixth floor.... And THAT IS where he claimed that he was only six or eight inches from Captain Fritz and the mauser when he said that he saw "stamped right there on the barrel 7.65 mauser " Do you believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser? Or perhaps you believe that there were TWO rifles there at that time....a carcano and a mauser.
Do you want to discuss this further ?...... I'd really like to try to learn about the mauser..... But there seems to be very little information about it.
-
Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.
Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.
I believe that Roger made that statement many years after the assassination..... If he had seen a rifle that was stamped 7.65 mauser it's highly improbable that he would have waited ten years ( or whatever duration) to make that statement.
-
The only place where Craig could have seen a mauser if it had been there was in the NW corner of the sixth floor....
If you're speculating that Weitzman saw a Mauser back at the station, then why couldn't Craig have seen the same one?
-
Weitzman said in a sworn affidavit that he was mistaken....He caught only a quick glimpse of the carcano and thought it was a 7.65 mauser.
You of all people should know that swearing an affidavit doesn't make something true. Roger Craig didn't tow the line and he paid the price.
-
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.
When did Weitzman ever say it was a Weaver?
-
When did Weitzman ever say it was a Weaver?
Don't know..... But I'd guess that he was referring to the mauser examination.....Because I doubt that he could have made that WAG at the time that Lt Day picked up the Carcano FROM THE FLOOR and held it up to Capt Fritz. I wish I could figger out what the reason that they gave Weitzman a mauser to examine and describe.
It's possible that the senile Fritz became confused when one of his detectives brought the Mauser in from ( the Daltex?) and thought that it was the carcano from the sixth floor......
You may recall that during the early stages of the investigation the authorities were telling reporters that Lee was the leader of a band of communists, so they may have thought that the mauser was the weapon of one of Lee's communist accomplices.
-
Roger Craig made a statement that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on a recovered rifle.
I believe that Roger made that statement many years after the assassination..... If he had seen a rifle that was stamped 7.65 mauser it's highly improbable that he would have waited ten years ( or whatever duration) to make that statement.
Roger Craig was always adamant about finding a 7.65 Mauser and not a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Weitzman changed his mind and later stated it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Craig talked with a reporter a few years later telling the same story and was fired from the Police Department.
-
When did Weitzman ever say it was a Weaver?
I couldn't find anything other than that statement.
I wonder if there is another affidavit that disappeared that mentions a Weaver scope.
Boone's affidavits/reports are dated 11/22, Weitzman's 11/23.
Maybe he re-did his affidavit/reports on 11/23 and the FBI sent over Special Agent Sayers to make sure he got it right.
If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO
-
I couldn't find anything other than that statement.
I wonder if there is another affidavit that disappeared that mentions a Weaver scope.
Boone's affidavits/reports are dated 11/22, Weitzman's 11/23.
Maybe he re-did his affidavit/reports on 11/23 and the FBI sent over Special Agent Sayers to make sure he got it right.
If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO
If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO
Unfortunately we don't have a photo of the mauser so we can see what the scope on the mauser looked like ...... But we can safely assume that it wasn't very distinctive ..... It would have been stupendous if Weitzman had said that the scope on the mauser was a large and powerful scope ( Like Arnold Rowland described)
-
If he did mistake the Carcano for a Mauser, or at least wanted people to think he did, the one part of the set up he wouldn't have shouldn't have got wrong, based on the detail in his description, was the Japanese made scope. IMO
Unfortunately we don't have a photo of the mauser so we can see what the scope on the mauser looked like ...... But we can safely assume that it wasn't very distinctive ..... It would have been stupendous if Weitzman had said that the scope on the mauser was a large and powerful scope ( Like Arnold Rowland described)
Maybe the Mauser was the rifle with the Weaver scope.
-
Maybe the Mauser was the rifle with the Weaver scope.
A distinct possibility.... These are the kind of ideas that may produce something solid to talk about..... But arguing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser is utter nonsense.
-
That's because the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw. Or what Weitzman saw for that matter.
the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.
But the Alyea film and the corroborating testimonies does tell an intelligent person what Roger Craig could NOT have seen....ie; A 7.65 mauser.
-
the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.
But the Alyea film and the corroborating testimonies does tell an intelligent person what Roger Craig could NOT have seen....ie; A 7.65 mauser.
If Weitzman saw one then Craig could have seen one as well.
-
the existing Alyea film tells you nothing about what Roger Craig saw.
But the Alyea film and the corroborating testimonies does tell an intelligent person what Roger Craig could NOT have seen....ie; A 7.65 mauser.
BS: Extract your head. Film can't tell you what didn't happen. What part of that don't you get? And your thoughts re a shooter being in the TSBD? Cock a doodle do.
-
Craig exhibited mental problem later on but never wavered from his original stance on the Mauser as the weapon.
Of course you're right...."Craig never wavered from his original stance on the Mauser as the weapon." But that simply means that in his ( sick) mind that it was the truth. But if you'll review the 15 minute period from the discovery of the CARCANO until Lt Day picks the carcano UP FROM THE FLOOR there should be no doubt in your mind that Roger Craig was a liar.....and there was no mauser there.
-
What 15 minute period is available to review?
-
What 15 minute period is available to review?
The 15 minutes between 1:22 the time that Weitzman and Boone discovered the rifle LYING ON THE FLOOR and the time that Lt Day picked the rifle up OFF THE FLOOR by the leather strap. I simply use the time of 15 minutes .....It might have a bit more or a bit less....But what everthat period of time was, we have at least a half dozen witness who swore that nobody touched the rifle before Day came with Captain Fritz and picked up the carcano FROM THE FLOOR.
-
The 15 minutes between 1:22 the time that Weitzman and Boone discovered the rifle LYING ON THE FLOOR and the time that Lt Day picked the rifle up OFF THE FLOOR by the leather strap. I simply use the time of 15 minutes .....It might have a bit more or a bit less....But what everthat period of time was, we have at least a half dozen witness who swore that nobody touched the rifle before Day came with Captain Fritz and picked up the carcano FROM THE FLOOR.
What rifle did the TSBD shooter use?
-
I think it was the assassination and his involvement in it that ultimately drove RDC nuts.
Beforehand he seemed to be an exemplary law enforcement officer or so his record indicates.
The problem I had with Craig's account was not only just the Mauser thing but the time line of his analysis and certain other narrations.
12:30 he testifies he is at the corner of the Criminal Courts Bldg [Sheriff's office]. After hearing the shots he ran up to the railroad/parking area.
Stated that he hopped the fence...saw a woman leaving the parking lot...confronted her and turned her over to other deputies...looked around there a bit and then questioned the Rowland couple...then joined the probe for a search for some stray bullet/s that hit the curb....saw the suspicious person on the knoll get into a car... Craig describes to the FBI the passenger that entered the car--- white male, height-5'9", weight 140pounds, build slender, hair sandy, dress-brown shirt, blue trousers ...[sounds like the guy that shot Tippit huh?]
Then Craig approached the TSBD where he said it was sealed off. His est. of the time there was 20 minutes after the shots. RC stated that a call was made to secure flashlights in search of the building. Craig returned to the Sheriff's office to obtain an undisclosed number of flashlights. Upon returning to the TSBD and this is interesting----
Mr. CRAIG - And they were calling for hand lights to search the attic of the building. At that time---uh---they thought the man was still in the building. So, they were calling for hand lights to search the building. So, I went back across to the sheriffs office and got some hand lights and took them back over to them.
Then, I went up on the sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN - Why did you go up on the sixth floor?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, someone said that's where the shots came from. One of the city officers, if I'm not mistaken.
How did this 'city officer' know that the shots came from the sixth floor? Around 1 p.m. Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney noticed a pile of cartons in front of the window in the southeast corner of the sixth floor.109 (See Commission Exhibit No. 723, p. 80.) Searching that area he found at approximately 1:12 p.m. three empty cartridge cases on the floor near the window.
According to the timeline---
At around 1 PM: On the 6th floor. [Roger Craig] Looking for evidence.----------
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/craig-in-alyea-film-maybe.jpg?w=527&h=409)
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
The timing just isn't gelling there at all!
From his LA Free Press interview----
FP: How did you become aware
of the Tippit killing? Where were
you?
RC: I was in front of the De-
pository. I went upstairs with the
first bunch, and then just a little
bit later I was back downstairs.
They sent me to get some lights
to examine the dark corners. And
I passed a patrol car on the street
and heard the radio.
Criticized by the Report--Oswald did it alone believers, I see nothing wrong with his interview----
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUtF3fCD1y8/UXlLbLdJNhI/AAAAAAAAuRg/YKInldasQ5E/s1600/RogerCraigInterview.jpg)
If all that is a lie, it can't be proven now.
Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was.
Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you----
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.
-
What rifle did the TSBD shooter use?
There was no TSBD shooter.....
Please show me proof that JFK was hit by a bullet fired from the SE corner window.....Let me remind you that the authorities said that Lee sat on a box behind the three foot high stack of Rolling Readers which he used as a rifle rest. How did he decline the muzzle of the rifle down onto Elm street?
-
I think it was the assassination and his involvement in it that ultimately drove RDC nuts.
Beforehand he seemed to be an exemplary law enforcement officer or so his record indicates.
The problem I had with Craig's account was not only just the Mauser thing but the time line of his analysis and certain other narrations.
12:30 he testifies he is at the corner of the Criminal Courts Bldg [Sheriff's office]. After hearing the shots he ran up to the railroad/parking area.
Stated that he hopped the fence...saw a woman leaving the parking lot...confronted her and turned her over to other deputies...looked around there a bit and then questioned the Rowland couple...then joined the probe for a search for some stray bullet/s that hit the curb....saw the suspicious person on the knoll get into a car... Craig describes to the FBI the passenger that entered the car--- white male, height-5'9", weight 140pounds, build slender, hair sandy, dress-brown shirt, blue trousers ...[sounds like the guy that shot Tippit huh?]
Then Craig approached the TSBD where he said it was sealed off. His est. of the time there was 20 minutes after the shots. RC stated that a call was made to secure flashlights in search of the building. Craig returned to the Sheriff's office to obtain an undisclosed number of flashlights. Upon returning to the TSBD and this is interesting----How did this 'city officer' know that the shots came from the sixth floor? According to the timeline---
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/craig-in-alyea-film-maybe.jpg?w=527&h=409)
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
The timing just isn't gelling there at all!
From his LA Free Press interview----Criticized by the Report--Oswald did it alone believers, I see nothing wrong with his interview----
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUtF3fCD1y8/UXlLbLdJNhI/AAAAAAAAuRg/YKInldasQ5E/s1600/RogerCraigInterview.jpg)
If all that is a lie, it can't be proven now.
Hi Jerry, That newspaper interview of Roger Craig is chock ful of information that I'd like to comment on.... Is it possible that you could post it in a way hat I could highlight and copy something Craig said so that I can respond to his statement.? If you can't perhaps Gary Craig can do it.
-
I think it was the assassination and his involvement in it that ultimately drove RDC nuts.
Beforehand he seemed to be an exemplary law enforcement officer or so his record indicates.
The problem I had with Craig's account was not only just the Mauser thing but the time line of his analysis and certain other narrations.
12:30 he testifies he is at the corner of the Criminal Courts Bldg [Sheriff's office]. After hearing the shots he ran up to the railroad/parking area.
Stated that he hopped the fence...saw a woman leaving the parking lot...confronted her and turned her over to other deputies...looked around there a bit and then questioned the Rowland couple...then joined the probe for a search for some stray bullet/s that hit the curb....saw the suspicious person on the knoll get into a car... Craig describes to the FBI the passenger that entered the car--- white male, height-5'9", weight 140pounds, build slender, hair sandy, dress-brown shirt, blue trousers ...[sounds like the guy that shot Tippit huh?]
Then Craig approached the TSBD where he said it was sealed off. His est. of the time there was 20 minutes after the shots. RC stated that a call was made to secure flashlights in search of the building. Craig returned to the Sheriff's office to obtain an undisclosed number of flashlights. Upon returning to the TSBD and this is interesting----How did this 'city officer' know that the shots came from the sixth floor? According to the timeline---
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/craig-in-alyea-film-maybe.jpg?w=527&h=409)
https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2018/03/29/roger-craig/
The timing just isn't gelling there at all!
From his LA Free Press interview----Criticized by the Report--Oswald did it alone believers, I see nothing wrong with his interview----
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HUtF3fCD1y8/UXlLbLdJNhI/AAAAAAAAuRg/YKInldasQ5E/s1600/RogerCraigInterview.jpg)
If all that is a lie, it can't be proven now.
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....
Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle--- There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."
There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.
He had to drop it in there.
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos.... Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
-
Wait, so now you’re trusting Roger Craig on something?
-
There was no TSBD shooter.....
Please show me proof that JFK was hit by a bullet fired from the SE corner window.....Let me remind you that the authorities said that Lee sat on a box behind the three foot high stack of Rolling Readers which he used as a rifle rest. How did he decline the muzzle of the rifle down onto Elm street?
Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt? Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it. It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.
Face it, the only reason the DPD converged on the TSBD was because witnesses saw/heard shots come from there. But not from the MC and not by Oswald. What rifle would YOU have used Walt?
-
Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt? Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it. It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.
Face it, the only reason the DPD converged on the TSBD was because witnesses saw/heard shots come from there. But not from the MC and not by Oswald. What rifle would YOU have used Walt?
Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt?
I don't know.... Where ever they had a swimming pool or some way to trap the bullet .....
Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC?
Need I remind you that initially everybody in the vicinity thought the shots had came from the area behind the Grassy Knoll..... However there were a few people who thought that the shots had come from the "old purse factory" ( the Daltex bldg. ) They managed to get everybody to focus on the TSBD.......
You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it.
Paul Ernst did an excellent job of proving that the SE corner cubby hole couldn't have been used as a "Sniper's Nest"
It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.
You're right the sixth floor had been set up to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired that old carcano from up there.....And it's possible that Lee himself set the stage up there. But whoever it was they weren't overly concerned about any close investigation to determine the feasibility of the action. Lee was playing the same game that he played at Walker's ....which was just a hoax to make it appear that he had shot at JFK.
-
Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC? Where did the magic bullet shot come from Walt?
I don't know.... Where ever they had a swimming pool or some way to trap the bullet .....
You know I didn't mean the actual MB bullet, I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.
Wouldn't conspirators take some token shots from the TSBD so the DPD could converge on the building and find the planted MC?
Need I remind you that initially everybody in the vicinity thought the shots had came from the area behind the Grassy Knoll..... However there were a few people who thought that the shots had come from the "old purse factory" ( the Daltex bldg. ) They managed to get everybody to focus on the TSBD.......
Why wouldn't the conspirators put a shooter in the TSBD if that's where the patsy worked? Why would the conspirators take a chance that they could get everyone to focus on the TSBD if no shots came from there?
You can't conclude that no shots came from the TSBD because the SN wasn't set up for it.
Paul Ernst did an excellent job of proving that the SE corner cubby hole couldn't have been used as a "Sniper's Nest"
Why would an actual sniper use the SN set up?
It was set up exclusively to frame Oswald. You are trying way too hard to keep a Mauser out of the picture so you can keep ragging on Craig.
You're right the sixth floor had been set up to make it appear that Lee Oswald had fired that old carcano from up there.....And it's possible that Lee himself set the stage up there. But whoever it was they weren't overly concerned about any close investigation to determine the feasibility of the action. Lee was playing the same game that he played at Walker's ....which was just a hoax to make it appear that he had shot at JFK.
Didn't someone actually take a shot at Walker? What rifle did he use? You have failed to prove your contention that there was not a shooter at the TSBD. There is more evidence suggesting that there was a shooter in the TSBD than any other building. Why wouldn't a shooter be placed there and taken some token shots, perhaps from the roof or another window? They didn't shoot at JFK while he was a sitting duck as the limo turned onto Elm because the sniper needed time to evacuate and ditch the Mauser before the DPD converged on the building.
-
Wait, so now you’re trusting Roger Craig on something?
Isn't it obvious to you that Craig was simply recalling the scene in his mind. Do you think a liar lies 100% of the time?
As I've said many times....It's a shame that Craig lied so much, because he destroyed his credibility, and he may have had some very useful information, just as he recalled seeing the rifle lying ON THE FLOOR at the bottom of a cavern of boxes of books.
Craig:..... The Scope was facing north the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.
Craig was right.... that is exactly the position the rifle was in when Lt Day picked up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR.
In the News paper interview he told the reporter that he handled the rifle.....
FP..Did you handle the rifle?
Craig..... Yes I did , That's a double Whopper!! Craig never touched the rifle ..... If he had he would have said I saw the make of the rifle Stamped right there on the barrel when I had the rifle in my hands. And it said 7.65 mauser.....So I knew what kind of rifle it was.
FP..Did you handle the rifle?
RC Yes I did , I couldn't give it's name, because I don't know foreign rifles. I know that 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.
-
You know I didn't mean the actual MB bullet, I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.
Why wouldn't the conspirators put a shooter in the TSBD if that's where the patsy worked? Why would the conspirators take a chance that they could get everyone to focus on the TSBD if no shots came from there?
Why would an actual sniper use the SN set up?
Didn't someone actually take a shot at Walker? What rifle did he use? You have failed to prove your contention that there was not a shooter at the TSBD. There is more evidence suggesting that there was a shooter in the TSBD than any other building. Why wouldn't a shooter be placed there and taken some token shots, perhaps from the roof or another window? They didn't shoot at JFK while he was a sitting duck as the limo turned onto Elm because the sniper needed time to evacuate and ditch the Mauser before the DPD converged on the building.
I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.
Are you sure a bullet struck JFK in the back?? Would the trajectory from the neck wound through the back make more sense?
-
I meant the bullet that struck JFK in the back.
Are you sure a bullet struck JFK in the back?? Would the trajectory from the neck wound through the back make more sense?
Would you stop dodging? Regardless whether ANY bullets actually struck JFK from the back, how could the conspirators be so stupid as to not have any shots taken from the patsy's workplace? How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?
Stop being obtuse and admit that there is a good chance that shots came from the TSBD. None of the shots needed to find their mark, but they had to fit the WC narrative. When you are done admitting that there likely was a TSBD shooter, you will answer your own question where the Mauser came from. Craig may have still been lying about it, but he knew the Mauser existed and knew it was used in the coup d'etat. The conspirators managed Craig by painting him as a lone nut liar. It worked and he killed himself. But Craig was actually a whistle blower who embellished so that the Mauser wouldn't get buried along with Oswald and JFK. If not for Craig, would you even have known about the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed?
-
Isn't it obvious to you that Craig was simply recalling the scene in his mind. Do you think a liar lies 100% of the time?
And he wasn’t recalling the Mauser scene in his mind?
So he’s a “damn liar” only when you want him to be...
-
Hi Jerry, That newspaper interview of Roger Craig is chock ful of information that I'd like to comment on.... Is it possible that you could post it in a way hat I could highlight and copy something Craig said so that I can respond to his statement.? If you can't perhaps Gary Craig can do it.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/craigandjonespage7.jpg)
-
Would you stop dodging? Regardless whether ANY bullets actually struck JFK from the back, how could the conspirators be so stupid as to not have any shots taken from the patsy's workplace? How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?
Stop being obtuse and admit that there is a good chance that shots came from the TSBD. None of the shots needed to find their mark, but they had to fit the WC narrative. When you are done admitting that there likely was a TSBD shooter, you will answer your own question where the Mauser came from. Craig may have still been lying about it, but he knew the Mauser existed and knew it was used in the coup d'etat. The conspirators managed Craig by painting him as a lone nut liar. It worked and he killed himself. But Craig was actually a whistle blower who embellished so that the Mauser wouldn't get buried along with Oswald and JFK. If not for Craig, would you even have known about the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed?
How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?
Your hero Roger Craig, said that they were ordered to search the TSBD because the Dallas Police had determined that shots had been fired from that building...."How they determined that I don't know."...
-
How could they justify searching the TSBD and finding a rifle if no one thought any shots came from there? How would that fit with the lone gunman hypothesis?
Your hero Roger Craig, said that they were ordered to search the TSBD because the Dallas Police had determined that shots had been fired from that building...."How they determined that I don't know."...
But Craig is a bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns artist and everything he says was a goddamned lie. You can never trust a whistle blower as far as you can throw them. Craig was the real enemy here. I would piss on his grave if I knew where it was.
Walt, just suck it up and admit that there probably was a shooter in the TSBD. That's how you set up a patsy. And if there was a shooter, then they used a Mauser. There's your Mauser origin. Unless you have something better to offer, just admit that you were wrong and we can go from there. It's like a bandaid. After you endure the pain of ripping it off, you're right as rain.
-
But Craig is a bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns artist and everything he says was a goddamned lie. You can never trust a whistle blower as far as you can throw them. Craig was the real enemy here. I would piss on his grave if I knew where it was.
Be nice.
-
Be nice.
Sarcasm. Get with the program.
-
Sarcasm. Get with the program.
He has living children. And committed suicide because of chronic pain from a car accident. Be understanding.
-
He has living children. And committed suicide because of chronic pain from a car accident. Be understanding.
You need to deliver that message to Walt. He's the one that wants to piss on Craig's grave.
-
You need to deliver that message to Walt. He's the one that wants to piss on Craig's grave.
I have no respect for Craig( or his memory) because of what he's done to the case. He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser .....and some of them simply will not see that Craig was lying.
I'm sure that Craig had some good solid information that might have helped us understand the case...... but his damned lies have destroyed his credibility and divided us.
-
I have no respect for Craig( or his memory) because of what he's done to the case. He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser .....and some of them simply will not see that Craig was lying.
I'm sure that Craig had some good solid information that might have helped us understand the case...... but his damned lies have destroyed his credibility and divided us.
"He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser"
I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.
The documentation in the form of sworn signed and notarized affidavits and the FBI interview of Weitzman
make it hard to dismiss the Mauser. The well worn WC excuse of "they were mistaken" rings hollow.
-
"He has convinced many people that the rifle that was found by Weitzman and Boone was a mauser"
I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.
The documentation in the form of sworn signed and notarized affidavits and the FBI interview of Weitzman
make it hard to dismiss the Mauser. The well worn WC excuse of "they were mistaken" rings hollow.
I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.
Then why can't we get this excrement flushed from the legend ???? It does nothing but create havoc....
The sworn affidavits say that they BELIEVED the rifle was a 7.65 mauser.....Neither Boone nor Weitzman got a good look at the rifle....They caught a quick glimpse of it as Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR.
-
I don't think he's convinced that many.
His story creates cognitive dissonance and doubt when it comes to the Mauser.
Then why can't we get this excrement flushed from the legend ???? It does nothing but create havoc....
The sworn affidavits say that they BELIEVED the rifle was a 7.65 mauser.....Neither Boone nor Weitzman got a good look at the rifle....They caught a quick glimpse of it as Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR.
Jesus, are you ever going to flush that excrement? You don't know how any of it went down. You are back to Boone and Weitzman just got a quick glance at the "7.65" Mauser. Where is the film footage of Boone actually finding the rifle? Why didn't Alyea film that part? Why did he wait until Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR? You are just too gullible and you believe your lyin' eyes. Didn't you hear Fritz call out ACTION with a megaphone? For the last time, a film can't show you what isn't on it.
Did you know that Boone was watching the limo go past him on Elm when he heard the shots? Several bystanders had cameras, and Boone said he confiscated them in case anyone had captured anything relevant on their film. He took the cameras back to the Sheriff's Office and left the film to be developed. Then Boone and other deputies went to the book depository to begin a search. Guess who found the rifle?
You obviously can't trust Boone's account. He probably didn't know what kind of rifle was planted. You can't trust Day or Fritz or ANY of them because they were goddamned liars. Instead you have a hate on for Craig because you think he created havoc re the Mauser. Give me a break. What would we know about the Mauser if he hadn't said anything?
There was a Mauser and it was likely the TSBD shooter's rifle. Craig knew this and blew the whistle. And now you hate his guts for it. They were ALL liars, including Weitzman. You are deluding yourself if you think he only got a glimpse of the rifle and mistook it for a 7.65 Mauser. Whose side are you on?
-
Unfortunately, the forum archives were lost, but you did make this statement early on in the original Alyea discussion and then later changed your mind when somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film (they're not).
I'll note your retraction.
somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film
That "somebody" is called my "Baby Blues"..... And both of em agreed.
I'll note your retraction.
Thank you.... The ability to change ones mind when faced with facts is called.....Honesty and intelligence.
-
I'll agree that there was a mauser
Then stop calling Roger Craig a liar.
-
somebody convinced you that the edges of the clip are visible in the Alyea film
That "somebody" is called my "Baby Blues"..... And both of em agreed.
How compelling. ::)
-
True, but do you agree it isn't a good idea to use timing arguments when someone says they don't wear a watch and guess the times?
Whaley knew where every outdoor clock in the city was.....And the bus station definitely had a big clock mounted so passengers would know when the bus would depart.
-
Whaley knew where every outdoor clock in the city was.....And the bus station definitely had a big clock mounted so passengers would know when the bus would depart.
So you don't believe him when he said he guessed?
-
Whaley knew where every outdoor clock in the city was.....And the bus station definitely had a big clock mounted so passengers would know when the bus would depart.
Have looked for some picture of the bus station and couldn't see an outdoor clock in any of them. Do you have any? Were there any outdoor clocks on his route that day?
-
Have looked for some picture of the bus station and couldn't see an outdoor clock in any of them. Do you have any? Were there any outdoor clocks on his route that day?
Whaley himself said that he knew where the public clocks were.... I'm not going to chase that down for you....If you don't believe that Whaley knew what time he arrived at the bus station , that's your problem and, I couldn't care less.
-
Whaley himself said that he knew where the public clocks were.... I'm not going to chase that down for you....If you don't believe that Whaley knew what time he arrived at the bus station , that's your problem and, I couldn't care less.
That's a shame.
-
That's a shame.
I'm sorry Nick.....But I'm sure that Whaley knew what time ( within a couple of minutes) he departed on any trip..... And he said the young man who was dressed in a BLUE workman's type uniform entered his cab at 12:30.
-
I'm sorry Nick.....But I'm sure that Whaley knew what time ( within a couple of minutes) he departed on any trip..... And he said the young man who was dressed in a BLUE worThe Lithping Larry Grayson "Oooh Shut That Door" doppleganger's type uniform entered his cab at 12:30.
That's okay Walt. I don't expect you to care and know I don't have the depth of knowledge about the case or the different theories people have but am interested in discussing it. Maybe this isn't the right place for that. It decided that back in 2018 and stopped posting but have been looking in during the lockdown and since you replied to my old post thought I'd dip my toe in again. Anyway, I have read his testimony and watched the film of his journey on Youtube and he talks about having filled in the journey details quite sometime after they happened and that he just put approximate times as he wasn't required to put accurate times. On face value that seems reasonable to me. I'm sure you see it differently and I don't want an argument or to exchange barbs as is often the case here it seems. Probably will go back to just reading posts.
-
That's okay Walt. I don't expect you to care and know I don't have the depth of knowledge about the case or the different theories people have but am interested in discussing it. Maybe this isn't the right place for that. It decided that back in 2018 and stopped posting but have been looking in during the lockdown and since you replied to my old post thought I'd dip my toe in again. Anyway, I have read his testimony and watched the film of his journey on Youtube and he talks about having filled in the journey details quite sometime after they happened and that he just put approximate times as he wasn't required to put accurate times. On face value that seems reasonable to me. I'm sure you see it differently and I don't want an argument or to exchange barbs as is often the case here it seems. Probably will go back to just reading posts.
That's basically how those paper logs were kept. They were a required nuisance. I drove a cab for bit when I got out of college, before everything turned digital. If you were busy, there wasn't a convenient place to park or you were trying to get back to a busy taxi stand the log waited till there was time. Then it would be filled in with approximations. You definitely had to turn in a completed log, accounting for your time and rides, at the end of a shift. It wasn't in Texas. A beach town in California. So I don't know if they were close to the same but it sounds like it.
-
Of course you're right...."Craig never wavered from his original stance on the Mauser as the weapon." But that simply means that in his ( sick) mind that it was the truth. But if you'll review the 15 minute period from the discovery of the CARCANO until Lt Day picks the carcano UP FROM THE FLOOR there should be no doubt in your mind that Roger Craig was a liar.....and there was no mauser there.
No Mauser there? Then why did Weitzman agree with Craig confirming there was a Mauser? That's 2 professional both agreeing on the same weapon.
-
No Mauser there? Then why did Weitzman agree with Craig confirming there was a Mauser? That's 2 professional both agreeing on the same weapon.
Is there something wrong with your eyes? Can't you LOOK at Tom Alyeas film and SEE that the rifle that Lt. Day picks up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?
-
The sworn affidavits say that they BELIEVED the rifle was a 7.65 mauser.....Neither Boone nor Weitzman got a good look at the rifle....They caught a quick glimpse of it as Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR.
Is there something wrong with your eyes? Can't you LOOK at Tom Alyeas film and SEE that the rifle that Lt. Day picks up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser and you were defending him. Craig stated it was a Mauser as well, but he always maintained it was, even when the photographs show it was a Mannlicher Carcano.
-
Mr Trojan...you're unbelievable STUPID!
I'm "unbelievable" STUPID, am I? :D High praise coming from Walt "The Fabricator" Cakehole.
PS. I always know where your trigger point is. It's when you got nothin but ad homs left. Unbelievably STUPID.
-
Is there something wrong with your eyes? Can't you LOOK at Tom Alyeas film and SEE that the rifle that Lt. Day picks up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano?
Even Alyea said a good amount of the film he took that day was discarded. If in fact they would have let him film the Mauser.
Your proposition is based on a partial film record and the words of people you yourself have said aren't always honest.
-
I'm "unbelievable" STUPID, am I? :D High praise coming from Walt "The Fabricator" Cakehole.
PS. I always know where your trigger point is. It's when you got nothin but ad homs left. Unbelievably STUPID.
I always know where your trigger point is. It's when you got nothin but ad homs left.
Wrong! Stupid..... My patience runs out when I've repeatedly told you that there are at least a half dozen witnesses ( Weitzman, Boone, Craig, Wiseman, Alyea, Day et al ) who swore that nobody touched the rifle prior to Lt Day picking it up FROM THE FLOOR . and Alyea filmed Day as he picked the rifle up off THE FLOOR. and yet you being the STUPID person that you are, insist that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser but it was switched and the carcano put in place of the mauser.
-
Even Alyea said a good amount of the film he took that day was discarded. If in fact they would have let him film the Mauser.
Your proposition is based on a partial film record and the words of people you yourself have said aren't always honest.
a partial film record
I agree that Alyea's film ( what remains of it) is difficult to see..... It has been chopped up to destroy the photographic record of the truth. But it's still possible to see Lt Day pick the carcano UP OFF THE FLOOR as opposed to the official DPD in situ photo that shows the rifle jammed between boxes of books. Alyea's film along with the statement of the witnesses make it clear that the rifle was lying on the floor with the barrel pointing east the scope was to the north and the trigger guard was facing south. When Boone discovered it the rifle was at the bottom of a chasm of boxes of books and the chasm was covered at the top by boxes of books. IOW The rifle was well hidden and it was NOT hastily cast aside as the conspirators have claimed. One witness said that he was six feet tall and he couldn't have placed the rifle on the floor at the bottom of the chasm unless he moved some of the boxes and got down in the chasm.
I've emphasized the fact that the rifle was ON THE FLOOR to illuastrate that the DPD faked the insitu photo to frame Lee Oswald...by making it appear that he had dashed by the site and jammed the rifle between boxes of books. The official in situ photo is a damned lie.
and the words of people you yourself have said aren't always honest.
Yes, and this is why I have no respect for Roger Craig..... He had valuable information.....but he destroyed his credibility by lying and embroidering.
-
Unless you can come up with a good reason why Weitzman was shown a 7.65 Mauser, then you can't assume he and Craig didn't see it in the TSBD.
"I" need to establish a reason that Weitzman allegedly described a 7.65 mauser for FBI agent Sayers? I'm sure that Weitzman and Boone did not see a mauser in the TSBD.....I don't "ASSUME" that Weitzman and Craig DID NOT see a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD. Based on Weitzman's and Craigs statements they left the TSBD immediately after the Carcano was picked up FROM THE FLOOR and they did not return to the TSBD. So I'm sure that they did NOT see a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD that afternoon.... However Weitzman was summoned to the police station later that Friday afternoon and was interviewed by FBI agent Seyers who typed up a report on that interview afterward. That's when the mauser surfaces....But we don't know that Weitzman actually described the mauser or if Sayers just described it himself ...... As far as I know Weitzman never saw Sayers report.....and he did not initial it......
Mr. Cakehole, you are unbelievably STUPID! Good luck with that.
-
Mr. Cakehole, you are unbelievably STUPID! Good luck with that.
Is this your best? Can't you do a little better? Why can't you accept that Roger Craig never saw a mauser in the TSBD that day?
-
(Roger ) Craig saw a second Oswald come from the rear of the Depository...
Roger Craig saw other things that were mere figments of his imagination....Like " I was no more than six or eight inches away from the rifle and I saw stamped right there on the barrel 7.65 mauser" Roger never explained why 7.65 mauser would be stamped on a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano, but he acknowledged that the spent shells that were discovered beneath the window were 6.5mm carcano.....
Take Roger Craig out of the equation. He's a distraction and not necessary to prove/disprove the existence of the Mauser on the 6th floor on 11/22/63.
Explain away the documentation that Weitzman and Boone created with their affidavits, investigative reports and FBI interview.
"They were mistaken" isn't a valid explanation. IMO They wouldn't have guessed about the make. model and caliber of the murder weapon involving the POTUS.
-
Take Roger Craig out of the equation. He's a distraction and not necessary to prove/disprove the existence of the Mauser on the 6th floor on 11/22/63.
Explain away the documentation that Weitzman and Boone created with their affidavits, investigative reports and FBI interview.
"They were mistaken" isn't a valid explanation. IMO They wouldn't have guessed about the make. model and caliber of the murder weapon involving the POTUS.
They were mistaken" isn't a valid explanation. IMO
Well how do you explain the film which shows Lt Day reaching out and grabbing the leather sling of the rifle that is LYING ON THE FLOOR and pick it up where it is clearly seen and can be identified as a model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano.
-
Is this your best? Can't you do a little better? Why can't you accept that Roger Craig never saw a mauser in the TSBD that day?
;D You didn't even remember that I was quoting your last response to me almost verbatim. You always resort to ad homs when you got nothin.
You still don't get it. I'm not claiming that Craig actually saw a Mauser or wasn't lying. Only that your evidence that he was lying is flimsy at best. You are so convinced that the Alyea film and testimony from the conspirators proves that there was no Mauser that you think everyone else that doesn't see it is a retard. Then you turn around and say, yes there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis. But you can't seem to do that without calling people names for speculating that just maybe the Alyea film doesn't tell the whole story. My question to you is, how can you be so sure that the Alyea film wasn't choreographed by Fritz? You can't. You are way too sure about everything when there is no way you can be. Then you trot out the ad homs whenever someone disagrees with you.
I hope that was a little better than just calling you stupid for not reaching the same conclusions as me. The data is just not there. How much attention would the Mauser have got if not for Craig's lies? Don't hate the whistleblower just because he needed to lie to draw attention to the Mauser. He didn't lie about the Mauser existing, did he? Maybe he didn't lie at all, except when Weitzman sold him out and he realized he was alone and his life was in danger. Then he killed himself. And all you want to do is piss on his grave.
Hypothetical: If there was a token shooter in the TSBD, what rifle did he use?
-
;D You didn't even remember that I was quoting your last response to me almost verbatim. You always resort to ad homs when you got nothin.
You still don't get it. I'm not claiming that Craig actually saw a Mauser or wasn't lying. Only that your evidence that he was lying is flimsy at best. You are so convinced that the Alyea film and testimony from the conspirators proves that there was no Mauser that you think everyone else that doesn't see it is a retard. Then you turn around and say, yes there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis. But you can't seem to do that without calling people names for speculating that just maybe the Alyea film doesn't tell the whole story. My question to you is, how can you be so sure that the Alyea film wasn't choreographed by Fritz? You can't. You are way too sure about everything when there is no way you can be. Then you trot out the ad homs whenever someone disagrees with you.
I hope that was a little better than just calling you stupid for not reaching the same conclusions as me. The data is just not there. How much attention would the Mauser have got if not for Craig's lies? Don't hate the whistleblower just because he needed to lie to draw attention to the Mauser. He didn't lie about the Mauser existing, did he? Maybe he didn't lie at all, except when Weitzman sold him out and he realized he was alone and his life was in danger. Then he killed himself. And all you want to do is piss on his grave.
Hypothetical: If there was a token shooter in the TSBD, what rifle did he use?
there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.
You believe that the carcano was a mauser , or a mauser was there, and Roger Craig was only six or eight inches from it, and saw "stamped right there on the barrel were the words --7.65 mauser" That idea is utterly refuted by all of the witnesses who were there. Virtually ALL of the witnesses said that the rifle that Boone saw lying ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes of books) was NOT TOUCHED until Lt Day picked it up by the leather strap. And the Alyea film shows Day doing that and then holding the rifle up where it can be clearly seen and identified as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano. THERE WAS NO MAUSER THERE!!!
If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.
There certainly seems to be a mauser described in FBI agent A1bert Sayer's report. And you're right.....I don't know how it fits in. But I am positive that Roger Craig never saw a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD that afternoon.
-
there probably was a Mauser, but Craig never saw it! That's the stupid part. If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.
You believe that the carcano was a mauser , or a mauser was there, and Roger Craig was only six or eight inches from it, and saw "stamped right there on the barrel were the words --7.65 mauser" That idea is utterly refuted by all of the witnesses who were there. Virtually ALL of the witnesses said that the rifle that Boone saw lying ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes of books) was NOT TOUCHED until Lt Day picked it up by the leather strap. And the Alyea film shows Day doing that and then holding the rifle up where it can be clearly seen and identified as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano. THERE WAS NO MAUSER THERE!!!
If you acknowledge there was a Mauser, then you have to get off your high horse and fit it into your hypothesis.
There certainly seems to be a mauser described in FBI agent A1bert Sayer's report. And you're right.....I don't know how it fits in. But I am positive that Roger Craig never saw a 7.65 mauser in the TSBD that afternoon.
Don't try and tell me what I believe without reading/comprehending my posts. I never claimed that the Carcano was a Mauser or Craig wasn't lying. Only that you know squat about how anything went down. You are like a dog with a bone and you must stop your disinformation because you (or anyone) can't be positive about ANYTHING based on the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film. You are not a logistician nor an image/data analyst. List ALL of the witnesses who you believe were NOT "in on it" and why. This should be good.
-
Don't try and tell me what I believe without reading/comprehending my posts. I never claimed that the Carcano was a Mauser or Craig wasn't lying. Only that you know squat about how anything went down. You are like a dog with a bone and you must stop your disinformation because you (or anyone) can't be positive about ANYTHING based on the testimony of the conspirators and the Alyea film. You are not a logistician nor an image/data analyst. List ALL of the witnesses who you believe were NOT "in on it" and why. This should be good.
Jack Trojan wrote:....Instead you have a hate on for Craig because you think he created havoc re the Mauser. Give me a break. What would we know about the Mauser if he hadn't said anything?
There was a Mauser and it was likely the TSBD shooter's rifle. Craig knew this and blew the whistle. And now you hate his guts for it. They were ALL liars, including Weitzman. You are deluding yourself if you think he only got a glimpse of the rifle and mistook it for a 7.65 Mauser.
What would we know about the Mauser if he ( Roger Craig) hadn't said anything?
Tell me again that you don't believe Craig.....
-
Jack Trojan wrote:....Instead you have a hate on for Craig because you think he created havoc re the Mauser. Give me a break. What would we know about the Mauser if he hadn't said anything?
There was a Mauser and it was likely the TSBD shooter's rifle. Craig knew this and blew the whistle. And now you hate his guts for it. They were ALL liars, including Weitzman. You are deluding yourself if you think he only got a glimpse of the rifle and mistook it for a 7.65 Mauser.
What would we know about the Mauser if he ( Roger Craig) hadn't said anything?
Tell me again that you don't believe Craig.....
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ Walt, why don't you get this? Is your ego getting in the way? I believe Craig found out about the Mauser either 1st hand, or thru Weitzman or whomever. I never said he didn't lie about how he knew, only that he knew it was a coup and there was a Mauser. Why the hell can't you grasp this?
-
Jesus Tap Dancing Christ Walt, why don't you get this? Is your ego getting in the way? I believe Craig found out about the Mauser either 1st hand, or thru Weitzman or whomever. I never said he didn't lie about how he knew, only that he knew it was a coup and there was a Mauser. Why the hell can't you grasp this?
There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon.... Even your hero Roger Craig said that there were reports of a mauser found on the roof.... Personally I think he was lying again.... but you apparently believe him.
-
There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon.... Even you hero Roger Craig said that there were reports of a mauser found on the roof.... Personally I think he was lying again.... but you apparently believe him.
"There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon"
???
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
-
There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon.... Even you hero Roger Craig said that there were reports of a mauser found on the roof.... Personally I think he was lying again.... but you apparently believe him.
"There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon"
???
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/Weitzmancarcano.png)[/URL]
-
"There isn't an iota of evidence that a mauser was on the sixth floor of the TSBD that afternoon"
???
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
on 11-22-63 Deputy Boone wrote:....Quote....APPEARED to be a 7.65 mauser. "appeared to be" is NOT a positive ID.
And the next day Saturday 11-23 -63 Seymour Weitzman wrote in his hand written affidavit said ...Quote... "This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action, equipped with a 4 /18 scope, a thick leather brownish /black leather sling on it. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm. Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle & ejected 1 live round from the chamber . I then went back to the office after this." .....Unquote.
BINGO!!!...... I now understand the mess...... They displayed a Mauser to Weitzman on Friday afternoon (or Saturday morning) and lead him to believe that it was the rifle that had been found on the sixth floor. So when Weitzman wrote his affidavit on Saturday 11-23-63 he assumed the rifle was a mauser.
-
BINGO!!!...... I now understand the mess...... They displayed a Mauser to Weitzman on Friday afternoon (or Saturday morning) and lead him to believe that it was the rifle that had been found on the sixth floor. So when Weitzman wrote his affidavit on Saturday 11-23-63 he assumed the rifle was a mauser.
Now why would they do that? Go back and actually read my posts for a hint.
-
Now why would they do that? Go back and actually read my posts for a hint.
Why don't you just spell it out in plain English..... Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
-
...Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
Quote my post where I said that. No one claims that. You are the only fool that keeps babbling about it. The rest of us have moved on. You need to know when to bow out gracefully and man up when you are dead wrong. And stop pissing on graves you sick bastage. There must be a law against that.
-
Quote my post where I said that. No one claims that. You are the only fool that keeps babbling about it. The rest of us have moved on. You need to know when to bow out gracefully and man up when you are dead wrong. And stop pissing on graves you sick bastage. There must be a law against that.
Jack Trojan wrote: You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?
It sure appears that you believe that "After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC,"
Fritz didn't ask then to leave.....Sheriff Decker sent word to the TSBD and told Boone and Craig to return to the office and let the DPD handle it.
-
Jack Trojan wrote: You mean the sequence in the film where they were leaving after Fritz had asked Craig and Weitzman to GTFO? Why TF would Fritz ask them to leave? Because they knew about the damn Mauser of course. Why else? After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC, which is your Alyea gospel footage that you think proves Craig and Weitzman were damned liars! Don't you find any of this a wee bit suspicious?
It sure appears that you believe that "After they left, Fritz directed the "discovery" of the MC,"
How does my quote equate to.. Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
I was facetiously referring to Fritz directing Alyea to "film" the discovery of the Carcano. You probably looked high and low for my quote that doesn't exist and that was the closest you could come up with. Pathetic. Just admit that you were wrong and I will accept your apology and we can move on. ;)
Fritz didn't ask then to leave.....Sheriff Decker sent word to the TSBD and told Boone and Craig to return to the office and let the DPD handle it.
There you go again believing testimony from the conspirators because it supports your narrative that no one saw a Mauser at the TSBD because the conspirators said so. Who do you think told Decker to get Craig the hell out of there?
-
How does my quote equate to.. Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
I was facetiously referring to Fritz directing Alyea to "film" the discovery of the Carcano. You probably looked high and low for my quote that doesn't exist and that was the closest you could come up with. Pathetic. Just admit that you were wrong and I will accept your apology and we can move on. ;)
There you go again believing testimony from the conspirators because it supports your narrative that no one saw a Mauser at the TSBD because the conspirators said so. Who do you think told Decker to get Craig the hell out of there?
What about Tom Alyea, and other reporters, and TSBD employees??.
What do you want me to admit that I was wrong about??
-
What about Tom Alyea, and other reporters, and TSBD employees??.
What about them? Name them and tell us which ones were not conspirators or under Fritz's thumb.
What do you want me to admit that I was wrong about??
Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
You were wrong that I (or anyone) claimed that Alyea filmed Day picking up a Mauser OFF THE FLOOR. Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it. That's just plain faulty logic, yet you use it to libel Craig and poo-poo the Mauser even existing. That is, until your BINGO moment when you suspect Weitzman was shown a Mauser as the murder weapon, BUT HE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE TSBD. This is also why you refuse to accept that there was a shooter in the TSBD because he would have likely been the source of the Mauser.
Why else would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser and led to believe it was the Carcano? If you admit there might have been a Mauser, then you have to fit it into your argument. But you choose to stick to your guns, instead.
-
What about them? Name them and tell us which ones were not conspirators or under Fritz's thumb.
Instead of babbling about the Carcano that Lt Day is seen picking up OFF THE FLOOR being a mauser....
You were wrong that I (or anyone) claimed that Alyea filmed Day picking up a Mauser OFF THE FLOOR. Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it. That's just plain faulty logic, yet you use it to libel Craig and poo-poo the Mauser even existing. That is, until your BINGO moment when you suspect Weitzman was shown a Mauser as the murder weapon, BUT HE DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE TSBD. This is also why you refuse to accept that there was a shooter in the TSBD because he would have likely been the source of the Mauser.
Why else would Weitzman have been shown a Mauser and led to believe it was the Carcano? If you admit there might have been a Mauser, then you have to fit it into your argument. But you choose to stick to your guns, instead.
Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it.
I've made no such a ridiculous claim. I've merely pointed out that virtually ALL of the witnesses swore under oath that after Weitzman and Boone discovered the MANNLICHER CARCANO lying ON THE FLOOR nobody touched the Mannlicher Carcano until Lt. JC Day came and picked up the CARCANO.
-
Your argument has been if a Mauser was seen on in the TSBD, then the conspirators would have admitted it and Alyea would have filmed it.
I've made such a rididulous claim. I've merely pointed out that virtually ALL of the witnesses swore under oath that after Weitzman and Boone discovered the MANNLICHER CARCANO lying ON THE FLOOR nobody touched the Mannlicher Carcano until Lt. JC Day came and picked up the CARCANO.
What's the difference?
-
What's the difference?
You've been arguing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser but they switched the mauser and substituted a carcano.
But literally everybody said the carcano was the rifle that was discovered LYING ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) and NOBODY touched the carcano until LT day picked it up.
-
You've been arguing that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a mauser but they switched the mauser and substituted a carcano.
But literally everybody said the carcano was the rifle that was discovered LYING ON THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) and NOBODY touched the carcano until LT day picked it up.
List "literally everybody" and put an asterisk beside the non-conspirators. You rely on vague testimony from the conspirators way too much. Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ? Seems to me that once Boone announced he had discovered the rifle that Alyea would have been there filming like a dirty shirt. Instead he waited for Day and Fritz to ham it up during the "discovery". How come?
Where is the Alyea footage of the 3 hulls near the SN window? What kind of journalist was he? Why do you assume Alyea was a straight shooter and not another pawn and Fritz was the Director? If there was a rifle switch, then why do you think you would know about it if Fritz was choreographing the entire event?
Did you know Boone confiscated a bunch of witness cameras during the shooting before showing up in the TSBD? How did he know the shots came from there? Was it because he was a pawn? Or was there actually a shooter on the 6th floor taking token shots at JFK to frame Oswald? If so, what rifle did he use? Not the MC because that was already planted. But the Mauser might have been ditched nearby and Boone accidentally found it 1st. The switch could have been quick and discrete and the MC was left in place until Fritz called ACTION! No one thinks the RIFLE ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser that was swapped for a MC, so stop claiming that and move on.
Otherwise, I accept your apology. Just don't let it happen again. ;D
-
List "literally everybody" and put an asterisk beside the non-conspirators. You rely on vague testimony from the conspirators way too much. Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ? Seems to me that once Boone announced he had discovered the rifle that Alyea would have been there filming like a dirty shirt. Instead he waited for Day and Fritz to ham it up during the "discovery". How come?
Where is the Alyea footage of the 3 hulls near the SN window? What kind of journalist was he? Why do you assume Alyea was a straight shooter and not another pawn and Fritz was the Director? If there was a rifle switch, then why do you think you would know about it if Fritz was choreographing the entire event?
Did you know Boone confiscated a bunch of witness cameras during the shooting before showing up in the TSBD? How did he know the shots came from there? Was it because he was a pawn? Or was there actually a shooter on the 6th floor taking token shots at JFK to frame Oswald? If so, what rifle did he use? Not the MC because that was already planted. But the Mauser might have been ditched nearby and Boone accidentally found it 1st. The switch could have been quick and discrete and the MC was left in place until Fritz called ACTION! No one thinks the RIFLE ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser that was swapped for a MC, so stop claiming that and move on.
Otherwise, I accept your apology. Just don't let it happen again. ;D
Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ?
Tom Alyea said that much of his footage ended up on the cutting room floor..... So how do you know that Alyea didn't have footage of the rifle in situ ON THE FLOOR (not jammed between boxes of books)
Tom did manage to film detective Day as he picked the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR.... And that's the first time anybody touched the rifle after Weitzman and Boone discovered it where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN. It was NOT hastily cast aside as the conspirators have claimed.
-
Why didn't Alyea film the rifle in situ?
Tom Alyea said that much of his footage ended up on the cutting room floor..... So how do you know that Alyea didn't have footage of the rifle in situ ON THE FLOOR (not jammed between boxes of books)
Like you, I don't have a clue how it all went down. How do you know that Alyea didn't film the discovery of the Mauser and it wound up on the cutting room floor? See how this works?
Tom did manage to film detective Day as he picked the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR.... And that's the first time anybody touched the rifle after Weitzman and Boone discovered it where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN. It was NOT hastily cast aside as the conspirators have claimed.
I agree that the rifle was planted. And I agree that when Fritz was ready he called over Alyea and had him film the "discovery" and unveiling of the rifle. How much of that was choreographed? No one knows, so stop pretending that you do.
-
Like you, I don't have a clue how it all went down. How do you know that Alyea didn't film the discovery of the Mauser and it wound up on the cutting room floor? See how this works?
I agree that the rifle was planted. And I agree that when Fritz was ready he called over Alyea and had him film the "discovery" and unveiling of the rifle. How much of that was choreographed? No one knows, so stop pretending that you do.
Planted?
LOL!
-- MWT ;)
-
Planted?
LOL!
-- MWT ;)
So you think that Oswald smuggled in the MC in pieces then reassembled it, then took 3 shots and hit pay dirt with a wonky scope, then ditched the rifle and left no prints on it?
LOL!
-
So you think that Oswald smuggled in the MC in pieces then reassembled it, then took 3 shots and hit pay dirt with a wonky scope, then ditched the rifle and left no prints on it?
LOL!
So now you accept that the rifle was a Carcano. That's a good start. Now if you can accept that Fritz had no control over Tom Alyea.
I'm curious to know if you've ever read Tom Alyea's account of the events on the sixth floor?
-
So now you accept that the rifle was a Carcano. That's a good start. Now if you can accept that Fritz had no control over Tom Alyea.
::) Give it up Walt. When are you going to learn some reading comprehension? I obviously don't believe the LN narrative. I don't believe that Oswald smuggled the MC into the building in a freaking paper bag. I don't believe he reassembled it with a dime. I don't believe he could score 2 of 3 shots using a wonky scope and I don't believe that he shot the MC at all because he left no prints on it. What part of that didn't you comprehend? And how could you possibly know that Fritz had no control over Alyea? Jeez, get with the program.
I'm curious to know if you've ever read Tom Alyea's account of the events on the sixth floor?
Sure. Where does he say he was allowed to film any damn thing he wanted and had control over how his film got edited? Otherwise, why would he edit out the juicy bits? Extract your head and stop being so gullible.
-
Planted?
LOL!
-- MWT ;)
Yes, that's right....The carcano was PLANTED...... It was NOT hastily cast aside or jammed between boxes of books. Weitzman and Boone discovered the carcano it was LYING ON THE FLOOR with the pallet of books on top of it.....The pallet of books was about one foot south of the south side of the boxes that formed the east/ waest aisle at the top of the stairs. And there were a couple of boxes of books that formed the top of the chasm in which the rifle had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
Nobody touched the rifle until Detective Day arrived with Captain Fritz and took charge....Then the boxes of books were moved out of the way and Lt Day reached down and grabbed the leather strap and picked the carcano UP FROM THE FLOOR. ( not jammed between boxes of books) Tom alyea filmed Day as he picked the carcano up from the floor.
Roger Craig was there and he described how he saw the rifle just minutes after Boone had called out.."here's the rifle". Craig said that the rifle was lying on the floor at the bottom of a chacm of boxes . He said that he was six feet tall and he could not have place the rifle down in the cave unless he got down among the boxes and the restacked then after placing the rifle on the floor. Craig said that the muzzle of rifle was pointed east with the trigger guard to the south and the scope to the north ....
Craig was absolutely right....That's exactly the orientation of the rifle when Day picked it up OFF THE FLOOR.
-
Craig was absolutely right.
No he wasn't, he was a goddamned pathological liar! Just like Drumpf.
-
No he wasn't, he was a goddamned pathological liar! Just like Drumpf.
Yes Roger Craig was a liar.... But when he described seeing the rifle ON THE FLOOR he was simply relating how he had seen the rifle. I don't believe that was even aware that there were official DPD insitu photos that showed a rifle jammed between boxes of books. Which of course was at variance with the way he had seen the rifle as lay ON THE FLOOR.
-
Yes Roger Craig was a liar.... But when he described seeing the rifle ON THE FLOOR he was simply relating how he had seen the rifle. I don't believe that was even aware that there were official DPD insitu photos that showed a rifle jammed between boxes of books. Which of course was at variance with the way he had seen the rifle as lay ON THE FLOOR.
How do you know all this? Are you psychic? And don't tell me you opened your eyes and watched the Alyea film, then Gawd told you.
-
How do you know all this? Are you psychic? And don't tell me you opened your eyes and watched the Alyea film, then Gawd told you.
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig..... Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....
This is what Roger Craig said at the Clay Shaw trial....
Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
And his LBJ Cover up committee testimony.....
Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; several other people came over.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember about what time this was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I had no idea then how long it had been.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you remember who else came over?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, Officer Mooney and--uh--several of the city officers; Will Fritz came over--Capt. Will Fritz, with the city of Dallas; some of his investigators, I didn't know them; and a criminal identification man, I believe, from the city of Dallas, then came over there to take pictures of the weapon.
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
Does this official DPD in situ photo look anything like Craigs description?... Or was the carcano in this position when Lt Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Here's what Craig told FP....
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....
Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle--- There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."
There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.
He had to drop it in there.
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos.... Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
-
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig..... Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....
This is what Roger Craig said at the Clay Shaw trial....
Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
And his LBJ Cover up committee testimony.....
Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; several other people came over.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember about what time this was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I had no idea then how long it had been.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you remember who else came over?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, Officer Mooney and--uh--several of the city officers; Will Fritz came over--Capt. Will Fritz, with the city of Dallas; some of his investigators, I didn't know them; and a criminal identification man, I believe, from the city of Dallas, then came over there to take pictures of the weapon.
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
Does this official DPD in situ photo look anything like Craigs description?... Or was the carcano in this position when Lt Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Here's what Craig told FP....
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....
Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle--- There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."
There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.
He had to drop it in there.
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos.... Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.
-
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig..... Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....
How convenient that Craig is accurate when you want him to be.
-
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.
Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR.
Yes, Craig was referring to the CARCANO ...... That was the rifle that Boone saw when he shined his flashlight down into the dark chasm of boxes and spotted a
small portion of the butt of the rifle. And there can be no doubt that the rifle had been planted there BEFORE the shooting ( because there was not enough time AFTER the shooting.)
-
How convenient that Craig is accurate when you want him to be.
Craig was not making an issue out of the rifle being ON THE FLOOR. He merely mentioned it in passing.... Therefore it is the truth and can be verified by watching Tom Alyea's film of Lt Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR. Craig describes that action perfectly...... He said that Lt Day grabbed the leather sling and hoisted the rifle into the air.... and that's exactly what is seen in Tom Alyea's film.
However .....Even though nobody was questioning the position of the rifle .....Craig must have realized that the official tale of the rifle being jammed between boxes of books was a damned lie. Craig knew that!.....and he was trying to call attention to this very elementary fact. He even went so far as to describe the exact orientation of the rifle as it was when he saw it lying ON THE FLOOR.
-
Craig was not making an issue out of the rifle being ON THE FLOOR. He merely mentioned it in passing.... Therefore it is the truth and can be verified by watching Tom Alyea's film of Lt Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR. Craig describes that action perfectly...... He said that Lt Day grabbed the leather sling and hoisted the rifle into the air.... and that's exactly what is seen in Tom Alyea's film.
However .....Even though nobody was questioning the position of the rifle .....Craig must have realized that the official tale of the rifle being jammed between boxes of books was a damned lie. Craig knew that!.....and he was trying to call attention to this very elementary fact. He even went so far as to describe the exact orientation of the rifle as it was when he saw it lying ON THE FLOOR.
Walt, you stated Craig was a liar with mental problems. So, why are you beliving his description of the rifle on the floor? Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity?
-
Walt, you stated Craig was a liar with mental problems. So, why are you beliving his description of the rifle on the floor? Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity?
Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity?
No, I don't think so..... Craig never made an issue of the position of the rifle on the floor. Like he did with insisting that he saw "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel.
But you've raised the exact reason that I have no respect for Roger Craig..... He destroyed his credibility with his lying. Just as you now doubt his report of the rifle ON THE FLOOR. HOWEVER in the case of the rifle ON THE FLOOR we do have Tom Alyea's film which does show the rifle ON THE FLOOR just as Craig described it.
-
It's right there in the video of FP interview of Roger Craig..... Craig told FP how the rifle was positioned....
This is what Roger Craig said at the Clay Shaw trial....
Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
And his LBJ Cover up committee testimony.....
Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over---or what?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; several other people came over.
Mr. BELIN - Do you remember about what time this was?
Mr. CRAIG - No; I had no idea then how long it had been.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Do you remember who else came over?
Mr. CRAIG - Oh, Officer Mooney and--uh--several of the city officers; Will Fritz came over--Capt. Will Fritz, with the city of Dallas; some of his investigators, I didn't know them; and a criminal identification man, I believe, from the city of Dallas, then came over there to take pictures of the weapon.
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
Does this official DPD in situ photo look anything like Craigs description?... Or was the carcano in this position when Lt Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Here's what Craig told FP....
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....
Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle--- There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."
There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.
He had to drop it in there.
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos.... Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
Does anybody believe that Lee Oswald dashed by the site at the top of the stairs where the carcano was found and placed that carcano on the floor . (15 feet 4 inches from the N. wall or 0ver four feet south of the E/W aisle)
-
Does anybody believe that Lee Oswald dashed by the site at the top of the stairs where the carcano was found and placed that carcano on the floor . (15 feet 4 inches from the N. wall or 0ver four feet south of the E/W aisle)
The rifle in this fake in situ photo is about 13 feet from the North wall......
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
-
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim. It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.
All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.
-
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim. It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.
All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.
Jack, This is not about Roger Craig..... I wanted to refocus the lime light on the information about the place where the carcano was found. It is solid physical evidence that Lee Oswald DID NOT dash by the site and hastily dump the rifle as the liars on the DPD said.
-
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim. It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.
All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.
Jack, I believe we are very close to harmony.... But I think you're singing an octave too high. I agree with 98% of your post.
I had an uncle that I believe was very much like Roger Craig. He'd tell a lie about something, and then when challenged he would elaborate on a point like " I saw 7.65 stamped right there on the barrel" in an effort to convince the challenger that he was telling the truth. But that doesn't mean that Roger didn't have good reason to believe that there was a Mauser involved. It certainly seems that here in fact was a Mauser that was presented to Seymour Weitzman as though it was the rifle that was found in the NW corner of the sixth floor. ( Perhaps at that point the DPD were afraid that they weren't going to be able to convince us piss ants that Lee Oswald was the assassin and wanted to introduce a mauser to lead to another patsy.
But that's a diversion from my reason for trying to rekindle interest in the LOCATION where the carcano was found.
-
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.
You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this? Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?
-
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.
You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this? Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?
I'm beginning to regret dredging up the old subject..... I wanted to focus on the site where the rifle was found... Roger Craig was one of the law officers who was there, and recalled how the rifle was positioned. His description of the position is verified by several other cops and Tom Alyea's film ....And as Roger Craig pointed out, There's NO WAY that Lee Oswald could have dashed by the site and put that rifle on the floor 15 feet 4 inches from the North wall.
-
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser?
A red herring, and a liar, .... But still useful ..... Craig said he saw the rifle picked up by J.C.Day and he said he saw Fritz open the bolt when the live round fell out.... He lied and said that he saw "7.65 Mauser --Stamped right there on the barrel"
That's an obvious lie.... I'm sure you know that. But that lie came long after the event....after he had been fired for refusing to back away from the event and keep his mouth shut.
He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
In addition to his blatant lie about the stamping on a Mauser ( that was actually a 6.5mm Carcano) He embroidered something that Weitzman had told him into his tale. I believe that Seymour Weitzman WAS IN FACT given a 7.65 Mauser ( probably on Saturday morning ) and lead to believe that it was the rifle that had been found beneath the boxes of books. Weitzman wasn't about to argue with Fritz and the FBI man ( He was a young deputy) so he simply described the Mauser as the FBI agent had asked. ( There's no doubt what- so- ever that the FBI agent describes a 7.65 Mauser )
Later Weitzman told Craig in confidence that he had been mistaken when he at first thought the rifle ( the carcano) was a Mauser......But there also was a 7.65 Mauser involved because Captain Fritz had showed him the Mauser and he had described that rifle for an FBI agent.
Roger Craig simply took the tale and embroidered it......
-
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.
You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this? Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?
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.
You Roger Craig defenders really don't see anything wrong with this? Do I really need to spell this out any more clearly?
This is exactly why I have no respect for Roger Craig..... He lied and set himself up to be discredited... In Fact Craig KNEW that the DPD had framed Lee Oswald, and he was trying to expose the bastards. It's a shame that he felt he needed to lie...
-
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim. It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.
All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.
Where are you, Jack?
-
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
Mr. BELIN - All right. And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look straight down? Would that be a fair statement of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boxes and look down.
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser? He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
Why didn't Alyea film any of it? Why only in situ photos? Was Fritz directing traffic? Did the real shooter dash by the site and hastily jam the Mauser between the boxes of books and relied on Boone to find the Carcano ON THE FLOOR 1st? No one knows, especially you.
What a waste of time. Craig is a red herring. He was a liar wasn't he? Then why do you believe him here? Where does he claim the rifle ON THE FLOOR was a Mauser?
A red herring, and a liar, .... But still useful ..... Craig said he saw the rifle picked up by J.C.Day and he said he saw Fritz open the bolt when the live round fell out.... He lied and said that he saw "7.65 Mauser --Stamped right there on the barrel"
That's an obvious lie.... I'm sure you know that. But that lie came long after the event....after he had been fired for refusing to back away from the event and keep his mouth shut.
He was obviously talking about the planted Carcano ON THE FLOOR. Where in the film does he claim he read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel? Was it before or after Day picked up the rifle ON THE FLOOR? Wasn't he called out of the 6th floor before then? Can you rely on any testimony from Craig or the conspirators? What part was Craig lying about and what do you think this proves?
In addition to his blatant lie about the stamping on a Mauser ( that was actually a 6.5mm Carcano) He embroidered something that Weitzman had told him into his tale. I believe that Seymour Weitzman WAS IN FACT given a 7.65 Mauser ( probably on Saturday morning ) and lead to believe that it was the rifle that had been found beneath the boxes of books. Weitzman wasn't about to argue with Fritz and the FBI man ( He was a young deputy) so he simply described the Mauser as the FBI agent had asked. ( There's no doubt what- so- ever that the FBI agent describes a 7.65 Mauser )
Later Weitzman told Craig in confidence that he had been mistaken when he at first thought the rifle ( the carcano) was a Mauser......But there also was a 7.65 Mauser involved because Captain Fritz had showed him the Mauser and he had described that rifle for an FBI agent.
Roger Craig simply took the tale and embroidered it......
Craig said he saw the rifle picked up by J.C.Day and he said he saw Fritz open the bolt when the live round fell out....
The live round FELL OUT This means that the live round was NOT seated in the face of the bolt. That live round had been simply dropped into the chamber, and then the bolt closed....BUT that bolt was not LATCHED I wasn't latched ( see the Alyea film) because the carcano is designed in a way that will not allow the rifle bolt to be closed if the cartridge isn't seated in (married to) the face of the bolt. If the live round had been seated in the face of the bolt then the extractor would have FLIPPED the cartridge out and away from the rifle.....and the cartridge would not merely have fallen on the floor at Capt Fritz feet.
-
Walt you are still dead wrong about Craig and all you are doing is aiding and abetting the DPD with your stubbornness by castigating a goddamned hero who was a lone voice against a massive conspiracy. And he did it knowingly at great peril. Why would Roger have claimed he saw a Mauser if he didn't at least smell something fishy at the crime scene? He had strong suspicions that caused him to make such a bold claim. It can only be because he either saw what he saw or he at least saw "the" Mauser in question. How dare you assume he was a lying mental case and you would piss on his grave if given the opportunity based on a few snippits of YouTube videos and some staged photos. And if there was a Mauser involved in this case, which you acknowledge, then it was likely retrieved from the TSBD and Craig could have seen it there.
All 3 of us agree that the DPD planted the MC and setup the crime scene. That's the only reason Craig would "lie" about seeing the Mauser. He wanted to expose the conspiracy and was not part of it. Do you know what kind of balls it took to go alone accusing the DPD of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the POTUS? And how high did it go? The only way Craig could have been lying is if he truly believed that Fritz and Co. were involved in a conspiracy, heard about the Mauser, and wanted to do the right thing regardless of whether he actually read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel. Fact is, you have no idea whether he's lying or what evidence Fritz allowed you to know about. You will never know what footage Fritz did not allow Alyea to take or talk about. If you think Fritz didn't have complete and utter control over how the event was documented, then I've got a slightly used MC to sell you, to add to your collection.
Jack....Will you assist me in analyzing this photo?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
P.S.....This plea is open to anybody who is willing to honestly debate the in situ photo.
Question # 1.... Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?
-
Jack....Will you assist me in analyzing this photo?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
P.S.....This plea is open to anybody who is willing to honestly debate the in situ photo.
Question # 1.... Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?
Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo? I estimate the width of the box at approximately 15 inches...But I know the FBI gave the dimensions of the boxes in the evidence list. I just haven't found those dimensions yet.
-
Jack....Will you assist me in analyzing this photo?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
P.S.....This plea is open to anybody who is willing to honestly debate the in situ photo.
Question # 1.... Can you tell me the dimensions of the box above the rifle in the photo?
I won't draw this out for you, however, you need to measure the total length of 1 of your MCs from the end of the stock to the end of the barrel. The image of the MC is 332 pixels, which = X inches. When I measured the MC minus the barrel I got 300 pixels / 34 inches = 8.8 pixels/inch. This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.
The far edge of the box closest to the rifle is 142 pix @ 8.8 pix/in = 16.1 inches. The side edge of the box is being foreshortened by the cosine of the angle that the top of the box makes with the film plane. But it is also closer to the camera so we can't use 8.8 pix/in to measure it. However, the ratio of the image width of the far edge of the box / the width of the near edge gives us the pixels/inch for the near side: 156px / 142px = 1.09 * 8.8px/in = 9.7px/in. The foreshortening correction is then the average pixels/inch from far to near = (8.8 + 9.7) / 2 = 9.25 pixels/inch. The foreshortening correction for the box top is 170px * 1.09 = 185.3px. The length of the box is then 185.3px / 9.25px/in =20.0 inches
If my original estimate of 34 inches for the the MC without the barrel is accurate, then the dimensions of the box is 16" x 20" +/- .5".
-
I won't draw this out for you, however, you need to measure the total length of 1 of your MCs from the end of the stock to the end of the barrel. The image of the MC is 332 pixels, which = X inches. When I measured the MC minus the barrel I got 300 pixels / 34 inches = 8.8 pixels/inch. This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.
The far edge of the box closest to the rifle is 142 pix @ 8.8 pix/in = 16.1 inches. The side edge of the box is being foreshortened by the cosine of the angle that the top of the box makes with the film plane. But it is also closer to the camera so we can't use 8.8 pix/in to measure it. However, the ratio of the image width of the far edge of the box / the width of the near edge gives us the pixels/inch for the near side: 156px / 142px = 1.09 * 8.8px/in = 9.7px/in. The foreshortening correction is then the average pixels/inch from far to near = (8.8 + 9.7) / 2 = 9.25 pixels/inch. The foreshortening correction for the box top is 170px * 1.09 = 185.3px. The length of the box is then 185.3px / 9.25px/in =20.0 inches
If my original estimate of 34 inches for the the MC without the barrel is accurate, then the dimensions of the box is 16" x 20" +/- .5".
Thanks Jack....I wanted the dimensions of the box to use as a scale for the rifle....
This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.
The official manufacturers length of a model 91/38 carcano short rifle is: 40.125 inches. ( from a gun manual) And that's exactly what my carcano measures.
You have reversed my thinking....I suspect the photo of rifle is a composite (ie; a fake photo which seems to show the carcano) but in reality the rifle in the photo is a created composite.
-
Thanks Jack....I wanted the dimensions of the box to use as a scale for the rifle....
This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.
The official manufacturers length of a model 91/38 carcano short rifle is: 40.125 inches. ( from a gun manual) And that's exactly what my carcano measures.
You have reversed my thinking....I suspect the photo of rifle is a composite (ie; a fake photo which seems to show the carcano) but in reality the rifle in the photo is a created composite.
John Iocoletti posted the evidence list that lists the dimensions of the boxes, but i doubt that John would post that information, if he thought that he was aiding me.
-
I won't draw this out for you, however, you need to measure the total length of 1 of your MCs from the end of the stock to the end of the barrel. The image of the MC is 332 pixels, which = X inches. When I measured the MC minus the barrel I got 300 pixels / 34 inches = 8.8 pixels/inch. This tells me that a rifle with the barrel should be 37.7 inches. Let me know if this is correct.
The far edge of the box closest to the rifle is 142 pix @ 8.8 pix/in = 16.1 inches. The side edge of the box is being foreshortened by the cosine of the angle that the top of the box makes with the film plane. But it is also closer to the camera so we can't use 8.8 pix/in to measure it. However, the ratio of the image width of the far edge of the box / the width of the near edge gives us the pixels/inch for the near side: 156px / 142px = 1.09 * 8.8px/in = 9.7px/in. The foreshortening correction is then the average pixels/inch from far to near = (8.8 + 9.7) / 2 = 9.25 pixels/inch. The foreshortening correction for the box top is 170px * 1.09 = 185.3px. The length of the box is then 185.3px / 9.25px/in =20.0 inches
If my original estimate of 34 inches for the the MC without the barrel is accurate, then the dimensions of the box is 16" x 20" +/- .5".
Thank you...I'm happy that you're taking a different approach to the solution....
I used a known measurement from my Carcano and compared it to that measurement in the photo, and found that the multiplier for the photo is 16.29. IOW....The box would be 18.7 inches wide.... and the rifle would be 43.5 inches long.
I really need the actual measurement of the box......
-
Thank you...I'm happy that you're taking a different approach to the solution....
I used a known measurement from my Carcano and compared it to that measurement in the photo, and found that the multiplier for the photo is 16.29. IOW....The box would be 18.7 inches wide.... and the rifle would be 43.5 inches long.
I really need the actual measurement of the box......
The box dimensions are standard 16" x 20" x 14". But you need a ruler of known dimensions within the image to confirm it. You've got it backwards trying to use the box to measure the MC. You must use the known dimensions of the MC to measure the box. Only if the box resolves to a standard size can you use it as a ruler. This will in turn confirm the dimensions of the MC.
Not sure if the image files I linked to will show since they don't for me. My approach is applying photogrammetry which is just measuring 3D objects in 2D photos. Our unit of measurement for images will be pixels which we must convert to a physical unit such as inches. I composed the following image to help you out:
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle1.jpg)
I isolated the areas we intend to measure, doubled the resolution and brightened it up enough to clearly make out the ends of the MC. Fortunately, the rifle is almost orthogonal to the POV so there will be no foreshortening to consider. This occurs when one end of an object is farther away from the camera than the other end which compresses the image. The image length is reduced by the cosine of the angle of the lean away from (or towards) the camera. In this case the lean is negligible so we can take direct measurements of the rifle on the image.
In the image I posted I took measurements from the middle of the buttend to the end of the barrel, to the sights, to the piece that Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD in a paper bag (34"), and to the end of the action at the forend. Then I measured the width of the far end of the box.
Note that I cut and pasted horizontal strips of the measurements at the upper left corner of the image so you can count the pixels for each measurement. Copy and paste this image into MS Paint and hold your cursor at the end of each segment and note the pixel x,y (bottom left corner of Paint). Also note that I placed the measurement of the box as the bottom segment which I denoted with a red bullseye. That is the pixel width for the box. Because it is so close to the rifle, we can assume that both objects occupy the same plane and are commonly scaled.
For example: The rifle part without the barrel which Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD is thought to be 34". In my prev image, that measurement on the MC is 894 pixels long.
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle5.gif)
This segment is 894 pixels / 34 inches = 26.3 pixels/inch (specific to this image). The box width is 426 pixels (red bullseye) @ 26.3 pixels/inch = 16.2 inches. This tells me that the 34" measurement of the barrelless MC is accurate.
Now it's your turn to measure these lengths (inches) on your own MC for the segments on the image I posted, and calculate the pixels/inch ratios. They should ALL be 26.3 pixels/inch to be an authentic MC as portrayed in the image. Let me know if the rifle matches yours. Otherwise, forget about the box.
-
The box dimensions are standard 16" x 20" x 14". But you need a ruler of known dimensions within the image to confirm it. You've got it backwards trying to use the box to measure the MC. You must use the known dimensions of the MC to measure the box. Only if the box resolves to a standard size can you use it as a ruler. This will in turn confirm the dimensions of the MC.
Not sure if the image files I linked to will show since they don't for me. My approach is applying photogrammetry which is just measuring 3D objects in 2D photos. Our unit of measurement for images will be pixels which we must convert to a physical unit such as inches. I composed the following image to help you out:
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle1.jpg)
I isolated the areas we intend to measure, doubled the resolution and brightened it up enough to clearly make out the ends of the MC. Fortunately, the rifle is almost orthogonal to the POV so there will be no foreshortening to consider. This occurs when one end of an object is farther away from the camera than the other end which compresses the image. The image length is reduced by the cosine of the angle of the lean away from (or towards) the camera. In this case the lean is negligible so we can take direct measurements of the rifle on the image.
In the image I posted I took measurements from the middle of the buttend to the end of the barrel, to the sights, to the piece that Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD in a paper bag (34"), and to the end of the action at the forend. Then I measured the width of the far end of the box.
Note that I cut and pasted horizontal strips of the measurements at the upper left corner of the image so you can count the pixels for each measurement. Copy and paste this image into MS Paint and hold your cursor at the end of each segment and note the pixel x,y (bottom left corner of Paint). Also note that I placed the measurement of the box as the bottom segment which I denoted with a red bullseye. That is the pixel width for the box. Because it is so close to the rifle, we can assume that both objects occupy the same plane and are commonly scaled.
For example: The rifle part without the barrel which Oswald supposedly smuggled into the TSBD is thought to be 34". In my prev image, that measurement on the MC is 894 pixels long.
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_rifle5.gif)
This segment is 894 pixels / 34 inches = 26.3 pixels/inch (specific to this image). The box width is 426 pixels (red bullseye) @ 26.3 pixels/inch = 16.2 inches. This tells me that the 34" measurement of the barrelless MC is accurate.
Now it's your turn to measure these lengths (inches) on your own MC for the segments on the image I posted, and calculate the pixels/inch ratios. They should ALL be 26.3 pixels/inch to be an authentic MC as portrayed in the image. Let me know if the rifle matches yours. Otherwise, forget about the box.
Since you seem to be very good at analyzing photos.....Here's the deal.... I don't believe that the rifle in the photo was actually there.
1st off ---I believe the photo was taken at night..... The rifle was discovered at 1:22pm and the in situ photo was allegedly taken before 1:45pm , so the area should be bathed in bright sunshine from the window that was in the west wall.
2nd --- If the photo was taken at night then the carcano wouldn't have been available , because the FBI took custody of it. and it was in Wash DC
3rd--- The stock on the rifle does not look like the stock of a carcano but the muzzle does look like a carcano.
I wonder if they could have used a mauser ( the stock looks like a mauser) to take the photo and then altered the photo by placing the photo of the muzzle of a carcano ( we know they had many photos of the carcano.) on the photo.
-
Since you seem to be very good at analyzing photos.....Here's the deal.... I don't believe that the rifle in the photo was actually there.
1st off ---I believe the photo was taken at night..... The rifle was discovered at 1:22pm and the in situ photo was allegedly taken before 1:45pm , so the area should be bathed in bright sunshine from the window that was in the west wall.
2nd --- If the photo was taken at night then the carcano wouldn't have been available , because the FBI took custody of it. and it was in Wash DC
3rd--- The stock on the rifle does not look like the stock of a carcano but the muzzle does look like a carcano.
I wonder if they could have used a mauser ( the stock looks like a mauser) to take the photo and then altered the photo by placing the photo of the muzzle of a carcano ( we know they had many photos of the carcano.) on the photo.
1) The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor. If you had a surveyed overhead image of the TSBD (Google Maps) and knew the layout of the 6th floor relative to North, and knew the sun angle at 1:45pm on that fateful day (which any astronomy program can give you) then you could tell whether the shadows contradict the timeline. But that's way too much work, and who would believe you? But fill your boots.
2) Yes, unless the rifle was photographed when the DPD claims they are busted..again, just add it to the plethora of other shenanigans they were up to. How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ? Because Fritz called the shots.
3) I agree that the stock does not match the MC but the forend definitely matches the MC. If you rotate the rifle Day is holding up ~90 degrees along its axis so it is perpendicular to the floor, it's a perfect match, which includes the 2 screws.
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_compare.gif)
However, I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.
You should be able to settle this by setting your MC down in a similar orientation and take some pics from the same POV and compare the images. You should be able to either match the in situ photo exactly or the gun is smoking. Then you could answer all your own questions. That is unless you don't actually have a MC. Then I would understand your reluctance.
Considering how Fritz controlled the crime scene and exactly how it got documented, including staging an in situ photo of the 3 hulls, which he removed from his pocket and tossed onto the floor in the sniper's nest and had a rookie cop take the photo, I wouldn't doubt that the photo of the MC ditched neatly beside the box is just more Fritz bullspombleprofglidnoctobunse. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.
Good luck!
-
1) The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor. If you had a surveyed overhead image of the TSBD (Google Maps) and knew the layout of the 6th floor relative to North, and knew the sun angle at 1:45pm on that fateful day (which any astronomy program can give you) then you could tell whether the shadows contradict the timeline. But that's way too much work, and who would believe you? But fill your boots.
2) Yes, unless the rifle was photographed when the DPD claims they are busted..again, just add it to the plethora of other shenanigans they were up to. How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ? Because Fritz called the shots.
3) I agree that the stock does not match the MC but the forend definitely matches the MC. If you rotate the rifle Day is holding up ~90 degrees along its axis so it is perpendicular to the floor, it's a perfect match, which includes the 2 screws.
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_compare.gif)
However, I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.
You should be able to settle this by setting your MC down in a similar orientation and take some pics from the same POV and compare the images. You should be able to either match the in situ photo exactly or the gun is smoking. Then you could answer all your own questions. That is unless you don't actually have a MC. Then I would understand your reluctance.
Considering how Fritz controlled the crime scene and exactly how it got documented, including staging an in situ photo of the 3 hulls, which he removed from his pocket and tossed onto the floor in the sniper's nest and had a rookie cop take the photo, I wouldn't doubt that the photo of the MC ditched neatly beside the box is just more Fritz bullspombleprofglidnoctobunse. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.
Good luck!
The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor.
The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were created by a bright light, ( the camera flash) The light source came from the right of frame
The photo was taken from the south of the rifle...The rifle is pointed directly east .....so north is away from the camera toward the top of the photo. ( this is verified by the map that Studebaker drew of the sixth floor , He designated the photo DP#22 and placed the arrow on that sight with the camera pointing due north) The shadows appear to have been created by the camera flash....AND they are being cast slightly east from directly overhead, and since the sun wasn't inside the TSBD the shadow was not created by the sun. And the lighting inside the building was barely adequate.... ( There are many photos that show the old fashioned lighting) However this location is only about three feet from the West window that would have had bright sunshine blazing through it at 1:45 pm.
I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.
I also cannot make the rifle in the photo match the actual true length ( 40.125")of a model 91/38 carcano... And I've used the muzzle end of the rifle in the photo as a scale. The rifle in the photo is over two inches longer than a model 91/38....
-
1) The shadows in the photo are very pronounced and were not created from the camera flash. The light source came from the right of frame either from the sun or lighting on the 6th floor. If you had a surveyed overhead image of the TSBD (Google Maps) and knew the layout of the 6th floor relative to North, and knew the sun angle at 1:45pm on that fateful day (which any astronomy program can give you) then you could tell whether the shadows contradict the timeline. But that's way too much work, and who would believe you? But fill your boots.
2) Yes, unless the rifle was photographed when the DPD claims they are busted..again, just add it to the plethora of other shenanigans they were up to. How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ? Because Fritz called the shots.
3) I agree that the stock does not match the MC but the forend definitely matches the MC. If you rotate the rifle Day is holding up ~90 degrees along its axis so it is perpendicular to the floor, it's a perfect match, which includes the 2 screws.
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_compare.gif)
However, I couldn't make the rifles match over their entire length when I scaled the forends to match. I couldn't attribute the discrepancies to a simple rotation or foreshortening.
You should be able to settle this by setting your MC down in a similar orientation and take some pics from the same POV and compare the images. You should be able to either match the in situ photo exactly or the gun is smoking. Then you could answer all your own questions. That is unless you don't actually have a MC. Then I would understand your reluctance.
Considering how Fritz controlled the crime scene and exactly how it got documented, including staging an in situ photo of the 3 hulls, which he removed from his pocket and tossed onto the floor in the sniper's nest and had a rookie cop take the photo, I wouldn't doubt that the photo of the MC ditched neatly beside the box is just more Fritz bullspombleprofglidnoctobunse. Add it to the list. Otherwise, I'm done with this one until you post your re-enactment photo with your MC.
Good luck!
How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ?
Does it make sense that Tom Alyea wouldn't have photographed the rifle as it was found?..... Alyea was a reporter, I believe that he did in fact film the rifle as it was found..... and of course they couldn't allow that film to be shown to the public.
Alyea has said that much of his film was "edited" and destroyed.....Hmmmmm??
I believe that Alyea's film showed the rifle at the bottom of the cavern of books ( as described by Roger Craig in his sworn testimony) And Alyea's film made it clear that no mortal man could have placed that rifle at the bottom of that cavern if that person was standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.
-
How come Alyea wasn't allowed to film the rifle in situ?
Does it make sense that Tom Alyea wouldn't have photographed the rifle as it was found?..... Alyea was a reporter, I believe that he did in fact film the rifle as it was found..... and of course they couldn't allow that film to be shown to the public.
Alyea has said that much of his film was "edited" and destroyed.....Hmmmmm??
I believe that Alyea's film showed the rifle at the bottom of the cavern of books ( as described by Roger Craig in his sworn testimony) And Alyea's film made it clear that no mortal man could have placed that rifle at the bottom of that cavern if that person was standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Is the rifle at the bottom of the cavern of books ( as described by Roger Craig in his sworn testimony)
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em. You had to get up and look in 'em.
-
You forced me to have another look at the rifle photo and I tried to figure out where the light source was coming from that would cast shadows like that. This had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand like the old days so the flash wouldn't interfere with the shot. The problem is we are dealing with low quality digital imagery which has no provenance. But there are a few things re the image itself that seem odd to me.
The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC. If this was the case, then the DPD must have found Oswald's prints on those boxes, right? Did they find any? Also, you don't damage your scope and put it grossly out of alignment by easing it down and leaning it against some boxes.
All the shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. When the MC is upright on the floor, there is a big gap where the buttend touches the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. In the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, I tried to brighten the stock up to resolve the gap but I just got artifacts due to the spombleprofglidnoctobunsty quality of the image. At any rate, if that is not a shadow under the stock then is it an MC stock? If it is a shadow then why is it in the front between the stock and the camera? Or is it just an optical illusion?
I hope the following image displays (it doesn't for me). Otherwise click the link below.
Photo of MC & boxes (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)
The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt. If you actually have the same model MC that was found at the TSBD then you can create a reenactment of this photo and either confirm or refute that this was an authentic photo of a MC. Reenactments are the only method for a layman to analyse photos. They are deadly accurate and they don't lie.
-
Wouldn't this just be more of his insanity?
No, I don't think so.....Craig never made an issue of the position of the rifle on the floor. Like he did with insisting that he saw "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel.
But you've raised the exact reason that I have no respect for Roger Craig..... He destroyed his credibility with his lying. Just as you now doubt his report of the rifle ON THE FLOOR. HOWEVER in the case of the rifle ON THE FLOOR we do have Tom Alyea's film which does show the rifle ON THE FLOOR just as Craig described it.
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him.
Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser?
So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.
Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.
-
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him.
Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser?
So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.
Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.
Craig was right about the rifle on the floor ....
Yes indeed he was....He saw the rifle ON THE FLOOR....just as Boone and Weitzman and Alyea also saw it LYING ON THE FLOOR
Now I ask you....Is the rifle in this photo LYING ON THE FLOOR ??
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Before you answer allow me to point out, that the barrel APPEARS TO BE PARALLEL with the floor.....Would the barrel be parallel with the floor if the rifle was lying on the floor? Please notice that the muzzle portion of the rifle is parallel with the box behind it. That box is sitting on the floor ( so obviously it is parallel with the floor) But the rifle is larger at the butt end than it is at the muzzle so if the rifle were actually on the floor the barrel WOULD NOT be parallel with the floor. ( The bottom of the butt is 6 inches lower than the muzzle when the rifle is held level. IOW The barrel of the rifle should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor and NOT parallel to the floor.)
-
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him.
Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser?
So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.
Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.
Rick...I truly appreciate your response..... Like a pick up game of basketball....the game is much more interesting if there is an opponent.
"You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him."
I'm sure that Craig was embellishing the story that he had heard from Weitzman.... Weitzman had in fact seen and examined a 7.65 Mauser and described that mauser for the FBI agent ( we can only speculate WHY Fritz wanted Weitzman to examine and describe a 7.65 mauser for the FBI)
So Craig was lying about that aspect.... But when he testified before the Warren Commission he said NOTHING about having seen "7.65 mauser stamped right there on the barrel" That came many years later. However, Craig DID tell the Warren Commission that he saw the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes. Craig described that chasm as being enclosed on four sides and about five feet deep. The in situ photo which allegedly was taken before anything was moved does NOT show a rifle lying on the floor at the bottom of a chasm.
-
What does that have to do with anything? Of course Craig would make an issue about an important discovery. You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him.
Craig was right about the rifle on the floor just like he perfectly described in exact detail of the stamped 7.65 Mauser he witnessed and was right about that as well.
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser?
So basically, you like to pick and choose which piece of Roger Criag's testimony you like and then you call him mentally ill for which piece doesn't fit your narrative.
Walt, you can't call a man mentally ill discounting what says and then agree with him for the rest of what he says. It doesn't work that way.
"Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up. He identified the weapon. Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert and he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. So, we have two men that saw a Mauser and Craig never changed his testimony with what he witnessed, but yet you call him a liar and mentally ill. So, are you going with the theory that the Mauser was misidentified for a Manlicher-Carcano even though Weitzman was a weapons expert and wrote a report about a Mauser?"
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up--- Weitzman nor anybody else picked up the rifle, until Lt Day picked it up.
He identified the weapon.--- Weitzman ventured a guess that it was a mauser....He couldn't see much of the rifle at the bottom of the dark chasm.
Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert --- No Seymour Weitzman was not a weapons expert
he even wrote in his report that a Mauser was located at the scene. Please post that report.
-
You forced me to have another look at the rifle photo and I tried to figure out where the light source was coming from that would cast shadows like that. This had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand like the old days so the flash wouldn't interfere with the shot. The problem is we are dealing with low quality digital imagery which has no provenance. But there are a few things re the image itself that seem odd to me.
The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC. If this was the case, then the DPD must have found Oswald's prints on those boxes, right? Did they find any? Also, you don't damage your scope and put it grossly out of alignment by easing it down and leaning it against some boxes.
All the shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. When the MC is upright on the floor, there is a big gap where the buttend touches the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. In the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, I tried to brighten the stock up to resolve the gap but I just got artifacts due to the spombleprofglidnoctobunsty quality of the image. At any rate, if that is not a shadow under the stock then is it an MC stock? If it is a shadow then why is it in the front between the stock and the camera? Or is it just an optical illusion?
I hope the following image displays (it doesn't for me).
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)
The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt. If you actually have the same model MC that was found at the TSBD then you can create a reenactment of this photo and either confirm or refute that this was an authentic photo of a MC. Reenactments are the only method for a layman to analyse photos. They are deadly accurate and they don't lie.
The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC.
Oswald Did nothing in placing this rifle in place.... It was placed there by the DPD when they created the fake in situ photo.
However....IF Lee had placed the rifle as it is shown he "would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC."
How much time would you estimate would have been needed to accomplish the act described ?.... More than one second?
Remember that according to the WC Lee arrived in the 2nd floor lunchroom just one second before Baker arrived at the top of the stairs.
-
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think that and gunpowder residue was found in the grooves of the rifled barrel of the MC rifle or in the breech.
So if I’m correct, add this to Walts observation that apparently no one mentioned and smell of gunpowder when examining the alleged recently fired approx 50 min earlier rifle.
-
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think that and gunpowder residue was found in the grooves of the rifled barrel of the MC rifle or in the breech.
So if I’m correct, add this to Walts observation that apparently no one mentioned and smell of gunpowder when examining the alleged recently fired approx 50 min earlier rifle.
Thank you for placing a little icing on the cake Mr Mason. And you're quite right ...If that rifle had been fired less than an hour prior to the discovery, that chasm where Boone and Weitzman discovered the rifle, would have reeked of the smell of gunpowder.
-
Weitzman confirmed it was a Mauser when he picked it up--- Weitzman nor anybody else picked up the rifle, until Lt Day picked it up.
Lt. Day and Captain Fritz both handled the rifle. Fritz was holding it when Weitzman identified it as a Mauser.
He identified the weapon.--- Weitzman ventured a guess that it was a mauser....He couldn't see much of the rifle at the bottom of the dark chasm.
So, you're supporting the Warren Commission findings. Weitzman saw a lot of the rifle. He identified the rifle when Fritz was holding the rifle.
Weitzman was a pretty much a weapons expert --- No Seymour Weitzman was not a weapons expert
Weitzman previously ran a sporting goods store and he knew weapons which is why he knew it was a Mauser until he changed it to a Manlicher-Carcano. What kind of a store owner doesn't know the merchandise he's selling?
-
Rick...I truly appreciate your response..... Like a pick up game of basketball....the game is much more interesting if there is an opponent.
"You happen not to agree with that portion of his testimony, so you call him mentally ill to discredit him."
I'm sure that Craig was embellishing the story that he had heard from Weitzman.... Weitzman had in fact seen and examined a 7.65 Mauser and described that mauser for the FBI agent ( we can only speculate WHY Fritz wanted Weitzman to examine and describe a 7.65 mauser for the FBI)
So Craig was lying about that aspect.... But when he testified before the Warren Commission he said NOTHING about having seen "7.65 mauser stamped right there on the barrel" That came many years later. However, Craig DID tell the Warren Commission that he saw the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes. Craig described that chasm as being enclosed on four sides and about five feet deep. The in situ photo which allegedly was taken before anything was moved does NOT show a rifle lying on the floor at the bottom of a chasm.
:D :D :D
Walt, if you're going to be like Doyle by making up nonsene to fit your narrative then I'm out. It serves no purpose to have a discussion because the goal posts keep moving and only new fabrications keep being presented.
Craig was right there next to Weitzman when he identified the weapon as a Mauser. That is witness testimony.
We don't have to speculate anything. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser after Fritz asked if anybody knew what type it was. Since Weitzman knew weapons he was able to make a positive identification of the Mauser until he changed his story.
So what? Just because Craig did not state that before the commission doesn't mean he is lying or "mentally ill" as you claim. His testimony is consistent with what Weitzman originally stated until he changed his testimony.
-
Lt. Day and Captain Fritz both handled the rifle. Fritz was holding it when Weitzman identified it as a Mauser.
So, you're supporting the Warren Commission findings. Weitzman saw a lot of the rifle. He identified the rifle when Fritz was holding the rifle.
Weitzman previously ran a sporting goods store and he knew weapons which is why he knew it was a Mauser until he changed it to a Manlicher-Carcano. What kind of a store owner doesn't know the merchandise he's selling?
Weitzman saw a lot of the rifle. He identified the rifle when Fritz was holding the rifle.
Nonsense!.... Anybody who has seen the film clip of Fritz examining the model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano just seconds after Lt Day picked it up by the leather strap, can verify that Weitzman , nor Craig were anywhere close enough to read anyof the small stamping on the carcano. Use your head, man.
Weitzman previously ran a sporting goods store
This is an often repeated distortion..... Seymour Weitzman did not operate a "Sporting goods store". Weitzman operated a variety store that also sold some sporting goods. Weitzman himself said that he was not an "expert" on firearms.
-
:D :D :D
Walt, if you're going to be like Doyle by making up nonsene to fit your narrative then I'm out. It serves no purpose to have a discussion because the goal posts keep moving and only new fabrications keep being presented.
Craig was right there next to Weitzman when he identified the weapon as a Mauser. That is witness testimony.
We don't have to speculate anything. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser after Fritz asked if anybody knew what type it was. Since Weitzman knew weapons he was able to make a positive identification of the Mauser until he changed his story.
So what? Just because Craig did not state that before the commission doesn't mean he is lying or "mentally ill" as you claim. His testimony is consistent with what Weitzman originally stated until he changed his testimony.
Walt, if you're going to be like Doyle by making up nonsene to fit your narrative then I'm out. It serves no purpose to have a discussion because the goal posts keep moving and only new fabrications keep being presented.
Yes, I agree completely.... So let's use our heads and determine the FACTS....
Do you agree that the film that shows Lt Day picking up the rifle, clearly shows that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano? Simply question....is your answer Yes, or no......
-
You forced me to have another look at the rifle photo and I tried to figure out where the light source was coming from that would cast shadows like that. This had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand like the old days so the flash wouldn't interfere with the shot. The problem is we are dealing with low quality digital imagery which has no provenance. But there are a few things re the image itself that seem odd to me.
The boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC. Otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the cavern. So it is more likely Oswald laid down the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes over to somewhat cover the MC. If this was the case, then the DPD must have found Oswald's prints on those boxes, right? Did they find any? Also, you don't damage your scope and put it grossly out of alignment by easing it down and leaning it against some boxes.
All the shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. When the MC is upright on the floor, there is a big gap where the buttend touches the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. In the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, I tried to brighten the stock up to resolve the gap but I just got artifacts due to the spombleprofglidnoctobunsty quality of the image. At any rate, if that is not a shadow under the stock then is it an MC stock? If it is a shadow then why is it in the front between the stock and the camera? Or is it just an optical illusion?
I hope the following image displays (it doesn't for me).
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)
The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt. If you actually have the same model MC that was found at the TSBD then you can create a reenactment of this photo and either confirm or refute that this was an authentic photo of a MC. Reenactments are the only method for a layman to analyse photos. They are deadly accurate and they don't lie.
The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt.
Jack, I can't accomplish much by myself..... I need an honest person to debate.... Someone who will listen and respond honestly. I'm convinced that this photo is a composite .....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
(http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png)
That rifle was never in the photo .... When the photo is scrutinized the rifle appears to be floating in midair..... and the reason it appears to be floating without any support is because if the rifle were resting on the floor there would be only two points of contact would be at the butt and the muzzle , and the muzzle would be about 6 inches lower than the bottom of the butt.
( IOW--- the rifle would not be level ie; parallel to the floor, as it appears in the photo)
I believe the rifle was photographically added to the photo.....
Question.... Wouldn't the barrel of the rifle have cast a shadow onto the floor ??
-
If the Carcano was there why the need for a composite photo?
-
The only one who can put this one to bed is you Walt.
Jack, I can't accomplish much by myself..... I need an honest person to debate.... Someone who will listen and respond honestly. I'm convinced that this photo is a composite .....
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
Is the rifle straight?
-
If the Carcano was there why the need for a composite photo?
The DPD took an in situ photo of the rifle at the bottom of the chasm that was formed by the stacked boxes of books. They snapped that photo at about 1:45 that afternoon..... But they soon realized that the in situ photo they had taken clearly showed that Lee Oswald COULD NOT have deposited the rifle during a hasty dash from the SE corner of the sixth floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom.
They knew that it would have taken several minutes to place the rifle in the bottom of that chasm, and then cover the top opening with boxes of books. They recognized that they needed to destroy the in situ photo they had taken and create another photo that would support the tale they were perpetrating.
If the Carcano was there why the need for a composite photo?
The Carcano wasn't there.....The FBI had snapped it up and whisked it off to Washington DC at midnight 11/22/63. But the DPD did have many photos of the carcano so it wasn't very difficult to take a photo without a rifle in it and then place the rifle in the photo. But don't take my word for it... EXAMINE the official in situ photo for yourself.....
-
Is the rifle straight?
Is the rifle straight?
I'd love to answer that question but i'm not sure what it is that you are asking......Are you asking if the rifle barrel aligns with the stock ?
-
Is the rifle straight?
I'd love to answer that question but i'm not sure what it is that you are asking......Are you asking if the rifle barrel aligns with the stock ?
Forget it, my mistake.
Forgive what is probably a dumb question, but the rifle is laid down on its side here, right? It just looks that way (to my eyes anyway) with the barrel but not with the stock?
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
-
Forget it, my mistake
You asked a question....Is the rifle straight? No, the rifle is NOT straight!....the barrel doe not align with the stock....the barrel appears to be twisted relative to the stock..... Although this is hard to discern the barrel seems to be rotated slightly counterclockwise relative to the stock.
-
You asked a question....Is the rifle straight? No, the rifle is NOT straight!....the barrel doe not align with the stock....the barrel appears to be twisted relative to the stock..... Although this is hard to discern the barrel seems to be rotated slightly counterclockwise relative to the stock.
I edited my last post, Mr Cakebread
-
I edited my last post, Mr Cakebread
Sorry, if you don't like the answer.....
-
Sorry, if you don't like the answer.....
Maybe try reading my edit before assuming I don't like the answer
-
Maybe try reading my edit before assuming I don't like the answer
I didn't see this in your post... Possibly a pop up obscured it.... Damn pop-ups
My apology Mr F..... Sorry.
the rifle is laid down on its side here, right? It just looks that way (to my eyes anyway) with the barrel but not with the stock?
No, the rifle is not on it's side ( But the men who saw the rifle on the floor said that it was lying on it's side, and the Alyea film shows Lt Day reach out and grab the leather sling....which verifies he eyewitness description of the orientation of the rifle, and Lt Day could not have reached that leather sling if the rifle had been standing with the leather sling on the far side of the rifle.
the rifle is laid down on its side here, right? It just looks that way ---- with the barrel but not with the stock?
The barrel does appear to be twisted in relation to the stock, but the rifle is not lying on it's side. .
-
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
-
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
Thanks for looking at the photo, Dan....
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
I agree Dan, and that would indicate that the rifle was actually there for the photo....And that shadow was created by the camera flash. However, It also confirms that the rifle was NOT laying on it's side....And we know from the witnesses and the Alyea film that the rifle WAS IN FACT laying on it's right side ( leather sling up) when Lt Day picked up the rifle, and the in situ photo (DP#22 )was taken BEFORE the rifle was picked up by Day. So this photo is a fake.
-
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.
The light source in the photo had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand as shown in my graphic the shadows from the MC & boxes (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png). I agree that the reflection of the flash can be seen on the stock, but perhaps not the same light source as the rest of the photo.
The shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. Note in my graphic the orientation of the MC on the floor leaning against box A. There was a large gap under the stock where the buttend touched the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. From the camera's POV, it would be unlikely not to see the gap, however, in the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore, we must assume that the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, when the stock is brightened to resolve the gap I got artifacts due to the crappy quality of the digital image. But even if it is a shadow, it should project the contoured outline of the gap onto the floor, not a straight line that appears to be in front of the stock. There isn't a similar shadow on the floor from box B behind the rifle. So what kind of optical illusion is this?
Like I said previously the only one who can move the discussion forward is Walt (or anyone else with a matching MC). If Walt actually has the exact same model MC as depicted in the photo, then he can prove it's a fake with a reenactment of this photo. He can also confirm where the flash was held by replicating the shadows and either confirming or refuting whether this was an authentic photo or a fake darkroom creation. Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?
Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD, and that the Alyea film was heavily censored and Fritz choreographed the documenting of the crime scene, and that the MC photo was faked, how the hell do you have the gall to still cling to your original assessment of Craig? How can you possible assume that he did not read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel if you can't trust ANY of the film or testimony in this case? I think you owe Craig's family an apology and the only way to redeem yourself is to create a reenactment of this photo with your MC and prove that it was faked and Craig was telling the truth. ;)
You've got nothing better to do, right? Godspeed Walt!
-
Thanks for looking at the photo, Dan....
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
I agree Dan, and that would indicate that the rifle was actually there for the photo....And that shadow was created by the camera flash. However, It also confirms that the rifle was NOT laying on it's side....And we know from the witnesses and the Alyea film that the rifle WAS IN FACT laying on it's right side ( leather sling up) when Lt Day picked up the rifle, and the in situ photo (DP#22 )was taken BEFORE the rifle was picked up by Day. So this photo is a fake.
Agreed. The rifle in the pic is definitely not lying on its side. If it was, the whole side of the stock would reflect the flash of the camera. As it is, just the top curved edge running the length of the stock reflects the light, proving it is not lying on its side.
If this is meant to be a pic of the rifle in the position it was originally found I would have to question the notion of a fleeing assassin taking the time to carefully place it in this position, as I find the possibility in ended up it its upright position after being thrown or slid in there so remote as to not bother with. It could have landed like that by some near miraculous fluke, it's not impossible, just so unlikely as to not take seriously.
Not knowing much about this particular aspect of the case - why is this photo the fake and not DP#22?
-
I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.
The fleeing assassin starts re-arranging boxes?
Hmmmm....
Not convinced.
What about this - the Toytown Carcano was already snugly in position while the assassin used a real rifle to assassinate JFK?
-
I guess you don't like to read any posts before the current page. To recap: the boxes look arranged to create cover for the ditched MC, otherwise, Oswald would have had to slide the MC in from the left into the box hole. So it is more likely Oswald set the rifle upright on the floor and leaned it against the box in the middle and pulled the other 2 boxes forward to create the box hole to somewhat cover the MC. But Oswald's prints weren't on those boxes.
The light source in the photo had to be a flash bulb held in an extended right hand as shown in my graphic the shadows from the MC & boxes (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/MC_boxes_shadow.png). I agree that the reflection of the flash can be seen on the stock, but perhaps not the same light source as the rest of the photo.
The shadows made sense except for one, providing it is a shadow. Note in my graphic the orientation of the MC on the floor leaning against box A. There was a large gap under the stock where the buttend touched the floor and the stock disappears behind the box. From the camera's POV, it would be unlikely not to see the gap, however, in the photo the whole stock looks dark and it does not show any gap. Therefore, we must assume that the gap must be in shadow so we can't see it. However, when the stock is brightened to resolve the gap I got artifacts due to the crappy quality of the digital image. But even if it is a shadow, it should project the contoured outline of the gap onto the floor, not a straight line that appears to be in front of the stock. There isn't a similar shadow on the floor from box B behind the rifle. So what kind of optical illusion is this?
Like I said previously the only one who can move the discussion forward is Walt (or anyone else with a matching MC). If Walt actually has the exact same model MC as depicted in the photo, then he can prove it's a fake with a reenactment of this photo. He can also confirm where the flash was held by replicating the shadows and either confirming or refuting whether this was an authentic photo or a fake darkroom creation. Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?
Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD, and that the Alyea film was heavily censored and Fritz choreographed the documenting of the crime scene, and that the MC photo was faked, how the hell do you have the gall to still cling to your original assessment of Craig? How can you possible assume that he did not read "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel if you can't trust ANY of the film or testimony in this case? I think you owe Craig's family an apology and the only way to redeem yourself is to create a reenactment of this photo with your MC and prove that it was faked and Craig was telling the truth. ;)
You've got nothing better to do, right? Godspeed Walt!
Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?
Walt doesn't know the view finder from the shutter....He knows nothing about cameras or photography.
Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD,
I admit no such thing....I find no evidence for a mauser being in the TSBD that afternoon. I do believe that Fritz presented a 7.65 Mauser to Seymour Weitzman on Saturday 11/23/63 .....and there was an FBI man there who filed a report in which Weitzman had described a Mauser.
-
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
A Model 91/38 Carcano is 40 inches long .....The rifle was found less than three feet from the west wall ( the butt of the rifle is closest to the west wall in the fake photo ( And there were boxes stacked 4 feet high along the west wall north of the window.)
Bottom line Lee couldn't have slid that rifle with the scope and bolt knob sticking out perpendicular to the rifle into that space.
-
Agreed. The rifle in the pic is definitely not lying on its side. If it was, the whole side of the stock would reflect the flash of the camera. As it is, just the top curved edge running the length of the stock reflects the light, proving it is not lying on its side.
If this is meant to be a pic of the rifle in the position it was originally found I would have to question the notion of a fleeing assassin taking the time to carefully place it in this position, as I find the possibility in ended up it its upright position after being thrown or slid in there so remote as to not bother with. It could have landed like that by some near miraculous fluke, it's not impossible, just so unlikely as to not take seriously.
Not knowing much about this particular aspect of the case - why is this photo the fake and not DP#22?
Thank you again, Dan.... For asking intelligent questions... I've said it before but I'll repeat... The DPD had taken an insitu photo of the MANNLICHER CARCANO at about 1:45 that afternoon, (BEFORE anybody touched the rifle) Later when the investigators realized that the rifle that the had photographed could not have been placed at the bottom of that chasm of books by any fleeing assassin. ( Because the site was too far away from the E/W aisle at the top of the stairs, and the rifle was at the bottom of a well) ) They knew they could not allow the photo (DP#22) to be seen by the public, so they created the in situ photo that we are now examining.
PS... Dan, can you enlarge the muzzle end of the rifle as you have the butt end?.... I'd like to see if there is a shadow of the muzzle being cast onto the floor.... I'm rather certain there is not any shadow of the muzzle. which would mean the muzzle was added photographically .....
-
I was looking for the shadow of the rifle.
Looking at the box that obscures the rifle it is possible to get a general idea of which way the shadow falls.
It should be possible to see the shadow of the end of the butt of the rifle being cast away and to the left from the PoV of the camera and I believe it is.
In the pic below note the white reflection of the camera flash on the stock of the rifle.
Note, that towards the butt of the rifle this reflection stops abruptly but there is still a dark patch.
I believe the dark patch is shadow which is why it is not reflecting the camera flash:
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
On a different point - I noticed that there is a box resting on top of the box that obscures most of the rifle.
This means the rifle was slid along the ground from the left or that the rifle was placed in there and at least one box was then placed over the gap. If it wasn't possible to slide the rifle in from the left we can't seriously assume Oswald took the time to mess about putting boxes over where he hid the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/7PJX3Lqy/hiddenrifle-5.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I also note a small white cloth next to the rifle. Is this what Oswald was supposed to have wiped the rifle down with? I can't find any mention of it anywhere.
Compare the photo of the carcano with the scope as seen on page 82 of the WR....with the photo below.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
WHERE IS THE SCOPE??
-
Here's a couple of images to study:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Here's a couple of images to study:
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
A) ....Notice that the barrel is parallel with the floor .... What is supporting the rifle in a manner that woul keep the barrel parallel with the floor? The rifle is six inches smaller at the muzzle end relative to the sock...IOW...The barrel should be higher at the left side than at the right ( muzzle) I believe if you inquire of old Pythagoras to solve the angle involved in a right triangle that is 6 inches by 40 inches.....you'll find the angle of the barrel should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor...and NOT parallel to the floor.
-
Walt knows that he could possibly debunk this photo with a reenactment but he chooses not to. I wonder why?
Walt doesn't know the view finder from the shutter....He knows nothing about cameras or photography.
LOL. You don't need to be a photographer. You just actually need to own a MC and lay it down on the floor among some boxes and hold a flashlight in your right hand until the shadows look like the photo and take a pic with your phone in the other hand. Shirley, you have a camera in your phone? Or are you still using your dial phone? Why aren't you excited to do it? Don't you want to be the hero who solves the case? :)
Also Walt, even after you finally admit that there was a Mauser at the TSBD,
I admit no such thing....I find no evidence for a mauser being in the TSBD that afternoon. I do believe that Fritz presented a 7.65 Mauser to Seymour Weitzman on Saturday 11/23/63 .....and there was an FBI man there who filed a report in which Weitzman had described a Mauser.
No evidence? Don't you think the photo shows the stock of a Mauser? And why the hell would Fritz show Weitzman a Mauser if he didn't need to? Snap out of it. The Mauser was there for someone to take some token shots at JFK from the 6th floor, probably from a window at the southwest corner. There had to be shots coming from the TSBD to frame Oswald, otherwise, how the hell were they going to justify storming the TSBD looking for the killer? The killer certainly wasn't going to use the MC to take the shots since it was already carefully planted in the box hole. I think Dan O'meara is correct that the rag next to the rifle is supposed to imply that Oswald used it to wipe off ALL his prints from the rifle before ditching it. I guess he must have also used the rag to wipe his prints from the boxes as well, before racing down the stairs and into the lunch room. So how long did it take Oswald to do all that?
Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles both verified that Oswald was not in the building’s only stairwell during the crucial ninety seconds between the last shot and when Patrolman Marrion Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor on his way upstairs to find the shooter. Oswald not only had to wipe off all the prints from the rifle and boxes before ditching it, he had to get down the 72 steps of the 8 flights of stairs from the far corner of the 6th floor in under 90 seconds from the opposite corner of the building from the stairs.
Here is another reenactment for you Walt. See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS, using a wonky scope no less. I'll bet it takes you longer than 90 seconds. Let us know.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
A) ....Notice that the barrel is parallel with the floor .... What is supporting the rifle in a manner that woul keep the barrel parallel with the floor? The rifle is six inches smaller at the muzzle end relative to the sock...IOW...The barrel should be higher at the left side than at the right ( muzzle) I believe if you inquire of old Pythagoras to solve the angle involved in a right triangle that is 6 inches by 40 inches.....you'll find the angle of the barrel should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor...and NOT parallel to the floor.
It's just an optical illusion. Here is how the rifle is laying on the floor (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/rifle_on_floor.png). When your camera's POV is "overhead" the entire rifle appears to straighten out.
But there's only 1 way to confirm this Walt. You know what to do. ;)
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
A) ....Notice that the barrel is parallel with the floor .... What is supporting the rifle in a manner that woul keep the barrel parallel with the floor? The rifle is six inches smaller at the muzzle end relative to the sock...IOW...The barrel should be higher at the left side than at the right ( muzzle) I believe if you inquire of old Pythagoras to solve the angle involved in a right triangle that is 6 inches by 40 inches.....you'll find the angle of the barrel should be about 12 degrees relative to the floor...and NOT parallel to the floor.
I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, which doesn't seem to be the case but will have to give it a closer look.
In the meantime, can you tell me where the clip was found? I can't find anything as to it's location.
Is there any reason to take the clip out while fleeing the scene?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, which doesn't seem to be the case but will have to give it a closer look.
In the meantime, can you tell me where the clip was found? I can't find anything as to it's location.
Is there any reason to take the clip out while fleeing the scene?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Notice that the barrel is parallel with the bottom of the box that is behind the barrel....That verifies that the barrel is parallel to the floor.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, Thumb1: Thumb1:
can you tell me where the clip was found?
Yes I can!!... But I'll need to call on you once again to enlarge a photo.... Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day dusting the rifle and looking for prints...While examining the carcano Lt Day turned the clip ejection port on the bottom of the magazine toward Alyea's camera, and the camera recorded the brass clip just emerging from the ejection port. ( It aparently was lightly stuck inside the ejection port and the handling of the rifle cause it to start sliding out of the rifle.
-
LOL. You don't need to be a photographer. You just actually need to own a MC and lay it down on the floor among some boxes and hold a flashlight in your right hand until the shadows look like the photo and take a pic with your phone in the other hand. Shirley, you have a camera in your phone? Or are you still using your dial phone? Why aren't you excited to do it? Don't you want to be the hero who solves the case? :)
No evidence? Don't you think the photo shows the stock of a Mauser? And why the hell would Fritz show Weitzman a Mauser if he didn't need to? Snap out of it. The Mauser was there for someone to take some token shots at JFK from the 6th floor, probably from a window at the southwest corner. There had to be shots coming from the TSBD to frame Oswald, otherwise, how the hell were they going to justify storming the TSBD looking for the killer? The killer certainly wasn't going to use the MC to take the shots since it was already carefully planted in the box hole. I think Dan O'meara is correct that the rag next to the rifle is supposed to imply that Oswald used it to wipe off ALL his prints from the rifle before ditching it. I guess he must have also used the rag to wipe his prints from the boxes as well, before racing down the stairs and into the lunch room. So how long did it take Oswald to do all that?
Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles both verified that Oswald was not in the building’s only stairwell during the crucial ninety seconds between the last shot and when Patrolman Marrion Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor on his way upstairs to find the shooter. Oswald not only had to wipe off all the prints from the rifle and boxes before ditching it, he had to get down the 72 steps of the 8 flights of stairs from the far corner of the 6th floor in under 90 seconds from the opposite corner of the building from the stairs.
Here is another reenactment for you Walt. See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS, using a wonky scope no less. I'll bet it takes you longer than 90 seconds. Let us know.
See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS,
Good Point , Jack..... Nobody could have placed that rifle into the chasm and then afterward wiped the prints off...( they would have had to have gripped the rifle firmly as they hung upside down in that chasm ) IOW the prints had to have been wiped off first and then the boxes of books stacked around it.... Thank you for noticing that detail....
-
I'm not sure if it is parallel to the floor, might just be the angle.
The tip of the muzzle should be resting on the floor, which doesn't seem to be the case but will have to give it a closer look.
In the meantime, can you tell me where the clip was found? I can't find anything as to it's location.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Is there any reason to take the clip out while fleeing the scene?
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I luv ya, Danny.... Thank you for posting the photo of the clip protruding from the carcano.....
In the Alyea film the brass clip is just emerging from the rifle.... Day knew nothing about the carcano ( he was truly an ignoramus) so he had no idea that there was a clip required to use the rifle as a repeater. ( Three shots could not have been fired if there was no clip) But who ever planted that rifle knew that a clip was required ( I doubt that Lee Oswald ws cognizant of the fact that a clip was required) So whoever planted that rifle simply stuck the clip into the ejection port before laying the rifle on the floor. Then when Lt Day picked up the rifle and started examining it he turned the rifle so the E port was down and the clip started sliding out of the ejection port. Alyea's camera caught just a smidgen of the brass clip in the E port. Then as Day continued to handle the rifle ( and he was unaware of the clip) the clip continued to slid out bit by bit, until it had slid out as it is seen in the photo that you posted.
-
Here's a couple of images to study:
Notice the scope
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Notice the absence of the scope....
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
I admit no such thing....I find no evidence for a mauser being in the TSBD that afternoon. I do believe that Fritz presented a 7.65 Mauser to Seymour Weitzman on Saturday 11/23/63 .....
Huh? Why the heck would he do that? And how the heck would he do it in such a way as to inadvertently give Mr Weitzman the impression it's the murder weapon?
-
Here's a couple of images to study:
(https://i.postimg.cc/KvCjmP03/Allen-4-Day-outside-with-rifle-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Notice the scope... It extends to the rear of the bolt about 4 inches....
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Notice the absence of a scope...
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Huh? Why the heck would he do that? And how the heck would he do it in such a way as to inadvertently give Mr Weitzman the impression it's the murder weapon?
EXCELLENT QUESTIONS Mr F.... Would you please offer some plausible explanation....
-
EXCELLENT QUESTIONS Mr F.... Would you please offer some plausible explanation....
Captain Fritz's doing what you claim is your imaginary construct, Mr Cakebread, not mine!
-
Captain Fritz's doing what you claim is your imaginary construct, Mr Cakebread, not mine!
Well I'd hoped that you might offer some idea...
I'll admit I can only speculate...But....I seriously believe that ol Cap Fritz was in the early stages of Alzheimers (and that's why he was involved in the conspiracy in the first place)
I believe that the daft Capt Fritz really believed that he could pull a switch-a-roo and present a 7.65 mauser that could be traced to an "Oswald accomplice'.... He knew that there were more shots fired than the carcano was capable of delivering in 6 seconds... Therefore he needed another Scapegoat to assist Oswald in performing the ambush. So Shazam! he found the accomplice's rifle..... And he presented that rifle for Seymour Weitzman's inspection, and description to the FBI.
That little bud never blossomed , because it wasn't necessary after they lynched Lee Oswald....
-
Well I'd hoped that you might offer some idea...
I'll admit I can only speculate...But....I seriously believe that ol Cap Fritz was in the early stages of Alzheimers (and that's why he was involved in the conspiracy in the first place)
I believe that the daft Capt Fritz really believed that he could pull a switch-a-roo and present a 7.65 mauser that could be traced to an "Oswald accomplice'.... He knew that there were more shots fired than the carcano was capable of delivering in 6 seconds... Therefore he needed another Scapegoat to assist Oswald in performing the ambush. So Shazam! he found the accomplice's rifle..... And he presented that rifle for Seymour Weitzman's inspection, and description to the FBI.
That little bud never blossomed , because it wasn't necessary after they lynched Lee Oswald....
Funny how the little Mauser bud blossomed BEFORE the Carcano bud--------------------all the DPD talk 11/22 was of a Mauser. You've gotten the switcheroo back to front
-
Funny how the little Mauser bud blossomed BEFORE the Carcano bud--------------------all the DPD talk 11/22 was of a Mauser. You've gotten the switcheroo back to front
Nope!.... The carcano existed even though the dumbasses didn't know what it was....( While still in the TSBD before taking the carcano ( see photos) to police headquarters ,Day scribbled that the rifle was a 6.5mm LEVER ACTION rifle. They dumbasses guessed that it was a mauser.... Even as late as midnight when they were typing up the evidence list they listed the rifle as a 6.5mm Italian make rifle.
-
You've probably seen this before but the bit at the end where everyone is reporting a Mauser is interesting.
-
ATF Agent Frank Ellsworth claimed the Carcano was found on a floor lower than the 6th floor
-
This is from a clip of Day dusting the Carcano.
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YS1yrLWz/Screenshot-45.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)
-
You've probably seen this before but the bit at the end where everyone is reporting a Mauser is interesting.
The Alyea film clip that you've posted is not the best copy of that film clip....However....Open your eyes and LOOK at the rifle seen at the 1:50 point of the film. Now ask yourself if that is a Mannlicher Carcano.
Also notice the configuration of the boxes where the rifle was picked up from in the early frames of the film...Do those boxes look anything like the configuration of the boxes in the official DPD in situ photo???
-
This is from a clip of Day dusting the Carcano.
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/YS1yrLWz/Screenshot-45.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Only you can determine that, Dan. But can you explain what that light colored slice of "something" in the ejection port is ?
-
You've probably seen this before but the bit at the end where everyone is reporting a Mauser is interesting.
You've probably seen this before
Yes I have, and this is a poor copy of the Alyea film....
-
Am I right to say the clip is not in the rifle:
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrLdGdw3/Screenshot-47.png) (https://postimages.org/)
Only you can determine that, Dan. But can you explain what that light colored slice of "something" in the ejection port is ?
"Only you can determine that, Dan."
Unlike you Walt, I don't own any Carcanos so it would be nice to get the opinion of someone in the know rather than a cryptic remark. I'll try it differently:
Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?
Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?
Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?
Your expert opinion is being sought.
-
"Only you can determine that, Dan."
Unlike you Walt, I don't own any Carcanos so it would be nice to get the opinion of someone in the know rather than a cryptic remark. I'll try it differently:
Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?
Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?
Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?
Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?
No, The clip was made from yellow colored brass....
Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?
The dark rectangle is the dark "hole" of the ejection port ..... The light color on the edge of the E port is the brass clip.
Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?
Yes... But "eject" is a misnomer.... The clip merely falls out of the ejection port by the force of gravity. The clip is NOT ejected by any mechanical mechanism . If the rifle is positioned in any position other than the normal firing position of the magazine on the bottom of the rifle then the clip cannot drop away out of the E port.
-
Is the clip such a different colour that it appears as a dark rectangle when in place?
No, The clip was made from yellow colored brass....
Or does the dark rectangle (where I assume the clip goes) mean the clip is not in?
The dark rectangle is the dark "hole" of the ejection port ..... The light color on the edge of the E port is the brass clip.
Does the Carcano eject the clip after it empties?
Yes... But "eject" is a misnomer.... The clip merely falls out of the ejection port by the force of gravity. If the rifle is positioned in any position other than the normal firing position of the magazine on the bottom of the rifle ten the clip cannot drop away out of the Eport.
Your expert opinion is being sought.
I get it. The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?
When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?
-
I get it. The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?
When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?
The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.
Yes.... when the clip has live cartridges in it.... It MUST be loaded from the top with the bolt retracted.....It is pushed down against a spring loaded elevator that pushes the live cartridges up as the spent cartridges are ejected. When the last round in the clip is chambered the clip simply falls out of the E port.
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?
I'd bet my life on it....there is a .0001 percent chance that the clip might not drop out after the last cartridge is chambered...
IOW..there is a very slim possibility that something like a dirty clip might prevent the clip from dropping out.
When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?[/b]
Nothing....Is preventing it from falling out ...the photos show that it is falling out.... albeit at a very slow pace.... And that's because the E port was never in the down position long enough to allow the clip to fall free.
-
I get it. The clip loads from the top and falls out of the ejection port.
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?
When Day is carrying it around what's stopping the clip from just falling out?
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?
I'd bet my life on it....and since the official tale says that the last round was in the firing chamber then the clip should have been on the floor beneath the window along with the spent shells.... The FACT that the clip was in the rifle when Day picked the rifle up can only mean that the clip was placed in the ejection port when the rifle was carefully laid on the floor before the boxes of books were stacked around and over it.
-
In your opinion should the clip have fallen out after the third shot if the Carcano was being used in a normal firing position?
I'd bet my life on it....and since the official tale says that the last round was in the firing chamber then the clip should have been on the floor beneath the window along with the spent shells.... The FACT that the clip was in the rifle when Day picked the rifle up can only mean that the clip was placed in the ejection port when the rifle was carefully laid on the floor before the boxes of books were stacked around and over it.
I've not come across anyone who has pointed that out (not that I've got much knowledge about this particular issue) and it seems to me this is something that should constitute a very serious argument against the Carcano being used for the shooting.
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?
Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps?
-
I've not come across anyone who has pointed that out (not that I've got much knowledge about this particular issue) and it seems to me this is something that should constitute a very serious argument against the Carcano being used for the shooting.
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?
Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps?
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Dan...The liars on LBJ's cover up committee DID address the issue ....
They said the clip was deformed and therefore it was binding in the E port and couldn't fall out.....
The photos that you have posted proves that the clip was NOT deformed and it was in fact free to fall out of the rifle...( the photos show that the clip is falling out)
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo.
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?
Because the rifle was on it's side and Day grasped the leather sling near the butt which caused the rifle to assume the muzzle down position and the E port was horizontal ( not vertical) and therefore the clip remained in the rifle.
Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps
That seems to be a very rational conclusion.
-
I've not come across anyone who has pointed that out (not that I've got much knowledge about this particular issue) and it seems to me this is something that should constitute a very serious argument against the Carcano being used for the shooting.
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?
Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps?
Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps
while the assassins used proper rifles perhaps and none of them were firing from the sixth floor....
-
Why isn't the clip on the floor with the shells?
Why didn't it fall out as the assassin carried the rifle across the 6th floor?
Dan...The liars on LBJ's cover up committee DID address the issue ....
They said the clip was deformed and therefore it was binding in the E port and couldn't fall out.....
The photos that you have posted proves that the clip was NOT deformed and it was in fact free to fall out of the rifle...( the photos show that the clip is falling out)
Why didn't the clip fall out when the rifle was placed in an upright position with the E-port facing downward?
The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo.
Why didn't it just fall out when Day picked it up?
Because the rifle was on it's side and Day grasped the leather sling near the butt which caused the rifle to assume the muzzle down position and the E port was horizontal ( not vertical) and therefore the clip remained in the rifle.
Because the Carcano was already tucked away while the assassin used a proper rifle perhaps
That seems to be a very rational conclusion.
"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."
The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
-
"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."
The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."
The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Ok, but please explain how Studebaker got his leg into the photo when the first photo ( the fake) shows a stack of boxes where Studebaker's knee appears. ???
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
If you've never seen a better copy of Alyea's film clip ....I can understand your doubt.... The but of the rifle is seen in better copies of Alyea's film... The rifle is lying on it's side.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Ok, but please explain how Studebaker got his leg into the photo when the first photo ( the fake) shows a stack of boxes where Studebaker's knee appears. ???
Hadn't spotted that.
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
If you've never seen a better copy of Alyea's film clip ....I can understand your doubt.... The but of the rifle is seen in better copies of Alyea's film... The rifle is lying on it's side.
Day himself states the rifle was in an upright position:
"Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?
Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it in an upright position."
However, the Alyea film certainly seems to show that when Day picks it up the rifle is on its side.
-
Hadn't spotted that.
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.
Day himself states the rifle was in an upright position:
"Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?
Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it in an upright position."
However, the Alyea film certainly seems to show that when Day picks it up the rifle is on its side.
[/quote
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.
I thought we agreed that both photo's are the same photo ....except one of them has Studebaker's knee in it....
Are you now contending that they are two different photos....and everything just happens too appear to be identical except for the lower right hand corner?
-
Those are 2 different photos taken from almost the same POV but E-35 was taken slightly farther back so that you couldn't see the end of the box on the left.
Comparing MC photos (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/e35.gif)
So how many photos were taken? And what makes you think that's a knee in E-35?
-
Those are 2 different photos taken from almost the same POV but E-35 was taken slightly farther back so that you couldn't see the end of the box on the left.
Comparing MC photos (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/e35.gif)
So how many photos were taken? And what makes you think that's a knee in E-35?
Mr. BELIN. Was any other picture of that rifle made in that position?
Mr. DAY. Nos. 22 and 23 were both made.
Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
Mr. BELIN. Whose knee appears?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; showing. Identical shots, we just made both to be sure that one of us made it and it would be in focus.
Mr. BELIN. For this reason I am introducing only 718, if that is satisfactory.
-
Hadn't spotted that.
After checking Day's WC testimony he states that he took the photo of the rifle we've been studying and Studebaker took the one with the knee in it.
Day himself states the rifle was in an upright position:
"Mr. BELIN. Do you have any estimate as to how wide or what the width was of that particular area in which the rifle was placed? In other words, the area between the boxes, how much space was there?
Mr. DAY. It was just wide enough to accommodate that rifle and hold it in an upright position."
However, the Alyea film certainly seems to show that when Day picks it up the rifle is on its side.
There had been NO identifiable prints found on the rifle ( and even to this very day, no identifiable prints have been found) BUT...Dallas's DA Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald's prints on the gun...He was lying through his teeth....But they desperately needed something to tie Lee Oswald to the murder, thus the tale about Lt Day finding the print on the metal barrel and his neglecting to tell the FBI that he'd found that print . The whole tale is BS.... What the "experts" have told us was Oswald's palm print that was lifted from the metal barrel is actually simply an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day Lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the carcano. Day spotted what he imagined to be a palm print on that wooden fore grip just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where the rifle had been carefully hidden ( not carelessly tossed aside as the liars have told us) Day knew the wood of the foregrip would absorb the "print" so he decided to use scotch tape to lift that "print". Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted that smudge and placed the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribbled the pertinent information on that card. Day wrote... "Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " C 2766 . ( If he had been in the Dallas PD Crime lab he would have used the typewriter and a clean sheet of paper to record the information, and he probably would have written more details about the discovery.)
-
Mr. BELIN. Was any other picture of that rifle made in that position?
Mr. DAY. Nos. 22 and 23 were both made.
Mr. BELIN. Your pictures which you have marked No. 22 and No. 23 were both made, one was made by you, is that Commission Exhibit 718----
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And the other was made by----
Mr. DAY. Detective Studebaker.
Mr. BELIN. Whose knee appears?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; showing. Identical shots, we just made both to be sure that one of us made it and it would be in focus.
Mr. BELIN. For this reason I am introducing only 718, if that is satisfactory.
Dan, I can understand your acceptance of the honesty of Lawyer's of the WC and the law officers who testified before the WC.
We all want to believe the authorities.....But there is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows that Lt Day was a damned liar....I believe he was a more accomplished liar than Roger Craig...
-
There had been NO identifiable prints found on the rifle ( and even to this very day, no identifiable prints have been found) BUT...Dallas's DA Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald's prints on the gun...He was lying through his teeth....But they desperately needed something to tie Lee Oswald to the murder, thus the tale about Lt Day finding the print on the metal barrel and his neglecting to tell the FBI that he'd found that print . The whole tale is BS.... What the "experts" have told us was Oswald's palm print that was lifted from the metal barrel is actually simply an unidentifiable smudge that Lt Day Lifted from the WOODEN foregrip of the carcano. Day spotted what he imagined to be a palm print on that wooden fore grip just minutes after he pulled the rifle from beneath the pallet where the rifle had been carefully hidden ( not carelessly tossed aside as the liars have told us) Day knew the wood of the foregrip would absorb the "print" so he decided to use scotch tape to lift that "print". Tom Alyea watched him as he lifted that smudge and placed the scotch tape on a 3 X 5 card and scribbled the pertinent information on that card. Day wrote... "Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip " C 2766 . ( If he had been in the Dallas PD Crime lab he would have used the typewriter and a clean sheet of paper to record the information, and he probably would have written more details about the discovery.)
I'm not disputing any of this Walt, we weren't even talking about it.
I think the rifle was found in an upright position
I also think it was put there before any shots were fired.
And I think the point about the clip proves this.
You have your own way of looking at things but it seems to rely on everyone lying and all the evidence being faked or manipulated.
I'm not saying evidence wasn't manipulated or lost/destroyed.
I'm not saying the authorities never lied.
I'm a minimalist and think the set-up was very close to the official narrative.
-
Dan, I can understand your acceptance of the honesty of Lawyer's of the WC and the law officers who testified before the WC.
We all want to believe the authorities.....But there is a mountain of evidence that clearly shows that Lt Day was a damned liar....I believe he was a more accomplished liar than Roger Craig...
A bit of a cheap shot there Walt but that's okay.
So you think the authorities lied about a knee in a photo?
I won't ask why as I doubt I'll agree with the answer.
-
I'm not disputing any of this Walt, we weren't even talking about it.
I think the rifle was found in an upright position
I also think it was put there before any shots were fired.
And I think the point about the clip proves this.
You have your own way of looking at things but it seems to rely on everyone lying and all the evidence being faked or manipulated.
I'm not saying evidence wasn't manipulated or lost/destroyed.
I'm not saying the authorities never lied.
I'm a minimalist and think the set-up was very close to the official narrative.
I think the rifle was found in an upright position
I'm absolutely sure that it was lying on it's side... And I suggest that you watch a good copy of Alyea's film and notice that Lt Day reaches out and grasps the leather sling on the rifle. If the rifle had been upright the leather sling would have been on the far ( north) side of the rifle and Lt Day could not have reached it so easily.
I also think it was put there before any shots were fired.
Well believing it, and proving it, are two different animals.... I'm trying to prove it....And proving that the in situ photo is a fake would be a big step toward exposing the liars..
-
I think the rifle was found in an upright position
I'm absolutely sure that it was lying on it's side... And I suggest that you watch a good copy of Alyea's film and notice that Lt Day reaches out and grasps the leather sling on the rifle. If the rifle had been upright the leather sling would have been on the far ( north) side of the rifle and Lt Day could not have reached it so easily.
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:
1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:
1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
No, that's not correct.... The rifle's metal butt plate is clearly visible. Dan, can you do a freeze frame at the beginning of the film?
Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle.
Yes, that's true....But, I don't believe he has touched the rifle at the very beginning of the film.
Dan, I don't believe I've ever seen a better copy of Alyea's film.... That metal butt plate on the rifle is very obviously HORIZONTAL.... Look under Lt Day's left elbow just as he starts to lift the rifle.
-
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:
1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Wow!!... Great Copy of Alyea's film, Dan.... I don't wish to insult you but maybe you don't know what you're seeing....I can see the metal butt plate in the horizontal position just prior to Lt Lifting the rifle by the leather sling.
-
LOL. You don't need to be a photographer. You just actually need to own a MC and lay it down on the floor among some boxes and hold a flashlight in your right hand until the shadows look like the photo and take a pic with your phone in the other hand. Shirley, you have a camera in your phone? Or are you still using your dial phone? Why aren't you excited to do it? Don't you want to be the hero who solves the case? :)
No evidence? Don't you think the photo shows the stock of a Mauser? And why the hell would Fritz show Weitzman a Mauser if he didn't need to? Snap out of it. The Mauser was there for someone to take some token shots at JFK from the 6th floor, probably from a window at the southwest corner. There had to be shots coming from the TSBD to frame Oswald, otherwise, how the hell were they going to justify storming the TSBD looking for the killer? The killer certainly wasn't going to use the MC to take the shots since it was already carefully planted in the box hole. I think Dan O'meara is correct that the rag next to the rifle is supposed to imply that Oswald used it to wipe off ALL his prints from the rifle before ditching it. I guess he must have also used the rag to wipe his prints from the boxes as well, before racing down the stairs and into the lunch room. So how long did it take Oswald to do all that?
Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles both verified that Oswald was not in the building’s only stairwell during the crucial ninety seconds between the last shot and when Patrolman Marrion Baker confronted Oswald on the second floor on his way upstairs to find the shooter. Oswald not only had to wipe off all the prints from the rifle and boxes before ditching it, he had to get down the 72 steps of the 8 flights of stairs from the far corner of the 6th floor in under 90 seconds from the opposite corner of the building from the stairs.
Here is another reenactment for you Walt. See how long it takes you to wipe off your prints from a heavily handled rifle that had supposedly been disassembled then reassembled before being shot 3 times and killing the POTUS, using a wonky scope no less. I'll bet it takes you longer than 90 seconds. Let us know.
Jack, Have you seen Dan's latest post? He's posted the best copy of the Alyea film that I've ever seen....Take a look and offer your observation about the orientation of the rifle's metal butt plate ( just beyond Day's left elbow)
-
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:
1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)
The rifle was already laying down when Day grabbed the strap. He actually grabbed the strap after he rotated the rifle towards him with his right hand (probably by the scope) before grabbing the strap with his left hand. He was pretending to be mindful of prints.
Had he grabbed the strap and flipped the rifle on its side then the stock would not rotate toward him as he lifted it up. The bottom of the rifle would come up 1st and the rifle would be upside down from the get go. Besides, I doubt Day would pick the rifle up by the strap and flip the rifle on its side. He may have laid the rifle on its side before picking it up, for some inexplicable reason, but his general handling of the evidence is damning. Everyone there was handling the evidence bare handed and made some token gestures about "protecting" potential prints.
Here is a shorter version of your GIF showing just the pick up. Day definitely grabbed the rifle somewhere with his bare right hand, rotated it towards him, then slid his hand under the rifle and grabbed the strap as he picked it up. Otherwise, the rifle would not have rotated towards him if he had picked it up by the strap.
MC pick up (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/Alyea-pickup.gif)
But the elephant in the room is where is the strap in the still photos? Did Oswald take the time to hide the strap from view behind the rifle during his 90 second jaunt to the lunchroom?
-
The Alyea footage does seem staged. Day would have had to move the boxes to get at the rifle, which Alyea never captured. It's as if Day waited for his cue to pick up the rifle. The rifle must have flipped over as they moved the boxes, which demonstrates more reckless handling of the evidence. Those guys were the Keystone Cops of the coup.
It must have been nice for the DPD not to actually have to apply any forensics to the evidence. They only needed to pretend to solve the case in record time. That's why they had a total disregard for the evidence. They should have at least pretended a little harder than they did. They were staging photos of the crime scene (Fritz staged the photo of the hulls in the SN), planting evidence, mishandling evidence, sheep-dipping Oswald, delivering Oswald to Ruby. The screw up with the Mauser was par for the course.
-
At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
No, that's not correct.... The rifle's metal butt plate is clearly visible. Dan, can you do a freeze frame at the beginning of the film?
Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle.
Yes, that's true....But, I don't believe he has touched the rifle at the very beginning of the film.
Dan, I don't believe I've ever seen a better copy of Alyea's film.... That metal butt plate on the rifle is very obviously HORIZONTAL.... Look under Lt Day's left elbow just as he starts to lift the rifle.
This Gif shows the first few frames from the moment Day appears on the Alyea film slowed down.
His hands are down where the rifle is.
The rifle is out of view.
The Alyea film does not tell us the rifle was lying down when Day picked it up.
I believe, after moving some boxes about, Day reached over the rifle and grabbed the strap.
The second he pulled the strap the rifle flipped to the horizontal position.
To a certain extent I imagine the scene has been staged but only in terms of telling Alyea to come and film the moment the rifle is picked up - 3..2..1..Action!
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The photos are real.
The rifle is found in an upright position.
Somehow the clip is still inside.
Alyea films the moment the rifle is picked up.
-
Wow!!... Great Copy of Alyea's film, Dan.... I don't wish to insult you but maybe you don't know what you're seeing....I can see the metal butt plate in the horizontal position just prior to Lt Lifting the rifle by the leather sling.
Excuse my ignorance on this matter Walt but I can't find a pic that satisfactorily answers this question - Does the Carcano have a metal butt plate?
Later edit: Ignore the above question, I've found a pic that does appear to show such a plate.
-
Excuse my ignorance on this matter Walt but I can't find a pic that satisfactorily answers this question - Does the Carcano have a metal butt plate?
Later edit: Ignore the above question, I've found a pic that does appear to show such a plate.
Dan the film clip is now no longer the same clip that you posted earlier..... I downloaded that earlier film clip and I know it is more detailed than the one now being presented. What's the idea?
-
The Alyea footage does seem staged. Day would have had to move the boxes to get at the rifle, which Alyea never captured. It's as if Day waited for his cue to pick up the rifle. The rifle must have flipped over as they moved the boxes, which demonstrates more reckless handling of the evidence. Those guys were the Keystone Cops of the coup.
It must have been nice for the DPD not to actually have to apply any forensics to the evidence. They only needed to pretend to solve the case in record time. That's why they had a total disregard for the evidence. They should have at least pretended a little harder than they did. They were staging photos of the crime scene (Fritz staged the photo of the hulls in the SN), planting evidence, mishandling evidence, sheep-dipping Oswald, delivering Oswald to Ruby. The screw up with the Mauser was par for the course.
The screw up with the Mauser was par for the course.
Explain.......
-
This Gif shows the first few frames from the moment Day appears on the Alyea film slowed down.
His hands are down where the rifle is.
The rifle is out of view.
The Alyea film does not tell us the rifle was lying down when Day picked it up.
I believe, after moving some boxes about, Day reached over the rifle and grabbed the strap.
The second he pulled the strap the rifle flipped to the horizontal position.
To a certain extent I imagine the scene has been staged but only in terms of telling Alyea to come and film the moment the rifle is picked up - 3..2..1..Action!
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The photos are real.
The rifle is found in an upright position.
Somehow the clip is still inside.
Alyea films the moment the rifle is picked up.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Why did you cut the frames that show the butt plate horizontal??
-
This Gif shows the first few frames from the moment Day appears on the Alyea film slowed down.
His hands are down where the rifle is.
The rifle is out of view.
The Alyea film does not tell us the rifle was lying down when Day picked it up.
Day obviously laid it down, but it was already laying down before this sequence, probably when Day first moved the boxes to expose the rifle, whenever that was.
I believe, after moving some boxes about, Day reached over the rifle and grabbed the strap.
The second he pulled the strap the rifle flipped to the horizontal position.
Nope. Day had both hands on the rifle and picked it up from its laying position on the floor. Note how the top of the stock rotated toward him as he picked it up. The rifle would have rotated the other way if Day picked it up by the strap only and flipped it on its side. His right hand rotated the rifle toward him before he grabbed the strap and picked it up.
To a certain extent I imagine the scene has been staged but only in terms of telling Alyea to come and film the moment the rifle is picked up - 3..2..1..Action!
That's right, but the DPD planted the rifle there ahead of time and Fritz managed to remove the Mauser from the scene after Craig read "7.65" off the barrel. Only then was Alyea permitted to document the staged discovery of the MC.
The photos are real.
The rifle is found in an upright position.
Somehow the clip is still inside.
Alyea films the moment the rifle is picked up.
Alyea appeared to film the cameraman as he took the photos but we have no idea whether those photos are the ones he took. I don't think they were, otherwise, where is the strap? And 2 lousy token pics of the MC in situ? That's a joke. Was Fritz relying on Alyea to document the crime scene? Fritz was in total control of documenting the staged evidence and he choreographed everything. We have no idea how the Alyea film was spliced together for the final presentation. Alyea sure as hell ain't talking. He had to be complicit in the whole thing. No way would Fritz allow a freelancer to document their staged investigation. No way! We can't trust the sequence of events as depicted in the Alyea film by any stretch of the imagination.
Don't forget that the DPD (Roscoe White in particular) were darkroom specialists assigned to sheep-dip Oswald with the backyard photos, to connect him to the rifle. The DPD obviously had access to the rifle, which they later planted in the TSBD. The DPD also created CE-399 by firing the rifle into a swimming pool then retrieving it so it could magically show up on the wrong stretcher with no DNA on it in pristine condition. The DPD would later set up Oswald for Ruby to take out to remove any connection to him. Oswald knew full well that the DPD were up to their eyeballs in the Big Event.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Why did you cut the frames that show the butt plate horizontal??
Dan was only isolating the section where Day 1st reached down for the rifle. He thinks Day grabbed the strap and flipped the rifle on its side before lifting it up. He's just wrong, not trying to deceive you. However, Day could have tipped the rifle forward so he could grab the strap, which is mysteriously missing from the only 2 in-situ photos taken of the murder weapon for the crime of the century.
Here is a slowed down section showing the butt plate. (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/Alyea-buttplate.gif)
-
Dan was only isolating the section where Day 1st reached down for the rifle. He thinks Day grabbed the strap and flipped the rifle on its side before lifting it up. He's just wrong, not trying to deceive you.
Here is a slowed down section showing the butt plate. (http://www.welllog.ca/JFK/Alyea-buttplate.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXCcCLPB/Ayea-rifle-walt.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Count three seconds after the detective ( Studebaker?) lifts the camera.. and notice the metal butt plate of the rifle. Day has just grabbed the leather sling and the butt plate is HORIZONTAL.
-
Count three seconds after the detective ( Studebaker?) lifts the camera.. and notice the metal butt plate of the rifle. Day has just grabbed the leather sling and the butt plate is HORIZONTAL.
Here are my thoughts re this sequence:
1) Day could have reached down and tipped the rifle on its side with his right hand so he could grab the strap with his left hand. Then when he lifted the rifle into view, it was horizontal. But he still had hold of the rifle with his right hand when he lifted it up then shifted it to his left hand holding it by the strap and letting go with his right hand. IOWs, the rifle could have been upright before he lifted it from the floor. But I don't think so.
2) Or when Day moved the boxes he laid down the rifle on its side 1st, then he went back to it for the "discovery scene" with Alyea filming. The photos were taken well before the boxes were moved. But when?
3) Note how Day grabs the strap which is in front of the rifle as it lays on its side. If you rotated the rifle upright the strap would still be in front of the stock and in plain view. A photo would clearly show the strap and the 2 photos taken by the DPD did not.
I believe those photos were taken well before the Big Event and were just more staged evidence to frame Oswald. It is preposterous to think that Alyea would have shot footage of the photographer taking the photos of the rifle in-situ and not shot footage of the rifle as well. I am willing to bet that Alyea actually did film the rifle in-situ but it was cut from the film when they noticed it did not match the 2 photos.
But how could the Alyea footage not match the 2 photos taken by the photographer so they would have to cut it out? The mismatch was either the footage showed the strap when the photos didn't or the footage showed a Mauser in-situ, which they had to swap out for the MC, before letting Alyea film the discovery scene. This would explain how a Mauser got into the mix, yet the Alyea film shows Day picking up an MC. But their edits render the timeline of events to horsespombleprofglidnoctobuns.
But why would they use the 2 staged photos of the strapless MC in-situ when the actual 2 pics taken would have matched the Alyea footage? Why did they decide to use the staged photos and cut the footage from the Alyea film instead? I think they were so arrogant that they went with the staged pics and later realized they didn't match the Alyea footage so by that point it was easier to cut it out of the film because they probably tossed out the actual pics taken at the scene or they might not have even had film in the camera. The fact that they only took 2 lousy pics of the murder weapon for the crime of the century is bad enough.
-
Dan the film clip is now no longer the same clip that you posted earlier..... I downloaded that earlier film clip and I know it is more detailed than the one now being presented. What's the idea?
It's explained in my post.
These are a few frames from the clip I posted from the moment we first see Day.
The point is to demonstrate that when the Alyea film cuts to Day his hands are already down by the rifle and the rifle is out of sight
-
It's explained in my post.
These are a few frames from the clip I posted from the moment we first see Day.
The point is to demonstrate that when the Alyea film cuts to Day his hands are already down by the rifle and the rifle is out of sight
No, the rifle is clearly visible as Lt Day grabs the leather sling ( which is right there at his finger tips) Count off three seconds after detective Studebaker ( perched on top of the boxes, he has just taken the in situ photo) ...lifts his camera then three seconds later the rifle is clearly visible LYING ON IT's RIGHT SIDE ....( The butt plate is horizontal) in the next fram Day is starting to lift the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
That's right, but the DPD planted the rifle there ahead of time and Fritz managed to remove the Mauser from the scene after Craig read "7.65" off the barrel. Only then was Alyea permitted to document the staged discovery of the MC.
Alyea appeared to film the cameraman as he took the photos but we have no idea whether those photos are the ones he took. I don't think they were, otherwise, where is the strap? And 2 lousy token pics of the MC in situ? That's a joke. Was Fritz relying on Alyea to document the crime scene? Fritz was in total control of documenting the staged evidence and he choreographed everything. We have no idea how the Alyea film was spliced together for the final presentation. Alyea sure as hell ain't talking. He had to be complicit in the whole thing. No way would Fritz allow a freelancer to document their staged investigation. No way! We can't trust the sequence of events as depicted in the Alyea film by any stretch of the imagination.
"He had to be complicit in the whole thing."
Came across the article from an interview with Tom Alyea. It has corrections at the end by Alyea himself.
I think you'll have to agree Alyea isn't complicit in any way as he is incredibly critical of Fritz and the investigation in general.
It's well worth checking out.
https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
-
"He had to be complicit in the whole thing."
Came across the article from an interview with Tom Alyea. It has corrections at the end by Alyea himself.
I think you'll have to agree Alyea isn't complicit in any way as he is incredibly critical of Fritz and the investigation in general.
It's well worth checking out.
https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
I already read that article and used to think Alyea was just a pawn in the coup until I realized the extent of the DPD's involvement. There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time that Fritz called all the shots and had total control over the crime scene. You only get that from complicity. Alyea was allowed to criticize the DPD with unfounded suspicions to give himself some plausible deniability and to distance himself from the conspiracy. But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film? What option did Alyea have but to deny any involvement and play the inadvertent pawn role.
Once you accept that the DPD were heavily involved in the conspiracy, it becomes easy to spot their gaffes and their pathetic attention to detail. But they never anticipated this level of scrutiny so they thought they could afford to be sloppy. All these years they've been shielded by the WC Defenders who scoffed at the critics and lumped them with the tin foil hat CTs who dared to challenge the LN narrative. Then the internet upped the ante and now their evidence doesn't stand up to the clear light of day.
-
No, the rifle is clearly visible as Lt Day grabs the leather sling ( which is right there at his finger tips) Count off three seconds after detective Studebaker ( perched on top of the boxes, he has just taken the in situ photo) ...lifts his camera then three seconds later the rifle is clearly visible LYING ON IT's RIGHT SIDE ....( The butt plate is horizontal) in the next fram Day is starting to lift the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.
We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?
-
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.
We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?
So what if the rifle is laying on its side?
Ok, so recognize that Studebaker had just taken an in situ photo...and you acknowledge that the rifle was laying on it's side with the leather sling up. But the official in situ photo shows the rifle in a different location and standing with the scope up....
That means the official in situ photo is NOT the way the rifle was found and the official in situ photo is a fake.
This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos.
Yes.... the BOXES had to be moved because Deputy Boone found the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of books ...BUT.. everybody who saw the rifle swore that nobody touched the rifle prior to Lt grabbing the leather strap and picking it up. And we can see with our own eyes that this is true.
The point is:.... This site at the bottom of a chasm of books was 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and down in a hole that was over four feet deep. No mortal man could have dashed through that aisle ( formed by boxes of books) at the top of the stairs and hastily dumped that rifle as he fled. The Alyea footage proves that the DPD were lying, and creating fake photos to frame Lee Oswald.
That rifle had to have been placed on the floor and then the boxes stacked around it PRIOR to the murder. That carcano was never fired that day.... And yet the FBI swore that it was the murder weapon....
And THAT is....... "THE REST OF THE STORY!" .................... END
-
So what if the rifle is laying on its side?
Ok, so recognize that Studebaker had just taken an in situ photo...and you acknowledge that the rifle was laying on it's side with the leather sling up. But the official in situ photo shows the rifle in a different location and standing with the scope up....
That means the official in situ photo is NOT the way the rifle was found and the official in situ photo is a fake.
No, it doesn't mean that. You don't know when the camera took the photos and when Alyea shot the footage. Obviously, Day had cleared a path to the rifle and moved some boxes and laid down the rifle by that point. He wasn't reaching down to handle the rifle for the 1st time. Therefore the Alyea footage can not be used to prove that the in-situ photos were faked.
This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos.
Yes.... the BOXES had to be moved because Deputy Boone found the rifle at the bottom of a chasm of books ...BUT.. everybody who saw the rifle swore that nobody touched the rifle prior to Lt grabbing the leather strap and picking it up. And we can see with our own eyes that this is true.
We know no such thing. The footage can't tell you that. Maybe the footage cut from the film could tell you that, but not "as is". You have to get past this. Testimony is worthless from the conspirators and you think Craig was a king kong bullspombleprofglidnoctobunster. So toss out all the witnesses because you can't believe any of them. Also, the Alyea film was missing footage and heavily edited by the conspirators so why do you keep treating it like gospel? The photos could very well have been taken prior to the shooting and the missing Alyea footage might have shown the rifle in-situ on its side. This is why they may have cut that scene from the film. But they also cut it out because it showed the strap that was missing from the in-situ photos.
The point is:.... This site at the bottom of a chasm of books was 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and down in a hole that was over four feet deep. No mortal man could have dashed through that aisle ( formed by boxes of books) at the top of the stairs and hastily dumped that rifle as he fled. The Alyea footage proves that the DPD were lying, and creating fake photos to frame Lee Oswald.
Maybe the cut footage would prove the DPD were lying but not the way it is now. The missing footage might have shown Day moving the boxes to get at the MC and laying the rifle on its side so he could grab the strap. The footage we see cuts in just as he's picking up the rifle from its side, but it doesn't mean it is cutting in as he is touching the rifle for the 1st time. The footage has no time reference relative to the in-situ photos so it proves nothing. Close but no cigar.
That rifle had to have been placed on the floor and then the boxes stacked around it PRIOR to the murder. That carcano was never fired that day.... And yet the FBI swore that it was the murder weapon....
And THAT is....... "THE REST OF THE STORY!" .................... END
One of the rare times I agree with you. How's your re-enactment coming? I want to know how Oswald hid the strap from view as he ditched the rifle among the boxes as depicted in the in-situ photos. It would be a better use of your time because you've reached a dead end otherwise. Move along folks, no proof here.
-
I already read that article and used to think Alyea was just a pawn in the coup until I realized the extent of the DPD's involvement. There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time that Fritz called all the shots and had total control over the crime scene. You only get that from complicity. Alyea was allowed to criticize the DPD with unfounded suspicions to give himself some plausible deniability and to distance himself from the conspiracy. But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film? What option did Alyea have but to deny any involvement and play the inadvertent pawn role.
Your reasoning - that Alyea was 'allowed' to report the criminal negligence of Fritz and his men because he was under Fritz's thumb - doesn't stand up to the mildest scrutiny and, to my ears, screams Tin Foil.
"There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time"
Alyea was in there before Fritz arrived. When, exactly did Alyea thrash out this deal with Fritz about entering the TSBD? Before the shooting?
"But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film?"
Have you really read the article? In it Alyea states:
"I took the film from my camera, placed it back into its metal can, wrapped the tape around it, and tossed it to our News Editor, A. J. L'Hoste, who was waiting outside with the other newsmen who were not allowed in the building. A. J. raced it to the television station which was about three blocks away. About fifteen minutes later the world saw the murder weapon, where it was found and pictures of the crime lab people dusting it for fingerprints, and the shell casings that once housed those bullets. They also saw how the assassin prepared for his ambush and the view he had of the killing zone."
What makes you think he wasn't allowed to keep his film?
None of your reasoning about Alyea and his presence in the TSBD makes any sense and you seem to have a very loose grasp of some key events.
-
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.
We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?
I found some other Alyea footage and made a compilation of any related to the rifle and it's location but in was too big to download.
Below is the opening of it. In it we see Fritz walking into the small area where the rifle is located. There is one shot, quite poor quality, showing the rifle in position near his feet. It is in the upright position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
in the article I posted Alyea states:
"Still pictures were taken of the positioning of the rifle, then Lt. Day slid it out from its hiding place and held it up for all of us to see. The world has seen my shot of this many times."
In the Alyea footage we don't see Day sliding the rifle out of it's hiding place. We just see him picking up the rifle after he has done so.
What happened to the strap?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.
-
Your reasoning - that Alyea was 'allowed' to report the criminal negligence of Fritz and his men because he was under Fritz's thumb - doesn't stand up to the mildest scrutiny and, to my ears, screams Tin Foil.
"There is no way in hell Fritz would let a freelance photographer film anything without an agreement ahead of time"
Alyea was in there before Fritz arrived. When, exactly did Alyea thrash out this deal with Fritz about entering the TSBD? Before the shooting?
"But rest assured Fritz must have had Alyea under his thumb the whole time, otherwise, why wasn't Alyea allowed to keep his film?"
Have you really read the article? In it Alyea states:
"I took the film from my camera, placed it back into its metal can, wrapped the tape around it, and tossed it to our News Editor, A. J. L'Hoste, who was waiting outside with the other newsmen who were not allowed in the building. A. J. raced it to the television station which was about three blocks away. About fifteen minutes later the world saw the murder weapon, where it was found and pictures of the crime lab people dusting it for fingerprints, and the shell casings that once housed those bullets. They also saw how the assassin prepared for his ambush and the view he had of the killing zone."
What makes you think he wasn't allowed to keep his film?
None of your reasoning about Alyea and his presence in the TSBD makes any sense and you seem to have a very loose grasp of some key events.
criminal negligence of Fritz and his men
It wasn't "negligence".... Fritz was a key conspirator.... He was a bit mentally deranged, and truly believed that JFK was a genuine threat to the country that he had grown up in. Which was the old south of segregation, and white supremacy,
It would not surprise me if it were revealed that Fritz was a leading member of General Walker's Minute Men, or the KKK.
Since Fritz, and many other wealthy, powerful men, in Dallas believed that they were great patriots and they had saved the(ir) country with the murder of John Kennedy they saw no crime in their actions.
I agree Dan, Jack has preconceived ideas and he refuses to accept facts....I doubt that he will ever give up the idea that a 7.65 mauser was the rifle that Boone and Weitzman found. It's a pity that folks latch onto some BS and build a whole case on the BS..... However, I strongly believe that the government knew that there would be people who would construct such BS cases and encouraged that ( Many "history channel" stories about the coup d e'tat, are based on BS)
-
I found some other Alyea footage and made a compilation of any related to the rifle and it's location but in was too big to download.
Below is the opening of it. In it we see Fritz walking into the small area where the rifle is located. There is one shot, quite poor quality, showing the rifle in position near his feet. It is in the upright position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
in the article I posted Alyea states:
"Still pictures were taken of the positioning of the rifle, then Lt. Day slid it out from its hiding place and held it up for all of us to see. The world has seen my shot of this many times."
In the Alyea footage we don't see Day sliding the rifle out of it's hiding place. We just see him picking up the rifle after he has done so.
What happened to the strap?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/fyD81S9V/Screenshot-43.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.
The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.
Dan what is it going to take to convince you that the official in situ phots are fakes?
In the Alyea shot that shows the carcano lying on it's right side the leather strap is right there at Day's finger tips, on top of the stock.
-
The strap is clearly on the side facing away from us and out of sight. No real mystery.
Dan what is it going to take to convince you that the official in situ phots are fakes?
In the Alyea shot that shows the carcano lying on it's right side the leather strap is right there at Day's finger tips, on top of the stock.
The in-situ rifle photos are not fake Walt.
Alyea filmed the rifle in the upright position before Day was anywhere near it.
Day slid the rifle out from beneath the overhanging boxes before he picked it up.
We don't see the bit where Day slid the rifle out, we just see the bit where he picked it up.
No offence Walt, but you don not have one grain of evidence the photos were faked.
Absolutely nothing.
But it doesn't change what you believe.
You can repeat the line about the Alyea film all you want.
Walt, what's it going to take to convince you that you are wrong about the in-situ rifle photos being fake?
-
The in-situ rifle photos are not fake Walt.
Alyea filmed the rifle in the upright position before Day was anywhere near it.
Day slid the rifle out from beneath the overhanging boxes before he picked it up.
We don't see the bit where Day slid the rifle out, we just see the bit where he picked it up.
No offence Walt, but you don not have one grain of evidence the photos were faked.
Absolutely nothing.
But it doesn't change what you believe.
You can repeat the line about the Alyea film all you want.
What is happening when Alyea's clip begins...
Detective Studebaker is perched atop the stack of boxes after photographing the rifle in situ.
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Then about two to three seconds later the rifle is clearly visible, just beyond Lt Day's left elbow. The light colored metal butt plate on the butt of the rifle is clearly visible and it is in the horizontal position. The leather sling is right there on top ( left side of the stock up) at Lt Day's finger tips and he grabs that leather strap. then he picks up the carcano and lifts it into the air.
Walt, what's it going to take to convince you that you are wrong about the in-situ rifle photos being fake?
-
As has already been explained, the part of the Alyea film I posted shows Fritz stood in the area where the rifle is. One clip, although poor quality, shows the rifle in an upright position at Fritz's feet.
Alyea states he sees Day slide the rifle out from under the boxes before picking it up. The bit where Day slides the rifle out has not been filmed, just Day picking up the rifle.
This is the footage I've cobbled together from various Alyea clips:
-
So what if the rifle is laying on its side? This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos. Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily. We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos. Otherwise, the footage of Day picking up the rifle is useless to us.
We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?
So what if the rifle is laying on its side?
e need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos.
At this point nobody has touched the carcano..... Detective Studebaker has just photographed the carcano in situ....
This footage was clearly shot after Day had already moved the boxes to expose the rifle and after the photographer took his 2 photos.
Yes, you are right.....( although I don't know the number of photo taken)
Day probably laid the rifle down then, but not necessarily.
Pure speculation, .....and contrary to the testimony, and affidavits, of EVERY witness who was there.
We need to find out if Alyea took any footage of the rifle in-situ and how it compares to the 2 photos.
WAKE UP Jack.... You're dreamin..... That footage, if it ever existed, was destroyed long ago.
We need to compare the missing Alyea footage with the 2 photos
How does a person go about comparing something with nothing?....
to see if the rifle is laying on its side, but that doesn't matter nearly as much as what happened to the strap?
The strap is right there on top of the stock ( Left side up) and Day grabs it and lifts the rifle.
-
As has already been explained, the part of the Alyea film I posted shows Fritz stood in the area where the rifle is. One clip, although poor quality, shows the rifle in an upright position at Fritz's feet.
Alyea states he sees Day slide the rifle out from under the boxes before picking it up. The bit where Day slides the rifle out has not been filmed, just Day picking up the rifle.
This is the footage I've cobbled together from various Alyea clips:
Dan at the 7 thru 12 second portion of your video ...Notice the BRIGHT sunshine reflecting off the top of the card board box on the lower left side of the photos . That is exactly the way the insitu photos should be..... Why is there no sunshine in the official in situ photos?
-
Dan at the 7 thru 12 second portion of your video ...Notice the BRIGHT sunshine reflecting off the top of the card board box on the lower left side of the photos . That is exactly the way the insitu photos should be..... Why is there no sunshine in the official in situ photos?
You'll not that some of the clips seem really 'overexposed' and some don't. It's not really bright sunshine.
I'm also assuming, although I could easily be wrong, that Alyea is using some kind of light source.
You're grasping at straws Walt.
If you want something more solid on Fritz altering the scene of the crime read that Alyea article I posted.
I found it eye-opening to say the least.
-
You'll not that some of the clips seem really 'overexposed' and some don't. It's not really bright sunshine.
I'm also assuming, although I could easily be wrong, that Alyea is using some kind of light source.
You're grasping at straws Walt.
If you want something more solid on Fritz altering the scene of the crime read that Alyea article I posted.
I found it eye-opening to say the least.
If you want something more solid on Fritz altering the scene of the crime
Who said anything about Fritz altering the scene OF THE CRIME
He merely had much of Alyea's film destroyed.... And then created fake in situ photos. I wish I could get you to slow down and LOOK at every frame of Alyea's footage....Then you may see that the scene from Alyea's footage does not jibe with the official in situ photo. The boxes are positioned totally differently in the official in situ photo and the site is about a foot closer to the stairs.
-
"He had to be complicit in the whole thing."
Came across the article from an interview with Tom Alyea. It has corrections at the end by Alyea himself.
I think you'll have to agree Alyea isn't complicit in any way as he is incredibly critical of Fritz and the investigation in general.
It's well worth checking out.
https://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version.
Day was already lying to newsmen....The point he is pointing to is NOT the place the rifle was found.
It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle. Thus they knew that they had to move that rifle over closer to the aisle and remove the boxes that were stacked around it. ....and That's exactly what Day was doing when he pointed to a spot that was closer to the aisle.
-
Only recently I saw a picture of Lt. Day with a news still cameraman on the 6th floor. Day was shown pointing to the location where the rifle was found. This was nearly 3:30 or after. It was my understanding that Day and Studebaker had taken the prints, rifle and homemade sack back to police headquarters. I personally would like to know what they were doing back at the scene unless it was to reconstruct shots they had failed to take during the primary investigation. But this evidence had been destroyed and they were forced to create their own version.
Day was already lying to newsmen....The point he is pointing to is NOT the place the rifle was found.
It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle. Thus they knew that they had to move that rifle over closer to the aisle and remove the boxes that were stacked around it. ....and That's exactly what Day was doing when he pointed to a spot that was closer to the aisle.
"It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle."
Alyea disagrees on that point
Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?
Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.
One minute would be calling it a bit close, however, if I recall correctly, Officer Baker said he encountered Oswald 90 seconds after he entered the building. We are playing with time estimates from an officer who provided a rough calculation. He could be correct, but 90 seconds is well within the time it would take for Oswald to get from the sniper’s window to the second floor. Oswald was accustomed to handling heavy boxes and the race downstairs would certainly not leave him breathless.
http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=170
-
"It didn't take a genius like Einstein to see that Lee Oswald could not have dashed by and placed that rifle at the bottom of a chasm that was five feet away from the aisle."
Alyea disagrees on that point
Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?
Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.
One minute would be calling it a bit close, however, if I recall correctly, Officer Baker said he encountered Oswald 90 seconds after he entered the building. We are playing with time estimates from an officer who provided a rough calculation. He could be correct, but 90 seconds is well within the time it would take for Oswald to get from the sniper’s window to the second floor. Oswald was accustomed to handling heavy boxes and the race downstairs would certainly not leave him breathless.
http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=170
Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?
Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly,
The rifle was "perfectly hidden".... Do the official DPD insitu photos show a "perfectly hidden" rifle ??
According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?
Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.
It was obviously pre constructed
Alyea recognized that the site had to have been constructed BEFORE the shooting.....
he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway,
Boone, Weitzman and Craig described the site where the rifle was found .... Boone moved a box that served as a Lid over the top of the chasm of boxes and shined his flashlight down into the dark recess at the bottom of the chasm and spotted a portion of the butt of the rifle that was lying on the floor. Craig said that the rifle was on the floor at the bottom of a chasm, which was created by boxes of books ..... (Read his testimony)
No fleeing man could have deposited that rifle at the bottom of the chasm. ( try to put a broom into a space that is 2'X 3 ' by 4 feet deep while you are standing about five feet away from that space.)
-
Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, if we considered that he was interviewed by Baker and Truly less than 1 minute after the last shot. According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?
Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly,
The rifle was "perfectly hidden".... Do the official DPD insitu photos show a "perfectly hidden" rifle ??
According to you and with your perfect knowledge of the building, was that possible?
Yes, Oswald had time to hide his rifle. The location was in front of the stairway that Oswald took to leave the floor. It was obviously pre constructed so he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway, only about five feet away. It would have not taken him over two seconds. No boxes had to be moved. The rifle did not touch any of the three overhanging boxes, and there were no boxes touching the rifle. When Lt. Day retrieved it, he pulled it effortlessly from under the overhanging boxes. This was the first time any of us saw the scope, bolt and trigger housing.
It was obviously pre constructed
Alyea recognized that the site had to have been constructed BEFORE the shooting.....
he could slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes as he entered the down stairway,
Boone, Weitzman and Craig described the site where the rifle was found .... Boone moved a box that served as a Lid over the top of the chasm of boxes and shined his flashlight down into the dark recess at the bottom of the chasm and spotted a portion of the butt of the rifle that was lying on the floor. Craig said that the rifle was on the floor at the bottom of a chasm, which was created by boxes of books ..... (Read his testimony)
No fleeing man could have deposited that rifle at the bottom of the chasm. ( try to put a broom into a space that is 2'X 3 ' by 4 feet deep while you are standing about five feet away from that space.)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
In the clip above there's a moment when Fritz stands up and the boxes in front of him are about waist level.
Hardly a "chasm", as you insist on calling it.
If Oswald was the fleeing assassin he could've easily leant over and slid the rifle underneath on his way past it.
If it was a set-up, it would not be set up in such a way that Oswald couldn't have easily hidden it there.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
In the clip above there's a moment when Fritz stands up and the boxes in front of him are about waist level.
Hardly a "chasm", as you insist on calling it.
If Oswald was the fleeing assassin he could've easily leant over and slid the rifle underneath on his way past it.
If it was a set-up, it would not be set up in such a way that Oswald couldn't have easily hidden it there.
Mr. CBAKJ. About S-foot.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. Cmo. I went over to the-uh-cluster of boxes where he was standing
and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BF.LIN. When you say “between the cluster of boxes,” could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. &AK+. There was a row going east to west on the north side of the
weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and-uhif I remember, uh-as you’d look down, you had to look kinda back under
268
the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under-uh-or
up tight against ‘em-you know, where it would be hard to see. bud, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn’t see through ‘em. You
had to get up and look in ‘em.
Mr. BELIN. You are gesturing with your hand there-woultl you say that
the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a
rectangular “O”, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BEWN. And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Well, it-it was different heights. Sow. the part where I looked
in particularly was about-uh-oh, was about s-foot.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look
straight down? Would that be a fair statemeut of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boses and look down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over-or what?
-
Mr. CBAKJ. About S-foot.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do then?
Mr. Cmo. I went over to the-uh-cluster of boxes where he was standing
and looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BF.LIN. When you say “between the cluster of boxes,” could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. &AK+. There was a row going east to west on the north side of the
weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and-uhif I remember, uh-as you’d look down, you had to look kinda back under
268
the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under-uh-or
up tight against ‘em-you know, where it would be hard to see. bud, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn’t see through ‘em. You
had to get up and look in ‘em.
Mr. BELIN. You are gesturing with your hand there-woultl you say that
the boxes, then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a
rectangular “O”, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BEWN. And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG. Well, it-it was different heights. Sow. the part where I looked
in particularly was about-uh-oh, was about s-foot.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
And you gestured there in such a way that you had to lean over and look
straight down? Would that be a fair statemeut of your gestures?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; yes. You had to lean over the boses and look down.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Then what happened? After you found this, did people come over-or what?
Look at the film again Walt.
As Craig says, the boxes were different heights. You can see that in the film.
One of the sides is about 5ft tall (that's where Studebaker is when he takes the photo).
All Craig is saying is that he was stood by that stack.
The stack opposite is about waist height.
You can see this in the film.
-
Look at the film again Walt.
As Craig says, the boxes were different heights. You can see that in the film.
One of the sides is about 5ft tall (that's where Studebaker is when he takes the photo).
All Craig is saying is that he was stood by that stack.
The stack opposite is about waist height.
You can see this in the film.
There is a record of Craig saying that he was 6 feet tall and he could not have put the rifle at the bottom of that chasm.
Yes, the boxes were stacked to different heights in that area.....But the place where the rifle was found was at the bottom of boxes that were stacked on four sides of the rifle with another box covering the opening at the top ( read Boones statement)
Visualize a 5'9" tall, skinny man reaching out about four feet while holding an 8 pound rifle and then trying to put that rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes that was about four feet deep.
-
There is a record of Craig saying that he was 6 feet tall and he could not have put the rifle at the bottom of that chasm.
Yes, the boxes were stacked to different heights in that area.....But the place where the rifle was found was at the bottom of boxes that were stacked on four sides of the rifle with another box covering the opening at the top ( read Boones statement)
Visualize a 5'9" tall, skinny man reaching out about four feet while holding an 8 pound rifle and then trying to put that rifle at the bottom of a chasm of boxes that was about four feet deep.
I'm bored with this Walt.
You can see in the clip below that when Fritz stands up the boxes in front of him are about waist high.
You can see it.
It's evidence.
You can pretend you don't see it because it suits you not to. You're locked in this idea the in-situ photos are fake and will not let go but you're starting to sound a bit silly.
A midget could reach over the boxes in front of Fritz and put a rifle on the floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Tom Alyea reports, more than once, that he was stood next to Fritz when he squeezed into the sniper's nest and picked up the shells lying on the floor. Fritz, a homicide detective, knew not to pick the shells up but he did and then pocketed them. He also pocketed the live round that he ejected out of the rifle, something confirmed by multiple witnesses including Fritz.
I'm going to wander down this path for a while to see what I find, as the fake photo thing is clearly a dead-end.
I find Alyea very credible and am a bit saddened about what he has to say concerning Roger Craig:
"One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press..."
Near the beginning of my research I came across the Lane interview of Craig and instantly had a very strong, completely irrational urge to believe him. I imagined him to be a simple, honest man up against extraordinary forces but standing up against these forces regardless of the danger it put him in (to be honest, I still look at him this way to a large degree). But as time went by little slivers of doubt began to creep in about Craig which I ignored but this little detour into whether the rifle photos were fake has been a tipping point. I feel certain there was no Mauser found on the 6th floor, it was some kind of misunderstanding that escalated. As such, Craig never saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.
Why did he lie about that?
Here's the new thing I'd like to believe - the investigation and collection of evidence on the 6th floor was clearly corrupt, not just negligent. Evidence was tampered with and manipulated, some of the evidence that made it into the WC hearings was actually staged. At the heart of this was Fritz, other members of the DPD just went along with it to cover for Fritz but weren't necessarily 'conspirators' in any meaningful way.
Craig, however, would not go along with it. At the expense of his career, family and personal safety he stood against those participating in this gross miscarriage of justice. He wanted to convince the world of the DPD's guilt and, in doing so, created the lie about the Mauser.
That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it
(for now)
-
I'm bored with this Walt.
You can see in the clip below that when Fritz stands up the boxes in front of him are about waist high.
You can see it.
It's evidence.
You can pretend you don't see it because it suits you not to. You're locked in this idea the in-situ photos are fake and will not let go but you're starting to sound a bit silly.
A midget could reach over the boxes in front of Fritz and put a rifle on the floor.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Tom Alyea reports, more than once, that he was stood next to Fritz when he squeezed into the sniper's nest and picked up the shells lying on the floor. Fritz, a homicide detective, knew not to pick the shells up but he did and then pocketed them. He also pocketed the live round that he ejected out of the rifle, something confirmed by multiple witnesses including Fritz.
I'm going to wander down this path for a while to see what I find, as the fake photo thing is clearly a dead-end.
I find Alyea very credible and am a bit saddened about what he has to say concerning Roger Craig:
"One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press..."
Near the beginning of my research I came across the Lane interview of Craig and instantly had a very strong, completely irrational urge to believe him. I imagined him to be a simple, honest man up against extraordinary forces but standing up against these forces regardless of the danger it put him in (to be honest, I still look at him this way to a large degree). But as time went by little slivers of doubt began to creep in about Craig which I ignored but this little detour into whether the rifle photos were fake has been a tipping point. I feel certain there was no Mauser found on the 6th floor, it was some kind of misunderstanding that escalated. As such, Craig never saw "Mauser" stamped on the barrel.
Why did he lie about that?
Here's the new thing I'd like to believe - the investigation and collection of evidence on the 6th floor was clearly corrupt, not just negligent. Evidence was tampered with and manipulated, some of the evidence that made it into the WC hearings was actually staged. At the heart of this was Fritz, other members of the DPD just went along with it to cover for Fritz but weren't necessarily 'conspirators' in any meaningful way.
Craig, however, would not go along with it. At the expense of his career, family and personal safety he stood against those participating in this gross miscarriage of justice. He wanted to convince the world of the DPD's guilt and, in doing so, created the lie about the Mauser.
That's my story, anyway, and I'm sticking to it
(for now)
Dan, We're pretty much in harmony.....The major difference is I believe the corrupt DPD staged the in situ photos. and they did that because the location of the rifle as found would not support the story about Lee Oswald dashing by and hastily dumping the rifle ....
-
Dan, We're pretty much in harmony.....The major difference is I believe the corrupt DPD staged the in situ photos. and they did that because the location of the rifle as found would not support the story about Lee Oswald dashing by and hastily dumping the rifle ....
On a lot of this we are in harmony Walt.
This area of the assassination is not something I've focussed on yet but the time has come to get into it.
As far as I'm concerned the fake photos are a dead-end and I've seen more than enough to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.
Now I've started looking into it there are a couple of avenues I'm going to follow:
Alyea's observation of Fritz handling the shells.
I'm going to assume Fritz's culpability in deliberately tampering with this specific evidence.
Various statements and testimonies of members of the DPD present to see if I can discern a pattern of 'covering for the boss'.
-
On a lot of this we are in harmony Walt.
This area of the assassination is not something I've focussed on yet but the time has come to get into it.
As far as I'm concerned the fake photos are a dead-end and I've seen more than enough to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.
Now I've stated looking into it there are a couple of avenues I'm going to follow:
Alyea's observation of Fritz handling the shells.
I'm going to assume Fritz's culpability in deliberately tampering with this specific evidence.
Various statements and testimonies of members of the DPD present to see if I can discern a pattern of 'covering for the boss'.
Dan, I want you to know that I truly appreciate your replies to my posts.... Although I haven't been able to open your eyes and see what I see regarding the in situ photo, the very fact that we are in complete harmony with regard to the staged "sniper's nest, the clip being in the rifle when it was found, etc...... However I would caution you about believing everything that Tom Alyea has said. He knows that the DPD created false evidence, and yet he believes that Lee Oswald was guilty.
Damned if I know how anybody could know that Lee Oswald was being framed and still believe the men who were framing him.
At any rate.... I truly appreciate your help in examining this aspect of the case....
-
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter. Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
Just a glance...a fleeting second.
If it was Oswald that rode in the Rambler...he was taken to the rooming house.
A perplexing story...https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/ruby-and-oswald-rendezvous-at-lucas-b-b_11034/
There you have it...doppleganger
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter.
That's a plausible possibility..... But there may be other explanations for the man who Craig saw leaving the scene.
Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The man in Whaley's taxi was not Lee Oswald... I doubt that he had anything to do with the assassination or the Tippit murder.
The Bull Slinging cabbie ( Whaley) made up a tale for his fellow cabbies about how he had transported the killer to Oak Cliff just minutes after the madman had killer JFK. Whaley was a damned liar, and he was trapped in that lie.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
True ....Markham, Benavides, and the Davis sisters saw a man who was not Lee Oswald.....But whether he was the same man that Craig saw jump into a light colored Rambler station wagon, is an unknown. It seems clear that the man who shot Tippit knew that Lee Oswald would be in the Theater, and he lured the police in that direction.
-
On a lot of this we are in harmony Walt.
This area of the assassination is not something I've focussed on yet but the time has come to get into it.
As far as I'm concerned the fake photos are a dead-end and I've seen more than enough to demonstrate this to my satisfaction.
Now I've started looking into it there are a couple of avenues I'm going to follow:
Alyea's observation of Fritz handling the shells.
I'm going to assume Fritz's culpability in deliberately tampering with this specific evidence.
Various statements and testimonies of members of the DPD present to see if I can discern a pattern of 'covering for the boss'.
Dan, you shouldn't have any trouble finding evidence that the DPD officers closed ranks behind good ol Cap Fritz....
-
Dan, I want you to know that I truly appreciate your replies to my posts.... Although I haven't been able to open your eyes and see what I see regarding the in situ photo, the very fact that we are in complete harmony with regard to the staged "sniper's nest, the clip being in the rifle when it was found, etc...... However I would caution you about believing everything that Tom Alyea has said. He knows that the DPD created false evidence, and yet he believes that Lee Oswald was guilty.
Damned if I know how anybody could know that Lee Oswald was being framed and still believe the men who were framing him.
At any rate.... I truly appreciate your help in examining this aspect of the case....
Nice one Walt.
I was already aware of Alyea's opinion regarding Oswald but, in a weird way, it kind of strengthens his position as a witness.
He doesn't believe Oswald was framed.
He seems to believe there was criminal negligence displayed by those investigating the crime. In particular Fritz.
He pulls no punches in reporting this corruption and cannot be considered a CTer with an axe to grind.
He is a very rare creature - a LNer who believes the investigation was corrupt and the findings of the WC suspect.
Definitely worth looking into.
-
Nice one Walt.
I was already aware of Alyea's opinion regarding Oswald but, in a weird way, it kind of strengthens his position as a witness.
He doesn't believe Oswald was framed.
He seems to believe there was criminal negligence displayed by those investigating the crime. In particular Fritz.
He pulls no punches in reporting this corruption and cannot be considered a CTer with an axe to grind.
He is a very rare creature - a LNer who believes the investigation was corrupt and the findings of the WC suspect.
Definitely worth looking into.
Hi Dan, just wanted you to know....I posted this earlier in this thread....
I wrote: .... I misunderstood Roger Craigs description of the position of the rifle that was LYING ON THE FLOOR......
having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
Craig said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I had incorrectly interpreted this as the rifle being N/S...After rereading it I realized that Craig was describing the rifle as being E/W with the muzzle point east. And the important point is....He clearly describes the rifle as lying on it's left side ( the magazine was on the south side of the rifle.
Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
-
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:
1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
[JFK Forum Screenshot.png][/img]
-
I've done this Gif from the Alyea film showing the moment Day picks up the rifle. Two things need to be noted:
1) When it cuts to Day he is already crouching down with his hands on or near the rifle. There is no telling how long he was down there
before it cuts to him.
2) At the very beginning of the clip the rifle is out of sight so we can't tell what's happening down there.
Conclusion - the Alyea clip cannot be used to support the idea the rifle was lying on its side. As soon as Day grabs the strap the rifle flips into a "lying down" position (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase it)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Copy/Paste this into your Search engine to view the image.
file:///C:/Users/Walt/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/ScreenShotRifle.png
-
Copy/Paste this into your Search engine to view the image.
file:///C:/Users/Walt/Pictures/Saved%20Pictures/ScreenShotRifle.png
When I do it just says "Your file can't be accessed"
-
You would have to be on Walt's computer for that to actually work.
-
You would have to be on Walt's computer for that to actually work.
I'm sorry, I had a friend do a screen shot of the Alyea film ..... I thought they had posted the screen shot....
I'll see if I can post that screen shot.....
-
(http://C:\Users\Walt\Pictures\Saved Pictures\ScreenShotRifle (2).png)
Apparently it didn't up load..... But my young friend made my day ..... When I showed them the Alyea film clip and pointed out what i wanted ( the shot of the rifle butt) And started to explain what it was that they were seeing.....They responded " oh, I could see that it is a rifle butt" I then showed them the butt plate on a carcano and they recognized that the photo does in fact show the butt plate of a carcano.... which was no surprise to me , but the fact that they recognized it immediately made me smile.
-
(http://C:\Users\Walt\Pictures\Saved Pictures\ScreenShotRifle (2).png)
Apparently it didn't up load..... But my young friend made my day ..... When I showed them the Alyea film clip and pointed out what i wanted ( the shot of the rifle butt) And started to explain what it was that they were seeing.....They responded " oh, I could see that it is a rifle butt" I then showed them the butt plate on a carcano and they recognized that the photo does in fact show the butt plate of a carcano.... which was no surprise to me , but the fact that they recognized it immediately made me smile.
I use this to upload images.
It's free, pretty straight-forward and reliable.
https://postimages.org/
-
I use this to upload images.
It's free, pretty straight-forward and reliable.
https://postimages.org/
Thanks, Dan..... I'm very anxious to post the screen shot.... I know that you've said that you're bored with talking about the Alyea film, but now that I've seen the screen shot there's no doubt that the scene isn't the same scene that is seen in the official DPD in situ photo.
I now have a better understanding WHY the DPD allowed the Alyea clip to remain in the public domain.
The clip shows DPD detective Studebaker atop the stack of boxes. He's just taken the in situ photo.... There's a very brief interval about two seconds that shows the carcano lying on it's left side as Lt Day reaches out to pick up the rifle by the leather sling.... They never realized that anybody would notice that very brief glimpse of the carcano lying on it's side when they created the fake in situ photo. ( They may not have realized that the Alyea clip actually shows the carcano....and it takes a certain familiarity with the carcano to spot the rifle. )
At any rate and for whatever reason the scene in that brief glimpse (seen in the stop action screen shot) is totally different than the scene in the official DPD in situ.
My friend who tried to help me post the screen shot has no knowledge of what is being filmed, and has no interest in the murder of JFK.... However ..When I pointed out that the man atop the boxes was a DPD detective, and he had just taken photos of the rifle in situ before it had been touched by anybody ....and then showed him the screen shot and the official in situ photo ....He gasped, and exclaimed.... That's ridiculous!
-
Thanks, Dan..... I'm very anxious to post the screen shot.... I know that you've said that you're bored with talking about the Alyea film, but now that I've seen the screen shot there's no doubt that the scene isn't the same scene that is seen in the official DPD in situ photo.
I now have a better understanding WHY the DPD allowed the Alyea clip to remain in the public domain.
The clip shows DPD detective Studebaker atop the stack of boxes. He's just taken the in situ photo.... There's a very brief interval about two seconds that shows the carcano lying on it's left side as Lt Day reaches out to pick up the rifle by the leather sling.... They never realized that anybody would notice that very brief glimpse of the carcano lying on it's side when they created the fake in situ photo. ( They may not have realized that the Alyea clip actually shows the carcano....and it takes a certain familiarity with the carcano to spot the rifle. )
At any rate and for whatever reason the scene in that brief glimpse (seen in the stop action screen shot) is totally different than the scene in the official DPD in situ.
My friend who tried to help me post the screen shot has no knowledge of what is being filmed, and has no interest in the murder of JFK.... However ..When I pointed out that the man atop the boxes was a DPD detective, and he had just taken photos of the rifle in situ before it had been touched by anybody ....and then showed him the screen shot and the official in situ photo ....He gasped, and exclaimed.... That's ridiculous!
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Later addition:
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see
-
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
There is no photo that shows a rifle pointed WEST...... I don't believe that Mooney ever saw the rifle in situ..... Mooney was over in the SE corner of the sixth floor .......
-
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Later addition:
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Well, when the Alyea fillm is scurtinized.... Day's action of picking up the carcano could be described as "sliding the rifle out"
And I was about 10 or 15 steps at the most from Officer Boone when he hollered, "Here is the gun."
Mr. BALL - Did you go over there?
Mr. MOONEY - I stepped over there.
Mr. BALL - What did you see?
Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, will show you a picture, 514.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 514, for identification.)
Senator COOPER - Did you smell any powder?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; not to my knowledge. Of course it was musty odor, with all those cartons and books there.
Mr. BALL - Do you see the picture which is 514? Does it look like anything like that?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; with the exception there was more cartons around it than that. In other words, the way it looked to me, when I walked over there of course these may have been disturbed at a later date.
Mr. BALL - It looks like there are more cartons?
Mr. MOONEY - No; there is less cartons around it right now. Of course that is looking straight down. Now, there are some more boxes here.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture which we will mark as 515.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 515 for identification.)
Mr. MOONEY - But that is in the position the gun was laying.
Mr. BALL - That is about the position of the gun?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, here is a picture of that marked stairway. Can you orient yourself from that picture?
Mr. MOONEY - Let's see. Here is the staircase right in here. If I remember right, the gun was either in this crack or this one here. I don't remember which.
Mr. BALL - Does that show you about the number of cartons around?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; that is the way it looked; sure did, because I had to stand up back here, before I could see over off in there.
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Mr. BALL - Did a photographer come up and take pictures when you were there?
Mr. MOONEY - There was a number of photographers up there shooting pictures. Who they were or who they represented--I assume it was the press.
Mr. BALL - How long were they there?
Mr. MOONEY - They were there when all these officers and everybody was up there.
-
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Well, when the Alyea fillm is scurtinized.... Day's action of picking up the carcano could be described as "sliding the rifle out"
And I was about 10 or 15 steps at the most from Officer Boone when he hollered, "Here is the gun."
Mr. BALL - Did you go over there?
Mr. MOONEY - I stepped over there.
Mr. BALL - What did you see?
Mr. MOONEY - I had to look twice before I actually saw the gun laying in there. I had to get around to the right angle before I could see it. And there the gun lay, stuck between these cartons in an upright position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, will show you a picture, 514.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 514, for identification.)
Senator COOPER - Did you smell any powder?
Mr. MOONEY - No, sir; not to my knowledge. Of course it was musty odor, with all those cartons and books there.
Mr. BALL - Do you see the picture which is 514? Does it look like anything like that?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; with the exception there was more cartons around it than that. In other words, the way it looked to me, when I walked over there of course these may have been disturbed at a later date.
Mr. BALL - It looks like there are more cartons?
Mr. MOONEY - No; there is less cartons around it right now. Of course that is looking straight down. Now, there are some more boxes here.
Mr. BALL - I show you a picture which we will mark as 515.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 515 for identification.)
Mr. MOONEY - But that is in the position the gun was laying.
Mr. BALL - That is about the position of the gun?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Now, here is a picture of that marked stairway. Can you orient yourself from that picture?
Mr. MOONEY - Let's see. Here is the staircase right in here. If I remember right, the gun was either in this crack or this one here. I don't remember which.
Mr. BALL - Does that show you about the number of cartons around?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir; that is the way it looked; sure did, because I had to stand up back here, before I could see over off in there.
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Mr. BALL - Did a photographer come up and take pictures when you were there?
Mr. MOONEY - There was a number of photographers up there shooting pictures. Who they were or who they represented--I assume it was the press.
Mr. BALL - How long were they there?
Mr. MOONEY - They were there when all these officers and everybody was up there.
Is it just me....or is there something about Mooney's tale that smells fishy?
-
Roger Craig must have seen an Oswald imposter. Or it was the imposter who took the cab over to South Beckley and then walked over to meet and shoot Tippit.
The imposter was seen by Helen Markham and the Davis sisters and some others.
Just a glance...a fleeting second.
If it was Oswald that rode in the Rambler...he was taken to the rooming house.
A perplexing story...https://newsblaze.com/usnews/national/ruby-and-oswald-rendezvous-at-lucas-b-b_11034/
There you have it...doppleganger
:D :D :D
Yeah, an Oswald "imposter" was placed in the "perfect position" just for Roger Craig to witness.
Like anybody knew Craig would happen to run across Houston Street in that direction, at that exact moment, to have an Oswald "imposter" all ready for him to witness in the same attire getting inside a Rambler. This is QAnon nonsense and then a link from a right wing newsblaze propaganda site as so called "evidence" makes it official. Hilarious.
-
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Later addition:
Tom Alyea reports that Day slid the rifle out from under the boxes before he picked it up.
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVdchm5q/Alyea-clip3.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed..... Day could not have slid the rifle out, because the butt of the 40 inch long rifle was about 24 inches from the west wall. You cannot slide a 40 inch long rifle into a space of 24 inches.... However As Day picks the rifle up he does appear to pull the rifle back toward the wall . It's very obvious that the carcano is lying on it's right side with the sling that is mounted on the left side of the stock, up. Day simply reaches down and grabs the leather sling and pulls the rifle out from between the boxes.
-
Craig was a nut.... period !!! Next case.....
-
Craig was a nut.... period !!! Next case.....
Just like Lee Oswald and Arnold Rowland were nuts...... That's a pretty easy way to dismiss anybody that disagrees with you....
-
Mr. BALL - And when you did look down there between the cartons, was the gun----
Mr. MOONEY - It was sitting in that position. The scope was up.
Mr. BALL - As shown in 514?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir. That is the way it was laying, in that position.
Senator COOPER - It was lying on the floor?
Mr. MOONEY - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - With the scope on the upper side?
Mr. MOONEY - The scope in upright position. The stock was back to the east. In other words, the gun was pointed west.
Later addition:
Day sliding it out wasn't filmed.
Day picking it up is the film we see
Look at the 40 / 45 second point and notice that the butt plate of the rifle is horizontal as Lt Day grabs the sling and starts to pick up the Carcano. This is the way the rifle was positioned when Detective Studebaker took the original in situ photo as he squatted atop the boxes of books ( seen in the first few frames of Alyea's video)
-
"The E port was NOT downward when the rifle was found..the rifle was lying on it's right side.....However the E Port is down in the fake in stu photo."
The picture of the rifle you are calling fake is CE 514. This was shown to Boone during his WC testimony and he confirmed that was exactly how the rifle was when he found it.
I'm wondering whether CE 514 was just a close-up portion of CE 517:
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Craig is also adamant the Day pics were taken before the rifle was moved
Mr. BELIN - The weapon was moved by the time the pictures were taken?
Mr. CRAIG - No; no. The pictures were taken as the weapon was found lying here.
I think you may be wrong about the rifle being found lying on its side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Sorry Dan, you've been deceived.....The conspirators placed that knee in the photo to trick the viewer into believing that the photo is the authentic in situ photo.....If you'll look at the first couple of frames of Tom Alyea's film You'll see Detective Studebaker perched atop a sack of boxes and taking the original in situ photo.... And Studebaker does not have his knee in the way of the scene.
Look at the position of the rifle at the 31 /32 second point in the slow motion film.....Notice that the butt plate is horizontal as Lt Day starts to lift the carcano by the leather sling.....THAT is the original position just a Roger Craig said...Craig was right, the rifle was lying on it's right side with the sling side up and the scope also up (because the scope was mounted off set to the left)
It was NOT standing with the butt plate vertical as shown in CE 514, which is a fake in situ pho created by the DPD.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMRML1N8/Screenshot-52.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This appears to be the same pic but taken from further away. In it we can see, what I presume is Day's knee as he takes the photo.
Sorry Dan, you've been deceived.....The conspirators placed that knee in the photo to trick the viewer into believing that the photo is the authentic in situ photo.....If you'll look at the first couple of frames of Tom Alyea's film You'll see Detective Studebaker perched atop a sack of boxes and taking the original in situ photo.... And Studebaker does not have his knee in the way of the scene.
Look at the position of the rifle at the 31 /32 second point in the slow motion film.....Notice that the butt plate is horizontal as Lt Day starts to lift the carcano by the leather sling.....THAT is the original position just a Roger Craig said...Craig was right, the rifle was lying on it's right side with the sling side up and the scope also up (because the scope was mounted off set to the left)
It was NOT standing with the butt plate vertical as shown in CE 514, which is a fake in situ pho created by the DPD.
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.
(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.
(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
I cannot see the butt plate of the rifle......Could you post a screen shot?
-
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
I cannot see the butt plate of the rifle......Could you post a screen shot?
Use the small white cloth for reference. In the pic below the cloth tapers to a distinct point at the 'bottom' (ie: the part of the cloth farthest away from the rifle).
The part of the cloth nearest the rifle tapers but doesn't quite come to a point, there is a flat spot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In the screenshot below the same cloth can be seen. It tapers to a point farthest away from the rifle but the line of the upright rifle cuts off the taper we see in the pic above.
The vertical line of the left side of the butt plate end can be clearly discerned:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk1bhHH5/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimg.cc/hfMJXkXP)
-
Use the small white cloth for reference. In the pic below the cloth tapers to a distinct point at the 'bottom' (ie: the part of the cloth farthest away from the rifle).
The part of the cloth nearest the rifle tapers but doesn't quite come to a point, there is a flat spot.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j2hbg4yD/hiddenrifle-4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
In the screenshot below the same cloth can be seen. It tapers to a point farthest away from the rifle but the line of the upright rifle cuts off the taper we see in the pic above.
The vertical line of the left side of the butt plate end can be clearly discerned:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hk1bhHH5/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimg.cc/hfMJXkXP)
Hi Dan, I believe that the piece of "cloth " is actually a piece of paper ( look at the way it is torn ) Cloth doesn't tear in that fashion. But the material of the item isn't important ..... You could be right that the rifle is lying in a manner that has the butt plate vertical....( but it's certainly far from clear.) And this video has to have been taken at a different time than the Tom Alyea video...because the two men ( detectives) who were standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs are NOT the same two men who are seen in Tom Alyea's video. A what's more, Captain Fritz can be seen already standing to the east of the rifle when Tom Alyea films detective Studebaker perched atop the boxes..
-
Hi Dan, I believe that the piece of "cloth " is actually a piece of paper ( look at the way it is torn ) Cloth doesn't tear in that fashion. But the material of the item isn't important ..... You could be right that the rifle is lying in a manner that has the butt plate vertical....( but it's certainly far from clear.) And this video has to have been taken at a different time than the Tom Alyea video...because the two men ( detectives) who were standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs are NOT the same two men who are seen in Tom Alyea's video. A what's more, Captain Fritz can be seen already standing to the east of the rifle when Tom Alyea films detective Studebaker perched atop the boxes..
I'm truly disappointed that you aren't interested in this aspect Mr O'Meara.....You are one of the few who examines and evaluates the evidence....But yur wrong... The brass clip could not have been in the rifle ( and all of the photos od Day with the rifle prove beyond any doubt that the clip was in the rifle.) if the rifle had been vertical as you believe....
-
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.
(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Dan have you seen the photos of J.C. Day handling the carcano as he dusts it for prints on the sixth floor, and have you seen the photos of J.C.Day as he carries the carcano from in front of the TSBD ? Those photos reveal that the clip was in the magazine and it was not stuck. The photos show that the clip was progressively working it's way out of the magazine ( which means it was in the rifle and it was not stuck.
Therefore since the clip was free to fall out of the ejection port IF the rifle had been standing as it is depicted in CE 514..Then the clip would NOT have been in the rifle ....and there is a very high probability that the clip would have been beneath the SE corner window.... ( if the imaginary scenario presented by LBJ's cover up committee were true)
-
I don’t understand why this is not a continuous film sequence and the rifle that’s under the armpit of Fritz in the 3rd cut is what rifle?
-
I don’t understand why this is not a continuous film sequence and the rifle that’s under the armpit of Fritz in the 3rd cut is what rifle?
The conspirators did not want a good continuous film.....That is not a rifle under Captain Fritz's arm.....That's the shotgun that Fritz was carrying when they searched the TSBD.
The DPD created a fake in situ photo because they realized there was no way Lee Oswald could have dashed by the place where the rifle was hidden at the bottom of a "well" of boxes and hid that rifle AFTER the shooting. At the time the rifle was discovered the cops didn't realize that the way the rifle was hidden would be a problem until AFTER Marrion Baker told reporters that he had encountered Lee Oswald in the 2nd floor lunchroom less than two minutes after the first shot was fired. Marrion Baker's report forced them to place the carcano in a position closer to the aisle at he top of the stairs....and not at the bottom of a "well" of boxes of books.
-
Gentlemen,
If the rifle found hidden among a stack of heavy boxes, and this was the Italian made Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm, where and when was the German Mauser found? Or was the 'assassination rifle" misidentified?
-
Hi Dan, I believe that the piece of "cloth " is actually a piece of paper ( look at the way it is torn ) Cloth doesn't tear in that fashion. But the material of the item isn't important ..... You could be right that the rifle is lying in a manner that has the butt plate vertical....( but it's certainly far from clear.) And this video has to have been taken at a different time than the Tom Alyea video...because the two men ( detectives) who were standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs are NOT the same two men who are seen in Tom Alyea's video. A what's more, Captain Fritz can be seen already standing to the east of the rifle when Tom Alyea films detective Studebaker perched atop the boxes..
Hi Walt.
been busy of late.
It's definitely Aleya, no-one else with a camera up there.
It's not very clear but it's there. The rifle is upright, just as Alyea reports (as do others).
You make a point about Studebaker's knee in the pic. The pic of the rifle in-situ is obviously taken with a flash but we don't see a flash in the Alyea footage of Studebaker. However, it must be noted there is something slightly "staged" in the footage the way Studebaker seems to be taking a pic but actually doesn't. It's not enough to say the pics of the rifle are faked, I just don't accept that.
What's of more interest to me is that every shell/bullet found at the scene ends up in Fritz's pocket at some point.
Alyea actually reports seeing Fritz pick the shells up, put them in his pocket then give them to Studebaker who throws them down to create the images of the shells in situ in the WCR.
-
Hi Walt.
been busy of late.
It's definitely Aleya, no-one else with a camera up there.
It's not very clear but it's there. The rifle is upright, just as Alyea reports (as do others).
You make a point about Studebaker's knee in the pic. The pic of the rifle in-situ is obviously taken with a flash but we don't see a flash in the Alyea footage of Studebaker. However, it must be noted there is something slightly "staged" in the footage the way Studebaker seems to be taking a pic but actually doesn't. It's not enough to say the pics of the rifle are faked, I just don't accept that.
What's of more interest to me is that every shell/bullet found at the scene ends up in Fritz's pocket at some point.
Alyea actually reports seeing Fritz pick the shells up, put them in his pocket then give them to Studebaker who throws them down to create the images of the shells in situ in the WCR.
Hi Dan, I hope that I can stimulate your interest in this aspect of the case so that you will scrutinize the photos very carefully.
You are one of the very few who will honestly evaluate the photos. ( although many of the photos are fuzzy and not clear. )
It's not enough to say the pics of the rifle are faked, I just don't accept that.
I definitely believe that CE 514 is a fake..... I'm not even sure that it isn't a composite of a couple of photos ( photo shopped) in the days before we had computers to photo shop photos.... I believe the dead give away is the fact that the barrel of the rifle in CE 514 seems to be floating in air with no support.....it is parallel to the floor when in fact if the tip of the barrel (muzzle) was actually resting on the floor it would rise up from the floor at about a 6 degree angle. (Simple geometry...when the rifle is level horizontally, the butt of the rifle is about 6.5 inches lower than the muzzle IOW a right triangle that is 40 inches ( length of the carcano) by 6.5 inches ( distance from level barrel to bottom of butt plate.)
-
All this chatter about boxes and hidden rifles, aren't you even aware of the fact that not a single photo shows the original, undisturbed configuration of boxes on the sixth floor? The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.
Craig said the shell casings were lying not an inch apart, all facing in the same direction, near the 'sniper's' window. Fritz pops up, picks them up and tosses them back on the floor. Then the picture is snapped and it shows the casings in a random pattern. Don't put your faith in any photograph, use your mind and think. What does your brain tell you?
-
All this chatter about boxes and hidden rifles, aren't you even aware of the fact that not a single photo shows the original, undisturbed configuration of boxes on the sixth floor? The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.
Craig said the shell casings were lying not an inch apart, all facing in the same direction, near the 'sniper's' window. Fritz pops up, picks them up and tosses them back on the floor. Then the picture is snapped and it shows the casings in a random pattern. Don't put your faith in any photograph, use your mind and think. What does your brain tell you?
You're right Joffery..... Immediately after the rifle was first seen by Deputy Boone in the beam of his flashlight, Several officers started removing boxes from around the rifle and Boone had to stop them and remind them that the boxes very likely contained the fingerprints of the person who hid that rifle by stacking the boxes around and over it.
( Would Boone have needed a flashlight to see the butt of the rifle if the boxes had been arranged as they are seen in any existing photo of that area?)
The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.
This could be true.....Because the police did in fact move some of the boxes before Boone stopped them.....But I don't believe there was anything sinister or nefarious about that "rearranging" of the boxes.
However AFTER that innocent moving of boxes ...the police did in fact arrange the boxes to support the story that the senior officers were creating to support the tale they were constructing. Tom Alyea observed that it was obvious that the hiding place was constructed BEFORE the shooting.
-
You're right Joffery..... Immediately after the rifle was first seen by Deputy Boone in the beam of his flashlight, Several officers started removing boxes from around the rifle and Boone had to stop them and remind them that the boxes very likely contained the fingerprints of the person who hid that rifle by stacking the boxes around and over it.
( Would Boone have needed a flashlight to see the butt of the rifle if the boxes had been arranged as they are seen in any existing photo of that area?)
The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.
This could be true.....Because the police did in fact move some of the boxes before Boone stopped them.....But I don't believe there was anything sinister or nefarious about that "rearranging" of the boxes.
However AFTER that innocent moving of boxes ...the police did in fact arrange the boxes to support the story that the senior officers were creating to support the tale they were constructing. Tom Alyea observed that it was obvious that the hiding place was constructed BEFORE the shooting.
NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints. Assuming for a moment that even the cool, calm and collected Oswald was somewhat stressed out by his assumed act of assassination, the lack of his prints on the aforementioned boxes is an indication he did not hide the rifle and therefore had nothing to do with the assassination.
The photos of the arrangement of boxes in and near the so-called sniper's nest aren't depicting them in the way BEFORE police and photographers arrived. The boxes were moved, the photos prove that and the HSCA agreed. Notice that not a single picture shows the paper sack which was supposedly found near the pipes close to the sniper's nest.
I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.
-
You're right Joffery..... Immediately after the rifle was first seen by Deputy Boone in the beam of his flashlight, Several officers started removing boxes from around the rifle and Boone had to stop them and remind them that the boxes very likely contained the fingerprints of the person who hid that rifle by stacking the boxes around and over it.
( Would Boone have needed a flashlight to see the butt of the rifle if the boxes had been arranged as they are seen in any existing photo of that area?)
The police rearranged them before any photographs were taken.
This could be true.....Because the police did in fact move some of the boxes before Boone stopped them.....But I don't believe there was anything sinister or nefarious about that "rearranging" of the boxes.
However AFTER that innocent moving of boxes ...the police did in fact arrange the boxes to support the story that the senior officers were creating to support the tale they were constructing. Tom Alyea observed that it was obvious that the hiding place was constructed BEFORE the shooting.
Hi Walt,
I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf
I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Hi Walt,
I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf
I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float. It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
I'd like to point out that the bottom of the box immediately behind the rifle barrel provides a Horizontal reference plane. we know that box was sitting on the floor...... So we can use the bottom of that box as the horizontal reference.....And the barrel of the rifle is parallel with the bottom of that box, whereas the barrel should not be parallel with the box if the front of the barrel had been resting on the floor. And you make an excellent point by noting that there should be a shadow of the barrel on the floor , but there is no shadow there. ( which is a very strong indicator that this is not a real photograph. )
-
NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints. Assuming for a moment that even the cool, calm and collected Oswald was somewhat stressed out by his assumed act of assassination, the lack of his prints on the aforementioned boxes is an indication he did not hide the rifle and therefore had nothing to do with the assassination.
The photos of the arrangement of boxes in and near the so-called sniper's nest aren't depicting them in the way BEFORE police and photographers arrived. The boxes were moved, the photos prove that and the HSCA agreed. Notice that not a single picture shows the paper sack which was supposedly found near the pipes close to the sniper's nest.
I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.
NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints.
This is an astounding statement, Joffery..... I've never seen any indication that the police checked any of the boxes that were stacked around and over the rifle for finger prints. Where did you get that information?... Commonsense would dictate that the police would check all of those boxes for prints... but If they did, then that information has never been published..... Has it?? You can bet the farm that if they had found Lee's prints on those boxes they would have got out the bull horns and announced that information from the rooftops.
-
Hi Walt,
I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf
I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Hi Dan, I believe CE 515 & 516 are basically the same scene but 516 has been taken from about twenty feet farther east ( the camera is pointing west.) That's the west window in the photo that was directly behind ( to west of the the rifle )
Eugene Boone had searched westward in the aisle at the top of the stairs until he came to west wall beneath the stairway sign that is visible in the photos. He then squeezed( southward)between the wall and the rows of boxes and that's when he moved a box that served as a lid over the stack of boxes that formed a "well" or chasm in which the rifle was hidden. He shined his flashlight down into the dark "well" and spotted the butt of the rifle beneath the wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. That wooden pallet can be seen in both CE 515 and 516. The arrows that are scrawled on the photos are intended to depict the place the rifle was found.
( notice the bright sunshine shining in the window ....If the rifle had been in the location depicted by the arrows, Deputy Boone would not have needed a bright flashlight to see the rifle. )
The vertical wooden support pillar was (is ) 12 feet from the north wall ....so using that distance as a reference, the arrows in CE 515 & 516 point to a location that is approximately 13.5 feet from the north wall...But....There are two maps that were drawn by two different DPD detectives in which they give the distance from the north wall to the rifle as 15 feet 4 inches.
The cover up conspirators need to move the location of the rifle closer to the aisle to make the tale that Lee Oswald had dashed by that site and hastily jammed the rifle between boxes of books before dashing down the stairs to the second floor lunchroom. Bu as Tom Alyea observed at about 1:30 that afternoon....It was obvious that the hiding place had been prepared before the shooting.
-
NONE of the boxes used to conceal the rifle held Oswald's prints. Assuming for a moment that even the cool, calm and collected Oswald was somewhat stressed out by his assumed act of assassination, the lack of his prints on the aforementioned boxes is an indication he did not hide the rifle and therefore had nothing to do with the assassination.
The photos of the arrangement of boxes in and near the so-called sniper's nest aren't depicting them in the way BEFORE police and photographers arrived. The boxes were moved, the photos prove that and the HSCA agreed. Notice that not a single picture shows the paper sack which was supposedly found near the pipes close to the sniper's nest.
I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.
I sometimes disagree with you Walt but thanks for caring about what really happened November 22, 1963. Not many do. You are in a way a great inspiration and an encouragement to always dig deeper than the government advises me to.
Thank you for the kind words Joffery.... Some folks do disagree with me, and that's ok. I'm forced to speculate on some aspects because we lack the information that we should have received from an honest investigation. And The fact that the authorities treated us like simpletons by offering us excrement bars and cajoled us to taste it because it was candy.
Unfortunately far too many did take the bait, and then were too embarrassed to admit they had been duped..so to this very day we have suckers like Chappie and Mr "Smith" who try to get others to take a bite of the same "candy bar" that they ate.
-
Hi Walt,
I know what you mean about the rifle appearing to float.
It does look weird. It could be because of the flash but I don't see a shadow where the tip of the rifle should be touching the floor.
As for the boxes around the "rifle nest" - CE 515 and 516 are two shots of the nest from a different distance and slightly different angle:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_514-517.pdf
I made this Gif to highlight a couple of differences I'm seeing between the two pics. Because the shots are from different angles it takes a bit of getting used to. In CE 516 there is a big arrow pointing at a box, the box the arrow is pointing at appears to be in a different position in CE 515. It has clearly been moved between the taking of the two photos.
In CE 515 there are two bright objects at the bottom of the picture, slightly to the right. I can't figure out what they are as they don't seem to appear in CE 516
(https://i.postimg.cc/vZK3hBMx/rifle-nest.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Eugene Boone had searched westward in the aisle at the top of the stairs until he came to west wall beneath the stairway sign that is visible in the photos. He then squeezed( southward)between the wall and the rows of boxes and that's when he moved a box that served as a lid over the stack of boxes that formed a "well" or chasm in which the rifle was hidden. He shined his flashlight down into the dark "well" and spotted the butt of the rifle beneath the wooden pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. That wooden pallet can be seen in both CE 515 and 516. Seymour Weitzman said that he spotted the rifle at about the same moment that Boone saw the rifle , and Weitzman said that the rifle was beneath the pallet. The arrows that are scrawled on the photos are intended to depict the place the rifle was found, but that is false information..
-
This Gif is from earlier in the Alyea film.
The first clip shows Fritz stepping into the area containing the rifle.
The second clip shows the butt plate end of the rifle in the upright position.
The third clip shows Fritz standing up after, presumably, inspecting the rifle in situ.
(https://i.postimg.cc/660rY9wS/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
Notice that Detective Studebakers knee is NOT in front of the camera. ( OOPS!....I posted this comment below the wrong film clip....)
-
OOPS!....I posted this comment below the wrong film clip....
Yeah that clip you linked looks like a chain smoker clusterfuk! :D
-
Notice that Detective Studebakers knee is NOT in front of the camera. ( OOPS!....I posted this comment below the wrong film clip....)
;D
You posted recently that you didn't believe Fritz stepped into the area where the rifle was.
What do you believe now?
Also, can you see how the light reflects of the two screws in the butt plate of the rifle clearly indicating it was in an upright position when Fritz stepped in there?
-
;D
You posted recently that you didn't believe Fritz stepped into the area where the rifle was.
What do you believe now?
Also, can you see how the light reflects of the two screws in the butt plate of the rifle clearly indicating it was in an upright position when Fritz stepped in there?
Your eyes are better than mine, Dan... Can you freeze frame the frame?
-
Your eyes are better than mine, Dan... Can you freeze frame the frame?
You can't miss them.
You just need to look.
-
You can't miss them.
You just need to look.
Sorry Dan, The reason I couldn't see the "screws in the butt plate" is because I didn't recognize them as the screws in the butt plate of a carcano. I'm very familiar with the Manlicher carcano and I know that the butt plate screws are a mere 2 1/4 inches apart ...Whereas the the space between the two bright spots in the film appear to be much greater than 2 1/4".
Also the screws in the butt plate of a carcano are NOT bright metal ..... The butt plate screws are the same color as the butt plate. That color is a dark gun metal grey.....
If the dark object in the film was the butt of a carcano that butt would be approximately 10 inches across......The butt of a carcano is 4 inches across.....
I hope that you will receive this factual information and use it in reaching conclusions about the carcano ......
-
If the dark object in the film was the butt of a carcano that butt would be approximately 10 inches across......The butt of a carcano is 4 inches across.....
10 inches across??
Where are you getting that "factual information" from?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The screws are very distinctive.
LATER EDIT - If, as you say, the butt plate is 4 inches long then the screws in the image above are more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
So much for your factual information!
-
Also the screws in the butt plate of a carcano are NOT bright metal ..... The butt plate screws are the same color as the butt plate. That color is a dark gun metal grey.....
Below is a still from the Alyea film of Day picking up the Mannlicher.
I've marked where the screw is glinting as in the video I posted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)
The Mannlicher was in an upright position when it was found.
I've posted more than enough evidence to illustrate this.
There's not much more anyone else can do to prove you are mistaken on this irrelevant point.
-
10 inches across??
Where are you getting that "factual information" from?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
The screws are very distinctive.
LATER EDIT - If, as you say, the butt plate is 4 inches long then the screws in the image above are more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
So much for your factual information!
C'mon Dan...Just admit that you were mistaken about the two bright spots being the butt plate screws of a carcano ....
You posted the picture of the butt of a carcano .... It should be obvious that the bright spots in the photo are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.
-
C'mon Dan...Just admit that you were mistaken about the two bright spots being the butt plate screws of a carcano ....
You posted the picture of the butt of a carcano .... It should be obvious that the bright spots in the photo are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.
Well, whatever they are Walt, they reflect light in exactly the same way.
The light reflecting on the spots of the rifle butt by Fritz's feet are exactly the same as the spots reflecting on the butt plate when Day lifts the rifle up.
The reflective spots demonstrate demonstrate the rifle was in an upright position when Fritz entered the area where the rifle was concealed.
That's all there is to it.
-
Well, whatever they are Walt, they reflect light in exactly the same way.
The light reflecting on the spots of the rifle butt by Fritz's feet are exactly the same as the spots reflecting on the butt plate when Day lifts the rifle up.
The reflective spots demonstrate demonstrate the rifle was in an upright position when Fritz entered the area where the rifle was concealed.
That's all there is to it.
No, Dan.... Those bright spots are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.
-
No, Dan.... Those bright spots are not the screws in the butt plate of a carcano.
Then what are they Walt?
-
Then what are they Walt?
What kinda question is that??..... How the hell would I know???
-
What kinda question is that??..... How the hell would I know???
:D
Then how do you know they're not the screws?
-
:D
Then how do you know they're not the screws?
I've already told you I'm very familiar with the carcano....And those white spots are NOT the butt plate screws of a carcano...And since you posted the photo of the butt of a carcano, you should also know that those bright spots are not the butt plate screws of a carcano.
-
I've already told you I'm very familiar with the carcano....And those white spots are NOT the butt plate screws of a carcano...And since you posted the photo of the butt of a carcano, you should also know that those bright spots are not the butt plate screws of a carcano.
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If you're so familiar with the Mannlicher how can you explain your gross inaccuracy on this point?
The two bright spots are really there. They appear in multiple images. You think you can just deny that they exist.
The two bright spots highlight what can be seen in the clip of the Alyea footage where Fritz has stepped into the boxed area where the rifle was found - that the rifle was in an upright position when it was discovered.
Just accept it and move on Walt
-
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If you're so familiar with the Mannlicher how can you explain your gross inaccuracy on this point?
The two bright spots are really there. They appear in multiple images. You think you can just deny that they exist.
The two bright spots highlight what can be seen in the clip of the Alyea footage where Fritz has stepped into the boxed area where the rifle was found - that the rifle was in an upright position when it was discovered.
Just accept it and move on Walt
I'm measuring the length and width of the carcano butt plate as I type this..... The length is: 4.250 inches....the width is:...1.750 inches...and the screws are 2.250 " apart, ( inside o inside or 2.750 center to center) And the screws are the same color as the metal of the butt plate. You posted a photo of a carcano butt and you can plainly see that the screws blend with the metal of the butt plate, they DO NOT stand out as "bright spots" ......
Use your head , Dan
-
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Hnqt2m1S/Carcano.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If you're so familiar with the Mannlicher how can you explain your gross inaccuracy on this point?
The two bright spots are really there. They appear in multiple images. You think you can just deny that they exist.
The two bright spots highlight what can be seen in the clip of the Alyea footage where Fritz has stepped into the boxed area where the rifle was found - that the rifle was in an upright position when it was discovered.
Just accept it and move on Walt
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:
So you believe that I'm wrong..... Get your head out and open your eyes and look at the photo of the carcano on page 82 of the WR. ( CE 1303) Notice that there is a tape measure in the photo below the rifle....It's a piece of cake to use a piece of paper and mark the length of the butt plate on the paper and then use the marked paper to measure that distance on the tape measure in the photo....( even an elementary school kid can do it) I'm sure that you'll agree ( unless you've taken leave of your senses) that the butt plate is 4 inches long....
-
You're not familiar with the Mannlicher at all.
In a previous post you stated that the butt plate was 4 inches long and that the screws were no more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
This image I posted demonstrates that you are clearly wrong:
So you believe that I'm wrong..... Get your head out and open your eyes and look at the photo of the carcano on page 82 of the WR. ( CE 1303) Notice that there is a tape measure in the photo below the rifle....It's a piece of cake to use a piece of paper and mark the length of the butt plate on the paper and then use the marked paper to measure that distance on the tape measure in the photo....( even an elementary school kid can do it) I'm sure that you'll agree ( unless you've taken leave of your senses) that the butt plate is 4 inches long....
You really are something else Walt.
I agree the butt plate is 4 inches long.
Look at the picture I posted, if the butt plate is 4 inches long the screws are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
That's the point I was making.
You can measure your Mannlicher all you want but the screws in the butt plate of the assassination weapon are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
How can you explain this?
As for the screws blending in with the butt plate...
Again, your old eyes are letting you down.
In the pic below. the green arrow points out where the light is reflecting off the edge of the butt plate. The red arrows point out where the light is reflecting off the screw heads.
The screw heads are NOT blending in with the butt plate. They are reflecting light just as we see in the Alyea footage I posted where these reflections off the screw heads prove the rifle was found in the upright position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXw0Wxnz/Carcano-Close-Butt.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
You really are something else Walt.
I agree the butt plate is 4 inches long.
Look at the picture I posted, if the butt plate is 4 inches long the screws are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
That's the point I was making.
You can measure your Mannlicher all you want but the screws in the butt plate of the assassination weapon are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
How can you explain this?
As for the screws blending in with the butt plate...
Again, your old eyes are letting you down.
In the pic below. the green arrow points out where the light is reflecting off the edge of the butt plate. The red arrows point out where the light is reflecting off the screw heads.
The screw heads are NOT blending in with the butt plate. They are reflecting light just as we see in the Alyea footage I posted where these reflections off the screw heads prove the rifle was found in the upright position.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sXw0Wxnz/Carcano-Close-Butt.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
If, as you say, the butt plate is 4 inches long then the screws in the image above are more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
So much for your factual information!
I agree the butt plate is 4 inches long.
Look at the picture I posted, if the butt plate is 4 inches long the screws are far more than 2 1/4 inches apart.
Be careful for the words you say.... Keep them soft and sweet... because you never know,...which ones you'll have to eat.
Sp now that you've acknowledged that the butt plate is 4 inches long....Why don't you use that known measurement as a scale in the photo with the pretty red and green arrows and find that the inside to inside distance is 2 1/4 inches ....Or you could simply use the center to center distance of 2 3/4 inches as a scale and find that the butt plate is 4 inches long.
It's really very simple Dan, even a elementary school kid could determine the the butt plale is 4 inches long by knowing the the center to center distance of the screws is 2 3/4 inches.
-
Thanks for the link, Denis... Interesting stuff. BUT ...Unfortunately there is nothing there to prove that Roger Craig was a liar ( although it's my personal belief that he embroidered information that was NOT factual.)
But having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
I copied the below from your blog....
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car. Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination, Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
My conclusion is that Craig did see a man looking like Oswald getting into a car.
I also believe that Craig did in fact see a young man who resembled LHO get into a car driven by a dark complected man....( That in itself would had been a non typical happening.... (A white boy taking a ride with a Black man in a car....) But I believe it happened.
Unfortunately, a cab driver testified that he took Oswald as passenger a few minutes after the assassination,
This is not accurate.....It IS the story that LBJ's cover up committee promoted ....BUT.... It is NOT William Whaley's story....
Whaley said that the man who became his passenger to Oak Cliff was dressed in BLUE WORK Uniform (Both trousers and jacket were BLUE. ) LHO was dressed in a brownish red colored shirt with a BUTTON DOWN COLLAR and dark gray trousers. And what's more.... Whaley said the man entered his cab at 12:30 .....Which was about the time that DPD officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly encounter LHO in the second floor lunchroom.
Also, a bus driver testified that he had Oswald as a passenger also a few minutes after the assassination. Finally, a bus transfer of that particular bus driver was found on Oswald.
The question is.... Was that bus transfer actually found in the pocket of the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater????? I DO NOT believe that transfer was in that shirt pocket....
I misunderstood Roger Craigs description of the position of the rifle that was LYING ON THE FLOOR......
having read the blog, I now wonder if Craig ever saw the rifle in situ.... Because he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south. I believe that this configuration is contrary to all other reports from the men who saw the rifle before it was removed from the place where it obviously had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN.
he said that the rifle was lying on a north / south configuration.... with the scope north and the trigger south.
Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
Roger's description is the correct orientation of the Mannlicher carcano.....as can be verified by watching as Lt Day picks the carcano up FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes)
-
Below is a still from the Alyea film of Day picking up the Mannlicher.
I've marked where the screw is glinting as in the video I posted.
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)
The Mannlicher was in an upright position when it was found.
I've posted more than enough evidence to illustrate this.
There's not much more anyone else can do to prove you are mistaken on this irrelevant point.
Dan, I'd be ashamed of myself, If I posted this misleading crap...
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)
Obviously you could have posted the frame of detective Day AFTER he picked the rifle up from the floor so you could have posted the frame in which he first grasps the sling....But I understand that you're here to propagate the big lie, so you sure as hell wouldn't post that frame.
-
Dan, I'd be ashamed of myself, If I posted this misleading crap...
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtT2k8Ry/Carcano-screw-glint.png) (https://postimg.cc/sGysz2vj)
Obviously you could have posted the frame of detective Day AFTER he picked the rifle up from the floor so you could have posted the frame in which he first grasps the sling....But I understand that you're here to propagate the big lie, so you sure as hell wouldn't post that frame.
WTF are you on about you silly old fool.
What does it matter when this frame is from?
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.
Take your meds Walt and have a lie down.
-
WTF are you on about you silly old fool.
What does it matter when this frame is from?
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.
Take your meds Walt and have a lie down.
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.
Do you actually believe that the reflection off the top of the butt plate is a reflection off the butt plate screws??
-
The point is that the screws on the butt plate reflect light as they do in the posted frame.
Do you actually believe that the reflection off the top of the butt plate is a reflection off the butt plate screws??
Yes I do Walt, do I need to tattoo this on your forehead.
I have provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is the case and you have provided none against except your usual huffing and puffing.
The rifle was found in an upright position (I don't give a sh&t whether it was or it wasn't, it makes no difference to how I view this case).
Alyea filmed it.
Get over it.
Move on.
-
Yes I do Walt, do I need to tattoo this on your forehead.
I have provided plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is the case and you have provided none against except your usual huffing and puffing.
The rifle was found in an upright position (I don't give a sh&t whether it was or it wasn't, it makes no difference to how I view this case).
Alyea filmed it.
Get over it.
Move on.
The rifle was lying on it's side beneath the pallet of books ....This is a crucial bit of evidence and it's no trivial matter.
Lee Oswald could not have placed that rifle in that hiding place AFTER the shooting. The liar John Howlett used a light piece of 1 X 4 and simply slid that light piece of wood in between the boxes of books....But the carcano weighed 9 pounds and had a scope mounted off to the left side and a floppy sling mounted.... Nobody could have slid that bulky carcano into the crack between the boxes of books.
-
The rifle was lying on it's side beneath the pallet of books ....This is a crucial bit of evidence and it's no trivial matter.
Lee Oswald could not have placed that rifle in that hiding place AFTER the shooting. The liar John Howlett used a light piece of 1 X 4 and simply slid that light piece of wood in between the boxes of books....But the carcano weighed 9 pounds and had a scope mounted off to the left side and a floppy sling mounted.... Nobody could have slid that bulky carcano into the crack between the boxes of books.
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.
-
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....
Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle--- There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."
There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.
He had to drop it in there.
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos.... Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
-
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.
Well, I'll be dipped.... It's all well and good that you have no problem with the carcano not being the murder weapon.....But unless you can show some solid evidence that the carcano was hidden among those boxes of books at the time that JFK was murdered ..... It's teeny tiny Dan against the powerful giant FBI who have sworn that the carcano was the murder weapon.
Now how do you propose to show that the FBI were liars and framing Lee Oswald? Do you have any photos or other solid evidence that the carcano couldn't have been the murder weapon??
-
THE CARCANO WAS LYING ON THE FLOOR
Here's an excerpt from the newspaper article.....
Roger Craig----- " I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle--- There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em, by moving some of em, to get to the rifle."
There's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes.
He had to drop it in there.
Yeah Walt, no problem.
Groovy.
IOW..... The rifle was lying ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between boxes of books as it is seen in the official police in situ photos.... Which means the DPD staged the in situ photo to enable them to frame Lee Oswald by saying that he dashed by the site and hastily jammed the carcano between the boxes of books.
Bollocks.
The ranting of a mad man.
-
I have no problem with the Mannlicher being tucked away in the boxes as the shooting was taking place.
In fact, it suits my view of the assassination.
Well, I'll be dipped.... It's all well and good that you have no problem with the carcano not being the murder weapon.....But unless you can show some solid evidence that the carcano was hidden among those boxes of books at the time that JFK was murdered ..... It's teeny tiny Dan against the powerful giant FBI who have sworn that the carcano was the murder weapon.
Now how do you propose to show that the FBI were liars and framing Lee Oswald? Do you have any photos or other solid evidence that the carcano couldn't have been the murder weapon??
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.
As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.
-
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.
As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.
Thank you for acknowledging that I'm no neophyte about the mannlicher carcano. And I've been trying for years to open researchers eyes to the FACT that the rifle was NOT hastily cast aside after the shooting. I'm sure that the carcano was already in that hiding place beneath the pallet of books at the time the shots were fired. So obviously the carcano was not the murder weapon...Furthermore I don't believe any shots were fire from the sixth floor of the TSBD ....Haward Brennan swore that he saw a man STANDING behind a sixth floor window and the man was dressed like a security guard or deputy sheriff and he was aiming a rifle out of the window, but Brennan did not see the rifle fired.
the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
When the WC re-enacted what they had concluded was Lee Oswald's action's They had Secret Service agent John Howlet play the part of Lee Oswald, and Howlett spent about 5 seconds in stuffing a light piece of 1X 4 lumber in a crack between the boxes before hastily departing down the stairs.
.
Howlett arrived at the second floor lunch room just 1 second ahead of officer Marrion Baker ...If the shooter ( Howlett) had actually hidden the 9 pound carcano beneath that pallet of books AFTER the shooting, he would never have reached the second floor lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. Howlett would probably still have been on the stairs and would have passed Baker and Truly as he descended the stairs.
-
Howlett arrived at the second floor lunch room just 1 second ahead of officer Marrion Baker ...If the shooter ( Howlett) had actually hidden the 9 pound carcano beneath that pallet of books AFTER the shooting, he would never have reached the second floor lunchroom ahead of Baker and Truly. Howlett would probably still have been on the stairs and would have passed Baker and Truly as he descended the stairs.
This would be the reconstruction in which Agent Howlett replicates Mr Oswald's alleged movements by ending up sitting down in the lunchroom.............
(https://i.imgur.com/x31yJpJ.jpg)
-
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.
As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.
Notice that every photo of the place where the gun was hidden lists the rifle as "ON THE FLOOR"... Does the official DPD "in situ" photo show the rifle "On the floor"??
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.imgur.com/llltAeF.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rXcUE7M.jpg)
-
You're the Mannlicher expert, you do it.
As far as I'm concerned Oswald was a patsy and provided the Mannlicher not knowing it was going to be used to frame him. That's the point of this rifle - to frame Oswald.
Maybe the Mannlicher was the murder weapon but the shooter wasn't in any particular rush and had plenty of time to stow it in the boxes.
Maybe it was already in the boxes when the shooter used a proper rifle to do the job.
Either way, it doesn't really matter to the overall picture once it is accepted Oswald didn't do the shooting.
Dan, could you super impose a photo of the carcano with the scope over the rifle in the Official DPD "in situ photo?
(https://i.postimg.cc/4dt0DT2S/hiddenrifle-6.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
I don't believe that the rifle in the official DPD in situ photo has a scope on it.... If the rifle in the DPD photo had a scape mounted, I believe that the scope would be visible in the photo.
-
I don't believe I ever stated that I thought [one way or another] the rifle was indeed a Mauser. Or ...did I say that I accept anyone's tall tales....the tallest told by the likes of Henry Wade [who I still loathe after death for my own personal reasons] or J E Hoover [who was probably the most dangerous person this country ever had] or LBJ [maybe the 2nd most]
What 'tale' did Craig tell in his testimony?
He relayed the accounts of Arnold Rowland who testified that he saw a man with a rifle and another guy standing beside him some 15 minutes before the shooting.
That would indicate the probability that there was at least another rifle besides the Carcano that was ultimately produced.
Boone, Weitzman, and Fritz were all in on the Mauser. If a switcheroo did take place, that meant that they all tucked tail and rolled over for Hoover and Johnson. They are all dead now-----------
At this point...no one will ever know for absolutely sure.
Weitzman said it was a Mauser and then changed his mind. Craig maintains he saw the Mauser stamp on the rifle and now Weitzman says it was just a glance. Wouldn't Weitzman do more than just "glance" at the murder weapon?
Joe 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?
Seymour Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Joe Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Seymour Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Joe Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Seymour Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile....
Joe Ball: Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Seymour Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Joe Ball: Mauser bolt action.
Seymour 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.
-
Tom Alyea was present when the rifle was discovered and filmed the whole thing.
The rifle discovered was the Mannlicher Carcano, there can be no doubt about that.
It's surprising this "Mauser" story is still doing the rounds considering Alyea's footage.
-
J.C. Day: "6.5 Made Italy"
-
Tom Alyea was present when the rifle was discovered and filmed the whole thing.
The rifle discovered was the Mannlicher Carcano, there can be no doubt about that.
It's surprising this "Mauser" story is still doing the rounds considering Alyea's footage.
Several reasons:
- the accounts by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig
- the existing Alyea footage doesn't necessarily show the moment of discovery. At least the box that was allegedly over the top had already been moved.
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
- we don't know that exactly one rifle was found
- we don't know what did not get captured in the existing footage
-
Several reasons:
- the accounts by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig
- the existing Alyea footage doesn't necessarily show the moment of discovery. At least the box that was allegedly over the top had already been moved.
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
- we don't know that exactly one rifle was found
- we don't know what did not get captured in the existing footage
This is from Alyea's account of finding the rifle:
Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.
He is present when the rifle is found and filmed Fritz walking into the rifle "enclosure", standing next to the rifle. There is footage of this below. As you say, the Alyea film is very poor quality but it is a record of the discovery of the rifle, Studebaker taking pics of it, Day retrieving it from it's "hiding place", examining it with Fritz then dusting it for prints.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.
-
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtbm9NMg/gougeinforestockalyeaday.gif)
JohnM
-
This is from Alyea's account of finding the rifle:
Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.
He is present when the rifle is found and filmed Fritz walking into the rifle "enclosure", standing next to the rifle. There is footage of this below. As you say, the Alyea film is very poor quality but it is a record of the discovery of the rifle, Studebaker taking pics of it, Day retrieving it from it's "hiding place", examining it with Fritz then dusting it for prints.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:
Are you kidding?.... If you believe that you can see the butt of the carcano near Fritz's feet..... You probably can see the sniper in the bushes on the GK, also.....
-
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:
Are you kidding?.... If you believe that you can see the butt of the carcano near Fritz's feet..... You probably can see the sniper in the bushes on the GK, also.....
Tom Alyea stated:
I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.
This clip shows Fritz standing within the enclosure where the rifle is.
Can you see where the rifle is Walt?
Because this is the area where the rifle is located, this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.
So, are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?
-
Tom Alyea stated:
I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.
This clip shows Fritz standing within the enclosure where the rifle is.
Can you see where the rifle is Walt?
Because this is the area where the rifle is located, this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.
So, are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?
are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?
I can't see it..... Do you believe that the small white spot BENEATH the overhanging box is the rifle? And how could a fleeing assassin have placed that rifle BENEATH the overhanging box??
this is the area where the rifle is located,
I'll accept that the rifle was found 15' 4" from the North wall ....Is this white spot 15 ' 4" from the N wall?
this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.
So the rifle was HIDDEN?...... The official tale says that Lee ran by that site and hastily dumped the rifle....( he didn't hide it) How ever Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place had been prepared BEFORE the shooting and this was long before anybody knew that the LHO's Speculated Elapsed time from the SE corner window to the 2nd floor lunchroom was less than 90 seconds. Alyea simply assumed that the fleeing assassin would not have had time to hide the rifle as it had been hidden. Alyea didn't know that LHO had talked to Officer Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom just 90 seconds after the FIRST ( THAT'S CORRECT) first shot was fired. It LHO had been the assassin he would have had to have been faster than a speeding bullet to have hidden the rifle beneath the boxes where Boone and Weitzman found by using their bright flashlights.
-
are you saying there is no rifle there Walt?
I can't see it..... Do you believe that the small white spot BENEATH the overhanging box is the rifle? And how could a fleeing assassin have placed that rifle BENEATH the overhanging box??
this is the area where the rifle is located,
I'll accept that the rifle was found 15' 4" from the North wall ....Is this white spot 15 ' 4" from the N wall?
this is the arrangement of boxes used to hide the rifle.
So the rifle was HIDDEN?...... The official tale says that Lee ran by that site and hastily dumped the rifle....( he didn't hide it) How ever Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place had been prepared BEFORE the shooting and this was long before anybody knew that the LHO's Speculated Elapsed time from the SE corner window to the 2nd floor lunchroom was less than 90 seconds. Alyea simply assumed that the fleeing assassin would not have had time to hide the rifle as it had been hidden. Alyea didn't know that LHO had talked to Officer Baker in the 2nd floor lunchroom just 90 seconds after the FIRST ( THAT'S CORRECT) first shot was fired. It LHO had been the assassin he would have had to have been faster than a speeding bullet to have hidden the rifle beneath the boxes where Boone and Weitzman found by using their bright flashlights.
The point I was making that I was surprised the "Mauser" story was still doing the rounds as Alyea had filmed the discovery of the rifle.
The section of the film regarding the rifle starts with Fritz entering the enclosure with the rifle at his feet, as stated by Alyea.
It's not about whether or not Oswald hid the rifle there, it's about the discovery of the rifle being filmed.
Granted, the footage is very poor quality and the rifle hardly stands out but it is possible to make it out.
In the picture below there is a white cloth or piece of paper next to the rifle pointed out by a red arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/T35JtCWB/hiddenrifle-6-red-arrow.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)how to use print screen (https://postimages.org/app)
In the still below the same white cloth/paper is pointed out by a red arrow, the rifle by the green arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qtf78TTp/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I cobbled together as many clips about the rile from different sources. I think it shows the discovery of the MC through to it being dusted for prints.
I'm not arguing about how the rifle ended up in the "enclosure", just trying to show that Alyea seemed to capture it's discovery:
-
The point I was making that I was surprised the "Mauser" story was still doing the rounds as Alyea had filmed the discovery of the rifle.
The section of the film regarding the rifle starts with Fritz entering the enclosure with the rifle at his feet, as stated by Alyea.
It's not about whether or not Oswald hid the rifle there, it's about the discovery of the rifle being filmed.
Granted, the footage is very poor quality and the rifle hardly stands out but it is possible to make it out.
In the picture below there is a white cloth or piece of paper next to the rifle pointed out by a red arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/T35JtCWB/hiddenrifle-6-red-arrow.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)how to use print screen (https://postimages.org/app)
In the still below the same white cloth/paper is pointed out by a red arrow, the rifle by the green arrow:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qtf78TTp/Screenshot-80.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I cobbled together as many clips about the rile from different sources. I think it shows the discovery of the MC through to it being dusted for prints.
I'm not arguing about how the rifle ended up in the "enclosure", just trying to show that Alyea seemed to capture it's discovery:
There is a box to the south of the rifle in the photos....The east side of that box seems to align with the foregrip of the carcano in the official DPD in situ photo.
In the photo with the red and green arrows the east edge of that box aligns with the comb of the stock. ( when comparing the two photos the east edge of the box is 20 " back from the place it appears in the official DPD photo. (approximately 20 inches toward the butt of the rifle )
I can't access the "cobbled together" video....
-
There is a box to the south of the rifle in the photos....The east side of that box seems to align with the foregrip of the carcano in the official DPD in situ photo.
In the photo with the red and green arrows the east edge of that box aligns with the comb of the stock. ( when comparing the two photos the east edge of the box is 20 " back from the place it appears in the official DPD photo. (approximately 20 inches toward the butt of the rifle )
I can't access the "cobbled together" video....
If you go to YouTube and type in "Alyea rifle discovery compilation", you should get it.
-
This is from Alyea's account of finding the rifle:
Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle almost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle.
He is present when the rifle is found and filmed Fritz walking into the rifle "enclosure", standing next to the rifle. There is footage of this below. As you say, the Alyea film is very poor quality but it is a record of the discovery of the rifle, Studebaker taking pics of it, Day retrieving it from it's "hiding place", examining it with Fritz then dusting it for prints.
The clip below shows Fritz walking into the enclosure as Alyea describes. The image is poor quality but by his feet it is possible to make out the butt of a rifle in an upright position:
(https://i.postimg.cc/cHkt0kZ9/Alyea-Fritz.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.
" In my shot" Alyea refers to a single shot....And the footage seems to show the sequence of Captain Fritz's movements backwards....
-
" In my shot" Alyea refers to a single shot....And the footage seems to show the sequence of Captain Fritz's movements backwards....
The point is that Alyea appears to have filmed the rifle from it's discovery until we see Day dusting it for prints, at which point it is possible to recognise the rifle is not a Mauser but a Mannlicher Carcano.
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.
-
The point is that Alyea appears to have filmed the rifle from it's discovery until we see Day dusting it for prints, at which point it is possible to recognise the rifle is not a Mauser but a Mannlicher Carcano.
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.
The point is that Alyea appears to have filmed the rifle from it's discovery until we see Day dusting it for prints, at which point it is possible to recognise the rifle is not a Mauser but a Mannlicher Carcano.
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.
I'm not convinced that all of the footage attributed to Tom Alyea was actually taken by Alyea.... It looks to me like some of the footage was spliced into Alyeas film....
This should be the end of the "Mauser" debate but I doubt it will be.
Yes, you're undoubtedly right.... Because there are those who are simply idiots....and there are those who benefit by the continual repeating of disinformation.... ( the authorities )
-
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/dtbm9NMg/gougeinforestockalyeaday.gif)
JohnM
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ttyI5cS.gif)
Hi Bill, I made that Gif yonks ago and it could be better, so here you go!
(https://i.postimg.cc/MHgbYPdW/ezgif-1-0f8f51a474.gif)
JohnM
-
Several reasons:
- the accounts by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig
- the existing Alyea footage doesn't necessarily show the moment of discovery. At least the box that was allegedly over the top had already been moved.
- the existing Alyea footage is blurry and lacking in identification detail
- we don't know that exactly one rifle was found
- we don't know what did not get captured in the existing footage
I hope, John, the last few posts have eased your concerns regarding the MC.
You seemed to be unaware that the MC was filmed by Alyea from it's discovery until a point where it could be easily identified as an MC (Day dusting it for prints)
It now becomes clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken about the Mauser identification, it happens. Craig, stating that he saw"Mauser" stamped right on the barrel, does not put him in a great light, although I would like to believe he was lying for the right reasons.
You make the strange point - "we don't know that exactly one rifle was found".
Is this just some kind of philosophical point or are you referring to something evidence based, that there is something in the evidence that indicates more than one rifle was found?
I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up Thumb1:
-
I hope, John, the last few posts have eased your concerns regarding the MC.
You seemed to be unaware that the MC was filmed by Alyea from it's discovery until a point where it could be easily identified as an MC (Day dusting it for prints)
It now becomes clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken about the Mauser identification, it happens. Craig, stating that he saw"Mauser" stamped right on the barrel, does not put him in a great light, although I would like to believe he was lying for the right reasons.
You make the strange point - "we don't know that exactly one rifle was found".
Is this just some kind of philosophical point or are you referring to something evidence based, that there is something in the evidence that indicates more than one rifle was found?
I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up Thumb1:
I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up Thumb1:
You're an optimist Danny..... I certainly wish that the Mauser BS is "wrapped up", But as long as the government disinformation agents can continue to feed that BS to the gullible it will continue to pop up.
-
I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up Thumb1:
You're an optimist Danny..... I certainly wish that the Mauser BS is "wrapped up", But as long as the government disinformation agents can continue to feed that BS to the gullible it will continue to pop up.
WHO??.... in the world would actually believe that the rifle found buried beneath the pallet of books was a MAUSER?.. There are dozens of photos that were taken of the rifle on the afternoon of 11-22-63and there can be no doubt that the rifle was a Carcano.....
-
As I say, the rest of Alyea's footage concerning the rifle follows it through to Day dusting the rifle at which point it is possible to make out it is a rifle indistinguishable from the MC.
"Indistinguishable" in a poor quality video isn't saying much.
-
I hope, John, the last few posts have eased your concerns regarding the MC.
You seemed to be unaware that the MC was filmed by Alyea from it's discovery until a point where it could be easily identified as an MC (Day dusting it for prints)
It now becomes clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken about the Mauser identification, it happens. Craig, stating that he saw"Mauser" stamped right on the barrel, does not put him in a great light, although I would like to believe he was lying for the right reasons.
You make the strange point - "we don't know that exactly one rifle was found".
Is this just some kind of philosophical point or are you referring to something evidence based, that there is something in the evidence that indicates more than one rifle was found?
I think we can safely say the Mauser debate is wrapped up Thumb1:
I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".
-
I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".
I'm disappointed that you would continue to argue that the rifle that was found isn't "easily identified" as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.
I know that you've seen the video of detective JC Day dusting the rifle looking for finger prints. Alyea shot that footage just minutes after the rifle was pulled from beneath the boxes of books.... That film clearly shows that the rifle is a carcano.
-
J.C. Day: "6.5 Made Italy"
-
J.C. Day: "6.5 Made Italy"
Did JC Day add any other information about the rifle?
-
I'm disappointed that you would continue to argue that the rifle that was found isn't "easily identified" as a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.
I know that you've seen the video of detective JC Day dusting the rifle looking for finger prints. Alyea shot that footage just minutes after the rifle was pulled from beneath the boxes of books.... That film clearly shows that the rifle is a carcano.
Walt, everybody thinks his own subjective opinion is “clearly shown” in blurry photos and videos. That’s not an impressive argument. How many snipers has one poster here said are “clearly shown” in the Z film?
-
Walt, everybody thinks his own subjective opinion is “clearly shown” in blurry photos and videos. That’s not an impressive argument. How many snipers has one poster here said are “clearly shown” in the Z film?
John, I readily agree that some folks claim to see all kinds of images in photos.....however in the case of identifying the rifle there is NOTHING left to the imagination about the rifle in detective JC Day's hands as he dusts the rifle for prints, and carries it from the TSBD.... The phots clearly show that the rifle is a carcano.
-
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?
-
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?
I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository.
McCamy
JohnM
-
I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".
You didn't seem to be aware that the MC had been filmed in situ before the overhanging boxes were removed, or that Alyea's footage captured the MC while it was still in it's original position. I thought this new information might inform your opinion, but apparently not.
I don't agree with "easily identified"
John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC and Walt would appear to know a thing or two about this particular rifle and he has no trouble identifying it. The footage isn't the best quality but there are moments when the rifle is clearly on display and recognisable.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day took from the TSBD or the rifle Day held aloft in the DPD, or the rifle in the National Archive or the rifle (bar the strap) in the back yard photos.
That it is indistinguishable from a Mannlicher Carcano means, by default, it is not a Mauser. The rifle filmed by Alyea is 100% not a Mauser. That is a fact.
...or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building
Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
It's a meaningless point you're making.
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found. This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?
nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken"
You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea. And that they didn't find one anywhere else. And that they didn't find two rifles.
The remaining options are that they were mistaken, they were lying or that every person on the 6th floor, including Alyea, was involved in some kind of staged event.
I favour that they were simply mistaken, Alyea's footage demonstrates this.
I think I can guess what scenario you favour.
that you can know that Craig "was lying".
I assume he was lying as he states emphatically that "Mauser" was stamped on the barrel but the rifle filmed by Alyea was an MC. That is a fact. He did not see "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle filmed by Alyea, so I don't know what else to think.
-
You didn't seem to be aware that the MC had been filmed in situ before the overhanging boxes were removed, or that Alyea's footage captured the MC while it was still in it's original position. I thought this new information might inform your opinion, but apparently not.
I don't agree with "easily identified"
John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC and Walt would appear to know a thing or two about this particular rifle and he has no trouble identifying it. The footage isn't the best quality but there are moments when the rifle is clearly on display and recognisable.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day took from the TSBD or the rifle Day held aloft in the DPD, or the rifle in the National Archive or the rifle (bar the strap) in the back yard photos.
That it is indistinguishable from a Mannlicher Carcano means, by default, it is not a Mauser. The rifle filmed by Alyea is 100% not a Mauser. That is a fact.
...or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building
Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
It's a meaningless point you're making.
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found. This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?
nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken"
You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea. And that they didn't find one anywhere else. And that they didn't find two rifles.
The remaining options are that they were mistaken, they were lying or that every person on the 6th floor, including Alyea, was involved in some kind of staged event.
I favour that they were simply mistaken, Alyea's footage demonstrates this.
I think I can guess what scenario you favour.
that you can know that Craig "was lying".
I assume he was lying as he states emphatically that "Mauser" was stamped on the barrel but the rifle filmed by Alyea was an MC. That is a fact. He did not see "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle filmed by Alyea, so I don't know what else to think.
Iacoletti doesn't have the best deductive reason skills or even at the very least, the ability to provide a reasonable alternate narrative.
Planting 1 rifle is risky enough but why plant two?
Why on Earth would anybody plant two rifles unless the Mauser was the murder weapon but if that was the case, just set-up Oswald with the Mauser, DUH!
And a Mauser the weapon of the Nazi's with all it's evil connotations would be the ideal weapon to set up Oswald, but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.
Edit: Oswald's rifle was the cheapest ad on the Kliens ad page and the next most expensive with a telescope option was 40% more expensive than the Carcano with telescope.
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YPR9Vr0/Kleins-Sporting-Goods-Ad-February-1963.jpg)
JohnM
-
but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.
BS:
Not even the Warren Commission could support that claim with verified evidence.
They even failed to enter the original ad into evidence.
Learn the evidence, The original coupon is in fact in evidence and as Waldman tells us, the coupon specifically came from "American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963."
Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Lee_Harvey_Oswald%27s_order_form_and_envelope_%28exhibit_CE773%29.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/7YPR9Vr0/Kleins-Sporting-Goods-Ad-February-1963.jpg)
Btw what happened to your side kick Mongo? He's been wiped off the entire Planet!
JohnM
-
I already know the evidence, you fail again.
I wasn't referring to the coupon, at least try to pay attention before replying.
Yet the WC entered non-evidence into evidence from Harry Holmes showing up with a November ad from Field and Stream magazine.
ROFL
I'm not aware that anything happened to him but it apperar we're mostly on the same page concerning the evidence in the case.
I already know the evidence,
You wish.
I wasn't referring to the coupon, at least try to pay attention before replying.
I don't care what you think you posted, I directly refuted your allegation. In the original post; you claimed that the Warren Commission couldn't support my claim that Oswald bought the cheapest rifle from the original Kleins ad but Waldman tells us that the Kleins ad I posted from February 1963 contained a coupon with the specific Dept No. 358, the dept number is how they tracked which orders came from which magazine, a simple method to calculate the cost effectiveness of ads in different magazines.
but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.
BS:
Not even the Warren Commission could support that claim with verified evidence.
I'm not aware that anything happened to him but it apperar we're mostly on the same page concerning the evidence in the case.
Really? Almost half the threads on the first page were by Mongo and they all disappeared overnight, and you didn't even notice, with such weak observation skills it's no wonder you are so hopeless at solving this case.
Btw Mongo either quit or he was expelled for being a Troll, you'd better watch out, because you could be next!
JohnM
-
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?
I've seen Tom Alyea's video that was filmed just minutes after Day pulled the rifle from beneath the boxes of books. Day is dusting the rifle behind the brightly sunlit window and there is not an iota of doubt that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?
C'mon John....You're much too smart to actually propose that the rifle isn't the same rifle that Day pulled from beneath the boxes of books. I believe you're simply being an antagonist.... But that's not good because there are some simple minds that will accept the idea as valid.
-
I don't intent(sic) to solve the case so once again you've failed royally!
What has your intent to solve this case possibly have to do with my success or failure?
JohnM
-
Lack of something can not make me "so hopeless at solving this case" unless I intend to solve the case.
That's how you failed again.
Get it now?
:D :D :D
I've just noticed the "tell" proving Weidmann is, indeed, Beck.
It's been bugging me for a while that Weidmann doesn't realise it's "cannot" and not "can not".
It's hardly a coincidence that Otto displays the same basic illiteracy.
#busted
-
Only a total loser would be wasting time trolling random forum members to check if their posts disappear.
Whereas creating multiple accounts and aliases on the forum to gang up on people and give the illusion that more members support your argument is the behaviour of a sure fire winner? :D
-
Whereas creating multiple accounts and aliases on the forum to gang up on people and give the illusion that more members support your argument is the behaviour of a sure fire winner? :D
Take it easy, John. Don't overdo it...
-
:D :D :D
I've just noticed the "tell" proving Weidmann is, indeed, Beck.
It's been bugging me for a while that Weidmann doesn't realise it's "cannot" and not "can not".
It's hardly a coincidence that Otto displays the same basic illiteracy.
#busted
Hilarious ignorance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference
Do you realize now you've just made a fool of yourself on multiple levels?
-
Hilarious ignorance
Do you realize now you've just made a fool of yourself on multiple levels?
As opposed to making a fool of yourself on multiple forum accounts :D
-
As opposed to making a fool of yourself on multiple forum accounts :D
You're overdoing it, Johnny...
-
Hilarious ignorance
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/cannot-vs-can-not-is-there-a-difference
Do you realize now you've just made a fool of yourself on multiple levels?
Roger that Thumb1:
-
John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC
:D
“Mytton” draws arrows on photos and declares victory.
Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
Then how can anybody be so certain that the Mauser described by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig was not found?
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found.
Sure, but why would any of them be required to be present for both?
This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?
There’s evidence that a Mauser was found whether you believe it or not.
You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
I don’t recall Boone or Weitzman making any reference to a location filmed by Alyea. And nobody will ever see the entire Alyea footage anyway.
-
Then how can anybody be so certain that the Mauser described by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig was not found?
Boone and Weitzman cleared it up.
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 - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
JohnM
-
:D
“Mytton” draws arrows on photos and declares victory.
The rifle in the Alyea footage can be identified as an MC. Your unsupported and unreasonable attempts to imply it can't are weak sauce indeed.
Then how can anybody be so certain that the Mauser described by Boone, Weitzman, and Craig was not found?
As John has already demonstrated, Boone and Weitzman clear this issue up themselves. More importantly is the location the rifle was found, it is the same location Alyea films and only one rifle is found there.
Again, your unsupported and unreasonable attempts to muddy the water are feeble, to say the least.
Sure, but why would any of them be required to be present for both?
Waffle.
There’s evidence that a Mauser was found whether you believe it or not.
But no credible evidence.
I don’t recall Boone or Weitzman making any reference to a location filmed by Alyea. And nobody will ever see the entire Alyea footage anyway.
Beyond weak.
-
Iacoletti doesn't have the best deductive reason skills
Defined as agreeing with “Mytton’s” fanciful unsubstantiated claims.
or even at the very least, the ability to provide a reasonable alternate narrative.
Or your irrational narrative wins by default.
Planting 1 rifle is risky enough but why plant two?
I didn’t say anything about planting. Try again.
-
I've seen Tom Alyea's video that was filmed just minutes after Day pulled the rifle from beneath the boxes of books. Day is dusting the rifle behind the brightly sunlit window and there is not an iota of doubt that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
Bull. It’s a blurry, grainy video. You gonna claim you can read the serial number too?
-
Boone and Weitzman cleared it up.
Right. “Just a glance” after which they described it in detail.
-
Right. “Just a glance” after which they described it in detail.
What, do you think the rifle was passed around like a peace pipe? LOL!
JohnM
-
What, do you think the rifle was passed around like a peace pipe? LOL!
JohnM
Funny that you would compare the rifle to a peace pipe...... Because if that rifle had been fired less than an hour prior to it's discovery the smoke from the firing would have been sealed in the barrel by the live round, and then when Fritz "uncorked the barrel by removing the live round the smell would have been quite apparent by those in the proximity. But Nobody reported any smell of gunpowder....
-
Given Roger Craig's credentials I believe him 100%. HOWEVER I think most people don't go into much about the driver. I guess it's me just believing in Craig but the bigger story IMO is the driver. I believe some of the witnesses describe as Latin heavy set.
-
Of course Chapman would find some way to try to discredit Craig, since he was a dedicated and thorough law enforcement official. Craig reported several things that are inconvenient to the lone nutters. Recall how he carefully describes finding the Mauser, how Weitzmann, an expert in firearms identified the weapon and even pointed to "7.65 Mauser" printed on the barrel. Craig also saw Oswald running down the hill and entering the Rambler and led the search in the railroad yards. That's a trifecta Chapman is never going to accept. So many dishonest lone nutters...
-
Roger Craig's claim about the Mauser is refuted by Tom Alyea's film.
Alyea films the rifle in it's initial hiding place, being brought out by Day and then dusted for prints.
Craig states he sees "Mauser" stamped on the barrel after it is brought out of it's hiding place.
The rifle is a Mannlicher Carcano and not a Mauser.
-
Roger Craig's claim about the Mauser is refuted by Tom Alyea's film.
Alyea films the rifle in it's initial hiding place, being brought out by Day and then dusted for prints.
Craig states he sees "Mauser" stamped on the barrel after it is brought out of it's hiding place.
The rifle is a Mannlicher Carcano and not a Mauser.
Craig didn't identify the rifle as a mauser on 11/22/63.... At that time nobody actually knew what the rifle was.... Weitzman ventured a guess that it "looked like a mauser"....and others (Craig) accepted his guess as if it were a fact. When deyective Day was examining the rifle he discovered that it was "Made in Italy," and it was 6.5 caliber, but it wasn't until Saturday that they learned that it was called a Mannlicher Carcano.
-
Can't recall the cop wh0 was with Craig but he identified it as Mauser. That person who identified it as a Mauser I believe either owned a gun store or owned a sporting goods store with rifles. Also people need look into this aspect further because three guns were supposedly found in TSBD. Oliver Stone's movie JFK Destiny Betrayed discusses this in the movie.
-
Craig didn't identify the rifle as a mauser on 11/22/63.... At that time nobody actually knew what the rifle was.... Weitzman ventured a guess that it "looked like a mauser"....and others (Craig) accepted his guess as if it were a fact. When deyective Day was examining the rifle he discovered that it was "Made in Italy," and it was 6.5 caliber, but it wasn't until Saturday that they learned that it was called a Mannlicher Carcano.
That's not true. Craig stated the rifle was a Mauser when he identified the stamp. Weitzman said it was a Mauser as well until he changed his story claiming he only "glanced" at the rifle.
-
Can't recall the cop wh0 was with Craig but he identified it as Mauser. That person who identified it as a Mauser I believe either owned a gun store or owned a sporting goods store with rifles. Also people need look into this aspect further because three guns were supposedly found in TSBD. Oliver Stone's movie JFK Destiny Betrayed discusses this in the movie.
Paul, the story that the rifle was a mauser is just silly nonsense. Seymour Weitzman ventured a WAG that it looked like a mauser before it was removed from beneath the boxes of books, where it had been carefully hidden. Nobody knew what kind of rifle it was until Saturday morning, when it was found to be a Mannlicher Carcano.
-
Also supposedly from Craig's daughter about her father, Dallas County Sheriff's Office "Man of the Year" for 1960.
"I'm not disputing that what he thought he saw was something different than what was reported."
and this from Dave Reitzes.....
"Now, the Rambler episode is a whole separate issue. It happened; Craig was not the only person who saw it. Ten minutes after the assassination, a man described as being in his twenties did leave Dealey Plaza in a Nash Rambler. The question is, did this individual have anything to do with the assassination? There's no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence specifically against it.
It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this, as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he had been "off duty," so to speak.
To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing."
It's possible that he and the Rambler driver were just bystanders with some non-sinister reason for leaving. It's also possible he was a newsman racing off to file a story, although Craig's description of him as wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt, if accurate, may be inconsistent with this, as I would expect a reporter to be dressed more professionally, unless he had been "off duty," so to speak.
To those who think Oswald was the lone assassin, it doesn't seem important; to those who think there was a conspiracy, it's tantalizing."
I'm absolutely sure there was a conspiracy ..... and not at all tantalized by the report of a young man leaving the scene in a Rambler. Roger Craig warped the story into BS...... However, I believe that IF? IF ? Roger Craig's description of the young man who climbed into the Rambler was accurate and the man was actually wearing blue trousers and a tan shirt...then that eliminates Lee Oswald as the man because Lee was wearing dark gray trousers and a reddish brown shirt.
-
Paul, the story that the rifle was a mauser is just silly nonsense. Seymour Weitzman ventured a WAG that it looked like a mauser before it was removed from beneath the boxes of books, where it had been carefully hidden. Nobody knew what kind of rifle it was until Saturday morning, when it was found to be a Mannlicher Carcano.
:D :D :D
What you're saying is silly nonsense. "Nobody knew until Saturday morning"? It doesn't take that long to ID the make of a rifle when top law enforcement experts were all on the case.
Seymour said it was a Mauser and so did Roger Craig who witnessed the stamp on the rifle. Then Seymour changed his story when he testified.
Why would Roger Craig say he witnessed a Mauser stamp if the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano? That's a totally different weapon.
-
It's not nonsense? From the Book "High Treason" pg 144. "Deputy Eugene Boone and and I (Craig) found the rifle which I might add was a 7.65 Mauser, so stamped on the barrel. Weitzman signed an affidavit to the this effect."
"High Treason pg 229. Affidavits sworn at the time of the assassination by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman state the gun was a German Mauser.
Weitzman- a man with extensive experience in guns, who owned gun shops, who had a graduate degree in Engineering-that the gun was a Mauser, a favored weapon of snipers.
That's pure hogwash they didn't know what type of gun it was until Saturday. So a FULL day after the assassination with FBI, Police and SS nobody could identify the gun until the next day? This gun that killed the President wasn't identified until the next day doesn't hold your claim.
-
It's not nonsense? From the Book "High Treason" pg 144. "Deputy Eugene Boone and and I (Craig) found the rifle which I might add was a 7.65 Mauser, so stamped on the barrel. Weitzman signed an affidavit to the this effect."
"High Treason pg 229. Affidavits sworn at the time of the assassination by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman state the gun was a German Mauser.
Weitzman- a man with extensive experience in guns, who owned gun shops, who had a graduate degree in Engineering-that the gun was a Mauser, a favored weapon of snipers.
That's pure hogwash they didn't know what type of gun it was until Saturday. So a FULL day after the assassination with FBI, Police and SS nobody could identify the gun until the next day? This gun that killed the President wasn't identified until the next day doesn't hold your claim.
Clearly your mind's made up, Paul, and no amount of reasoning or the presentation of the FACTS is going to move you from your stance. So continue to believe what you will and remain ignorant.
-
Please present YOUR facts. I'll take Weitzman (gun expert) over your "theory."
-
Please present YOUR facts. I'll take Weitzman (gun expert) over your "theory."
I'm sorry, Paul...as I said ... Your mind's made up, and no amount of reasoning or presentation of the facts will change that.
I'm sure you won't believe me, but Seymour Weitzman was NOT a "gun expert" .....However he was familiar with guns and thought that the carcano was a 7.65 mauser when he saw a small part of it as it was lying on the floor beneath the boxes of books. That was before the rifle was picked up by Lt Day, and it was merely speculation. Weitzman himself said that he was mistaken about the rifle being a mauser. But since you know more about it than Weitzman........Carry on.
-
I'll go with the first reports given the corruptness of the DPD. You go right ahead and trust them.
-
I'll go with the first reports given the corruptness of the DPD. You go right ahead and trust them.
Trust the DPD?....I believe that the Officers in charge at the DPD were part of the conspiracy. Roger Craig knew that, and he tried to expose them, but unfortunately he thought that he had twist the facts and he destroyed his credibility.
And he actually said that he saw.... "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel" What a pity!.
-
Exactly and that's I believe they forced others to get in line of what the gun WAS to be. Mauser not linked to Oswald. That's just touching the power Fritz had in Dallas.
-
Tom Alyea filmed the rifle being removed from it's hiding place.
It was not a Mauser.
-
Tom Alyea filmed the rifle being removed from it's hiding place.
It was not a Mauser.
Dan, You're pointing out facts to a blind man. " None is so blind as he who will not see"
-
At what time did Alyea arrive to film? Fritz picked up the bullets before the camera man came and tainted the alleged sniper window. But hey it took until Saturday to identify the weapon but yet my facts are wrong. Have to be the most ignorant cops if it took them and others a day to identify the type of gun. I'm not ignoring facts it's just I don't trust the DPD or Sherriff in this matter for the timing and finding of the rifle. NAH the DPD would never stage this event for the cameras.
-
At what time did Alyea arrive to film? Fritz picked up the bullets before the camera man came and tainted the alleged sniper window. But hey it took until Saturday to identify the weapon but yet my facts are wrong. Have to be the most ignorant cops if it took them and others a day to identify the type of gun. I'm not ignoring facts it's just I don't trust the DPD or Sherriff in this matter for the timing and finding of the rifle. NAH the DPD would never stage this event for the cameras.
Tom Alyea entered the TSBD with the cops at about 12:45....He was with them as they searched the building, and he was on the sixth floor when Boone yelled " Here's the rifle" *( Time 1:22) Alyea went immediately to the NW corner where Boone and Weitzman were Looking down beneath the boxes at the rifle that was laying on the floor. Only a small bit of the rifle was visible and when someone asked what kind of rifle it was Weitzman ventured a guess that it was a mauser....
This is fundamental information....You should know that, Paul....
-
I do know this. Please stop writing like I'm a some dumb ignorant person. The way you've responded to my posts are out of line. That filming is FIFTEEN MINUTES after the assassination. If you're going to come after me with personal attacks I'm done in having discussions with you.
-
Yes, Aleya was there, but Aleya also said LT.Day did not get there until 18 minutes AFTER the 1:22 sighting of the rifle by Boone and Wietzman with Weitzmansview looking thru a pallet stacked with boxes from ( south side) able tosee a rifle obscured by the south row of boards that were end to end and flush with the flloor.
Has this anomaly been resolved? I’m not certain about the parallel row of boxes in their ORIGINAL configuration BEFORE any photos were taken and if there was any gap in the south side row ( that the side Weitzman would be looking at), to have been able to see the rifle laying on the floor when Boone shined a light.
As I recall the 4” open sides of the pallet that Weitman was on south side if, ran East-West.
This means the North-South sides of the pallet are 2x4s which are FLUSH with the floor.
It still seems improbable imo for Weitzman on the SOUTH side of this pallet to be able to look thru a 2x4 that’s flush with the floor, let alone see thru a bottom row of boxes that were end to end (theoretically ) before some of them were moved to accommodate a photo.
And that ano thing that bothers me is why the only moved a box to see only PART of the rifle.
They moved THREE boxes around SEVERAL times at the SN but for sue reason Could NOT move just one more box where the rifle was so the ENTIRE rifle could be seen as it lay there.
-
Yes, Aleya was there, but Aleya also said LT.Day did not get there until 18 minutes AFTER the 1:22 sighting of the rifle by Boone and Wietzman with Weitzmansview looking thru a pallet stacked with boxes from ( south side) able tosee a rifle obscured by the south row of boards that were end to end and flush with the flloor.
Has this anomaly been resolved? I’m not certain about the parallel row of boxes in their ORIGINAL configuration BEFORE any photos were taken and if there was any gap in the south side row ( that the side Weitzman would be looking at), to have been able to see the rifle laying on the floor when Boone shined a light.
As I recall the 4” open sides of the pallet that Weitman was on south side if, ran East-West.
This means the North-South sides of the pallet are 2x4s which are FLUSH with the floor.
It still seems improbable imo for Weitzman on the SOUTH side of this pallet to be able to look thru a 2x4 that’s flush with the floor, let alone see thru a bottom row of boxes that were end to end (theoretically ) before some of them were moved to accommodate a photo.
And that ano thing that bothers me is why the only moved a box to see only PART of the rifle.
They moved THREE boxes around SEVERAL times at the SN but for sue reason Could NOT move just one more box where the rifle was so the ENTIRE rifle could be seen as it lay there.
As I recall the 4” open sides of the pallet ------ was on south side if, ran East-West.
As I understand your view, I believe that you're mistaken, Zeon. The slats of the wooden pallet were on a north / south axis.
The 2 X 4 members of the pallet ran east / west ( this is clearly visible in some of the photos that were taken that afternoon.
The rifle was an a N/S East west axis ( parallel two the 2X4 of the pallet ) with the barrel pointing east. The rifle was kinda tucked into the north side of the pallet and Weitzman spotted it when he was down on the floor and shining his flashlight beneath the stack of boxes that were on the pallet. Weitzman would have been looking west, right at the muzzle of the carcano.
-
I do know this. Please stop writing like I'm a some dumb ignorant person. The way you've responded to my posts are out of line. That filming is FIFTEEN MINUTES after the assassination. If you're going to come after me with personal attacks I'm done in having discussions with you.
Personal attacks?? I'm mere presenting the fundamental facts...... As a way of demonstrating that the idea that the rifle was a mauser is simply utter nonsense.
-
I do know this. Please stop writing like I'm a some dumb ignorant person. The way you've responded to my posts are out of line. That filming is FIFTEEN MINUTES after the assassination. If you're going to come after me with personal attacks I'm done in having discussions with you.
Please stop writing like I'm a some dumb ignorant person.
I'm sorry, Paul... But when you present an absurd idea like the rifle being a mauser, I can only respond with the facts.
-
I have my facts as well and presented them. It's not like I'm throwing out only opinions. Best of luck.
-
I have my facts as well and presented them. It's not like I'm throwing out only opinions. Best of luck.
Unfortunately you're allowing others like Roger Craig to present BS and you believe them....
I sincerely wish that Roger Craig hadn't been so egotistical and could have admitted that he was had made a mistake. Craig had some good information but unfortunately he destroyed his credibility by prevaricating.
-
Walt, I've agreed with many of your opinions, but can't do so here. It would be much easier to call Craig a liar if we didn't have the testimony of Seymour Weitzman. As a former owner of a sporting goods store and knowledgeable on firearms, when Weitzman identifies a weapon as a 7.65 Mauser with a 2.5 Weaver scope, I tend to believe him. Eugene Boone was also there. There was also a report of a British Enfield being found. I have no problem believing multiple weapons were found and I have grave doubts whether Oswald or the Carcano fired any shots that day.
-
It's not nonsense? From the Book "High Treason" pg 144. "Deputy Eugene Boone and and I (Craig) found the rifle which I might add was a 7.65 Mauser, so stamped on the barrel. Weitzman signed an affidavit to the this effect."
"High Treason pg 229. Affidavits sworn at the time of the assassination by Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman state the gun was a German Mauser.
Weitzman- a man with extensive experience in guns, who owned gun shops, who had a graduate degree in Engineering-that the gun was a Mauser, a favored weapon of snipers.
That's pure hogwash they didn't know what type of gun it was until Saturday. So a FULL day after the assassination with FBI, Police and SS nobody could identify the gun until the next day? This gun that killed the President wasn't identified until the next day doesn't hold your claim.
Spot on.
Top experts were brought into Dallas and the absurd claim that it would take a day to determine the make of the rifle is completely absurd.
Roger Craig identified the rifle as a Mauser due to the stamp embedded on the rifle. That is a solid eyewitness account.
Weitzman also agreed it was a Mauser as well. He was an owner of a sporting goods store so he was familiar with rifles. When he testified later, he changed his story and claimed he only "glanced" at the rifle.
That's an absurd statement to make. Why would a Sheriff just "glance" at the potential murder weapon that just killed Kennedy? He would give it a thorough inspection.
Weitzman changed his story and Roger Craig never did.
-
Walt, I've agreed with many of your opinions, but can't do so here. It would be much easier to call Craig a liar if we didn't have the testimony of Seymour Weitzman. As a former owner of a sporting goods store and knowledgeable on firearms, when Weitzman identifies a weapon as a 7.65 Mauser with a 2.5 Weaver scope, I tend to believe him. Eugene Boone was also there. There was also a report of a British Enfield being found. I have no problem believing multiple weapons were found and I have grave doubts whether Oswald or the Carcano fired any shots that day.
Ya know Jim, I believe the word "liar" is a bit strong when referring to Roger Craig. I believe that Craig simply had a gargantuan ego and hated to be wrong. He was a BS er..... He had heard Weitzman speculate that the rifle lying on the floor beneath the pallet of books, when Weitzman guessed that the rifle looked like a mauser. Craig took that WAG to heart and acted as if it was his WAG.... His ego wouldn't allow him to admit that he was wrong.....Thus several months later he attempted to bolster his declaration that the rifle was a mauser by declaring that he had seem "7.65 Mauser, stamped right there on the barrel" .
Anybody with one good eye can see for themselves that the rifle that detective JC Day lifted up to the cameras is a Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle ( often erroneously called a "Carcano carbine." )
-
Ya know Jim, I believe the word "liar" is a bit strong when referring to Roger Craig. I believe that Craig simply had a gargantuan ego and hated to be wrong. He was a BS er..... He had heard Weitzman speculate that the rifle lying on the floor beneath the pallet of books, when Weitzman guessed that the rifle looked like a mauser. Craig took that WAG to heart and acted as if it was his WAG.... His ego wouldn't allow him to admit that he was wrong.....Thus several months later he attempted to bolster his declaration that the rifle was a mauser by declaring that he had seem "7.65 Mauser, stamped right there on the barrel" .
Anybody with one good eye can see for themselves that the rifle that detective JC Day lifted up to the cameras is a Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle ( often erroneously called a "Carcano carbine." )
Walt is just speculating on what he "believes". There is absolutely no real evidence to make this assertion that Craig had an "ego" or was a "bs er".
How can Weitzman "guess it was a Mauser" when the Mauser stamp is embedded on the rifle? That stamp is there for a reason. All one would have to do is read the stamp to determine it was a Mauser.
-
Walt is just speculating on what he "believes". There is absolutely no real evidence to make this assertion that Craig had an "ego" or was a "bs er".
How can Weitzman "guess it was a Mauser" when the Mauser stamp is embedded on the rifle? That stamp is there for a reason. All one would have to do is read the stamp to determine it was a Mauser.
There's little doubt that RC was a BS er.... Anybody who has listened to him can verify that he was a BSer.
Please show me a photo of a rifle from the TSBD that has the word "MAUSER" stamped on it.
-
Walt, I've agreed with many of your opinions, but can't do so here. It would be much easier to call Craig a liar if we didn't have the testimony of Seymour Weitzman. As a former owner of a sporting goods store and knowledgeable on firearms, when Weitzman identifies a weapon as a 7.65 Mauser with a 2.5 Weaver scope, I tend to believe him. Eugene Boone was also there. There was also a report of a British Enfield being found. I have no problem believing multiple weapons were found and I have grave doubts whether Oswald or the Carcano fired any shots that day.
Weitzman never claimed to have owned a "sporting goods store." While he did say that he "was in the sporting goods business awhile," this can only refer to his short stint as "general manager" of Lamont Corp. His only description of the the company is that it was a "discount operation" which ran a small chain of about a half-dozen stores in the South-central US. That sounds more like it was a dry goods or department store operation, with sporting goods (much less guns) being part of a larger product mix. Even then, he held this position for something less that a year, and his stewardship of the company ended with the whole operation being shut down and liquidated. I figure that he was hired by Lamont's owners specifically to wind down an already-ailing company. At any rate, there is noting about Weitzman's tenure with Lamont Corp that provides any confidence that he had any particular expertise in firearms useful in identifying a particular rifle.
-
Weitzman never claimed to have owned a "sporting goods store." While he did say that he "was in the sporting goods business awhile," this can only refer to his short stint as "general manager" of Lamont Corp. His only description of the the company is that it was a "discount operation" which ran a small chain of about a half-dozen stores in the South-central US. That sounds more like it was a dry goods or department store operation, with sporting goods (much less guns) being part of a larger product mix. Even then, he held this position for something less that a year, and his stewardship of the company ended with the whole operation being shut down and liquidated. I figure that he was hired by Lamont's owners specifically to wind down an already-ailing company. At any rate, there is noting about Weitzman's tenure with Lamont Corp that provides any confidence that he had any particular expertise in firearms useful in identifying a particular rifle.
I agree completely, Mitch..... But something I've read, Leads me to believe that Seymour Weitzman was familiar wit a 7.65 Mauser and the Carcano does resemble a 7.65 Mauser, thus it was an honest mistake when he speculated that the rifle they saw on the floor beneath the pallet of books was a mauser. The problem arose when Roger Craig's ego got in the way....
-
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.
Mr. BALL - What branch of service were you in?
Mr. WEITZMAN - U.S. Air Force.
Mr. BALL - Did you handle rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.
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?
What you see is what you get.
-
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.
Mr. BALL - What branch of service were you in?
Mr. WEITZMAN - U.S. Air Force.
Mr. BALL - Did you handle rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.
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?
What you see is what you get.
So what does "fairly familiar with rifles" mean, exactly? The lack of specificity in that statement inspires anything but confidence. And, as I've already pointed out, the "awhile" in "I was in the sporting goods business awhile" turns out to be something less than one year. And this less-than-a-year tenure was spend in the executive suite rather than the shop floor. Not a place to gain a lot of expertise regarding what a specific rifle would look like.
-
I agree completely, Mitch..... But something I've read, Leads me to believe that Seymour Weitzman was familiar wit a 7.65 Mauser and the Carcano does resemble a 7.65 Mauser, thus it was an honest mistake when he speculated that the rifle they saw on the floor beneath the pallet of books was a mauser. The problem arose when Roger Craig's ego got in the way....
I don't think it was Craig's ego. More like, his need for money. He fell into the Penn Jones orbit, which resulted in Craig losing his job as a Deputy. He never found a steady gig after that.
-
[...]
Roger Craig identified the rifle as a Mauser due to the stamp embedded on the rifle. That is a solid eyewitness account.
Weitzman also agreed it was a Mauser as well. He was an owner of a sporting goods store so he was familiar with rifles. When he testified later, he changed his story and claimed he only "glanced" at the rifle.
That's an absurd statement to make. Why would a Sheriff just "glance" at the potential murder weapon that just killed Kennedy? He would give it a thorough inspection.
Weitzman changed his story and Roger Craig never did.
Whaddaya mean Craig never changed his story?
In '68, when he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press, Craig said that he didn't know what the rifle was.
In '69 at the Shaw trial, Craig was shown a Carcano and said that the rifle Boone found looked like it. He said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, even though this was the perfect time to do it.
In '71, Craig wrote "When They Kill a President." In it, he said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, noting that it was identified by Weitzman.
Only after that, in the "Two Guns in Dallas" video, did Craig claim that he saw anything stamped in the rifle. This story is directly contradicted by what Craig said to the LA Free Press. It's also contradicted, though more subtly, by his Shaw trial testimony and his own magnum opus.
-
So what does "fairly familiar with rifles" mean, exactly?
Apparently something you know nothing about.
-
Whaddaya mean Craig never changed his story?
In '68, when he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press, Craig said that he didn't know what the rifle was.
In '69 at the Shaw trial, Craig was shown a Carcano and said that the rifle Boone found looked like it. He said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, even though this was the perfect time to do it.
In '71, Craig wrote "When They Kill a President." In it, he said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, noting that it was identified by Weitzman.
Only after that, in the "Two Guns in Dallas" video, did Craig claim that he saw anything stamped in the rifle. This story is directly contradicted by what Craig said to the LA Free Press. It's also contradicted, though more subtly, by his Shaw trial testimony and his own magnum opus.
Thank you, Mitch.... I believe that you've presented an excellent rebuttal Rick Plant's post.
-
There's little doubt that RC was a BS er.... Anybody who has listened to him can verify that he was a BSer.
Please show me a photo of a rifle from the TSBD that has the word "MAUSER" stamped on it.
That's only your opinion.
I don't need to show any photos of a rifle with "Mauser" stamped on it because obviously they never took a photo of a Mauser.
Why did Weitzman change his story? Why would he only "glance" at the rifle and not inspect it?
-
Whaddaya mean Craig never changed his story?
In '68, when he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press, Craig said that he didn't know what the rifle was.
In '69 at the Shaw trial, Craig was shown a Carcano and said that the rifle Boone found looked like it. He said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, even though this was the perfect time to do it.
In '71, Craig wrote "When They Kill a President." In it, he said nothing about seeing "Mauser" or "7.65" on the rifle, noting that it was identified by Weitzman.
Only after that, in the "Two Guns in Dallas" video, did Craig claim that he saw anything stamped in the rifLA le. This story is directly contradicted by what Craig said to the LA Free Press. It's also contradicted, though more subtly, by his Shaw trial testimony and his own magnum opus.
Craig never came out and said he never saw a Mauser after he stated that he witnessed one. So no, he didn't "change his story" just because he didn't state it again years later.
Why did Weitzman change his story after he said he witnessed a Mauser?
Why would a Sheriff claim to just "glance" at the possible murder weapon? Wouldn't he fully inspect it as part of the investigation?
-
So what does "fairly familiar with rifles" mean, exactly? The lack of specificity in that statement inspires anything but confidence. And, as I've already pointed out, the "awhile" in "I was in the sporting goods business awhile" turns out to be something less than one year. And this less-than-a-year tenure was spend in the executive suite rather than the shop floor. Not a place to gain a lot of expertise regarding what a specific rifle would look like.
Someone in the sporting goods business where rifles are sold would know what merchandise he is selling. Would he not?
Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?
And a person with no knowledge of weaponry would even know what the make of the weapon is when the word "Mauser" is stamped directly on it. Isn't that correct?
So, how could Weitzman not know that the rifle was a Mauser when the stamp on the rifle tells him what it is.
That's like someone trying to claim they don't know that it's a Ford truck when the word FORD is stamped in bold letters.
-
Someone in the sporting goods business where rifles are sold would know what merchandise he is selling. Would he not?
Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?
And a person with no knowledge of weaponry would even know what the make of the weapon is when the word "Mauser" is stamped directly on it. Isn't that correct?
So, how could Weitzman not know that the rifle was a Mauser when the stamp on the rifle tells him what it is.
That's like someone trying to claim they don't know that it's a Ford truck when the word FORD is stamped in bold letters.
Why don't you believe your own eyes ??
There are many many photos of the rifle as Detective Day retrieved and examined the---- C-A-R-C-A-N-O.......
-
Craig never came out and said he never saw a Mauser after he stated that he witnessed one. So no, he didn't "change his story" just because he didn't state it again years later.
Why did Weitzman change his story after he said he witnessed a Mauser?
Why would a Sheriff claim to just "glance" at the possible murder weapon? Wouldn't he fully inspect it as part of the investigation?
If you don't see the inherent contradiction between Craig's 1968 story ("I didn't know what it was") and his '70's videotaped interview ("stamped on the barrel was '7.65 Mauser'), it can only be because you are trying very, very, very, very, very hard not to.
If you don't at least wonder why Craig failed to mention seeing the '7.65 Mauser' stamp on the rifle in his Shaw trial testimony, it's because you simply wish to be incurious.
If you don't think twice as to why Craig didn't mention the stamp in When They Kill a President , you just don't want to think.
-
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm
-
Someone in the sporting goods business where rifles are sold would know what merchandise he is selling. Would he not?
Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?
And a person with no knowledge of weaponry would even know what the make of the weapon is when the word "Mauser" is stamped directly on it. Isn't that correct?
So, how could Weitzman not know that the rifle was a Mauser when the stamp on the rifle tells him what it is.
That's like someone trying to claim they don't know that it's a Ford truck when the word FORD is stamped in bold letters.
Someone in the sporting goods business where rifles are sold would know what merchandise he is selling. Would he not?
Someone in Weitzman's position would certainly be expected to know how much a particular item cost to purchase, how much it sold for, the customer base for the item, how well it sold, and how many were in stock. Beyond that, I wouldn't count on anything.
Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?
I would hope they would know something about firearms, but I wouldn't expect any randomly-selected officer to be able to determine --on sight-- the manufacturer and caliber of any gun they might see.
And a person with no knowledge of weaponry would even know what the make of the weapon is when the word "Mauser" is stamped directly on it. Isn't that correct?
I would expect that someone who saw the word "Mauser" on the rifle would have said so from the get-go. I would not expect for them to spend the next ten years spewing out a number of contradictory stories about the rifle.
That's like someone trying to claim they don't know that it's a Ford truck when the word FORD is stamped in bold letters.
This begs the question of if the word FORD was on the truck in the first place. Especially when there is film showing that the truck is a FIAT.
-
So it was determined the shots came from the TSBD that killed the President of the United States couldn't identify the rifle until the next day. Yeah it's like they didn't have anyone around to identify the rifle that killed Kennedy because they were tied up doing other things.
Someone in law enforcement would know the difference between different makes of weapons, would he not?
I would hope they would know something about firearms, but I wouldn't expect any randomly-selected officer to be able to determine --on sight-- the manufacturer and caliber of any gun they might see.
-
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm
A: I went from there to the sixth floor to help in the search.
Q: While you were on the sixth floor and in your presence was any rifle found?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you personally find the rifle?
A: No, sir, I did not but I was about eight feet from the gentleman that found it.
Q: Did you ever get closer to the gentleman holding the rifle?
A: Yes, sir, I did.
Q: Approximately how far?
A: About one foot or one and a half foot. I was standing next to him.
Q: Do you recall the man who was there?
A: No, he was an ID man from the Dallas Police Department, however, he did not find the rifle, Eugene Boone, a Deputy Sheriff, he found the rifle.
Q: What do you mean an ID man?
A: An identification man from the Dallas Police Department.
Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?
A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.
Q: Officer Craig, I am going to show you -- I mean Mr. Craig, I'm going to show you what has been marked for purposes of identification as State's Exhibit 18 and ask you if you have seen this rifle or a similar rifle at any time?
A: The rifle found was similar to this one with the exception it had a strap connected to it.
Q: Officer Craig, were you able to observe the location that the rifle was found in?
A: Yes.
Q: Where was that?
A: In the northeast corner of the sixth floor there was a stack of boxes approximately five fee high and they were stacked in a square and in the middle of the square was a hole and the rifle was in this hole.
Q: Mr. Craig, were you able to determine from what direction the reports or sounds you heard in Dealey Plaza emanated from on that day?
Q: Approximately how long did you view the rifle at this time?
A: Just two or three minutes. They took it away immediately, they held lit up by the strap and then took it away from there.
They did not take it away from there.....After detective JC Day picked up the carcano from beneath the pallet he held it up to show Captain Fritz. They examined the rifle and opened the bolt to clear the breech of any live cartridge then Detective Day stepped over to the brightly lit window and started checking the rifle for finger prints. Tom Alyea filmed detective Day as he examined the C-A-R-C-A-N-O.
-
Since people were discussing his testimony with Garrison I posted it. Also since the President of the United States was killed wouldn't you think it wouldn't take until the next day to identify?
-
Walt, I have no idea why you think Craig had a particularly large ego and it is of highly questionable relevance to the discussion here. He described carefully who was present when the Mauser was found and they included Fritz, Weitzman and Boone. I'm not surprised those three failed to report the Mauser, but the press reported it was a Mauser for two days. You seem to think that this is the same weapon as the Carcano. I believe multiple weapons were found and I also think the Mauser is a much better choice for an assassin's rifle.
-
Why don't you believe your own eyes ??
There are many many photos of the rifle as Detective Day retrieved and examined the---- C-A-R-C-A-N-O.......
I'm not disputing the photos.
Craig and Weitzman both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Craig identified the Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle.
What happened to that rifle?
Why did Weitzman change his story for his testimony?
-
If you don't see the inherent contradiction between Craig's 1968 story ("I didn't know what it was") and his '70's videotaped interview ("stamped on the barrel was '7.65 Mauser'), it can only be because you are trying very, very, very, very, very hard not to.
If you don't at least wonder why Craig failed to mention seeing the '7.65 Mauser' stamp on the rifle in his Shaw trial testimony, it's because you simply wish to be incurious.
If you don't think twice as to why Craig didn't mention the stamp in When They Kill a President , you just don't want to think.
Craig not mentioning a stamp on the rifle years later doesn't mean he "changed his story".
Craig already stated he witnessed a Mauser and he saw the stamp. Weitzman agreed with Craig about the rifle being a Mauser. That Mauser stamp tells you it's not another make.
So, why did Weitzman change his story for his testimony?
-
Someone in Weitzman's position would certainly be expected to know how much a particular item cost to purchase, how much it sold for, the customer base for the item, how well it sold, and how many were in stock. Beyond that, I wouldn't count on anything.
Anyone in business would be familiar with the products they sell especially when they are handling rifles and showing them to customers.
Even the most inept shoe salesman knows what the merchandise looks like from a Nike to a Converse.
The man was in law enforcement so he would know weapons plus the stamp on the rifle tells him that the rifle is a Mauser.
I would hope they would know something about firearms, but I wouldn't expect any randomly-selected officer to be able to determine --on sight-- the manufacturer and caliber of any gun they might see.
You wouldn't expect an officer not to be able to read an embedded stamp on a rifle to determine the manufacturer? Even Barney Fife could at least do that.
I would expect that someone who saw the word "Mauser" on the rifle would have said so from the get-go. I would not expect for them to spend the next ten years spewing out a number of contradictory stories about the rifle.
Why did two men in law enforcement (Craig and Weitzman) both agree that the weapon was a Mauser?
Why did Weitzman changed his story and later claim it wasn't a Mauser?
-
I'm not disputing the photos.
Craig and Weitzman both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Craig identified the Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle.
What happened to that rifle?
Why did Weitzman change his story for his testimony?
Craig and Weitzman both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Craig identified the Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle.
Weitzman stated that he mistakenly identified the rifle that was lying on the floor beneath the stack of books on a pallet.
He could see only a small portion of the butt of the rifle and he made a wag that the rifle "looked like a mauser."
Roger Craig heard Weitzman say that, and assumed that the rifle was a mauser. It's as simple as that.....
Many many photos, that were taken when the rifle was retrieved by detective Day, clearly show that the rifle he picked up from the floor was in fact a CARCANO.
-
Many many photos, that were taken when the rifle was retrieved by detective Day, clearly show that the rifle he picked up from the floor was in fact a CARCANO.
What "many photos"? There's the Alyea film and there's the 2 reconstructed police photos that were taken after things were moved around. There's nothing clear about any of these.
-
What "many photos"? There's the Alyea film and there's the 2 reconstructed police photos that were taken after things were moved around. There's nothing clear about any of these.
If you break the Alyea film down frame by frame you have "many photos"....
I don't know how much film Alyea exposed ....??.... But the rifle is clearly a C-A-R-C-A-N-O in the film. The film of detective Day checking the rifle for prints behind the brightly illuminated window is an excellent verification that the rifle is a Carcano.
-
Craig not mentioning a stamp on the rifle years later doesn't mean he "changed his story".
Craig already stated he witnessed a Mauser and he saw the stamp. Weitzman agreed with Craig about the rifle being a Mauser. That Mauser stamp tells you it's not another make.
So, why did Weitzman change his story for his testimony?
Not only did Craig change his story, but these different stories were mutually exclusive of his claim to have seen "Mauser" on the rifle. As I've already mentioned, in '68 he said that he didn't know what the rifle was. That simply can't be true if he'd seen "Mauser" stamped into the rifle barrel, as he later claimed. The next year, he was shown a Carcano at the Shaw trial and testified under oath that it looked like the TSBD rifle. No mention of seeing the word "Mauser" anywhere, even though this is exactly the kind of story that the prosecution (for which Craig was a witness) was looking for. And, what better place for Craig to bring up the Mauser stamp than in is poison pen expose of the Dallas authorities? So why does Craig not mention it?
Craig already stated he witnessed a Mauser and he saw the stamp
Craig didn't mention the stamp until the early 1970s. The rifle isn't mentioned in his DCSD affidavit, nor in any of the FBI interviews that followed. In his WC testimony, the make and model of the rifle were never mentioned. In '68, he said he didn't know what kind of rifle it was. In '69, it looked like the Carcano he was shown on the stand. It became a Mauser in '71, but only because that's what Weitzman said it was. Only after that did Craig mention that he'd seen the word "Mauser" on the rifle.
As for Weitzman, he was simply wrong, as he has said he was.
Anyone in business would be familiar with the products they sell especially when they are handling rifles and showing them to customers.
Even the most inept shoe salesman knows what the merchandise looks like from a Nike to a Converse.
Weitzman was "general manager" of a "discount operation" that was a chain of stores spread out from Louisiana to New Mexico. He worked in what we would now call the "C-Suite." He wasn't a gun salesman, and never claimed to have been. Somehow, you've managed to demote the poor guy in an attempt to give him expertise that he never claimed.
The man was in law enforcement so he would know weapons plus the stamp on the rifle tells him that the rifle is a Mauser.
Being a law enforcement officer does not make one an expert in firearms identification. Again, this level of qualification is nothing more than an empty assertion on your part.
You wouldn't expect an officer not to be able to read an embedded stamp on a rifle to determine the manufacturer? Even Barney Fife could at least do that.
You're begging the question here.
Why did two men in law enforcement (Craig and Weitzman) both agree that the weapon was a Mauser?
Why did Weitzman changed his story and later claim it wasn't a Mauser?
Again, Craig didn't claim that the rifle was a Mauser until 1971. That was at the tail end of a trail of tales that turn out to be mutually contradictory.
As for Weitzman, he realized he was wrong, and had the sense to admit it. You would do well to follow his example. I'm not holding my breath.
-
I posted his testimony. You should read it. Also this is from Spartacus.
"A group of Dallas Police Department detectives, including Will Fritz, Seymour Weitzman, Roger Craig, Eugene Boone and Luke Mooney searched the Texas School Book Depository soon after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the sixth floor they discovered a rifle hidden beneath some boxes. The detectives identified it as a 7.65 Mauser. District Attorney Henry M. Wade, in a television interview, told the nation that the rifle was a Mauser. It was the FBI who announced that the officers had been mistaken. According to them it was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, an Italian bolt-action rifle used in the Second World War. All the detectives agreed to change their mind about the rifle except Roger Craig."
Not only did Craig change his story, but these different stories were mutually exclusive of his claim to have seen "Mauser" on the rifle. As I've already mentioned, in '68 he said that he didn't know what the rifle was. That simply can't be true if he'd seen "Mauser" stamped into the rifle barrel, as he later claimed. The next year, he was shown a Carcano at the Shaw trial and testified under oath that it looked like the TSBD rifle. No mention of seeing the word "Mauser" anywhere, even though this is exactly the kind of story that the prosecution (for which Craig was a witness) was looking for. And, what better place for Craig to bring up the Mauser stamp than in is poison pen expose of the Dallas authorities? So why does Craig not mention it?
Craig already stated he witnessed a Mauser and he saw the stamp
Craig didn't mention the stamp until the early 1970s. The rifle isn't mentioned in his DCSD affidavit, nor in any of the FBI interviews that followed. In his WC testimony, the make and model of the rifle were never mentioned. In '68, he said he didn't know what kind of rifle it was. In '69, it looked like the Carcano he was shown on the stand. It became a Mauser in '71, but only because that's what Weitzman said it was. Only after that did Craig mention that he'd seen the word "Mauser" on the rifle.
As for Weitzman, he was simply wrong, as he has said he was.
Weitzman was "general manager" of a "discount operation" that was a chain of stores spread out from Louisiana to New Mexico. He worked in what we would now call the "C-Suite." He wasn't a gun salesman, and never claimed to have been. Somehow, you've managed to demote the poor guy in an attempt to give him expertise that he never claimed.
Being a law enforcement officer does not make one an expert in firearms identification. Again, this level of qualification is nothing more than an empty assertion on your part.
You're begging the question here.
Again, Craig didn't claim that the rifle was a Mauser until 1971. That was at the tail end of a trail of tales that turn out to be mutually contradictory.
As for Weitzman, he realized he was wrong, and had the sense to admit it. You would do well to follow his example. I'm not holding my breath.
-
I posted his testimony. You should read it. Also this is from Spartacus.
"A group of Dallas Police Department detectives, including Will Fritz, Seymour Weitzman, Roger Craig, Eugene Boone and Luke Mooney searched the Texas School Book Depository soon after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the sixth floor they discovered a rifle hidden beneath some boxes. The detectives identified it as a 7.65 Mauser. District Attorney Henry M. Wade, in a television interview, told the nation that the rifle was a Mauser. It was the FBI who announced that the officers had been mistaken. According to them it was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, an Italian bolt-action rifle used in the Second World War. All the detectives agreed to change their mind about the rifle except Roger Craig."
"On the sixth floor they discovered a rifle hidden beneath some boxes."
On the sixth floor they discovered a rifle hidden beneath some boxes.
The rifle was HIDDEN BENEATH SOME BOXES OF BOOKS !! It was NOT jammed between boxes of books as the Official DPD police photo depicts.
-
I posted his testimony. You should read it. Also this is from Spartacus.
"A group of Dallas Police Department detectives, including Will Fritz, Seymour Weitzman, Roger Craig, Eugene Boone and Luke Mooney searched the Texas School Book Depository soon after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. On the sixth floor they discovered a rifle hidden beneath some boxes. The detectives identified it as a 7.65 Mauser. District Attorney Henry M. Wade, in a television interview, told the nation that the rifle was a Mauser. It was the FBI who announced that the officers had been mistaken. According to them it was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, an Italian bolt-action rifle used in the Second World War. All the detectives agreed to change their mind about the rifle except Roger Craig."
In fact, I did read his testimony. That's why I know that he didn't identify the rifle as a Mauser while on the stand. Instead, he said that the rifle looked like the Carcano the prosecution was holding up in front of him.
-
Craig and Weitzman both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Craig identified the Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle.
Weitzman stated that he mistakenly identified the rifle that was lying on the floor beneath the stack of books on a pallet.
He could see only a small portion of the butt of the rifle and he made a wag that the rifle "looked like a mauser."
Roger Craig heard Weitzman say that, and assumed that the rifle was a mauser. It's as simple as that.....
Many many photos, that were taken when the rifle was retrieved by detective Day, clearly show that the rifle he picked up from the floor was in fact a CARCANO.
Weitzman mistakenly identified the rifle when it included an embedded Mauser stamp?
Roger Craig said he witnessed the Mauser stamp not that he "assumed" it was a Mauser.
Yes, many photos of the CARCANO were snapped but not the Mauser that two law enforcement officers stated they first witnessed.
-
Not only did Craig change his story, but these different stories were mutually exclusive of his claim to have seen "Mauser" on the rifle. As I've already mentioned, in '68 he said that he didn't know what the rifle was. That simply can't be true if he'd seen "Mauser" stamped into the rifle barrel, as he later claimed. The next year, he was shown a Carcano at the Shaw trial and testified under oath that it looked like the TSBD rifle. No mention of seeing the word "Mauser" anywhere, even though this is exactly the kind of story that the prosecution (for which Craig was a witness) was looking for. And, what better place for Craig to bring up the Mauser stamp than in is poison pen expose of the Dallas authorities? So why does Craig not mention it?
Was Craig asked about the Mauser stamp? No. Witnesses directly answered the questions they were asked under oath.
That's not true. In 1968, Criag stated there was a Mauser. So, how is that "changing his story"?
Craig didn't mention the stamp until the early 1970s. The rifle isn't mentioned in his DCSD affidavit, nor in any of the FBI interviews that followed. In his WC testimony, the make and model of the rifle were never mentioned. In '68, he said he didn't know what kind of rifle it was. In '69, it looked like the Carcano he was shown on the stand. It became a Mauser in '71, but only because that's what Weitzman said it was. Only after that did Craig mention that he'd seen the word "Mauser" on the rifle.
And Craig said he was fired for "knowing too much" and said "he was under a lot of pressure".
How do you know he wasn't told to "shut up about it" and waited to tell his story when he had the opportunity to?
The fact is we have two law enforcement officers who both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Weitzman changed his story.
As for Weitzman, he was simply wrong, as he has said he was.
Wrong with a Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle? He changed his story.
Weitzman was "general manager" of a "discount operation" that was a chain of stores spread out from Louisiana to New Mexico. He worked in what we would now call the "C-Suite." He wasn't a gun salesman, and never claimed to have been. Somehow, you've managed to demote the poor guy in an attempt to give him expertise that he never claimed.
You're trying to turn Weitzman into a bumbling fool who had no idea what he was selling.
A law enforcement officer who handled these weapons in his own business would have a good idea of the rifles he was selling.
Being a law enforcement officer does not make one an expert in firearms identification. Again, this level of qualification is nothing more than an empty assertion on your part.
You're begging the question here.
Weitzman had an advantage over other law enforcement officers by handling these types of rifles in his business.
No, you're trying to make us believe that Weitzman and law enforcement officers are like The Three Stooges and have no idea what they are doing.
Again, Craig didn't claim that the rifle was a Mauser until 1971. That was at the tail end of a trail of tales that turn out to be mutually contradictory.
As for Weitzman, he realized he was wrong, and had the sense to admit it. You would do well to follow his example. I'm not holding my breath.
Did two law enforcement officers state they witnessed a Mauser? Yes they did.
-
Did two law enforcement officers state they witnessed a Mauser? Yes they did.
Three. Boone did as well.
-
Was Craig asked about the Mauser stamp? No. Witnesses directly answered the questions they were asked under oath.
That's not true. In 1968, Criag stated there was a Mauser. So, how is that "changing his story"?
And Craig said he was fired for "knowing too much" and said "he was under a lot of pressure".
How do you know he wasn't told to "shut up about it" and waited to tell his story when he had the opportunity to?
The fact is we have two law enforcement officers who both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Weitzman changed his story.
Wrong with a Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle? He changed his story.
You're trying to turn Weitzman into a bumbling fool who had no idea what he was selling.
A law enforcement officer who handled these weapons in his own business would have a good idea of the rifles he was selling.
Weitzman had an advantage over other law enforcement officers by handling these types of rifles in his business.
No, you're trying to make us believe that Weitzman and law enforcement officers are like The Three Stooges and have no idea what they are doing.
Did two law enforcement officers state they witnessed a Mauser? Yes they did.
What Mauser has a Mauser stamp on the barrel? Maybe the 22LR. What was stated was it "appeared" to be a Mauser which the 1891 carcano looks like the 1891 argentine, which was a 7.65 x 53 caliber rifle designed by Mauser. No where on the rifle does it state 7.65 Mauser especially the barrel which would be covered by the hand guard.
-
What Mauser has a Mauser stamp on the barrel? Maybe the 22LR. What was stated was it "appeared" to be a Mauser which the 1891 carcano looks like the 1891 argentine, which was a 7.65 x 53 caliber rifle designed by Mauser. No where on the rifle does it state 7.65 Mauser especially the barrel which would be covered by the hand guard.
What Mauser has a Mauser stamp on the barrel?---------- What was stated was it "appeared" to be a Mauser which the 1891 carcano looks like the 1891 argentine, which was a 7.65 x 53 caliber rifle designed by Mauser. No where on the rifle does it state 7.65 Mauser especially the barrel which would be covered by the hand guard
Thank you , Jack.... For posting factual information that lays bare Roger Craig's lie that he saw "stamped right there on the barrel, 7.65 MAUSER" You make it very clear that it would have been impossible for Roger Craig to have seen any such stamping on the barrel, because the 7.65 Argentine mauser ( which superficially resembles a Mannlicher Carcano carbine) was never marked in the fashion described by Roger Craig.
-
(https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachments/img_0392-jpg.119214)
-
Sunny-side up & and watch the bandwidth if you please
(550kb v 1.5mb)
(https://i.postimg.cc/MT2c0chj/Mauser-stamp.png)
-
(https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachments/img_0392-jpg.119214)
Thank you for posting the photo of a mauser that is stamped 7.65 MAUSER on the RECEIVER.... And of course the receiver is NOT the barrel....
-
(https://www.thefirearmsforum.com/attachments/img_0392-jpg.119214)
It was never mentioned that the crest on the receiver was ground off so crudely. That would have been more distinguishable and noticeable to a sporting goods store salesman like Weitzman. It would truly have been a unique characteristic. And like Walt said it is not the barrel.
-
Three. Boone did as well.
Yes John, that's correct.
-
Thank you for posting the photo of a mauser that is stamped 7.65 MAUSER on the RECEIVER.... And of course the receiver is NOT the barrel....
So three deputies can confuse a Carcano for a Mauser, but one can't confuse a "receiver" for a "barrel"?
-
What Mauser has a Mauser stamp on the barrel? Maybe the 22LR. What was stated was it "appeared" to be a Mauser which the 1891 carcano looks like the 1891 argentine, which was a 7.65 x 53 caliber rifle designed by Mauser. No where on the rifle does it state 7.65 Mauser especially the barrel which would be covered by the hand guard.
Two law enforcement officers stated they witnessed a Mauser and one stated he witnessed a stamp. That's a positive identification of a weapon. Two men said they saw the same weapon.
-
Two law enforcement officers stated they witnessed a Mauser and one stated he witnessed a stamp. That's a positive identification of a weapon. Two men said they saw the same weapon.
Weitzman stated it "appeared to be a Mauser". Not exactly an overwhelming identification. Maybe had never seen a carcano and had no idea what a carcano looked like.
Boone, who found the rifle, stated he watched Fritz come and pick up the rifle and eject the cartridge which is known to be a carcano cartridge--- CE 141. Boone then watched Day come immediately, take the rifle from Fritz and photographed the rifle, which is known to be part of the evidence collected. What Fritz handled and Day photographed in front of Boone was a 6.5 carcano.
Craig's only statement was supposedly about having seen the "mauser stamp" on the barrel. There is no such thing and also seems very similar to all his other fairy tale encounters that day.
If you have real witnesses who positively identify the rifle as a Mauser and the actual model of the Mauser that would be helpful. There are lots of Mauser models and calibers built for many different countries. Claiming it was either a Mauser or 7.65 Mauser is an extremely large and very broad and diverse description.
-
Weitzman stated it "appeared to be a Mauser". Not exactly an overwhelming identification. Maybe had never seen a carcano and had no idea what a carcano looked like.
Boone, who found the rifle, stated he watched Fritz come and pick up the rifle and eject the cartridge which is known to be a carcano cartridge--- CE 141. Boone then watched Day come immediately, take the rifle from Fritz and photographed the rifle, which is known to be part of the evidence collected. What Fritz handled and Day photographed in front of Boone was a 6.5 carcano.
Craig's only statement was supposedly about having seen the "mauser stamp" on the barrel. There is no such thing and also seems very similar to all his other fairy tale encounters that day.
If you have real witnesses who positively identify the rifle as a Mauser and the actual model of the Mauser that would be helpful. There are lots of Mauser models and calibers built for many different countries. Claiming it was either a Mauser or 7.65 Mauser is an extremely large and very broad and diverse description.
Boone, who found the rifle, stated he watched Fritz come and pick up the rifle and eject the cartridge
This simple statement could be a crucial clue about the validity of the claim that the carcano was the murder weapon.....
There is film of Captain Fritz removing the live round from the carcano. And in addition there are eyewitness who described the removal of that live round...
The live round was not EJECTED..... It simply fell out at Captain Fritz's feet.... This is a crucial point, because if the rifle had been fired during the assassination that live round would have been served up to the bolt and stripped from the clip by the forward stroke of the bolt. Thus the live round would have been married to the face of the bolt and locked in the breech of the rifle and the rifle would have been ready to fire that live round.
However...The live round was NOT married to the face of the bolt....We can know this because the live round merely dropped to the floor at Captain Fritz's feet, IT WAS NOT EJECTED and flipped away from the rifle by the action of the ejector as Captain Fritz retracted the bolt of the carcano.
The fact that the live cartridge simply dropped at Captain Fritz's feet is strong evidence that the carcano was not fired during the assassination.
PS..... If the live round had been the last round (bottom most ) in the clip, the cartridge elevator would have scratched that live round every time the rifle was fired and reloaded. There are no scratch marks on the live round which indicates that the live round was not the last cartridge in the rifle.... And it was merely dropped into the breech and the bolt was closed BUT NOT LATCHED behind it . We can know that the bolt was NOT closed to the latched position by examining photos of the rifle as it was picked up from the floor and held up to Captain Fritz..... The bolt can be seen to be in the UNLATCHED position.
-
It was never mentioned that the crest on the receiver was ground off so crudely. That would have been more distinguishable and noticeable to a sporting goods store salesman like Weitzman. It would truly have been a unique characteristic. And like Walt said it is not the barrel.
Jack, In the photo of the rifle that you've posted, I'd bet that this rifle has been converted ( re-barreled) to fire the 7.65 mm mauser cartridge.... and the original stamping was ground off and then the receiver was re-stamped "7.65 MAUSER.
-
Boone, who found the rifle, stated he watched Fritz come and pick up the rifle and eject the cartridge
This simple statement could be a crucial clue about the validity of the claim that the carcano was the murder weapon.....
There is film of Captain Fritz removing the live round from the carcano. And in addition there are eyewitness who described the removal of that live round...
The live round was not EJECTED..... It simply fell out at Captain Fritz's feet.... This is a crucial point, because if the rifle had been fired during the assassination that live round would have been served up to the bolt and stripped from the clip by the forward stroke of the bolt. Thus the live round would have been married to the face of the bolt and locked in the breech of the rifle and the rifle would have been ready to fire that live round.
However...The live round was NOT married to the face of the bolt....We can know this because the live round merely dropped to the floor at Captain Fritz's feet, IT WAS NOT EJECTED and flipped away from the rifle by the action of the ejector as Captain Fritz retracted the bolt of the carcano.
The fact that the live cartridge simply dropped at Captain Fritz's feet is strong evidence that the carcano was not fired during the assassination.
PS..... If the live round had been the last round (bottom most ) in the clip, the cartridge elevator would have scratched that live round every time the rifle was fired and reloaded. There are no scratch marks on the live round which indicates that the live round was not the last cartridge in the rifle.... And it was merely dropped into the breech and the bolt was closed BUT NOT LATCHED behind it . We can know that the bolt was NOT closed to the latched position by examining photos of the rifle as it was picked up from the floor and held up to Captain Fritz..... The bolt can be seen to be in the UNLATCHED position.
The ejection process can be effected by how much force is used to pull the bolt back. I have never watched the film.
CE 141 had to have been loaded into the chamber when the chamber had been expanded due to heat of CE 544 and CE 545 having been fired in the rifle. The reason that is known is the indentation on the side of the shell of CE 141 is similar to the indentation on the sides of CE 545 and CE 545. The FBI referred to the indentation as a "chamber mark". There is not a chamber mark on CE 543 but there is one on all the 30+ other shells that were test fired in the rifle.
-
Jack, In the photo of the rifle that you've posted, I'd bet that this rifle has been converted ( re-barreled) to fire the 7.65 mm mauser cartridge.... and the original stamping was ground off and then the receiver was re-stamped "7.65 MAUSER.
Why someone would destroy the crest and place that stamp there is anyone's guess. What is left of the crest looks like the top of the 1891 Argentine Mauser crest, which makes no sense given the 1891 was chambered in the 7.65 x53 round . I don't know where that photo came from but the rifle is definitely the product of a real clown.
-
If that could be done to one Mauser, it could be done to another. Clown or not.
-
If that could be done to one Mauser, it could be done to another. Clown or not.
The debate is not focused on the feasibility of re-stamping a rifle to designate the caliber of the cartridge to be used on that rifle.
Any rifle can be modified to fire a cartridge that is not the cartridge that it was originally manufactured to fire.
There are some rifles that have excellent strong actions that were manufactured to fire a cartridge that isn't a very strong cartridge or the projectile is too light to be effective at longer ranges. Thus a well designed Mauser might have been manufactured to use a weaker cartridge but was then re-barreled to use a bigger, heavier, and more powerful cartridge. Of course the rifle has to be re-stamped to identify the cartridge to use in that rifle.
But this discussion has jumped the track..... The rifle that was found HIDDEN BENEATH boxes of books in the NW corner of the sixth floor was NOT stamped 7.65 MAUSER.... It was a carcano and it was stamped "caliber 6.5 " on the rear sight.
-
Not according to 3 deputies who were there.
-
Not according to 3 deputies who were there.
Well as much as hate to agree with detective Day about anything.....In this case because my eyes tell me the rifle he picked up from the flor was a Mannlicher Carcano..... and he scribbled a hasty identification on his evidence sheet that said that the rifle was 6.5 caliber "LEVER ACTION" rifle. Of course it wasn't a "lever action" rifle as anybody can plainly see in the photos of the rifle...
BUT..... in response to those who believe the rifle was a MAUSER.....I could easily argue that the rifle that was recovered was not a bolt action rifle because Lt Day identified it as a LEVER ACTION rifle. An utterly ridiculous idea .... Of course...but it's the same sort of nonsense that is presented by the It was a Mauser crowd....
-
Why someone would destroy the crest and place that stamp there is anyone's guess. What is left of the crest looks like the top of the 1891 Argentine Mauser crest, which makes no sense given the 1891 was chambered in the 7.65 x53 round . I don't know where that photo came from but the rifle is definitely the product of a real clown.
The Argentine national crest was ground off by the Argentine government before export. The Argentines had a law requiring the removal of national markings from arms before they could be sold. Almost any example of a model 91 you can find will have been put to the grinder. I've never seen one that hasn't been scalped.
BTW, the Gun Control Act of 1968 requires that any firearm imported into the US has the weapon clearly and permanently marked with the caliber. The caliber stamp on the pictured example may mark it as such a "post-import" rifle. As a rule, those old military rifles didn't have any caliber markings, and didn't need them. The model 38 and 91/38 Carcanos are a rare exception to this, due to WWII breaking out at a very inconvenient time for the Italian army.
-
So, Weitzman originally stated the rifle was a Mauser and so did Roger Craig.
When Weitzman testified, he changed his story claiming the rifle had a "Mauser type action".
We then hear the absurd claim from Weitzman that he only "glanced at the rifle" so he wasn't sure what kind of rifle it was when before he was certain it was a Mauser.
President Kennedy was just murdered and the potential murder weapon was just located. Are we to believe that law enforcement officers would only go "ho-hum" and just "glance" at a weapon that possibly killed President Kennedy? That's the nonsense Weitzman was trying to claim in his testimony. Officers would do more than just "glance" at the weapon before they took it in for analysis. Especially one of that importance.
And then the claim that law enforcement officers had no clue what type of make the rifle was for an entire day is even more absurd. The best experts were dispatched to Dallas and are we supposed to believe it would take a whole day for them to determine what the make was?
When you think about it logically you can see these claims are total nonsense. This is not how law enforcement would operate.
Weitzman changed his story when it was time to talk.
-
It took another day to identify the gun. The President of the United States was gunned down but I guess they had other things to do in the case before identifying the gun. What's the rush? It's only the President so they must have had other priorities that day than identifying the gun. Law enforcement of the FBI, DPD and Sherriff had more important matters than identifying the gun that day.
So, Weitzman originally stated the rifle was a Mauser and so did Roger Craig.
When Weitzman testified, he changed his story claiming the rifle had a "Mauser type action".
We then hear the absurd claim from Weitzman that he only "glanced at the rifle" so he wasn't sure what kind of rifle it was when before he was certain it was a Mauser.
President Kennedy was just murdered and the potential murder weapon was just located. Are we to believe that law enforcement officers would only go "ho-hum" and just "glance" at a weapon that possibly killed President Kennedy? That's the nonsense Weitzman was trying to claim in his testimony. Officers would do more than just "glance" at the weapon before they took it in for analysis. Especially one of that importance.
And then the claim that law enforcement officers had no clue what type of make the rifle was for an entire day is even more absurd. The best experts were dispatched to Dallas and are we supposed to believe it would take a whole day for them to determine what the make was?
When you think about it logically you can see these claims are total nonsense. This is not how law enforcement would operate.
Weitzman changed his story when it was time to talk.
-
It took another day to identify the gun. The President of the United States was gunned down but I guess they had other things to do in the case before identifying the gun. What's the rush? It's only the President so they must have had other priorities that day than identifying the gun. Law enforcement of the FBI, DPD and Sherriff had more important matters than identifying the gun that day.
Paul, Oswald's Italian Carcano was filmed in the depository and shown on TV on the 22nd.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SsnIeaAWFfo/hqdefault.jpg)
And Oswald's Italian Carcano was photographed leaving the building on the 22nd.
(https://i.pinimg.com/550x/97/21/63/9721639cd597b0ee27aaade9b0844e38.jpg)
@3:17
And again later that day in the halls of justice.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/1A8AAOSwQ6Fc~7LO/s-l400.jpg)
JohnM
-
So you have pictures. So why did it take a day to identify? WTF does your pictures have to do with authorities IDENTIFYING the rifle?
-
So you have pictures. So why did it take a day to identify? WTF does your pictures have to do with authorities IDENTIFYING the rifle?
Calm down and you might learn something, in addition to the IDENTIFYING photographs while in the halls of Justice, Lt Day is filmed saying the rifle was "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940" What more do you want and where does your ranting lead?
And also see the video below, which is the complete 2013 CNN documentary that Michael Giampaolo talked about earlier (entitled "The Assassination Of President Kennedy"). And included in that program (at 20:10) is, indeed, the voice of Lieutenant J.C. Day uttering these words --- "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940":
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMBH940EMjv3zWnouwEdVQ2aGcgWMwn6/view
Thanks to DVP! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Again why did it take until the NEXT DAY to identify by the FBI? Just answer the question that I've posed numerous times to you. If you're construing me not being calm and ranting that's on you. From Spartacus "7.65 Mauser. Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the rifle following the movement of book boxes by Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney and called Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman to witness his discovery. Another Deputy Sheriff, Roger Craig, was thereabouts and he saw the gun and heard the conversations of the others. The officers had no doubts about their identification and affidavits were drawn up by Boone and Weitzman, who described the weapon in detail, noting the colour of the sling and the scope. Police Captain Will Fritz was also present at the scene and he, also, is claimed to have agreed that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser. District Attorney Henry M. Wade, in a television interview, referred to the sixth-floor discovery and quoted the weapon as a Mauser, a statement picked up by the press and reported widely. Following the finding of the gun, however, it was collected by Lieutenant. C. Day and taken to Police Headquarters, where it was logged as a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, an Italian carbine, bearing the serial number C2766. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian carbine No. C2766, it was claimed, belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald." So Lt. Day decided he knew more than the others.
Calm down and you might learn something, in addition to the IDENTIFYING photographs while in the halls of Justice, Lt Day is filmed saying the rifle was "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940" What more do you want and where does your ranting lead?
And also see the video below, which is the complete 2013 CNN documentary that Michael Giampaolo talked about earlier (entitled "The Assassination Of President Kennedy"). And included in that program (at 20:10) is, indeed, the voice of Lieutenant J.C. Day uttering these words --- "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940":
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMBH940EMjv3zWnouwEdVQ2aGcgWMwn6/view
Thanks to DVP! Thumb1:
JohnM
-
Again why did it take until the NEXT DAY to identify by the FBI? Just answer the question that I've posed numerous times to you. If you're construing me not being calm and ranting that's on you.
:D
Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and taken from the office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
JohnM
-
You're still not answering the question. You have officers identifying with affidavits and yet Lt. Day decides it's not a Mauser. The most important piece of evidence tying Oswald takes the next day to identify. Not enough FBI people in Dallas so they sent it to Washington. Classic.
:D
Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and taken from the office.
Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?
Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.
JohnM
-
You're still not answering the question. You have officers identifying with affidavits and yet Lt. Day decides it's not a Mauser. The most important piece of evidence tying Oswald takes the next day to identify. Not enough FBI people in Dallas so they sent it to Washington. Classic.
You're still not answering the question.
Yes I did, you asked "why did it take until the NEXT DAY to identify by the FBI?" and I quoted LT Day saying that the FBI only received Oswald's rifle @11:45 PM,
You have officers identifying with affidavits and yet Lt. Day decides it's not a Mauser.
Sorry but the photographic evidence over rules any affidavit.
Btw it's just as easy to setup Oswald with a Mauser, why have two rifles?
The most important piece of evidence tying Oswald takes the next day to identify.
Pay attention, I posted a video from the 22nd where Lt Day said the rifle was Italian and 6.5.
Classic.
Yes, that's the word that comes to my mind.
JohnM
-
Photographic evidence. Another classic take. Was Day there when it was found? What time did Lt. Day arrive in the TSBD?? Sorry but your take on photographic evidence is a lame and affidavits would rule in court over the photographic evidence. The alleged Snipers nest was already tainted by Fritz who picked up the bullets and threw them down. Does the photographic evidence show that? Does your photographic evidence displayed on the pictures you posted say Carcano? Why did it take so long to identify the rifle the one linked to Oswald. Given the time frame when taken out of the TSBD why so late in identifying the rifle. I guess the FBI must have looked for more important evidence.
Yes I did, you asked "why did it take until the NEXT DAY to identify by the FBI?" and I quoted LT Day saying that the FBI only received Oswald's rifle @11:45 PM,
Sorry but the photographic evidence over rules any affidavit.
Btw it's just as easy to setup Oswald with a Mauser, why have two rifles?
Pay attention, I posted a video from the 22nd where Lt Day said the rifle was Italian and 6.5.
Yes, that's the word that comes to my mind.
JohnM
-
“Oswald’s Italian Carcano”. LOL.
-
The Argentine national crest was ground off by the Argentine government before export. The Argentines had a law requiring the removal of national markings from arms before they could be sold. Almost any example of a model 91 you can find will have been put to the grinder. I've never seen one that hasn't been scalped.
BTW, the Gun Control Act of 1968 requires that any firearm imported into the US has the weapon clearly and permanently marked with the caliber. The caliber stamp on the pictured example may mark it as such a "post-import" rifle. As a rule, those old military rifles didn't have any caliber markings, and didn't need them. The model 38 and 91/38 Carcanos are a rare exception to this, due to WWII breaking out at a very inconvenient time for the Italian army.
Never have seen an 1891 scrubbed, let alone so crudely, but way fonder of the 1909's than 1891's. An 1891 is considered an antique firearm with antique metallurgy for firing premodern gunpowder. Also, it seems like an odd thing to do when it still clearly states Mauser Modelo Agentine 1891 on the side of the receiver. Maybe it is just internet nonsense.
There was an estimated 125 million K98's manufactured by many countries. Most German manufactured K98's have the numbers 7.9 , 7.91, 7.1, or 7.2 stamped on the barrel shank, where the barrel screws into the receiver, these numbers designate bore size or caliber. Also, most K98 type rifles have a disc on the stock that indicates the caliber.
-
Was Craig asked about the Mauser stamp? No. Witnesses directly answered the questions they were asked under oath.
Witnesses are allowed to completely answer the questions put to them to the best of their ability. Had Craig actually seen the word "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle, there was nothing preventing him from saying so. Further, Craig was a prosecution witness at the trial, and had been working with Garrsion and NODA the staff for about a year before the trial. Had he told them then that he'd seen the word "Mauser" on the rifle, they would have asked him at the trial. It was exactly the sort of thing they wanted to present. So Craig's failure to mention seeing the stamp during his testimony at the Shaw trial is damning no matter how you slice it.
That's not true. In 1968, Criag stated there was a Mauser. So, how is that "changing his story"?
In the 68 interview, Craig said that he was told by Ft Worth Star Telegram reporter Thayer Waldo that a Mauser had been found on the roof. He did not claim to have seen this rifle himself, so it cannot be a rifle on the 6th floor.
Waldo, in turn, said that he was told of the roof Mauser by someone at Dallas City Hall the afternoon of the assassination. There is some variation as to exactly who was the original source. In the end, it's just hearsay hearing what hearsay says. Whatever it is, it's not Craig claiming to have seen a Mauser on November 22.
And Craig said he was fired for "knowing too much" and said "he was under a lot of pressure".
Non sequitur. What Craig claimed to be the rationale used to fire him has nothing to do with whether he saw "Mauser" stamped into the rifle barrel.
How do you know he wasn't told to "shut up about it" and waited to tell his story when he had the opportunity to?
How do you know that he'd been told to shut up about the rifle in his affidavit, FBI interviews, or WC testimony? He definitely didn't fail to talk about the rifle in the LAFP interview or in his cooperation with the Garrison investigation. And he certainly brought the rifle up in When they Kill a President. But not one peep about a seeing a Mauser stamp until after all of those opportunities had already passed by.
The fact is we have two law enforcement officers who both stated they witnessed a Mauser. Weitzman changed his story.
Craig changed his story, too. More than once. That's the point.
Wrong with a Mauser stamp embedded on the rifle? He changed his story.
Where did Weitzman claim that he saw a stamp on the rifle?
You're trying to turn Weitzman into a bumbling fool who had no idea what he was selling.
You have yet to show that Weitzman ever sold, handled, or had any substantial experience with 7.65mm Mauser rifles.
A law enforcement officer who handled these weapons in his own business would have a good idea of the rifles he was selling.
Where did Weitzman state that the business was "his" or that he "handled these weapons?"
Weitzman had an advantage over other law enforcement officers by handling these types of rifles in his business.
Again, where did Weitzman state that the business was "his" or that he "handled these weapons?"
No, you're trying to make us believe that Weitzman and law enforcement officers are like The Three Stooges and have no idea what they are doing.
No. What I'm saying is that law enforcement officers aren't firearms identification experts. And that Craig told mutually-contradictory stories about the rifle that undermine any claim he made about it.
Did two law enforcement officers state they witnessed a Mauser? Yes they did.
Which goes to prove that if you ignore the great bulk of information surrounding the discovery of the rifle, you can say something silly.
-
Never have seen an 1891 scrubbed, let alone so crudely, but way fonder of the 1909's than 1891's. An 1891 is considered an antique firearm with antique metallurgy for firing premodern gunpowder. Also, it seems like an odd thing to do when it still clearly states Mauser Modelo Agentine 1891 on the side of the receiver. Maybe it is just internet nonsense.
There was an estimated 125 million K98's manufactured by many countries. Most German manufactured K98's have the numbers 7.9 , 7.91, 7.1, or 7.2 stamped on the barrel shank, where the barrel screws into the receiver, these numbers designate bore size or caliber. Also, most K98 type rifles have a disc on the stock that indicates the caliber.
You must be one lucky guy. I've seen upwards of twenty model 91s, and all of them had the crest ground off. Including the one that I actually own. The bit about the Argies enacting a law requiring the removal of the national crest from firearms before export is pretty well established. For instance, look at this overview published by some guys who know a thing or two about rifles:
"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact. "
https://www.shootingillustrated.com/content/the-1891-argentine-mauser-a-history/
The requirement that firearms imported into the US after 1968 are required to have the caliber permanently and indelibly marked is well known and is documented at Wikipedia, among other places.
As for the caliber stamps on Mausers, some have them, others do not. I'm not a Mauser maven, and I don't know whether those stamps were placed there during manufacturing, during export, or during import. Do not assume that any engraved mark on an old firearm was put there on manufacture.
-
Photographic evidence. Another classic take. Was Day there when it was found? What time did Lt. Day arrive in the TSBD?? Sorry but your take on photographic evidence is a lame and affidavits would rule in court over the photographic evidence. The alleged Snipers nest was already tainted by Fritz who picked up the bullets and threw them down. Does the photographic evidence show that? Does your photographic evidence displayed on the pictures you posted say Carcano? Why did it take so long to identify the rifle the one linked to Oswald. Given the time frame when taken out of the TSBD why so late in identifying the rifle. I guess the FBI must have looked for more important evidence.
Below is the Ayea footage of the rifle in situ and then being removed by Day for dusting.
It starts with Fritz entering the area where the rifle was discovered (Craig can be seen stood right in front of him) and the rifle is shown at his feet in an upright position. It shows Day removing the rifle and then dusting it for prints.
The rifle in the footage is indistinguishable from the Mannlicher Carcano Day is photographed leaving the TSBD with.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day holds aloft at the DPD and indistinguishable from the rifle that is now in the NA.
The rifle in the Alyea footage is a Mannlicher Carcano and not a Mauser.
-
Indistinguishable? There’s nothing that is distinguishable!
-
Those videos showed nothing. They recreated that scene for the cameras just like in Iwo Jima.
-
Those videos showed nothing. They recreated that scene for the cameras just like in Iwo Jima.
Don't be ridiculous..... The Tom Alyea film is not recreated.
-
Those videos showed nothing. They recreated that scene for the cameras just like in Iwo Jima.
Agree. It does look like the "discovery" of the rifle was recreated.
-
Agree. It does look like the "discovery" of the rifle was recreated.
Please post the pics that you're referring to....
-
Those videos showed nothing. They recreated that scene for the cameras just like in Iwo Jima.
:D Brilliant.
So, all the officers we see in the footage, and Alyea himself, were involved in recreating this scene!
3..2..1..Action! :D
-
:D Brilliant.
So, all the officers we see in the footage, and Alyea himself, were involved in recreating this scene!
3..2..1..Action! :D
Geezus, just when you thought they hit absolute rock bottom they find another level. When did they do this recreation? How did they stage all of this? Are there any limits to what can be done? It seems there isn't.
The film was shown on live TV at the time. Alyea said he filmed the search and discovery and then when the film was full he took it out of the camera and dropped it out a window to a courier below who carried it to the TV studio/station.. Correction: Alyea said he tossed the film to a colleague who was just outside the "front door" (not sure what he meant) and it was rushed to the TV station. Once there it was developed and shown live.
Alyea: "I started to throw it [i.e., the film] out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater."
So when did they have the the time to recreate this? And where did they do this? They got all of these "actors" to do this? What the heck is the claim now?
If the police didn't allow Alyea to film this the claim would be that that denial was done to prevent the filming of the staging and planting of the rifle and other evidence. But they did allow Alyea to film it and it's still not accepted. And if they're planting all of this why in the heck would you allow someone to film it all?
-
...why in the heck would you allow someone to film it all?
Exactly!
"The very fact that a television news cameraman was allowed to film a lot of the activity on that sixth floor just after the assassination of the President is practically proof enough ALL BY ITSELF that the Dallas police were not planting and/or manipulating any of the evidence on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63." -- DVP; January 2014
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/alyea-film.html
-
When filming of the snipers nest was that all new? Fritz came over picked up the bullets and threw them back down. How long after the last shot did the cameraman come onto the 6th floor in the TSBD?
-
So as soon as the last shot was fired Alyea just ran immediately to the 6th floor and started filming? Of course not unless by some miracle they forgot to include him going up with Truly and Baker. What time did Alyea start filiming? 12:35? 12:55? 1:15PM? How long was it?
:D Brilliant.
So, all the officers we see in the footage, and Alyea himself, were involved in recreating this scene!
3..2..1..Action! :D
-
They also probably believe the filming of the US flag on Iwo Jima in WWII wasn't recreated either for the media.
Agree. It does look like the "discovery" of the rifle was recreated.
-
Since mentioning Tom Alyea here are his own words from Tom Alyea Facts and Photo's from Connie Kritzbergs "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window pg 39-46.
"I do however know that Officer Mooney was present when the rifle was found because I took film of him at the scene. He is shown talking to another detective, but this was nearly an hour after the sniper's location was found at the window."
"Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds of a close-up shot of the shell casings in Captain Fritz's hand. I stopped filming, and thanked him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands. Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be taken from spent shell casings. Therefore, any photograph of shell casings taken after this, is staged and not correct. It is highly doubtful that the shell casings that appear in Dallas police photos of the crime scene are the same casings that were found originally."
"Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle Salmost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle."
It was over an hour before they found the rifle. So for those of you who think Alyea was Johnny on the spot filming he himself said this in regards to the time of finding finding the rifle. While I admit I used the wrong words in saying "recreated" the more accurate way of saying gun and bullets were staged. I was thinking of how the famous photograph of raising the US flag on Iwo Jima was recreated to mark the event for photo and filming. I do acknowledge staging is a better phrase then recreating the scene. For that I apologize.
-
The very fact that a television news cameraman was allowed to film a lot of the activity on that sixth floor just after the assassination of the President is practically proof enough ALL BY ITSELF that the Dallas police were not planting and/or manipulating any of the evidence on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63.
Proves nothing.
practically--- adverb: almost not quite;
-
Proves nothing.
practically--- adverb: almost not quite;
"The very fact that a television news cameraman was allowed to film a lot of the activity on that sixth floor just after the assassination of the President is practically proof enough ALL BY ITSELF that the Dallas police were not planting and/or manipulating any of the evidence on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63."
Proves nothing.
Tom Alyea himself said many times that there was an "FBI man " ( A man in a suit who was not a member of the DPD but seemed to have authority ) present who kept giving him menacing looks and tried to chase him away from the investigation. but Alyea simply pretended to be leaving and would not leave.
So Alyea wasn't completely free to film and photograph all of the activity. ( I don't believe that it was an accident that a lot of Tom Alyea's footage. was destroyed)
Stuff like detective Day dusting the rifle for prints is pretty innocuous ...so that footage was allowed to be kept.but the actual recovery of the carcano from the floor beneath the boxes of books reveals that the DPD faked the photo of the rifle "in situ".
Even before anybody knew that the official tale about Lee Harvey Oswald dashing down the stairs and encountering Officer Baker and Roy Truly in the second floor lunch room less than 90 seconds after the FIRST shot was fired, Tom Alyea recognized that the manner in which the rifle was hidden beneath the stack of boxes of books, would have required a significant amount of time, and he said so. The DPD could not allow Alyea's footage of the rifle to be seen because it verified Tom Alyea's observation. However, they didn't crop off enough of that footage and several frames remain that show Detective Day picking up the carcano FROM THE FLOOR ( it was not jammed between boxes of books as the official DPD in situ photo shows it)
-
Since mentioning Tom Alyea here are his own words from Tom Alyea Facts and Photo's from Connie Kritzbergs "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window pg 39-46.
"I do however know that Officer Mooney was present when the rifle was found because I took film of him at the scene. He is shown talking to another detective, but this was nearly an hour after the sniper's location was found at the window."
"Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds of a close-up shot of the shell casings in Captain Fritz's hand. I stopped filming, and thanked him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands. Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be taken from spent shell casings. Therefore, any photograph of shell casings taken after this, is staged and not correct. It is highly doubtful that the shell casings that appear in Dallas police photos of the crime scene are the same casings that were found originally."
"Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle Salmost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle."
It was over an hour before they found the rifle. So for those of you who think Alyea was Johnny on the spot filming he himself said this in regards to the time of finding finding the rifle. While I admit I used the wrong words in saying "recreated" the more accurate way of saying gun and bullets were staged. I was thinking of how the famous photograph of raising the US flag on Iwo Jima was recreated to mark the event for photo and filming. I do acknowledge staging is a better phrase then recreating the scene. For that I apologize.
Here is Alyea's take on Kritzberg's book. Not exactly an endorsement.
A correspondent asked Tom Alyea about the accuracy of the above material and forwarded Alyea's response:
Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the situation.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
-
He didn't dispute the time and the process of when he entered the building. My point was Alyea didn't enter the TSBD right away. Also remember Craig first ran to the Grassy Knoll and then went across Elm St. before eventually going to the TSBD on being Alyea's filming of the 6th floor. It was over an hour before the gun was found.
Here is Alyea's take on Kritzberg's book. Not exactly an endorsement.
A correspondent asked Tom Alyea about the accuracy of the above material and forwarded Alyea's response:
Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the situation.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
-
He didn't dispute the time and the process of when he entered the building. My point was Alyea didn't enter the TSBD right away. Also remember Craig first ran to the Grassy Knoll and then went across Elm St. before eventually going to the TSBD on being Alyea's filming of the 6th floor. It was over an hour before the gun was found.
It could have been two hours what is the difference. The time is irrelevant to searching for the assassin and then the weapon.
There were quotes presented, supposedly by Alyea, from Kritzsberg's book, a book Alyea states was not accurate. Alyea's account is the same as Boones.
The first thing the DPD did was try and locate the assassin, then they looked for the weapon. Remember they had no idea what they were looking for or where. It was dark enough they felt the need to bring in lights.
-
In what he calls "the sixth-floor scam," Alyea described a chaotic investigation that didn't exactly go by the book but was later "cleaned up" in official reports.
Before taking crime-scene photos, for example, a detective dropped the spent shell casings back on the floor, as if they had never been picked up, Alyea said.
"Obviously his photos aren't right," he said. "He couldn't put them where they had been because he had never seen them."
. . .
But Alyea was shocked by police reports — some written by officers who he said weren't even there — that failed to mention how the crime scene was treated in the early, hectic phase of the case."The lies," Alyea said. "The lies bother me. The historical record is not accurate."
— “Cameraman followed police as they searched for sniper”, Tulsa World, Nov 22, 2013
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html)
-
I was responding about the time frame of how DPD could've have staged the 6th floor. Someone said it wasn't possible given how "quickly" Alyea went to the 6th floor to film. Also he didn't dispute the time of when he started the process which was over an hour.
It could have been two hours what is the difference. The time is irrelevant to searching for the assassin and then the weapon.
There were quotes presented, supposedly by Alyea, from Kritzsberg's book, a book Alyea states was not accurate. Alyea's account is the same as Boones.
The first thing the DPD did was try and locate the assassin, then they looked for the weapon. Remember they had no idea what they were looking for or where. It was dark enough they felt the need to bring in lights.
-
Here is Alyea's take on Kritzberg's book. Not exactly an endorsement.
A correspondent asked Tom Alyea about the accuracy of the above material and forwarded Alyea's response:
Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the situation.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the situation.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. "There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's."
Alyea writes this statement as if the police were looking for evidence to use against Lee Oswald ....but at the time the Dr Pepper bottle was dusted for prints they were simply looking for evidence and they did find prints on the Dr Pepper bottle, but they made no attempt to identify those prints until after Lee was arrested. The police have never revealed who had drank the Dr Pepper......
You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. 'I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place'
Here Alyea writes as though he got a single photo of (" I got a picture" ) but we've all seen his movie camera footage of detective Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR and holding it up to Captain Fritz.
and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints.
Here Alyea writes as though they dusted the rifle twice looking for prints..... Detective Day dusted the rifle for prints only once and that was AFTER he and Captain Fritz Checked the rifle for live cartridges.....
I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out.
Alyea writes as though he has film footage of Captain Fritz PULLING THE BOLT BACK and a live round "came out"... (I'd love to see that footage)
Alyea does NOT accurately describe the actions of a man extracting a live round from a carcano.....He said that Fritz simply pulled the bolt back and the live round "Came out" . This wording indicates that the bolt was not closed and latched, and the film footage does in fact agree with Alyea's words and that footage does show that the bolt was NOT closed and latched
Others who witnessed Fritz open the breech of the carcano have also said the the live round simply fell to the floor at Captain Fritz' feet ..... Big F--ing deal you say.... So What?
The fact that the bolt was not latched and the live round simply dropped out of the carcano indicates that the live round was NOT served up to the face of the bolt by the cartridge elevator and the live round was not married to the face of the bolt. The live round was NOT EXTRACTED and flipped up and away from the rifle by the action of the ejector. ( it simple fell out of the rifle)
I can only hope that this isn't too technical for the average reader..... But it is a FACT that the carcano was NOT fired that day.
Alyea continues.....This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
-
I was responding about the time frame of how DPD could've have staged the 6th floor. Someone said it wasn't possible given how "quickly" Alyea went to the 6th floor to film. Also he didn't dispute the time of when he started the process which was over an hour.
Alyea was on the sixth floor at 1:22 when Boone called out "Here's the gun"" or "We've found the gun" he went immediately to the NW corner and was there at 1:25.....
-
Since mentioning Tom Alyea here are his own words from Tom Alyea Facts and Photo's from Connie Kritzbergs "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window pg 39-46.
"I do however know that Officer Mooney was present when the rifle was found because I took film of him at the scene. He is shown talking to another detective, but this was nearly an hour after the sniper's location was found at the window."
"Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up and held them in his hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the evidence. I filmed about eight seconds of a close-up shot of the shell casings in Captain Fritz's hand. I stopped filming, and thanked him. I do not recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to the floor, because I was preoccupied with recording other views of the crime scene. I have been asked many times if I thought it was peculiar that the Captain of Homicide picked up evidence with his hands. Actually, that was the first thought that came to me when he did it, but I rationalized that he was the homicide expert and no prints could be taken from spent shell casings. Therefore, any photograph of shell casings taken after this, is staged and not correct. It is highly doubtful that the shell casings that appear in Dallas police photos of the crime scene are the same casings that were found originally."
"Nothing in the way of evidence was found so we retraced our search back down, floor by floor. Shortly after we arrived back on the 6th floor, Deputy Eugene Boone located the assassin's rifle Salmost completely hidden by some overhanging boxes near the stairwell. I filmed it as it was found. In my shot, the figure of Captain Fritz is standing within the enclosure next to the rifle."
It was over an hour before they found the rifle. So for those of you who think Alyea was Johnny on the spot filming he himself said this in regards to the time of finding finding the rifle. While I admit I used the wrong words in saying "recreated" the more accurate way of saying gun and bullets were staged. I was thinking of how the famous photograph of raising the US flag on Iwo Jima was recreated to mark the event for photo and filming. I do acknowledge staging is a better phrase then recreating the scene. For that I apologize.
Since mentioning Tom Alyea here are his own words from Tom Alyea Facts and Photo's from Connie Kritzbergs "Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window pg 39-46.
Connie Kritzberg misunderstood some of what Tom Alyea told her. A better source is Tom Alyea's own publication, in which he tells about witnessing detective Day using cellophane tape to lift a "print" from the wooden stock of the carcano and then placing that lift of the "smudge" which Lt. Day imagined might be a palm print on a white index card.
-
yeah lower end of my ballpark would be about 50 minutes give or take.
Alyea was on the sixth floor at 1:22 when Boone called out "Here's the gun"" or "We've found the gun" he went immediately to the NW corner and was there at 1:25.....
-
[...]
Alyea does NOT accurately describe the actions of a man extracting a live round from a carcano.....He said that Fritz simply pulled the bolt back and the live round "Came out" . This wording indicates that the bolt was not closed and latched, and the film footage does in fact agree with Alyea's words and that footage does show that the bolt was NOT closed and latched
Others who witnessed Fritz open the breech of the carcano have also said the the live round simply fell to the floor at Captain Fritz' feet ..... Big F--ing deal you say.... So What?
The fact that the bolt was not latched and the live round simply dropped out of the carcano indicates that the live round was NOT served up to the face of the bolt by the cartridge elevator and the live round was not married to the face of the bolt. The live round was NOT EXTRACTED and flipped up and away from the rifle by the action of the ejector. ( it simple fell out of the rifle)
I can only hope that this isn't too technical for the average reader..... But it is a FACT that the carcano was NOT fired that day.
The extraction process on a Carcano is an entirely human-powered operation. As such, the vigor with which the cartridge is ejected is completely controlled by the hand pulling on the bolt. Pull hard, the case hits the ejector hard and gets flung out fast and far. Pull slow, and the case doesn't get much of a fling. Pull slowly enough, and the ejector will have little noticeable effect. You can even stop pulling the bolt before the case even hits the ejector at the end of the bolt's travel, and the case might just be liable to fall out of the extraction claw on its own if you hold it right. In short, the cartridge just falling is no indication whether the rifle had been fired or not.
-
The extraction process on a Carcano is an entirely human-powered operation. As such, the vigor with which the cartridge is ejected is completely controlled by the hand pulling on the bolt. Pull hard, the case hits the ejector hard and gets flung out fast and far. Pull slow, and the case doesn't get much of a fling. Pull slowly enough, and the ejector will have little noticeable effect. You can even stop pulling the bolt before the case even hits the ejector at the end of the bolt's travel, and the case might just be liable to fall out of the extraction claw on its own if you hold it right. In short, the cartridge just falling is no indication whether the rifle had been fired or not.
I agree with you Mitch...EXCEPT.....the film does NOT show Captain Fritz slowly pulling the bolt handle back....
Fritz appears to be completely unaware that the cartridge could be flung up and away from the rifle ...and it does not require a hard rapid pull of the bolt to fling the cartridge out and away. The manner in which Fritz opened the bolt would have caused the live round to have been flipped out and away...It would not have simply dropped out and fell at his feet.
Thank you for the intelligent response....
-
I agree with you Mitch...EXCEPT.....the film does NOT show Captain Fritz slowly pulling the bolt handle back....
Fritz appears to be completely unaware that the cartridge could be flung up and away from the rifle ...and it does not require a hard rapid pull of the bolt to fling the cartridge out and away. The manner in which Fritz opened the bolt would have caused the live round to have been flipped out and away...It would not have simply dropped out and fell at his feet.
Thank you for the intelligent response....
What version of the Alyea film is this? I've heard a couple of people say this is in the film, but I've never seen a copy of it that contains a shot of Fritz bulling the bolt.
-
Thanks for sending me the material from Connie Kritzberg's "Secrets from The Sixth Floor." I never read the book. Many years ago she interviewed me about what I saw during the search. I gave her some pictures to use in her story. This is the first time I have seen the story. I regret to say that there are some inaccuracies, which is to be expected in an interview. You must remember that she was not on the sixth floor. She was at her desk in the city room at the Dallas Times Herald newspaper. It is disjointed and out of sequence, which makes it difficult to follow. This is often the case when the interviewer asks the questions and was not at the scene. Connie is a friend of mine, and a good reporter, but I did not see the final draft before it went to press. There is always the possibility that I failed to make my answers clear, and she derived a different meaning. Please remember that these short statements contained little detail and circumstances behind the situation.
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. "There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's."
Alyea writes this statement as if the police were looking for evidence to use against Lee Oswald ....but at the time the Dr Pepper bottle was dusted for prints they were simply looking for evidence and they did find prints on the Dr Pepper bottle, but they made no attempt to identify those prints until after Lee was arrested. The police have never revealed who had drank the Dr Pepper......
You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. 'I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place'
Here Alyea writes as though he got a single photo of (" I got a picture" ) but we've all seen his movie camera footage of detective Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR and holding it up to Captain Fritz.
and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints.
Here Alyea writes as though they dusted the rifle twice looking for prints..... Detective Day dusted the rifle for prints only once and that was AFTER he and Captain Fritz Checked the rifle for live cartridges.....
I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out.
Alyea writes as though he has film footage of Captain Fritz PULLING THE BOLT BACK and a live round "came out"... (I'd love to see that footage)
Alyea does NOT accurately describe the actions of a man extracting a live round from a carcano.....He said that Fritz simply pulled the bolt back and the live round "Came out" . This wording indicates that the bolt was not closed and latched, and the film footage does in fact agree with Alyea's words and that footage does show that the bolt was NOT closed and latched
Others who witnessed Fritz open the breech of the carcano have also said the the live round simply fell to the floor at Captain Fritz' feet ..... Big F--ing deal you say.... So What?
The fact that the bolt was not latched and the live round simply dropped out of the carcano indicates that the live round was NOT served up to the face of the bolt by the cartridge elevator and the live round was not married to the face of the bolt. The live round was NOT EXTRACTED and flipped up and away from the rifle by the action of the ejector. ( it simple fell out of the rifle)
I can only hope that this isn't too technical for the average reader..... But it is a FACT that the carcano was NOT fired that day.
Alyea continues.....This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
"Others who witnessed Fritz open the breech of the carcano have also said the the live round simply fell to the floor at Captain Fritz' feet ..... Big F--ing deal you say.... So What?
The fact that the bolt was not latched and the live round simply dropped out of the carcano indicates that the live round was NOT served up to the face of the bolt by the cartridge elevator and the live round was not married to the face of the bolt. The live round was NOT EXTRACTED and flipped up and away from the rifle by the action of the ejector. ( it simple fell out of the rifle)"
The carcano is a controlled feed loading system. The cartridge could not help but be inserted under the extractor and then accordingly ejected by Fritz.
-
In what he calls "the sixth-floor scam," Alyea described a chaotic investigation that didn't exactly go by the book but was later "cleaned up" in official reports.
Before taking crime-scene photos, for example, a detective dropped the spent shell casings back on the floor, as if they had never been picked up, Alyea said.
"Obviously his photos aren't right," he said. "He couldn't put them where they had been because he had never seen them."
. . .
But Alyea was shocked by police reports — some written by officers who he said weren't even there — that failed to mention how the crime scene was treated in the early, hectic phase of the case."The lies," Alyea said. "The lies bother me. The historical record is not accurate."
— “Cameraman followed police as they searched for sniper”, Tulsa World, Nov 22, 2013
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html)
Is this from Kritzberg's book?
-
I was responding about the time frame of how DPD could've have staged the 6th floor. Someone said it wasn't possible given how "quickly" Alyea went to the 6th floor to film. Also he didn't dispute the time of when he started the process which was over an hour.
Kennedy's wounds were inflicted by a carcano. What is gained by staging the finding of the rifle?
-
Is this from Kritzberg's book?
No, it’s from an interview of Alyea by the Tulsa World.
-
Kennedy's wounds were inflicted by a carcano. What is gained by staging the finding of the rifle?
How could you possibly know that Kennedy’s wounds were inflicted by a Carcano?
-
Disagree about the wounds by a carcano. The timeline and staging of the rifle is part of the process of setting up the patsy.
Kennedy's wounds were inflicted by a carcano. What is gained by staging the finding of the rifle?
-
How could you possibly know that Kennedy’s wounds were inflicted by a Carcano?
Bullet and bullet fragments.
-
No, it’s from an interview of Alyea by the Tulsa World.
Every time I tried to play the video I needed to sign up for the paper or something. I will try again.
-
Disagree about the wounds by a carcano. The timeline and staging of the rifle is part of the process of setting up the patsy.
The question that begs an answer is who was the assassin, firing what rifle on the floor above BR Williams, Jarman, and Norman and was witnessed by Brennan if it was not LHO. In addition the carcano shells were discovered in that exact location.
-
I believe the shots fired from the TSBD were from the west end likely on the 5th floor. IMO the 6th floor was the staging.
The question that begs an answer is who was the assassin, firing what rifle on the floor above BR Williams, Jarman, and Norman and was witnessed by Brennan if it was not LHO. In addition the carcano shells were discovered in that exact location.
-
I believe the shots fired from the TSBD were from the west end likely on the 5th floor. IMO the 6th floor was the staging.
Shots were known to have been fired from that location. The projected trajectories of the wounds all relate back to the window above BR Williams and friends who heard the shots being fired above them.
-
Sorry I'm not even going to discuss anything to do with the Magic Bullet.
Shots were known to have been fired from that location. The projected trajectories of the wounds all relate back to the window above BR Williams and friends who heard the shots being fired above them.
-
Disagree about the wounds by a carcano. The timeline and staging of the rifle is part of the process of setting up the patsy.
If someone went to the considerable time and risk to link Oswald to a specific rifle for the purpose of framing him for the JFK assassination, why would they then use a different rifle fired from a different location to commit the crime? Why not just link Oswald to whatever rifle was actually used to commit the crime? It would be incredibly risky to use a different rifle. The conspirators would somehow have to ensure that all the bullets and/or fragments that might be traced to a different rifle were recovered from the bodies or other sources and switched to match bullets fired from the Oswald rifle. All that risk could be eliminated by using the rifle they intended to link to Oswald.
-
Every time I tried to play the video I needed to sign up for the paper or something. I will try again.
JFK BOARDS
Jan 23, 2019 at 11:39am QuotePost Options
Post by Paul Ernst on Jan 23, 2019 at 11:39am
JFK assassination: Cameraman followed police as they searched for sniper
He followed Dallas officers as they searched the book depository for the president's assassin.
By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer Nov 22, 2013
Tom Alyea
Holding the door open as the police rushed inside, a TV cameraman slipped in before the entrance was blocked to keep reporters out.
Tom Alyea had the scoop of a lifetime as he followed several Dallas detectives floor-to-floor through the Texas School Book Depository,just minutes after President Kennedy was shot.
"They weren't looking for evidence.
They were looking for the assassin," said Alyea, now 91 and living in Tulsa.
"For all they knew, there could've been 20 assassins in that building. They had their guns out, ready for anything."
On the sixth floor, Alyea, a photojournalist for WFAA-TV in Dallas, filmed three boxes stacked near an open window, where the sniper apparently had steadied his rifle.
Capt. Will Fritz picked up three shell casings and held them out for Alyea's camera to get a better angle.
They weren't worried about disturbing evidence.
The search continued to the roof without finding a gunman, so Alyea and the police went back to the sixth floor to collect evidence.
His most famous footage shows a detective dusting a rifle for prints just moments after it was found stashed between some boxes.
A round was still in the gun's chamber, ready to fire, with two more bullets in the ammunition clip.
"That always bothered me," Alyea said, looking back on the 50th anniversary of the assassination.
"He left a loaded rifle behind, but how did he know he wouldn't have to shoot his way out?"
Alyea, however, has little patience for conspiracy theorists who ask whether Lee Harvey Oswald really did it.
"These guys who write to me — 99 percent of their 'facts' are completely made up," he said. "They're not even asking the right questions."
In what he calls "the sixth-floor scam," Alyea described a chaotic investigation that didn't exactly go by the book but was later "cleaned up" in official reports.
Before taking crime-scene photos, for example, a detective dropped the spent shell casings back on the floor, as if they had never been picked up, Alyea said.
"Obviously his photos aren't right," he said. "He couldn't put them where they had been because he had never seen them."
Of particular interest to conspiracy buffs, Alyea watched an officer touch a paper sack with his foot, causing two chicken bones and an empty Dr Pepper bottle to roll out. Could it have been the real assassin's lunch?
Alyea has long insisted that, contrary to officials reports, the chicken bones were found on the fifth floor, not the sixth.
Either way, the sack obviously had been there for days, with the bones completely dried out, Alyea said.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with anything," he said. "I took a close up, just in case they turned out to be important, but they weren't."
More significant to him, detectives moved boxes around while searching the building, even disturbing the sniper's nest itself, Alyea said.
The boxes were re-stacked before other journalists got access to the building, but they weren't put back exactly the same way, he said.
One box originally was tilted on the windowsill, where Oswald apparently rested the rifle on it to help him aim, Alyea said.
Later photos show the box sitting upright, suggesting a slightly higher angle for the fatal shot, he said.
The police also re-stacked other boxes higher and closer together, making the sniper's nest almost completely hidden, he said.
In fact, as the boxes were originally arranged, Oswald could've been seen from much of the sixth floor, had anybody else been there, Alyea said.
None of it seems to cast doubt on the conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman.
But Alyea was shocked by police reports — some written by officers who he said weren't even there — that failed to mention how the crime scene was treated in the early, hectic phase of the case."The lies," Alyea said. "The lies bother me. The historical record is not accurate."
To set the facts straight, Alyea has written a five-chapter manuscript, complete with never-before-seen photos from inside the Book Depository. But it remains unpublished.
Making it impossible to corroborate parts of his account, much of the footage Alyea took that day was left on the cutting room floor and apparently thrown away, its significance not appreciated at the time.
"I wish I hadn't been the only one with a camera inside the building that day," he said. "If there had been more cameras, all the facts would be known."I didn't want a scoop. This wasn't a scoop; this was history."
www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html
Additional comments from Alyea:
We all looked over the barricade to see if the half open window with three boxes piled to form a shooting rest for a gunman.
One box was actually on the window sill, tilted at an angle.
The actual positioning of the barricade was never photographed by the police.
It s actual positioning is only on my movie footage, which was taken before the police started dismantling the arrangement.
I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . . .
The barricade had been completely dismantled and the boxes from the West side of the barricade had been removed and placed in various locations around the site. We did not realize at the time that Studebaker had not recorded on film the original placement of the boxes in the barricade. He also had removed the shooting support boxes on the window ledge and stacked them one on top of the other on the floor inside. He took a picture of this reconstructed arrangement. This is the view researchers have of the shooting support boxes that were originally on the brick window ledge.
The corner of the outside box was positioned over the lower window channel that tilted the box at an angle.
Several officers arrived while we were waiting for Lt. Day. One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press.(???)
The average height of the barricade (Barricade #1) was four and a half feet.
So just a question .
If you base research on non factual things could you possibly present a damn thing that was factual?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=94APWcGDMyY
-
Shots were known to have been fired from that location. The projected trajectories of the wounds all relate back to the window above BR Williams and friends who heard the shots being fired above them.
The cone forms a 10' circle around the sn window, and includes part of Dal-Tex
-
Because the TSBD was still a good concealed location to shoot from. Also dropping down from the elevators to the back provided quick escape route for both teams. In regards to bullet fragments you also assume no other type of bullets used had to leave fragments? This was a professional hit team and they will do what they can to eliminate bullets or fragments. IMO Connally's wrist injury to his left inside leg likely came from the west end of the TSBD.
If someone went to the considerable time and risk to link Oswald to a specific rifle for the purpose of framing him for the JFK assassination, why would they then use a different rifle fired from a different location to commit the crime? Why not just link Oswald to whatever rifle was actually used to commit the crime? It would be incredibly risky to use a different rifle. The conspirators would somehow have to ensure that all the bullets and/or fragments that might be traced to a different rifle were recovered from the bodies or other sources and switched to match bullets fired from the Oswald rifle. All that risk could be eliminated by using the rifle they intended to link to Oswald.
-
Bullet and bullet fragments.
…and your evidence that these bullet and fragments inflicted wounds in Kennedy would be…?
-
The question that begs an answer is who was the assassin, firing what rifle on the floor above BR Williams, Jarman, and Norman and was witnessed by Brennan if it was not LHO. In addition the carcano shells were discovered in that exact location.
No, the question that begs to be answered is why do you think it was LHO?
PS. Brennan did not claim to see a rifle being fired. At least, not in his WC testimony.
-
"Others who witnessed Fritz open the breech of the carcano have also said the the live round simply fell to the floor at Captain Fritz' feet ..... Big F--ing deal you say.... So What?
The fact that the bolt was not latched and the live round simply dropped out of the carcano indicates that the live round was NOT served up to the face of the bolt by the cartridge elevator and the live round was not married to the face of the bolt. The live round was NOT EXTRACTED and flipped up and away from the rifle by the action of the ejector. ( it simple fell out of the rifle)"
The carcano is a controlled feed loading system. The cartridge could not help but be inserted under the extractor and then accordingly ejected by Fritz.
The cartridge could not help but be inserted under the extractor and then accordingly ejected by Fritz.
This statement is false!..... I's very easy to drop a cartridge into the breech and slide the bolt forward.... HOWEVER the bolt will not latch because the cartridge is not married to the face of the bolt .....(IOW the lip of the cartridge is in FRONT of the extractor and not behind the extractor. ) And since Alyea's film shows that the bolt is not closed and LATCHED on the carcano as detective Day picks up the carcano up from the floor and holds the rifle up to Captain Fritz.......It's a sure bet that whoever placed the live round in the breech simply dropped that cartridge into the breech and shoved the bolt forward.
-
…and your evidence that these bullet and fragments inflicted wounds in Kennedy would be…?
Matched to the rifle and found in the limo and at Parkland.
-
No, the question that begs to be answered is why do you think it was LHO?
PS. Brennan did not claim to see a rifle being fired. At least, not in his WC testimony.
Who else but LHO? Funny place to store his rifle.
Brennan's first statement to the press was he saw him fire a second time.
Dallas Morning News Saturday Nov 23, 1964 ---- The Assassin Crouched And Took Deadly Aim by Kent Biffle
"After the first shot, I looked up and saw him. The gun was sticking out of the window. I saw him fire a second time. He was a slender guy, a nice looking guy. He didn’t seem to be in no hurry.” said Brennan.
FBI Report 11/22
“…... He said the rifle was pointed in the direction of the President’s car when he saw it fired.”
-
Sorry I'm not even going to discuss anything to do with the Magic Bullet.
The only possible explanation for the wound in JBC's back is for the bullet to first pass through JFK. Hard to dispute one bullet struck both men.
-
The cartridge could not help but be inserted under the extractor and then accordingly ejected by Fritz.
This statement is false!..... I's very easy to drop a cartridge into the breech and slide the bolt forward.... HOWEVER the bolt will not latch because the cartridge is not married to the face of the bolt .....(IOW the lip of the cartridge is in FRONT of the extractor and not behind the extractor. ) And since Alyea's film shows that the bolt is not closed and LATCHED on the carcano as detective Day picks up the carcano up from the floor and holds the rifle up to Captain Fritz.......It's a sure bet that whoever placed the live round in the breech simply dropped that cartridge into the breech and shoved the bolt forward.
Fritz stated he ejected the cartridge.
Mr. Ball.
After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then?
Mr. Fritz.
After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
------------------------
The rifle fired two shots and the shells were ejected and the final cartridge loaded into chamber as designed. For what reason was a live round hand loaded into the gun?
-
JFK BOARDS
Jan 23, 2019 at 11:39am QuotePost Options
Post by Paul Ernst on Jan 23, 2019 at 11:39am
JFK assassination: Cameraman followed police as they searched for sniper
He followed Dallas officers as they searched the book depository for the president's assassin.
By MICHAEL OVERALL World Staff Writer Nov 22, 2013
Tom Alyea
Holding the door open as the police rushed inside, a TV cameraman slipped in before the entrance was blocked to keep reporters out.
Tom Alyea had the scoop of a lifetime as he followed several Dallas detectives floor-to-floor through the Texas School Book Depository,just minutes after President Kennedy was shot.
"They weren't looking for evidence.
They were looking for the assassin," said Alyea, now 91 and living in Tulsa.
"For all they knew, there could've been 20 assassins in that building. They had their guns out, ready for anything."
On the sixth floor, Alyea, a photojournalist for WFAA-TV in Dallas, filmed three boxes stacked near an open window, where the sniper apparently had steadied his rifle.
Capt. Will Fritz picked up three shell casings and held them out for Alyea's camera to get a better angle.
They weren't worried about disturbing evidence.
The search continued to the roof without finding a gunman, so Alyea and the police went back to the sixth floor to collect evidence.
His most famous footage shows a detective dusting a rifle for prints just moments after it was found stashed between some boxes.
A round was still in the gun's chamber, ready to fire, with two more bullets in the ammunition clip.
"That always bothered me," Alyea said, looking back on the 50th anniversary of the assassination.
"He left a loaded rifle behind, but how did he know he wouldn't have to shoot his way out?"
Alyea, however, has little patience for conspiracy theorists who ask whether Lee Harvey Oswald really did it.
"These guys who write to me — 99 percent of their 'facts' are completely made up," he said. "They're not even asking the right questions."
In what he calls "the sixth-floor scam," Alyea described a chaotic investigation that didn't exactly go by the book but was later "cleaned up" in official reports.
Before taking crime-scene photos, for example, a detective dropped the spent shell casings back on the floor, as if they had never been picked up, Alyea said.
"Obviously his photos aren't right," he said. "He couldn't put them where they had been because he had never seen them."
Of particular interest to conspiracy buffs, Alyea watched an officer touch a paper sack with his foot, causing two chicken bones and an empty Dr Pepper bottle to roll out. Could it have been the real assassin's lunch?
Alyea has long insisted that, contrary to officials reports, the chicken bones were found on the fifth floor, not the sixth.
Either way, the sack obviously had been there for days, with the bones completely dried out, Alyea said.
"They had absolutely nothing to do with anything," he said. "I took a close up, just in case they turned out to be important, but they weren't."
More significant to him, detectives moved boxes around while searching the building, even disturbing the sniper's nest itself, Alyea said.
The boxes were re-stacked before other journalists got access to the building, but they weren't put back exactly the same way, he said.
One box originally was tilted on the windowsill, where Oswald apparently rested the rifle on it to help him aim, Alyea said.
Later photos show the box sitting upright, suggesting a slightly higher angle for the fatal shot, he said.
The police also re-stacked other boxes higher and closer together, making the sniper's nest almost completely hidden, he said.
In fact, as the boxes were originally arranged, Oswald could've been seen from much of the sixth floor, had anybody else been there, Alyea said.
None of it seems to cast doubt on the conclusion that Oswald was the lone gunman.
But Alyea was shocked by police reports — some written by officers who he said weren't even there — that failed to mention how the crime scene was treated in the early, hectic phase of the case."The lies," Alyea said. "The lies bother me. The historical record is not accurate."
To set the facts straight, Alyea has written a five-chapter manuscript, complete with never-before-seen photos from inside the Book Depository. But it remains unpublished.
Making it impossible to corroborate parts of his account, much of the footage Alyea took that day was left on the cutting room floor and apparently thrown away, its significance not appreciated at the time.
"I wish I hadn't been the only one with a camera inside the building that day," he said. "If there had been more cameras, all the facts would be known."I didn't want a scoop. This wasn't a scoop; this was history."
www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/jfk-assassination-cameraman-followed-police-as-they-searched-for-sniper/article_9679af95-d45f-502b-b094-2a09bc29c16f.html
Additional comments from Alyea:
We all looked over the barricade to see if the half open window with three boxes piled to form a shooting rest for a gunman.
One box was actually on the window sill, tilted at an angle.
The actual positioning of the barricade was never photographed by the police.
It s actual positioning is only on my movie footage, which was taken before the police started dismantling the arrangement.
I have also seen recently a police photo of the assassin's lair taken from a high angle which indicates that it was shot before the barricade box arrangement was destroyed, but it did not show the barricade itself. This has no bearing on the case other than the public has never seen the original placement. . . .
The barricade had been completely dismantled and the boxes from the West side of the barricade had been removed and placed in various locations around the site. We did not realize at the time that Studebaker had not recorded on film the original placement of the boxes in the barricade. He also had removed the shooting support boxes on the window ledge and stacked them one on top of the other on the floor inside. He took a picture of this reconstructed arrangement. This is the view researchers have of the shooting support boxes that were originally on the brick window ledge.
The corner of the outside box was positioned over the lower window channel that tilted the box at an angle.
Several officers arrived while we were waiting for Lt. Day. One of them was Roger Craig, who is responsible for giving much misinformation to the press.(???)
The average height of the barricade (Barricade #1) was four and a half feet.
So just a question .
If you base research on non factual things could you possibly present a damn thing that was factual?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=94APWcGDMyY
Thanks for the help.
He had Roger Craig pegged.
Another case of incriminating evidence but the film was destroyed leaving the story as a case of I said, he said who do you want to believe.
-
The cone forms a 10' circle around the sn window, and includes part of Dal-Tex
As calculated Mr Canning, Staff Engineer for the Space Projects Division of NASA Ames Research Center, explained trajectory analysis during the HSCA Investigation.
Basically a 5 to 13 foot radius centering on the 6th floor window.
-
Matched to the rifle and found in the limo and at Parkland.
So no evidence then that they inflicted wounds in Kennedy.
-
Who else but LHO? Funny place to store his rifle.
“His rifle”. LOL.
Brennan's first statement to the press was he saw him fire a second time.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
-
The only possible explanation for the wound in JBC's back is for the bullet to first pass through JFK.
BS:
Only if you preassume where the bullet that wounded Connally came from.
-
Another case of incriminating evidence but the film was destroyed leaving the story as a case of I said, he said who do you want to believe.
Nice two-step. First it’s “Kritzberg misquoted him”. Now it’s “he’s not believable”.
-
Nice two-step. First it’s “Kritzberg misquoted him”. Now it’s “he’s not believable”.
Everyone but Alyea is lying or at least according to him.
What two step? First, Alyea is the one who stated Kritzberg misquoted him.
I guess there is a fist time for everything. Every piece of evidence is always dismissed for lack of proof. Now, and this is new, you accept Alyea's statements with nothing but his memory as proof. He is basically stating the DPD, FBI, and Dallas Sheriffs Office were all in on a giant conspiracy to deceive but he lacks any evidence at all. Is it because he is stating something you desperately want to believe and want to hear?
How about another view of Alyea, he did make the statements to Kritzberg and he then claims she misquoted him. He then claims DPD, Sheriffs Dept, and FBI all are lying about how they investigated the 6th floor but his evidence of this has been destroyed. The only person telling the truth, in the whole group of people investigating the assassination, was Alyea or at least in his mind. Alyea created quite a fantasy with himself at the center. I wonder if he is Rowland's real dad and maybe Craig's brother. Seems to be no shortage of these type of people in this assassination.
-
BS:
Only if you preassume where the bullet that wounded Connally came from.
Presume what you would like but with the position of the men and how close they were together the only way to explain it was JFK himself caused the wound.
-
“His rifle”. LOL.
Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. No.
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president. For what reason?
There is not a muzzle flash that is true. Maybe McCloy should have asked Brennan did you see him fire his rifle. He said he saw him "fire" his rifle in both the Dallas Morning News story and his FBI 11/22 affidavit. Your assuming he knew that discharged meant fire the gun instead of eject the shell.
"he saw this person take "deliberate aim" and fire a shot."
Brennan sees LHO aim the rifle, he hears the shot, and he sees him put the gun down to his side, stand there and view the damage but he did not see him he fire the shot? He never took his eyes off of the assassin.
-
So no evidence then that they inflicted wounds in Kennedy.
No, they found the bullet and bullet fragments and they were matched to the rifle. LHO's rifle.
So the cause of the wounds was indeterminate? The fragments were found in the car. The bullet on a stretcher in the hospital.
-
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president. For what reason?
There is not a muzzle flash that is true. Maybe McCloy should have asked Brennan did you see him fire his rifle. He said he saw him "fire" his rifle in both the Dallas Morning News story and his FBI 11/22 affidavit. Your assuming he knew that discharged meant fire the gun instead of eject the shell.
"he saw this person take "deliberate aim" and fire a shot."
Brennan sees LHO aim the rifle, he hears the shot, and he sees him put the gun down to his side, stand there and view the damage but he did not see him he fire the shot? He never took his eyes off of the assassin.
Perhaps some eagle-eyed Oswald arse kisser can point us to some other location where one can observe a muzzle-flash licking its way out of a high powered rifle while pointed in the general direction of the presidential limo..
-
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president. For what reason?
There is not a muzzle flash that is true. Maybe McCloy should have asked Brennan did you see him fire his rifle. He said he saw him "fire" his rifle in both the Dallas Morning News story and his FBI 11/22 affidavit. Your assuming he knew that discharged meant fire the gun instead of eject the shell.
"he saw this person take "deliberate aim" and fire a shot."
Brennan sees LHO aim the rifle, he hears the shot, and he sees him put the gun down to his side, stand there and view the damage but he did not see him he fire the shot? He never took his eyes off of the assassin.
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president.
Lee Oswald was eating lunch in the first floor lunchroom at the time the President passed by the TSBD. He saw Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walk by the 1st floor lunchroom at 12:26 He was dressed in A REDDISH BROWN shirt and dark grey trousers.
The man that Howard Brennan saw with a rifle was much heavier than Lee Oswald and he was dressed in KHAKI colored clothes.
-
Brennan is an unreliable witness. He's been so inconsistent with the description of the person he saw to the rifle. If you're relying on Brennan to nail Oswald then I suggest you read all his statements. You will find out he's over all the place about what he saw.
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president. For what reason?
There is not a muzzle flash that is true. Maybe McCloy should have asked Brennan did you see him fire his rifle. He said he saw him "fire" his rifle in both the Dallas Morning News story and his FBI 11/22 affidavit. Your assuming he knew that discharged meant fire the gun instead of eject the shell.
"he saw this person take "deliberate aim" and fire a shot."
Brennan sees LHO aim the rifle, he hears the shot, and he sees him put the gun down to his side, stand there and view the damage but he did not see him he fire the shot? He never took his eyes off of the assassin.
-
Alyea created quite a fantasy with himself at the center. I wonder if he is Rowland's real dad and maybe Craig's brother. Seems to be no shortage of these type of people in this assassination.
Seems like anybody whose account differs from the narrative gets their character assassinated by Jack Nessan. Talk about desperately believing what you want to hear.
-
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president. For what reason?
LHO. LOL.
Brennan sees LHO aim the rifle, he hears the shot, and he sees him put the gun down to his side, stand there and view the damage but he did not see him he fire the shot? He never took his eyes off of the assassin.
How do you know a shot was fired if you see no discharge, muzzle blast, or recoil?
-
No, they found the bullet and bullet fragments and they were matched to the rifle.
That’s a circular argument. I asked you what evidence there was to show that the bullet and fragments in question caused Kennedy’s wounds.
-
Those videos showed nothing. They recreated that scene for the cameras just like in Iwo Jima.
Could you just run us through the timeline of when the "original rifle" was found, and by whom, and when the "recreation" took place.
-
I did but apparently you chose to ignore it.
Could you just run us through the timeline of when the "original rifle" was found, and by whom, and when the "recreation" took place.
-
I did but apparently you chose to ignore it.
No, you didn't.
You've mentioned assassination teams firing from the 5th floor (obviously you provide no evidence for this tinfoil claim).
You seem to believe that everyone involved in the discovery of the rifle was part of a "recreation" but that they originally "recreated" a Mauser then decided to "recreate" a Carcano.
Were they all in it together or were there two "teams" recreating different rifle discoveries?
It's very difficult to know what scenario you are actually putting forward as it seems to change as each point you make is shot down in flames.
Just sayin'
-
No you didn't read it. I said the word recreated was wrong on my part and I even apologized. The better use of the word was staged. It was 50 minutes before the rifle was found so Alyea didn't just jump up and run to the 6th floor.
Carolyn Walther said it was either fourth or fifth floor from where she thought the shots came from. The number of stories on TSBD has confused many including some witnesses and shows up a few times in WC testimony.
My theory is one of the shooters/team was on the SW 5th floor 2x hitting Connally wrist and leg. 6th floor was for staging. The 5th floor team got out through the elevator shafts to the back of the building.
Is that clear enough for you?
No, you didn't.
You've mentioned assassination teams firing from the 5th floor (obviously you provide no evidence for this tinfoil claim).
You seem to believe that everyone involved in the discovery of the rifle was part of a "recreation" but that they originally "recreated" a Mauser then decided to "recreate" a Carcano.
Were they all in it together or were there two "teams" recreating different rifle discoveries?
It's very difficult to know what scenario you are actually putting forward as it seems to change as each point you make is shot down in flames.
Just sayin'
-
That’s a circular argument. I asked you what evidence there was to show that the bullet and fragments in question caused Kennedy’s wounds.
JFK and Gov Connally had wounds that were the result of having been shot.
-
LHO. LOL.
How do you know a shot was fired if you see no discharge, muzzle blast, or recoil?
He stated twice he saw the assassin fire the shot. There is not a muzzle blast and very mimimal recoil.
-
Seems like anybody whose account differs from the narrative gets their character assassinated by Jack Nessan. Talk about desperately believing what you want to hear.
Why are you giving Alyea a pass? He must be the one witness who convinces you the assassination was a conspiracy. All with no evidence of any kind.
The one constant on this forum is you will apply logic and will demand proof of someone's opinion to call it proof. Yet, Alyea has not provided any evidence at all of his claims but has alluded to photos and incidents that absolutely destroy the integrity of a number of the people of the DPD, Sheriff's Dept, and even Kritzberg who had the misfortune to interview him and write about it. On the surface he seems fine but in the end is kind of a crackpot.
-
Brennan is an unreliable witness. He's been so inconsistent with the description of the person he saw to the rifle. If you're relying on Brennan to nail Oswald then I suggest you read all his statements. You will find out he's over all the place about what he saw.
Brennan's contribution to the JFK assassination was there was only two shots and that he saw the shots having been fired from the 6th floor window where the carcano shells were found.
Everybody's statements differ from one to the next about various details. That is why both the WC and the HSCA allude to media influence. The first statements tend to be the most accurate.
-
So LHO was just aiming his rifle at the president.
Lee Oswald was eating lunch in the first floor lunchroom at the time the President passed by the TSBD. He saw Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walk by the 1st floor lunchroom at 12:26 He was dressed in A REDDISH BROWN shirt and dark grey trousers.
The man that Howard Brennan saw with a rifle was much heavier than Lee Oswald and he was dressed in KHAKI colored clothes.
Norman or Jarman never stated that they saw LHO in the first floor lunchroom. Did anybody?
So someone else was firing LHO's rifle? The shell casings and bullets were matched to his rifle.
-
Perhaps some eagle-eyed Oswald arse kisser can point us to some other location where one can observe a muzzle-flash licking its way out of a high powered rifle while pointed in the general direction of the presidential limo..
At best it is silly to question an individual watching a man who is aiming his gun, hear the shot, and did he fire it. It is not rocket science to observe someone firing a gun and did he fire it.
-
No you didn't read it. I said the word recreated was wrong on my part and I even apologized. The better use of the word was staged. It was 50 minutes before the rifle was found so Alyea didn't just jump up and run to the 6th floor.
Carolyn Walther said it was either fourth or fifth floor from where she thought the shots came from. The number of stories on TSBD has confused many including some witnesses and shows up a few times in WC testimony.
My theory is one of the shooters/team was on the SW 5th floor 2x hitting Connally wrist and leg. 6th floor was for staging. The 5th floor team got out through the elevator shafts to the back of the building.
Is that clear enough for you?
I think what you're trying to say is that then Carcano was "planted".
It was already in place in the northwest corner as the assassination was taken place. If this is the case your use of the word "staged" is also incorrect.
Obviously you have some solid reasoning for dismissing the evidence of Jarman, Williams and Norman (not to mention any other employee who would have seen various "teams" roaming around the TSBD building.)
-
Norman or Jarman never stated that they saw LHO in the first floor lunchroom. Did anybody?
So someone else was firing LHO's rifle? The shell casings and bullets were matched to his rifle.
Norman or Jarman never stated that they saw LHO in the first floor lunchroom.
That's immaterial .... Lee saw THEM, and that's the only way that Lee could have known that Jarman and Normn had walked by the 1st floor lunchroom at 12:26. He was there in that Domino room and not on the sixth floor....
So someone else was firing LHO's rifle?
The Carcano that was found well hidden beneath boxes of books was not fired that day.... ( Yes , I know the conspirators claimed that the carcano was the murder weapon, but it was buried beneath the pallet of books at the time of the shooting)
The shell casings and bullets were matched to his rifle.
So WHEN? Were those shell casings fired in that carcano? They were NOT fired on 11/22/63.....
-
He stated twice he saw the assassin fire the shot. There is not a muzzle blast and very mimimal recoil.
Then what does it mean exactly to see somebody firing a shot?
-
JFK and Gov Connally had wounds that were the result of having been shot.
I agree. How do you know their wounds were caused by the Carcano and that their wounds were caused by CE399 and CE567/9?
-
Brennan's contribution to the JFK assassination was there was only two shots and that he saw the shots having been fired from the 6th floor window where the carcano shells were found.
Everybody's statements differ from one to the next about various details. That is why both the WC and the HSCA allude to media influence. The first statements tend to be the most accurate.
The first statements tend to be the most accurate.
Totally agree!..... And Howard Brennan gave his sworn affidavit about an hour after the shooting. The last sentence of that sworn affidavit says " I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." "This man " is the man who Brennan saw with the rifle.
Just a few hours later Brennan viewed a police line up in which Lee Oswald was one of the "suspects" ....Brennan said that the man that he'd seen was NOT present in that line up.
Later when the bastards had a chance to plant threatening ideas in his head ...he claimed that he refused to put the finger on Lee Oswald because he was the leader of a band of communists ( The Fair Play For Cuba Committee LOL!)
Anything that Brennan said after he viewed that line up is probably less than the whole unadulterated truth.
-
Why are you giving Alyea a pass?
I’m not giving him a pass. Why do you disregard what he said and assassinate his character?
Fritz hasn’t provided any evidence at all for his claims either. What’s so special about him?
-
Staged, planted, setup or any other word for some reason that makes you feel superior. Intimidation of witnesses no less being black back then I'm sure those three men fell in line with what the police told them. Back in the early 1960's those three back men felt comfortable and at ease in telling law enforcement what they saw. (sarcasm)
I think what you're trying to say is that then Carcano was "planted".
It was already in place in the northwest corner as the assassination was taken place. If this is the case your use of the word "staged" is also incorrect.
Obviously you have some solid reasoning for dismissing the evidence of Jarman, Williams and Norman (not to mention any other employee who would have seen various "teams" roaming around the TSBD building.)
-
At best it is silly to question an individual watching a man who is aiming his gun, hear the shot, and did he fire it. It is not rocket science to observe someone
firing a gun and did he fire it.
It is indeed not rocket science to mischaracterize seeing somebody aiming a rifle and then hearing a shot as “seeing a rifle fired”. Which is the whole reason Brennan was asked if he saw a discharge or a recoil.
-
Staged, planted, setup or any other word for some reason that makes you feel superior. Intimidation of witnesses no less being black back then I'm sure those three men fell in line with what the police told them. Back in the early 1960's those three back men felt comfortable and at ease in telling law enforcement what they saw. (sarcasm)
WTF!
Just because you're not intelligent enough to know that "staged" and "planted" are two massively different things doesn't make me superior. Not being intelligent doesn't make you an inferior person.
And just to make sure I'm fully understanding you're tinfoil BS: correctly, you're saying that the DPD were supporting assassination teams in the TSBD building by silencing all the witnesses? That's what you're saying?
Can you provide any evidence for this horsesh%t or do you make it up on the hoof?
-
You ain't worth the time. Have a great life.
WTF!
Just because you're not intelligent enough to know that "staged" and "planted" are two massively different things doesn't make me superior. Not being intelligent doesn't make you an inferior person.
And just to make sure I'm fully understanding you're tinfoil BS: correctly, you're saying that the DPD were supporting assassination teams in the TSBD building by silencing all the witnesses? That's what you're saying?
Can you provide any evidence for this horsesh%t or do you make it up on the hoof?
-
It is indeed not rocket science to mischaracterize seeing somebody aiming a rifle and then hearing a shot as “seeing a rifle fired”. Which is the whole reason Brennan was asked if he saw a discharge or a recoil.
I have viewed people firing rifles of all calibers. I know what he is talking about. I guess you don't. Youtube has millions of videos of people firing rifles, it might help you to watch some of them.
-
I’m not giving him a pass. Why do you disregard what he said and assassinate his character?
Fritz hasn’t provided any evidence at all for his claims either. What’s so special about him?
You are giving Alyea a pass now and questioning Fritz who incidentally Alyea trashed, but that does not seem to concern you. If you don't want these people's statements analyzed don't present them. It is obvious your feelings were hurt. I don't see you presenting any evidence at all that Alyea was right. Watching Alyea's film it looks like Fritz was doing what he said he did.
-
The first statements tend to be the most accurate.
Totally agree!..... And Howard Brennan gave his sworn affidavit about an hour after the shooting. The last sentence of that sworn affidavit says " I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." "This man " is the man who Brennan saw with the rifle.
Just a few hours later Brennan viewed a police line up in which Lee Oswald was one of the "suspects" ....Brennan said that the man that he'd seen was NOT present in that line up.
Later when the bastards had a chance to plant threatening ideas in his head ...he claimed that he refused to put the finger on Lee Oswald because he was the leader of a band of communists ( The Fair Play For Cuba Committee LOL!)
Anything that Brennan said after he viewed that line up is probably less than the whole unadulterated truth.
You don't get two chances to identify him. Can the rest of the info place LHO in the SN with his rifle.
-
I agree. How do you know their wounds were caused by the Carcano and that their wounds were caused by CE399 and CE567/9?
Because they found them in Parkland and in the limo.
-
Then what does it mean exactly to see somebody firing a shot?
It means you saw them fire a shot. What does it mean to you?
-
Norman or Jarman never stated that they saw LHO in the first floor lunchroom.
That's immaterial .... Lee saw THEM, and that's the only way that Lee could have known that Jarman and Normn had walked by the 1st floor lunchroom at 12:26. He was there in that Domino room and not on the sixth floor....
So someone else was firing LHO's rifle?
The Carcano that was found well hidden beneath boxes of books was not fired that day.... ( Yes , I know the conspirators claimed that the carcano was the murder weapon, but it was buried beneath the pallet of books at the time of the shooting)
The shell casings and bullets were matched to his rifle.
So WHEN? Were those shell casings fired in that carcano? They were NOT fired on 11/22/63.....
If you are going to frame LHO wouldn't you leave the rifle in the SN where the shells were? What is gained by hiding it? The carcano shells that were matched to the rifle were still in the SN. The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle too.
-
You are giving Alyea a pass now and questioning Fritz who incidentally Alyea trashed, but that does not seem to concern you.
So what? You trashed Alyea. And Rowland. And Craig. Why should I be more concerned about Fritz?
-
Because they found them in Parkland and in the limo.
Allegedly. But how does that show they caused particular wounds?
-
It means you saw them fire a shot. What does it mean to you?
It means that even though there is literally no difference between your definition of seeing somebody aiming a rifle and seeing somebody firing a rifle, you somehow can just tell that it’s being fired.
-
If you are going to frame LHO wouldn't you leave the rifle in the SN where the shells were? What is gained by hiding it? The carcano shells that were matched to the rifle were still in the SN. The bullet and fragments were matched to the rifle too.
What is gained by hiding it?
Time ....Is gained.
The rifle was linked to LHO AFTER they found the rifle. In the game Lee was playing he thought that he gain time to escape to Cuba by hiding the rifle.
-
What is gained by hiding it?
Time ....Is gained.
The rifle was linked to LHO AFTER they found the rifle. In the game Lee was playing he thought that he gain time to escape to Cuba by hiding the rifle.
But what about the bullet and fragments being linked to the rifle? They were found at the Parkland Hospital and in the limo in Washington DC, not in the TSBD.
-
It means that even though there is literally no difference between your definition of seeing somebody aiming a rifle and seeing somebody firing a rifle, you somehow can just tell that it’s being fired.
If you don't want to believe Brennan saw the rifle fired as he stated then don't. Works for me, but don't say he never said he saw the rifle fired, when he did in a newspaper story and a FBI Affidavit on 11/22.
As a result of having fired these carcanos, I get it there is not much to them. You can shoot these rifles one handed.
-
So what? You trashed Alyea. And Rowland. And Craig. Why should I be more concerned about Fritz?
Alyea trashed himself, as did Rowland, as did Craig. I am sure Kritzberg does not sing Alyea's praises, he left her to hang, dangle, and twist in the wind. What did she do to get that treatment? She made the mistake of interviewing him and then writing about what he stated. Obviously can't believe a word he says.
Obviously not going to hold Alyea to the same level of proof as what has been required of 100% of the other witnesses. Take Brennan stating he saw the rifle fired is a great example. If it was Alyea there would be no question. It seems to be OK that Alyea trashed the whole DPD without a single shred of proof and it gets posted as if it were a fact.
-
If you don't want to believe Brennan saw the rifle fired as he stated then don't. Works for me, but don't say he never said he saw the rifle fired, when he did in a newspaper story and a FBI Affidavit on 11/22.
When pressed for details in his testimony he was clear that he saw somebody “taking aim” and then heard a shot. “Firing a rifle” was just an assumption.
-
Alyea trashed himself, as did Rowland, as did Craig. I am sure Kritzberg does not sing Alyea's praises, he left her to hang, dangle, and twist in the wind. What did she do to get that treatment? She made the mistake of interviewing him and then writing about what he stated. Obviously can't believe a word he says.
Obviously not going to hold Alyea to the same level of proof as what has been required of 100% of the other witnesses. Take Brennan stating he saw the rifle fired is a great example. If it was Alyea there would be no question. It seems to be OK that Alyea trashed the whole DPD without a single shred of proof and it gets posted as if it were a fact.
Hey, I can do that too.
The DPD trashed themselves with their misconduct. You are posting what they say without a single shred of proof and trashing anybody who says different.
-
Shooting the 6.5mm 91/38 Carcano Rifle
This video was made on a dull, overcast day. I wonder how noticeable that flash would be in bright sunshine. Especially at a much greater distance than shown here.
-
Yet still paraffin test came back negative on Oswald's cheek.
Shooting the 6.5mm 91/38 Carcano Rifle
This video was made on a dull, overcast day. I wonder how noticeable that flash would be in bright sunshine. Especially at a much greater distance than shown here.
-
Alyea trashed himself, as did Rowland, as did Craig. I am sure Kritzberg does not sing Alyea's praises, he left her to hang, dangle, and twist in the wind. What did she do to get that treatment? She made the mistake of interviewing him and then writing about what he stated. Obviously can't believe a word he says.
Obviously not going to hold Alyea to the same level of proof as what has been required of 100% of the other witnesses. Take Brennan stating he saw the rifle fired is a great example. If it was Alyea there would be no question. It seems to be OK that Alyea trashed the whole DPD without a single shred of proof and it gets posted as if it were a fact.
Obviously can't believe a word he says.
You could be right....If you can prove that Tom Alyea's film of the recovery of the rifle (carcano) is a lie.
I certainly don't believe some of the stuff that Alyea says, Like the Soda Bottle and the chicken bones being on the 5th floor....
Alyea may have seen a soda bottle and chicken bones on the fifth floor but those were not the items that many others saw in the SE corner of the sixth floor.
-
Yet still paraffin test came back negative on Oswald's cheek.
Paraffin tests were not allowed in court
Then why were the tests run, you might ask
_So critics couldn't charge that, well, they weren't tested
And you might also ask that if paraffin tests were illegal in court, then why were suspects threatened with paraffin tests by the cops?
_Make sure you figure that one out by the next time you get arrested
-
So you're not disputing the paraffin test were negative? So the cops gave him the paraffin test knowing in the court of law it would not be allowed? It was years later after 1963 before paraffin tests were not used. If that test had come back positive would not have had the DPD used it as evidence?
aParaffin tests were not allowed in court
Then why were the tests run, you might ask
_So critics couldn't charge that, well, they weren't tested
And you might also ask that if paraffin tests were illegal in court, then why were suspects threatened with paraffin tests by the cops?
_Make sure you figure that one out by the next time you get arrested
-
Paraffin tests are run for the same reason polygraph tests are run: to try to intimidate a suspect into making a confession. The actual results don’t even matter, because cops can and do lie to suspects about what evidence they have.
-
Paraffin tests are run for the same reason polygraph tests are run: to try to intimidate a suspect into making a confession. The actual results don’t even matter, because cops can and do lie to suspects about what evidence they have.
Correct
-
So you're not disputing the paraffin test were negative? So the cops gave him the paraffin test knowing in the court of law it would not be allowed? It was years later after 1963 before paraffin tests were not used. If that test had come back positive would not have had the DPD used it as evidence?
a
It was years later after 1963 before paraffin tests were not used
_I don't even know if actual tests were even presented or run on actual suspects under interrogation
Just the threat of same in interrogation might be enough to panic the poor bugger if he was scared enough
-
I'm not disputing threats. Just like how they manipulated in getting his palm prints to show up on the rifle. Ignoring the cheeks but discussing with the media about the palm prints. They can't have it both ways.
It was years later after 1963 before paraffin tests were not used
_I don't even know if actual tests were even presented or run on actual suspects under interrogation
Just the threat of same in interrogation might be enough to panic the poor bugger if he was scared enough
-
I'm not disputing threats. Just like how they manipulated in getting his palm prints to show up on the rifle. Ignoring the cheeks but discussing with the media about the palm prints. They can't have it both ways.
how they manipulated in getting his palm prints to show up on the rifle.
They didn't find Lee's palm print on that small 5/8" diameter surface.... But very few have thought about how small a surface that 5/8 inch barrel exposes.... About 1/4 of the circumference...Or 3/4 of an inch.
Lay a ruler on your palm and see for yourself how much of your palm is covered by 3/4 inch.
-
Or two FBI agents coming to the Funeral Home and lifting Oswald's prints.
how they manipulated in getting his palm prints to show up on the rifle.
They didn't find Lee's palm print on that small 5/8" diameter surface.... But very few have thought about how small a surface that 5/8 inch barrel exposes.... About 1/4 of the circumference...Or 3/4 of an inch.
Lay a ruler on your palm and see for yourself how much of your palm is covered by 3/4 inch.
-
In actuality, a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.
-
Or two FBI agents coming to the Funeral Home and lifting Oswald's prints.
Sounds kinky, lifting his prints. Did they also pull down his pants?
I gotta get me some of that action for sure
;)
-
Yep they really screwed LHO.
Sounds kinky, lifting his prints. Did they also pull down his pants?
I gotta get me some of that action for sure
;)
-
When pressed for details in his testimony he was clear that he saw somebody “taking aim” and then heard a shot. “Firing a rifle” was just an assumption.
Are you advocating that someone standing next to LHO took the shot? Thomas Canning's Trajectory Analysis places the shots from the window where Brennan witnessed the man taking the shot.
-
Hey, I can do that too.
The DPD trashed themselves with their misconduct. You are posting what they say without a single shred of proof and trashing anybody who says different.
What you seem incapable of doing is holding Alyea's statements to the same standard as you have doggedly required of everyone else. Where is his proof? It is not a fact just an opinion.
Alyea trashed the investigators not the other way around. They let him go where he pleased. He had a camera to film all these supposed accusations and obviously did not, because he never really witnessed it occurring.
-
Going off the assumption of the Magic/Single bullet theory invalidates his study.
Mr. CANNING. It was made available from a variety of sources. The forensic pathology panel supplied the wound information.
Mr. CANNING. We determined three trajectories in order to examine the validity of the single bullet theory that has received so much attention
Are you advocating that someone standing next to LHO took the shot? Thomas Canning's Trajectory Analysis places the shots from the window where Brennan witnessed the man taking the shot.
-
Going off the assumption of the Magic/Single bullet theory invalidates his study.
Mr. CANNING. It was made available from a variety of sources. The forensic pathology panel supplied the wound information.
Mr. CANNING. We determined three trajectories in order to examine the validity of the single bullet theory that has received so much attention
It is not that complicated. If you don't like SBT, explain how JBC was wounded if the bullet does not first pass through JFK.
-
I have earlier in this thread. It's a joke that Magic bullet theory is still even used today.
It is not that complicated. If you don't like SBT, explain how JBC was wounded if the bullet does not first pass through JFK.
-
Are you advocating that someone standing next to LHO took the shot?
No, I’m advocating that Brennan didn’t see a rifle being fired. This is a nonsensical question anyway since you don’t know where Oswald was standing at the time.
Thomas Canning's Trajectory Analysis places the shots from the window where Brennan witnessed the man taking the shot.
Those “trajectory analyses” are contrived to get a desired result. If you preassume when the shots occurred, how people were positioned, and exactly where the conflicting locations and angles of the wounds were, you can get the result you want. At least for the back wound. The head shot…not so much.
-
What you seem incapable of doing is holding Alyea's statements to the same standard as you have doggedly required of everyone else. Where is his proof? It is not a fact just an opinion.
No, I’m holding him to the same standard as any other witness. You cherry pick the ones you like and trash the rest.
Alyea trashed the investigators not the other way around.
But you are trashing Alyea merely because you don’t like what he said. He just reported what he saw. No different from what Fritz did.
-
No, I’m holding him to the same standard as any other witness. Yo-yoing cherry pick the ones you like and trash the rest.
But you are trashing Alyea merely because you don’t like what he said. He just reported what he saw. No different from what Fritz did.
He ( Alyea ) just reported what he saw. No different from what Fritz did.
The difference is: Tom Alyea recorded what he saw wit a video camera..... And of course Fritz did not....AND we know that Fritz lied...
-
And who was it who “lost” his remaining footage? It wasn’t Alyea…
-
And who was it who “lost” his remaining footage? It wasn’t Alyea…
Alyea has said that he still has footage in his possession.....( stuff he salvaged from the newsroom floor) ......
-
No, I’m holding him to the same standard as any other witness. You cherry pick the ones you like and trash the rest.
But you are trashing Alyea merely because you don’t like what he said. He just reported what he saw. No different from what Fritz did.
No you are not. This is just an opinion not proof.
You could always have shown where I was wrong about these other witnesses during the discussions. Problem is you could not dispute what was discussed. Show me where I am wrong about Alyea. How about ask Kritzberg and get her opinion on Alyea.
-
And who was it who “lost” his remaining footage? It wasn’t Alyea…
Maybe Kritzberg lost the footage.
Instead of accusing everyone of all sorts of things, would it not be just easier to admit he made a bunch of these accusations up. He had a camera and he doesn't film anything but finding the rifle? Apparently, he does not film any of these purported law enforcement mistakes. No one else states anything similar to what he claimed.
When exactly did he first start making all these accusations?
-
He ( Alyea ) just reported what he saw. No different from what Fritz did.
The difference is: Tom Alyea recorded what he saw wit a video camera..... And of course Fritz did not....AND we know that Fritz lied...
Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.
-
You could always have shown where I was wrong about these other witnesses during the discussions. Problem is you could not dispute what was discussed. Show me where I am wrong about Alyea.
I don’t have to prove you are wrong. You’re claiming that Alyea made it all up. Where is your proof of that?
-
Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.
Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.
Tom Alyea did film Lt Day holding up the CARCANO ( not a mauser) to Fritz and the film shows Fritz examining the carcano.
This portion of the film clearly shows that the rifle's bolt is NOT in the home ( latched down and ready to fire ) position. This is a very strong indicator that the live round was simply dropped into the breech and the bolt closed ( Not LATCHED )
-
Fritz was recorded by Alyea when the rifle was discovered. Exactly like what he said.
Tom Alyea did film Lt Day holding up the CARCANO ( not a mauser) to Fritz and the film shows Fritz examining the carcano.
This portion of the film clearly shows that the rifle's bolt is NOT in the home ( latched down and ready to fire ) position. This is a very strong indicator that the live round was simply dropped into the breech and the bolt closed ( Not LATCHED )
The problem with this is the "chamber mark" or indentation found on the side of CE 141. That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141. The same "chamber mark" is found on CE 544 and CE 545. The chamber mark does not appear on the side of CE 543 but was noted on 30+ other shells, in the possession of the WC and FBI, that had been fired in the carcano.
In other words, the only way the "chamber mark" can occur on CE 141 is if it followed the firing of the other two cartridges which had expanded the chamber of the rifle due to heat.
-
The problem with this is the "chamber mark" or indentation found on the side of CE 141. That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141. The same "chamber mark" is found on CE 544 and CE 545. The chamber mark does not appear on the side of CE 543 but was noted on 30+ other shells, in the possession of the WC and FBI, that had been fired in the carcano.
In other words, the only way the "chamber mark" can occur on CE 141 is if it followed the firing of the other two cartridges which had expanded the chamber of the rifle due to heat.
"Chamber mark?... What the hell are you babbling about??
"That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141."
Heat would expand the chamber and increase the diameter of the chamber while the relatively cold cartridge would not be expanded an therefore the cartridge would be less likely to be marked by the expanded chamber.
BTW..... WHAT?? was in the chamber that would have left a mark in the cartridge.??
-
"Chamber mark?... What the hell are you babbling about??
"That is the result of having been in the chamber of the rifle after the gun had been fired and the heat had expanded the chamber to impress the chamber mark on the side of CE141."
Heat would expand the chamber and increase the diameter of the chamber while the relatively cold cartridge would not be expanded an therefore the cartridge would be less likely to be marked by the expanded chamber.
BTW..... WHAT?? was in the chamber that would have left a mark in the cartridge.??
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2968.pdf
Josiah Thompsom's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" Chapter VII footnote 4 explains the indentation was more pronounced on some shells than in 30+ other shells he viewed. What this indicates is the more the chamber was heated the more pronounced the indentation becomes. The indentation in CE 544 is more pronounced than CE 545 indicating CE 544 was fired second and CE 545 was fired first.
Hoover in his memo to Rankin (CE 2968) calls them chamber marks but does not reference the indentation being on CE 141 but does on CE 544 and CE 545. Obviously, they believe there was something in the chamber creating the mark on the shell as he states that very fact.
Hoover: "as having been produced by the chamber of C14"
------------------------
The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.
-
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2968.pdf
Josiah Thompsom's book "Six Seconds in Dallas" Chapter VII footnote 4 explains the indentation was more pronounced on some shells than in 30+ other shells he viewed. What this indicates is the more the chamber was heated the more pronounced the indentation becomes. The indentation in CE 544 is more pronounced than CE 545 indicating CE 544 was fired second and CE 545 was fired first.
Hoover in his memo to Rankin (CE 2968) calls them chamber marks but does not reference the indentation being on CE 141 but does on CE 544 and CE 545. Obviously, they believe there was something in the chamber creating the mark on the shell as he states that very fact.
Hoover: "as having been produced by the chamber of C14"
------------------------
The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.
The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.
I'm not familiar with the manufacturing of the carcano..... But usually the last tool used in finishing the chamber is a hone....
The hone removes any burrs or roughness in the chamber and polishes the walls of the chamber to allow the spent expanded cartridge to be easily extracted.
-
The last tool used to finish making the chamber, where the indentation is originating, is a reamer. Possibly it had become defective and left a little burr or something similar in the chamber.
I'm not familiar with the manufacturing of the carcano..... But usually the last tool used in finishing the chamber is a hone....
The hone removes any burrs or roughness in the chamber and polishes the walls of the chamber to allow the spent expanded cartridge to be easily extracted.
This is what you took out of this discussion. Did the Italians take the time to finely polish the chamber like these rifles were fine hunting rifles instead of just using a finishing reamer? The shell information are facts that help explain the assassination. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark. Every other cartridge or shell that was introduced into the chamber of the rifle has the chamber mark.
The only conspiracy left is why did the FBI not explain why the chamber mark was on CE 544, CE 545, CE 141, CE 557, and 30+ more shells, as noted by Josiah Thompson, but wasn't on CE 543. The WC Conclusion included the belief that LHO may have carried an empty shell in the rifle and ejected it before shooting. They understood this was a possibility but did not feel the need to explain the "chamber mark."
To add a pointless step to the manufacture of the rifles instead of using a finishing reamer is of no use or is of no real importance and in no way explains indentations on the side of the shells from the chamber. Apparently, they left the burr because it shows up on the shell casings. Especially since there really is such a thing as a finish reamer. Grinding a chamber, to remove a burr, wider and out of spec with a hone is counterproductive.
-
This is what you took out of this discussion. Did the Italians take the time to finely polish the chamber like these rifles were fine hunting rifles instead of just using a finishing reamer? The shell information are facts that help explain the assassination. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark. Every other cartridge or shell that was introduced into the chamber of the rifle has the chamber mark.
The only conspiracy left is why did the FBI not explain why the chamber mark was on CE 544, CE 545, CE 141, CE 557, and 30+ more shells, as noted by Josiah Thompson, but wasn't on CE 543. The WC Conclusion included the belief that LHO may have carried an empty shell in the rifle and ejected it before shooting. They understood this was a possibility but did not feel the need to explain the "chamber mark."
You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)
To add a pointless step to the manufacture of the rifles instead of using a finishing reamer is of no use or is of no real importance and in no way explains indentations on the side of the shells from the chamber. Apparently, they left the burr because it shows up on the shell casings. Especially since there really is such a thing as a finish reamer. Grinding a chamber, to remove a burr, wider and out of spec with a hone is counterproductive.
-
This is what you took out of this discussion. Did the Italians take the time to finely polish the chamber like these rifles were fine hunting rifles instead of just using a finishing reamer? The shell information are facts that help explain the assassination. CE 543 does not have a chamber mark. Every other cartridge or shell that was introduced into the chamber of the rifle has the chamber mark.
The only conspiracy left is why did the FBI not explain why the chamber mark was on CE 544, CE 545, CE 141, CE 557, and 30+ more shells, as noted by Josiah Thompson, but wasn't on CE 543. The WC Conclusion included the belief that LHO may have carried an empty shell in the rifle and ejected it before shooting. They understood this was a possibility but did not feel the need to explain the "chamber mark."
You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)
To add a pointless step to the manufacture of the rifles instead of using a finishing reamer is of no use or is of no real importance and in no way explains indentations on the side of the shells from the chamber. Apparently, they left the burr because it shows up on the shell casings. Especially since there really is such a thing as a finish reamer. Grinding a chamber, to remove a burr, wider and out of spec with a hone is counterproductive.
You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)
You should welcolme this evidence. Haven't you been a big proponent of only two shots from the window? Here it is, the hard cold reality of hard cold facts. The WC had it right by stating in their conclusion "It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot."
That is exactly what it means by no "chamber mark" on CE 543 but the "chamber mark" is on every other shell or cartridge fired in the rifle or introduced into the chamber after it was fired. Simply put, there was an anomaly in the chamber of the rifle that caused the indentations on the side of the shells.
-
You're desperately trying to save your theory..... With utter nonsense ( BS)
You should welcolme this evidence. Haven't you been a big proponent of only two shots from the window? Here it is, the hard cold reality of hard cold facts. The WC had it right by stating in their conclusion "It is possible that the assassin carried an empty shell in the rifle and fired only two shots, with the witnesses hearing multiple noises made by the same shot."
That is exactly what it means by no "chamber mark" on CE 543 but the "chamber mark" is on every other shell or cartridge fired in the rifle or introduced into the chamber after it was fired. Simply put, there was an anomaly in the chamber of the rifle that caused the indentations on the side of the shells.
You should welcolme this evidence. Haven't you been a big proponent of only two shots from the window?
NO!!..... I believe the carcano was hidden beneath the boxes of books in the NW corner of the 6th floor, at the time JFK was murdered. The carcano was not fired that day....and no shots were fired from the window.
-
You should welcolme this evidence. Haven't you been a big proponent of only two shots from the window?
NO!!..... I believe the carcano was hidden beneath the boxes of books in the NW corner of the 6th floor, at the time JFK was murdered. The carcano was not fired that day....and no shots were fired from the window.
What about BR Williams and Howard Brennan both stating there were two shots from the window? Harold Norman and James Jarman both stated they heard the shots come from the window above them. The sixth floor window of the TSBD.
-
What about BR Williams and Howard Brennan both stating there were two shots from the window? Harold Norman and James Jarman both stated they heard the shots come from the window above them. The sixth floor window of the TSBD.
Please post verification that either Williams, or Brennan stated that two shots were fired from that window....
-
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/med_res_d/)
-
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338434/m1/1/med_res_d/)
Williams said he heard TWO TWO TWO shots..... he then went to the WEST end of the 5th floor.
Jarman & Norman were with him....Wht didn't they hear the shots....
WHY the hell wouldn't he have told Jarman and Norman that the shots came from the sixth floor, so why were they looking out toward the railroad yard? And Why wouldn't Williams have told the first police officer he met that the shots had been fire from the sixth floor??
I believe that by the time Williams gave his affidavit he had learned that they had found TWO spent shells in the SE corner of the sixth floor and simply made up the tale about the shots from above....
-
Williams said he heard TWO TWO TWO shots..... he then went to the WEST end of the 5th floor.
Jarman & Norman were with him....Wht didn't they hear the shots....
WHY the hell wouldn't he have told Jarman and Norman that the shots came from the sixth floor, so why were they looking out toward the railroad yard? And Why wouldn't Williams have told the first police officer he met that the shots had been fire from the sixth floor??
I believe that by the time Williams gave his affidavit he had learned that they had found TWO spent shells in the SE corner of the sixth floor and simply made up the tale about the shots from above....
Walt, John's posting of BRW's 11/22 affidavit pretty much sinks the boat about no shots from the 6th floor window.
There is real life verifiable evidence based on the information taken from the shells and rifle themselves that point to there only having been two shots. A key part of that evidence is supplied by Josiah Thompson's observation of all the other shells and also the FBI's report stating it was a mark from the chamber of the rifle. A mark is that is missing from the shell casing listed as CE 543 and CE 543 alone.
In the words of Chief Curry, no witness identified LHO. So, the question remains if the assassin is not LHO then who was it, but the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor window.
-
Walt, John's posting of BRW's 11/22 affidavit pretty much sinks the boat about no shots from the 6th floor window.
There is real life verifiable evidence based on the information taken from the shells and rifle themselves that point to there only having been two shots. A key part of that evidence is supplied by Josiah Thompson's observation of all the other shells and also the FBI's report stating it was a mark from the chamber of the rifle. A mark is that is missing from the shell casing listed as CE 543 and CE 543 alone.
In the words of Chief Curry, no witness identified LHO. So, the question remains if the assassin is not LHO then who was it, but the shots came from the TSBD 6th floor window.
Yes, I believe that there was evidence that only two shots were fired....I believe the TWO spent shells were dumped there to make it appear that the shots had been fired from that site. That was the original plot to make Lee look guilty of firing AT AT AT ( not actually hitting ) the president..... And Lee Oswald himself was probably the person who planted them, and hid the rifle beneath the boxes of books...BUT no shots were actually fired from that window.
Later the plotters had to add a third shell when it became clear that the vast majority of witnesses reported hearing three shots.
-
Just because shots were heard above them doesn’t necessarily mean they came from the sixth floor.
-
Just because shots were heard above them doesn’t necessarily mean they came from the sixth floor.
True!...... But I doubt that Williams heard any shots from above them. He incorporated the two shots from above, AFTER he had heard that they had found two spent shells near the 6th floor, SE corner window. If he had heard shots from somewhere above why didn't he tell Jarman and Norman....and why is he seen looking down toward the triple underpass in Dilliard's photo ? Williams didn't hear any shots from above!
-
Just because shots were heard above them doesn’t necessarily mean they came from the sixth floor.
What other option would sound like it came from inside the building?
-
True!...... But I doubt that Williams heard any shots from above them. He incorporated the two shots from above, AFTER he had heard that they had found two spent shells near the 6th floor, SE corner window. If he had heard shots from somewhere above why didn't he tell Jarman and Norman....and why is he seen looking down toward the triple underpass in Dilliard's photo ? Williams didn't hear any shots from above!
All three said the shots came from above them. Brennan saw the assassin fire a shot.
-
All three said the shots came from above them. Brennan saw the assassin fire a shot.
OK, Believe whatever comforts you..... Even if it's a fairy tale.
-
What other option would sound like it came from inside the building?
BRW’s statement says nothing about “inside the building”.
-
Just because shots were heard above them doesn’t necessarily mean they came from the sixth floor.
You're so limited
-
BRW’s statement says nothing about “inside the building”.
OK, thanks for that.
-
OK, Believe whatever comforts you..... Even if it's a fairy tale.
WALT: "Yes, I believe that there was evidence that only two shots were fired....I believe the TWO spent shells were dumped there to make it appear that the shots had been fired from that site. That was the original plot to make Lee look guilty of firing AT AT AT ( not actually hitting ) the president..... And Lee Oswald himself was probably the person who planted them, and hid the rifle beneath the boxes of books...BUT no shots were actually fired from that window. "
I am not sure what this is. LHO had the rifle and hid it, but the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess. The shells were matched to the rifle as were the bullet and fragments. Numerous witnesses place the shot originating from the 6th floor.
-
WALT: "Yes, I believe that there was evidence that only two shots were fired....I believe the TWO spent shells were dumped there to make it appear that the shots had been fired from that site. That was the original plot to make Lee look guilty of firing AT AT AT ( not actually hitting ) the president..... And Lee Oswald himself was probably the person who planted them, and hid the rifle beneath the boxes of books...BUT no shots were actually fired from that window. "
I am not sure what this is. LHO had the rifle and hid it, but the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess. The shells were matched to the rifle as were the bullet and fragments. Numerous witnesses place the shot originating from the 6th floor.
No one has ever revealed why a patsy would be needed to pretend to shoot from behind the limo
Then others needed to do what, exactly... shoot from the front to fool people into believing what, exactly?
-
WALT: "Yes, I believe that there was evidence that only two shots were fired....I believe the TWO spent shells were dumped there to make it appear that the shots had been fired from that site. That was the original plot to make Lee look guilty of firing AT AT AT ( not actually hitting ) the president..... And Lee Oswald himself was probably the person who planted them, and hid the rifle beneath the boxes of books...BUT no shots were actually fired from that window. "
I am not sure what this is. LHO had the rifle and hid it, but the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess. The shells were matched to the rifle as were the bullet and fragments. Numerous witnesses place the shot originating from the 6th floor.
In Wally World, the fifth-floor men are not pointing up toward the window above, and supposedly appear to be not alarmed. So their testimony that shots came from the window or floor above is fake.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_LastScan1.jpg)
Probably wise for black men to remain frozen for while in the aftermath of a shooting in a place like Texas.
-
In Wally World, the fifth-floor men are not pointing up toward the window above, and supposedly appear to be not alarmed. So their testimony that shots came from the window or floor above is fake.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_LastScan1.jpg)
Probably wise for black men to remain frozen for while in the aftermath of a shooting in a place like Texas.
the fifth-floor men are not pointing up toward the window above,
Do your eyes tell you that BR Williams and Shorty Norman are "pointing up toward the window above" ?? They appear to be looking toward the triple underpass to me.....
Probably wise for black men to remain frozen for while in the aftermath of a shooting in a place like Texas.
Where did you get the idea that Jarman, Norman. And Williams "remained frozen" .... They said they immediately jumped up and ran to the west end of the fifth floor so they could see what was going on in the railroad switch yard.
-
WALT: "Yes, I believe that there was evidence that only two shots were fired....I believe the TWO spent shells were dumped there to make it appear that the shots had been fired from that site. That was the original plot to make Lee look guilty of firing AT AT AT ( not actually hitting ) the president..... And Lee Oswald himself was probably the person who planted them, and hid the rifle beneath the boxes of books...BUT no shots were actually fired from that window. "
I am not sure what this is. LHO had the rifle and hid it, but the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess. The shells were matched to the rifle as were the bullet and fragments. Numerous witnesses place the shot originating from the 6th floor.
the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess.
THERE WERE NO SHOTS FIRED FROM THAT 6th FLOOR WINDOW! The spent shells were fired at some previous time and dumped behind the window to make it appear that LHO had fired the TWO shots..... AT JFK..... Just as it appeared that he had tried to kill General Walker.... It was merely a HOAX....One in which Lee thought that he would be allowed by Castro, to seek refuge in Cuba.
-
the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess.
THERE WERE NO SHOTS FIRED FROM THAT 6th FLOOR WINDOW! The spent shells were fired at some previous time and dumped behind the window to make it appear that LHO had fired the TWO shots..... AT JFK..... Just as it appeared that he had tried to kill General Walker.... It was merely a HOAX....One in which Lee thought that he would be allowed by Castro, to seek refuge in Cuba.
What do you mean Walt? Clearly Oswald shooting practice paid off after missing his chance at Walker. BS:
-
What do you mean Walt? Clearly Oswald shooting practice paid off after missing his chance at Walker. BS:
The Walker shooting was just a HOAX.... Lee and George DeM thought that they could make it appear as though Lee had tried to shoot one of Castro's most vocal foes...( Walker) and Castro would welcome Lee to Cuba for trying to kill Walker. THAT was Lee's mission from day one after returning from Russia.... His mission was to infiltrate Cuba and spy on the activities that were taking place there...( The building of the missile sites)
-
The Walker shooting was just a HOAX.... Lee and George DeM thought that they could make it appear as though Lee had tried to shoot one of Castro's most vocal foes...( Walker) and Castro would welcome Lee to Cuba for trying to kill Walker. THAT was Lee's mission from day one after returning from Russia.... His mission was to infiltrate Cuba and spy on the activities that were taking place there...( The building of the missile sites)
IMO it was likely Felipe Vidal who took the shot against Walker. Teenager told police a black car sped away which matched the description of the vehicle Vidal was driving at the time.
-
IMO it was likely Felipe Vidal who took the shot against Walker. Teenager told police a black car sped away which matched the description of the vehicle Vidal was driving at the time.
You're free to believe whatever.... But if you don't believe that Lee fired a bullet through Walker's window....Then how are you going to explain Marina ?? She knew all about the Walker incident and she actually believed Lee when he told her that he had tried to shoot Walker.... That's what he wanted her to believe, so if the police came looking for him while he was fleeing to Cuba she would tell them that Lee had told her that he had attempted to shoot Walker.
-
What do you mean Walt? Clearly Oswald shooting practice paid off after missing his chance at Walker. BS:
Shooting practice??.... When and where??... Where did he get the ammo?
-
Either in Russia or possibly from his Mom.
Shooting practice??.... When and where??... Where did he get the ammo?
-
Either in Russia or possibly from his Mom.
There's entirely too many loons .....
-
There's entirely too many loons .....
Much like underage drinking, Oswald waited outside the gun store and asked people to buy him some ammo.
-
Much like underage drinking, Oswald waited outside the gun store and asked people to buy him some ammo.
LOL! :D.....
-
the shots were fired from the 6th floor but not by him, I guess.
THERE WERE NO SHOTS FIRED FROM THAT 6th FLOOR WINDOW! The spent shells were fired at some previous time and dumped behind the window to make it appear that LHO had fired the TWO shots..... AT JFK..... Just as it appeared that he had tried to kill General Walker.... It was merely a HOAX....One in which Lee thought that he would be allowed by Castro, to seek refuge in Cuba.
Yes there were shots fired from the 6th floor window. Even the James Powell and Dillards photos are the product of people pointing out the shots came from the 6th floor window.
-
In Wally World, the fifth-floor men are not pointing up toward the window above, and supposedly appear to be not alarmed. So their testimony that shots came from the window or floor above is fake.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_LastScan1.jpg)
Probably wise for black men to remain frozen for while in the aftermath of a shooting in a place like Texas.
Thanks Jerry, now it all makes perfect sense. I was just confused by all the witness testimony pointing to a shooter on the 6th floor.
-
Thanks Jerry, now it all makes perfect sense. I was just confused by all the witness testimony pointing to a shooter on the 6th floor.
All those witnesses pointing to the 6th floor and it took how long before Baker ran into the TSBD? I guess the cops were doing other things.
-
All those witnesses pointing to the 6th floor and it took how long before Baker ran into the TSBD? I guess the cops were doing other things.
Baker made it in time to meet LHO at the 2nd floor lunchroom. What should the proper time have been?
-
Thanks Jerry, now it all makes perfect sense. I was just confused by all the witness testimony pointing to a shooter on the 6th floor.
Who were "ALL" the witnesses who testified that they saw a shooter on the sixth floor??
-
Anyone who was trying to tell what they saw during the murder of JFK was going to be told that what they saw was not really what they saw because any scenario other than the Warren Report was not going to be entered as any facts what so ever . There is really no way that it's not going to be 3 shots with LHO being the only shooter that day . If history keeps repeating itself then this country is in for a long hard road . It's really sad .
-
Baker made it in time to meet LHO at the 2nd floor lunchroom. What should the proper time have been?
If several people were pointing to the 6th floor why only Baker is my point.
-
If several people were pointing to the 6th floor why only Baker is my point.
That is not how the reply read.
The situation was very confusing to be sure.
-
Anyone who was trying to tell what they saw during the murder of JFK was going to be told that what they saw was not really what they saw because any scenario other than the Warren Report was not going to be entered as any facts what so ever . There is really no way that it's not going to be 3 shots with LHO being the only shooter that day . If history keeps repeating itself then this country is in for a long hard road . It's really sad .
Many of the witnesses - Brennan, Markham et al. for example - were interviewed at the time of the assassination or shortly afterward. They signed affidavits, were interviewed by police and reporters.
All of this was done, all of these accounts, the evidence collected, et cetera before the Warren Commission was even formed. Or even considered.
So how was this all planned in advance and carried out to support a report that was done almost a year later? You're trying to reverse engineer something that is completely impossible to do. Are there any limits to what they could do? Anything? I keep reading these claims and just don't understand how this could be done.
-
Baker made it in time to meet LHO at the 2nd floor lunchroom. What should the proper time have been?
Baker made it in time to meet LHO at the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Since Lee told Fritz that he was in the first floor lunchroom when JFK passed by the TSBD and JFK was shot just seconds later at 12:30.... And Baker encountered Lee in the second floor lunch room with a coke in hid hand at 12:31 : 30 then clearly it took Lee about a minute to travel from the first floor lunchroom to the second floor lunchroom. Lee was probably entering the second floor lunchroom about the time Baker and Truly started their trek to the TSBD roof.
-
Just because shots were heard above them doesn’t necessarily mean they came from the sixth floor.
"I heard 2 shots it sounded like they came from just above us" BRW
What part of 'just above us' do you not understand
-
Baker made it in time to meet LHO at the 2nd floor lunchroom.
Since Lee told Fritz that he was in the first floor lunchroom when JFK passed by the TSBD and JFK was shot just seconds later at 12:30.... And Baker encountered Lee in the second floor lunch room with a coke in hid hand at 12:31 : 30 then clearly it took Lee about a minute to travel from the first floor lunchroom to the second floor lunchroom. Lee was probably entering the second floor lunchroom about the time Baker and Truly started their trek to the TSBD roof.
LHO said whatever he thought might help him appear to not be the shooter. He told Holmes he came down to the lunch room encounter with Baker.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----
"Commotion" --- Thats what Marines call gunfire?
He was up in the building when the assassination took place. Not on the steps. Not in the first floor lunchroom. He was on the 6th floor.
-
LHO said whatever he thought might help him appear to not be the shooter. He told Holmes he came down to the lunch room encounter with Baker.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----
"Commotion" --- Thats what Marines call gunfire?
He was up in the building when the assassination took place. Not on the steps. Not in the first floor lunchroom. He was on the 6th floor.
He was up in the building when the assassination took place.
The 2nd floor lunchroom is "up in the building"......
HOW ?? I ask HOW, did Lee know that Junior Jarman and Harold Norman had walked past the 1st floor at 12:26??
-
LHO said whatever he thought might help him appear to not be the shooter. He told Holmes he came down to the lunch room encounter with Baker.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting?
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of----
"Commotion" --- Thats what Marines call gunfire?
He was up in the building when the assassination took place. Not on the steps. Not in the first floor lunchroom. He was on the 6th floor.
Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion
Lee heard Baker and Truly running through the building... And he had been accosted by officer Baker who had a revolver in his hand, THAT is what Lee was referring to as the "commotion".
LHO said whatever he thought might help him appear to not be the shooter.
Lee didn't even know that the news reporters were saying the shots had been fired from the TSBD..... He was arrested before he had an opportunity to hear any news reports, so he didn't know what the news was reporting. So how could he "Say whatever he thought might help him appear not to be the shooter" ??
-
Anyone who was trying to tell what they saw during the murder of JFK was going to be told that what they saw was not really what they saw because any scenario other than the Warren Report was not going to be entered as any facts what so ever . There is really no way that it's not going to be 3 shots with LHO being the only shooter that day . If history keeps repeating itself then this country is in for a long hard road . It's really sad .
Roger Craig saw a Mauser and people try to make excuses saying that he didn't with zero evidence to back up their claims.
-
Roger Craig saw a Mauser and people try to make excuses saying that he didn't with zero evidence to back up their claims.
Roger Craig saw a Mauser and people try to make excuses saying that he didn't with zero evidence to back up their claims.
The phots clearly show the rifle was carcano..... Roger Craig was full of BS....
-
"Zero evidence"?
There is actual film evidence of the rifle being removed from it's hiding place and it is not a Mauser.
This is considered "zero evidence".
What a joke.
-
"Zero evidence"?
There is actual film evidence of the rifle being removed from it's hiding place and it is not a Mauser.
This is considered "zero evidence".
What a joke.
A Joke?? But not at all funny..... There are people with their heads in "the sand" who simply can't understand what their eyes tell them....That the rifle in Tom Alyea's film, is a Mannlicher Carcano.
-
A Joke?? But not at all funny..... There are people with their heads in "the sand" who simply can't understand what their eyes tell them....That the rifle in Tom Alyea's film, is a Mannlicher Carcano.
Maybe, if they took their tinfoil hats off, they could see what's staring them in the face.
-
Probably wise for black men to remain frozen for while in the aftermath of a shooting in a place like Texas.
Good one
PS: But then one wouldn't be surprised if these frozen black men were then shot for loitering