JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 05:10:24 AM

Title: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 05:10:24 AM

Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?

(http://jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/day1.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 09:17:23 AM
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?

(http://jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/day1.jpg)

JohnM

How many people knew Oswald had a rifle?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 09:31:14 AM
How many people knew Oswald had a rifle?

What, don't you know?

Anyway back on topic, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the building that Oswald worked in?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 10:53:23 AM
What, don't you know?

Anyway back on topic, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the building that Oswald worked in?

JohnM

Either Oswald or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 11:01:54 AM
Either Oswald or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".

Quote
Either Oswald

Yes.

Quote
or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".

Who and why?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 11:06:52 AM

Who and why?

JohnM

If not Oswald, the true assassin(s). Oswald's rifle served a purpose in that it would be tied to the owner.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 11:17:40 AM
If not Oswald, the true assassin(s). Oswald's rifle served would be tied to the owner.

I'm open to any conspiracy but you're gonna have to come up with some sort of alternate narrative otherwise the WC conclusion is the only logical conclusion that fits the evidence, and let's be honest there are few if any murders in history that have accumulated a literal mountain of evidence with thousands of exhibits and hundreds of eyewitnesses which can only lead to one man, Lee Harvey Oswald.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Matthew Finch on May 30, 2019, 11:44:10 AM
Just awaiting for the 'Prove it was Oswald's rifle' shenanigans.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 12:00:36 PM
Just awaiting for the 'Prove it was Oswald's rifle' shenanigans.

Are you hoping for a thread derail?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 12:04:59 PM
Are you hoping for a thread derail?

Let's wait and see?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 12:06:55 PM
Let's wait and see?

JohnM

There is nothing surer.......just wondering why state the obvious.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Matthew Finch on May 30, 2019, 12:32:33 PM
Not at all - I am just aware how these threads end up heading towards the same back-and-forth over ownership (or proof thereof, of said rifle).
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on May 30, 2019, 12:35:01 PM
Not at all - I am just aware how these threads end up heading towards the same back-and-forth over ownership (or proof thereof, of said rifle).

Let痴 try and work out who did know.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 04:01:59 PM
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 04:03:19 PM
I'm open to any conspiracy but you're gonna have to come up with some sort of alternate narrative otherwise the WC conclusion is the only logical conclusion that fits the evidence, and let's be honest there are few if any murders in history that have accumulated a literal mountain of evidence with thousands of exhibits and hundreds of eyewitnesses which can only lead to one man, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Specify the "thousands of exhibits and hundreds of eyewitnesses" which lead to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 04:04:20 PM
Not at all - I am just aware how these threads end up heading towards the same back-and-forth over ownership (or proof thereof, of said rifle).

Because "Oswald's rifle" is something that has to actually be demonstrated, not just assumed.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 08:02:57 PM
"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.

Yawn!

Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
Oswald's rifle was missing from the blanket in the Paine garage.
C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
C2766 contained fresh fibers which matched Oswald's shirt fibers.
C2766 had Oswald's palm print.

Btw I will end this here, if you want to discuss the rifle ownership then create your own thread.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 08:47:30 PM
Yawn!

Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
Oswald's rifle was missing from the blanket in the Paine garage.
C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
C2766 contained fresh fibers which matched Oswald's shirt fibers.
C2766 had Oswald's palm print.

Yawn, indeed.

Repeat after me:  Claims aren't evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 30, 2019, 08:59:04 PM
Because "Oswald's rifle" is something that has to actually be demonstrated, not just assumed.

What kind of evidence do you require, Iacoletti?

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 09:17:57 PM
What kind of evidence do you require, Iacoletti?

Evidence that he ever had that specific rifle in his possession?  I mean beyond the magic reappearing partial palmprint on an index card and Cecil Kirk's moon craters.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on May 30, 2019, 10:24:17 PM
Evidence that he ever had that specific rifle in his possession?  I mean beyond the magic reappearing partial palmprint on an index card and Cecil Kirk's moon craters.

Iacoletti,

Do you believe, Trump-like, that the investigators should have been investigated?

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 11:19:53 PM
Evidence that he ever had that specific rifle in his possession?  I mean beyond the magic reappearing partial palmprint on an index card and Cecil Kirk's moon craters.

The prosecution provides rock hard scientific evidence.

1) Lt. Day testified that he took the print on the day the print was dated.
2) The FBI provided evidence that the print on Days card was taken from Oswald's rifle, meaning Oswald touched the rifle.
3) The HSCA photography panel(PP) came to the conclusion that the same rifle in the backyard photos were from Oswald.
4) Scalice using new photos proved that the prints on the guard were found to be Oswald's.
5) The fresh fibers that were stuck in a crevice on Oswald's rifle came from Oswald's arrest shirt.

Iacoletti's non-scientific knee jerk defence.

1) Day lied.
2) The FBI lied.
3) The HSCA PP lied.
4) Scalice lied
5) Proves nothing

And there you have it, it's no wonder nobody takes the conspiracy side seriously.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 11:21:39 PM
Iacoletti's non-scientific knee jerk defence.

 :D

I didn't say anybody lied.  Try again.  You can either prove your claims are true or you cannot.

P.S. you still haven't said what "fresh fibers" means.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 11:31:32 PM
:D

I didn't say anybody lied.  Try again.  You can either prove your claims are true or you cannot.


What bizarre juvenile game are you playing?

Was Day telling the truth when he testified to the following?

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.


JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 30, 2019, 11:36:39 PM
:D

I didn't say anybody lied.  Try again.  You can either prove your claims are true or you cannot.

P.S. you still haven't said what "fresh fibers" means.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he Just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.
The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.
Mr. EISENBERG. "These" being the ones that you found in the butt plate crevice?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; adhering to this small jagged edge.


JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 30, 2019, 11:46:21 PM
1) Did Day prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139?  No, he just claimed it.

2) Did the FBI prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139?  No, Hoover just claimed it.

3) Did the HSCA photography panel(PP) conclude that the rifle in the backyard photos was uniquely identifiable as CE 139.  No.  And they didn't even claim that.

4) Did Scalice have any way of knowing in 1993 what the origin and provenance of these "new photos" was?  No.

5) Did anybody at any time even make a claim that fibers from the CE 139 rifle came specifically from Oswald's "arrest shirt".  No.

6) Is "Mytton" FOS?  Resoundingly, yes.

- Day didn't follow the procedure of photographing the alleged partial palmprint before lifting it or covering it with cellophane as he did with the trigger guard prints

- Day claimed that traces of this print remained, but there were no traces, even though the rifle was covered with fingerprint powder

- Day said that he didn't follow the standard procedure because Curry told him to stop all work in order to hand over the evidence to the FBI, but this order from Curry occurred right before midnight and Day was working on the prints 3 hours earlier

- Day didn't hand over this evidence to the FBI along with the rifle, or even tell agent Drain of its existence.

- This print wasn't mentioned by Fritz, Curry, Wade until after Oswald was dead, even though they spoke to the press about the existence of fingerprints.  There is no mention of this print in any document until November 26.  Latona didn't know about it until it arrived in Washington on the 29th.

- Drain didn't think it was authentic.

- The WC questioned whether it was authentic.

- Hoover's memo claimed matching "irregularities" on the rifle barrel, but there exists no report or details what matched, or who matched them or how, or when.

- This is what "Mytton" calls "rock hard scientific evidence".   :D

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 31, 2019, 12:01:46 AM
1) Did Day prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139?  No, he just claimed it.

Here on the 22nd at about 6:15, Lt. Day can be seen holding CE 139 and the gouge can be clearly made out on the Forestock. Are you claiming that he could have taken Oswald's prints from another rifle?

(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2013/November/131122/2D9755880-131121-assassination-jfk-weapon-940p.fit-760w.jpg)

Quote
- Day didn't follow the procedure

Boo hoo, how does that change Day's testimony or the physical evidence or anything?

Quote
- Hoover's memo claimed matching "irregularities" on the rifle barrel, but there exists no report or details what matched, or who matched them or how, or when.

Sorry John, Hoover provided a memo and matching evidence which shows the precise location of a number of corresponding anomalies. The rifle still exists and the Palmprint still exists so your reasoning that this powerful evidence is somehow just a claim is nonsensical. If you or the CT community feels this strongly re this deception then why don't you do something about it and provide an expert scientific refutation or would you rather just flap your gums and rely on voodoo?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq8Kbygr/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

And this is the best you got, you're not very good at this, are you John.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on May 31, 2019, 02:32:55 AM
Oswald ordered the rifle.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lBbF8H1R3sc/UePWFAvjvMI/AAAAAAAAvKY/5A611hBQNwQ/s1600/Rifle-Documents.jpg)

Oswald possessed the rifle.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HPQnsOqQfnY/Tmel8ssSYOI/AAAAAAAAhTc/hQBiAfX1ZpA/s1600/Oswald-Backyard-Photos.jpg)

Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work with Oswald's prints.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SsnIeaAWFfo/hqdefault.jpg)

(https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg)

Btw getting back to the thread topic, when is a CT going to provide evidence that C2766 was planted, surely after half a century at least one of you has figured it out?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on May 31, 2019, 06:20:33 PM
What bizarre juvenile game are you playing?

Was Day telling the truth when he testified to the following?

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.


JohnM

Like Inspector Clouseau, John I's motto is:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."    The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason but then he denies he is claiming it is the product of lies and fakery.  It just is.  Take his word for it. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 01, 2019, 02:55:30 PM
Like Inspector Clouseau, John I's motto is:  "I believe everything and I believe nothing.  I suspect everyone and I suspect no one."    The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason but then he denies he is claiming it is the product of lies and fakery.  It just is.  Take his word for it.


"The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason"

 :D

The defendant was denied legal representation, was murdered (lynched) while in police custody and the charges against

him (a prosecutor's pre-trial brief) were rubber stamped by the WC as the facts of the case.

It was the equivalent of a Soviet 'show trial' except Ozzie was killed before hand rather than immediately after.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 01, 2019, 06:04:10 PM

"The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason"

 :D

The defendant was denied legal representation, was murdered (lynched) while in police custody and the charges against

him (a prosecutor's pre-trial brief) were rubber stamped by the WC as the facts of the case.

It was the equivalent of a Soviet 'show trial' except Ozzie was killed before hand rather than immediately after.

Take it up with Jack Ruby.  The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him or how it can all be dismissed as suspect without someone lying or faking the evidence.  If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?  Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.  If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying.  To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael Clark on June 01, 2019, 06:38:11 PM
Take it up with Jack Ruby.


覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧-

Jack Ruby does not post on this forum.



 The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧

Well, it kind of does, since he never had a chance to defend himself. His defense may have been that he didn稚 bring the gun to work; that the gun was, for 28 hours, identified as a Mauser ..., and things like that.




  Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.  If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying.  To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧-

Someone like the Mayor of Dallas, Earle Cabell, perhaps, who was a CIA agent and brother of Deputy Director of the CIA, Charles Cabell, and whose brother suddenly died 4 months later, might be lying.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 01, 2019, 09:46:26 PM
Take it up with Jack Ruby.  The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him or how it can all be dismissed as suspect without someone lying or faking the evidence.  If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?  Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.  If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying.  To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.

"Take it up with Jack Ruby."

LHO was in DPD custody and they were responsible for his safety. Who let Ruby into the heavily guarded basement?

"The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him"

Sure it does. If Ozzie had lived and was able to procure legal representation, which he most certainly would have, the pretrial evidence that is now in the WCR would have been vetted in preliminary hearings, witness cross examinations and expert witnesses for the defense. Exculpatory evidence that was ignored and/or suppressed would have been brought to light.

"If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?"

That's why there are trials. The veracity of the evidence is subject to scrutiny by a variety of different means. That didn't happen in this case.
History has shown that Wade's DPD was quite capable of manufacturing evidence against defendants when they thought it was needed to get a conviction.
Even easier when you have a lawyerless dead man already convicted in the media.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 01, 2019, 11:56:59 PM
That's why there are trials. The veracity of the evidence is subject to scrutiny by a variety of different means. That didn't happen in this case.

I hope you're not thinking a trial would have turned out like the fantasy put forth by Walt Brown in "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald." Where the prosecutor seems to offer up nothing while the defense attorney scores point after uncontested point as if by magic. Or the 2013 two-day mock trial, largely an exercise for law students.

A trial would probably be more like the 1986 Bugliosi-Spence professional effort where a legitimate experienced prosecutor went toe-to-toe with a legitimate experienced defense attorney in a courtroom setting presided over by a real-life judge.

Quote
History has shown that Wade's DPD was quite capable of manufacturing evidence against defendants when they thought it was needed to get a conviction.
Even easier when you have a lawyerless dead man already convicted in the media.

Just that Oswald--in the hundreds of books and now thousands of websites--has received the greatest criminal defense of an individual in history. It even led to an House Select Committee in the late-70s, the most famous dramatic blockbuster movie ("JFK") concerning the subject and the Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 02, 2019, 03:42:08 PM
I hope you're not thinking a trial would have turned out like the fantasy put forth by Walt Brown in "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald." Where the prosecutor seems to offer up nothing while the defense attorney scores point after uncontested point as if by magic. Or the 2013 two-day mock trial, largely an exercise for law students.

A trial would probably be more like the 1986 Bugliosi-Spence professional effort where a legitimate experienced prosecutor went toe-to-toe with a legitimate experienced defense attorney in a courtroom setting presided over by a real-life judge.

Just that Oswald--in the hundreds of books and now thousands of websites--has received the greatest criminal defense of an individual in history. It even led to an House Select Committee in the late-70s, the most famous dramatic blockbuster movie ("JFK") concerning the subject and the Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

"Just that Oswald--in the hundreds of books and now thousands of websites--has received the greatest criminal defense of an individual in history."

 LOL
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 02, 2019, 06:20:54 PM
Either Oswald or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".

Harry Holmes told J.Edgar Hoover...     You figger it out.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 03, 2019, 02:48:40 AM
Take it up with Jack Ruby.  The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him or how it can all be dismissed as suspect without someone lying or faking the evidence.  If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?  Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.  If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying.  To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.

The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him

Oh yes it did. He never got an opportunity to tell his side of the story.

If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?

You don't believe that prosecutors and law enforcement officers ever tamper with evidence to get a conviction, right?

Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not.

The FBI, who examined the rifle within 24 hours after the murder, said they could not find prints. Doesn't that mean there were no prints on  the rifle?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on June 03, 2019, 08:44:10 AM
Harry Holmes told J.Edgar Hoover...     You figger it out.

Who did George DeM tell after the April visit?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 03, 2019, 03:36:51 PM
"Just that Oswald--in the hundreds of books and now thousands of websites--has received the greatest criminal defense of an individual in history."

 LOL

Opinion polls reflect how persuasive the Oswald defenders/conspiracy kooks (assisted by Stone's overwhelming Hollywood version) are.

Spence tried the sentimental-humanizing appeal in 1986 to little avail. CTs similarly argue that Oswald was a simple family man innocently manipulated and set-up. Having to "prove" things through time-travel doesn't sit well with judges.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Mike Orr on June 03, 2019, 07:40:14 PM
Oswald did not have a rifle on the 6th floor . The rifle that was found had no prints on it until low and behold , prints were found , and they happen to match Oswald . The owner of the funeral home said he had a heck of a time getting the ink off of LHO !
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 03, 2019, 08:08:38 PM
Opinion polls reflect how persuasive the Oswald defenders/conspiracy kooks (assisted by Stone's overwhelming Hollywood version) are.

Spence tried the sentimental-humanizing appeal in 1986 to little avail. CTs similarly argue that Oswald was a simple family man innocently manipulated and set-up. Having to "prove" things through time-travel doesn't sit well with judges.

"Opinion polls reflect how persuasive the Oswald defenders/conspiracy kooks (assisted by Stone's overwhelming Hollywood version) are."

 ::)

"...Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963,
University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's
death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead
while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local hoodlum with organized crime connections.

While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent
of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time..."


==================

"...many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but rarely talked about it openly.

Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately,
LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the
lone-gunman explanation.

The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had been killed by political enemies, according to
historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev,
Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously
scheduled trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a
Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis:
RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "despite Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys
believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents."

In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination.
In the executive branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary of Health Education and Welfare,
concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon,
wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn't interested.

Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon
special operations in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.

Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist,
rejected the Warren Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks before the assassination. Scott
concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald had, indeed, been just a patsy.

None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963.
Neither did they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it only reservedly, in confined circles..."


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 04, 2019, 04:42:06 AM
"Opinion polls reflect how persuasive the Oswald defenders/conspiracy kooks (assisted by Stone's overwhelming Hollywood version) are."

 ::)

"...Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963,
University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's
death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead
while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local hoodlum with organized crime connections.

While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent
of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time..."



Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)

Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on June 04, 2019, 05:05:35 AM
Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)

Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.

And no real influence of the movie "JFK".   ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 04, 2019, 02:40:12 PM
Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)

Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.

"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."

I have no idea what you're trying to convey with the above.

Here are the pertinent poll findings from the article.

"62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time"
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 04, 2019, 02:55:35 PM

~snip~

Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.


All that says is the Warren Report doesn't hold up when scrutinized.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 04, 2019, 03:51:15 PM
All that says is the Warren Report doesn't hold up when scrutinized.

How many people who participate in these polls have "scrutinized" the WC?  I bet half or more haven't even heard of it and less than ten percent have read a single page.  Most people don't know the basic facts fifty plus years later or give a fig.  Their uninformed opinions are worthless.  They are more likely to have seen Stone's wacky, paranoid fueled film and believe "something" may have happened.  What they have no idea.  Or that "one guy" couldn't pull it off for some unspecified reason.  The kind of baseless nonsense that is peddled by many CTers despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 04, 2019, 07:09:17 PM
Here on the 22nd at about 6:15, Lt. Day can be seen holding CE 139 and the gouge can be clearly made out on the Forestock. Are you claiming that he could have taken Oswald's prints from another rifle?

(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2013/November/131122/2D9755880-131121-assassination-jfk-weapon-940p.fit-760w.jpg)

Boo hoo, how does that change Day's testimony or the physical evidence or anything?

Sorry John, Hoover provided a memo and matching evidence which shows the precise location of a number of corresponding anomalies. The rifle still exists and the Palmprint still exists so your reasoning that this powerful evidence is somehow just a claim is nonsensical. If you or the CT community feels this strongly re this deception then why don't you do something about it and provide an expert scientific refutation or would you rather just flap your gums and rely on voodoo?

(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq8Kbygr/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

And this is the best you got, you're not very good at this, are you John.

JohnM

Mr Mytton....What caused the two parallel lines that are clearly visible in the photo?

Does the 5/8 inch diameter metal barrel of a Mannlicher Carcano have any characteristic that would create the two lines?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 04, 2019, 08:16:55 PM
"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."

I have no idea what you're trying to convey with the above.

Here are the pertinent poll findings from the article.

"62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time"


So everybody believes Oswald was the shooter. Got it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 04, 2019, 10:49:42 PM
Here on the 22nd at about 6:15, Lt. Day can be seen holding CE 139 and the gouge can be clearly made out on the Forestock. Are you claiming that he could have taken Oswald's prints from another rifle?

This photo of Day holding up a rifle is supposed to somehow prove that the print on the index card came from that rifle?

Quote
Boo hoo, how does that change Day's testimony or the physical evidence or anything?

Boo hoo.  Just because Day claimed something, that means it's true?  Even if it contradicts what Latona and Drain said?

Quote
Sorry John, Hoover provided a memo and matching evidence which shows the precise location of a number of corresponding anomalies.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq8Kbygr/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

Yeah, those "corresponding anomalies" are clear as mud.   :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 04, 2019, 10:52:42 PM
Oswald ordered the rifle.

This cute picture doesn't show that Oswald ordered anything.

Quote
Oswald possessed the rifle.

This cute picture doesn't show that Oswald possessed any specific rifle.

Quote
Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work with Oswald's prints.

"Oswald's rifle".  LOL.  "With Oswald's prints".  LOL.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 04, 2019, 10:55:55 PM
If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?

Nobody said they found Oswald's prints on the rifle.  Latona found a partial palmprint he identified as Oswald's on an index card.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Matthew Finch on June 05, 2019, 12:53:48 PM
Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)

Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.

Out of interest, what does the remaining percentage relate to? For example, only 91% (61% + 30%) are represented by the two camps. Those who 'Didn't know', I guess?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 05, 2019, 04:02:22 PM
"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."

I have no idea what you're trying to convey with the above.

Hmm. So let's apply what I said to what you say is pertinent ...

Quote
Here are the pertinent poll findings from the article.

"62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot."


"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald,"...
     (ie: the "week" included November 25 to 29, 1963)

Quote
There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time"

..."not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 05, 2019, 05:11:24 PM
Nobody said they found Oswald's prints on the rifle.  Latona found a partial palmprint he identified as Oswald's on an index card.

What are you implying, if anything?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 05, 2019, 05:43:51 PM
Nobody said they found Oswald's prints on the rifle.  Latona found a partial palmprint he identified as Oswald's on an index card.

What did Carl Day say, John? Aren't you forgetting something?

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 05, 2019, 09:18:30 PM
What did Carl Day say, John? Aren't you forgetting something?

Nope.  Day said that he "didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 05, 2019, 09:20:55 PM
What are you implying, if anything?

I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael O'Brian on June 05, 2019, 09:24:02 PM
The prosecution provides rock hard scientific evidence.

1) Lt. Day testified that he took the print on the day the print was dated.
2) The FBI provided evidence that the print on Days card was taken from Oswald's rifle, meaning Oswald touched the rifle.
3) The HSCA photography panel(PP) came to the conclusion that the same rifle in the backyard photos were from Oswald.
4) Scalice using new photos proved that the prints on the guard were found to be Oswald's.
5) The fresh fibers that were stuck in a crevice on Oswald's rifle came from Oswald's arrest shirt.

Iacoletti's non-scientific knee jerk defence.

1) Day lied.
2) The FBI lied.
3) The HSCA PP lied.
4) Scalice lied
5) Proves nothing

And there you have it, it's no wonder nobody takes the conspiracy side seriously.

JohnM

Wow they had the technology to take and test so many scientific experiments for evidence , even the nitrate test for residue on Oswalds cheek which proved him as not firing, the test performed on Oswald when he was arrested supported his claim that he had not fired a rifle in the previous 24 hours.
And still they could not think of putting a tape recorder into the interview room
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Anthony Clayden on June 05, 2019, 10:14:11 PM
Presuming it was Oswald rifle, so as to answer the original poster, and with no evidence per se....

Guns were shown at the TSBD in the week prior.
Dougherty and Oswald get talking, and Dougherty offers to buy the gun.
Oswald thinks he can a great price out of Dougherty, given Dougherty is not the sharpest knife in the draw.
Thinking he will be getting some money from Dougherty for the gun, he leaves Marina most of his cash for the kids (whom he adores)
Oswald brings the gun in and leaves it with Dougherty to check out.
Oswald goes to lunch, Dougherty shots Kennedy with Oswald gun.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 05, 2019, 10:18:53 PM
I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.

So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn稚? Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael O'Brian on June 05, 2019, 10:24:07 PM
Presuming it was Oswald rifle, so as to answer the original poster, and with no evidence per se....

Guns were shown at the TSBD in the week prior.
Dougherty and Oswald get talking, and Dougherty offers to buy the gun.
Oswald thinks he can a great price out of Dougherty, given Dougherty is not the sharpest knife in the draw.
Thinking he will be getting some money from Dougherty for the gun, he leaves Marina most of his cash for the kids (whom he adores)
Oswald brings the gun in and leaves it with Dougherty to check out.
Oswald goes to lunch, Dougherty shots Kennedy with Oswald gun.

Some interesting points here, and one or two facts, IMO those guns that the Castor's passed around as being some sort if sinister aspect to this case
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 05, 2019, 11:10:19 PM
So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn稚?

Absolutely.  Did you read my post at #25 in this thread?

Quote
Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what evidence you recall?
Mr. WADE. I have made no notes but roughly he gave the story about him bringing the gun to work, saying it was window rods from the neighbor, someone who had brought him to work. He also said there were three employees of the company that left him on the sixth floor. He told about, the part about, the young officer running in there right after the assassination and Oswald leaving after the manager said that he was employed there. Told about his arrest and said that there was a scuffle there, and that he tried to shoot the officer.
I don't know--I think I am giving you all this because I think a little of it may vary from the facts but all I know is what Fritz told me.
He said the Dallas police had found a palmprint on the underside of the gun of Oswald. At that time, the FBI was standing by to fly the gun to the laboratory here in Washington which incidentally, they didn't find, but I assume the Commission has interviewed Senator--not Senator--Day, the fingerprint man of the Dallas police but I have learned since that he probably can't identify the palmprint under there but at that time they told me they had one on it.

Also note that Wade is testifying on June 8, 1964, over 6 months later.  There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 06, 2019, 12:27:13 AM
Absolutely.  Did you read my post at #25 in this thread?

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what evidence you recall?
Mr. WADE. I have made no notes but roughly he gave the story about him bringing the gun to work, saying it was window rods from the neighbor, someone who had brought him to work. He also said there were three employees of the company that left him on the sixth floor. He told about, the part about, the young officer running in there right after the assassination and Oswald leaving after the manager said that he was employed there. Told about his arrest and said that there was a scuffle there, and that he tried to shoot the officer.
I don't know--I think I am giving you all this because I think a little of it may vary from the facts but all I know is what Fritz told me.
He said the Dallas police had found a palmprint on the underside of the gun of Oswald. At that time, the FBI was standing by to fly the gun to the laboratory here in Washington which incidentally, they didn't find, but I assume the Commission has interviewed Senator--not Senator--Day, the fingerprint man of the Dallas police but I have learned since that he probably can't identify the palmprint under there but at that time they told me they had one on it.

Also note that Wade is testifying on June 8, 1964, over 6 months later.  There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.

Absolutely.  Did you read my post at #25 in this thread?


I have now. And I also read John Myton's reply. And your lame response to it.

Also note that Wade is testifying on June 8, 1964, over 6 months later.

When he testified is irrelevant. What he testified, under oath, is relevant.

There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.

This is irrelevant also. However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator. Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death. Public disclosure might not have been until after LHO's death. However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 06, 2019, 01:09:34 AM
Absolutely.  Did you read my post at #25 in this thread?


I have now. And I also read John Myton's reply. And your lame response to it.

Also note that Wade is testifying on June 8, 1964, over 6 months later.

When he testified is irrelevant. What he testified, under oath, is relevant.

There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.

This is irrelevant also. However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator. Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death. Public disclosure might not have been until after LHO's death. However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.

This is irrelevant also.

No it isn't

However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator.

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death.

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?

Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.

Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.

Sure they don't, but that didn't stop DPD officers talking to the media from day 1


You are all over the place on this one, Charles.... now, why does that not surprise me?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 06, 2019, 01:44:05 AM
This is irrelevant also.

No it isn't

However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator.

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death.

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?

Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.

Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.

Sure they don't, but that didn't stop DPD officers talking to the media from day 1


You are all over the place on this one, Charles.... now, why does that not surprise me?

No it isn't

Why do you think it is relevant?

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?


Relevance?

Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

He was the prosecutor. Not the public. He had a legitimate reason to ask.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 06, 2019, 03:31:17 PM
Hmm. So let's apply what I said to what you say is pertinent ...

"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald,"...
     (ie: the "week" included November 25 to 29, 1963)

..."not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."

Jerry "Obfuscation" Organ.

You're grasping at straw trying to support an untenable position.

The opinions expressed by those polls were definitely influenced by Ruby murdering LHO, in DPD custody, live in front of the world.

Portraying the intent as,"opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald" is intellectually dishonest.

The majority of people asked did and still do believe there was a conspiracy of more than one person

involved in the assassination of JFK. Before critics began dismantling the WCR and after.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 06, 2019, 04:31:12 PM
How many people who participate in these polls have "scrutinized" the WC?  I bet half or more haven't even heard of it and less than ten percent have read a single page.  Most people don't know the basic facts fifty plus years later or give a fig.  Their uninformed opinions are worthless.  They are more likely to have seen Stone's wacky, paranoid fueled film and believe "something" may have happened.  What they have no idea.  Or that "one guy" couldn't pull it off for some unspecified reason.  The kind of baseless nonsense that is peddled by many CTers despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Regardless, before any critics dissected the WCR, and after, opinion polls showed a majority believed a conspiracy murdered JFK.

If the WCR is such a straight forward and overwhelming set of facts and evidence supporting the official LN narrative, why the need

to attack the uniformed, worthless, wacky, baseless opinions of the paranoid CT influenced pollees dug up by these obviously incompetent

pollsters? :P

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 06, 2019, 11:01:11 PM
No it isn't

Why do you think it is relevant?


Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.

Quote

Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name

Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?


Relevance?


A prosecutor with countless unsafe convictions making a claim from memory after a suspect's death is of no relevance to you?

Quote
Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense

He was the prosecutor. Not the public. He had a legitimate reason to ask.

Hang on one minute... You earlier claimed that;

"Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death."


But Wade was in fact involved in the investigation from day 1. He was already giving interviews during the time that Oswald was in custody, so your claim that someone outside the investigation was told is simply bogus.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 06, 2019, 11:46:02 PM
Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.

A prosecutor with countless unsafe convictions making a claim from memory after a suspect's death is of no relevance to you?

Hang on one minute... You earlier claimed that;

"Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death."


But Wade was in fact involved in the investigation from day 1. He was already giving interviews during the time that Oswald was in custody, so your claim that someone outside the investigation was told is simply bogus.

Read Wade痴 testimony. He explained how his office is separate from the police. And who was responsible for what.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 07, 2019, 12:14:21 AM
Read Wade痴 testimony. He explained how his office is separate from the police. And who was responsible for what.

Of course he had a seperate office, but his comments about the case to the media from day 1 clearly show that he was actively involved in the investigation.....

If he wasn't he wouldn't have been able to make those comments and Fritz would have had no reason to tell Wade anything.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 07, 2019, 12:36:58 AM
Of course he had a seperate office, but his comments about the case to the media from day 1 clearly show that he was actively involved in the investigation.....

If he wasn't he wouldn't have been able to make those comments and Fritz would have had no reason to tell Wade anything.

Have you read his testimony where he explained why he even went to the DPD?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Pat Speer on June 07, 2019, 12:50:46 AM
The prosecution provides rock hard scientific evidence.

1) Lt. Day testified that he took the print on the day the print was dated.
2) The FBI provided evidence that the print on Days card was taken from Oswald's rifle, meaning Oswald touched the rifle.
3) The HSCA photography panel(PP) came to the conclusion that the same rifle in the backyard photos were from Oswald.
4) Scalice using new photos proved that the prints on the guard were found to be Oswald's.
5) The fresh fibers that were stuck in a crevice on Oswald's rifle came from Oswald's arrest shirt.


I honestly have no dog in this hunt, as I would be perfectly willing to believe Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy...should that be what the evidence suggests. Unfortunately, however, my attempt to separate fact from fiction in this case led me to conclude BOTH "sides" are full of it.

As to John's list...

1. Day told numerous falsehoods in his testimony, and his claims about the print were dubious, as best. It appears, moreover, that the WC came to believe as much. Day claimed, after all, that he told Curry and Fritz about the print on the evening of the assassination, and neither the FBI or WC made any effort to verify this with Curry or Fritz. While some claim, moreover, that Wade knew about the print and discussed it in his press conference, it's incredibly clear, once one looks at all the evidence, that Wade was speaking about the trigger guard print, which was listed as a possible palm print in memos written days after the press conference.
2. The FBI's "match" of the lift to the rifle is equally dubious. A. This "match" was described in a letter, and not sworn testimony. B. This "match" of five points fell far below the number of matching points required to say two prints were a match, and was of questionable scientific value. C. No FBI crime lab report on this match has ever surfaced, and it's quite possible there were a number of marks on the lift or the rifle that were not shared by the other, which would in effect make this "match" a "non-match." D. There is no record the FBI contacted Day and had him specify exactly where the print was on the rifle. As a consequence, the FBI's report is basically that we found five blemishes on the lift that roughly aligned with five blemishes on the rifle, which may or may not be where the print was supposedly found. Worthless.
3. No argument here. It may very well have been Oswald's rifle in the photos.
4. The FBI dismissed Scalice's use of five photos to match up one print as junk science, and refused to sign off on it. I believe this remains their position. Even worse, fingerprint charts are the cornerstone of ALL print identifications. It's basically showing your work.  Scalice's charts--if they ever existed--have never been published or shared. As a result, his identification of the trigger guard prints as Oswald's prints is near worthless, scientifically speaking. Even worse, he claims he used five photos from Savage to come to his conclusion. Well, this is mighty curious seeing as there were only three photos, and that the NEGATIVES to these photos were provided the FBI, as well as the prints themselves, and the FBI's own photos of the prints. 
5. The fibers on the rifle butt were, per Stombaugh, found on top the fingerprint powder. This led Stombaugh to offer that the fibers were wrapped around the butt plate while someone (Day) was dusting the rifle. Well, this is ludicrous. If there was a clump of fibers adhering to the butt plate while Day was dusting the area, he would have noticed them and removed them, that is, assuming he was remotely competent. Making matters worse is that when asked about it on the 23rd Oswald claimed he'd changed a dirty reddish shirt after work, and that this dirty "reddish"shirt was found among his possessions. The historical record, then, is this. The DPD and FBI had nothing to show Oswald touched the rifle on the 22nd. They then claimed they'd found fibers from his shirt on the rifle. They then found out that--oops--he hadn't been wearing that shirt that day. He was then murdered while in police custody, which essentially saved Fritz and the DPD from a trial in which his defense team would have argued the fibers were planted on the rifle--and would probably have won that argument (seeing as no one at work could identify the dark brown shirt in which he was arrested as a shirt he'd worn to work, and seeing as this shirt was not nearly as dirty as the shirt he claimed he'd been wearing).
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 07, 2019, 01:25:24 AM
Have you read his testimony where he explained why he even went to the DPD?

You don't get any of this, do you?

You place way too much value on the WC testimony. You seem to assume that everybody always tells the whole and complete truth under oath, when in fact they don't. It's human nature to forget things or remember them incorrectly. The WC testimony IMO has very little value indeed, because there was never any cross-examination of any wittness and all testimony was given in the full knowledge that the main suspect had already died. To make matters worse, we know that the WC tampered with testimony and it's pretty obvious to anybody who has half a legal mind that the WC was only asking selective questions and were using just about every prosecutorial trick in the book to get the testimony they needed. 

Wade's statements are after the fact and more importantly after Oswald was dead. Wade can "explain" anything he wants at that point and nobody is going to challenge it. That doesn't automatically make it true! I don't trust the words of a prosecutor who, as it recently has turned out, has a terrible record of unsafe convictions due to prosecturial misconduct and manipulation of evidence. You really don't have a clue who you are defending here, do you? It's either that or you just don't care....

You can't have it both ways, Charles.... Wade was either involved in the investigation from day 1 (as proven by his statements to the media) or he wasn't involved in the investigation in which case Fritz had no reason to tell him anything and he exceeded his authority by telling the media about things he shouldn't have known at that time.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 07, 2019, 01:56:08 AM
You don't get any of this, do you?

Wade's statements are after the fact and more importantly after Oswald was dead. Wade can "explain" anything he wants at that point and nobody is going to challenge it. That doesn't automatically make it true! I don't trust the words of a prosecutor who, as it recently has turned out, has a terrible record of unsafe convictions due to prosecturial misconduct and manipulation of evidence. You really don't have a clue who you are defending here, do you? It's either that or you just don't care....

You can't have it both ways, Charles.... Wade was either involved in the investigation from day 1 (as proven by his statements to the media) or he wasn't involved in the investigation in which case Fritz had no reason to tell him anything and he exceeded his authority by telling the media about things he shouldn't have known at that time.

Wade was the prosecutor. He didn稚 investigate.

After a radio report that the Dallas police, in a court filing, had somehow implicated the Soviets in Oswald痴 crimes. And a related call from LBJ aide Cliff Carter in Washington. The DA headed to for police headquarters 鍍o make sure they were filling just a straight murder case.

Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment. So he had a legitimate need to know what evidence the investigators had.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 07, 2019, 02:20:41 AM
Wade was the prosecutor. He didn稚 investigate.

After a radio report that the Dallas police, in a court filing, had somehow implicated the Soviets in Oswald痴 crimes. And a related call from LBJ aide Cliff Carter in Washington. The DA headed to for police headquarters 鍍o make sure they were filling just a straight murder case.

Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment. So he had a legitimate need to know what evidence the investigators had.

As I said, you clearly don't get (or want to get) any of it.

Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment.

Except for the fact that the prime suspect was dead and there would never be a trial

Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment. So he had a legitimate need to know what evidence the investigators had.

Which means that even if he didn't investigate himself, he was still part of the investigation.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 07, 2019, 02:38:31 AM
As I said, you clearly don't get (or want to get) any of it.

Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment. So he had a legitimate need to know what evidence the investigators had.

Which means that even if he didn't investigate himself, he was still part of the investigation.

This is what I said:

典herefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.

An investigation team investigates. A prosecution team prosecutes. Wade was not investigating. The investigation team was cooperating with him. My point is that the palm print was disclosed to him before the death of LHO.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 07, 2019, 02:50:27 AM
This is what I said:

典herefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.

An investigation team investigates. A prosecution team prosecutes. Wade was not investigating. The investigation team was cooperating with him. My point is that the palm print was disclosed to him before the death of LHO.

BS... Wade was actively involved from day 1. The idea that the two work completely independently is an illussion. Your remark only shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

You just don't want to accept that.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 07, 2019, 04:49:05 AM

2. The FBI's "match" of the lift to the rifle is equally dubious. A. This "match" was described in a letter, and not sworn testimony. B. This "match" of five points fell far below the number of matching points required to say two prints were a match, and was of questionable scientific value. C. No FBI crime lab report on this match has ever surfaced, and it's quite possible there were a number of marks on the lift or the rifle that were not shared by the other, which would in effect make this "match" a "non-match." D. There is no record the FBI contacted Day and had him specify exactly where the print was on the rifle. As a consequence, the FBI's report is basically that we found five blemishes on the lift that roughly aligned with five blemishes on the rifle, which may or may not be where the print was supposedly found. Worthless.


Thanks for your input, the FBI took a print of the rifle from the same place that Day testified to taking on the 22nd and the FBI lined up these 5 marks. You seem to be applying fingerprint identification to the location of these 5 marks and it's entirely a different kettle of fish, here we have 5 random pock marks of equal size and equally spaced apart which is seen as unique enough to be be considered proof, the chances that those 5 pock marks randomly appeared in the same place and of the same size on another rifle would be extremely remote.

It's like the random gouge on the forestock of the rifle, the unique gouge can be seen in photographs and proves that Oswald's rifle was with him in late March/early April, was found on the 6th floor, was carried out of the building, was later paraded in front of the press and is the same rifle today that is sometimes seen in exhibitions. 

If we had a better copy of the FBI print transfer from the rifle then we could try to make a match, hopefully it will turn up sometime but the rifle still exists and maybe somebody can take a high res photo or maybe even take another print?
Here is the same exhibit overlayed with a better copy of Oswald's palmprint and we can see the 5 pock marks which according to the FBI correspond to the barrel of Oswald's rifle and considering the rifle wasn't destroyed immediately thereafter the marks must still be there which leads to the obvious question why would the FBI invent this evidence?

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qZX0njQ/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 07, 2019, 12:13:10 PM
BS... Wade was actively involved from day 1. The idea that the two work completely independently is an illussion. Your remark only shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

You just don't want to accept that.

It is you that just doesn't want to accept this:

Warren Commission Volume V, pages 215 and 216:

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/pages/WC_Vol5_0113a.gif)

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/pages/WC_Vol5_0113b.gif)

Mr. Wade. ...It has never been my policy to make any investigations out of my office of murders or anything else for that matter. We leave that entirely to the police agency.

Mr. Rankin. Do you have a reason for that?

Mr. Wade. That is the way it is set up down there...

Mr. Wade. ... I didn't even know Oswald had been arrested at this time. As a matter of fact, I didn't know it at 5 o'clock when I left the hospital. When I left the hospital, I went home, watched television for a while, had dinner, and a couple, some friends of ours came over there. They were going to Austin with us on the bus, and we had dinner and started out somewhere but I said we better go by the police station.

Mr Wade. ...I went by the Dallas police, just to see what was kind of going on.

Mr. Rankin. Was that unusual for you to do that?

Mr. Wade. It was unusual because I hadn't been in the Dallas Police Department, I won't be in there on the average of once a year actually, I mean on anything.


The above is why I asked you to read Wade's testimony. It clearly shows exactly what I have been saying and you refuse to accept.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 07, 2019, 03:36:08 PM
I honestly have no dog in this hunt, as I would be perfectly willing to believe Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy...should that be what the evidence suggests. Unfortunately, however, my attempt to separate fact from fiction in this case led me to conclude BOTH "sides" are full of it.

As to John's list...

1. Day told numerous falsehoods in his testimony, and his claims about the print were dubious, as best. It appears, moreover, that the WC came to believe as much. Day claimed, after all, that he told Curry and Fritz about the print on the evening of the assassination, and neither the FBI or WC made any effort to verify this with Curry or Fritz. While some claim, moreover, that Wade knew about the print and discussed it in his press conference, it's incredibly clear, once one looks at all the evidence, that Wade was speaking about the trigger guard print, which was listed as a possible palm print in memos written days after the press conference.
2. The FBI's "match" of the lift to the rifle is equally dubious. A. This "match" was described in a letter, and not sworn testimony. B. This "match" of five points fell far below the number of matching points required to say two prints were a match, and was of questionable scientific value. C. No FBI crime lab report on this match has ever surfaced, and it's quite possible there were a number of marks on the lift or the rifle that were not shared by the other, which would in effect make this "match" a "non-match." D. There is no record the FBI contacted Day and had him specify exactly where the print was on the rifle. As a consequence, the FBI's report is basically that we found five blemishes on the lift that roughly aligned with five blemishes on the rifle, which may or may not be where the print was supposedly found. Worthless.
3. No argument here. It may very well have been Oswald's rifle in the photos.
4. The FBI dismissed Scalice's use of five photos to match up one print as junk science, and refused to sign off on it. I believe this remains their position. Even worse, fingerprint charts are the cornerstone of ALL print identifications. It's basically showing your work.  Scalice's charts--if they ever existed--have never been published or shared. As a result, his identification of the trigger guard prints as Oswald's prints is near worthless, scientifically speaking. Even worse, he claims he used five photos from Savage to come to his conclusion. Well, this is mighty curious seeing as there were only three photos, and that the NEGATIVES to these photos were provided the FBI, as well as the prints themselves, and the FBI's own photos of the prints. 
5. The fibers on the rifle butt were, per Stombaugh, found on top the fingerprint powder. This led Stombaugh to offer that the fibers were wrapped around the butt plate while someone (Day) was dusting the rifle. Well, this is ludicrous. If there was a clump of fibers adhering to the butt plate while Day was dusting the area, he would have noticed them and removed them, that is, assuming he was remotely competent. Making matters worse is that when asked about it on the 23rd Oswald claimed he'd changed a dirty reddish shirt after work, and that this dirty "reddish"shirt was found among his possessions. The historical record, then, is this. The DPD and FBI had nothing to show Oswald touched the rifle on the 22nd. They then claimed they'd found fibers from his shirt on the rifle. They then found out that--oops--he hadn't been wearing that shirt that day. He was then murdered while in police custody, which essentially saved Fritz and the DPD from a trial in which his defense team would have argued the fibers were planted on the rifle--and would probably have won that argument (seeing as no one at work could identify the dark brown shirt in which he was arrested as a shirt he'd worn to work, and seeing as this shirt was not nearly as dirty as the shirt he claimed he'd been wearing).

It should be very clear that the Warren Commission was simply a cover up, white wash.....  LBJ commissioned the "investigation" .... 

What do these two facts tell you?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 07, 2019, 03:55:38 PM

The above is why I asked you to read Wade's testimony. It clearly shows exactly what I have been saying and you refuse to accept.


You quoting your "bible" doesn't change anything I have said on the subject.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 07, 2019, 05:16:39 PM
You quoting your "bible" doesn't change anything I have said on the subject.

In your mind.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Halle on June 07, 2019, 08:01:19 PM
There are some problems with this question. Mainly, in that there are some assumptions at work here. Fact is, three rifles were found in the TSBD, a British Enfield, a German Mauser, and a cheap Italian Army surplus weapon (with poorly aligned sight, and no magazine), the Mannlicher-Carcano...and none of them was positively established as belonging to LHO. What's more, the M-C carbine was found under some boxes at the opposite side of the building from the supposed "sniper-nest" on the south side of the building. Finally, there is pretty good evidence that LO was not even on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, but was on the front steps of the building. Thus, I have a serious problem with anyone referring to the M-C weapon as "Oswald's rifle." At the very most, one MIGHT choose to refer to it as "Oswald's rifle" or Oswald's "supposed rifle." Or--to be honest (and not employ "loaded questions")--one might simply ask how the M-C carbine (whatever its value) might have ended up on the north side of the sixth floor (or other floor, as the early testimony mentioned other floors).
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 08, 2019, 07:44:17 PM
I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.

Well the Dallas Morning news appears to have given an 11/24/63 front page article quote by "an investigator" some credence. Maybe they felt that there was a "good reason to believe" it.

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass. We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

Here is a link to the front page: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156 (http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156)

So it would appear that someone did say something to The Dallas Morning News (before Oswald's death).
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 08, 2019, 11:37:32 PM
Well the Dallas Morning news appears to have given an 11/24/63 front page article quote by "an investigator" some credence. Maybe they felt that there was a "good reason to believe" it.

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass. We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

Here is a link to the front page: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156 (http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156)

So it would appear that someone did say something to The Dallas Morning News (before Oswald's death).

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

A print? How do you know this is the print on the index card that was allegedly taken from the rifle?

It could have been a print from one of the boxes at the TSBD or from the paper bag, or couldn't it.

Besides, you can't place much value on what investigators told the media in those earlier days. As you can read in the article they also claimed that a parrafin test showed that Oswald had fired a weapen recently, when in fact it didn't show that at all.

Btw it's quite comical to read that, in a article full of information about the evidence, Wade says he refuses to discuss the evidence because it would make it harder to find a jury.... Go figure
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 12:40:55 AM
We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

A print? How do you know this is the print on the index card that was allegedly taken from the rifle?

It could have been a print from one of the boxes at the TSBD or from the paper bag, or couldn't it.

Besides, you can't place much value on what investigators told the media in those earlier days. As you can read in the article they also claimed that a parrafin test showed that Oswald had fired a weapen recently, when in fact it didn't show that at all.

Btw it's quite comical to read that, in a article full of information about the evidence, Wade says he refuses to discuss the evidence because it would make it harder to find a jury.... Go figure

You are taking one sentence out of context. They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

...There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 01:07:28 AM
You are taking one sentence out of context. They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

You are taking one sentence out of context.

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."

They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

Nothing clearly about it. You are jumping to a conclusion not justified by the evidence. All the investigator said was that they had a print that matches Oswald. There is no mention of where the print came from or the rifle for that matter.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

Wrong again. It would only "appear to be in error" is one first accepts that your flawed jump to a conclusion is correct. Since it isn't, John's claim isn't in error.

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

And wrong again. All you've got is Wade claiming "from memory", months after Oswald's death, that Fritz told him about the print prior to Oswald's death. The mere fact that Wade claims it doesn't make it so. There is no contemporary record of such a conversation. It's just one more instance where law enforcement (i.e. investigators and prosecutors) is making claims about non existent vital evidence.

What is funny though is that the article clearly shows that Wade was involved in the case from day 1. He may not have been an investigator, but he was there and discussing with the media the evidence he, in the same article, said he wouldn't discuss for fear of contaminating the jury pool.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 01:38:26 AM
You are taking one sentence out of context.

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."

They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.

Nothing clearly about it. You are jumping to a conclusion not justified by the evidence. All the investigator said was that they had a print that matches Oswald.
There is no mention of where the print came from or the rifle for that matter.

The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:

Wrong again. It would only "appear to be in error" is one first accepts that your flawed jump to a conclusion is correct. Since it isn't, John's claim isn't in error.

And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:

And wrong again. All you've got is Wade claiming "from memory", months after Oswald's death, that Fritz told him about the print prior to Oswald's death. The mere fact that Wade claims it doesn't make it so. There is no contemporary record of such a conversation. It's just one more instance where law enforcement (i.e. investigators and prosecutors) is making claims about non existent vital evidence.

What is funny though is that the article clearly shows that Wade was involved in the case from day 1. He may not have been an investigator, but he was there and discussing with the media the evidence he, in the same article, said he wouldn't discuss for fear of contaminating the jury pool.

No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."


You are taking that sentence out of context of the rest of the article. The preceding sentence is:

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

Put the sentences in context with each other and the meaning is clear.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 01:57:33 AM
No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."


You are taking that sentence out of context of the rest of the article. The preceding sentence is:

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

Put the sentences in context with each other and the meaning is clear.

So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.

Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 02:25:21 AM
So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.

Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.

Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 02:37:04 AM
Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.

I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out loud, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an index card. Can you do that or can't you?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 03:09:31 AM
I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card. Can you do that or can't you?

...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You池e the one speculating.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 03:19:21 AM
...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"

You池e the one speculating.

So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it!  Thumb1:
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 12:23:34 PM
So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it!  Thumb1:

I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

 Any description of anyone痴 interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 01:00:44 PM
I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

 Any description of anyone痴 interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.

No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.

I already have.

No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.

Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.

Any description of anyone痴 interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.

So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?

Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 05:22:30 PM
No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.

I already have.

No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.

Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.

Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.

Any description of anyone痴 interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.

So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?

Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th

So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.

The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 05:42:34 PM
So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.

The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.

The words were written by reporters who were there.

Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.

You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.

The first part;

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"

The second part;

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.

A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!

This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 06:31:20 PM
The words were written by reporters who were there.

Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.

You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.

The first part;

Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.

just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"

The second part;

We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.

is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.

A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!

This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?

Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!


No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 09, 2019, 09:09:56 PM
Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!


No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?


Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's

Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

They had no print match on 11/22/63 to Oswald or anybody else!


The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.

Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 09, 2019, 09:47:31 PM

Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's

Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Thry had no print match on 11-22-63 to Oswald or anybody else!


The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.

BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.

Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.

Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....

Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Direct quote of Wade in 展itness to History by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - 典hey had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald痴].

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 10, 2019, 01:02:03 AM
Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?

Direct quote of Wade in 展itness to History by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - 典hey had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald痴].

Please stop seeing things that aren't there. Your claim was that Wade was told about the palmprint and a tentative match by an expert on 11/22/63.

Your quote from Aynesworth's book (published in 2013) doesn't show that at all. All it shows is that Wade remembered  that (at some point in time) they had a palm print on the gun which an expert tentatively identified as Oswald, but he doesn't say this was on 11/22/63 as you claimed.

All you have so far is Wade's WC testimony from 1964, a vague quote of an unnamed investigator in a newspaper article and another vague quote of Wade in a book in 2013 and none of it actually supports your claim. Now you can continue using scraps of vague statements and quotes to make up your own version as much as you want, but the actual evidence makes it simply impossible for Wade or anybody else having been informed about the print on the index card on 11/22/63.

We know that Day kept the print to himself until he was ordered to release all the evidence to the FBI on 11/26/63. Had he already made a match of the print with Oswald, he would have had no reason at all to keep it to himself. It would more likely have been all over the media as the proverbial smoking gun. Instead, Day doesn't even mention a match to the FBI! Latona of the FBI lab received the print on 11/29/63 and it was he who made the tentative match.

Bottom line; your story simply does not compute with the timeline of known events.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 10, 2019, 02:12:39 AM
Please stop seeing things that aren't there. Your claim was that Wade was told about the palmprint and a tentative match by an expert on 11/22/63.

Your quote from Aynesworth's book doesn't show that at all. All it shows that Wade remembered that (at some point in time) they had a palm print on the gun which an expert tentatively identified as Oswald, but he doesn't say this was on 11/22/63 as you claimed.

Now you can continue using scraps of vague statements and quotes to make up your own version as much as you want, but the actual evidence makes it simply impossible for Wade or anybody else having been informed about the print on the index card on 11/22/63.

Day kept the print to himself until he was ordered to release all the evidence to the FBI on 11/26/63. Had he already made a match of the print with Oswald, he would have had no reason at all to keep it to himself. It would more likely have been all over the media as the proverbial smoking gun. Instead, Day mentions nothing about a match to the FBI. Latona of the FBI lab received the print on 11/29/63 and it was he who made the tentative match.

Bottom line; your story simply does not compute with the timeline of known events.

You are dead wrong. Aynesworth is describing Wade痴 activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads 典he investigators told me that night they had evidence against Oswald that was stronger than it turned out to be. They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald痴]. But I don稚 think the FBI ever did identify that palm print.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 10, 2019, 02:25:04 AM
You are dead wrong. Aynesworth is describing Wade痴 activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads 典he investigators told me that night they had evidence against Oswald that was stronger than it turned out to be. They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald痴]. But I don稚 think the FBI ever did identify that palm print.

Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.

So where did the "quote" come from?   

Btw;

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.
The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 10, 2019, 02:30:20 AM
Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.

So where did the "quote" come from?

Aynesworth is still around, ask him. The quote is inside quotation marks. So it appears to be a direct quote of Wade.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 10, 2019, 02:42:52 AM
Aynesworth is still around, ask him. The quote is inside quotation marks. So it appears to be a direct quote of Wade.

"Appears to be" is good enough for you?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 10, 2019, 11:13:30 AM
"Appears to be" is good enough for you?

There are quite a few other quotes of Wade in this section of the book. They are all accompanied with a comment like: Wade later said to me, or Wade recollected, etc. The  quote that we have been discussing is preceded by: He recalled that the evidence....

Yes, Aynesworth is a well respected journalist. I am satisfied.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 10, 2019, 02:03:15 PM
There are quite a few other quotes of Wade in this section of the book. They are all accompanied with a comment like: Wade later said to me, or Wade recollected, etc. The  quote that we have been discussing is preceded by: He recalled that the evidence....

Yes, Aynesworth is a well respected journalist. I am satisfied.

That explains why you are a LNr. no desire to ask the hard questions
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 10, 2019, 09:31:08 PM
That explains why you are a LNr. no desire to ask the hard questions

You are dead wrong (again). Long before you posted your remark I contacted Hugh Aynesworth today on the telephone. And yes he confirmed that those are direct quotes of Henry Wade in his book. He also told me that James Ewell was the top police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and Carl Freund was a top notch reporter. And that he believed they reported what they were told. He also told me that he saw Henry Wade not long before he passed away and that Wade was still of sound mind.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 12:39:51 AM
You are dead wrong (again). Long before you posted your remark I contacted Hugh Aynesworth today on the telephone. And yes he confirmed that those are direct quotes of Henry Wade in his book. He also told me that James Ewell was the top police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and Carl Freund was a top notch reporter. And that he believed they reported what they were told. He also told me that he saw Henry Wade not long before he passed away and that Wade was still of sound mind.

And we just have to take your word for all this, right?

Let me just repeat what I posted earlier. It shows you perfectly that on 11/22/63 Wade could not have been told about a palmprint from the rifle matching with Oswald, simply because there wasn't one! No matter how many times Wade remembered it incorrectly.

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.
The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 02:09:51 AM
And we just have to take your word for all this, right?

Let me just repeat what I posted earlier. It shows you perfectly that on 11/22/63 Wade could not have been told about a palmprint from the rifle matching with Oswald, simply because there wasn't one! No matter how many times Wade remembered it incorrectly.

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.
The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

And we just have to take your word for all this, right?

Feel free to verify it with Hugh Aynesworth. I spoke with him for seven minutes beginning at 9:58 am this morning Dallas time. He is very friendly and you should have no problem looking him up.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

Day
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 02:12:35 AM
And we just have to take your word for all this, right?

Feel free to verify it with Hugh Aynesworth. I spoke with him for seven minutes beginning at 9:58 am this morning Dallas time. He is very friendly and you should have no problem looking him up.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

Day

Quote
Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

Day

So Day lied in his WC testimony?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 02:24:21 AM
So Day lied in his WC testimony?

No
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 02:35:39 AM
No

You claim, rather silly, that Day was the expert who made a tentative match of the print on an index card with Oswald and did so on 11/22/63

Day, in his WC testimony, said that he had only lifted the palmprint of the rifle when he was ordered by the chief's office to go no further with the processing.


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Your claim and Day's testimony contradict eachother...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 02:37:20 AM
You claim, rather silly, that Day was the expert who made a tentative match of the print on an index card with Oswald and did so on 11/22/63

Day, in his WC testimony, said that he had only lifted the palmprint of the rifle when he was ordered by the chief's office to go no further with the processing.


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Your claim and Day's testimony contradict eachother...

No they don稚.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 02:42:08 AM
No they don稚.

Care to explain?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 02:49:18 AM
Care to explain?

Your claim that they do. Your explanation is needed.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 02:57:02 AM
Your claim that they do. Your explanation is needed.

Yeah, that's what I thought....

You already have the explanation in Day's WC testimony. You can read, can't you?

Now tell me how Day can match the palmprint to Oswald when his chief ordered him to stop processing after he had just lifted the print from the rifle...

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 11, 2019, 06:15:20 AM
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office
. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 11, 2019, 06:20:11 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought....

You already have the explanation in Day's WC testimony. You can read, can't you?

Now tell me how Day can match the palmprint to Oswald when his chief ordered him to stop processing after he had just lifted the print from the rifle...

You can read, can't you?
>>> Lord Haughty the Condescender runs his mouth yet again...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 11:05:26 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought....

You already have the explanation in Day's WC testimony. You can read, can't you?

Now tell me how Day can match the palmprint to Oswald when his chief ordered him to stop processing after he had just lifted the print from the rifle...

What do you claim is to stop him?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 01:21:57 PM
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office
. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Brilliant... Chapman jumps in with information about the wrong print.  :D

Charles Collins claims incorrectly that on 11/22/63 Henry Wade was told about the palmprint on an index card allegedly taken from the rifle, having been tentatively identified as belonging to Oswald.


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 01:24:11 PM
What do you claim is to stop him?

I don't claim anything. Day said in his testimony that he was ordered to stop processing the print just after he had lifted it from the rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 01:46:39 PM
I don't claim anything. Day said in his testimony that he was ordered to stop processing the print just after he had lifted it from the rifle.

No he didn稚.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 02:54:40 PM
Charles Collins claims incorrectly that on 11/22/63 Henry Wade was told about the palmprint on an index card allegedly taken from the rifle, having been tentatively identified as belonging to Oswald.

This is my claim:
So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn稚? Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?

I have backed it up 100%. Nothing incorrect about it. Stop lying.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 02:57:42 PM
No he didn稚.

Obviously you can't read..


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.


It's either that or you are just a contrarian with no arguments.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 03:03:42 PM
Obviously you can't read..


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.


It's either that or you are just a contrarian with no arguments.



I can read. You apparently still don't understand what context means.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 03:09:00 PM
This is my claim:

I have backed it up 100%. Nothing incorrect about it. Stop lying.


No you haven't backed it up at all.
I'm not lying. The one misrepresenting the facts is you;

John Iacoletti wrote;

I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.

and you replied;

So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn稚? Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?

and later in the conversation you added;

No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63  that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's.

So, your claim is exactly what I said it is.

And it's incorrect because the testimony of Day and Latona quoted earlier prove beyond doubt that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63





Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 03:12:30 PM
I can read. You apparently still don't understand what context means.


You preference to go with years old memory and conjecture as well as your unwillingness to look at the actual facts is simply amazing.

It might be better if you never sit on a jury. Since I can't fix stupid, I'm done.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 03:18:35 PM
No you haven't backed it up at all.
I'm not lying. The one misrepresenting the facts is you;

John Iacoletti wrote;

and you replied;

and later in the conversation you added;

So, your claim is exactly what I said it is.

And it's incorrect because the testimony of Day and Latona quoted earlier prove beyond doubt that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63

And it's incorrect because the testimony of Day and Latona quoted earlier prove beyond doubt that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63

Could not have been told what?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 11, 2019, 03:22:24 PM

You preference to go with years old memory and conjecture as well as your unwillingness to look at the actual facts is simply amazing.

It might be better if you never sit on a jury. Since I can't fix stupid, I'm done.

I'm done

Thank God!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 11, 2019, 07:15:16 PM
I'm open to any conspiracy .......
(http://www.pincaption.com/media/gallery/original/oh-really-1390986990700189419.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 11, 2019, 09:48:39 PM
That explains why you are a LNr. no desire to ask the hard questions

Oswald himself made them all easy
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 11, 2019, 10:03:43 PM
Brilliant... Chapman jumps in with information about the wrong print.  :D

Charles Collins claims incorrectly that on 11/22/63 Henry Wade was told about the palmprint on an index card allegedly taken from the rifle, having been tentatively identified as belonging to Oswald.

Chapman is pretty sure the trigger guard is on the same Carcano as the print being discussed.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 11, 2019, 10:36:55 PM
And we just have to take your word for all this, right?

Feel free to verify it with Hugh Aynesworth. I spoke with him for seven minutes beginning at 9:58 am this morning Dallas time. He is very friendly and you should have no problem looking him up.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

Day

No CT will call him... after all, he was part of the coverup
 ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 11, 2019, 11:07:36 PM
Chapman is pretty sure the trigger guard is on the same Carcano as the print being discussed.

Sure it is, but the trigger guard wasn't being discussed making your post a complete waste of time

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 12, 2019, 12:13:36 AM
No CT will call him... after all, he was part of the coverup
 ;)

We are very fortunate to have Hugh Aynesworth to share his experiences with us. I thanked him for doing that. In sharp contrast, Howard Brennan just wanted to be left alone. The stress of the unwanted attention contributed to his early demise due to heart problems.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 12, 2019, 11:03:11 AM
Could this be the same Hugh Aynesworth who said ""I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy. I know most people in this country believe there was a conspiracy. I just refuse to accept it and that's my life's work." ?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 12, 2019, 01:09:00 PM
Could this be the same Hugh Aynesworth who said ""I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy. I know most people in this country believe there was a conspiracy. I just refuse to accept it and that's my life's work." ?

Here are the last two paragraphs from Hugh Aynesworth's book "Witness to History:"

Finally I have never disputed the possibility of a conspiracy, or conspiracies, behind the Kennedy assassination. Do not doubt that's a story I'd love to break. However the proof of such a plot continues to elude us. Like it or not, that leaves us with the record as it stands.
So let me add, after fifty years of covering the Kennedy assassination, I am open to any new information if it comes to light and would welcome it no matter where it would lead.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 13, 2019, 12:07:09 AM
We are very fortunate to have Hugh Aynesworth to share his experiences with us. I thanked him for doing that. In sharp contrast, Howard Brennan just wanted to be left alone. The stress of the unwanted attention contributed to his early demise due to heart problems.

Interesting since it's well known that most people simply don't want to get involved in things that might invade their privacy. I wonder if some person might have actually seen, for instance, Oswald walking or trotting down the street during the time leading up to the Tippit incident. Then, upon hearing about the murder, seeing and recognizing Oswald in the media as the man they saw on the street, might have decided that since the man had already been arrested, why get involved? Not everybody craves attention.

I've, fleetingly, thought about calling one or two of the involved people... but why exactly should I rely on the memory of people all these decades later?

Note: I'm not criticizing your exchanges with Hugh in any way, Charles. A writer is more likely to have taken notes, etc than the average citizen.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 13, 2019, 12:30:54 AM
Sure it is, but the trigger guard wasn't being discussed making your post a complete waste of time

Not on my watch.

Chapman is pretty sure that the truth of the matter as a whole usurps barrister-wanna-be courtroom tactics, where pruning related matters seems a transparent attempt to try the case one tree at a time.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 13, 2019, 01:19:41 AM
Interesting since it's well known that most people simply don't want to get involved in things that might invade their privacy. I wonder if some person might have actually seen, for instance, Oswald walking or trotting down the street during the time leading up to the Tippit incident. Then, upon hearing about the murder, seeing and recognizing Oswald in the media as the man they saw on the street, might have decided that since the man had already been arrested, why get involved? Not everybody craves attention.

I've, fleetingly, thought about calling one or two of the involved people... but why exactly should I rely on the memory of people all these decades later?

Note: I'm not criticizing your exchanges with Hugh in any way, Charles. A writer is more likely to have taken notes, etc than the average citizen.

Bill, you池e exactly right. And something you致e probably thought of but didn稚 mention that applies particularly in this case is fear. (There has been a lot of speculation about conspiracy and mysterious deaths surrounding the assassination.) Many witnesses were never contacted. And some were deeply traumatized by the events.

I wouldn稚 even try to contact anyone who has indicated a preference for privacy. The same for anyone who I think was traumatized.

Edit: Howard Brennan is a hero for his decision to get involved. His description of Oswald was crucial. And there is a reasonable chance that he could have recognized Oswald as he walked out of the TSBD and pointed him out if he hadn稚 been distracted by unwanted reporters.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on June 13, 2019, 03:14:22 PM
Bill, you池e exactly right. And something you致e probably thought of but didn稚 mention that applies particularly in this case is fear. (There has been a lot of speculation about conspiracy and mysterious deaths surrounding the assassination.) Many witnesses were never contacted. And some were deeply traumatized by the events.

I wouldn稚 even try to contact anyone who has indicated a preference for privacy. The same for anyone who I think was traumatized.

Edit: Howard Brennan is a hero for his decision to get involved. His description of Oswald was crucial. And there is a reasonable chance that he could have recognized Oswald as he walked out of the TSBD and pointed him out if he hadn稚 been distracted by unwanted reporters.
Hugh Aynesworth, the Dallas reporter who was one of if not the first on the scene at the TSBD after the shooting, gives this account of him trying to interview people (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History"):

"Some witnesses hurriedly shared a few comments with me. Some feared being quoted by name. One woman said she worked in the depository building, "and I'll be damned if I am going to tell you what I believe..."

And this: "I saw [Howard] Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into the conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper's nest. "No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry."

One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he answered, "I saw him real good."

Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him--a request they were glad to fulfil. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press else he endganger himself or his family.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 13, 2019, 03:41:10 PM
Hugh Aynesworth, the Dallas reporter who was one of if not the first on the scene at the TSBD after the shooting, gives this account of him trying to interview people (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History"):

"Some witnesses hurriedly shared a few comments with me. Some feared being quoted by name. One woman said she worked in the depository building, "and I'll be damned if I am going to tell you what I believe..."

And this: "I saw [Howard] Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into the conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper's nest. "No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry."

One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he answered, "I saw him real good."

Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him--a request they were glad to fulfil. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press else he endganger himself or his family.

Yes, Aynesworth was one of the reporters Brennan was trying to avoid. In Brennan痴 book he specifically talked about a television crew. And Aynesworth hitched a ride with a television crew to the Tippit murder scene. So it all fits.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 14, 2019, 02:58:21 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 14, 2019, 04:57:31 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2-1.jpg)

Cool.

Now, shall I post his 1964 affidavit, or will you be a good lad and do that for us?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 14, 2019, 05:03:08 PM
Hugh Aynesworth, the Dallas reporter who was one of if not the first on the scene at the TSBD after the shooting, gives this account of him trying to interview people (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History"):

"Some witnesses hurriedly shared a few comments with me. Some feared being quoted by name. One woman said she worked in the depository building, "and I'll be damned if I am going to tell you what I believe..."

And this: "I saw [Howard] Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into the conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper's nest. "No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry."

One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he answered, "I saw him real good."

Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him--a request they were glad to fulfil. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press else he endganger himself or his family.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 14, 2019, 05:40:08 PM
Yes, Aynesworth was one of the reporters Brennan was trying to avoid. In Brennan痴 book he specifically talked about a television crew. And Aynesworth hitched a ride with a television crew to the Tippit murder scene. So it all fits.

The thing about Brennan's gho$twritten book (that was published some time after his death, and therefore wide open to 'enhancements' at the whim of the writer, despite Brennan, apparently, signing-off on the original manuscript), is that in said book 'Brennan' wafts poetically about his or soul (or something) in describing the red plume (or something) around Kennedy's head.

The trouble is that in testimony, IMS, Brennan said he was unable to see Kennedy during the head shot, that an obstruction of some sort blocked his view.




Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on June 14, 2019, 07:20:35 PM
Cool.

Now, shall I post his 1964 affidavit, or will you be a good lad and do that for us?

Go ahead and post it.

I tend to think his memory and recollection the day of the event was better than sometime in 1964.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 14, 2019, 07:48:13 PM
The thing about Brennan's gho$twritten book (that was published some time after his death, and therefore wide open to 'enhancements' at the whim of the writer, despite Brennan, apparently, signing-off on the original manuscript), is that in said book 'Brennan' wafts poetically about his or soul (or something) in describing the red plume (or something) around Kennedy's head.

The trouble is that in testimony, IMS, Brennan said he was unable to see Kennedy during the head shot, that an obstruction of some sort blocked his view.

The book was written with the help of the reverend J. Edward Cherryholmes. It is mostly about how the assassination and its aftermath affected Howard Brennan for the rest of his life. I would definitely say the earlier testimony and affidavits of Brennan should carry more weight than this book.

Two things about the description of the three shots in the book don't ring true. First, Howard Brennan testified to the WC he didn't remember hearing the second shot. Secondly, In a quick scan, I didn't find anything in his WC testimony about whether or not he saw JFK when the head shot hit. However, it does appear to me that the tall concrete structure and a tree would have blocked his view of JFK at that instant.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 14, 2019, 10:36:17 PM
The book was written with the help of the reverend J. Edward Cherryholmes. It is mostly about how the assassination and its aftermath affected Howard Brennan for the rest of his life. I would definitely say the earlier testimony and affidavits of Brennan should carry more weight than this book.

Two things about the description of the three shots in the book don't ring true. First, Howard Brennan testified to the WC he didn't remember hearing the second shot. Secondly, In a quick scan, I didn't find anything in his WC testimony about whether or not he saw JFK when the head shot hit. However, it does appear to me that the tall concrete structure and a tree would have blocked his view of JFK at that instant.

In his first day ffidavit, he said this." I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion." So he could have hardly have seen the President hit.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 14, 2019, 10:52:38 PM
In his first day ffidavit, he said this." I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion." So he could have hardly have seen the President hit.

In the book he said he immediately glanced back at the President and saw the results. But like I said earlier, the structure was directly in between his position and the President at that point in time.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Ray Mitcham on June 16, 2019, 11:14:58 AM
In the book he said he immediately glanced back at the President and saw the results. But like I said earlier, the structure was directly in between his position and the President at that point in time.
That's not what he said in his WC testimony.

Quote
"As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared. "

So he didn't immediately glance back at the President.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 16, 2019, 12:18:50 PM
That's not what he said in his WC testimony.

Quote
"As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared. "

So he didn't immediately glance back at the President.

I think you might be right. Like I said earlier, the book should carry less weight than the testimony and affidavits if there is a conflicting account.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 16, 2019, 04:31:20 PM
I think you might be right. Like I said earlier, the book should carry less weight than the testimony and affidavits if there is a conflicting account.

the book should carry less weight than the testimony and affidavits if there is a conflicting account.

Unless it is a newspaper report and Hugh Aynesworth book vs the WC testimony of Latona and Day..... right?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 16, 2019, 05:24:47 PM
the book should carry less weight than the testimony and affidavits if there is a conflicting account.

Unless it is a newspaper report and Hugh Aynesworth book vs the WC testimony of Latona and Day..... right?


...I'm done.

Unless you池e not, right?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 16, 2019, 05:51:47 PM
Unless you池e not, right?

Indeed.... I'll be back every time you prove you're a hypocrite
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 16, 2019, 06:46:25 PM
Indeed.... I'll be back every time you prove you're a hypocrite

Let痴 see, you池e done but then you池e not done?

Nothing hypocritical about that, is there?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 17, 2019, 12:38:25 AM
Let痴 see, you池e done but then you池e not done?

Nothing hypocritical about that, is there?

No. People can change their mind. But I understand why you want to change the subject.....

I said I was done because I couldn't fix stupid. 

You provoked my return to the topic by showing it was also hypocrisy. Did you really think I would let you get away with that?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 17, 2019, 01:04:54 AM
No. People can change their mind. But I understand why you want to change the subject.....

I said I was done because I couldn't fix stupid. 

You provoked my return to the topic by showing it was also hypocrisy. Did you really think I would let you get away with that?

Your opinion doesn稚 interest me.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 17, 2019, 01:38:50 AM
Your opinion doesn稚 interest me.

Of course it doesn't but that doesn't diminish the validity of the opinion. It just shows how closed your mind really is.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 17, 2019, 02:09:52 PM
Of course it doesn't but that doesn't diminish the validity of the opinion. It just shows how closed your mind really is.

Most of your opinions are only attacks on the people who disagree with you. Or you trying to spin statements around to attempt to make it appear someone said something that they didn稚 say. Or you trying to generalize a statement about something that is specific. Or you trying to take something out of context and make it into something that fits your fantasy. I have shown you these things to no avail. Why do you think I should be interested in nonsense?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 18, 2019, 12:00:44 AM
Most of your opinions are only attacks on the people who disagree with you. Or you trying to spin statements around to attempt to make it appear someone said something that they didn稚 say. Or you trying to generalize a statement about something that is specific. Or you trying to take something out of context and make it into something that fits your fantasy. I have shown you these things to no avail. Why do you think I should be interested in nonsense?

Most of your opinions are only attacks on the people who disagree with you.

No. You have that the wrong way around. I ask hard questions you can't answer, so you hide behind "the bad man attacked me" nonsense.

Try having an honest debate for once, instead of just being defensive all the time. You may find it refreshing.

Or you trying to spin statements around to attempt to make it appear someone said something that they didn稚 say.

Nope again. That's what you are doing  You are trying to put words in Henry Wade's mouth, which the real evidence conclusively shows he could never have said at the time when you claimed he said it, and all you have to back up your opinion is a vague newspaper article and some quotes from a book.

Or you trying to generalize a statement about something that is specific.

I don't even know what you are rambling on about here....

Or you trying to take something out of context and make it into something that fits your fantasy

Nothing is being taken out of context. At least not by me. A newspaper article and quotes from memory long after the fact don't offer the so-called context you keep going on about

I have shown you these things to no avail. 

All you have shown me is that you are more than happy to take a newspaper article and some quotes from memory (that fit with your theory) as gospel while at the same time ignoring under oath testimony from Latona and Day which combined demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that what you claim simply could not have happened. And then you say I'm living in a fantasy world..... really?
 
Btw, in this one post alone you falsely claim that I (1) attack people who disagree with me (2) try to spin statements around (3) try to generalize statements and (4)  try to take something out of context..... and I'm the one attacking you? Are you for real?

Why do you think I should be interested in nonsense?

Indeed, so why are you desperately clinging to your absurd claim and ignoring actual evidence?


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 18, 2019, 03:11:24 PM
Most of your opinions are only attacks on the people who disagree with you.

No. You have that the wrong way around. I ask hard questions you can't answer, so you hide behind "the bad man attacked me" nonsense.

Try having an honest debate for once, instead of just being defense all the time. You may find it refreshing.

Or you trying to spin statements around to attempt to make it appear someone said something that they didn稚 say.

Nope again. That's what you are doing  You are trying to put words in Henry Wade's mouth, which the real evidence conclusively shows he could never have said at the time when you claimed he said it, and all you have to back up your opinion is a vague newspaper article and some quotes from a book.

Or you trying to generalize a statement about something that is specific.

I don't even know what you are rambling on about here....

Or you trying to take something out of context and make it into something that fits your fantasy

Nothing is being taken out of context. At least not by me. A newspaper article and quotes from memory long after the fact don't offer the so-called context you keep going on about

I have shown you these things to no avail. 

All you have shown me is that you are more than happy to take a newspaper article and some quotes from memory (that fit with your theory) as gospel while at the same time ignoring under oath testimony from Latona and Day which combined demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that what you claim simply could not have happened. And then you say I'm living in a fantasy world..... really?
 
Btw, in this one post alone you falsely claim that I (1) attack people who disagree with me (2) trying to spin statements around (3) trying to generalize statements and (4)  trying to take something out of context..... and I'm the one attacking you? Are you for real?

Why do you think I should be interested in nonsense?

Indeed, so why are you desperately clinging to your absurd claim and ignoring actual evidence?

If someone here has something to say that pertains to the JFK assassination and is reasonable and I agree with them, no matter which side of the fence they are on, I have no problem saying so. I don't recall ever seeing anything like that from you.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 18, 2019, 03:33:34 PM
If someone here has something to say that pertains to the JFK assassination and is reasonable and I agree with them, no matter which side of the fence they are on, I have no problem saying so. I don't recall ever seeing anything like that from you.

That only means you not only have a bad recollection but also feel the need to attack me again, as you have nothing to dispute my comments.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 05:21:21 PM
Martin is absolutely right, Charles, you're being hypocritical.  You seem to think that Wade's 6-months-later "recollection" of Fritz telling him about a palmprint is somehow an unassailable truth even though Wade himself admits in the same testimony that it varies from the facts and that no palmprint was actually identified by the Dallas PD that night or at any other time.

Can you point to any contemporary mention or report of such a print before Oswald's death?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 19, 2019, 05:53:08 PM
Martin is absolutely right, Charles, you're being hypocritical.  You seem to think that Wade's 6-months-later "recollection" of Fritz telling him about a palmprint is somehow an unassailable truth even though Wade himself admits in the same testimony that it varies from the facts and that no palmprint was actually identified by the Dallas PD that night or at any other time.

Can you point to any contemporary mention or report of such a print before Oswald's death?

Martin was trying to compare two different books written by two different authors about different persons in two different situations.  As for your question, the newspaper article was published before Oswald's death. You can believe whatever you want to believe as to whether or not it is referring to the palm print. I really don't care.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 07:17:38 PM
Martin was trying to compare two different books written by two different authors about different persons in two different situations.

And your reason for trusting one and rejecting the other seems completely arbitrary and based solely on your preconceptions.

Quote
  As for your question, the newspaper article was published before Oswald's death. You can believe whatever you want to believe as to whether or not it is referring to the palm print. I really don't care.

The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint, partial or otherwise.  The fact remains that the magic palmprint wasn't positively IDed until Latona examined the index card it was taped to on November 29th.  All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 19, 2019, 08:26:18 PM
And your reason for trusting one and rejecting the other seems completely arbitrary and based solely on your preconceptions.

The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint, partial or otherwise.  The fact remains that the magic palmprint wasn't positively IDed until Latona examined the index card it was taped to on November 29th.  All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.

And your reason for trusting one and rejecting the other seems completely arbitrary and based solely on your preconceptions.

And what stated reason of mine are you referring to?

The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint, partial or otherwise.  The fact remains that the magic palmprint wasn't positively IDed until Latona examined the index card it was taped to on November 29th.  All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.

I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 19, 2019, 10:06:50 PM
All the newspaper article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.

Iacoletti,

What makes you assume it was misinformation?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 10:25:32 PM
Iacoletti,

What makes you assume it was misinformation?


Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read. 

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.

If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 10:37:31 PM
And what stated reason of mine are you referring to?

You're accepting a 50-year-old recollection of Aynesworth as being a precise word-for-word quote of Henry Wade on a particular day (with no corroborating evidence) and rejecting (rightly so) Howard Brennan's 20-year-old recollection of seeing the president's head explode.

Quote
I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.

What "several people"?  You're ignoring what Wade himself said in 1964 (along with Day and Latona) in favor of something Aynesworth claimed 50 years later that Wade said that Fritz said on November 22, 1963.  There's no record of Fritz ever mentioning this alleged print directly.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 19, 2019, 10:54:43 PM
Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read. 

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.

If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.

Iacoletti,

A bit of hyperbole on reporters' or the unnamed investigator's part, then?

Fair enough.

Thanks for the clarification.

-- MWT  ;)

PS  Yet, regarding your doubt that Aynesworth remembered correctly many years later what Wade had said that Fritz had said, iirc YOU rely on a 54 year-old recollection (and from behind), in your ... gasp ... belief ... that Gloria Holt was really Gloria Calvery, and that Sharon Simmons was really ... uhh ... Karen Westbrook!

LOL

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 19, 2019, 11:19:07 PM

You can believe whatever you want to believe as to whether or not it is referring to the palm print. I really don't care.


Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong


I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.


Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 19, 2019, 11:23:58 PM

All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.



Indeed. Even the WC was aware of it....

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 19, 2019, 11:32:01 PM
Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong

Your "translations" are your typical nonsensical attacks on a person.

You have shown us time and time again that one cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. That is why I don't care to engage in an argument.  And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 11:37:29 PM
PS  Yet, regarding your doubt that Aynesworth remembered correctly many years later what Wade had said that Fritz had said, iirc YOU rely on a 54 year-old recollection (and from behind), in your ... gasp ... belief ... that Gloria Holt was really Gloria Calvery, and that Sharon Simmons was really ... uhh ... Karen Westbrook!

The difference is that you have no testimony from anybody who was there to the contrary.  All you have is your interpretation of blurry images and your assumptions.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 19, 2019, 11:38:06 PM
Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read. 

Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.

If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.

Since to make your point, you're relying on Day's testimony to be truthful, here's another Lt. Day tidbit.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.


JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 11:41:04 PM
Since to make your point, you're relying on Day's testimony to be truthful, here's another Lt. Day tidbit.

Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.


I'm not relying on Day's testimony to be truthful.  I'm pointing out that there is no contemporary corroboration for Aynesworth's 50-year-old double hearsay.  Even from the guy who claimed to have lifted the magic palmprint.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 19, 2019, 11:43:21 PM
I'm not relying on Day's testimony to be truthful. 

Then why bother posting his testimony?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 11:47:11 PM
Then why bother posting his testimony?

Already answered in the part you trimmed off.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 19, 2019, 11:51:33 PM
Already answered in the part you trimmed off.

I posted your Day quote in full, is Day your eyewitness or not?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 19, 2019, 11:56:19 PM
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)

I'm not relying on Day's testimony to be truthful.  I'm pointing out that there is no contemporary corroboration for Aynesworth's 50-year-old double hearsay.  Even from the guy who claimed to have lifted the magic palmprint.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 12:05:24 AM
You're accepting a 50-year-old recollection of Aynesworth as being a precise word-for-word quote of Henry Wade on a particular day (with no corroborating evidence) and rejecting (rightly so) Howard Brennan's 20-year-old recollection of seeing the president's head explode.

What "several people"?  You're ignoring what Wade himself said in 1964 (along with Day and Latona) in favor of something Aynesworth claimed 50 years later that Wade said that Fritz said on November 22, 1963.  There's no record of Fritz ever mentioning this alleged print directly.

You're accepting a 50-year-old recollection of Aynesworth as being a precise word-for-word quote of Henry Wade on a particular day (with no corroborating evidence) and rejecting (rightly so) Howard Brennan's 20-year-old recollection of seeing the president's head explode.


Show me where I said that!

Aynesworth confirmed with me on the phone that those quotes in his book which are in parentheses  are from his notes he took at the time the comments were made. I already said this, you must have missed it. And like I said earlier, don't take my word for this, contact Hugh Aynesworth yourself and get it from him. Brennan's book was written with the help of Reverend J. Edward Cherryholmes. The description of the assassination appears to be written by Cherryholmes (the words and phrases are more like what you would expect from him as a clergyman that what you might expect from a construction worker. And the concrete structure appears to be in his line of sight to the President at the time of the head shot. I have said this before. These are all logical reasons why the two are not even close to being similar. And why your opinion that I am being hypocritical is unfounded nonsense.

What "several people"?  You're ignoring what Wade himself said in 1964 (along with Day and Latona) in favor of something Aynesworth claimed 50 years later that Wade said that Fritz said on November 22, 1963.  There's no record of Fritz ever mentioning this alleged print directly.

Wade, Aynesworth, the two newspaper reporters who authored the article. The investigation was on-going and LHO was still alive and in custody. What kind of "missing" record are you referring to?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 20, 2019, 12:17:44 AM
Aynesworth confirmed with me on the phone that those quotes in his book which are in parentheses  are from his notes he took at the time the comments were made.

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.  Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever.  What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade.  There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.

Quote
The description of the assassination appears to be written by Cherryholmes (the words and phrases are more like what you would expect from him as a clergyman that what you might expect from a construction worker.

No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 01:09:25 AM
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.  Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever.  What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade.  There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.

No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.  Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever.  What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade.  There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.

No, Hugh Aynesworth is a well respected journalist and the quotes are inside quotation marks. I have said these things before.

No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.

No, it is a reasoned opinion.



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 20, 2019, 04:28:44 AM
Here we are 19 pages in and not one CT has provided any evidence or at least supplied a plausible narrative of how C2766 ended up on the 6th floor?
Surely after half a Century at least somebody or someone who knows somebody would come forward and say that the rifle was planted?
But the fact is that after half a Century nobody has ever come forward and said that anything and that means absolutely anything was planted or manufactured.
So what are we left with after all this time?, no Police Officers, document alterers, handwriting forgers, collectors for the handwriting originals for reference, photo alterers, Postal workers, film sfx experts, Kleins employees, Crescent Firearms employees, FBI agents, CIA agents, KGB agents etc, etc, has ever come forward and admitted that they planted/manufactured evidence or knows someone who planted/manufactured evidence.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on June 20, 2019, 04:43:32 AM
Here we are 19 pages in and not one CT has provided any evidence or at least supplied a plausible narrative of how C2766 ended up on the 6th floor?
Surely after half a Century at least somebody or someone who knows somebody would come forward and say that the rifle was planted?
But the fact is that after half a Century nobody has ever come forward and said that anything and that means absolutely anything was planted or manufactured.
So what are we left with after all this time?, no Police Officers, document alterers, handwriting forgers, collectors for the handwriting originals for reference, photo alterers, Postal workers, film sfx experts, Kleins employees, Crescent Firearms employees, FBI agents, CIA agents, KGB agents etc, etc, has ever come forward and admitted that they planted/manufactured evidence or knows someone who planted/manufactured evidence.

JohnM

The assassin (or an accomplice) left it there.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 09:18:27 AM
Your "translations" are your typical nonsensical attacks on a person.

You have shown us time and time again that one cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. That is why I don't care to engage in an argument.  And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.

You only call me unreasonable because you don't have the arguments to make your case. Typical LN strategy.

Quote
And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.

Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong




Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 09:25:44 AM
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.  Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever.  What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade.  There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.

No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.

So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.

Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.

To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 10:49:41 AM
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.

Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.

To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63

Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 11:08:13 AM
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.

Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.

To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63

That is your opinion. It痴 unreasonable.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that 渡o one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead, and 鍍here痴 no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald痴 death. The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

Your denials of everything that doesn稚 support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous. To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd. Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 11:11:32 AM
Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.

Well said, thank you.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:25:34 AM
Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I believe it isn't.

Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:39:21 AM
That is your opinion. It痴 unreasonable.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that 渡o one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead, and 鍍here痴 no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald痴 death. The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

Your denials of everything that doesn稚 support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous. To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd. Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

To you anything I say is "unreasonable" simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that 渡o one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead, and 鍍here痴 no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald痴 death. The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

This is not what that article shows. You have concocted this narrative all by yourself.


Your denials of everything that doesn稚 support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous.

Again, you have it backwards. It's you who denies the WC testimony of Latona and Day because it does not support your theory.


To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd.

What makes you think I think that?


Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

So, the WC testimony of Latona and Day showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no match of the palmprint with Oswald on 11/22/63 is nonsense but a vague quote from an anonymous soucre in a newspaper article isn't?

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 11:41:10 AM
Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.

You also make some very fair points Martin. I wonder how Charles would feel about contacting Aynsworth again and clarifying these points, especially the date discrepancy. Better still, perhaps e-mail your post to him..with your permission, of course. It would be good to get this resolved. Thank you.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 11:59:05 AM
To you anything I say is "unreasonable" simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that 渡o one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead, and 鍍here痴 no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald痴 death. The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.

This is not what that article shows. You have concocted this narrative all by yourself.


Your denials of everything that doesn稚 support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous.

Again, you have it backwards. It's you who denies the WC testimony of Latona and Day because it does not support your theory.


To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd.

What makes you think I think that?


Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?

So, the WC testimony of Latona and Day showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no match of the palmprint with Oswald on 11/22/63 is nonsense but a vague quote from an anonymous soucre in a newspaper article isn't?

The words of Wade quoted in Aynesworth痴 book include the word 鍍entative. Therefore your claim (as usual) makes no sense. And the newspaper article includes the words 斗ittle doubt. Which could also suggest the match was tentative. The tentative match was turned into a positive match  later by the FBI. Why do you refuse to understand this?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 20, 2019, 11:59:48 AM
Hi Denis,

Fair points.

As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?

My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.

But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.

Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.

So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.

How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

-- MWT   ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 02:21:02 PM
How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

-- MWT   ;)

How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

Because there were no results prior to 11/29.

Day testified that he after he lifted the palmprint from the rifle he was told not to proceed any further. Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.

Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 03:41:30 PM
How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?

Because there were no results prior to 11/29.

Day testified that he after he lifted the palmprint from the rifle he was told not to proceed any further. Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.

Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.



Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.


Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match. You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 05:43:12 PM
Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.


Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match. You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match.

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!


You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 06:56:26 PM
Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match.

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were giving information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!


You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were giving information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!

It was front page news.

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.

They present the facts and don't take one side or the other. They perform a valuable service that most people are willing to pay for. (And you call me closed-minded?)

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?
Typical nonsense that you love to spout. Why would he want to or even think he could "rewrite history?"

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

I haven't read that book. So I will reserve comment on what is in it until after I have read all of it. It does seem a strange thing for him to say. He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 20, 2019, 07:17:55 PM
Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match.

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!


You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.
>>> So you've never purchased conspiracy books.

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it?
>>> He did that?

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
>>> People say/don't say a lot of things when trying to sell their book$

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!
>>> So Day was one of these 'all sorts of people'?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Agee on June 20, 2019, 07:28:34 PM
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

Hi Martin. Actually, that is not what Jesse Curry said. I have Curry's book, just read every word of it (it's a short book, only 133 pages and many of the pages are pictures). There is nothing close to that quote in Curry's book. Can you give me the page # of Curry's book with this quote, in case I missed it (which I certainly could have)?

I believe the quote you refer to is Curry's statement at a press conference announcing the release of his book, as reported by Tom Johnson of the Dallas Morning News. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm not going to express my opinion," Curry said at a press conference. "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."
Tom Johnson, Dallas Morning News
Thursday, Nov 6, 1969


The "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did"---that does not appear in the DMN article and I can't find it in Curry's book
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 07:35:11 PM
Hi Martin. Actually, that is not what Jesse Curry said. I have Curry's book, just read every word of it (it's a short book, only 133 pages and many of the pages are pictures). There is nothing close to that quote in Curry's book. Can you give me the page # of Curry's book with this quote, in case I missed it (which I certainly could have)?

I believe the quote you refer to is Curry's statement at a press conference announcing the release of his book, as reported by Tom Johnson of the Dallas Morning News. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm not going to express my opinion," Curry said at a press conference. "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."
Tom Johnson, Dallas Morning News
Thursday, Nov 6, 1969


The "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did"---that does not appear in the DMN article and I can't find it in Curry's book

Thanks John. How did you like the book?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Agee on June 20, 2019, 07:42:31 PM
Thanks John. How did you like the book?

I recommend the book, it's really a must have for assassination buffs. Curry, an honest guy I believe, tries his best to present the evidence unbiased.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 07:54:18 PM
That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were giving information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!

It was front page news.


No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

Quote

First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.

They present the facts and don't take one side or the other. They perform a valuable service that most people are willing to pay for. (And you call me closed-minded?)


Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

Quote

Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?

Typical nonsense that you love to spout. Why would he want to or even think he could "rewrite history?"


And there is another attack on me, by a guy who frequently complains about people being attacked!

I know by now that you call hard questions you can't answer "typical nonsense" but why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? By the time Day testified the information about the palmprint on an index card and Latona's match with Oswald were known. So, why did Day not testify that he made a similar match? Why did he say instead that he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

Quote

Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

I haven't read that book. So I will reserve comment on what is in it until after I have read all of it. It does seem a strange thing for him to say. He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.

He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.

Why do you comment when you cay you will reserve comment?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 08:01:44 PM
First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.
>>> So you've never purchased conspiracy books.

No. I have never purchased a conspiracy book nor do I own one. I try to form my own opinions rather than copy those of others.

Quote
Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it?
>>> He did that?

Who said he did?

Quote
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
>>> People say/don't say a lot of things when trying to sell their book$


Sure and they also do when they try to justify bad investigative work after the fact

Quote

That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!
>>> So Day was one of these 'all sorts of people'?

I don't know all I know is that a newspaper article claims to quote an unidentified source inside the investigation and that at least one WC lawyer was aware of the fact that incorrect information had been supplied to and published by the media.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 08:09:23 PM
Hi Martin. Actually, that is not what Jesse Curry said. I have Curry's book, just read every word of it (it's a short book, only 133 pages and many of the pages are pictures). There is nothing close to that quote in Curry's book. Can you give me the page # of Curry's book with this quote, in case I missed it (which I certainly could have)?

I believe the quote you refer to is Curry's statement at a press conference announcing the release of his book, as reported by Tom Johnson of the Dallas Morning News. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm not going to express my opinion," Curry said at a press conference. "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."
Tom Johnson, Dallas Morning News
Thursday, Nov 6, 1969


The "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did"---that does not appear in the DMN article and I can't find it in Curry's book

Perhaps I should have rephrased my comment better, because I never wanted to give the impression it was a quote in the book, but thanks for the exact quote. I was paraphrasing from memory. I am sure in my mind Curry did say the other part as well, but I can't instantly recall where or when he said it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 09:31:36 PM
No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

Why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.

Why do you comment when you cay you will reserve comment?

No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

You are conveniently leaving out: "...the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle...".

Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

They would disagree with your opinion. Gary Mack was a CT.

Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

No he didn't lie. You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. The complete sentence is: "I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete." [The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle.]
The next sentence is: "I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." [He is still talking about processing the rifle, not the print. The palm print was found on the bottom of the barrel further towards the muzzle. He had already partially processed it and was setting up to take a photograph when he was told to stop.]

This is a typical example of you taking something out of context and trying to spin it into something that it is not. It is no wonder that I say that I am not interested in you nonsensical opinions. You are wasting my time.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 10:10:35 PM
No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.

You are conveniently leaving out: "...the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle...".

What "evidence"... they had collected hardly anything when the article was published and they most certainly had not examined any of it.

Quote

Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"

They would disagree with your opinion. Gary Mack was a CT.


I am willing (and have said so before) to consider the possibility that Oswald was a lone gunman and I even feel that some evidence indeed points in that direction.

Does that make me a LN?

Quote

Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

No he didn't lie. You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. The complete sentence is: "I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete." [The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle.]

The next sentence is: "I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." [He is still talking about processing the rifle, not the print. The palm print was found on the bottom of the barrel further towards the muzzle. He had already partially processed it and was setting up to take a photograph when he was told to stop.


Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.

If, as you claim "The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle." then why didn't Day continue with processing the palmprint on the index card? Why did he do nothing with it and held it back for four days?


Here's a bit of interesting testimony;

Mr. BELIN. What about the lift which has previously been marked as Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. About what?
Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not release this----

Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and at that time I sent the lift marked----
Mr. BELIN. 637.
Mr. DAY. Yes. The gun was sent back again, and all of the other evidence that I had, including cartons from Texas Bookstore, and various other items, a rather lengthy list.

and some more;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

Quote
This is a typical example of you taking something out of context and trying to spin it into something that it is not. It is no wonder that I say that I am not interested in you nonsensical opinions. You are wasting my time.

Actually, Day's own testimony proves that it is you who is taking things out of context and trying to spin it.

Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.

Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.

It seems it is you who is wasting everybody's time
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 10:14:01 PM
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand." Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

I haven't read that book. So I will reserve comment on what is in it until after I have read all of it. It does seem a strange thing for him to say. He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.


It's not really so strange Charles. The clue is in the sentence "Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book" I know it sounds cynical but remember; Conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Yet another vulture out to make a few $?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 20, 2019, 10:19:14 PM

It's not really so strange Charles. The clue is in the sentence "Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book" I know it sounds cynical but remember; Conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Yet another vulture out to make a few $?

Is this one considered to be a CT book?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 10:26:56 PM
Is this one considered to be a CT book?

Oh yeah, definitely, 100%. And to be precise, as John Agee pointed out, Curry doesn't actually say that in his book. Curry's said at a press conference announcing the release of his book.
Curry made the following statement in a second pre-release interview; "I think there's a possibility that one [shot] could have come from in front [of the limousine]. We've never, we've never been able to prove that, but just in my mind and by the direction of his blood and brain from the president from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to [have] been fired from the front rather than behind. I can't say that I could swear that I believe that it was one man and one man alone. I think there's a possibility there could have been another man." Was Curry genuine or trying to make money out of the assassination? Everyone can make their own mind up on that one.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 10:29:37 PM
Oh yeah, definitely, 100%. And to be precise, as John Agee pointed out, Curry doesn't actually say that in his book. Curry's said at a press conference announcing the release of his book.

So, what exactly is the problem?

Is it that he was trying to sell a book?

Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 20, 2019, 10:46:47 PM
So, what exactly is the problem?

Is it that he was trying to sell a book?

Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?

Here is some pages from Curry's book and Curry "as the man on the inside" tells us that they were satisfied that they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit.

(https://i.postimg.cc/PJ788T3T/Osw-aldshoot-Tippit-Curry-zpsd3cc2f2b.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/XqrrWtVh/Osw-aldshoot-Tippit-Curry2-zps255334be.png)

(https://i.postimg.cc/442c0QJq/Osw-aldfbievidence-Curry-zps57244773.png)

JohnM

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 10:50:57 PM
Here is some pages from Curry's book and Curry "as the man on the inside" tells us that they were satisfied that they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit.

JohnM

But we are not discussing the murder of Tippit.

Btw I would be interested to know who exactly made the decision that "they" had enough evidence to charge Oswald with Tippit's murder.

The last time I looked it wasn't the police who made such a decision, so who did?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 20, 2019, 10:55:31 PM
But we are not discussing the murder of Tippit.

It's my thread and I'll talk about what I want. So FO!

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 10:56:14 PM
So, what exactly is the problem?

Is it that he was trying to sell a book?

Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?

Absolutely no problem, if Curry truly believed what he wrote in his book, basically that the assassination was a conspiracy. As Charles points out, that's a huge volt face on his early comments. Was Curry genuine or trying to make money out of the assassination? Everyone can make their own mind up on that one. But, as I said previous, conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Had Curry wrote a book that repeated his early comments/statements ie no conspiracy, would anyone have even printed the book? I think that's a fair observation.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:02:10 PM
It's my thread and I'll talk about what I want. So FO!

JohnM

Nasty, nasty. Did your wife leave you or perhaps.. did she decide to stay?

So, you don't really know who decided that "they" had enough evidence against Oswald for the Tippit murder?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:07:31 PM
Absolutely no problem, if Curry truly believed what he wrote in his book, basically that the assassination was a conspiracy. As Charles points out, that's a huge volt face on his early comments.

True, but he wasn't the only one who came to such a conclusion after the passing of time.

Quote
Was Curry genuine or trying to make money out of the assassination?

I have no idea. It could be either, but is there something that justifies the conclusion that he was just trying to make some money?

Quote
Everyone can make their own mind up on that one.

Fair enough

Quote
But, as I said previous, conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Had Curry wrote a book that repeated his early comments/statements ie no conspiracy, would anyone have even printed the book? I think that's a fair observation.

Sure it is, but it's nothing more than an assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 11:08:42 PM
This is a good thread, lots of intelligent debate and discussion. Can't we all keep it cool...it would be a real shame to have it deleted.    8)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:10:49 PM
This is a good thread, lots of intelligent debate and discussion. Can't we all keep it cool...it would be a real shame to have it deleted.    8)

Agreed   Thumb1:
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 20, 2019, 11:27:25 PM
I have no idea. It could be either, but is there something that justifies the conclusion that he was just trying to make some money?

Sure it is, but it's nothing more than an assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry.

Martin, I never stated a conclusion. Nor did I state an "assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry". Sure, I have an opinion on both, which along with 5p will buy a box of matches, but I've intentionally kept those opinions to myself. Unless asked I very rarely state opinions. Personal opinions are worthless to anyone else. What I tried to do is raise certain points and observations which I believe are relevant. I'm also questioning the reasons for Curry's volte-face. I do think it very relevant that this volte-face coincided with the release of a book. You don't?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 20, 2019, 11:39:26 PM
So, you don't really know why decided that "they" had enough evidence against Oswald for the Tippit murder?

You can't be Fk'n serious?

They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald kill Tippit.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald with a weapon at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald emptying shells at the crime scene.
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald acting suspiciously leading up to the theater.
They had the box office girl tell them that Oswald didn't buy a ticket.
They had a Police officer who was struck by Oswald.
They had more Police Officers confirm Oswald resisted being questioned.
They had Oswald's revolver, which Oswald used to try and kill more Police officers.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:41:19 PM
Martin, I never stated a conclusion. Nor did I state an "assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry". Sure, I have an opinion on both, which along with 5p will buy a box of matches, but I've intentionally kept those opinions to myself. What I tried to do is raise certain points and observations which I believe are relevant. I'm also questioning the reasons for Curry's volte-face. I do think it very relevant that this volte-face coincided with the release of a book. You don't?

Martin, I never stated a conclusion. Nor did I state an "assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry". Sure, I have an opinion on both, which along with 5p will buy a box of matches, but I've intentionally kept those opinions to myself.

Fair enough

What I tried to do is raise certain points and observations which I believe are relevant.

Context is always relevant

I'm also questioning the reasons for Curry's volte-face. I do think it very relevant that this volte-face coincided with the release of a book. You don't?


Very relevant? I don't know. What I do wonder about is why somebody involved in the investigation would suddenly change his mind just to sell a book. I just don't see that. Could it be that Curry held his doubts to himself from the beginning and then decided to come forward with them? He wouldn't be the first employee or government official who disagreed with what was going on but did not want to rock the boat. Could that explain his change of opinion?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 20, 2019, 11:41:50 PM
You can't be Fk'n serious?

They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald kill Tippit.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald with a weapon at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald emptying shells at the crime scene.
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald acting suspiciously leading up to the theater.
They had the box office girl tell them that Oswald didn't buy a ticket.
They had a Police officer who was struck by Oswald.
They had more Police Officers confirm Oswald resisted being questioned.
They had Oswald's revolver, which Oswald used to try and kill more Police officers.

JohnM

Who are "they"?

Who decided to bring charges against Oswald in the Tippit murder?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 20, 2019, 11:46:27 PM
Who are "they"?

Who decided to bring charges against Oswald in the Tippit murder?

I answered your original post and now I see you have gone back and changed your original post, pathetic!

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 12:00:32 AM
Was Curry appointed to his position as police chief? What were his qualifications for the position? A little investigating on Curry is going to be on my list of things to do.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 12:08:52 AM
Very relevant? I don't know. What I do wonder about is why somebody involved in the investigation would suddenly change his mind just to sell a book. I just don't see that. Could it be that Curry held his doubts to himself from the beginning and then decided to come forward with them? He wouldn't be the first employee or government official who disagreed with what was going on but did not want to rock the boat. Could that explain his change of opinion?

Curry wasn't a part of the investigation when he released his book, he was retired. Martin, I know for a fact you're not naive, is it possible he changed his mind just to sell a book and make money?
As you suggest, Curry may well have genuinely believed there was a conspiracy, he may have held back till retirement, he may have simply changed his mind..I won't pretend to know the answer to that. Does anyone? I think you know which way I lean. Perhaps old age has made me too cynical but to be fair, Curry wouldn't have been the first, nor the last, to sell out for a $. If indeed, that's what he did. 
                                                                                      Thumb1:
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 21, 2019, 12:42:08 AM
I answered your original post and now I see you have gone back and changed your original post, pathetic!

JohnM

The original post contained a simple typo which I did indeed rectify. Nothing pathetic about that.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 01:13:26 AM


I know by now that you call hard questions you can't answer "typical nonsense" but why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? By the time Day testified the information about the palmprint on an index card and Latona's match with Oswald were known. So, why did Day not testify that he made a similar match? Why did he say instead that he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.

Why do you comment when you cay you will reserve comment?

I know by now that you call hard questions you can't answer "typical nonsense" but why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? By the time Day testified the information about the palmprint on an index card and Latona's match with Oswald were known. So, why did Day not testify that he made a similar match? Why did he say instead that he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

On the day of his WC testimony Day still wouldn't say it: Page 263 - Day: Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.

That appears to be the same thing he told Fritz and Curry on 11/22/63. Also, Day states he told Vince Drain when he picked it up that there was a palm print on the barrel and pointed out the location to him. Add Drain to the list of people who were told.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 01:16:55 AM
Was Curry appointed to his position as police chief? What were his qualifications for the position? A little investigating on Curry is going to be on my list of things to do.

Charles, Curry up to the assassination had a brilliant career. From WIKIPEDIA: Curry joined the Dallas Police Department as a traffic officer on May 1, 1936, and worked his way up the ranks to become the chief of police on January 20, 1960. As Curry explained it to the Warren Commission, he worked his way up in "practically every assignment the police department has", and graduated from the Northwestern University Traffic Institute in 1945/6 and the FBI National Academy in 1951.
After the assassination of Oswald, Curry's career was pretty much ruined, he was held responsible and heavily criticised for Oswald getting shot during the transfer. Three years later he retired, ostensibly on health grounds but this may well have been a crock as he actually carried on working, in the private sector, for another twelve years. I've read, can't confirm, that he was very bitter towards the DPD and very short of money due to his early (forced?) retirement. He retired in 1966, the same year he released his book, died in his sleep 1978.
Hope that helps.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 01:32:25 AM
Charles, Curry up to the assassination had a brilliant career. From WIKIPEDIA: Curry joined the Dallas Police Department as a traffic officer on May 1, 1936, and worked his way up the ranks to become the chief of police on January 20, 1960. As Curry explained it to the Warren Commission, he worked his way up in "practically every assignment the police department has", and graduated from the Northwestern University Traffic Institute in 1945/6 and the FBI National Academy in 1951.
After the assassination of Oswald, Curry's career was pretty much ruined, he was held responsible and heavily criticised for Oswald getting shot during the transfer. Three years later he retired, ostensibly on health grounds but this may well have been a crock as he actually carried on working, in the private sector, for another twelve years. I've read, can't confirm, that he was very bitter towards the DPD and very short of money due to his early (forced?) retirement. He retired in 1966, the same year he released his book, died in his sleep 1978.
Hope that helps.

Thanks, yes it does. A friend once told me that he learned during his study towards a degree in industrial management that in the corporate world (and bureaucratic world) people usually climb the ladder to the level of their incompetence. I don稚 know if that痴 what happened to Curry or not. Just something that came to mind when I read your post.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 21, 2019, 01:57:20 AM
I know by now that you call hard questions you can't answer "typical nonsense" but why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? By the time Day testified the information about the palmprint on an index card and Latona's match with Oswald were known. So, why did Day not testify that he made a similar match? Why did he say instead that he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?

On the day of his WC testimony Day still wouldn't say it: Page 263 - Day: Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.

That appears to be the same thing he told Fritz and Curry on 11/22/63. Also, Day states he told Vince Drain when he picked it up that there was a palm print on the barrel and pointed out the location to him. Add Drain to the list of people who were told.

I distinctly recall Day saying that the prints looked llked, tentatively, Oswald's.. and saying he wishes he had gone ahead and photographed them despite being told to stop. It seems he was confident in that tentative assassessment. Being told to stop should immediately raise an investigator's suspicions as to why, so why not take a chance and finish.
 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 02:03:16 AM
Thanks, yes it does. A friend once told me that he learned during his study towards a degree in industrial management that in the corporate world (and bureaucratic world) people usually climb the ladder to the level of their incompetence. I don稚 know if that痴 what happened to Curry or not. Just something that came to mind when I read your post.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but Curry was told by his superiors to allow plenty of press coverage, release maximum info and to 'show off' Oswald as much as possible. I can't help thinking the guy got a bum deal, was made a bit of a scapegoat.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 02:15:28 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean, but Curry was told by his superiors to allow plenty of press coverage, release maximum info and to 'show off' Oswald as much as possible. I can't help thinking the guy got a bum deal, was made a bit of a scapegoat.

I think that you池e probably right about the scapegoat. He didn稚 make all those decisions without some consultation. However, several of his detectives and Sheriff Decker said that they had tried to convince him not to try to transport Oswald in front of the press.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 02:24:47 AM
I distinctly recall Day saying that the prints looked llked, tentatively, Oswald's.. and saying he wishes he had gone ahead and photographed them despite being told to stop. It seems he was confident in that tentative assassessment. Being told to stop should immediately raise an investigator's suspicions as to why, so why not take a chance and finish.

He understandably had to be frustrated with the earlier interruption for Marina to view the rifle and tired by the time he was instructed to stop. However I also think that he should have at least explained that he was midstream of processing the palm print and asked if he had enough time to get to a better stopping point.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 02:36:37 AM
I think that you池e probably right about the scapegoat. He didn稚 make all those decisions without some consultation. However, several of his detectives and Sheriff Decker said that they had tried to convince him not to try to transport Oswald in front of the press.

Yeah, the security issues were appalling, both before and during the transfer. It's easy to see why so many believe the whole thing was a setup.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 21, 2019, 03:11:25 AM
Perhaps I should have rephrased my comment better, because I never wanted to give the impression it was a quote in the book, but thanks for the exact quote. I was paraphrasing from memory. I am sure in my mind Curry did say the other part as well, but I can't instantly recall where or when he said it.

He said it, on film, to a reporter in a hallway, iirc.

(Excuse me if someone has already posted this -- I haven't read through the whole thread yet.)

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on June 21, 2019, 04:23:58 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean, but Curry was told by his superiors to allow plenty of press coverage, release maximum info and to 'show off' Oswald as much as possible. I can't help thinking the guy got a bum deal, was made a bit of a scapegoat.

Denis, I think the public parading (and associated press questioning) of Oswald was confined to day one. I believe after that there was some deal struck between the DPD and press that allowed them to see him being moved but no questions were to be asked.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 09:44:37 AM
Denis, I think the public parading (and associated press questioning) of Oswald was confined to day one. I believe after that there was some deal struck between the DPD and press that allowed them to see him being moved but no questions were to be asked.

Hi Colin, really? I didn't know that. Thank you   Thumb1:
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 21, 2019, 09:49:11 AM
He said it, on film, to a reporter in a hallway, iirc.

(Excuse me if someone has already posted this -- I haven't read through the whole thread yet.)

-- MWT  ;)

Yes, you're right Thomas, whilst he was on his way to the first lineup. It wasn't actually caught on film though, was it?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 21, 2019, 10:17:36 AM
Yes, you're right Thomas, whilst he was on his way to the first lineup. It wasn't actually caught on film though, was it?

Denis,

I believe I remember watching and hearing him say this on film.  I seem to remember a slightly perplexed/frustrated look on his face.

As I recall, he wasn't walking anywhere at the time.  He was standing still, surrounded by a group of reporters in a hallway.  IIRC

Caveat:  I'm probably "just making things up," again.

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 21, 2019, 01:04:03 PM
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?

(http://jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/day1.jpg)

JohnM

l don't know if anyone's ever asked this question, but were't there any other cheapo rifles available back then that could have been broken down and fit into a 30 inch, or so, bag?

Not that it matters, actually.

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 01:38:22 PM
What "evidence"... they had collected hardly anything when the article was published and they most certainly had not examined any of it.

I am willing (and have said so before) to consider the possibility that Oswald was a lone gunman and I even feel that some evidence indeed points in that direction.

Does that make me a LN?

Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.

If, as you claim "The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle." then why didn't Day continue with processing the palmprint on the index card? Why did he do nothing with it and held it back for four days?


Here's a bit of interesting testimony;

Mr. BELIN. What about the lift which has previously been marked as Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. About what?
Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not release this----

Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and at that time I sent the lift marked----
Mr. BELIN. 637.
Mr. DAY. Yes. The gun was sent back again, and all of the other evidence that I had, including cartons from Texas Bookstore, and various other items, a rather lengthy list.

and some more;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

Actually, Day's own testimony proves that it is you who is taking things out of context and trying to spin it.

Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.

Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.

It seems it is you who is wasting everybody's time

Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.

No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.  He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."

And about the palm print: "...I looked at it and was pretty sure it was his. But I wanted to look at it some more before I said definitely was his palm.

He says the same things in his 1996 oral history interview.

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.


No it doesn't, I think you are confusing a tentative match vs a positive match. And trying to make it look like he said something he didn't. I am not an expert on fingerprinting but here is an article that includes this statement:
Aug 31, 1990 - Here, a fingerprint examiner verifies a tentative match between the thumbprints of a purchaser with those of a prior offender, in order to establish positive identification

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF (https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF)

As I understand it, in fingerprint comparisons the examiner looks for points of similarity. As each point is identified and documented, the likelihood of the prints being of two different persons becomes smaller and smaller. After enough points (varies) are identified, so that the examiner is satisfied they are the same, it is declared a positive match. As the process takes place the examiner essentially goes from: "they could be the same," to: "they probably are the same," to: "they are almost certainly the same," to: "they are definitely the same, to the exclusion of all others". It is a tedious and time consuming process, and it is preferred to go back and take a second look with fresh eyes and mind to make sure there are no errors before making the positive match statement. I believe that Day was around the almost certainly stage but needed more time to complete the work. Whether you want to call that a tentative match or not I really don't care. But that is what the evidence shows. And then we are only arguing semantics.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 21, 2019, 05:35:30 PM
Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.

No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.  He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."

And about the palm print: "...I looked at it and was pretty sure it was his. But I wanted to look at it some more before I said definitely was his palm.

He says the same things in his 1996 oral history interview.


Wow... and then you say I am spinning things. No, he was not ordered to stop processing the rifle. That's what you make of it, based on what he said decades later, but it is not what he said in his WC testimony.

In fact he was simply told "to stop processing" and it is beyond obvious (to me) that applies to all the evidence and not just one particular item.

As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?


Quote

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.


No it doesn't, I think you are confusing a tentative match vs a positive match. And trying to make it look like he said something he didn't. I am not an expert on fingerprinting but here is an article that includes this statement:
Aug 31, 1990 - Here, a fingerprint examiner verifies a tentative match between the thumbprints of a purchaser with those of a prior offender, in order to establish positive identification

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF (https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF)

As I understand it, in fingerprint comparisons the examiner looks for points of similarity. As each point is identified and documented, the likelihood of the prints being of two different persons becomes smaller and smaller. After enough points (varies) are identified, so that the examiner is satisfied they are the same, it is declared a positive match. As the process takes place the examiner essentially goes from: "they could be the same," to: "they probably are the same," to: "they are almost certainly the same," to: "they are definitely the same, to the exclusion of all others". It is a tedious and time consuming process, and it is preferred to go back and take a second look with fresh eyes and mind to make sure there are no errors before making the positive match statement.


How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

Quote

I believe that Day was around the almost certainly stage but needed more time to complete the work. Whether you want to call that a tentative match or not I really don't care. But that is what the evidence shows. And then we are only arguing semantics.


No it is not what the evidence shows. It's - as you say - what you believe!

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 07:36:08 PM
Wow... and then you say I am spinning things. No, he was not ordered to stop processing the rifle. That's what you make of it, based on what he said decades later, but it is not what he said in his WC testimony.

In fact he was simply told "to stop processing" and it is beyond obvious (to me) that applies to all the evidence and not just one particular item.

As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?


How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

No it is not what the evidence shows. It's - as you say - what you believe!

Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?

I already did. (And Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm this.) You excluding the remainder of the sentence after the word "processing". The word it refers to the rifle, the sentences before and after that one are about the rifle. They had just asked him about how he had processed the rifle and he was telling them. Yet somehow you try to twist it and believe they were somehow talking about the evidence.

How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.



Here is your claim: Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

First: Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm he was ordered to stop processing the rifle, not the evidence.

Second: Your "any prints" is incorrect. Fingerprints yes, but the palmprint was tentatively matched on 11/22/63. We are discussing the palm print, not the fingerprints. Because everything above McCloy's question [How about the palmprint?] is about the fingerprints, it is not relevant to our discussion of the palmprint.  Day's answer to that question is: The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.  The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match. The words "fully satisfy myself" are indicative of a positive match.

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

When you remove the irrelevant part, as I indicated above, you are left with this relevant statement:

Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

Nothing there destroys my claim. In fact that is what it is saying. 

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 21, 2019, 08:53:02 PM
Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?

I already did. (And Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm this.) You excluding the remainder of the sentence after the word "processing". The word it refers to the rifle, the sentences before and after that one are about the rifle. They had just asked him about how he had processed the rifle and he was telling them. Yet somehow you try to twist it and believe they were somehow talking about the evidence.

How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.



Here is your claim: Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

First: Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm he was ordered to stop processing the rifle, not the evidence.

Second: Your "any prints" is incorrect. Fingerprints yes, but the palmprint was tentatively matched on 11/22/63. We are discussing the palm print, not the fingerprints. Because everything above McCloy's question [How about the palmprint?] is about the fingerprints, it is not relevant to our discussion of the palmprint.  Day's answer to that question is: The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.  The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match. The words "fully satisfy myself" are indicative of a positive match.

Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63

When you remove the irrelevant part, as I indicated above, you are left with this relevant statement:

Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

Nothing there destroys my claim. In fact that is what it is saying.

The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match.

No they are not. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Day never matched the palmprint he allegedly took from the rifle with Oswald. In order to make a match you need to compare the prints and Day never did that. He never got around to it.

In this instance "appeared to be" was at best indicative of a guess about which palm print it was.

As to your original claim that Henry Wade was told on 11/22/63 about a tentative match with a palmprint you seem to ignore that Day clearly said;

Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.

So, even if he had made a "tentative" match (quod non) Day would not have said it until he knew for sure. Just one more reason why Wade could not have been told about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 21, 2019, 09:37:19 PM
The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match.

No they are not. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Day never matched the palmprint he allegedly took from the rifle with Oswald. In order to make a match you need to compare the prints and Day never did that. He never got around to it.

In this instance "appeared to be" was at best indicative of a guess about which palm print it was.

As to your original claim that Henry Wade was told on 11/22/63 about a tentative match with a palmprint you seem to ignore that Day clearly said;

Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.

So, even if he had made a "tentative" match (quod non) Day would not have said it until he knew for sure. Just one more reason why Wade could not have been told about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63

Day would not have said it appeared to be Oswald痴 palm print unless he had made a brief comparison. If he only had determined that it was a right palm print, that is what he would have said.

In the quote you included, he is talking about a positive match, to the exclusion of all others.

Wade was told that they had a tentative match. Those words were from Fritz and Curry. Day probably told them in similar words to the ones he used in his testimony.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 21, 2019, 10:10:11 PM
Day would not have said it appeared to be Oswald痴 palm print unless he had made a brief comparison. If he only had determined that it was a right palm print, that is what he would have said.

In the quote you included, he is talking about a positive match, to the exclusion of all others.

Wade was told that they had a tentative match. Those words were from Fritz and Curry. Day probably told them in similar words to the ones he used in his testimony.

Wade was told that they had a tentative match. Those words were from Fritz and Curry. Day probably told them in similar words to the ones he used in his testimony.

And so we are back to square one and getting nowhere

In my opinion, you are trying to construct a highly speculative narrative based on a vague newspaper article, some decades old memories and a highly questionable interpretation of Day's testimony, whilst at the same time ignoring actual evidence that shows Wade could not have been told about a print matching to Oswald on 11/22/63 as there was none.

The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 22, 2019, 12:26:24 AM
Wade was told that they had a tentative match. Those words were from Fritz and Curry. Day probably told them in similar words to the ones he used in his testimony.

And so we are back to square one and getting nowhere

In my opinion, you are trying to construct a highly speculative narrative based on a vague newspaper article, some decades old memories and a highly questionable interpretation of Day's testimony, whilst at the same time ignoring actual evidence that shows Wade could not have been told about a print matching to Oswald on 11/22/63 as there was none.

The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders.

And so we are back to square one and getting nowhere

No we are not. I can imagine that Day would be cautious when the word match comes up. It appears he only uses that word when he has a positive match that he has properly documented. He might not want to use the term tentative match due to potential misunderstandings. If someone (WC) asks him about a match he responds as if they are asking about a positive match. And when he had a tentative match that he needs further work, he apparently used language that didn't include the word match. What it boils down to is semantics. Wade, and probably Fritz and Curry, apparently preferred the term tentative match. It is a term used in the profession, I showed that in the article earlier in this thread.

In my opinion, you are trying to construct a highly speculative narrative based on a vague newspaper article, some decades old memories and a highly questionable interpretation of Day's testimony, whilst at the same time ignoring actual evidence that shows Wade could not have been told about a print matching to Oswald on 11/22/63 as there was none.

Thank you for saying that all of that is your opinion.

The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders

DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card. And later testified to that effect. If that isn't a documented official record, then what the heck is it? Just because it was in the hands of the DPD (who had jurisdiction at the time) instead of the FBI doesn't mean it didn't exist. He turned the rifle over to the FBI when instructed to do so (even though he was in the middle of processing the palmprint). He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so. Once Oswald had been declared dead, Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63. How the heck did he know about it if it "didn't exist'? He later told Aynesworth he learned about it the evening of 11/22/63.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 22, 2019, 12:40:38 AM
the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders.

Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!

(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 22, 2019, 12:49:56 AM
Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!

(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

JohnM

You池e exactly right John. IIRC, my first question in this thread was why they thought the delay was relevant. 🤔
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 01:06:31 AM
And so we are back to square one and getting nowhere

No we are not. I can imagine that Day would be cautious when the word match comes up. It appears he only uses that word when he has a positive match that he has properly documented. He might not want to use the term tentative match due to potential misunderstandings. If someone (WC) asks him about a match he responds as if they are asking about a positive match. And when he had a tentative match that he needs further work, he apparently used language that didn't include the word match. What it boils down to is semantics. Wade, and probably Fritz and Curry, apparently preferred the term tentative match. It is a term used in the profession, I showed that in the article earlier in this thread.

In my opinion, you are trying to construct a highly speculative narrative based on a vague newspaper article, some decades old memories and a highly questionable interpretation of Day's testimony, whilst at the same time ignoring actual evidence that shows Wade could not have been told about a print matching to Oswald on 11/22/63 as there was none.

Thank you for saying that all of that is your opinion.

The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders

DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card. And later testified to that effect. If that isn't a documented official record, then what the heck is it? Just because it was in the hands of the DPD (who had jurisdiction at the time) instead of the FBI doesn't mean it didn't exist. He turned the rifle over to the FBI when instructed to do so (even though he was in the middle of processing the palmprint). He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so. Once Oswald had been declared dead, Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63. How the heck did he know about it if it "didn't exist'? He later told Aynesworth he learned about it the evening of 11/22/63.

DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card.

And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?

It doesn't add up!

Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63.

In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.

Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 01:08:18 AM
Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!

(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

JohnM

the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766

Really? When did he touch it?

Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 22, 2019, 01:31:58 AM
the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766

Really? When did he touch it?


Focus Martin, we are discussing if Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from C2766 and the following exhibit shows that Oswald's palmprint came from Oswald's rifle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on June 22, 2019, 04:00:10 AM
Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!

(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

JohnM

Didn't the undertaker say some guys in suits came late at night, demanded to have private access to Oswald's corpse, and then left about an hour later with ink all over their hands?

-- MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 11:22:46 AM

Focus Martin, we are discussing if Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from C2766 and the following exhibit shows that Oswald's palmprint came from Oswald's rifle.

JohnM

Actually, no the exhibit doesn't show that. It's a print on an index card which Day said he lifted from the rifle.

And it is relevant how old the print was.... Day's testimony indicates it's wasn't a fresh print at all.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 22, 2019, 01:11:20 PM
DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card.

And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?

It doesn't add up!

Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63.

In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.

Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.

And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?

It doesn't add up!


According to Day in his 1996 oral history, he didn't come in the next day (Saturday). The rifle was returned (in a big box) on Sunday, but Day wasn't there when it was returned. Day was directed not to do anything else with it and didn't open the box. And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t. He felt sure it was Oswald's print when he briefly examined itthat palm print that he got off the barrel.

In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.

Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.


Wade was going by his memory because the DPD had been advised by the FBI not to release information on the evidence to the media. Here is an abbreviated list that I noted when I watched the video: witnesses, boxes with palmprints, three shells, gun (hidden) purchased via mail, ID card, pictures of LHO with the rifle, neighbor gave ride - package (supposedly curtain rods), breakroom encounter, bus (@Lamar Street), Taxi to Oakcliff, changed clothes, Tippit encounter with shells, Texas Theater - fight & arrest, brought to city jail, fingerprints on rifle on metal underside, parafin test.

One could argue that Wade was referring to the fingerprints near the trigger. However, Day has said those fingerprints were not clear enough to determine if they were a match or not. And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's. It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID. Wade later told Aynesworth he was told about the palmprint on 11/22/63. I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 01:37:18 PM
And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?

It doesn't add up!


According to Day in his 1996 oral history, he didn't come in the next day (Saturday). The rifle was returned (in a big box) on Sunday, but Day wasn't there when it was returned. Day was directed not to do anything else with it and didn't open the box. And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t. He felt sure it was Oswald's print when he briefly examined itthat palm print that he got off the barrel.


And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t.

Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint!   Thumb1:

Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process such a crucial piece of evidence as the palmprint on the index card on Friday evening.

IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print and places it in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further.

The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has crucial and perhaps conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does..... absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?

Quote

In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.

Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.


Wade was going by his memory because the DPD had been advised by the FBI not to release information on the evidence to the media. Here is an abbreviated list that I noted when I watched the video: witnesses, boxes with palmprints, three shells, gun (hidden) purchased via mail, ID card, pictures of LHO with the rifle, neighbor gave ride - package (supposedly curtain rods), breakroom encounter, bus (@Lamar Street), Taxi to Oakcliff, changed clothes, Tippit encounter with shells, Texas Theater - fight & arrest, brought to city jail, fingerprints on rifle on metal underside, parafin test.

One could argue that Wade was referring to the fingerprints near the trigger. However, Day has said those fingerprints were not clear enough to determine if they were a match or not. And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's. It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID. Wade later told Aynesworth he was told about the palmprint on 11/22/63. I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.

And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's.

Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.


The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders

DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card. And later testified to that effect. If that isn't a documented official record, then what the heck is it? Just because it was in the hands of the DPD (who had jurisdiction at the time) instead of the FBI doesn't mean it didn't exist. He turned the rifle over to the FBI when instructed to do so (even though he was in the middle of processing the palmprint). He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so. Once Oswald had been declared dead, Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63. How the heck did he know about it if it "didn't exist'? He later told Aynesworth he learned about it the evening of 11/22/63.


It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID.

No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!

I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.


So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 22, 2019, 03:00:58 PM
And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t.

Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint!   Thumb1:

Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process the palmprint on Friday evening.

IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print for four days. He places the index card in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further. The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does..... absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?

And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's.

Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.

It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID.

No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!

I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.


So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.

Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint!   Thumb1:

Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process the palmprint on Friday evening.


That is what Day said. Your contention is your conjecture.

IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print for four days. He places the index card in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further. The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does..... absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?

Thank you for stating all of that is your opinion.

Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.

Not in my (already stated) reasoned opinion.

No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!

Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him. (He did feel a need to outline the evidence to the media to counter the views by some in the media that they might have arrested the wrong man.) Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense. Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's. The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.

From wikipedia:
Fingerprint identification, known as dactyloscopy,[8] or hand print identification, is the process of comparing two instances of friction ridge skin impressions (see Minutiae), from human fingers or toes, or even the palm of the hand or sole of the foot, to determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual.

Palmprints and fingerprints and other prints are all part of fingerprint identification. It is understandable that he would just say fingerprint and it would cover both. Another possibility is: when Wade was told on 11/22/63 they might have just said Oswald's print was found on the rifle and not specified that it was a palmprint.

I have already stated the other reasons to believe he was referring to the palmprint. Those reasons are evidence based on the real circumstances and the words of the people who were there and in a position to know. Not made up out of thin air as you imply.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 22, 2019, 03:44:25 PM
Actually, no the exhibit doesn't show that. It's a print on an index card which Day said he lifted from the rifle.

No, the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766, the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box number.

(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 03:46:41 PM
Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint!   Thumb1:

Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process the palmprint on Friday evening.


That is what Day said. Your contention is your conjecture.

No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the crucial palmprint further and actually kept it in his desk for four days. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?

Quote
IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print for four days. He places the index card in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further. The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does..... absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?

Thank you for stating all of that is your opinion.

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

Quote

Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.

Not in my (already stated) reasoned opinion.


Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Anybody who listens to the Wade press conference of 11/24/63 will note that Wade only talks about the palmprint found on a box at the TSBD.

Quote

No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!

Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him. (He did feel a need to outline the evidence to the media to counter the views by some in the media that they might have arrested the wrong man.) Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense. Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's. The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.


Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him.

BS all he would have to say is that he was given erroneous information. It was only a press conference, for crying out loud.

Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.

He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true, and none of them came back "to bite him"

Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.

BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.

The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

Quote

So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.

From wikipedia:
Fingerprint identification, known as dactyloscopy,[8] or hand print identification, is the process of comparing two instances of friction ridge skin impressions (see Minutiae), from human fingers or toes, or even the palm of the hand or sole of the foot, to determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual.

Palmprints and fingerprints and other prints are all part of fingerprint identification. It is understandable that he would just say fingerprint and it would cover both. Another possibility is: when Wade was told on 11/22/63 they might have just said Oswald's print was found on the rifle and not specified that it was a palmprint.

I have already stated the other reasons to believe he was referring to the palmprint. Those reasons are evidence based on the real circumstances and the words of the people who were there and in a position to know. Not made up out of thin air as you imply.

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
No, the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766, the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box number.


JohnM

the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766

No, the 5 marks match at best only proves that Day's index card touched the rifle at some point.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 22, 2019, 03:57:45 PM
the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766

No, the 5 marks match at best only proves that Day's index card touched the rifle at some point.

Since I have no idea what you are babbling about, could you please explain how your theory works?

Here is a high quality photo of Day's index card showing Oswald's print while simultaneously displaying the 5 random marks found on Oswald's rifle.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bv5f6Tgg/fbi-palm-rifle-match.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 22, 2019, 06:17:30 PM
No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?


Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.

He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true.

Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.

BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.

The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?


Yes, it is what Day said. IIRC I already provided you what he said in his 2006 oral history interview. He said this similar statement in his 1996 oral history interview: "About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdydon‟t do anything else to the gun." Your interpretation of the partial sentence from the WC testimony is only your wishful thinking. And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further. If you choose not to believe what Day says that is your choice. I will choose to believe what Carl Day says. It makes no sense for me to continue to argue about the same thing over and over again with you. Lets just let an "impartial jury" decide who they choose to believe.

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

No, I told you a long time ago that I am not interested in your opinions.

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Just another one of your nonsensical opinions.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

It turns out Day's assessment was correct. They were confident that he wouldn't tell them he thought it was Oswald's palmprint if he wasn't sure. And they had plenty of other evidence, it wasn't just the palmprint.

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 22, 2019, 06:55:46 PM
No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?


Yes, it is what Day said. IIRC I already provided you what he said in his 2006 oral history interview. He said this similar statement in his 1996 oral history interview: "About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdydon‟t do anything else to the gun." Your interpretation of the partial sentence from the WC testimony is only your wishful thinking. And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further. If you choose not to believe what Day says that is your choice. I will choose to believe what Carl Day says. It makes no sense for me to continue to argue about the same thing over and over again with you. Lets just let an "impartial jury" decide who they choose to believe.


And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further.

This is getting tiresome. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?

Quote

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

No, I told you a long time ago that I am not interested in your opinions.


Yes, that's the next defense, when you are losing the debate and have no arguments left

Quote
Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Just another one of your nonsensical opinions.


Your desperation is becoming more apparent every time you call my opinions nonsensical without being able to explain what is nonsensical about it.

Quote

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

It turns out Day's assessment was correct. They were confident that he wouldn't tell them he thought it was Oswald's palmprint if he wasn't sure. And they had plenty of other evidence, it wasn't just the palmprint.


Your opinion that you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. In fact, you now saying they had plenty of other evidence is a clear indication of you backpeddling, because you previously said that the palmprint was a big part of the reasons they decided to charge Oswald.


Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's. The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.


Obviously, nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't have told them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure. You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure..

I'm beginning to wonder what must be going on in your head because this is utter madness!

Quote

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?

Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 23, 2019, 12:04:45 AM
No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the crucial palmprint further and actually kept it in his desk for four days. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!

So, again why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?

Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!

Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.

Anybody who listens to the Wade press conference of 11/24/63 will note that Wade only talks about the palmprint found on a box at the TSBD.

Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him.

BS all he would have to say is that he was given erroneous information. It was only a press conference, for crying out loud.

Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.

He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true, and none of them came back "to bite him"

Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.

BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.

The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.

So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?

Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.

It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.

you can not explain why Day did not process the crucial palmprint further and actually kept it in his desk for four days.

There's ample evidence that reveals Day DID NOT keep what what he IMAGINED to be a palm print in his desk for four days.....Day IN FACT turned that so called "palm print" over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63 along with all of the other evidence that the DPD had gathered.   

This isn't rocket science..... Just open your eyes and LOOK......The so call "palm print is item # 14 ( 14th item from the top of the list) on the evidence inventory list that was typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 23, 2019, 12:47:37 AM
And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further.

This is getting tiresome. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?

Yes, that's the next defense, when you are losing the debate and have no arguments left

Your desperation is becoming more apparent every time you call my opinions nonsensical without being able to explain what is nonsensical about it.

Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure. You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure..

I'm beginning to wonder what must be going on in your head because this is utter madness!

Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.

What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?

Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said.

This is getting tiresome. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?

I have provided Day's words. They conflict with your assumption that the WC testimony indicates he was told to stop processing everything. It does not say that. Day's words in his oral history interviews clarifies that he was told to stop processing the rifle on 11/22/63. In the oral history interview he doesn't say anything about not getting back to checking the palmprint until he is talking about coming back to work and the rifle had already been returned. (And I think his choice of the words (that I underlined) is another indication that he had already started checking the palmprint and was interrupted before he could finish.) It appears to me that he did his brief examination of the palmprint after he lifted it and before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. Fritz, Bill Alexander, Jim Allen, and Forrest Sorrels leave city hall to discuss the evidence and eat at Majestic Steak House around 9:00 PM. Fritz said he wanted to wait until they developed the firearm and fingerprint evidence before they file the charges in the assassination. They decide to wait an hour or so. The assassination charges are filed against Oswald at 11:26 PM. The rifle is released to the FBI about 11:45 PM. References for what was said at the Majestic Steak House are: Bonner, Investigation of a Homicide, pp.152154; Telephone interview of William Alexander by Vincent Bugliosi on December 12, 2000.


Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;

Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.


The FBI fingerprint experts and independent experts have all confirmed Day's assessment was correct. Day is describing a positive match, not a tentative match. And again, he is discussing the fingerprints, not the palmprint. So it isn't even relevant. The last line is relevant. That is what a tentative match is. Although I doubt that Day would use that term because it has the potential to cause misunderstandings, of which you are apparently a perfect example.

So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure.

Yes! However,this is describing a positive match, not a tentative match. With a tentative match he would likely say it appeared to belong to a certain person.

You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure.

I don't believe that I said Day told them he had a "tentative match." I believe I said he would have been careful not to use that particular term. It was Wade's quoted words that included that term. I believe they had enough confidence in Day's brief expert assessment (although it still needed further work to completely document it and double check for errors before he would declare it a positive match) along with the other evidence to charge Oswald with the assassination.

What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?

It is a polite (cryptic) way of saying that we are going in circles and arguing the same things over again and I think it is time to let this rest. Let whoever might be reading this (the jury, the impartial part is my wishful thinking, but you never know some newbie might actually be impartial) make up their own minds. I don't believe that you and I are never going to agree on anything whatsoever.

Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said

I have tried to keep it verbatim as much as possible. I do add my opinions but I don't believe that they are mixed in with the quotes. It should be apparent where I have added my opinion, usually at the end. As far as the oral history quotes I have changed the perspective (ie: I to he) or some other insignificant aspect because of the copyright agreement. Again, get yourself a copy if you don't believe me.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jim Brunsman on June 23, 2019, 11:41:18 PM
Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 24, 2019, 12:38:55 AM
Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...

Quote
...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant?

If you had some evidence to contradict the official story then we could consider your evidence but otherwise it's just more self serving conjecture.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 24, 2019, 10:18:45 PM
geniuses 
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 24, 2019, 11:44:30 PM
Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...

A very interesting opinion ~yawn~ When will you be submitting the facts to back it up..next post maybe?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jim Brunsman on June 25, 2019, 12:34:19 AM
There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
   What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 25, 2019, 12:59:42 AM
Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?

Did Tom Robinson actually report that? When? Where can that testimony of his be viewed?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 25, 2019, 05:07:42 AM
There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
   What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

Well, you can expect to be attacked when you say something silly like;

"Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?"

because Robinson never testified anywhere.

Btw, Tomlinson did make some public comments and I consider him a credible witness. He just never testified and Tim, of course, knows this..
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 25, 2019, 05:23:24 AM
But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

Well, you can expect to be attacked when you say something silly like;

"Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?"

because Robinson never testified anywhere.

Btw, Tomlinson did make some public comments and I consider him a credible witness. He just never testified and Tim, of course, knows this..

Hi Martin,

You have Darrell Tomlinson on your mind. That's understandable, since you and I have had numerous discussions on him. Are you familiar with Tom Robinson's HSCA interview (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=7&tab=page)?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 25, 2019, 05:38:47 AM
Hi Martin,

You have Darrell Tomlinson on your mind. That's understandable, since you and I have had numerous discussions on him. Are you familiar with Tom Robinson's HSCA interview (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=7&tab=page)?

Hi Tim.

Actually, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks  Thumb1:

As to the confusion about the name, that's a mystery for me. I have no idea how I confused Tomlinson with Robinson.... must be old age or something
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on June 25, 2019, 06:43:46 AM
Hi Tim.

Actually, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks  Thumb1:

As to the confusion about the name, that's a mystery for me. I have no idea how I confused Tomlinson with Robinson.... must be old age or something

My hearing aid is acting up on me , so I can't see very well. Did you say old age?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 25, 2019, 03:36:04 PM
There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
   What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.

But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of about half the membership of this forum i.e. anyone that's reached a different conclusion than yourself. Frankly, I'm surprised you even lower yourself by posting here. We should all feel highly honoured.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jim Brunsman on June 25, 2019, 03:47:54 PM
Yes, I'm sorry for my intolerance concerning the SBT. I should be more kind in my public posts. I'm just really bugged that the history books are loaded with misinformation about one the most important events of the 20th century. Mr. Pointing is correct that I have a very low opinion of anyone who has studied most of the evidence and concludes the SBT is even remotely possible. But I did not see one word of challenge to my assertions, just a rather self-pitying reply. How about dealing with the issues?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 25, 2019, 04:52:29 PM
Yes, I'm sorry for my intolerance concerning the SBT. I should be more kind in my public posts. I'm just really bugged that the history books are loaded with misinformation about one the most important events of the 20th century. Mr. Pointing is correct that I have a very low opinion of anyone who has studied most of the evidence and concludes the SBT is even remotely possible. But I did not see one word of challenge to my assertions, just a rather self-pitying reply. How about dealing with the issues?

How about presenting your facts on why, you believe, the SBT isn't even remotely possible? That's how forums work. One person presents a theory, claim or an opinion, backs that up with facts/evidence then another person counters with their facts/evidence. Just bursting onto the forum, guns blazing, firing out opinions without any backup and insulting fellow members before they've even had a chance to respond, gets you nowhere. Smarten up, lose the chip.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 25, 2019, 05:41:32 PM
How about presenting your facts on why, you believe, the SBT isn't even remotely possible? That's how forums work. One person presents a theory, claim or an opinion, backs that up with facts/evidence then another person counters with their facts/evidence. Just bursting onto the forum, guns blazing, firing out opinions without any backup and insulting fellow members before they've even had a chance to respond, gets you nowhere. Smarten up, lose the chip.

In the 90s, JFK Jim Fetzer came out with the proposition that conspiracy was a given. That was to be the starting point for any discussion for the "serious" JFK researchers.

i recall a handful of critics at the time resisted Frtzer's appeal but it seems to have caught on in the conspiracy community, the Ed Forum, the critic blogs and the avalanche of conspiracy books since Fetzer made his claim. Brunsman seems to reiterate that the SBT is by definition inane, that Warren supporters (though none actually support literally everything the Commission--and the HSCA--concluded and I believe many do believe cover-ups of varying degrees did occur here-and-there) have no credentials as they can't see the obvious.

How can lone-assassin researchers be close-minded when the SBT and "jet effect" represent thinking outside the box?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jim Brunsman on June 25, 2019, 05:59:45 PM
I have presented many facts in response to comments made on this forum. But it really is pointless and it is not a productive use of my time. I should have kept my opinions to myself.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on June 25, 2019, 07:15:40 PM
It's my thread and I'll talk about what I want. So FO!
Reminds me of the kid who yelled ''It's my football and if you make me mad again I'll just take it with me and go home".(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)     
 Perhaps review these rules...
Quote
Threads which descend into chaos, where the thread creator participates in the gradual development of the chaos, will be deleted.
Individual posts considered to be overly aggressive and/or disrespectful in tone towards a fellow member will be deleted.


 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on June 25, 2019, 07:53:33 PM
Yes, I'm sorry for my intolerance concerning the SBT. I should be more kind in my public posts. I'm just really bugged that the history books are loaded with misinformation about one the most important events of the 20th century. Mr. Pointing is correct that I have a very low opinion of anyone who has studied most of the evidence and concludes the SBT is even remotely possible. But I did not see one word of challenge to my assertions, just a rather self-pitying reply. How about dealing with the issues?

Tell us how FMJ ammo is primarily designed to perform
Point out your no-name knoll shooter


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 25, 2019, 08:01:29 PM
I have presented many facts in response to comments made on this forum. But it really is pointless and it is not a productive use of my time. I should have kept my opinions to myself.

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 09:44:04 PM
No, Hugh Aynesworth is a well respected journalist and the quotes are inside quotation marks. I have said these things before.

That makes it true?

50 years ago, Charles Collins admitted that he "eats dog meat".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 09:45:26 PM
Here we are 19 pages in and not one CT has provided any evidence or at least supplied a plausible narrative of how C2766 ended up on the 6th floor?

56 years later and not one LNer has ever provided any evidence that Lee Oswald put C2766 on the 6th floor.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 09:47:26 PM
Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.

Denis, the point is that even if Aynesworth is as pure as the driven snow, and his memory is completely infallible, this is still hearsay.  It's not necessarily true.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 09:49:37 PM
That is your opinion. It痴 unreasonable.

Everybody thinks that his own opinion is the "reasonable" one.

Quote
I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that 渡o one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead, and 鍍here痴 no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald痴 death.

The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on June 25, 2019, 09:58:15 PM
Everybody thinks that his own opinion is the "reasonable" one.

The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint.

Yes Martin has the same opinion. Read what I have already said to him about that. I am not going to repeat it again.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:28:18 PM
He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so.

No he didn't. That's one of the issues.  He was instructed to turn everything over to the FBI that night.  Somehow he "forgot" about the palmprint.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:31:44 PM
Since I have no idea what you are babbling about, could you please explain how your theory works?

Here is a high quality photo of Day's index card showing Oswald's print while simultaneously displaying the 5 random marks found on Oswald's rifle.

No, this high quality photo doesn't show any particular marks on any rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:33:00 PM
No, this high quality photo doesn't show any particular marks on any rifle.

Prove it.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:33:44 PM
This isn't rocket science..... Just open your eyes and LOOK......The so call "palm print is item # 14 ( 14th item from the top of the list) on the evidence inventory list that was typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence.....

The only problem is that you have zero evidence that this list accompanied any evidence on 11/22/63.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:39:50 PM
No he didn't. That's one of the issues.  He was instructed to turn everything over to the FBI that night.  Somehow he "forgot" about the palmprint.

Quote
That's one of the issues.

You keep inventing issues that have answers, Day testified that he too the palmprint on the 22nd, it's up to a jury to decide.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:41:29 PM
I have provided Day's words. They conflict with your assumption that the WC testimony indicates he was told to stop processing everything. It does not say that. Day's words in his oral history interviews clarifies that he was told to stop processing the rifle on 11/22/63. In the oral history interview he doesn't say anything about not getting back to checking the palmprint until he is talking about coming back to work and the rifle had already been returned. (And I think his choice of the words (that I underlined) is another indication that he had already started checking the palmprint and was interrupted before he could finish.) It appears to me that he did his brief examination of the palmprint after he lifted it and before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. Fritz, Bill Alexander, Jim Allen, and Forrest Sorrels leave city hall to discuss the evidence and eat at Majestic Steak House around 9:00 PM. Fritz said he wanted to wait until they developed the firearm and fingerprint evidence before they file the charges in the assassination. They decide to wait an hour or so. The assassination charges are filed against Oswald at 11:26 PM. The rifle is released to the FBI about 11:45 PM.

The discrepancy is that Day was doing his lifts at around 8:00 PM.  Day told the FBI (CE3145) that the instructions from Curry to go no further with the processing and to turn the evidence over occurred shortly before midnight.  So what was he doing between 8:00 and shortly before midnight?  How was this not enough time to even photograph the print and put cellophane over it like he did with the trigger guard prints?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:42:50 PM
Prove it.

Duh.  Because it's a photograph of the index card, not a rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:45:06 PM
No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.  He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."

You do know that Drain disputes this, right?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:45:30 PM
Duh.  Because it's a photograph of the index card, not a rifle.

Huh? The index card shows 5 marks that were transferred from the rifle, the same card that shows Oswald's authenticated palm print.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:48:40 PM
You can't be Fk'n serious?

They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald kill Tippit.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald with a weapon at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald emptying shells at the crime scene.

No, they had witnesses who picked Oswald out of a biased, unfair lineup or from a mugshot of Oswald.

Quote
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald acting suspiciously leading up to the theater.
They had the box office girl tell them that Oswald didn't buy a ticket.
They had a Police officer who was struck by Oswald.
They had more Police Officers confirm Oswald resisted being questioned.

None of these claims even have anything to do with Tippit.

Quote
They had Oswald's revolver, which Oswald used to try and kill more Police officers.

No, they had a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later at the station.  And there's no evidence whatsoever that Oswald "tried to kill more police officers".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:48:53 PM
You do know that Drain disputes this, right?

Do you have the sworn Drain testimony?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:52:26 PM
Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.

Not only that, but the magic partial palmprint arrived separately from all of the other print evidence and two days later.  Why?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:52:51 PM
No, they had witnesses who picked Oswald out of a biased, unfair lineup or from a mugshot of Oswald.

None of these claims even have anything to do with Tippit.

No, they had a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later at the station.  And there's no evidence whatsoever that Oswald "tried to kill more police officers".
JohnM

Quote
No, they had witnesses who picked Oswald out of a biased, unfair lineup or from a mugshot of Oswald.

"unfair" LOLOLOL!

Quote
No, they had a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later at the station.

Yes, that had a serial number of the same revolver that Oswald ordered. Try again!

Quote
And there's no evidence whatsoever that Oswald "tried to kill more police officers".

You can keep dreaming it, but you won't change the evidence.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 10:53:30 PM
Huh? The index card shows 5 marks that were transferred from the rifle, the same card that shows Oswald's authenticated palm print.

How do you know these marks were "transferred from the rifle"?  Because of a smudge with numbers on it?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 10:56:05 PM
.....arrived separately from all of the other print evidence and two days later.  Why?

How does any of that change the evidence that Day testified to taking the Palmprint from Oswald's rifle on the 22nd and that Day's Palmprint Index card shared the same random marks with Oswald's rifle.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:04:13 PM
Do you have the sworn Drain testimony?

Do you have the sworn Day testimony that he told Drain about the magic partial palmprint?

Also, why did Day refuse to make a written signed statement to the WC about his alleged lifting of the partial palmprint?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:04:39 PM
How do you know these marks were "transferred from the rifle"?  Because of a smudge with numbers on it?

No, because we have the head of the FBI presenting the actual evidence that obviously in it's pristine condition must have been legible.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:05:10 PM
Yes, that had a serial number of the same revolver that Oswald ordered. Try again!

"revolver that Oswald ordered".  LOLOLOL!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:06:32 PM
Do you have the sworn Day testimony that he told Drain about the magic partial palmprint?

I have the sworn Day Testimony that he removed the Palm Print on the 22nd. Game Over!

JohnM

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:07:17 PM
No, because we have the head of the FBI presenting the actual evidence that obviously in it's pristine condition must have been legible.

"must have been legible".  LOLOLOL!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:08:07 PM
"revolver that Oswald ordered".  LOLOLOL!

Yep! -giggle-

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMThZ_-sVuL3x3HfmwARAL9flfDiL4tam1Bfp4eyup3AJ8oxl0rQ)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:09:10 PM
"must have been legible".  LOLOLOL!

The rifle still exists, go and prove the marks are not there. Waiting......

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:11:14 PM
I have the sworn Day Testimony that he removed the Palm Print on the 22nd. Game Over!

Is that supposed to somehow make it true?

We have Roger Craig's sworn testimony that he saw Oswald get into a Rambler.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:11:58 PM
The rifle still exists, go and prove the marks are not there. Waiting......

Your claim, your burden.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:12:58 PM
Yep! -giggle-

Yeah, that proves Oswald ordered a revolver with a particular serial number.  -giggle-
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:18:25 PM
Your claim, your burden.

My burden of proof was met when I presented the head of the FBI's seal of approval.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 25, 2019, 11:20:14 PM
Denis, the point is that even if Aynesworth is as pure as the driven snow, and his memory is completely infallible, this is still hearsay.  It's not necessarily true.

John, you're right, in a court of law Aynesworth's statements wouldn't be accepted, which is exactly why I began my post with "this isn't a courtroom". If we attempt to hold this discussion forum to the same stringent levels of a courtroom, then the next obvious phase is to limit the membership only to those holding a doctorate or degree in law. See where I'm going here? Charles, after due examination and evaluation, has put forward good reasons, at least IMO, as to why he accepts Aynesworth's statements as accurate and true. To automatically dismiss those statements because in a courtroom they would be considered "hearsay" is ridiculous. As a side note, I would be more inclined to believe statements from some people which wouldn't be accepted in court, than some witnesses whose statements would be accepted in court and no, not just the ones that support my POV.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:23:42 PM
Is that supposed to somehow make it true?

So another liar, how how many liars were there John?

JohnM


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:29:38 PM
Yeah, that proves Oswald ordered a revolver with a particular serial number.  -giggle-

Yep, Oswald's revolver was sent to Oswald's PO Box number, the same revolver that was exclusively connected to the shells that were seen being discarded by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene and the same revolver that Oswald was arrested with.

(http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/LHOrev_Fig04_080510.jpg)

JohnM

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:41:00 PM
So another liar, how how many liars were there John?

You tell me.  Your list is way longer than mine.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:41:41 PM
My burden of proof was met when I presented the head of the FBI's seal of approval.

You mean the guy who said that we need to convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:44:14 PM
You tell me.  Your list is way longer than mine.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0)

After the fact many Americans want to insert themselves into history but that doesn't change the actual evidence.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:45:13 PM
John, you're right, in a court of law Aynesworth's statements wouldn't be accepted, which is exactly why I began my post with "this isn't a courtroom". If we attempt to hold this discussion forum to the same stringent levels of a courtroom, then the next obvious phase is to limit the membership only to those holding a doctorate or degree in law. See where I'm going here? Charles, after due examination and evaluation, has put forward good reasons, at least IMO, as to why he accepts Aynesworth's statements as accurate and true. To automatically dismiss those statements because in a courtroom they would be considered "hearsay" is ridiculous. As a side note, I would be more inclined to believe statements from some people which wouldn't be accepted in court, than some witnesses whose statements would be accepted in court and no, not just the ones that support my POV.

I think you misunderstand.  The point is that it doesn't matter how trustworthy Aynesworth may or may not be (and besides, "trusted journalist" is meaningless).  In the end, Charles is believing who he wants to believe.  He should at least admit that.  You should examine all of the evidence, including the testimonies of other people, instead of cherry-picking one journalist's 50-year-old recollection of something he was told.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:49:10 PM
Yep, Oswald's revolver was sent to Oswald's PO Box number, the same revolver that was exclusively connected to the shells that were seen being discarded by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene and the same revolver that Oswald was arrested with.

Oswald had no revolver at the time of his arrest, if ever.  Also this revolver was allegedly sent to a Railway Express office, not a PO box.  Also, the shells that were matched to this revolver were handed to the police by civilians.  You're just assuming they were "discarded by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene".

None of your speculative assumptions make it "Oswald's revolver".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:50:26 PM
You mean the guy who said that we need to convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin?

What did Hoover have to work with?

Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle.
Oswald holding a Carcano rifle.
Oswald's carcano rifle on the 6th floor.
Oswald's shirt fibers on Carcano rifle.
Oswald has no alibi.
Oswald's killing a Police Officer.
Oswald's trying to kill more Police Officers.

And you reckon there was a reason to doubt that Oswald was the real assassin?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:50:46 PM
After the fact many Americans want to insert themselves into history but that doesn't change the actual evidence.

After the fact, many police officers want to insert themselves into history -- one even selling photos of himself labeled "captor of Oswald".  But that doesn't change the actual evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 25, 2019, 11:56:57 PM
What did Hoover have to work with?

Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle.

No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.

Quote
Oswald holding a Carcano rifle.

There's nothing uniquely identifying this as a Carcano, much less a particular Carcano.

Quote
Oswald's carcano rifle on the 6th floor.

Based on a previously flawed assumptiom

Quote
Oswald's shirt fibers on Carcano rifle.

No.  Similar fibers that can't be uniquely connected to any particular shirt.

Quote
Oswald has no alibi.

As do at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.

Quote
Oswald's killing a Police Officer.

Oswald's trying to kill more Police Officers.

Both claims assume facts not in evidence.

Quote
And you reckon there was a reason to doubt that Oswald was the real assassin?

Yes.  When you have to misrepresent the evidence to make your argument then you have no argument.  Even if you could prove that Oswald ever possessed this particular rifle (and you can't), that doesn't prove that he shot JFK with it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 25, 2019, 11:59:45 PM
After the fact, many police officers want to insert themselves into history -- one even selling photos of himself labeled "captor of Oswald".  But that doesn't change the actual evidence.

What point are you trying to make?, McDonald was actually there when Oswald was captured, other Police Officers testified that McDonald was the one who approached Oswald.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2019, 12:03:46 AM
No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.

There's nothing uniquely identifying this as a Carcano, much less a particular Carcano.

Based on a previously flawed assumptiom

No.  Similar fibers that can't be uniquely connected to any particular shirt.

As do at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.

Both claims assume facts not in evidence.

Yes.  When you have to misrepresent the evidence to make your argument then you have no argument.  Even if you could prove that Oswald ever possessed this particular rifle (and you can't), that doesn't prove that he shot JFK with it.

What are you babbling about, we're not talking about what you perceive to be evidence but we're talking about the evidence that Hoover had access to and as every investigation about the JFK Assassination since has since shown us, Hoover's initial statement was spot on.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2019, 12:21:13 AM
What point are you trying to make?, McDonald was actually there when Oswald was captured, other Police Officers testified that McDonald was the one who approached Oswald.

Approach equals capture?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2019, 12:22:18 AM
What are you babbling about, we're not talking about what you perceive to be evidence but we're talking about the evidence that Hoover had access to and as every investigation about the JFK Assassination since has since shown us, Hoover's initial statement was spot on.

"Hoover said it, I believe it, and that settles it".

Interesting way of determining what's actually true.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2019, 12:25:34 AM
Approach equals capture?

Huh? McDonald was part of the Officers who captured Oswald therefore McDonald can rightly claim to be a captor of Oswald, why is this even being debated?
John you used to be good at this, what happened?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2019, 12:31:37 AM
Huh? McDonald was part of the Officers who captured Oswald therefore McDonald can rightly claim to be a captor of Oswald, why is this even being debated?
John you used to be good at this, what happened?

He didn't capture anybody.  He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.

But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2019, 01:07:28 AM
He didn't capture anybody.  He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.

But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.

Quote
He didn't capture anybody.

Yes he did, he even took the first punch in the face from Oswald and luckily the skin between his thumb and forefinger got between the hammer on Oswald's revolver and saved his life.

Quote
He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.

I wasn't there, I don't know?

Quote
But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.

Sure, you have the right to question certain aspects that's the defense's job but nothing you have presented can even remotely refute the mountain of evidence that Oswald took his rifle to work and shot the President.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2019, 07:56:32 AM
No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.

The entire exhibit includes the envelope.

(https://i.postimg.cc/mrQZLW3D/cadigan-ex3a.jpg)

Mr. CADIGAN. The enlarged photograph, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, contains both handwriting and hand printing which was compared with the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. I compared both the handwriting and the hand printing to determine whether or not the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics was present in both the questioned and the known documents. I found many characteristics, some of which I would point out.
On the order blank, in the "A. Hidell" and in the wording "Dallas Texas" which constitutes a part of the return address, the letter "A" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 is made in the same manner as the capital letter "A" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10. The letter is formed with a short straight stroke beginning about halfway up the left side. The top of it is peaked or pointed. The right side is straight, and is shorter than the initial stroke. The capital letter "D" in Dallas is characterized by a staff or downstroke slanting at about a 30ー angle. The lower loop in some instances is closed. In the word "Dallas" the loop is closed, and the body of the letter ends in a rounded loop formation. The same characteristic I found in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as well as other exhibits. The word "Texas" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A is characterized with the letter "x" made in an unusual manner in that the writer, after completing the body of the letter, makes an abrupt change of motion to the following letter "a." This same characteristic I observed in the known standard on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 9, and 4.
In the address portion of the envelope, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, appears the word "Dept." I noticed here, again, the same formation of the capital "D." In addition, the entire word "Dept" appears in the known standards on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The characteristics I would point out here are in the letter "p" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, where the letter is made with a relatively long narrow staff, and the body of the letter is a rounded shape which projects above the staff. The letter "t" ends abruptly in a downstroke. In the hand-printing appearing in the exhibit marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A, the wording "Dallas, Texas" contains a number of the same characteristics as Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, where the same wording appears, and on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8. The writer uses a script-type "D," and prints the other letters in the word "Dallas." The "A " again is made in a similar way to the "A" in "A. Hidell," with a beginning of the downstroke approximately three-quarters of the way up the left side of the stroke. The letter is relatively narrow, and the right-hand side of the letter is straight. In the double "L" combinations there is a curve in the lower portion of the letter. The "S" has a flat top, slanting at approximately a 30-degree angle. In the word "Texas" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A the writer has used a small "e" following the letter "T." The same characteristics will be noted on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
Additionally, I noted that in addition to the shape of the letters themselves, the relative heights of the letters, the spacing between the letters, the slant of the letters in both the know and questioned documents are the same.
On Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, in the portion for address, appears the notation "P.O. Box 2915," and this same wording appears on Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, and on No. 7 and No. 8 except for the "P.O." portion. Here, again, I observed the same formation of the individual letters; the spacing, the style, the slant of the writings in both questioned and known were observed to be the same.
The tail of the "5" is made with a relatively long stroke and the same characteristic appears in the known standards. In the hand printed name "A. Hidell," on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, another characteristic I noted was the very small-sized "i" in the name "Hidell." The writer makes this letter very short in contrast to the other letters in the name. This same characteristic I observed on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, the passport application. With reference to the "1" dot on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 in the name "Hidell," in the return portion, the dot is relatively high and between the body of the letter and the following letter "d." In the portion of the word "Chicago"---of the name "Chicago"--in the address portion on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, the "i" dot is between the "o" and the "g" in "Chicago" and is well above the line of writing. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 4 I observed the same displacement of the "i" dot. In some instances, it is slightly to the right of the body of the letter, as in the word "citizenship" in the sixth line from the bottom, whereas in the word "direct" in the ninth line from the bottom the "i" dot is displaced one and a half letters to the right.
Based upon the combination of these individual characteristics which I have pointed out, as well as others, I reached the opinion that the handwriting and handprinting on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, the writer of the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10.


And again the handwriting on CE 773 is analysed by another handwriting expert. What have you got, ahh that's right a lot of bluff and blunder!

Mr. KLEIN - Using the blowups, would you explain why the panel reached its conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - We examined and compared the writings on the microfilm reproduction with the original postal money order issued as payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The same process, of course, was involved, an examination and comparison of the general writing characteristics which appear on this microfilmed reproduction, versus the writing which appears on the U.S. postal money order. The writing pattern on both of these documents is the same, the same degree of skill, the same slant pattern. The writing has a continuity and a cohesion, a continuous flow in the formation of "Hidell", "Dallas, Texas," "Klein's," "Chicago, Illinois." It flows right along in the same manner, as we have in the writing flow on the postal money order. The individual letter designs that occur in the writing of the name and the address and the names and addresses on the microfilm reproduction and the writing of the various letters on the postal money order correspond. In both instances on the microfilmed reproduction here we have a parallel, the writing of "Hidell" here in the top of the microfilm and the "A. Hidell," which occurs over here on the postal money order. The writing construction in both instances is the same, just a slight variation in the "H" in "Hidell" in the microfilm reproduction, but the rest of the writing conforms to the writing "A. Hidell" on the U.S. postal money order. In the writing of "Dallas, Texas," this particular writing pattern here in the upper left-hand corner agreed with the writing of "Dallas, Texas," over here on the U.S. postal money order. The variation occurring here is that in the return address on the postal money order a small "t" has been used versus a capital "T" utilized down here. In this "Texas" here in the writing of the "x-a-s" right in this portion here just following the "x" there is a slight hitch almost like a small undotted "i". That same information occurs over here just before the "a" here a little hitch in the writing pattern. The overall writing on both the microfilm and on the postal money order correspond to the extent that we came to the conclusion both were written by the same individual, again with that caveat that this is a reproduction. As a matter of fact, this if from a microfilm, and it has been blown up from the microfilm itself so that it lacks clarity and detail. But the impression gotten from examining this particular document and comparing it with the writing of the original document, the postal money order, is that the writing flows. The line quality of that on this document and that on the postal money order corresponds; the letter designs correspond. There is no significant difference between the writing on the microfilm and the writing we have in the money order or the writing we have here, for instance, on the employment application. Further, the hand printing on this particular form here, which was laid over the envelope when it was recorded, this hand printing, "A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," corresponds to that which we have in this employment application and also a letter which backed up this employment application, specifically some writing in the lower left-hand corner of that letter. We did conclude again (with that slight caveat) that the writing of the microfilm in both the script writing here and the hand print here were written by the same individual who wrote out the postal money order and the employment application.
Mr. KLEIN - Was there any evidence to indicate that either of these documents were forged or altered?
Mr. MCNALLY - From the examinations that could be made, absolutely no evidence.


Btw why are you dishonestly trying to hide evidence? Your court would never let you get away with manipulating evidence. And to be honest, this lame attempt just goes to show that Iacietti needs to misrepresent the evidence to prove his point. Sucks to be you!

JohnM

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2019, 04:54:54 PM
Yes he did, he even took the first punch in the face from Oswald and luckily the skin between his thumb and forefinger got between the hammer on Oswald's revolver and saved his life.

Of course he did.  After all, he said so.

Quote
I wasn't there, I don't know?

You sure seem to think that you do.

Quote
Sure, you have the right to question certain aspects that's the defense's job but nothing you have presented can even remotely refute the mountain of evidence that Oswald took his rifle to work and shot the President.

This "mountain" you keep referring to doesn't actually exist.  It's speculation and conjecture.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2019, 05:01:08 PM
The entire exhibit includes the envelope.

There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.  Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.

I'm not hiding anything.  The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon.  This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind.  Sorry.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 27, 2019, 03:54:31 AM
There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.  Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.

I'm not hiding anything.  The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon.  This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind.  Sorry.

Quote
There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.

This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?

It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.

1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on Dept 358.

Quote
Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.

The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aDCohXESehY/Txt4Cc6X7aI/AAAAAAAADys/yLNy5kl5WRU/s527/CE788.jpg)

Quote
I'm not hiding anything.

We have a Kleins record that was "photographed together" and without a piece of supporting evidence, you think that you have the right to seperate them. LOL!

Quote
The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon.  This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind.  Sorry.

You can be sorry all you like but Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Kleins sent Oswald C20-T750.

(https://i.postimg.cc/76Q1PPyj/Riflead1.jpg)

If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 27, 2019, 04:12:57 AM
This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?

It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.

1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on Dept 358.

The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aDCohXESehY/Txt4Cc6X7aI/AAAAAAAADys/yLNy5kl5WRU/s527/CE788.jpg)

We have a Kleins record that was "photographed together" and without a piece of supporting evidence, you think that you have the right to seperate them. LOL!

You can be sorry all you like but Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Kleins sent Oswald C20-T750.

(https://i.postimg.cc/76Q1PPyj/Riflead1.jpg)

If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

JohnM

If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

Are you making stuff up again?


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 27, 2019, 05:11:21 AM
If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

Are you making stuff up again?

Quote
When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

What a stupid question how can I answer a negative?  A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer, that's because he's lives and breathes Oswald, he even had his photo taken alongside Oswald's grave, now that's someone that's dedicated to his client! 

Quote
Are you making stuff up again?

I don't have to make up anything, you Kooks here do enough of that to last a lifetime.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 27, 2019, 05:19:12 AM
The answer you seek is readily available out there. Why start a thread on it? :'(

I looked and I can't find even 1 person who admits to planting the rifle, then I looked for people who could have known someone who could have planted the rifle and no one said Boo. I looked for people who worked in the depository who could have seen someone with a rifle or a rifle package and guess what, that came up negative too.
But obviously because you said so, you are part of the elite JFK Researcher Squad, so whenever you're ready can you provide the answer?

JohnM

 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 27, 2019, 09:02:42 AM
No wonder you're a big Brian Doyle supporter.

Whatever gave you that idea? I support his rights, but what Doyle has to say is mostly pure nonsense and I'm on record as disagreeing with a lot of his ignorant BS.

Btw it looks like you haven't done much research here about who your attacking and before you shoot your mouth off again how about you look before you leap.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 27, 2019, 02:58:22 PM
Whatever gave you that idea? I support his rights, but what Doyle has to say is mostly pure nonsense and I'm on record as disagreeing with a lot of his ignorant BS.

Btw it looks like you haven't done much research here about who your attacking and before you shoot your mouth off again how about you look before you leap.

JohnM

Yep, yet another newbie 'gunslinger' bursting into the forum all guns blazing away. They always end up shooting themselves in the foot.  :D :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 27, 2019, 03:29:14 PM
What a stupid question how can I answer a negative?  A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer, that's because he's lives and breathes Oswald, he even had his photo taken alongside Oswald's grave, now that's someone that's dedicated to his client! 

I don't have to make up anything, you Kooks here do enough of that to last a lifetime.

JohnM

What a stupid question how can I answer a negative? 

What negative would that be?

You claimed that John had implied that Oswald was innocent. I asked you to show where and when he implied that. Could it be you simply can't back up your claim?

A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

Talk about stupid questions.....

Why would John (or anybody else for that matter) have to have an opinion about Oswald's guilt or innocence, when he is not sure either way?


There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer,

And why should he back away from that? Perhaps he understands that that's exactly what you and your ilk want him to do every time you call him Oswald's defence lawyer. To the best of my knowledge, John himself has never claimed he was Oswald's defence lawyer so there is no reason for him to back away from anything.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 27, 2019, 05:22:14 PM
This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?

It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.

1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on Dept 358.

Addressed in the new thread you created for the subject.

Quote
The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.

..and your evidence that the money order found in Virginia was ever "received by Klein's" would be . . . ?

The amount on the money order doesn't even match the amount written on the coupon.  Oops!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 27, 2019, 05:22:47 PM
Semantics suck

So do lying cops.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 27, 2019, 05:26:09 PM
What a stupid question how can I answer a negative?

That's not a negative.  You claimed that I implied Oswald was innocent.  When?

Quote
  A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

So if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent.  Is that how your brain works?  You can either prove he's guilty or not.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 28, 2019, 02:41:34 AM
If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

Are you making stuff up again?

Please note that the Mannlicher Carcano that is illustrated has BOTTOM SLING swivels...as does the Model 91/38 Carcano seen in the CE 133A photo.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on June 28, 2019, 03:43:18 AM
That's not a negative.  You claimed that I implied Oswald was innocent.  When?

So if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent.  Is that how your brain works?  You can either prove he's guilty or not.

Yeah I was wrong, your posts don't imply Oswald was innocent they scream from the top of their lungs that Oswald was innocent.

(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqGnJZSq/Iacoletti-at-osw-ald-grave.jpg)

A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
John Galsworthy


Quote
So if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent.

Of course, when you go to the lengths of separating evidence into two parts just so you can present what you perceive to be  less incriminating evidence to the court is a stunt only a naive Defence Attorney would try and pull off.

Quote
Is that how your brain works?

My brain works!

Quote
You can either prove he's guilty or not.

Both the Warren Commission and a decade and a half later the HSCA studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald was guilty, whereas you and the rest of the CT's haven't concluded squat. A jury can only decide a case with evidence and the Magic Unknown Boogeyman who was everywhere but nowhere is simply laughable.

JohnM



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 28, 2019, 04:19:16 AM
Please note that the Mannlicher Carcano that is illustrated has BOTTOM SLING swivels...as does the Model 91/38 Carcano seen in the CE 133A photo.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Carcano_M1891.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/_/rsrc/1444489591052/carcano/rifleman-banner.jpg)

The Carcano shown in the Klein's Feb. 1963 advertisement is an illustration of a Carcano M91 (the original 50" Long Rifle) whose barrel was cut down to better appeal to the recreation market. The illustration was made for Klein's ads for ""Custom Sporterized Model" that ran from about 1960-62. About early 1962, I believe, they began selling unaltered Carcano M91/38 TS rifles (this particular model was introduced 1938 and was about 36.5") in ads with the description "6.5 Italian Carbine". They simply continued to use the same illustration as they always used, the cut-down M91 Long Rifle which has the bottom sling swivels.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/backyardphoto/slingmount.jpg)

If that's a bottom swivel mount in the backyard photo, then it's broken with the loop open. My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 28, 2019, 10:54:07 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Carcano_M1891.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/_/rsrc/1444489591052/carcano/rifleman-banner.jpg)

The Carcano shown in the Klein's Feb. 1963 advertisement is an illustration of a Carcano M91 (the original 50" Long Rifle) whose barrel was cut down to better appeal to the recreation market. The illustration was made for Klein's ads for ""Custom Sporterized Model" that ran from about 1960-62. About early 1962, I believe, they began selling unaltered Carcano M91/38 TS rifles (this particular model was introduced 1938 and was about 36.5") in ads with the description "6.5 Italian Carbine". They simply continued to use the same illustration as they always used, the cut-down M91 Long Rifle which has the bottom sling swivels.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/backyardphoto/slingmount.jpg)

If that's a bottom swivel mount in the backyard photo, then it's broken with the loop open. My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.

 My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.

LOOK at CE 133A.......  (with your eyes open)   .....    What you perceive as a  "rope"  Is an artist's addition to the phpto.... You should be able to see that what was added to the photo to give the illusion that the caracano has a sling ( like a guerrilla fighter's weapon)   There is no rope anywhere near the front sling swivel....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 28, 2019, 11:15:13 PM
My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.

LOOK at CE 133A.......  (with your eyes open)   .....    What you perceive as a  "rope"  Is an artist's addition to the phpto.... You should be able to see that what was added to the photo to give the illusion that the caracano has a sling ( like a guerrilla fighter's weapon)   There is no rope anywhere near the front sling swivel....

See how little of the rope is hanging down is in 133A compared to the others.

The rope sling is gripped in the hand holding the rifle in 133A. We only see the rope strands hanging down from where the end of the rope is tied into the side swivel, which is on the side of the rifle not photographed.

If everything photographed perfectly, Elizabeth Warren would look like Disney's Pocahontas.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 28, 2019, 11:52:13 PM
See how little of the rope is hanging down is in 133A compared to the others.

The rope sling is gripped in the hand holding the rifle in 133A. We only see the rope strands hanging down from where the end of the rope is tied into the side swivel, which is on the side of the rifle not photographed.

If everything photographed perfectly, Elizabeth Warren would look like Disney's Pocahontas.

C'mon Jerry..... Get serious.....  I know you're far too smart to believe that there really is a an actual rope sling on the Caracano in Ce 133A.

PS...  My eyes aren't as good as they once were but.... Even Ol Unca Walt Disney couldn't make Ms Warren look like Pocahontas.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on June 29, 2019, 01:05:20 AM
C'mon Jerry..... Get serious.....  I know you're far too smart to believe that there really is a an actual rope sling on the Caracano in Ce 133A.

PS...  My eyes aren't as good as they once were but.... Even Ol Unca Walt Disney couldn't make Ms Warren look like Pocahontas.....

(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-1065x1084.jpg)

Here's a lightened version of 133B that happens to show up the rope sling and its ties into the side-swivels. The rope span varies in width because it may be flattened or doubled.

(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133a-2004x2069.jpg)

133A shows the loose strands at the fore-stock, darkened because of shade. One end of the span of rope hangs down from the hand that holds it to the rifle. This was the last of the photographs and Oswald was switching the rifle over and advancing the film, so some opportunity to accidentally get the sling between his hand and the rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 29, 2019, 02:28:24 AM
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-1065x1084.jpg)

Here's a lightened version of 133B that happens to show up the rope sling and its ties into the side-swivels. The rope span varies in width because it may be flattened or doubled.

(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133a-2004x2069.jpg)

133A shows the loose strands at the fore-stock, darkened because of shade. One end of the span of rope hangs down from the hand that holds it to the rifle. This was the last of the photographs and Oswald was switching the rifle over and advancing the film, so some opportunity to accidentally get the sling between his hand and the rifle.


C'mnon Jerry....Don't change the subject!.....   We were discussing CE 133A PERIOD!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on June 29, 2019, 02:33:23 AM
its the misaligned scope that really bugs me.

If its a rifle ordered by conspirators, mimicking Oswalds handwriting, and sent to his P.0.Box, and they picked it up, they would have had plenty time to practice with rifle, make sure scope IS aligned, if its a defective or cheap scope, they could have replaced it with better quality scope.

Better yet, why not just order a better quality rifle all together, maybe even a semi auto, and make THAT rifle seem like it was Oswalds rifle? It would have been a LOT easier than having use a 2nd gunman cause the MC rifle bolt tends to stick and the scope doesn't hold its zero, thus requiring using iron sights instead.


So this seems to lead to the  following alternatives:

1. Oswald actually ordered the cheap MC rifle and the scope WAS poor quality and very well may have been misaligned severely if Oswald purposely left out a shim required to adjust the mount. If the conspirators stole the rifle the night before, either from Paines garage, or Oswalds boarding house, they would not likely know how bad the scope drifted or how it could not be adjusted without the  shim. They didn't have time to practice with the rifle either. This would  probably have required having at least a 2nd shooter with better rifle to make sure get the kill shot, should the conspirator using the MC rifle be unable to do so.

2. Some other MC rifle was quickly found within about 50 minutes after the shooting, and was placed in the boxes because NO rifle was found on the 6th floor. Where the conspirators could get an MC rifle so quickly is the question. Possibly General Walker had a surplus supply of MC rifles or CIA had some in storage. The rifle was planted after the fact, once it became known that Oswald was a missing employee and this particular employee was none other than the notorious defector Marine the FBI had already been keeping surveillance on. Hoover Memo directive then guides the further focus on selecting Oswald as the lone nut and no other conspirators involved.

3. Oswald is one of the shooters if not the only shooter, and purposely left the scope misaligned, having practiced using irons sights zeroed at 200 meters, knowing how to adjust for closer targets at 50 to 100 meters distant.
\ He left the rifle on the 6th floor, figuring once its found, because of the poor quality scope misalinged, it would be easy to argue it was a setup if they did trace rifle to himself. (which he may have thought they could not).

4. Oswald is a partial involved dupe, and brought his MC rifle into TSBD on Friday Nov 22/63  to give or sell to someone else, who then went up to 6th floor to use it to shoot JFK, and left it there to frame Oswald.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tom Scully on June 29, 2019, 09:56:09 AM
its the misaligned scope that really bugs me.

If its a rifle ordered by conspirators, mimicking Oswalds handwriting, and sent to his P.0.Box, and they picked it up, they would have had plenty time to practice with rifle, make sure scope IS aligned, if its a defective or cheap scope, they could have replaced it with better quality scope.

Better yet, why not just order a better quality rifle all together, maybe even a semi auto, and make THAT rifle seem like it was Oswalds rifle? It would have been a LOT easier than having use a 2nd gunman cause the MC rifle bolt tends to stick and the scope doesn't hold its zero, thus requiring using iron sights instead.


So this seems to lead to the  following alternatives:

1. Oswald actually ordered the cheap MC rifle and the scope WAS poor quality and very well may have been misaligned severely if Oswald purposely left out a shim required to adjust the mount. If the conspirators stole the rifle the night before, either from Paines garage, or Oswalds boarding house, they would not likely know how bad the scope drifted or how it could not be adjusted without the  shim. They didn't have time to practice with the rifle either. This would  probably have required having at least a 2nd shooter with better rifle to make sure get the kill shot, should the conspirator using the MC rifle be unable to do so.

2. Some other MC rifle was quickly found within about 50 minutes after the shooting, and was placed in the boxes because NO rifle was found on the 6th floor. Where the conspirators could get an MC rifle so quickly is the question. Possibly General Walker had a surplus supply of MC rifles or CIA had some in storage. The rifle was planted after the fact, once it became known that Oswald was a missing employee and this particular employee was none other than the notorious defector Marine the FBI had already been keeping surveillance on. Hoover Memo directive then guides the further focus on selecting Oswald as the lone nut and no other conspirators involved.

3. Oswald is one of the shooters if not the only shooter, and purposely left the scope misaligned, having practiced using irons sights zeroed at 200 meters, knowing how to adjust for closer targets at 50 to 100 meters distant.
\ He left the rifle on the 6th floor, figuring once its found, because of the poor quality scope misalinged, it would be easy to argue it was a setup if they did trace rifle to himself. (which he may have thought they could not).

4. Oswald is a partial involved dupe, and brought his MC rifle into TSBD on Friday Nov 22/63  to give or sell to someone else, who then went up to 6th floor to use it to shoot JFK, and left it there to frame Oswald.

Try embracing more of the details and maybe you'll understand and then agree the body of facts indicates the mystery was designed to
be confusing to the point of nonsensical or the pertinent facts are impossible to glean because they are shrouded in random coincidence, no matter how unlikely it seems to theorists familiar with the Warren Report details, HSCA, ARRB, and the half century of journalism,
independent research published or presented online. Those with little familiarity of the details beyond viewing JFK the movie may be even
more resistant to the irrelevance coincidence can make of over emphasized facts.

I cannot tell for sure what is or is not random coincidence or deliberate distraction planted by conspirators, which witnesses were honest
and accurate enough to have given relevant testimony of "you can take that to the bank" reliability, or which LEO were sincerely doing job related assassination investigation vs obstructing or participating by helping to position Ruby in the DPD garage basement.

This leaves the most reliable alternative, keep digging so at the least you'll gain awareness of what you don't yet know but might
learn the right questions to ask. Even coming up with influential proof a long accepted explanation for an early controversy is inaccurate cpuld
be considered further progress.

You began your post by mentioning the useless state of the scope found mounted on the alleged rifle assassination rifle. Researchers tend
to underemphasize what cannot be explained....why talk about it if it seems to make no sense or seems indecipherable.

In response to the Assassination of JFK, as in the aftermath of 9/11, responders expect to receive reports of claims by emotionally disturbed
individuals some sincere but delusional and others who lie related with behavorial disorder. The call from Ralph Yates reporting an encounter with a curtain rods wielding hitchhiker with an alleged focus on shooting a rifle from a tall building shortly before the assassination and in the vicinity of the TSBD seems likely an example of delusion of a crank caller. My research reveals Yates's birth mother, Bernice Gordon, and
Ralph's father Jimmie Yates experienced the sudden death of Ralph's two year old brother shortly after Bernice became pregnant with Ralph.
The maariage did not survive and Ralph ended up living with his father who soon remarried.
In addition, there was a series of adults of Ralph's family, according to testimony of family members, challenged by E.D. and or mental illness.
Ralph happened to deteriorate to the point he was referred through Parkland Hospital emergency department for immediate confinement in a
local mental hospital (Rusk State Hospital where he remained until his 1975 death, diagnosed with "schizophrenia, paranoid type".

Dial Ryder also made a call to assassination responders... his call connects him to a curio dominant in the investigation, seemingly useless
or easily determined to faked ID cards alleged found by LEO in Oswald's wallet(s).

Is this seeing the forest for the trees? Why instead, was a more thorough background check of Dial Ryder not conducted?
Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=388&search=ryder%20and%20scope
Wesley Liebeler vs. the Warren Commission
by: Griffith, Michael T.
JFK Assassination Web Page: jfk.miketgriffith.com

The Repair Tag

b. I think the degree of doubt about the authenticity of the repair tag is overstated. (11 HSCA 235; 9/14/64 memo)

To go back for a moment to the second rifle section: In the third full paragraph it states, "On November 24, Ryder and Greener discussed at length the possibility" that Oswald had been there, but "Ryder did not mention the tag to his employer." I know of no evidence that Ryder and Greener talked on the 24th.

If they did not, the next sentence must be changed or cut.

The next sentence is a good example of what happens in the "rewrite" process. It says incorrectly, that on November 25 Ryder told the FBI that Greener did not remember the tag, although he had not called the tag to Greener's attention. The original sentence said, correctly, that Greener "did not remember the transaction represented by the repair tag..."

The next sentence says the FBI was directed to Ryder by anonymous phone calls. Not so. They were directed to the Irving Sports Shop and would very likely have talked to Greener, but he could not be found by the agent on November 25, 1963, when he went to the shop. (11 HSCA 236; 9/14/64 memo)
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDialRyderBossGreener.jpg)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45&search=ryder_and+scope#relPageId=238&tab=page
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenRyderTestimony.jpg)

Remember this?
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibraryCard.jpg)

The FBI or even WC or HSCA had all of the details necessary to learn Bowen/Grossi's son, Glen was Dial Ryder's nephew...
Fleda Ryder married Bowen who was using an alias even on his son Glen's birth certificate. Fleda divorced Bowen and then
married Mantooth, an ex-con who had served time in federal prison for burglarizing post offices for cash, postal money order
blanks and the machines printing and key punching the amount of each money order.

In 1969, Bowen stole a travel trailer in Oregon and towed it to Texas where Roy Mantooth was investigated for possessing it.

(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/BowenSonGlennAdoptedFatherMantooth2of2.jpg)

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Eatherly#Later_life
Claude Robert Eatherly (October 2, 1918 July 1, 1978) was an officer in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II, and the pilot of a weather reconnaissance aircraft Straight Flush that supported the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945.....
....Later Life
...Eatherly claimed to have become horrified by his participation in the Hiroshima bombing, and hopeless at the possibility of repenting for or earning forgiveness for willfully extinguishing so many lives and causing so much pain. He tried speaking out with pacifist groups, sending parts of his paycheck to Hiroshima, writing letters of apology, and once or twice may have attempted suicide. At one point "he set out to try to discredit the popular myth of the war hero [by] committing petty crimes from which he derived no benefit: he was tried for various forgeries and forged a check for a small amount and contributed the money to a fund for the children of Hiroshima. He held up banks and broke into post offices without ever taking anything."[2][page needed] He was convicted of forgery in New Orleans, Louisiana and served one year between 1954 and 1955 for the crime. He was also convicted of breaking and entering in West Texas. He then became a salesman in a garage and might have attempted suicide again by drug. In 1959 he avoided prosecution for robbery by entering the Veterans Administration Hospital in Waco, Texas for many months.[3] Some think he committed antisocial acts because of schizophrenia or anxiety disorder.[citation needed]..

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137474&relPageId=58&search=bowen_and fleda
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldJackBowenFBIFledaMantooth.jpg)

Quote
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29053767/fleta-l_-mantooth
   14 Aug 2008 (aged 85)
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
BURIAL   Restland Cemetery
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
Fleta was the daughter of Homer Richard and Magdalena Jeanetta (Baehr) Ryder and raised with one brother and six sisters. She married Roy Lee Mantooth December 13, 1963, in Albany, Texas. He preceded her in death on March 10, 1979.
......
At time of death she was survived by one son, Glenn Lewis Mantooth and wife, Nicole of Abilene, Texas; two daughters, Dixie Kirby and husband DeWayne of Olney, Texas and Gypsie Fomby and husband Dale of Clyde, Texas; one brother, Dial Ryder of Irving, Texas; four sisters, Magdelene Beanblossom of Decatur, Illinois, Iseaphene Kutz of Olney, Illinois, Marcella Farrar of Poteau, Oklahoma and Velma Douglas of Killeen, Texas.

https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?givenname=glenn&surname=bowen&birth_place=texas&birth_year_from=1954&birth_year_to=1956&mother_surname=ryder&count=20
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibrarCardSonBirth.jpg)

Quote
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/63051718/roy-lee-mantooth
Roy Lee Mantooth
BIRTH   14 Feb 1922
DEATH   10 Mar 1979 (aged 57)
BURIAL   Abilene Municipal Cemetery
Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, USA....

(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/BowenGrossi1949Oregon.jpg)

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137474&search=grossi_and+mantooth#relPageId=39&tab=page
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldGrossiMantooth.jpg)

More background:
Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137390&relPageId=16&search=mantooth_and grossi
2. No Title, pg 16

Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi

ROY LEE MANTOOTH, and lives at 307 East Casom, but is out of town. Attempts were made to locate and contact FLEDA MANTOOTH, with negative results.
ROSE GROSSI, is supposed to be confined at a state mental hospital located in New Jersey, city unknown to her. Mrs.
RYDER and FLEDA MANTOOTH. AT BORGER, TEXAS The following investigation was conducted by SA GARY S.

3. No Title, pg 6
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=69900&relPageId=6&search=mantooth_and grossi
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi

.: 88.40913 JOHN CESAR GROSSI Charader".
FLEDA MANTOOTH with negative results. On December 16, 1964, Mrs.
MANTOOTH again promised complete cooperation with the FBI and the provisions of the Harboring Statute were explained again to her.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Nessan on June 29, 2019, 02:35:39 PM
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-1065x1084.jpg)

Here's a lightened version of 133B that happens to show up the rope sling and its ties into the side-swivels. The rope span varies in width because it may be flattened or doubled.

(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133a-2004x2069.jpg)

133A shows the loose strands at the fore-stock, darkened because of shade. One end of the span of rope hangs down from the hand that holds it to the rifle. This was the last of the photographs and Oswald was switching the rifle over and advancing the film, so some opportunity to accidentally get the sling between his hand and the rifle.

There is no way to know when he made the switch from the rope to the shoulder holster sling. I am sure they tried, but If they could have figured out where he bought the Air Force Shoulder Holster maybe they could have figured out where he bought the ammo. Definitely unique to use the shoulder holster as a sling.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on June 30, 2019, 04:55:59 PM
There is no way to know when he made the switch from the rope to the shoulder holster sling. I am sure they tried, but If they could have figured out where he bought the Air Force Shoulder Holster maybe they could have figured out where he bought the ammo. Definitely unique to use the shoulder holster as a sling.

Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless, it was far too short to use as an aid in steadying the rifle by looping it around the arm. About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...which is exactly what Marina claims he did. Very spooky guy.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on June 30, 2019, 08:18:26 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Carcano_M1891.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/_/rsrc/1444489591052/carcano/rifleman-banner.jpg)

The Carcano shown in the Klein's Feb. 1963 advertisement is an illustration of a Carcano M91 (the original 50" Long Rifle) whose barrel was cut down to better appeal to the recreation market. The illustration was made for Klein's ads for ""Custom Sporterized Model" that ran from about 1960-62. About early 1962, I believe, they began selling unaltered Carcano M91/38 TS rifles (this particular model was introduced 1938 and was about 36.5") in ads with the description "6.5 Italian Carbine". They simply continued to use the same illustration as they always used, the cut-down M91 Long Rifle which has the bottom sling swivels.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/backyardphoto/slingmount.jpg)

If that's a bottom swivel mount in the backyard photo, then it's broken with the loop open. My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.

"If that's a bottom swivel mount in the backyard photo, then it's broken with the loop open."

There is a bottom mounted sling loop in the photo ( CE 133A) ......  Just like the Klein's illustration....   And that means the Carcano that Lee is holding is NOT the rifle that was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath heavy boxes of books on the sixth floor.   ( And in a spot that could NOT have been reached by a normal man who was allegedly fleeing, in the aisle at the top of the stairs.....)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 02, 2019, 07:48:25 PM
Yeah I was wrong, your posts don't imply Oswald was innocent they scream from the top of their lungs that Oswald was innocent.

Nice photo.  But where does it claim anything about Oswald's innoncence?

Quote
Of course, when you go to the lengths of separating evidence into two parts just so you can present what you perceive to be  less incriminating evidence to the court is a stunt only a naive Defence Attorney would try and pull off.

And when you heap on "53 pieces of evidence" most of which aren't actually evidence of anything, then you wind up with a desperate prosecutor with a lousy case.

Quote
Both the Warren Commission and a decade and a half later the HSCA studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald was guilty, whereas you and the rest of the CT's haven't concluded squat.

"studied the evidence".  LOL.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on July 03, 2019, 01:27:55 AM
Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless, it was far too short to use as an aid in steadying the rifle by looping it around the arm. About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...which is exactly what Marina claims he did. Very spooky guy.

"Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless,"

Actually the sling on the TSBD Carcano is similar to a "cuff sling". Cuff slings are used by expert riflemen in competitive shooting.

If it was used as a cuff sling it was set up for a left handed shooter, which makes sense if firing from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD

with the Carcano.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/westra1.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on July 03, 2019, 11:12:52 AM
"Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless,"

Actually the sling on the TSBD Carcano is similar to a "cuff sling". Cuff slings are used by expert riflemen in competitive shooting.

If it was used as a cuff sling it was set up for a left handed shooter, which makes sense if firing from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD

with the Carcano.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/westra1.jpg)

It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough. When adapting a rifle sling into a cuff sling, the sling doesn't just loop around the cuff as you seem to believe. Before it loops around the wrist (cuff) it needs to first loop around the upper arm. Oswald's shoulder holster sling was far too short for that.

"How To Use The Sling
Begin by moving the sling high on your arm. The triceps will support the sling and keep it in place. The sling should run from the centre of the arm and then around the back of the wrist and hand謡ithout cutting into the wrist用icking up a pulse and becoming too tight. A half-inch clockwise twist in the sling end before attachment of the swivel will allow it to pass around the side of the wrist and back."


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on July 03, 2019, 05:05:59 PM
It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough. When adapting a rifle sling into a cuff sling, the sling doesn't just loop around the cuff as you seem to believe. Before it loops around the wrist (cuff) it needs to first loop around the upper arm. Oswald's shoulder holster sling was far too short for that.

"How To Use The Sling
Begin by moving the sling high on your arm. The triceps will support the sling and keep it in place. The sling should run from the centre of the arm and then around the back of the wrist and hand謡ithout cutting into the wrist用icking up a pulse and becoming too tight. A half-inch clockwise twist in the sling end before attachment of the swivel will allow it to pass around the side of the wrist and back."


~snip~


"It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough."

Looks adjustable and long enough to me.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling2.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling.jpg)

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on July 03, 2019, 08:40:13 PM
"It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough."

Looks adjustable and long enough to me.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling2.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling.jpg)

Then I would suggest a good optician ASAP. What's the second photo about? Are you suggesting it shows a shoulder holster strap? If so, forget the optician...it's too late!   :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on July 04, 2019, 02:53:26 AM
"It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough."

Looks adjustable and long enough to me.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling2.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling.jpg)

When the rifle was found there was not much slack on the strap.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pLz1pkFN/ozzy-rifle.jpg)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 08, 2019, 02:20:49 AM
When the rifle was found there was not much slack on the strap.

(https://i.postimg.cc/pLz1pkFN/ozzy-rifle.jpg)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif)

JohnM

The strap clearly is NOT the illusion thay appears in CE 133A.....   But go ahead ...and argue about the irrelevant .......
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 08, 2019, 04:25:04 AM
Just a quick question.... was it "Oswald's rifle" that was found at the TSBD ?

How do we know this for sure, or do we just assume it?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 08, 2019, 03:05:50 PM
Just a quick question.... was it "Oswald's rifle" that was found at the TSBD ?

How do we know this for sure, or do we just assume it?

The rifle that was found well hidden beneath heavy boxes of books in the TSBD does NOT appear to be the same rifle that Lee was holding when Marina snapped the photo CE 133A.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 08, 2019, 03:34:43 PM
Just a quick question.... was it "Oswald's rifle" that was found at the TSBD ?

How do we know this for sure, or do we just assume it?

You know all the evidence but dismiss it as the product of fakery, lies, or reject any logical inference that can be drawn from it (i.e. the impossible standard of proof).  But for fun Oswald's prints are on it.  It has the same serial number as a rifle sent to his PO Box.  That rifle was ordered under an alias linked to Oswald.  He is pictured holding a rifle.  There are experts who confirm that the rifle in those photos has the same identifying marks as the one in the TSBD.  There is no accounting for any other rifle belonging to Oswald except as the one found in the TSBD.  Marina, for example, confirmed that Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.  That rifle is not in the blanket on 11.22.  In fifty plus years, no other rifle has been linked to him during this time period.  Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.  Something that only makes sense if he doesn't want to be connected to it.  Wonder why that could be?  Humor us though and state what evidence there should be that is missing from the record that would satisfy you of Oswald's ownership of the rifle?  Or are you arguing it is impossible to prove under any circumstances?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2019, 06:02:01 PM
You know all the evidence but dismiss it as the product of fakery, lies, or reject any logical inference that can be drawn from it (i.e. the impossible standard of proof).  But for fun Oswald's prints are on it.

False claim.  Some prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

Quote
  It has the same serial number as a rifle sent to his PO Box.

False claim.  There is no evidence of any rifle being shipped through the postal service, delivered to any particular PO box, or picked up there by Oswald or anyone else.

Quote
  That rifle was ordered under an alias linked to Oswald.

False claim.  There is no evidence of "A. Hidell" ever having been used as an alias for Oswald.

Quote
  He is pictured holding a rifle.

Irrelevant.

Quote
  There are experts who confirm that the rifle in those photos has the same identifying marks as the one in the TSBD.

False claim.  One HSCA panel member thought he saw one mark on the rifle in an enlargement of a backyard photo (for which no negative exists) which he thought "has to tilt the scales in the direction" of it being the same rifle.
 
Quote
  There is no accounting for any other rifle belonging to Oswald except as the one found in the TSBD.

There is no accounting for THAT rifle belonging to Oswald either.

Quote
  Marina, for example, confirmed that Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.

Six weeks earlier, Marina peeked in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
  That rifle is not in the blanket on 11.22.

Irrelevant if you don't know what rifle if any was ever in that blanket.

Quote
  Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.

Your only evidence that he "lied about not owning a rifle" is your unsubstantiated belief that he owned this rifle.  It's a circular argument.

Quote
  Something that only makes sense if he doesn't want to be connected to it.

Or he wasn't lying and didn't actually own a rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 09, 2019, 07:15:16 PM
The contrarian has repeatedly suggested that there is doubt that Marina's testimony confirms Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he kept the rifle in the blanket because in a single instance in response to a question about the rifle Marina characterized what she saw as "a wooden part of it" ("it" meaning the rifle in the context of the question being asked).  From this John has implied that she was not talking about a rifle but some other object made of wood and therefore Oswald may not have lied when he denied ownership of a rifle.  How about we look to the totality of Marina's testimony to see if there is ambiguity regarding whether she is referencing a rifle or some other wooden object?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any discussion with your husband about the rifle when you first saw it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I asked him, "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?"
He said that it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.

Mr. RANKIN. Is this rifle at Neely Street the only rifle that you know of that your husband had after you were married to him?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you help us by giving some estimate of the times as you remember it?
Mrs. OSWALD. About four times---about four or five times, I think.

Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.

Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

Mr. RANKIN. When he promised you that he would not do anything like that again, did you then believe him?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first notice the rifle at New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. As soon as I arrived in New Orleans.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you notice him take it away from your home there in New Orleans at any time?
 Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting. Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. When you found the rifle wrapped in the blanket, upon your return to Mrs. Paine's, where was it located?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the garage, where all the rest of the things were.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle lying down or was it standing up on the butt end?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was lying down on the floor.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
 Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
 Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
 Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
 Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
 Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 09, 2019, 07:31:26 PM
The contrarian has repeatedly suggested that there is doubt that Marina's testimony confirms Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he kept the rifle in the blanket because in a single instance in response to a question about the rifle Marina characterized what she saw as "a wooden part of it" ("it" meaning the rifle in the context of the question being asked).  From this John has implied that she was not talking about a rifle but some other object made of wood and therefore Oswald may not have lied when he denied ownership of a rifle.  How about we look to the totality of Marina's testimony to see if there is ambiguity regarding whether she is referencing a rifle or some other wooden object?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any discussion with your husband about the rifle when you first saw it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I asked him, "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?"
He said that it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.

Mr. RANKIN. Is this rifle at Neely Street the only rifle that you know of that your husband had after you were married to him?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you help us by giving some estimate of the times as you remember it?
Mrs. OSWALD. About four times---about four or five times, I think.

Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.

Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

Mr. RANKIN. When he promised you that he would not do anything like that again, did you then believe him?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first notice the rifle at New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. As soon as I arrived in New Orleans.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you notice him take it away from your home there in New Orleans at any time?
 Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting. Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. When you found the rifle wrapped in the blanket, upon your return to Mrs. Paine's, where was it located?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the garage, where all the rest of the things were.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle lying down or was it standing up on the butt end?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was lying down on the floor.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
 Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
 Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
 Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
 Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
 Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

So, why did Marina not mention a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage in her first day affidavit and only talked about Oswald owning a rifle in Russia?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2019, 08:42:44 PM
The contrarian has repeatedly suggested that there is doubt that Marina's testimony confirms Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he kept the rifle in the blanket because in a single instance in response to a question about the rifle Marina characterized what she saw as "a wooden part of it" ("it" meaning the rifle in the context of the question being asked).  From this John has implied that she was not talking about a rifle but some other object made of wood and therefore Oswald may not have lied when he denied ownership of a rifle.

Hang on, Clousseau.  Is it your argument that if Oswald ever owned a rifle that he necessarily owned one on November 22, 1963?  Really?  And is it also your argument that if Marina saw a rifle in New Orleans or at Neeley, then it was necessarily the same thing she saw the end of in a tied, wrapped up blanket?  And is it also your argument that if Marina saw a rifle in New Orleans or at Neeley, then therefore it was the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano?

You quoted the relevant part yourself and failed to understand the significance.

Quote
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
 Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
 Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
 Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
 Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
 Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

She didn't see that it was a rifle, she saw the end of it and assumed that it was a rifle.  Rankin took advantage of her non-proficiency in English to manipulate her with leading questions.  But whether it was a rifle or not, that was 6 weeks earlier, and may or may not have been the C2766 Mannlicher Carcano.

Nobody is actually arguing that Oswald never had a rifle.  That's just a strawman you invented to make yourself feel smart and superior.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 09, 2019, 09:40:56 PM
False claim.  Some prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

False claim.  There is no evidence of any rifle being shipped through the postal service, delivered to any particular PO box, or picked up there by Oswald or anyone else.

False claim.  There is no evidence of "A. Hidell" ever having been used as an alias for Oswald.

Irrelevant.

False claim.  One HSCA panel member thought he saw one mark on the rifle in an enlargement of a backyard photo (for which no negative exists) which he thought "has to tilt the scales in the direction" of it being the same rifle.
 
There is no accounting for THAT rifle belonging to Oswald either.

Six weeks earlier, Marina peeked in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Irrelevant if you don't know what rifle if any was ever in that blanket.

Your only evidence that he "lied about not owning a rifle" is your unsubstantiated belief that he owned this rifle.  It's a circular argument.

Or he wasn't lying and didn't actually own a rifle.

Maybe the sociopathic little snot separated himself from his Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) personality and truly believed that he, Lee Harvey Oswald (AKA Dirty Harvey), had indeed never bought a rifle  ;)

By first-day affidavit, Marina stated that 'two weeks ago', she opened the blanket and saw a rifle. She couldn't say for sure if it was the same rifle she had been shown. BFD. So she wasn't exactly an aficionado on boys' toys. Whatever the rifle she had seen in the blanket was gone 'today' stated Marina.

Any clues for you there, Sherlock?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 09, 2019, 10:05:47 PM
So, why did Marina not mention a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage in her first day affidavit and only talked about Oswald owning a rifle in Russia?

Wrong
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2019, 10:12:06 PM
Maybe the sociopathic little snot separated himself from his Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) personality and truly believed that he, Lee Harvey Oswald (AKA Dirty Harvey), had indeed never bought a rifle  ;)

Or maybe Armchair Psychologist Chapman is just making assumptions again.

Quote
By first-day affidavit, Marin's stated that 'two weeks ago', she opened the blanket and saw a rifle. She couldn't say for sure if it was the same rifle she had been shown. BFD. So she wasn't exactly an aficionado on boys' toys.

Exactly.  Which is why you have to take any statement from her about a rifle with a grain of salt.

Mr. RANKIN. In Russia did you have a rifle or a shotgun?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the difference. One and the other shoots. You men. That is your business.

But she says something about a wooden stock and the entire LN community goes apesh*t.

Quote
Whatever the rifle she had seen in the blanket was gone two weeks later.

The two weeks was an error.  Marina's testified that this happened about a week after she came from New Orleans.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2019, 10:20:13 PM
Wrong

Actually Marina said something in Russian.  Those words are those of Ilya Mamantov, recruited for the task by an Army Intelligence operative.

The affidavit does say something about a rifle in a garage, but not a rifle belonging to Lee.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 09, 2019, 10:47:59 PM
Or maybe Armchair Psychologist Chapman is just making assumptions again.

Exactly.  Which is why you have to take any statement from her about a rifle with a grain of salt.

Mr. RANKIN. In Russia did you have a rifle or a shotgun?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the difference. One and the other shoots. You men. That is you

But she says something about a wooden stock and the entire LN community goes apesh*t.

The two weeks was an error.  Marina's testified that this happened about a week after she came from New Orleans.

'Armchair Psychologist'
>>> Nice to see you recognize the possibility of Oswald being rather deranged

Why are you repeating what I've already recognized re Marina's lack or knowledge about firearms?
You wouldn't be trying to act 'smart and superior', now would you John?
 
Be a sport and confirm that she opened the blanket and saw a rifle just after arriving from New Orleans. Are you sure she didn't just 'peek' in the tied corner of the blanket at that time, John?

Meanwhile, I'll go with her same-day affidavit declaring that she opened the blanket 'two weeks ago' and that the blanket was empty 'today'

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2019, 11:05:38 PM
'Armchair Psychologist'
>>> Nice to see you recognize the possibility of Oswald being rather deranged

As with you.

Quote
Why are you repeating what I've already recognized re Marina's lack or knowledge about firearms?

Damn, you're even snarky when someone agrees with you! 

Quote
Be a sport and confirm that she opened the blanket and saw a rifle just after arriving from New Orleans. Are you sure she didn't just 'peek' in the tied corner of the blanket at that time, John?

She saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
Meanwhile, I'll go with her same-day affidavit declaring that she opened the blanket 'two weeks ago' and that the blanket was empty 'today'

Of course you will.  Even though she only did this one time.  That's called cherry-picking.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 09, 2019, 11:07:35 PM
Actually Marina said something in Russian.  Those words are those of Ilya Mamantov, recruited for the task by an Army Intelligence operative.

The affidavit does say something about a rifle in a garage, but not a rifle belonging to Lee.

'Something about a rifle in a garage'

LOL
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 09, 2019, 11:13:07 PM
"I told them he used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia"
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 09, 2019, 11:22:44 PM
As with you.

Damn, you're even snarky when someone agrees with you! 

She saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Of course you will.  Even though she only did this one time.  That's called cherry-picking.


So you can't back your claim that Marina's first-day affidavit statement 'opened the blanket two weeks ago' statement was in error. Cool.

So what if she 'only did this one time'. Was Oswald saying he was a patsy, only one time, good enough for you? By your standard, that's cherrypicking.

Agreeing with me, my arse
Marina's disinterest in firearms is a given
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on July 09, 2019, 11:58:30 PM
So, why did Marina not mention a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage in her first day affidavit...

Huh?

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338563/m1/1/med_res/)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2019, 12:22:38 AM
So you can't back your claim that Marina's first-day affidavit statement 'opened the blanket two weeks ago' statement was in error. Cool.

Already done.  You must have missed it.

"two weeks ago" is not consistent with "a week after she came from New Orleans".  And she only looked at it one time, so they can't both be true.

Quote
So what if she 'only did this one time'. Was Oswald saying he was a patsy, only one time, good enough for you?

Way to colossolly miss the point.

Quote
Agreeing with me, my arse

Yes, we agree that Marina was clueless about firearms.

So, is your argument that she was so unfamilar with rifles that it must have been a rifle that she saw?

(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/05/e5/cc/05e5cc20f0543864879976671fbb7c35.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 10, 2019, 02:21:44 AM
Huh?


JohnM

Huh, indeed

Memory loss is...... uhh, I forgot what I was going to say
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on July 10, 2019, 02:27:25 AM
"I told them he used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia"

And indeed Oswald did have a weapon(Marina couldn't tell the difference) back in Russia, so what?

More importantly she says there was a rifle in the Paine garage and it was in her blanket, ouch!

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 10, 2019, 02:47:33 AM
And indeed Oswald did have a weapon(Marina couldn't tell the difference) back in Russia, so what?

More importantly she says there was a rifle in the Paine garage and it was in her blanket, ouch!

JohnM


Great, now make the leap of faith that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD.... Go on then...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on July 10, 2019, 02:53:51 AM

Great, now make the leap of faith that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD.... Go on then...

The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen, the kids were playing with it, Oswald took it another time or whatever but who are you trying to convince, yourself?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 10, 2019, 03:07:24 AM
The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen, the kids were playing with it, Oswald took it another time or whatever but who are you trying to convince, yourself?

JohnM

The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.

And how exactly do we know there ever was a rifle in that blanket? Michael Paine, who took the package from the car and later moved it several times, thought it was camping equipment, right?

Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen,

What rifle was stolen?

who are you trying to convince, yourself?

Not really trying at all... I would like the evidence to convince me.... Can you help me with that?


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 10, 2019, 05:14:47 AM

Already done.  You must have missed it.
>>> Where's the link?

"two weeks ago" is not consistent with "a week after she came from New Orleans".  And she only looked at it one time, so they can't both be true.
>>> Read her affidavit

Way to colossolly miss the point.
>>> Way to colossolly colossally dodge citations Clousseau, Clouseau.

Yes, we agree that Marina was clueless about firearms
>>> She was knowledgeable enough to testify that the rifle/shotgun Oswald had in Russia he also sold in Russia. Which pretty much eliminates it as being in the blanket.

    Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what happened to the gun that you had in Russia? Was it brought over to this country?
    Mrs. OSWALD. No, he sold it there. I did not say so when I had the first interviews. You must understand this was my husband.
    I didn't want to say too much.

So, is your argument that she was so unfamilar with rifles that it must have been a rifle that she saw?
>>> Where do you get that impression?
(https://i.pinimg.com/236x/05/e5/cc/05e5cc20f0543864879976671fbb7c35.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 10, 2019, 06:23:45 AM
Testimony Of Michael R. Paine
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

[EXCERPTS]

Mr. PAINE - The first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment. I said to myself they don't make camping equipment of iron pipes any more.
Mr. LIEBELER - Why did you say that to yourself when you picked up the package?
Mr. PAINE - I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.
Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?
Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.
Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?
Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - The witness yesterday did draw a picture of what he visualized as being in the blanket, and I will offer it in evidence later on in the hearing.
How long was this package in your estimation?
Mr. PAINE - Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I indicated with my hand, I think it came to 37 inches.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how thick would you say it was?
Mr. PAINE - I picked it up each time and I put it in a position and then I would recover it from that position, so each time I moved it with the same position with my hands in the same position. My right hand, the thumb and forefinger could go around the pipe, and my left hand grabbed something which was an inch and a half inside the blanket or something thick.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me.
Mr. LIEBELER - You never at any time looked inside the package?
Mr. PAINE - That is correct. I could easily have felt the package but I was aware that of respecting his privacy of his possessions.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you subsequently advised of the probability or the possibility that there had been a rifle wrapped in that package?
Mr. PAINE - When I arrived on Friday afternoon we went into the garage, I think Ruth, Marina and the policeman, and I am not sure it was the first time, but there we saw this blanket was on the floor below the bandsaw--
Mr. PAINE - And a rifle was mentioned and then it rang a bell, the rifle answered, fitted the package that I had been trying to fit these unsuccessfully. It had never resolved itself, this shovel and pipe didn't fit in there.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it seemed to you likely that there had in fact been a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That answered it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 10, 2019, 08:51:28 AM
Testimony Of Michael R. Paine
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm

[EXCERPTS]

Mr. PAINE - The first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment. I said to myself they don't make camping equipment of iron pipes any more.
Mr. LIEBELER - Why did you say that to yourself when you picked up the package?
Mr. PAINE - I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.
Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?
Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.
Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?
Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - The witness yesterday did draw a picture of what he visualized as being in the blanket, and I will offer it in evidence later on in the hearing.
How long was this package in your estimation?
Mr. PAINE - Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I indicated with my hand, I think it came to 37 inches.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how thick would you say it was?
Mr. PAINE - I picked it up each time and I put it in a position and then I would recover it from that position, so each time I moved it with the same position with my hands in the same position. My right hand, the thumb and forefinger could go around the pipe, and my left hand grabbed something which was an inch and a half inside the blanket or something thick.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me.
Mr. LIEBELER - You never at any time looked inside the package?
Mr. PAINE - That is correct. I could easily have felt the package but I was aware that of respecting his privacy of his possessions.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you subsequently advised of the probability or the possibility that there had been a rifle wrapped in that package?
Mr. PAINE - When I arrived on Friday afternoon we went into the garage, I think Ruth, Marina and the policeman, and I am not sure it was the first time, but there we saw this blanket was on the floor below the bandsaw--
Mr. PAINE - And a rifle was mentioned and then it rang a bell, the rifle answered, fitted the package that I had been trying to fit these unsuccessfully. It had never resolved itself, this shovel and pipe didn't fit in there.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it seemed to you likely that there had in fact been a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That answered it.


You still haven't understood that supposition is not the same as evidence?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 10, 2019, 10:57:04 AM
You still haven't understood that supposition is not the same as evidence?

So your claim that Paine thought the blanket contained camping equipment falls under the 'supposition' category? If so, why did you bring up Paine's 'supposition' in the first place, and furthermore, why did you ignore the statement that Paine was immediately doubtful about his first impression as to the blanket's contents?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 10, 2019, 01:23:04 PM

Great, now make the leap of faith that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD.... Go on then...

Progress.  So Marina confirms multiple times in her testimony that Oswald owned a rifle.  There is no ambiguity about this point as dishonestly suggested by the claim that she only saw something made of wood.  At a minimum, that means Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.  The implication of that should be obvious.  Once you agree that Oswald owned a rifle per Marina's testimony and that of Mrs. DeM the issue becomes was it the THE rifle.  There are two possibilities- it was or was not.  We know the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD matches that of the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box.  Oswald's prints are on that rifle.  It is found at his place of employment.  It can't be linked by one iota of evidence to any other person in that building or the world.  Oswald carried a long package to work that morning that can't otherwise be accounted for except as containing the rifle.  In fifty plus years and counting there is not one iota of evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle during the relevant time period.  And by implication, if he had then it should have been found in the blanket on 11.22 where Marian confirms he kept "it" (the rifle).  It's almost impossible to conceive how there could be any more evidence that the rifle found in the TSBD was the same one ordered and possessed by Oswald.  He is even pictured holding it.  It is a slam dunk.  Zero doubt.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2019, 06:09:10 PM
The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen, the kids were playing with it, Oswald took it another time or whatever but who are you trying to convince, yourself?

And you can convince yourself that there was ever a rifle in it, and also that the rifle you think was in it was actually still there on the evening of November 21, and that Lee Oswald was ever even in the garage that night, because there's no evidence for any of it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2019, 06:18:44 PM
>>> She was knowledgeable enough to testify that the rifle/shotgun Oswald had in Russia he also sold in Russia. Which pretty much eliminates it as being in the blanket.

So now you're all of a sudden interested in using her testimony to clarify what her affidavit said.  You know, the testimony where she said she saw the "wooden stock" about a week after coming back from New Orleans?  And yet you're still clinging to the "two weeks ago" thing, as if it somehow matters.

Quote
So, is your argument that she was so unfamilar with rifles that it must have been a rifle that she saw?
>>> Where do you get that impression?

Given our agreement about her unfamiliarity of firearms, why are you so convinced that what she saw the end of in a tied up, rolled up blanket a week after coming back from New Orleans was actually a rifle?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2019, 06:31:16 PM
Progress.  So Marina confirms multiple times in her testimony that Oswald owned a rifle.  There is no ambiguity about this point as dishonestly suggested by the claim that she only saw something made of wood.

Wrong.  Just because she knew he had a rifle in New Orleans and at Neely doesn't mean that the thing she saw in the tied up blanket was that rifle, or indeed any rifle.

Quote
At a minimum, that means Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.

Wrong.  Just because he had a rifle in New Orleans or at Neely doesn't mean that he owned a rifle on November 22nd when he (allegedly) said he didn't own a rifle.

Quote
  The implication of that should be obvious.  Once you agree that Oswald owned a rifle per Marina's testimony and that of Mrs. DeM the issue becomes was it the THE rifle.  There are two possibilities- it was or was not.  We know the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD matches that of the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box.

We don't know that Klein's sent anything to Oswald's PO box.

Quote
  Oswald's prints are on that rifle.

You still have yet to demonstrate that this is true.

Quote
  It is found at his place of employment.

Still not relevant.

Quote
  It can't be linked by one iota of evidence to any other person in that building or the world.

Or to Oswald personally.

Quote
  Oswald carried a long package to work that morning that can't otherwise be accounted for except as containing the rifle.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the package Oswald carried that morning did, or even could contain that rifle.

Quote
  In fifty plus years and counting there is not one iota of evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle during the relevant time period.

or that particular rifle either.

Quote
  And by implication, if he had then it should have been found in the blanket on 11.22 where Marian confirms he kept "it" (the rifle).

Why, because she thought a rifle was in the blanket six weeks earlier?

Quote
  It's almost impossible to conceive how there could be any more evidence that the rifle found in the TSBD was the same one ordered and possessed by Oswald.  He is even pictured holding it.

You have not demonstrated that "he is even pictured holding it".  That's a baseless supposition.

Quote
  It is a slam dunk.  Zero doubt.

Translation from "Richard"-speak:  "In my opinion, it was Oswald's rifle".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2019, 06:32:06 PM
So your claim that Paine thought the blanket contained camping equipment falls under the 'supposition' category? If so, why did you bring up Paine's 'supposition' in the first place, and furthermore, why did you ignore the statement that Paine was immediately doubtful about his first impression as to the blanket's contents?

Maybe for the same reason you brought up Marina's supposition that it was a rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 11, 2019, 04:40:54 PM
Whew.  Brutal dishonesty.  As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period.  There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle.  Oswald denied owning any rifle.  That means he lied.  There is no ambiguity about that.  Next issue.  Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket.  Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket.  Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle.  If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there.  Why would she do that unless she knew a rifle was kept in the blanket?  It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object.   In the one instance that our dishonest contrarians grasp at straws to desperately suggest that she merely saw some object made of wood (like a rifle) they take her comment out of context and without reference to the question being asked or her previous confirmation that the object in the blanket was a rifle. 

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?  (Here Marina is asked about "the rifle" in the blanket!)
 Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.  (So Marina clarifies that although she was not "checking" for a rifle when she looked in the blanket the object she saw "was a rifle."  A "rifle" for F's sake!  Inexplicable how anyone can argue that there is ambiguity about her seeing "the rifle" when she confirms that she "saw that it was a rifle."  How much clearer could it be?


 Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
 Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
 Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? (Again Marina is specifically being asked about "the rifle")
 Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.  (Marina responds "yes" to the question about finding the rifle in the blanket.  In context Marina is not suggesting that she saw some unknown object made of "wood"  she is confirming that she saw the "wooden part of it."  "It" can only mean a rifle since that is subject of the question.  If there was any doubt she goes on to say "the wooden stock."  Of course the rifle has a "wooden stock." 

To suggest there is any reasonable ambiguity about whether she is confirming the presence of a rifle in the blanket here or just some unknown object made of wood is mere kookery when you read the totality of her testimony.  She confirms multiple times that 1) Oswald owned a rifle; 2) he kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage; 3) she expected the DPD to find it there on 11.22 because that is where she had seen it with her own eyes.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 11, 2019, 05:41:45 PM
Whew.  Brutal dishonesty.  As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period.  There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle.  Oswald denied owning any rifle.  That means he lied.  There is no ambiguity about that.

Marina and Jeanne said that he had a rifle at the Neely Street apartment in April and/or in New Orleans in the summer.  Oswald (allegedly) denied owning a rifle in November.  Even Strawman "Smith" (if he is honest) should detect the flaw in this argument.

Quote
  Next issue.  Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket.  Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket.

There's no argument that Marina looked in the end of a rolled up, tied blanket and saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.  That's not "confirmation" that it WAS a rifle, only that she thought it was.

Quote
  Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle.

Even Strawman "Smith" (if he is honest) should detect the flaw in this argument.  Never once did Roger Craig express any doubt about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on the depository rifle.  Certainty doesn't establish truth.

Quote
  If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there.

Ruth Paine, who was translating for her at the time this happened, was very clear about what it was that Marina said.

Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here.

Here we have Ruth Paine admitting that she mistranslated what Marina said, indicating more certainty then there actually was.

Quote
  It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object.

Only to somebody who is emotionally invested in there being not only a rifle in that blanket, but a particular rifle.

Quote
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?  (Here Marina is asked about "the rifle" in the blanket!)

This is what's known as a leading question.

Quote
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.  (So Marina clarifies that although she was not "checking" for a rifle when she looked in the blanket the object she saw "was a rifle."  A "rifle" for F's sake!  Inexplicable how anyone can argue that there is ambiguity about her seeing "the rifle" when she confirms that she "saw that it was a rifle."  How much clearer could it be?

Speaking of taking things out of context.  Nobody denies that she saw something and thought it was a rifle.  That doesn't mean that it was a rifle.

Quote
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
 Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
 Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? (Again Marina is specifically being asked about "the rifle")

Note that Rankin keeps telling her what it was that she saw.

Quote
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.  (Marina responds "yes" to the question about finding the rifle in the blanket.  In context Marina is not suggesting that she saw some unknown object made of "wood"  she is confirming that she saw the "wooden part of it."

Note that Marina clarifies here what she actually saw, which was the wooden part of an object she assumed to be a rifle.  This corroborates Ruth Paine's account.  She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
  "It" can only mean a rifle since that is subject of the question.  If there was any doubt she goes on to say "the wooden stock."  Of course the rifle has a "wooden stock." 

The rifle that you want Oswald to have owned has a wooden stock, yes.  That's why you're so adamant that Marina's assumption be true.

Quote
To suggest there is any reasonable ambiguity about whether she is confirming the presence of a rifle in the blanket here or just some unknown object made of wood is mere kookery when you read the totality of her testimony.

No, the totality of her testimony and Ruth Paine's testimony indicates just what they said -- that Marina looked in the end of a rolled-up, tied blanket in early October, at which time she saw a portion of a wooden stock that she took to be the rifle that she knew her husband had earlier in the year.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 11, 2019, 07:12:43 PM
Hopeless.  A classic example of the contrarian mindset.  Marina mentions "wood" one time and suddenly the dozens of confirmations that she makes regarding the rifle become "assumptions."  And, of course, a rifle is partially made of wood and has a wooden stock.  So even by that dishonest characterization of her testimony, this description is still entirely consistent with seeing a rifle in the blanket.  What else would this object have been that was made of wood, had a wooden stock, and Marina mistook for a rifle?  Where did this wooden object go that it is no longer there on 11.22?  And we are told that confirmation of the rifle's presence was the result of a "mistranslation" by Ruth Paine.  This despite the fact that Marina confirms the events in her WC testimony and has never recanted her confirmation about Oswald owning and storing a rifle in the Paine's garage to this day.  Also the claim is made that X didn't happen (i.e. Oswald didn't store his rifle in the blanket).  By implication that means that Z must have happened (something made of wood that was not the rifle was kept in the blanket and that is what Marina saw).  But time and again there is no proof of Z.  Where is this wooden object, what happened to it?  Marina and the Paines never touched it.  Contrarians stick their heads in the sand and dismiss the implications of their own theories having any validity.  Maybe sugar plum fairies took the item without anyone noticing.  How are they to know?  Tiresome kookery.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 11, 2019, 07:25:25 PM
Hopeless.  A classic example of the contrarian mindset.  Marina mentions "wood" one time and suddenly the dozens of confirmations that she makes regarding the rifle become "assumptions."  And, of course, a rifle is partially made of wood and has a wooden stock.  So even by that dishonest characterization of her testimony, this description is still entirely consistent with seeing a rifle in the blanket.  What else would this object have been that was made of wood, had a wooden stock, and Marina mistook for a rifle?  Where did this wooden object go that it is no longer there on 11.22?

This is a classic argument from ignorance.  "I don't know what else it could possibly be other than a rifle, therefore it was a rifle".

Quote
  And we are told that confirmation of the rifle's presence was the result of a "mistranslation" by Ruth Paine.

No, you're mischaracterizing what I said.  Ruth Paine mistranslated what Marina said to the cops when they were searching the garage.  She said so in her testimony.  Marina told Ruth Paine in Russian that she saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
  This despite the fact that Marina confirms the events in her WC testimony and has never recanted her confirmation about Oswald owning and storing a rifle in the Paine's garage to this day.

What she "confirmed" is that she saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
Also the claim is made that X didn't happen (i.e. Oswald didn't store his rifle in the blanket).

No, the claim is made that you don't know whether there was a rifle tied up in the blanket or not.  And neither did Marina.  She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
  By implication that means that Z must have happened (something made of wood that was not the rifle was kept in the blanket and that is what Marina saw).  But time and again there is no proof of Z.

This is classic shifting the burden of proof.  I admit to not knowing what was in the blanket.  Your evidence for your claim that there was definitely a rifle in the blanket is that Marina thought so.  Great.  Michael Paine thought it was camping equipment.

Quote
  Where is this wooden object, what happened to it?  Marina and the Paines never touched it.  Contrarians stick their heads in the sand and dismiss the implications of their own theories having any validity.

Another argument from ignorance.  "I can't imagine what could have happened to this object in the intervening 6 weeks, therefore Oswald brought it to work on November 22nd".

Quote
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

Proof by repetition?  I can do that too.

Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tom Scully on July 11, 2019, 08:19:41 PM
Whew.  Brutal dishonesty.  As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period.  There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle.  Oswald denied owning any rifle.  That means he lied.  There is no ambiguity about that.  Next issue.  Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket.  Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket.  Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle.  If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there.  Why would she do that unless she knew a rifle was kept in the blanket?  It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object.   In the one instance that our dishonest contrarians grasp at straws to desperately suggest that she merely saw some object made of wood (like a rifle) they take her comment out of context and without reference to the question being asked or her previous confirmation that the object in the blanket was a rifle. 

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?  (Here Marina is asked about "the rifle" in the blanket!)
 Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.  (So Marina clarifies that although she was not "checking" for a rifle when she looked in the blanket the object she saw "was a rifle."  A "rifle" for F's sake!  Inexplicable how anyone can argue that there is ambiguity about her seeing "the rifle" when she confirms that she "saw that it was a rifle."  How much clearer could it be?


 Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
 Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
 Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? (Again Marina is specifically being asked about "the rifle")
 Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.  (Marina responds "yes" to the question about finding the rifle in the blanket.  In context Marina is not suggesting that she saw some unknown object made of "wood"  she is confirming that she saw the "wooden part of it."  "It" can only mean a rifle since that is subject of the question.  If there was any doubt she goes on to say "the wooden stock."  Of course the rifle has a "wooden stock." 

To suggest there is any reasonable ambiguity about whether she is confirming the presence of a rifle in the blanket here or just some unknown object made of wood is mere kookery when you read the totality of her testimony.  She confirms multiple times that 1) Oswald owned a rifle; 2) he kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage; 3) she expected the DPD to find it there on 11.22 because that is where she had seen it with her own eyes.

What planet are you posting from? You obviously have cleared Marina as a reliable source. The FBI, CIA, WC, HSCA. ARRB, (Oprah?) certainly were troubled about her veracity and motivation, but you know better? How?

Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=webster&docid=209185
1. MISC_BELARUS.02, pg 16
Found in: ARRB Electronic Files of Team A
Robert Edward Webster #. Does a chronology exist of the activities of American defector Robert Edward Webster in the USSR? #.
What were Webster s activities in Sept. and Oct. 1959? #.
How many times did Webster visit the US Embassy in Moscow in 1959? #. What were the dates and times? DRAFT

2. MISC_BELARUS.02, pg 17
Found in: ARRB Electronic Files of Team A
Do photographs exist of Webster entering or leaving the American Embassy? #.
Do any official photographs exist that were taken of Webster by any government agencies following his defection? #.
Do any audio tape recordings ( or transcripts of tape recordings ) exist of Webster or of third party conversations about Webster in the American Embassy

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=209185&relPageId=11&search=leningrad_webster%20marina%20cia
3. MISC_BELARUS.02, pg 11
Found in: ARRB Electronic Files of Team A
Was Soviet Intelligence aware of any attempt by Marina Nikolaevna to establish a relationship or contact with American defector Robert Edward Webster in the autumn of 1960 when they resided in the same apartment building in Leningrad.
Marina Nikolaevna directed by any facet of Soviet Intelligence to attempt to establish a relationship or contact with American defector Robert Edward Webster

(http://jfkforum.com/images/MarinaWebsterOswaldKatFord.jpg)

(http://jfkforum.com/images/ShaheenCaseyWilliamSafireDeclassified2012.jpg)


John Shaheen was Webster employer H James Rand's best man, eight years before Webster's defection.
Shaheen is only mentioned 40 times in this article on the 1980 October Surprise, more times than his pal, William Casey.:

Quote
https://consortiumnews.com/2006/102906.html
Original October Surprise (Part 3)
By Robert Parry  October 29, 2006
...The Shaheen connection led Cyrus Hashemi to William Casey even before Casey took over Ronald Reagan痴 presidential campaign, according to Jamshid Hashemi and a 1984 CIA memo that surfaced later.....
https://archive.is/o/SA6W1/newspaperarchive.com/us/illinois/sterling/sterling-daily-gazette/1951/05-01/page-9
(https://archive.is/SA6W1/e84acdf0aaf10e943ed0e4335356a7ec67457316.jpg)

Quote
https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=leningrad%20webster%20marina%20rand&types=D
26. No Title, pg 3
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: Robert Edward Webster
WEBSTER said they never received the subject's letter of February 5, 1960.
WEBSTER, Kondratievsky Prospect, House 63 Apt. 18, Leningrad K-32, U.S.S.R. Informant stated that it is his understanding that Mr.
RAND is currently in Florida and will return to Cleveland on March 24, 1960.

27. MARINA OSWALD'S NOTEBOOK, pg 10
Found in: CIA documents released on November 9, 2017
. - 6 - Further identified by Marina OSWALD as Galina ( Gal. ya ) PRINTSEVA a , resident resident at Leningrad with whaa she shared a rocn at the rest
According to Marina OSWALD, she. met PRIZENTSEV who , is a resident at Leningrad ., at the rest home near Leningrad.
WEBSTER, who renounced his U. S. citizenship in 1959 when he defected to the USSR and who returned to the U.
28. Commission Document 911 - CIA Helms Memorandum of 8 May 1964 re: Marina Oswald's Notebook, pg 8
Found in: Warren Commission Documents
s 'fs 6- Printseva Oalya Further identified by Marina OSWALD Ulitsa Grazhdanskays as Oalina (Gaya) PRINTSEVA, a real..
Prizentsev Lev According to Marina OSWALD, she Kondrat'yevskiy met PRIZENtSEV, who is a resident House 7, Apt. 63 or of Leningrad, at the rest home House
WEBSTER, who renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1959 when he defected to the USSR and who returned to the U.S. as an alien under the Soviet quota in May

29. MARINA OSWALD'S NOTEBOOK, pg 11
Found in: Oswald 201 File, Vol 54B
. , ;ati;a Printseva Galya Further identified by Marina OSWALD Ulitsa Grazhdanskaya as Galina (Galya) PRINTSEVA, a-resi- House 7 ?
Prizentsev Lev According to Marina OSWALD, she Kondrat'yevskiy met PRIZENTSEV, who is a resident House 7, Apt. 63 or of Leningrad, at the rest home House
WEBSTER, who renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1959 when he defected to the USSR and who returned to the U.S. as an alien under the Soviet quota in May

Quote
.......
https://web.archive.org/web/20161103035644/http://tomscully.com/node/10
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lw1nqROOy_s/U0dmjJaTXcI/AAAAAAAABt0/z01EWpszo2g/s512/ShaheenBruceMcCaw2003.jpg)

Shaheen and Reagan were born a couple of years apart in Tampico, IL, pop. 600 Shaheen痴 best man was the employer
of defector Robert E. Webster. Both Casey and Shaheen died suddenly and left Gates holding 鍍he bag (Roy Furman)>
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on September 04, 2019, 07:08:24 PM
someone suggested that the  sling/strap appears to have been "not slack" when the MC rifle was found on the 6th floor.

if so, then there is some doubt that the shooter used the strap for purpose of stabilizing the rifle.

More likely, the tightened strap purpose was  to carry the rifle without leaving prints on it and/or for general carrying purpose while moving from assembly point to window of choice, 1st the SW window, and then the SE window, the shooter having apparently changed plan after 12:15pm.

Or a  conspirator shooter did NOT use the MC rifle actually found between the boxes, but was using some other rifle, which he managed to get  out of the building, or hide so well, that it was never found.

This would require that the MC rifle was planted after the fact, and hastily so, not even having time to check to see if the scope was out of alignment, or not thinking about the corrosion inside the barrel, that might indicate the rifle had not even been fired recently.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 04, 2019, 08:13:25 PM
This is a classic argument from ignorance.  "I don't know what else it could possibly be other than a rifle, therefore it was a rifle".

No, you're mischaracterizing what I said.  Ruth Paine mistranslated what Marina said to the cops when they were searching the garage.  She said so in her testimony.  Marina told Ruth Paine in Russian that she saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

What she "confirmed" is that she saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

No, the claim is made that you don't know whether there was a rifle tied up in the blanket or not.  And neither did Marina.  She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

This is classic shifting the burden of proof.  I admit to not knowing what was in the blanket.  Your evidence for your claim that there was definitely a rifle in the blanket is that Marina thought so.  Great.  Michael Paine thought it was camping equipment.

Another argument from ignorance.  "I can't imagine what could have happened to this object in the intervening 6 weeks, therefore Oswald brought it to work on November 22nd".

Proof by repetition?  I can do that too.

Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle.

Ruth Paine mistranslated what Marina said to the cops when they were searching the garage.


Ruth Paine could speak and understand Russian.....  She certainly understood the difference between ------(yes ) and No, (Nyet)  So do you actually believe she misunderstood Marina?   What Ruth didn't know, was that Marina understood the cop who asked her if her husband owned a rifle.  And since she understood the question she didn't wait for Ruth to translate.....but answered that, "yes, he did" (in Russian)   But Ruth answered the cop before asking Marina  the question.   And Ruth said, "no" Lee didn't own a rifle...... 

A few minutes later Marina asked Ruth why she had told the cop "no"  .....Marina asked Ruth if she had suddenly forgot basic Russian.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 04, 2019, 09:48:55 PM
someone suggested that the  sling/strap appears to have been "not slack" when the MC rifle was found on the 6th floor.

if so, then there is some doubt that the shooter used the strap for purpose of stabilizing the rifle.

More likely, the tightened strap purpose was  to carry the rifle without leaving prints on it and/or for general carrying purpose while moving from assembly point to window of choice, 1st the SW window, and then the SE window, the shooter having apparently changed plan after 12:15pm.


Or a  conspirator shooter did NOT use the MC rifle actually found between the boxes, but was using some other rifle, which he managed to get  out of the building, or hide so well, that it was never found.

This would require that the MC rifle was planted after the fact, and hastily so, not even having time to check to see if the scope was out of alignment, or not thinking about the corrosion inside the barrel, that might indicate the rifle had not even been fired recently.

Hi Zeon, the following is from a related post I made back in June;   "Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless, it was also far too short to use as an aid in steadying the rifle by looping it around the arm. About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...which is exactly what Marina claims he did. Very spooky guy."  https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg56104.html#msg56104
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 07, 2019, 09:22:23 PM
Hi Zeon, the following is from a related post I made back in June;   "Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless, it was also far too short to use as an aid in steadying the rifle by looping it around the arm. About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...which is exactly what Marina claims he did. Very spooky guy."  https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg56104.html#msg56104

About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...

Would you believe that the strap was designed for Mussolini' s elite black garbed,  body guards ( The Guardie Del Duce) .....The wide patch was attached to the strap to relieve the pressure on the shoulder that a narrow strap inflicted,  while the guards stood long hours of guard duty.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 07, 2019, 10:36:33 PM
About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...

Would you believe that the strap was designed for Mussolini' s elite black garbed,  body guards ( The Guardie Del Duce) .....The wide patch was attached to the strap to relieve the pressure on the shoulder that a narrow strap inflicted,  while the guards stood long hours of guard duty.

No, I wouldn't believe it..because it's not true. How do I know? Because it was never designed as a sling, Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on September 08, 2019, 03:46:30 PM
Well, this sling attached is just one more item to add to list of things omitted at the CBS shooting trial, that the shooter had to contend with.

Other things include

1. Not having box on window ledge or using box as a rifle rest.
2. Red target on dark blue/black background on a clearly visible track
3. Shooter able to work bolt right up till time to shoot. Actual shooter did NOT do that for at least 5 minutes prior to shooting as Harold Norman beneath the shooter on 5th floor heard no sounds before the shooting began. Bronson film started approx 5 minutes before JFK motorcade arrives, shows box in window, which only the shooter would have placed.
4. No tree obstacle
5. No other boxes stacked to replicate the cramped space of this SN
6. No vertical pipes on the left of the box in the way.
7. Shooter allowed take position in window before target begins down track. Actual shooter had to remain out of sight via Hughes film, and had to move into position, get set up, and then try to acquire moving target, a black solid in front of a dark blue rear portion of trunk of limo, which had reflective glare from sun.
8. shooters used the scope.The scope could not have been in alignment in the elevation due to requirement for shim underneath mount to make that possible.
9. no window frame, and no window at 15.5 inches open.
10. no sling to potentially get hung up on something, like a box corner, or otherwise interfere with shooter holding the stock while firing rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 08, 2019, 04:30:52 PM
No, I wouldn't believe it..because it's not true. How do I know? Because it was never designed as a sling, Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?

 it was never designed as a sling,

 it  ( the strap) was never designed as a sling,

You're right....The strap with the wide leather patch was designed as a way to carry the carcano on the shoulder during parades and guard duty.

The STRAP was never intended to be an aid for steadying the rifle when firing the weapon, like the SLINGS an American rifles.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 08, 2019, 08:58:24 PM
it was never designed as a sling,

 it  ( the strap) was never designed as a sling,

You're right....The strap with the wide leather patch was designed as a way to carry the carcano on the shoulder during parades and guard duty.

The STRAP was never intended to be an aid for steadying the rifle when firing the weapon, like the SLINGS an American rifles.

I've shown you proof that the strap has absolutely nothing to do with "parades and guard duty" nor was it "designed as a way to carry the Carcano".  I'll repeat one last time; Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 08, 2019, 10:10:24 PM
I've shown you proof that the strap has absolutely nothing to do with "parades and guard duty" nor was it "designed as a way to carry the Carcano".  I'll repeat one last time; Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?

"Oswald converted it"

Please provide solid proof that Lee made the carrying strap.... And answer this....Why would Lee copy the straps that were used by Mussolini's body guards???
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 08, 2019, 10:32:52 PM
I've shown you proof that the strap has absolutely nothing to do with "parades and guard duty" nor was it "designed as a way to carry the Carcano".  I'll repeat one last time; Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?

 Thumb1:

(https://i.postimg.cc/q7GsDQvT/Oswalds-sling.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 09, 2019, 03:42:23 AM
"Oswald converted it"
Please provide solid proof that Lee made the carrying strap....
Walt..You didn't see? Oswald got it from eBay. No, actually he kept his leather crafting supplies with his ammo and gun cleaning kit. The cops just never did find them.
 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 09, 2019, 03:51:20 AM
Whew.  Brutal dishonesty.  As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period.  There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle.  Oswald denied owning any rifle.  That means he lied.  There is no ambiguity about that.  Next issue.  Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket.  Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket.  Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle.  If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there.  Why would she do that unless she knew a rifle was kept in the blanket?  It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object.   In the one instance that our dishonest contrarians grasp at straws to desperately suggest that she merely saw some object made of wood (like a rifle) they take her comment out of context and without reference to the question being asked or her previous confirmation that the object in the blanket was a rifle. 
I would call all of that a bunch of crap...but that would be insulting to crap.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 09, 2019, 06:39:38 PM
Walt..You didn't see? Oswald got it from eBay. No, actually he kept his leather crafting supplies with his ammo and gun cleaning kit. The cops just never did find them.

Hey Jerry....Us CT's are supposed to be the irrational side.     And Yet the LNer contingent accept and regurgitate the most absurd ideas.....

They'll spew any ol nonsense to avoid the bitter truth.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 09, 2019, 07:33:47 PM
Hey Jerry....Us CT's are supposed to be the irrational side.     And Yet the LNer contingent accept and regurgitate the most absurd ideas.....

They'll spew any ol nonsense to avoid the bitter truth.....

No Walt, you're just simply wrong, that's all.

http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 09, 2019, 11:47:01 PM
No Walt, you're just simply wrong, that's all.

http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?

It's not difficult to find photos of Musslini's Guardie Del Duce  and see the carrying straps on their carcanos.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 10, 2019, 12:37:53 AM
It's not difficult to find photos of Musslini's Guardie Del Duce  and see the carrying straps on their carcanos.

Then you won't have any difficulty in finding one and posting it then, will you?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 10, 2019, 02:21:05 AM
Walt..You didn't see? Oswald got it from eBay.

You're obviously not aware but Oswald didn't have a computer or the internet and eBay didn't exist till decades later.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 10, 2019, 02:30:58 AM
It's not difficult to find photos of Musslini's Guardie Del Duce  and see the carrying straps on their carcanos.

Denis 1
Walt  0

The straps and support of the USAF M13 Leather Sling and Oswald's sling are the same length, shape and size, the buckles are the same, the connecting hoops are in the same place, the type of leather appears the same, the studs are the same, the rivets are the same, the amount of studs/rivets is the same and the placement of the studs/rivets is in the same place.   

(https://i.postimg.cc/htBpPpm5/Oswalds-sling.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/yY1cxtdt/sling.gif)

Btw post some photos of an alternate sling and let's see how similar they are?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 10, 2019, 03:15:36 AM
.... Oswald didn't have a computer or the internet and eBay didn't exist till decades later.
Gee really?
 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 11, 2019, 02:04:53 PM
Denis 1
Walt  0

The straps and support of the USAF M13 Leather Sling and Oswald's sling are the same length, shape and size, the buckles are the same, the connecting hoops are in the same place, the type of leather appears the same, the studs are the same, the rivets are the same, the amount of studs/rivets is the same and the placement of the studs/rivets is in the same place.   

(https://i.postimg.cc/htBpPpm5/Oswalds-sling.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/yY1cxtdt/sling.gif)

Btw post some photos of an alternate sling and let's see how similar they are?

JohnM

There are photos of Mussolini surrounded by his elite black garbed body guards.....Their model 91/38 carcanos are equipped with black leather carrying straps that are very similar to the strap on the TSBD carcano.     Whoever created the strap on the carcano wanted the rifle to look like a Guardie del Duce rifle. (Perhaps that person wanted to display it as a war souvenir and brag that he'd  retrieved it from the body of one of Mussolini's body guards.)   Since General Walker had led troops in Italy during WWII, such a war trophy would have been fitting with his character......   And yes, I'm suggesting that the TSBD rifle could have been provided by Walker. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Nessan on September 11, 2019, 02:32:47 PM
There are photos of Mussolini surrounded by his elite black garbed body guards.....Their model 91/38 carcanos are equipped with black leather carrying straps that are very similar to the strap on the TSBD carcano.     Whoever created the strap on the carcano wanted the rifle to look like a Guardie del Duce rifle. (Perhaps that person wanted to display it as a war souvenir and brag that he'd  retrieved it from the body of one of Mussolini's body guards.)   Since General Walker had led troops in Italy during WWII, such a war trophy would have been fitting with his character......   And yes, I'm suggesting that the TSBD rifle could have been provided by Walker.

Mussolini's guards, that is ridiculous. LHO used an AF Shoulder holster. Here is  brown one. Pretend to buy it for your make believe carcano's.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Cold-War-1950s-Norris-Murray-Design-U-S-Air-Force-Shoulder-Holster-4-Revolver/173988606532?hash=item2882877244:g:hCkAAOSwSy5dSbdo:sc:USPSPriority!59102!US!-1


"Vintage Cold War Era, brown leather shoulder holster designed by Norris Murray. Patent was granted January 1958. Murray from Ohio was employed by the United States Air Force at Wright Patterson. These holsters were manufactured by MILSCO, formerly known as Milwaukee Saddlery. This holster was produced in brown and black leather. Brown being much more difficult to find.This model will fit a 4" S&W Model 10 Victory Revolver.
This is the same harness as the Colt M13 Aircrewman Model. "
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Sean Kneringer on September 11, 2019, 03:05:20 PM
So the conspirators stole his rifle from the garage (without being seen) and used it to murder JFK and frame Oswald (without being seen). Occam's razor is taking a beating in this forum.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 11, 2019, 05:59:58 PM
So the conspirators stole his rifle from the garage (without being seen) and used it to murder JFK and frame Oswald (without being seen). Occam's razor is taking a beating in this forum.

Or to use another term; The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 06:36:07 PM
So the conspirators stole his rifle from the garage (without being seen) and used it to murder JFK and frame Oswald (without being seen). Occam's razor is taking a beating in this forum.

Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 11, 2019, 06:44:58 PM
Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?

Marina did John: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 06:53:57 PM
Marina did John: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm

Please point to where in her testimony she identifies what she saw in the garage six weeks before the assassination in a rolled up and tied blanket as that Carcano rifle -- or indeed that she even knew what a Carcano rifle was.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 11, 2019, 07:56:56 PM
You're obviously not aware but Oswald didn't have a computer or the internet and eBay didn't exist till decades later.

JohnM

Freeman's full of shit
Everybody knows Oswald got it off Amazon
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Sean Kneringer on September 11, 2019, 08:23:31 PM
Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?
Um, Marina. BTW, what happened to the rifle he was photographed with?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 11, 2019, 08:55:32 PM
Please point to where in her testimony she identifies what she saw in the garage six weeks before the assassination in a rolled up and tied blanket as that Carcano rifle -- or indeed that she even knew what a Carcano rifle was.

More silly games John, really? You asked: "Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?" and I helpfully replied Marina, and supplied a link as
proof: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm                                                                                               
You're seriously refusing to accept that testimony because Marina didn't use the word "Carcano"!! You know full well Marina didn't even know what a Carcano was. She did, however, know what a rifle was. John, go play at being a bigshot lawyer with someone else, you've become totally boring. Setting an extream level of proof is one thing being deliberately obtuse is quite another. You're starting to sound exactly like Doyle or Graves. And that is an insult. Here, to meet your imaginary courtroom standards I'll rephrase my answer: John, Marina said she saw a rifle in the Paine's garage, although she didn't explicitly say the word Carcano. ~yawn~
 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Agee on September 11, 2019, 09:11:25 PM
More silly games John, really? You asked: "Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?" and I helpfully replied Marina, and supplied a link as
proof: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm                                                                                               
You're seriously refusing to accept that testimony because Marina didn't use the word "Carcano"!! You know full well Marina didn't even know what a Carcano was. She did, however, know what a rifle was. John, go play at being a bigshot lawyer with someone else, you've become totally boring. Setting an extream level of proof is one thing being deliberately obtuse is quite another. You're starting to sound exactly like Doyle or Graves. And that is an insult. Here, to meet your imaginary courtroom standards I'll rephrase my answer: John, Marina said she saw a rifle in the Paine's garage, although she didn't explicitly say the word Carcano. ~yawn~
Quite right Denis, it's silly games. Don't waste your time.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 10:13:32 PM
You're seriously refusing to accept that testimony because Marina didn't use the word "Carcano"!! You know full well Marina didn't even know what a Carcano was.

Exactly.  So what makes you think she saw CE 139?

It's not a game, Denis, it's holding you to the actual evidence and not what you want the evidence to be.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 11, 2019, 10:37:23 PM
More silly games John, really? You asked: "Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?" and I helpfully replied Marina, and supplied a link as
proof: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm                                                                                               
You're seriously refusing to accept that testimony because Marina didn't use the word "Carcano"!! You know full well Marina didn't even know what a Carcano was. She did, however, know what a rifle was. John, go play at being a bigshot lawyer with someone else, you've become totally boring. Setting an extream level of proof is one thing being deliberately obtuse is quite another. You're starting to sound exactly like Doyle or Graves. And that is an insult. Here, to meet your imaginary courtroom standards I'll rephrase my answer: John, Marina said she saw a rifle in the Paine's garage, although she didn't explicitly say the word Carcano. ~yawn~

I haven't met a sane man who knows ALL the important evidence and doesn't find Oswald guilty, but these hardcore CTs operate under the belief that "all the normal rules are turned upside down" and up is down and down is up.

CTs can稚 be reasoned with. They accuse decent people and don稚 feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until all LNers are dead!

Btw while discussing the Lincoln assassination Richard really ripped Iacoletti a new one and exposed the contrarian for what he is, it was hilarious!

JohnM

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 10:41:09 PM
I haven't met a sane man who knows ALL the important evidence and doesn't find Oswald guilty,

Define "sanity" as "agreeing with 'Mytton', and declare victory.  Typical.

Quote
Btw while discussing the Lincoln assassination Richard really ripped Iacoletti a new one and exposed the contrarian for what he is, it was hilarious!

No, it was a false equivalence strawman every step of the way.  Anything to avoid an honest accounting of the actual evidence in the JFK case.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on September 11, 2019, 11:12:14 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/garageblanket.gif)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 11, 2019, 11:15:23 PM
Exactly.  So what makes you think she saw CE 139?

It's not a game, Denis, it's holding you to the actual evidence and not what you want the evidence to be.

This is all about making reasonable inferences based on the evidence and seeing where it goes and then creating a plausible narrative.

Oswald defects to the enemy.
Oswald tries to cancel his US citizenship.
Oswald tries to get to Cuba
Oswald's alias is Hidell, a bit like Fidel.
Oswald orders a rifle.
Oswald is photographed with this rifle.
Oswald's camera takes photos of Walkers house.
Oswald has Walkers address marked on a map.
Oswald tries to kill Walker.
Oswald's rifle is wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Oswald makes an untypical Thursday night stopover.
Oswald takes a long package to work.
Oswald's rifle is missing from the blanket.
Oswald lies about where he puts the package.
Oswald lies about the contents of the package.
Oswald's fresh prints are on one of the rifle rest boxes and also on the box on the floor.
Oswald's rifle exclusively matches the 3 shells in the sniper's nest.
Oswald's rifle is on the same floor.
Oswald's prints are on the rifle.
Oswald's shirt fibers matched the fibers on the rifle.
Oswald leaves immediately.
Oswald catches a bus.
Oswald gets off a bus.
Oswald gets a cab
Oswald gets out of his cab way past his rooming house.
Oswald gets a jacket and revolver.
Oswald kills a cop.
Oswald leaves shells at the scene.
Oswald's revolver exclusively matches shells at the scene.
Oswald leaves his jacket under a car.
Oswald appears to hide from the cops at Brennan's Brewer's shop.
Oswald sneaks into the Texas theater.
Oswald punches a cop.
Oswald punches his wife.
Oswald uses his revolver on the cop.
Oswald resists arrest.
Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
Oswald lies about living at Neely street, the location of the Backyard photos.
Oswald lies about having lunch with the black guys.

As can be seen Oswald is central to this case and either Oswald created ALL this evidence or......?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 11, 2019, 11:20:23 PM

I still notice that absolutely nobody has even remotely answered the question posed by this thread, just how did that rifle get there, magic?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Denis Pointing on September 11, 2019, 11:25:30 PM
Exactly.  So what makes you think she saw CE 139?

It's not a game, Denis, it's holding you to the actual evidence and not what you want the evidence to be.

You seem to be having a completely different argument than everyone else here. The point being made originally (by Sean Kneringer I believe) was that a rifle belonging to Oswald went missing from the Paine's garage. A fact, as I pointed out, that's backed up by Marina's testimony. Marina's testimony also makes it clear she knew nothing about rifles so obviously she couldn't have possibly known it was a Carcano rifle. That's it! That's the essence of the debate. Whether the rifle Marina saw was CE139 or not is a completely different argument. Simple question, do you accept Marina stated her husband's rifle was missing from the Paine's garage or not?
Actually John, don't even bother to answer, I'm finished with you and your games. You've become someone that it's absolutely impossible to hold intelligent debate with. As far as I'm concerned you've placed yourself in the same category as Doyle, Graves and Cakebread...a compleate waste of forum space.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 11:41:11 PM
This is all about making reasonable inferences based on the evidence and seeing where it goes and then creating a plausible narrative.

The problem arises when you use false, misrepresented, or irrelevant claims to create your "plausible narrative".

Quote
Oswald defects to the enemy.
Oswald tries to cancel his US citizenship.
Oswald tries to get to Cuba

Irrelevant to the assassination.

Quote
Oswald's alias is Hidell, a bit like Fidel.

No evidence exists that Oswald ever used Hidell as an alias for himself.

Quote
Oswald orders a rifle.

Misrepresented.  The actual evidence is that unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of two block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank for a similar but not identical rifle was claimed to be Oswald's.

Quote
Oswald is photographed with this rifle.

Misrepresented.  One guy said that he thought he saw a gouge on the rifle in an enlargement of a negative that no longer exists (if it ever did) and that he thought this "tips the scale" in the direction of it being the same rifle.

Quote
Oswald's camera takes photos of Walkers house.
Oswald has Walkers address marked on a map.

The camera is not being accused of shooting Walker.  Also irrelevant to the assassination of JFK.

Quote
Oswald tries to kill Walker.
Oswald's rifle is wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage.

Conjecture stated as facts.

Quote
Oswald makes an untypical Thursday night stopover.

Irrelevant exaggerated rhetoric.

Quote
Oswald takes a long package to work.

Irrelevant to the assassination with no evidence as to what was in the bag.

Quote
Oswald lies about where he puts the package.
Oswald lies about the contents of the package.

Conjecture stated as facts.

Quote
Oswald's fresh prints are on one of the rifle rest boxes and also on the box on the floor.

Misrepresented rhetoric.  There's no evidence that these were "rifle rest boxes".

Quote
Oswald's rifle exclusively matches the 3 shells in the sniper's nest.
Oswald's rifle is on the same floor.

"Oswald's rifle" is conjecture stated as a fact.

Quote
Oswald's prints are on the rifle.

Misrepresented.  There were some prints by the trigger guard that were useless for identification purposes and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.

Quote
Oswald's shirt fibers matched the fibers on the rifle.

Misrepresented.  "Matched" in this context doesn't mean to the exclusion of any other shirt, and it's not even known what exact shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of the assassination.

Quote
Oswald leaves immediately.
Oswald catches a bus.
Oswald gets off a bus.
Oswald gets a cab
Oswald gets out of his cab way past his rooming house.

All irrelevant rhetoric.

Quote
Oswald gets a jacket and revolver.

Conjecture stated as facts.  There is no evidence whatsoever that he "got a revolver" at the rooming house.

Quote
Oswald kills a cop.
Oswald leaves shells at the scene.
Oswald's revolver exclusively matches shells at the scene.
Oswald leaves his jacket under a car.
Oswald appears to hide from the cops at Brennan's shop.
Oswald sneaks into the Texas theater.
Oswald punches a cop.
Oswald uses his revolver on the cop.
Oswald resists arrest.
Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
Oswald lies about living at Neely street, the location of the Backyard photos.
Oswald lies about having lunch with the black guys.

All conjecture stated as facts.

Lists of claims without actual evidence to back them up are not "reasonable inferences" and certainly not evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on September 11, 2019, 11:41:46 PM
I still notice that absolutely nobody has even remotely answered the question posed by this thread, just how did that rifle get there, magic?

JohnM

The WC said LHO carried the broken down 34 inch Carcano into work in 27 inch homemade paper gun case.

I guess if you're asking how the gun got there you're not buying that story either.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 11:42:50 PM
I still notice that absolutely nobody has even remotely answered the question posed by this thread, just how did that rifle get there, magic?

That's because nobody knows.

Making up an answer like "Oswald brought it in a paper bag" may be a satisfying answer to some, but that doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 11, 2019, 11:50:43 PM
The WC said LHO carried the broken down 34 inch Carcano into work in 27 inch homemade paper gun case.


27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?

The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 11:54:20 PM
You seem to be having a completely different argument than everyone else here. The point being made originally (by Sean Kneringer I believe) was that a rifle belonging to Oswald went missing from the Paine's garage.

No, Sean framed it as "so the conspirators stole his rifle from the garage (without being seen) and used it to murder JFK and frame Oswald (without being seen)."

It's a completely loaded question when it cannot even be established that the weapon used to murder JFK was ever in the Paine's garage.

Quote
A fact, as I pointed out, that's backed up by Marina's testimony.

Not unless Marina somehow knew that what she saw was "the rifle used it to murder JFK".  Otherwise all the combined testimony of Marina and Ruth supports is that Marina saw part of a wooden stock in early October that she took to be a rifle.

Quote
Simple question, do you accept Marina stated her husband's rifle was missing from the Paine's garage or not?

Yes.

Quote
Actually John, don't even bother to answer, I'm finished with you and your games. You've become someone that it's absolutely impossible to hold intelligent debate with. As far as I'm concerned you've placed yourself in the same category as Doyle, Graves and Cakebread...a compleate waste of forum space.

"Intelligent debate" to you is just accepting your assumptions without question?  That's a great way to stack the deck and control the conversation, but it hardly serves the truth.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 11, 2019, 11:58:59 PM
27 inch was based on a guess

So what?  "CE142 was the bag that Frazier saw" is also a guess.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on September 12, 2019, 12:02:35 AM
27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?

The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)

JohnM

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 12, 2019, 12:07:19 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)

But don't you understand?  Bill Chapman did his own experiment and got 35 inches.  Probably.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on September 12, 2019, 12:08:47 AM
27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?

The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)

JohnM

 :D
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0043.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 12, 2019, 12:12:16 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT5P0uXBnhfjbzaB6U/giphy.gif)

Mr. FRITZ. I told him he had a package and put it in the back seat and it was a package about that long and it was curtain rods. He said he didn't have any kind of a package but his lunch. He said he had his lunch and that is all he had, and Mr. Frazier told me that he got out of the car with that package, he saw him go toward the building with this long package.
I asked him, I said, "Did you go toward the building carrying a long package?"
He said, "No. I didn't carry anything but my lunch."


or

Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"
And he said, "Curtain rods," and I said, "Oh, yes, you told me you was going to bring some today."
That is the reason, the main reason he was going over there that Thursday afternoon when he was to bring back some curtain rods, so I didn't think any more about it when he told me that.


Someone must be lying!

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on September 12, 2019, 12:13:24 AM
27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?

The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)

JohnM

"27 inch was based on a guess"

Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 12, 2019, 12:15:47 AM
:D
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0043.jpg)

Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
................
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
......
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper bag?
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.


JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on September 12, 2019, 12:17:17 AM
"27 inch was based on a guess"

Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.

Frazier naver paid attention and his sister saw the bag for a few seconds and they both came to the EXACT same answer, geez what are the chances?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 12, 2019, 12:31:02 AM
Frazier naver paid attention and his sister saw the bag for a few seconds and they both came to the EXACT same answer, geez what are the chances?

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/xT5P0uXBnhfjbzaB6U/giphy.gif)

So who's the liar?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on September 12, 2019, 01:54:13 AM
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
................
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
......
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper bag?
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.


JohnM

When the Sheriff Department Officers found the alleged sniper's nest they were told by superiors to cordon the area off, not touch or move anything until the crime lab boys got there and photographed the area. If the bag was ever there then all you've proved is that the crime scene was tampered with/contaminated before the crime lab arrived.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0043.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 12, 2019, 02:17:10 AM
Frazier naver paid attention and his sister saw the bag for a few seconds and they both came to the EXACT same answer, geez what are the chances?

JohnM

geez what are the chances?

They are a lot bigger than multiple people "identifying" the same man at a line up, after seeing a man running in the street for merely seconds.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 12, 2019, 06:24:29 AM
But don't you understand?  Bill Chapman did his own experiment and got 35 inches.  Probably.

Bill Chapman did his own experiment and got 35 inches
>>>... it fell into my lap.. Ain't mathematics beautiful?

Probably.
>>> No... mathematically
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 12, 2019, 07:27:29 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)

"He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it".
-Linnie Mae Randle/WC Testimony

Tell us how a 27" package could be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9' individual
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 12, 2019, 08:13:13 AM
"27 inch was based on a guess"

Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.

They came up with it, all right..
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Ted Shields on September 12, 2019, 01:42:06 PM
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 12, 2019, 01:48:19 PM
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?

He realized that those curtain rods were the wrong length, after all, and in his haste to get home and change his shirt and grab his revolver and get to the theater in time to catch Battle Cry, he plum forgot all about 'em and left' 'em hidden in the parking lot (where he'd put 'em that morning, under a car), and then a hobo done came along and appropriated them.

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Ted Shields on September 12, 2019, 02:11:22 PM
He realized that those curtain rods were the wrong length, after all, and in his haste to get home and change his shirt and grab his revolver and get to the theater in time, he plum forgot all about them ...

--  MWT  ;)

And they dissolved in the dusty air of the 6th floor of the TSBD that morning meaning nobody found them?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on September 12, 2019, 02:26:22 PM
And they dissolved in the dusty air of the 6th floor of the TSBD that morning meaning nobody found them?

Evidently.

LOL!

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Sean Kneringer on September 12, 2019, 02:59:39 PM
So what did he bring into the TSBD?

submarine sandwich
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 12, 2019, 03:34:18 PM
Tell us how a 27" package could be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9' individual

Hilarious.  Special agent McNeely recreated what Randle observed to her specifications of what she saw and the package was 27 inches.  That trumps your contrived experiment.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 12, 2019, 03:35:32 PM
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?

Therefore a rifle was in there.

QED

Brilliant.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 14, 2019, 07:13:49 AM
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?

His lunch... a 3 -foot long (+ -) Submarine sandwich
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 14, 2019, 03:39:17 PM
His lunch... a 3 -foot long (+ -) Submarine sandwich

3 foot long. LOL.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 15, 2019, 10:45:47 PM
3 foot long. LOL.

'2ft' LOL
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Matthew Finch on September 16, 2019, 01:10:10 PM
Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'. Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?) It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag, but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 16, 2019, 11:59:09 PM
Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'. Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?) It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag, but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.

Considering it unlikely that something happened or did not happen a certain way isn't a particular strong argument to make.

Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'.

So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Ruling curtain rods out simply because none were found or reported having been found is weak.

Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?)

Ridicule isn't very persuasive either. You don't know how long the bag that Oswald carried really was, nor has anybody, to the best of my knowledge, ever proven a  sandwich was the article in the bag.

It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag,

There you go, finally some common sense conclusion

but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.

And now you've lost the plot again....wishful thinking isn't evidence nor does it lend credence to anything.


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 17, 2019, 05:30:05 AM
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?

The jacket he wore to work was left behind as well. You know, the heavy jacket, the one with the baggy sleeves. No curtain rods and no further need to hide the full size of his lunch bag. Besides, he had movies to see... but first wanted to go to his safe-house and change his 'Just Do It' tshirt to his 'Just Did It' one
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Ted Shields on September 17, 2019, 11:19:08 AM
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Ruling curtain rods out simply because none were found or reported having been found is weak.

So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

And now you've lost the plot again....wishful thinking isn't evidence nor does it lend credence to anything.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 17, 2019, 01:13:31 PM
So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.

So where did the curtain rods go?

Who knows? It's the wrong question to ask as there is no way to know for sure what was really in the bag Oswald was carrying. My point was merely that, just because no curtain rods were found (or were reported to be found) does not mean curtain rods can be ruled out, as Matthew said.

He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods,

We don't really know that he (Oswald) told Frazier that. All we know is that Frazier claimed he told him. There is a difference.

Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing.

Really? And you know this, how? Can you provide me with one document (a report or whatever) which confirms that the cops actively looked for curtain rods?

He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

What makes you think that Oswald would carry those curtain rods (if they existed) on the bus or in the cab? Frazier saw Oswald carry a bag early in the morning. The shooting took place at 12.30 pm. During the hours inbetween Oswald could have easily disposed of whatever was really in the bag. There simply is no way of knowing for sure that he did or not.

How is that losing the plot?

Because it's nothing more that a selfserving assumption for which there is not a shred of evidence. The only two witnesses who saw the bag indicated in various way that the size of the bag was simply too small to conceal a broken down rifle.

He had his rifle at the Paines.

That's part of the assumption. There is no way of knowing for sure there actually ever was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. The only evidence to confirm the presence of a rifle is what "translator" Ruth Paine told the police (allegedly on behalf of Marina) on 11/22/63. And even if there ever was a rifle in the garage, there is no evidence that it belonged to Oswald. On the other hand, the Carcano rifle found at the TSBD had no fibers on it from a blanket in which it had allegedly been wrapped in for two months.

He stayed there the night before.

True

It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked.

And perhaps it wasn't there in early October, if there ever was a rifle. Marina said she looked at the package once, about a week after returning from New Orleans,  which would be in late September. After that nobody paid any attention to the package so there is absolutely no way of knowing when the content of the package was removed.

It was found in the TSBD.

That is again part of the selfserving assumption. There is not a shred of evidence that the Carcano rifle found at the TSBD ever was in Ruth Paine's garage
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on September 17, 2019, 02:05:52 PM
So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier  told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.

How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.

Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that.  They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen.  Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw.   The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z.  Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X.  But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer.  Nothing to see there.  And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate.  Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty.  He is probably more convinced of it than anyone.  Playing the contrarian brings attention.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 17, 2019, 02:58:58 PM
Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that.  They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen.  Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw.   The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z.  Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X.  But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer.  Nothing to see there.  And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof.  It's just a game to avoid checkmate.  Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty.  He is probably more convinced of it than anyone.  Playing the contrarian brings attention.

Is there any significance to your ramblings?

Btw, who needs evidence when you know somebody is guilty? That is basically what you are saying, isn't it?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on September 17, 2019, 03:04:30 PM
Is there any significance to your ramblings?

Not to you Roger.   It involves the application of logic to the facts.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 17, 2019, 03:16:06 PM
Not to you Roger.   It involves the application of logic to the facts.

More delusional BS.

The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2019, 03:43:27 PM
Like a sleazy prosecuting attorney, "Richard" thinks that all you have to do is call it "Oswald's rifle", and *poof* it becomes Oswald's rifle.  Because "logic".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on September 17, 2019, 03:52:32 PM
More delusional BS.

The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2019, 04:10:20 PM
No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

It's only "impossible" to you, because you want your "logic" (read: conjecture) to be sufficient.  Marina saw a part of a wooden stock wrapped up in a rolled up and tied blanket in late September / early October that she took to be a rifle, therefore it was a Mannlicher Carcano rifle with serial number C2766 and it was picked up by Oswald on November 21 and brought to the TSBD in a brown paper package.

Not because of evidence, but because of "logic".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 17, 2019, 04:13:32 PM
No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.  That is the entire point.  You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt.  Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.  The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

No one can establish facts in your fantasy world.

Well, let's see.....

A wrapped up blanket, containing nothing, was found by police at Ruth Paine's garage..... That's a fact

Oswald carried a package to work that apparently was bigger than a normal lunch bag, which two witnesses described in such a way that it would be too small to conceal a broken down rifle.... That's a fact

There is no evidence to show that Oswald was in Ruth Paine's garage during his last stay at her house.... That's a fact

There is no evidence to show that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever in the paper bag Oswald carried on Friday morning..... That's a fact

How am I doing so far?......

You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt. 

Again, you have it backwards. Scepticism comes first and actual evidence is required to eliminate that doubt. You just assume that something is true, when it computes with your bias, and simply never examine available evidence nor do you even question claims for which there is no evidence at all.

Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario.

There is no need for an alternative scenario or evidence to support it when one simply wants to examine the evidence on which the prosecutoral case of the WC is based. Instead of actually providing evidence that could convince me, you instead constantly whine and complain that I can not be convinced of anything which is total BS. Even worse, you have never even tried to convince me with sound arguments and persuasive evidence. You sound like a prosecutor who complains that the jury is not willing to just take his word for it! It's truly pathetic!

The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative.  It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.

Another classic strawman. I don't need to create doubt about anything as I have no horse in this race. I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or not. The man has been dead for over half a century. All I am interested in is the truth about what really happened. You should try that approach some time..... but then again, forget it, your bias will never allow you to do that.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 17, 2019, 04:16:02 PM
It's only "impossible" to you, because you want your "logic" (read: conjecture) to be sufficient.  Marina saw a part of a wooden stock wrapped up in a rolled up and tied blanket in late September / early October that she took to be a rifle, therefore it was a Mannlicher Carcano rifle with serial number C2766 and it was picked up by Oswald on November 21 and brought to the TSBD in a brown paper package.

Not because of evidence, but because of "logic".

Indeed.... In Richard Smith's mind assumptions become "evidence" and "logic" creates "facts"
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2019, 04:16:37 PM
You should just swallow whatever you are told and not question it, because otherwise you're a "contrarian", and that's bad.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 17, 2019, 08:29:55 PM
Is there any significance to your ramblings?
It happened to a guy named Mc Creary....The Kennedy case drove him...well- 'over the edge'.
It appears that Mr Smith not only drank the Kool-Aid but regularly takes showers in the stuff  (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Where is this poster Smith named 'Roger'?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 17, 2019, 10:31:33 PM
It happened to a guy named Mc Creary....The Kennedy case drove him...well- 'over the edge'.
It appears that Mr Smith not only drank the Kool-Aid but regularly takes showers in the stuff  (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Where is this poster Smith named 'Roger'?

Where is this poster Smith named 'Roger'?


A figment of his imagination which I am sure he will call fact
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on September 18, 2019, 04:28:25 PM

Where is this poster Smith named 'Roger'?


A figment of his imagination which I am sure he will call fact

I recall this Roger Collins fellow used to bold every sentence he was responding too.  Have you ever seen anyone else do that here?  He wasn't too bright either.  I wonder what happened to him?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 18, 2019, 05:24:15 PM
I recall this Roger Collins fellow used to bold every sentence he was responding too.  Have you ever seen anyone else do that here?  He wasn't too bright either.  I wonder what happened to him?

Well, let's see;

Bill Chapman did his own experiment and got 35 inches
>>>... it fell into my lap.. Ain't mathematics beautiful?

Probably.
>>> No... mathematically

"27 inch was based on a guess"

Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.

it was never designed as a sling,

 it  ( the strap) was never designed as a sling,

You're right....The strap with the wide leather patch was designed as a way to carry the carcano on the shoulder during parades and guard duty.

The STRAP was never intended to be an aid for steadying the rifle when firing the weapon, like the SLINGS an American rifles.

Care to try again "Richard"?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 18, 2019, 07:17:23 PM
I recall this Roger Collins fellow used to bold every sentence he was responding too.  Have you ever seen anyone else do that here?  He wasn't too bright either.  I wonder what happened to him?

Paul Ernst posted everything in bold

As an aside, Ernie used to close the lower portion of the sn window opening to about half
Jerry used to point that out, with accurate drawings. Ernie responded that drawing was old-fashioned and that only 3D graphics were valid.

 ::)

I wonder what he would think about Jerry's excellent, professional 3D output these days...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on September 18, 2019, 09:46:46 PM
Well, let's see;

Care to try again "Richard"?

Yes, let's try again.  It's very simple to clear up.  Did you post here as Roger Collins?  Yes or no?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2019, 10:11:26 PM
Keep in mind that in "Richard"'s world an accusation is the same as evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 18, 2019, 11:54:26 PM
Yes, let's try again.  It's very simple to clear up.  Did you post here as Roger Collins?  Yes or no?

We've been down this road before. There is nothing to clear up.

I am not going to fight against nor feed your obsession.

If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFU
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 19, 2019, 12:40:05 AM
We've been down this road before. There is nothing to clear up.

I am not going to fight against nor feed your obsession.

If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFU

 ;D....BRAVO!, Martin....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 19, 2019, 02:15:34 AM
If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFU
Ouch!  (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/rulez.gif)
Quote
Posts where members are antagonistically addressed by a name other than their Forum username, will be deleted.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on September 19, 2019, 02:38:47 PM
We've been down this road before. There is nothing to clear up.

I am not going to fight against nor feed your obsession.

If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFU

Thanks again Roger.  You just proved it. You obviously know whether you posted as RC.  If you didn't, all you would have to say is "no."  LOL.   Don't take my word though.  Ask Bill Brown or John M.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on September 19, 2019, 04:35:25 PM
Thanks again Roger.  You just proved it. You obviously know whether you posted as RC.  If you didn't, all you would have to say is "no."  LOL.   Don't take my word though.  Ask Bill Brown or John M.

Only a fool like you would consider a non reply to be "proof" of anything. But thanks for showing the pathetic nature of your claim.

Just one question; when a suspect refuses to answer questions of a police officer, that, in your mind, makes him guilty, right?

Btw what kind is ''proof'' is taking your word for it?

Ask Brown or Mytton? I wouldn't take their word for anything. It's just as unreliable as yours.

It's exactly as John said;


Keep in mind that in "Richard"'s world an accusation is the same as evidence.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on September 21, 2019, 07:34:49 PM
For the record:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack.jpg)

Never mind that a disassembled MC was 34" and included a useless scope. If LHO was a Patsy then he was instructed to bring "curtain rods" to work in a long paper bag. This was all part of the sheep-dipping. But there is no way in hell that there was a disassembled MC in that bag, otherwise, Oswald's prints would have been all over the bag and the MC, which they weren't. Instead LHO left 1 post-mortem palm print on the MC and 1 palm print and 1 fingerprint on the "paper sack". Was it possible for LHO to have handled so much and left so few prints? You do the math.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 21, 2019, 08:04:10 PM
For the record:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack.jpg)

Never mind that a disassembled MC was 34" and included a useless scope. If LHO was a Patsy then he was instructed to bring "curtain rods" to work in a long paper bag. This was all part of the sheep-dipping. But there is no way in hell that there was a disassembled MC in that bag, otherwise, Oswald's prints would have been all over the bag and the MC, which they weren't. Instead LHO left 1 post-mortem palm print on the MC and 1 palm print and 1 fingerprint on the "paper sack". Was it possible for LHO to have handled so much and left so few prints? You do the math.

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack.jpg)

Using the photo....  The distance from Lee's butt to his shoulder was about 27 inches .... So if he had sat on a 12 inch box ( 27+12=39) to the rear of the stack of Rolling readers, ( three feet high)  and rested a rifle on the stack of Rolling readers the rifle would have been nearly level( horizontal) and the muzzle could not be lowered to fire down onto Elm street.   ....I know that some will argue that he simply raised up and that would have raised the butt of the rifle and declined the muzzle...And that would be true....EXCEPT... That's NOT what the investigators told us.  They said that he sat on the box and used the stack of Rolling Readers as a steady rest for the rifle.  AND furthermore they said that the scar on the top box was caused by the rifle when it recoiled......Well If the rifle had been fired down onto Elm street it would not have been resting on the top surface of the Rolling reader box.....The angle down to Elm would have had the rifle resting on the outboard edge of the box, so there would have been no scar on the top surface of the box.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 24, 2019, 12:48:29 AM
What gets me is that the cops said they found 3 spent shells in the supposed "Sniper's Nest". The photo can easily show that there was 2  spent and 1 live round circled A.......  https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Steve Logan on September 24, 2019, 03:31:32 PM
What gets me is that the cops said they found 3 spent shells in the supposed "Sniper's Nest". The photo can easily show that there was 2  spent and 1 live round circled A.......  https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm

Look closer Sherlock.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on September 24, 2019, 06:26:05 PM
Just ask Fritz how many hulls he tossed onto the floor.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 24, 2019, 11:28:28 PM
Just ask Fritz how many hulls he tossed onto the floor.

The hulls were there before Fritz was at the scene....  Mooney said that he spotted the spent shells and then notified the officers on the street below by calling down to them....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on September 25, 2019, 12:07:45 AM
The hulls were there before Fritz was at the scene....  Mooney said that he spotted the spent shells and then notified the officers on the street below by calling down to them....

According to Deputy Sheriff Faulkner, Deputy Sheriff Mooney, & Tom Alyea, Fritz walked over to the 3 hulls in a tight grouping near the window in the SN and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. He later returned to the SN with a rookie cop to photograph the crime scene, then tossed the hulls onto the floor in the staged (more favorable) arrangement you see in the photo. What crime scene detective leading an investigation of the crime of the century would do that?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Colin Crow on September 25, 2019, 12:40:37 AM
According to Deputy Sheriff Faulkner, Deputy Sheriff Mooney, & Tom Alyea, Fritz walked over to the 3 hulls in a tight grouping near the window in the SN and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. He later returned to the SN with a rookie cop to photograph the crime scene, then tossed the hulls onto the floor in the staged (more favorable) arrangement you see in the photo. What crime scene detective leading an investigation of the crime of the century would do that?

From Luke Mooney Oral History with Sixth Floor Museum

Gary: Fritz was there? You saw Fritz down there?
Luke: (0:19:58) (nodding) Yeah, Will Fritz was there. So, here they came with all
that bunch of men behind him (chuckling) that worked for him in vice and there was
four or five of them. And so, here they come, and he was the first man I told him how
to come in. I was standing over there and sealed it off to let nobody in there, and he came
on over there. And he was the first man who reached down and picked up one of the
spent shells to see what caliber it was and then laid it back down in the exact spot,
and so,
I left him then and Gene Boone we had sent for some searchlights because we didn稚
have no lights. It wasn稚 real dark up there because of the window light daylight, but
anyway, we needed some searchlights to shine between them pallets. So, when we got
the searchlights, them little 双le hand lights葉hey sent them across the street from the
sheriff痴 office謡e was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that痴 when we seen the butt of the rifle. So, one of Will
Fritz痴 men was the one that pulled the gun out.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 25, 2019, 02:43:48 AM
From Luke Mooney Oral History with Sixth Floor Museum

Gary: Fritz was there? You saw Fritz down there?
Luke: (0:19:58) (nodding) Yeah, Will Fritz was there. So, here they came with all
that bunch of men behind him (chuckling) that worked for him in vice and there was
four or five of them. And so, here they come, and he was the first man I told him how
to come in. I was standing over there and sealed it off to let nobody in there, and he came
on over there. And he was the first man who reached down and picked up one of the
spent shells to see what caliber it was and then laid it back down in the exact spot,
and so,
I left him then and Gene Boone we had sent for some searchlights because we didn稚
have no lights. It wasn稚 real dark up there because of the window light daylight, but
anyway, we needed some searchlights to shine between them pallets. So, when we got
the searchlights, them little 双le hand lights葉hey sent them across the street from the
sheriff痴 office謡e was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that痴 when we seen the butt of the rifle. So, one of Will
Fritz痴 men was the one that pulled the gun out.

we needed some searchlights to shine between them pallets. So, when we got
the searchlights, them little 双le hand lights葉hey sent them across the street from the
sheriff痴 office謡e was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that痴 when we seen the butt of the rifle.


Very interesting post, Mr Crow..... Mooney confirms several points about how Boone and Weitzman discovered the rifle....

 Mooney said that it wasn't dark in the area because the sunlight shining in illuminated the area....BUT... "we needed some searchlights to shine between them pallets."   ..... "Boone had the light in his hand. And he shined it up in there, and so, that痴 when we seen the butt of the rifle."

You've seen the official in situ photos....Is the carcano between any pallets in the photos?....And  would Boone have needed a search light to see the rifle as it is seen in the in situ photos?   Weitzman said that he was down on the floor looking beneath a pallet when he and Boone spotted the rifle lying on the floor beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on top ... There was a gap between rows of boxes and at least one box on top of the gap which covered the span between the rows.

Boone moved that box that was covering the top of the cavern and shined his light down into the dark recess...anf he saw a small portion of the butt of the rifle beneath the pallet....Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle and recorded that it was 15 feet 4 inches from the wall....The rifle in the in situ photos is about 13 feet from the noth wall....

Clearly the official in situ photos are not accurate....But the "investigators" ( conspirators) had to put that rifle closer to the aisle at the top of the stairs so the evidence would support their tale about their patsy charging by the area and hastily dumping the rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 25, 2019, 05:13:58 PM
According to Deputy Sheriff Faulkner, Deputy Sheriff Mooney, & Tom Alyea, Fritz walked over to the 3 hulls in a tight grouping near the window in the SN and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. He later returned to the SN with a rookie cop to photograph the crime scene, then tossed the hulls onto the floor in the staged (more favorable) arrangement you see in the photo. What crime scene detective leading an investigation of the crime of the century would do that?

I believe that Mooney spotted only TWO spent shells....  Later when the "investigators" ( conspirators) realized that the witnesses were reporting hearing THREE shots they added a third shell.....And it very well could have been Fritz who was using a little prestidigitation who added the third shell.....As you've posted here.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on October 08, 2019, 11:01:24 PM
 
I believe that Mooney spotted only TWO spent shells....
Three spent shells in all were [reportedly] found at the 'Sniper's Nest' therefore only three shots were fired at the President. With remarkably incredible logic like that..it's a wonder more crimes aren't solved.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 09, 2019, 05:31:52 PM
  Three spent shells in all were [reportedly] found at the 'Sniper's Nest' therefore only three shots were fired at the President. With remarkably incredible logic like that..it's a wonder more crimes aren't solved.

I believe that there were only TWO spent shells when Mooney discovered the hidden loafers nook.....( they imagined it to be a "sniper's nest") but it wasn't long before they realized that the original two shot scenario could not be sustained, because witnesses were reporting hearing more than two shots, and more that two bullet strikes were being reported.  Fritz added a third spent shell when he picked up two and threw down three.....

The original hoax scenario called for Lee Oswald to have shot twice at JFK and missed.......So there were only two shells planted beneath the window....

There were at least five bullet strikes .....four in the Lincoln, three stuck the victims....and another hit the chrome molding near the rear view mirror....and another hit the ground near the sewer cover....   and James Teague was struck by a bullet, or a fragment.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 31, 2019, 01:51:53 AM
Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.

So where did the "quote" come from?   

Btw;

Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.

<>

Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle.
The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.


Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.

Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63

Just wanted to point out here,that even IF it is true that Day lifted a print as he said, that by his own opinion here, the print was NOT a fresh print, because some of the print he could still see on the barrel after having lifted it with tape.

So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on October 31, 2019, 02:43:22 AM
Just wanted to point out here,that even IF it is true that Day lifted a print as he said, that by his own opinion here, the print was NOT a fresh print, because some of the print he could still see on the barrel after having lifted it with tape.

So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

(https://i.postimg.cc/26F2kcf6/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)

On the 22nd many photos were taken of Oswald's rifle's trigger guard and later Scalise used all of the photos of varying contrast to conclusively prove that the print were Oswald's. I can't insert the youtube video but is easily found "Vincent Scalise Identifies Lee Oswald Prints on Trigger Guard".

(https://i.postimg.cc/J47BMZ2w/scalice-print-oswald-trigger-guard.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 31, 2019, 04:17:46 AM
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

徹swald痴 rifle. LOL.

Strangely enough, you forgot to include this part of Stombaugh痴 testimony.

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

Quote
On the 22nd many photos were taken of Oswald's rifle's trigger guard and later Scalise used all of the photos of varying contrast to conclusively prove that the print were Oswald's.

Latona to the WC:

Mr. LATONA. I could see faintly ridge formations there. However, examination disclosed to me that the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value.

Scalise, himself, to the HSCA:

55. 8) Latent fingerprint recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5-millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial no. C2766, processed at the Dallas Police Department. It is of no value for identification purposes.

30 years later, Scalise looked at photos that Rusty Livingston pulled out of a briefcase and claimed that they were of the C2766 rifle and compared them to a fingerprint card that was claimed to be Oswald痴.

If these uncontrolled photos were authentic then not only did Scalise have access to the same photos in 1978, but both Latona and Scalise had access to the actual rifle to examine the prints directly.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 31, 2019, 02:15:16 PM
Just wanted to point out here,that even IF it is true that Day lifted a print as he said, that by his own opinion here, the print was NOT a fresh print, because some of the print he could still see on the barrel after having lifted it with tape.

So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

That's a good point, Zeon...   However....  I'm 100% certain that the location seen in CE 637 is of the WOODEN foregrip ....The photo shows the bayonet slot at the right hand side of the exhibit.     Detective Day ( aka Barney Fife )  himself described the place as  on the bottom of the barrel about three inches back from the muzzle end of the wood stock   That description is right on the spot seen in the photo CE 637...   The back end of the bayonet slot is 3 & 1/2 inches to the rear of the muzzle end of the wooden stock . 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on October 31, 2019, 04:14:27 PM
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

(https://i.postimg.cc/26F2kcf6/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)

On the 22nd many photos were taken of Oswald's rifle's trigger guard and later Scalise used all of the photos of varying contrast to conclusively prove that the print were Oswald's. I can't insert the youtube video but is easily found "Vincent Scalise Identifies Lee Oswald Prints on Trigger Guard".

(https://i.postimg.cc/J47BMZ2w/scalice-print-oswald-trigger-guard.jpg)

JohnM

Or there was contamination from having placed rifle, paperbag and blanket all together on Will Fritz desk
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on October 31, 2019, 04:49:20 PM
So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

That's a good point, Zeon...   However....  I'm 100% certain that the location seen in CE 637 is of the WOODEN foregrip ....The photo shows the bayonet slot at the right hand side of the exhibit.     

(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)

Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?

Quote
Detective Day ( aka Barney Fife )  himself described the place as  on the bottom of the barrel about three inches back from the muzzle end of the wood stock   That description is right on the spot seen in the photo CE 637...   The back end of the bayonet slot is 3 & 1/2 inches to the rear of the muzzle end of the wooden stock .

Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 31, 2019, 07:54:10 PM
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)

Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?

Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.

WOW!!...Thank you Mr Organ....I never expected a LNer to accomodate me and debate this point.  ( while providing photos also )

I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).

Yes,..... But let me point out that the bayonet slot in the photo you posted appears to be wider than the bayonet groove on my carcanos....I own several carcanos and none of them have a groove like the groove on the carcano in the photo.    The grooves on my carcanos is not as wide and the sides are more parallel.   

If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?

No.... The photo of CE 637 doesn't show that portion of the rifles stock ( foregrip) The right hand side of the photo (CE 637 ) shows only about 3/4 of an inch of back end of the bayonet groove.

Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.

HUH?.... Three inches back from the forward end of the wooden stock is three inches .....Period!   It matters not if the metal barrel is fitted into the stock.

Day said that he spotted a print on THE SIDE of the barrel   ( The metal barrel) that disappeared beneath the wooden stock about three inches back from the forward end of the wooden stock.  ( Turns out his guess was pretty good.....The area circled is about 3  & 1 / 2 inches back from the end of the wooden stock.)

However....He said when he disassembled the rifle he saw the old print on the BOTTOM of the metal barrel and that's what he lifted.   

!) A man's palm print couldn't have wrapped half way around that 5 /8 inch metal barrel
2) Day said the print was on the BOTTOM of the barrel ...he did not say that the print extended halfway around the barrel....
3) there is nothing on the metal barrel that would have created the two parallel lines.

Thank you so much for posting the photo....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 31, 2019, 08:09:05 PM
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)

Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?

Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.


I believe that Detective  Day was incorporating his lift from the TSBD into the tale they invented, and he was recalling what he thought was a palm print on the wooden stock when he saw it while checking the rifle for prints in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled it from beneath the pallet.    He said the print was about three inches back from the forward end ( muzzle end) of the WOODEN stock.  If he had found a print on the metal barrel he logically would have used the muzzle or the bayonet lug as a reference point.   
 


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 31, 2019, 08:54:41 PM
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)

Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?

Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

let me point out that the bayonet slot in the photo you posted appears to be wider than the bayonet groove on my carcanos..

I think I know why the bayonet groove appears wider in the photo....  I believe the stock on the rifle in the photo has been sanded.....And the sanding rounded the sharp corners of the bayonet groove and that makes the groove appear to be wider than my carcanos.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on October 31, 2019, 09:00:18 PM
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Nonsense. Oswald had changed from his work shirt to the arrest shirt at his room. That was demonstrated months ago so back up 5 yards and punt on that one.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on October 31, 2019, 09:38:17 PM
WOW!!...Thank you Mr Organ....I never expected a LNer to accomodate me and debate this point.  ( while providing photos also )

I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).

Yes,..... But let me point out that the bayonet slot in the photo you posted appears to be wider than the bayonet groove on my carcanos....I own several carcanos and none of them have a groove like the groove on the carcano in the photo.    The grooves on my carcanos is not as wide and the sides are more parallel.   

If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?

No.... The photo of CE 637 doesn't show that portion of the rifles stock ( foregrip) The right hand side of the photo (CE 637 ) shows only about 3/4 of an inch of back end of the bayonet groove.

There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.

Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.

(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)

Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.

Quote
Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.

HUH?.... Three inches back from the forward end of the wooden stock is three inches .....Period!   It matters not if the metal barrel is fitted into the stock.

Day said that he spotted a print on THE SIDE of the barrel   ( The metal barrel) that disappeared beneath the wooden stock about three inches back from the forward end of the wooden stock.  ( Turns out his guess was pretty good.....The area circled is about 3  & 1 / 2 inches back from the end of the wooden stock.)

However....He said when he disassembled the rifle he saw the old print on the BOTTOM of the metal barrel and that's what he lifted.   

!) A man's palm print couldn't have wrapped half way around that 5 /8 inch metal barrel

(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)

Quote
2) Day said the print was on the BOTTOM of the barrel ...he did not say that the print extended halfway around the barrel....

The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.

Quote
3) there is nothing on the metal barrel that would have created the two parallel lines.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.

(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)

It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.


I believe that Detective  Day was incorporating his lift from the TSBD into the tale they invented, and he was recalling what he thought was a palm print on the wooden stock when he saw it while checking the rifle for prints in the TSBD just minutes after he pulled it from beneath the pallet.    He said the print was about three inches back from the forward end ( muzzle end) of the WOODEN stock.  If he had found a print on the metal barrel he logically would have used the muzzle or the bayonet lug as a reference point.   

I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 31, 2019, 10:10:42 PM
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.

Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.

(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)

Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)

The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.

(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)

It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.

I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.

There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.

You're right there is more to CE 637 than the bayonet slot that is shown on the right hand side.   What you're calling the Foresling Bracket is actually the front barrel band .....And that Front barrel band is 5 & 1/2 inches back from the front end of the wooden stock. The 3 X 5 index card is only 5 inches long . The distance from the rear of the bayonet slot to the front barrel band is a little more than 2 inches...so the front barrel band could appear in the photo IF  IF the tape had been pressed down against that area.  However that front barrel band was not the area of interest....Day thought that he'd found a palm print forward of that barrel band. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 31, 2019, 11:39:19 PM
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.

Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.

(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)

Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)

The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.

(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)

It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.

I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

The elevated part that you're referring to is the bayonet lug .....You're right...it is elevated 7 /16 of an inch above the surface of the barrel.  Day couldn't have applied cellophane tape on the top of that bayonet lug in a way that would allow the tape to contact the metal barrel.... Or conversely if Day applied the tape to the barrel he could not have kept contact with the barrel when he tried to place the tape on the bayonet lug.  And incidentally....that bayonet lug is only about one inch to the rear of the front of the wooden stock, ( Day said the print was about 3 inches back. This is so elementary I'm surprised that you'd suggest such an absurd idea.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 01, 2019, 01:42:34 AM

The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.


JohnM

the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

Hang on,

You can actually show that in the morning of 11/22/63 Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the Texas Theater?

 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 01, 2019, 03:12:26 PM
the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63

Hang on,

You can actually show that in the morning of 11/22/63 Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the Texas Theater?

Mrs Bledsoe said that the shirt that Lee was wearing when she saw him on Mc Watter's bus had a large hole at the elbow.  This sighting was BEFORE he went to the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley, where he changed his clothes.  Photos taken of Lee in the police station show that the arrest shirt had no hole in the elbow.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 01, 2019, 04:11:34 PM
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.

Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.

(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)

Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)

The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)

The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.

(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)

It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.

I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.

A model 91/38 carcano disassembled

(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)

Notice the bayonet lug on the bottom of the barrel .....  You'll notice that it extends down from the surface of the round barrel.  Thus the bayonet lug couldn't possibly have been what created the two parallel lines that are seen at the right hand side of CE 637.   As further verification for this point....The bayonet lug is 8.5mm wide....and the parallel lines are only 5mm apart......  That 8.5 mm bayonet lug couldn't possibly have created the parallel lines that are 5mm apart.    However the bayonet groove on my carcano is 5mm wide.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 02, 2019, 01:12:44 AM
Mrs Bledsoe said that the shirt that Lee was wearing when she saw him on Mc Watter's bus had a large hole at the elbow.  This sighting was BEFORE he went to the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley, where he changed his clothes.  Photos taken of Lee in the police station show that the arrest shirt had no hole in the elbow.

She saw the hole in the elbow of the shirt THRU the Jacket over top of it ? :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 02, 2019, 02:38:42 PM
She saw the hole in the elbow of the shirt THRU the Jacket over top of it ? :D

I think you're confused....Mrs Bledsoe was a passenger on Mc Watter's bus....  She said that Lee was wearing a shirt with a hole in the elbow .  She said nothing about a jacket.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 02, 2019, 06:27:45 PM
Mrs Bledsoe said that the shirt that Lee was wearing when she saw him on Mc Watter's bus had a large hole at the elbow.  This sighting was BEFORE he went to the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley, where he changed his clothes.  Photos taken of Lee in the police station show that the arrest shirt had no hole in the elbow.

Could you post those so we can see how much validity the claim has?

I think the area where the hole would have been seen is not in view in these photos: Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:11908); Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3818/image-of-lee-harvey-oswald-at-dallas-police-headquarters-on) .

(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/51586/preview)  (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/15807/preview)

The right sleeve seems to be twisted near the elbow.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 02, 2019, 06:46:01 PM
Could you post those so we can see how much validity the claim has?

I think the area where the hole would have been seen is not in view in these photos: Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:11908); Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3818/image-of-lee-harvey-oswald-at-dallas-police-headquarters-on) .

(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/51586/preview)  (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/15807/preview)

The right sleeve seems to be twisted near the elbow.

Apparently you've never worn a shirt that had a hole worn at the elbow..... I can tell you. ( and I'm sure there are others) that when there is a hole in the sleeve at the elbow when the arm is bent as Lee's is in the photo, the elbow usually pops out of the hole.

Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:11908); Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3818/image-of-lee-harvey-oswald-at-dallas-police-headquarters-on) .
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 02, 2019, 06:59:51 PM
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.

Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.

Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.

The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.

I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.

The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.

It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.

I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.

This is how LHO must have handled the MC if he indeed left that palm print on the barrel:

(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_handprint_barrel.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 02, 2019, 10:06:33 PM
(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 02, 2019, 10:38:02 PM
(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)


Whatta Farce!!.... Jerry, you should be embarrassed......
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 03, 2019, 04:22:02 AM
I think you're confused....Mrs Bledsoe was a passenger on Mc Watter's bus....  She said that Lee was wearing a shirt with a hole in the elbow .  She said nothing about a jacket.

Well Oswald left the TSBD wearing his jacket or had to have been at least carrying it with him. McWatters described Oswald wearing a jacket. William Whaley described Oswald wearing a jacket. Unless the Oswald Bledsoe saw was one Oswald, while the one McWatters saw was some other person resembling Oswald
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 03, 2019, 03:01:28 PM
Well Oswald left the TSBD wearing his jacket or had to have been at least carrying it with him. McWatters described Oswald wearing a jacket. William Whaley described Oswald wearing a jacket. Unless the Oswald Bledsoe saw was one Oswald, while the one McWatters saw was some other person resembling Oswald

Mc Watters was thinking of another man, when he told the police that Lee Oswald was on his bus.

William Whaley said that the man was wearing a BLUE  uniform type jacket

Unless the Oswald Bledsoe saw was one Oswald, while the one McWatters saw was some other person resembling Oswald

Mc watters didn't see Lee Oswald....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 04, 2019, 08:00:45 PM
(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)

Jerry, this isn't even close to realistic.....  A picture of a shotgun with an exposed barrel?    Do you think you can fool anybody with that picture??

(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 04, 2019, 11:21:01 PM
Jerry, this isn't even close to realistic.....  A picture of a shotgun with an exposed barrel?    Do you think you can fool anybody with that picture??

(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)

Walt: "Why, I own umpteen Carcanos, and, by gum, never once
          has a hand of mine touched the barrel like that."

         "Another thing, that hand you showed has three fingers.
          Fake news!"
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 05, 2019, 03:12:47 PM
Walt: "Why, I own umpteen Carcanos, and, by gum, never once
          has a hand of mine touched the barrel like that."

         "Another thing, that hand you showed has three fingers.
          Fake news!"

(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 05, 2019, 04:05:43 PM
Mrs Bledsoe said that the shirt that Lee was wearing when she saw him on Mc Watter's bus had a large hole at the elbow.  This sighting was BEFORE he went to the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley, where he changed his clothes.  Photos taken of Lee in the police station show that the arrest shirt had no hole in the elbow.

And your support for this claim is a photo which doesn't actually show most of Oswald's elbow?  Good grief. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 05, 2019, 04:08:01 PM
Apparently you've never worn a shirt that had a hole worn at the elbow..... I can tell you. ( and I'm sure there are others) that when there is a hole in the sleeve at the elbow when the arm is bent as Lee's is in the photo, the elbow usually pops out of the hole.

Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:11908); Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3818/image-of-lee-harvey-oswald-at-dallas-police-headquarters-on) .

You have told us a whole lot of things that are not true.  In these photos you can't see much of the shirt in the area of the elbow.  There is no way to confirm from the photos that you have cited whether there is or is not a hole in the area of the elbow.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on November 05, 2019, 06:29:43 PM
Mr. BELIN - Is there anything else about his clothes that you can remember or his dress that you haven't talked about here?
Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I can't.
Mr. DULLES - Do you recall whether or not he was wearing the same clothes, did he appear to you the same when you saw him in the police station as when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. BAKER - Actually just looking at him, he looked like he didn't have the same thing on.
Mr. BELIN - He looked as though he did not have the same thing on?
Mr. BAKER - He looked like he did not have the same on.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on November 05, 2019, 06:53:05 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/WCReportchangedclothes.gif)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/WCReportchangedclothes2.gif)
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0323b.htm
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on November 05, 2019, 08:33:44 PM
You know, if we had access to the formal forensic fingerprint analysis that matched the palm print to Oswald, at the very least it would tell us if there was a rush to judgement.

If it showed a legit match then we can move on and debate how it got there, etc., but until such time, there is much wheel spinning to be had regarding the palm print.

As far as how the rifle ended up on the 6th floor goes...it was planted, of course, without any of Oswald's prints on it. That tells us that Oswald was a patsy that didn't handle the rifle, just like he claimed. Then everything fits and we can move on from the untenable lone nut narrative, which is the fringe opinion these days.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on November 05, 2019, 09:27:47 PM
You know, if we had access to the formal forensic fingerprint analysis that matched the palm print to Oswald, at the very least it would tell us if there was a rush to judgement.

If it showed a legit match then we can move on and debate how it got there, etc., but until such time, there is much wheel spinning to be had regarding the palm print.

As far as how the rifle ended up on the 6th floor goes...it was planted, of course, without any of Oswald's prints on it. That tells us that Oswald was a patsy that didn't handle the rifle, just like he claimed. Then everything fits and we can move on from the untenable lone nut narrative, which is the fringe opinion these days.

Oswald told his interrogators that he went to his room and changed his clothes before going to the movies.

Officer Marion Baker testified to the WC that Ozzie was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police station, after his arrest, then when he observed him in the TSBD.

LE said fibers recovered from the rifle tied it to the shirt he was wearing when arrested.

If LE had legible prints on the rifle from LHO they wouldn't have found fibers on it from a shirt he wasn't wearing at 12:30 on 11/22/63. JMHO
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 05, 2019, 09:45:10 PM
And your support for this claim is a photo which doesn't actually show most of Oswald's elbow?  Good grief.

Mr "Smith"....  Perhaps you should go back and take a refresher class on deception....

I've noticed that whenever a poster posts something vital, ( like the FACT that Lee's arrest shirt does NOT have a hole in the elbow)  You try your best to discredit that fact....   It's very obvious Mr "Smith".......
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 05, 2019, 10:25:33 PM
Oswald told his interrogators that he went to his room and changed his clothes before going to the movies.

Officer Marion Baker testified to the WC that Ozzie was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police station, after his arrest, then when he observed him in the TSBD.

LE said fibers recovered from the rifle tied it to the shirt he was wearing when arrested.

If LE had legible prints on the rifle from LHO they wouldn't have found fibers on it from a shirt he wasn't wearing at 12:30 on 11/22/63. JMHO

Walter E. Pots was one of the detectives who searched the room at 1026 N. Beckley..  He compiled a list of articles that he removed from Lee's room.  It is Potts exhibit A in Volume XXI page 140.    Potts describeted the shirt that he found in the drawer where Lee said he had put his dirty clothes.    Of particular interest..... Potts said that the brown shirt had a BUTTON DOWN collar.   And that's exactly what Lee Oswald said ....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 05, 2019, 10:34:55 PM
The brown shirt that Oswald took off at his boarding house was one of TWO brown shirts he had. The 2nd one, he put on, having same type of fiber and color as the 1st brown shirt, could NOT have been at TSBD during the shooting, so any test results from that 2nd shirt is of no value to prove the MC rifle was in Oswalds hands being fired at the TSBD on Nov 23/63

and a test of BOTH shirts producing SAME approximate characteristics might be something to consider, in regard that it would show that ANY shirt of same type could have been worn by someone else as much as by Oswald and fiber from THAT shooters shirt would ALSO match Oswalds shirts and could have been left on the MC rifle just the same.

Neither shirt as far as i am aware had any signs of gunpowder residue, neither from MC rifle nor the revolver. The jacket also, no gunpowder residue was stated found. Yet the paraffin test on Oswald's hand was positive.

Nowadays, the perspiration left in the shirts could be analyzed by DNA test and  linked to whomever wore the 1st shirt, but I guess that would not be possible 56 years later to conduct a DNA test of the 2 shirts Oswald supposedly wore that day of Nov 22/63?

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 05, 2019, 11:42:01 PM
Mr "Smith"....  Perhaps you should go back and take a refresher class on deception....

I've noticed that whenever a poster posts something vital, ( like the FACT that Lee's arrest shirt does NOT have a hole in the elbow)  You try your best to discredit that fact....   It's very obvious Mr "Smith".......

Some of us just aren't seeing how the two photos by themselves automatically "prove" there was no hole at the elbow.

(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/51586/preview)  (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/15807/preview)

The right shirt sleeve may be twisted such that the area of wear at the elbow is at the inner bent of the elbow rather than the outer bend, or at some other area of the shirt not in camera view.

It may very well be there is no hole in the elbow and that Oswald changed his shirt at the boarding house. It may be otherwise. I suppose it's important as "no hole" means the authorities created one. I wouldn't rule that out for a Southern police force.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/1096F/production/_108215976_06xp-galveston1-superjumbo.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 06, 2019, 01:39:46 AM
Some of us just aren't seeing how the two photos by themselves automatically "prove" there was no hole at the elbow.

(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/51586/preview)  (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/15807/preview)

The right shirt sleeve may be twisted such that the area of wear at the elbow is at the inner bent of the elbow rather than the outer bend, or at some other area of the shirt not in camera view.

It may very well be there is no hole in the elbow and that Oswald changed his shirt at the boarding house. It may be otherwise. I suppose it's important as "no hole" means the authorities created one. I wouldn't rule that out for a Southern police force.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/1096F/production/_108215976_06xp-galveston1-superjumbo.jpg)

It's a piece o cake to measure the distance from the cuff to the hole in the elbow of the shirt, In the evidence photo...and measure the distance from the cuff to Lee's elbow in the photos of Lee being lead through the police station.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on November 06, 2019, 02:19:31 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shirt.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shirt2.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 06, 2019, 02:54:34 AM
Apparently you've never worn a shirt that had a hole worn at the elbow..... I can tell you. ( and I'm sure there are others) that when there is a hole in the sleeve at the elbow when the arm is bent as Lee's is in the photo, the elbow usually pops out of the hole.

No, you're not comparing apples with apples, a hole in a shirt elbow is created when there is friction at the elbow which is usually when your elbows are resting on something, not when your arms are in the air. Doh!

In this arrest pic Oswald's arm is up and in addition the cuffs are restricting movement and dragging the shirt further down.
The red outline simulates the amount of shirt which would be seen when hanging naturally. Also note the amount of bunching in the area between the elbow and shoulder.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMBX9zy7/osw-ald-shirt-fist.jpg)

Here we see how a generic long sleeve shirt hangs at the wrist and as can be easily seen the above image shows the cuff way down Oswald's forearm.

(https://i.postimg.cc/N0WQ1x3z/long-sleave-shirt.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 06, 2019, 02:03:01 PM
No, you're not comparing apples with apples, a hole in a shirt elbow is created when there is friction at the elbow which is usually when your elbows are resting on something, not when your arms are in the air. Doh!

In this arrest pic Oswald's arm is up and in addition the cuffs are restricting movement and dragging the shirt further down.
The red outline simulates the amount of shirt which would be seen when hanging naturally. Also note the amount of bunching in the area between the elbow and shoulder.

(https://i.postimg.cc/QMBX9zy7/osw-ald-shirt-fist.jpg)

Here we see how a generic long sleeve shirt hangs at the wrist and as can be easily seen the above image shows the cuff way down Oswald's forearm.

(https://i.postimg.cc/N0WQ1x3z/long-sleave-shirt.jpg)

JohnM
Mr Mytton, I will not debate you....  You are totally dishonest, and  there is no point in debating a person who is totally dishonest.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gary Craig on November 06, 2019, 06:15:29 PM
https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-OSWCLOTHES
That looks like a hole in the right arm of the shirt. (inside the red circle)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shirt3.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 06, 2019, 06:42:08 PM
https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-OSWCLOTHES
That looks like a hole in the right arm of the shirt. (inside the red circle)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shirt3.jpg)

That looks like a hole in the right arm of the shirt.

Bledsoe did not mention the hole in her DPD affidavit.

She did however mention it in her testimony, but that was after they had shown her the actual shirt at her home.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 06, 2019, 08:32:49 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/78/aPtdz1E1_o.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 06, 2019, 09:06:47 PM
That looks like a hole in the right arm of the shirt.

Bledsoe did not mention the hole in her DPD affidavit.

She did however mention it in her testimony, but that was after they had shown her the actual shirt at her home.

Yes, there is a hole in the elbow of that shirt.....  However I don't believe that is the shirt that Lee was wearing when he was dragged from the theater.

I can't be certain but isn't that a scale at the bottom of the shirt?....   Is it in inches or centimeters?   It could be used to determine the distance from the cuff to the hole...   And If you know the width of the cuff it could be determined if that hole should appear in the photo of Lee being led through the police station with the sleeve stretched against his elbow.     
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 06, 2019, 09:22:27 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/78/aPtdz1E1_o.jpg)

That is NOT Lee Oswald......These photos were created after Lee was lynched.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 06, 2019, 09:55:00 PM
That is NOT Lee Oswald......These photos were created after Lee was lynched.....

Hahahahaha! What an idiot!

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn8QwgkK/oswald-shirt-comparison.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 06, 2019, 11:49:07 PM
Hahahahaha! What an idiot!

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn8QwgkK/oswald-shirt-comparison.jpg)

JohnM

Hahahahaha! What an idiot!  ROTFLMAO!...  watta dumbass!

Get your head out and open your eyes....The photo on the right definitely is NOT Lee Oswald.....  They used a impostor to create fake photos that were intended to fool suckers ( Like Mytton)  to confuse them into thinking that Lee was wearing the shirt with the hole in the elbow when he was arrested...
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn8QwgkK/oswald-shirt-comparison.jpg)

The reason for their deception.....The FBI was on record as saying that the tuft of fibers that had been found on the butt of the rifle came from the shirt the Lee was wearing  when he was arrested at the theater.    They didn't know ( because of the ineptness of the DPD) that  Lee had changed his shirt at 1:00 pm  before going to the Theater.   But once they were on record as saying the fibers matched the arrest shirt...they had hooked themselves on their own hook......
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 06, 2019, 11:57:11 PM
Hahahahaha! What an idiot!

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn8QwgkK/oswald-shirt-comparison.jpg)

JohnM

The recreation on the right shows no twisting of the right shirt sleeve at the elbow. So the cuff button and slit are on the lower outer side of the forearm. In the hallway, it seems both of Oswald's shirt sleeves were twisted such that the cuff was not where it normally was. Maybe from was being handled by police who put their hands on his arms just above the elbows.

Now watch Walt claim the fuzz worked in "Indian burns" between phone book poundings.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 06, 2019, 11:59:33 PM
The recreation on the right shows no twisting of the right shirt sleeve at the elbow. So the cuff button and slit are on the lower outer side of the forearm. In the hallway, it seems both of Oswald's shirt sleeves were twisted such that the cuff was not where it normally was. Maybe from was being handled by police who put their hands on his arms just above the elbows.

Now watch Walt claim the fuzz worked in "Indian burns" between phone book poundings.

The recreation on the right shows ....That the photo is a fake....That is NOT Lee Oswald....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 12:09:38 AM
The recreation on the right shows ....That the photo is a fake....That is NOT Lee Oswald....

Walt stop digging a deeper hole, no one claimed that the recreated photo was Oswald, I simply posted the image so you could see your error.
Jerry's original post showed Lee Harvey Oswald and you were mistaken, no big deal.

Walt, maybe a pair of these will be an advantage in the future?

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71SlBD9491L._UX522_.jpg)

Because with "rose coloured glasses" you're only fooling yourself.

(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.604151423.4632/ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u3.png)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on November 07, 2019, 12:13:46 AM
The recreation on the right shows ....That the photo is a fake....That is NOT Lee Oswald....

Fine. But you understand you originally said that about another photo. ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg66873.html#msg66873) ) ::)

You think a twitter-storm gets you off the hook like it does Trump?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 07, 2019, 12:15:18 AM
Walt stop digging a deeper hole, no one claimed that the recreated photo was Oswald, I simply posted the image so you could see your error.
Jerry's original post showed Lee Harvey Oswald and you were mistaken, no big deal.

Walt, maybe a pair of these will be an advantage in the future?

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71SlBD9491L._UX522_.jpg)

Because with "rose coloured glasses" you're only fooling yourself.

(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.604151423.4632/ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u3.png)

JohnM

My dear Mr Mytoon...You're an idiot.....   The FBI created fake photos to fool fools.... You have proved that they could fool fools....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 12:23:28 AM
The recreation on the right shows no twisting of the right shirt sleeve at the elbow. So the cuff button and slit are on the lower outer side of the forearm. In the hallway, it seems both of Oswald's shirt sleeves were twisted such that the cuff was not where it normally was. Maybe from was being handled by police who put their hands on his arms just above the elbows.

Now watch Walt claim the fuzz worked in "Indian burns" between phone book poundings.

Maybe Oswald being on the public stage was aware of the hole in the elbow and deliberately tried to hide it, I know I have done similar techniques to hide a flaw or two.

If you zoom in on the hole it's clearly not a fresh tear but a long worn out blackened dirty hole.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shirt.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 12:31:24 AM
My dear Mr Mytoon...You're an idiot.....   The FBI created fake photos to fool fools.... You have proved that they could fool fools....

Sorry Walt, but the following image is definitely Oswald and you were wrong.

(https://i.postimg.cc/4ykHMSR6/Walt-sanidiot.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 12:42:21 AM

The reason for their deception.....The FBI was on record as saying that the tuft of fibers that had been found on the butt of the rifle came from the shirt the Lee was wearing  when he was arrested at the theater.    They didn't know ( because of the ineptness of the DPD) that  Lee had changed his shirt at 1:00 pm  before going to the Theater.   But once they were on record as saying the fibers matched the arrest shirt...they had hooked themselves on their own hook......

Even if Oswald wasn't wearing that shirt on the morning of the 22nd it doesn't automatically disqualify him from touching the rifle with that shirt on some previous occasion.
The evidence is 3 fibers from Oswald's shirt were matched to three fiber on Oswald's rifle, btw fiber evidence is still used today.

(https://i.postimg.cc/26F2kcf6/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2019, 12:57:14 AM
For some strange reason, 溺ytton keeps forgetting to include this part:

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 01:06:26 AM
For some strange reason, 溺ytton keeps forgetting to include this part:

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

And for some even stranger reason you keep forgetting my refutation. Try again!

Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2019, 01:29:03 AM
That痴 not even a valid link. But it痴 you who needs to try again. We池e talking about only 3 fibers here.

And if there痴 any doubt that the FBI was only looking for things that could be connected to Oswald :

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I can think of nothing else.
Mr. DULLES. And you found no other pieces of fabric or other foreign material on the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Nothing that I could associate with either the blanket or the shirt. I found----
Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.

And what was he going to say he found before Dulles cut him off?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 01:44:35 AM
That痴 not even a valid link. But it痴 you who needs to try again. We池e talking about only 3 fibers here.

And if there痴 any doubt that the FBI was only looking for things that could be connected to Oswald :

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I can think of nothing else.
Mr. DULLES. And you found no other pieces of fabric or other foreign material on the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Nothing that I could associate with either the blanket or the shirt. I found----
Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.

And what was he going to say he found before Dulles cut him off?

Quote
only 3 fibers

Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?
You have literally thrown everybody in this case who provides evidence against Oswald under a bus and when the physical evidence disagrees you allude to that being faked or not reliable or something equally stupid.
Btw Iacoletti when are you going to solve this case because devoting your life to proving Oswald's innocence is meaningless in a Forum which doesn't have Oswald's name in the title. Doh!

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 07, 2019, 01:54:08 AM

Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?
You have literally thrown everybody in this case who provides evidence against Oswald under a bus and when the physical evidence disagrees you allude to that being faked or not reliable or something equally stupid.
Btw Iacoletti when are you going to solve this case because devoting your life to proving Oswald's innocence is meaningless in a Forum which doesn't have Oswald's name in the title. Doh!

JohnM

Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?

There it is again... when a LN gets stuck, he attacks the other guy. It's truly pathetic; "See it the way I do, or you are trying to free a double murderer"! Btw, wait for Mytton's denial that he got stuck... 3,2,1. Go!

You have literally thrown everybody in this case who provides evidence against Oswald under a bus

and the attack continues.... questioning the authenticity or validity of evidence equals to throwing somebody under a bus.... Typical LN dramatics!

and when the physical evidence disagrees you allude to that being faked or not reliable or something equally stupid.

Physical evidence being not reliable can be a real issue for reasonable people.... For an LN, not so much!

Btw Iacoletti when are you going to solve this case because devoting your life to proving Oswald's innocence is meaningless in a Forum which doesn't have Oswald's name in the title. Doh!

More Mytton crap. To question the evidence and the WC bible is to a fanatic like Mytton the same as trying to prove Oswald's innocence.  :D

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Alan Ford on November 07, 2019, 02:14:40 AM
Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?
You have literally thrown everybody in this case who provides evidence against Oswald under a bus and when the physical evidence disagrees you allude to that being faked or not reliable or something equally stupid.
Btw Iacoletti when are you going to solve this case because devoting your life to proving Oswald's innocence is meaningless in a Forum which doesn't have Oswald's name in the title. Doh!

JohnM

 :D

Once again, Mr Iacoletti gets under Mr Mytton's skin. Fun to watch!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 02:22:27 AM
:D

Once again, Mr Iacoletti gets under Mr Mytton's skin. Fun to watch!

Hardly, I have been giving everyone the same treatment since day 1, but since making ludicrous accusations is your trademark don't let me stop you.

Btw I see Weidmann responded to me but too bad I don't read his crap.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on November 07, 2019, 02:27:17 AM
   I see Weidmann responded to me but too bad I don't read his crap.
Spanks you pretty hard does he? :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 07, 2019, 02:36:21 AM
Spanks you pretty hard does he? :D

He doesn't know... he doesn't read my posts, just sees them and knows when I respond to him.... It's hilarious  :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 02:36:38 AM
Spanks you pretty hard does he? :D

No, I said his words are crap, can't you read?

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 07, 2019, 02:38:40 AM
No, I said his words are crap, can't you read?

JohnM

How do you know they are crap, when you don't read them? You are not making any sense...... as usual!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Mytton on November 07, 2019, 02:40:56 AM
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on and even then you are reduced to worthless ad-homs.

JohnM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 07, 2019, 02:51:50 AM
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on and even then you are reduced to worthless ad-homs.

JohnM

Oh boy, now Johnny is really stuck with no way out..... paranoid as he is, he's seeing a "gang up" where there is none.

Unless of course one person, whose posts he doesn't read, can be considered a "gang"....

This is so funny.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 07, 2019, 04:29:24 AM
Hardly, I have been giving everyone the same treatment since day 1, but since making ludicrous accusations is your trademark don't let me stop you.

Btw I see Weidmann responded to me but too bad I don't read his crap.

JohnM

I give you credit for really disrupting the Prayerblob=Oswald theory  :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2019, 01:32:07 PM
Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?

What痴 unbelievable is how you glom on to 3 fibers which can稚 be uniquely connected to any particular shirt as evidence of somebody shooting somebody else. But then you think a ring in a cup is evidence of murder too.

Anything to try to prop up a losing case.

But the fact that you think a person needs to be proven innocent shows once again how ignorant you are about the law.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on November 07, 2019, 02:24:03 PM
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on and even then you are reduced to worthless ad-homs.

JohnM

Simply because we all agree that you're totally dishonest and a waste of time ....does not mean that anybody is  "ganging up" on you.   You're a despicable wretch Mytton, and we all know it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on November 07, 2019, 03:03:03 PM
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on.... 
John Mytton--- Voted by his class... 'Most likely to become an internet troll.'
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on November 07, 2019, 06:43:07 PM
 John Mytton is here to separate out the plausible  CT theories from the REALLY LUNATIC CT theories :)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on January 02, 2020, 03:10:20 AM
It痴 the defective scope on this rifle which suggests a hasty post event plant of the rifle

Wietzman may have had suspicion the rifle was planted between the boxes as he was looking underneath
a palette of boxes. Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life and it痴 doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 04:52:59 PM
It痴 the defective scope on this rifle which suggests a hasty post event plant of the rifle

Wietzman may have had suspicion the rifle was planted between the boxes as he was looking underneath
a palette of boxes. Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life and it痴 doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser

Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life

Can this be verified?....   I've heard that Seymour Weitzman's life changed after he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor, 25 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Afterward he was depressed and under the care (watchful eye)of a psychiatrist.

it痴 doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser 

Yes, I agree....  I believe that Weitzman like several other witnesses KNEW beyond a shadow of doubt that Lee Oswald was not the assassin, and he knew that there was a giant cover up being perpetrated at the highest levels of the US government....  And this knowledge would be very depressing for anybody with any sense of right and wrong.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 05:02:04 PM
Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life

Can this be verified?....   I've heard that Seymour Weitzman's life changed after he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor, 25 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Afterward he was depressed and under the care (watchful eye)of a psychiatrist.

it痴 doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser 

Yes, I agree....  I believe that Weitzman like several other witnesses KNEW beyond a shadow of doubt that Lee Oswald was not the assassin, and he knew that there was a giant cover up being perpetrated at the highest levels of the US government....  And this knowledge would be very depressing for anybody with any sense of right and wrong.

Walter,

Do you agree with Donald Trump that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA, FBI and Ukraine-controlled "Deep State"?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 05:16:58 PM
Walter,

Do you agree with Donald Trump that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA, FBI and Ukraine-controlled "Deep State"?

--  MWT  ;)

Pssst Tommy...This forum is not about Donald Trump.....  It's called... JFK Assassination Forum.....  Now stop smoking that stuff, and try to focus on the subject.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 05:31:11 PM
Pssst Tommy...This forum is not about Donald Trump.....  It's called... JFK Assassination Forum.....  Now stop smoking that stuff, and try to focus on the subject.

Walter, Walter Walter.

Don't you think the assassination of JFK by self-avowed Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald (either by him widdle self or with help from Khruschev and/or Castro) gave rise to oodles and gobs of anti-FBI, anti-CIA tinfoil hat conspiracy theories over the years that dumbed-down our body politic and paved the way for KGB-boy Vladimir Putin's installing his number one "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 05:31:33 PM
It痴 the defective scope on this rifle which suggests a hasty post event plant of the rifle

Wietzman may have had suspicion the rifle was planted between the boxes as he was looking underneath
a palette of boxes. Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life and it痴 doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser

It痴 the defective scope on this rifle which suggests a hasty post event plant of the rifle

Mr Mason, Please take some time and research the discovery of the rifle.....    I'm certain that if you study just this small aspect of the case you'll discover that the rifle was NOT found jammed behind some boxes about 13 feet from the north wall as the DPD in situ photos depict.   I'm positive that you'll find that the rifle was lying on it's side, with the muzzle pointing east beneath the north edge of a wooden pallet .  Detective Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle and recorded that distance as 15 feet 4 inches....   or about two and a half feet south of the place depicted in the DPD in situ photos.   

They were forced to create the phony in situ photos because they realized the no human being could have reached across the span and placed the rifle on the floor beneath a stack of boxes about four feet high.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 05:35:08 PM
Walter, Walter Walter.

Don't you think the assassination of JFK by self-avowed Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald (either by him widdle self or with help from Khruschev and/or Castro) gave rise to oodles and gobs of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories over the years that dumbed-down our body politic and paved the way for KGB-boy Vladimir Putin's installing his number one "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)

If you're mind isn't messed up from drugs.....and you may start thinking clear if you stop using, ...then I'd suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 05:40:10 PM
If you're mind isn't messed up from drugs.....and you may start thinking clear if you stop using, ...then I'd suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help.

Walter,

*your

** clearly

(W