JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination 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’s 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.


————————————————-

Jack Ruby does not post on this forum.



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

—————————————————

Well, it kind of does, since he never had a chance to defend himself. His defense may have been that he didn’t 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.

—————————————————-

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’t? 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’t?

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’s 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’s 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’t investigate.

After a radio report that the Dallas police, in a court filing, had somehow implicated the Soviets in Oswald’s crimes. And a related call from LBJ aide Cliff Carter in Washington. The DA headed to for police headquarters “to 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’t investigate.

After a radio report that the Dallas police, in a court filing, had somehow implicated the Soviets in Oswald’s crimes. And a related call from LBJ aide Cliff Carter in Washington. The DA headed to for police headquarters “to 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:

“Therefore, 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:

“Therefore, 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’re 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’re 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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 “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - “They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s].”

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 “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - “They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s].”

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’s activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads “The 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’s]. But I don’t 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’s activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads “The 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’s]. But I don’t 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’t.
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’t.

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’t.
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’t? 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’t.

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’t? 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’re exactly right. And something you’ve probably thought of but didn’t 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’t 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’t 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’re exactly right. And something you’ve probably thought of but didn’t 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’t 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’t 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’s 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’s 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’re 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’re 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’s see, you’re done but then you’re 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’s see, you’re done but then you’re 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’t 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’t 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’t 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’t 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’t 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’t 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’s unreasonable.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s 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’t 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’s unreasonable.

I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s 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’t 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 “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s 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’t 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 “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s 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’t 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’s book include the word “tentative.” Therefore your claim (as usual) makes no sense. And the newspaper article includes the words “little 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’t know if that’s 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’t know if that’s 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’re probably right about the scapegoat. He didn’t 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’re probably right about the scapegoat. He didn’t 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’s 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’s 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’re 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 it…that 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 it…that 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 Dowdy…don‟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 Dowdy…don‟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.152–154; 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’s unreasonable.

Everybody thinks that his own opinion is the "reasonable" one.

Quote
I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s 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° 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: 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—without cutting into the wrist—picking 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—without cutting into the wrist—picking 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’s 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’s best man was the employer
of defector Robert E. Webster. Both Casey and Shaheen died suddenly and left Gates holding “the 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 spombleprofglidnoctobuns
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: 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 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: 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, 11:58:59 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’t
have no lights. It wasn’t 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 ‘ole hand lights—they sent them across the street from the
sheriff’s office—we was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that’s when we seen the butt of the rifle. So, one of Will
Fritz’s 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’t
have no lights. It wasn’t 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 ‘ole hand lights—they sent them across the street from the
sheriff’s office—we was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that’s when we seen the butt of the rifle. So, one of Will
Fritz’s 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 ‘ole hand lights—they sent them across the street from the
sheriff’s office—we was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that’s 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’s 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.

“Oswald’s rifle”. LOL.

Strangely enough, you forgot to include this part of Stombaugh’s 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’s.

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, “Mytton” 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, “Mytton” 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’s not even a valid link. But it’s you who needs to try again. We’re talking about only 3 fibers here.

And if there’s 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’s not even a valid link. But it’s you who needs to try again. We’re talking about only 3 fibers here.

And if there’s 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’s unbelievable is how you glom on to 3 fibers which can’t 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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’s doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser

It’s 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

(What are you smoking?)

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 05:44:11 PM
*your

** clearly

--  MWT  ;)

Yes, I made a mistake....I should have written "your" .....    Thank you, Mr Perfect.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 06:31:50 PM
Yes, I made a mistake....I should have written "your" .....    Thank you, Mr Perfect.

"Walt",

You're so "high," you made two mistakes (spelling and then grammar) and don't even realize it.

Must be some pretty strong stuff!

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Perhaps you should start seeing a psychiatrist, but remember to take off your tinfoil hat before you go.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 07:29:13 PM
"Walt",

You're so "high," you made two mistakes (spelling and then grammar) and don't even realize it.

Must be some pretty strong stuff!

--  MWT  ;)

PS  Perhaps you should start seeing a psychiatrist, but remember to take off your tinfoil hat before you go.

Even if my spelling and grammar aren't perfect, I know the facts of this case and I don't need to try to derail the issue, as you often do.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 07:41:38 PM
Even if my spelling and grammar aren't perfect, I know the facts of this case and I don't need to try to derail the issue, as you often do.

"Walt",

Fine.

But can you explain to me why the Warren Commission Report said nothing about Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, and why Yuri Nosenko claimed, a few weeks after the assassination, that not only had he personally handled Oswald's KGB file four times before and after the assassination, but that he "therefore" knew for a fact that the KGB hadn't even interviewed the former Marine Corps radar operator during the two and one-half years he lived in the USSR, and, last but not least, why John L. Hart lied his head off about Nosenko to the HSCA?

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 08:12:48 PM
"Walt",

Fine.

But can you explain to me why the Warren Commission Report said nothing about Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, and why Yuri Nosenko claimed, a few weeks after the assassination, that not only had he personally handled Oswald's KGB file four times before and after the assassination, but that he "therefore" knew for a fact that the KGB hadn't even interviewed the former Marine Corps radar operator during the two and one-half years he lived in the USSR, and, last but not least, why John L. Hart lied his head off about Nosenko to the HSCA?

--  MWT  ;)

can you explain to me why the Warren Commission Report said nothing about Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City

In a hut shell.... The answer is :.... Because Godfather Hoover did not want the Mexico City fiasco to surface.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 08:38:02 PM
can you explain to me why the Warren Commission Report said nothing about Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City

In a nut shell.... The answer is :.... Because Godfather Hoover did not want the Mexico City fiasco to surface.

"Walt",

Bingo!

And why was that?

Answer:  Because the Ruskies, with the help of probable triple-agents Guenther Schulz in Oklahoma and Ivan Obyedkov at the Mexico City Soviet embassy (and Duran's and Azcue's "Blond Oswald" -- KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov), et al., had planted a WW III "virus" in Olwald's CIA file.

--  MWT  ;)

PS  It's not "Godfather" Hoover, but "overly territorial, vindictive, gullible, wishful-thinking, in-denial of at least two ("Fedora" and "Top Hat") KGB penetrations of his very own FBI" Hoover, comrade.

D'oh
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on January 02, 2020, 08:54:23 PM
"Walt",

Bingo!

And why was that?

Answer:  Because the Ruskies, with the help of probable triple-agents Guenther Schulz in Oklahoma and Ivan Obyedkov at the Mexico City Soviet embassy (and Duran's and Azcue's "Blond Oswald" -- KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov), et al., had planted a WW III "virus" in Olwald's CIA file.

--  MWT  ;)

PS  It's not "Godfather" Hoover, but "overly territorial, vindictive, gullible, wishful-thinking, in-denial of at least two ("Fedora" and "Top Hat") KGB penetrations of his very own FBI" Hoover, comrade.

D'oh

Hoover was insane....  Power corrupts.....  Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.    Hoover was mad with power....He had his own small band of loyal agents who answered only to Hoover, and they would jump like puppets on a string at anything Hoover suggested.   They had sent Lee to MC to try to obtain a visa to Cuba. They wanted to tie Lee Oswald to Castro so that after they murdered JFK they could blame Castro and attack Cuba.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on January 02, 2020, 09:30:21 PM
Hoover was insane....  Power corrupts.....  Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.    Hoover was mad with power....He had his own small band of loyal agents who answered only to Hoover, and they would jump like puppets on a string at anything Hoover suggested.   They had sent Lee to MC to try to obtain a visa to Cuba. They wanted to tie Lee Oswald to Castro so that after they murdered JFK they could blame Castro and attack Cuba.

"Walt",

You didn't know that Hoover distrusted true-defector Anatoliy Golitsyn (because Golitsyn supposedly led CIA and FBI on a wild goose chase for "moles") and that he was duped by KGB triple-agent Aleksei Kulak (FBI's beloved FEDORA) for fifteen years, and by GRU triple-agent Dimitri Polyakov (FBI's TOP HAT) for as long as the KGB had Polyakov stationed at the UN on his second posting there?

Ya think they may have influenced him to distrust true-defector Golitsyn and to trust false-defector Yuri "The KGB Didn't Even Interview Oswald in the USSR!" Nosenko?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on January 05, 2020, 03:13:06 AM
  They had sent Lee to MC to try to obtain a visa to Cuba. They wanted to tie Lee Oswald to Castro so that after they murdered JFK they could blame Castro and attack Cuba.
Back to Mexico past...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1599.msg73330.html#new
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on January 17, 2020, 04:59:12 AM
The blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of conspirators stealing rifle as quickly as possible after entering the Paines garage in the early 2 am hour on Nov 22/63

And why the blanket was left instead of being taken with the rifle

The rifle was found fully assembled with the scope attached so the conspirator shooter decided not to remove it after test firing at some targets and finding the scope unreliable with a tendency to drift and being misaligned

It was decided not to replace the defective scope with some other scope since this rifle was a mail ordered rifle with possible record of the serial no.

there were only a few hours available to practice with the rifle just using iron sights and probably only at ground level

The 2 conspirator gunman probably stealth entered TSBD not later than 4am

They hid themselves on the 7th floor possibly in attic space until approx 12:15 pm when one of them was seen at.the SW window 6th floor by Arnold Rowland


The gunman using the MC rifle probably used latex gloves of flesh color that were not discernible from any of the eyewitness who may have seen this gunman briefly

It’s possible this gunman had also some kind of special mask just in case some photograph might capture that window at time of shots

They decided it was too risky to attempt using an Oswald mask which if captured by photo might not fool expert examiners later

Gunman no. 2 used a 30.06 rifle and got the 3rd shot “one shot kill” this no shell ejected at the SW window

This gunman escaped by running to the west elevator in 10 secs and 30 sec later arrived to ground floor where he exited and then thru the west side door from loading dock roofed annex bldg as early as 50 sec post shots

Gunman no. 2  could have dropped his rifle out a west side window on 6th floor as early as 5 sec post shots where it fell 72 ft in approx 3 sec. That rifle then pickec up by accomplice waiting below with car who drove away with it as early as 15 sec post shots

Gunman no.1 shot 2 shots with Oswalds MC rifle the 1st got hitting JFK and then Gov Connally at Z223

The 2nd shot fired approx 3.5 seconds later went high and struck curb near James Teague

3rd shot was then fired by Gunman no 2 about 1 sec later at Z313 which why majority of earwitness heard last 2 shots close together , “back to back”

Gunman no 1. returned the elevator by push button used by Gunman 2 to the 5th floor by 70 sec post shots or it was sent back up by no.2 after he exited it on the ground floor

Gunman no 1 then used elevator (not Dougherty) after putting Oswalds rifle near staircase to suggest flight by stairs and Gunman no. 1 was also able to escape via west side door thru the annexed roofed part of loading dock bldg
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 08, 2020, 12:35:49 AM
When you see Weitzman interviewed recorded on video , he looks like a man who is reluctantly supporting the WC conclusion that his ID of the rifle as a Mauser was simply a mistake

IMO, Wietzman never REALLY accepted he was mistaken. He never amended his original affidavit description of “Mauser” which is odd since by about 8pm Nov 22/63 just about the whole world had heard and/or seen on TV, Lt.Day holding the MC rifle up in the air and announcing it was a rifle “made in Italy”

Therefore, it’s not that implausible the rifle Weizman and Boone saw BEFORE the wall of boxes were “destacked in from the original twin wall configuration may have been a Mauser that was then switched for a MC rifle that would enable an easier fake paper trail to be established due to the MC manufactures having had sloppy records and possible duplicate serial  numbering
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 08, 2020, 01:10:58 AM
The blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of conspirators stealing rifle as quickly as possible after entering the Paines garage in the early 2 am hour on Nov 22/63

And why the blanket was left instead of being taken with the rifle

The rifle was found fully assembled with the scope attached so the conspirator shooter decided not to remove it after test firing at some targets and finding the scope unreliable with a tendency to drift and being misaligned

It was decided not to replace the defective scope with some other scope since this rifle was a mail ordered rifle with possible record of the serial no.

there were only a few hours available to practice with the rifle just using iron sights and probably only at ground level

The 2 conspirator gunman probably stealth entered TSBD not later than 4am

They hid themselves on the 7th floor possibly in attic space until approx 12:15 pm when one of them was seen at.the SW window 6th floor by Arnold Rowland


The gunman using the MC rifle probably used latex gloves of flesh color that were not discernible from any of the eyewitness who may have seen this gunman briefly

It’s possible this gunman had also some kind of special mask just in case some photograph might capture that window at time of shots

They decided it was too risky to attempt using an Oswald mask which if captured by photo might not fool expert examiners later

Gunman no. 2 used a 30.06 rifle and got the 3rd shot “one shot kill” this no shell ejected at the SW window

This gunman escaped by running to the west elevator in 10 secs and 30 sec later arrived to ground floor where he exited and then thru the west side door from loading dock roofed annex bldg as early as 50 sec post shots

Gunman no. 2  could have dropped his rifle out a west side window on 6th floor as early as 5 sec post shots where it fell 72 ft in approx 3 sec. That rifle then pickec up by accomplice waiting below with car who drove away with it as early as 15 sec post shots

Gunman no.1 shot 2 shots with Oswalds MC rifle the 1st got hitting JFK and then Gov Connally at Z223

The 2nd shot fired approx 3.5 seconds later went high and struck curb near James Teague

3rd shot was then fired by Gunman no 2 about 1 sec later at Z313 which why majority of earwitness heard last 2 shots close together , “back to back”

Gunman no 1. returned the elevator by push button used by Gunman 2 to the 5th floor by 70 sec post shots or it was sent back up by no.2 after he exited it on the ground floor

Gunman no 1 then used elevator (not Dougherty) after putting Oswalds rifle near staircase to suggest flight by stairs and Gunman no. 1 was also able to escape via west side door thru the annexed roofed part of loading dock bldg

"The blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of conspirators stealing rifle as quickly as possible after entering the Paines garage in the early 2 am hour on Nov 22/63"

I think the  blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of the thief conspirator stealing rifle very carefully so that the it would appear to the casual glance that the rifle was still in that blanket.     Now,... WHO could have known the rifle was there in that blanket....Lee Oswald, Marina Oswald, Ruth Paine,and...  Mike Paine .....we can eliminate Lee Oswald...because if he had taken the rifle, he wouldn't have taken care to make it look like the rifle was still there, he would have simply taken the rifle and tossed the blanket with the rest of his belongings there in the garage..... We can also eliminate  Marina Oswald... she also wouldn't have carefully removed the rifle, and she had no way of transporting the rifle anywhere.....  Ruth Paine is also not likely....because she would probably have been afraid to touch the evil rifle.....But she's not totally eliminated.....  That leaves... Mike Paine....He is highly suspect....  He helped unload the station wagon when Ruth and Marina arrived from New Orleans....He probably is the one who removed the rifle from the car..... so he would have known what was in the blanket.  He wouldn't have wanted Lee to know the rifle was not in the blanket so he would carefully have removed it and left it looking as though the rifle was still there.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 08, 2020, 04:24:24 AM
"The blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of conspirators stealing rifle as quickly as possible after entering the Paines garage in the early 2 am hour on Nov 22/63"

I think the  blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of the thief conspirator stealing rifle very carefully so that the it would appear to the casual glance that the rifle was still in that blanket.     Now WHO could have known the rifle was there in that blanket....Lee Oswald, Marina, Oswald, Ruth Paine,and  Mike Paine .....we can eliminate Lee Oswald...because if he had taken the rifle, he wouldn't have taken care to make it look like the rifle was still there, he would have simply taken the rifle and tossed the blanket with the rest of his belongings there in the garage..... We can also eliminate  Marina Oswald... she also wouldn't have carefully removed the rifle, and she had no way of transporting the rifle anywhere.....  Ruth Paine is also not likely....because she would probably have been afraid to touch the evil rifle.....But she's not totally eliminated.....  That leaves... Mike Paine....He is highly suspect....  He helped unload the station wagon when Ruth and Marina arrived from New Orleans....He probably is the one who removed the rifle from the car..... so he would have known what was in the blanket.  He wouldn't have wanted Lee to know the rifle was not in the blanket so he would carefully have removed it and left it looking as though the rifle was still there.

Well if the rifle had been removed as early as Oct /63 as per Mrs Paine possibly remembering seen the blanket as flatter in appearance than the rifle in blanket presented to her during her WC testimony

Then it could be the rifle was already in the custody of the FBI or the CIA courtesy of MrPaine

Purpose?

A contingency plan in case the unthinkable plot might occur by some of their own  CIA element? Blame the defector nut as well as Communist ideology

Yet since The “nut might actually have been an asset for them for their defector scheme to infiltrate USSR

They preplant this MC rifle with misaligned scope at least give their soldier a possible chance to be acquiited by reasonable doubt

The shooting of the patsy later was therefore an unexpected event by mafia Jack Ruby for reason the patsy also was liability having been used them as well as a  “mule” hence the package being cocaine or heroin
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 08, 2020, 10:15:20 PM
Well if the rifle had been removed as early as Oct /63 as per Mrs Paine possibly remembering seen the blanket as flatter in appearance than the rifle in blanket presented to her during her WC testimony

Then it could be the rifle was already in the custody of the FBI or the CIA courtesy of MrPaine

Purpose?

A contingency plan in case the unthinkable plot might occur by some of their own  CIA element? Blame the defector nut as well as Communist ideology

Yet since The “nut might actually have been an asset for them for their defector scheme to infiltrate USSR

They preplant this MC rifle with misaligned scope at least give their soldier a possible chance to be acquiited by reasonable doubt

The shooting of the patsy later was therefore an unexpected event by mafia Jack Ruby for reason the patsy also was liability having been used them as well as a  “mule” hence the package being cocaine or heroin

Lee Oswald unknowingly screwed up the conspirators plot by not being on the sixth floor as they had planned.....If he had been on the sixth floor he would have been shot dead by an "alert cop" who would then have been hailed as a hero for catching the assassin so quickly.     But Lee wasn't on the sixth floor where the incriminating evidence had been planted....He was on the first floor. and far away from the planted evidence, so there was no way to link him to the rifle or the shells, so even if the "alert cop" had seen Lee on the first floor he couldn't have murdered him.

The fact that Lee was on the first floor at the time that JFK"s motorcade passed by the TSBD really screwed up the plot. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 09, 2020, 08:42:52 PM
Well if the rifle had been removed as early as Oct /63 as per Mrs Paine possibly remembering seen the blanket as flatter in appearance than the rifle in blanket presented to her during her WC testimony
Quote
Mr. JENNER - Is it fair to say it is your best recollection at the moment that the zipper bag you have described earlier, you described yesterday, was not placed in the station wagon, and did not return with you to Irving?
Mrs. PAINE - I do not recall it being in the station wagon.
Mr. JENNER - Now, was there a separate long package of any kind?
Mrs. PAINE - I do not recall such a package.
Mr. JENNER - Was there a separate package of any character wrapped in a blanket?
Mrs. PAINE - No. There was a basket such as you use for hanging your clothes. It carried exactly that, clothes and diapers, and they weren't as neat as being in suitcases and duffels would imply. There was leftovers stuffed in the corner, clothes and things, but rather open.
Mr. JENNER - So you saw no long rectangular package of any kind or character loaded in or placed in your station wagon?
Mrs. PAINE - No, it doesn't mean it wasn't there, but I saw nothing of that nature.
Mr. JENNER - You saw nothing?
Mrs. PAINE - I saw nothing.
 
Sargent Ruthie
 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 09, 2020, 08:58:46 PM
Someone [a Commissioner maybe] just might have nudged Ruth...
Quote
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any kind of a package wrapped in the blanket?
Mrs. PAINE - Not to my recollection.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any package
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall seeing the blanket either.
Mr. JENNER - On that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - On that occasion, not until later.
Mr. JENNER - Not until later.
Representative FORD - Did you see the blanket in New Orleans?
Mrs. PAINE - On the bed or something. I am asking myself. I don't recall it specifically.
"I don't recall it specifically"  Can anyone else see what went on there?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 09, 2020, 09:10:24 PM
Someone [a Commissioner maybe] just might have nudged Ruth... "I don't recall it specifically"  Can anyone else see what went on there?

No. But I'm sure you do.  ::)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 09, 2020, 10:03:22 PM
No. But I'm sure you do.     
You need to find some safe & effective relief for your constipation.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 10, 2020, 02:33:47 PM
They wanted so badly for Ruth to have seen a package.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 15, 2020, 03:10:07 AM
If this MC rifle was planted before the fact then the conspirators must not have realized that west side of the floor was being laid with new plywood necessitating having to move boxes

Seems like a risky place to pre hide the rifle near the stairs

However, if rifle was hastily planted after the fact , near the stairwell would be quickest place  sliding under the pallettes

Maybe Weitzman observed or at least realized the rifle was moved from UNDER a palette to its new position In a gap between 2 parallel rows of boxes

Perhaps Weitzman even witnessed a hand sliding a rifle thru the space of the pallet In coincidence with Boone shining a light

At the very least, Weitzman may have witnessed the destacking of the wall of boxes in order to photograph a rifle no longer laying “flat” and within the frame of a wooden palette

Instead, now the rifle was in vertical position up against a wall of boxes with NO wooden palette underneath the boxes



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 15, 2020, 07:24:08 AM
Can I change the topic to..How did Oswald's ALLEGED rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2020, 07:42:58 PM
If this MC rifle was planted before the fact then the conspirators must not have realized that west side of the floor was being laid with new plywood necessitating having to move boxes

Seems like a risky place to pre hide the rifle near the stairs

However, if rifle was hastily planted after the fact , near the stairwell would be quickest place  sliding under the pallettes

Maybe Weitzman observed or at least realized the rifle was moved from UNDER a palette to its new position In a gap between 2 parallel rows of boxes

Perhaps Weitzman even witnessed a hand sliding a rifle thru the space of the pallet In coincidence with Boone shining a light

At the very least, Weitzman may have witnessed the destacking of the wall of boxes in order to photograph a rifle no longer laying “flat” and within the frame of a wooden palette

Instead, now the rifle was in vertical position up against a wall of boxes with NO wooden palette underneath the boxes

Seems like a risky place to pre hide the rifle near the stairs

Au contrair, monsieur ....  The LOGICAL place to hide the rifle was along a logical escape route.....That's where the police would look for a discarded weapon. And in fact the police DID search along the escape route several times before Boone and Weitzman discovered the well hidden rifle, beneath the pallet.  Had the rifle been in the location depicted in the official in situ photos it would have been discovered earlier.  They simply didn't anticipate Lee being in the 2nd floor lunchroom, when the plot called for him to be on the sixth floor.  When a DPD officer (Baker) saw Lee in the lunchroom about 90 seconds after the shooting they realized that the fact that the rifle was over five feet away from the escape route ( and buried beneath the pallet of book boxes) was an absolute rebuttal of their tale that Lee had ran by and dropped the rifle into the crack between boxes.   Baker's encounter with Oswald in the lunchroom really put the screws to their plot. 

However, if rifle was hastily planted after the fact , near the stairwell would be quickest place  sliding under the pallettes

Please present a realistic  estimate of the time necessary to hide the rifle beneath the pallet .....after moving the boxes of books, and then placing the rifle on the floor beneath the pallet and then stacking the boxes of books back over and around the rifle .
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 15, 2020, 08:17:56 PM
Ok Walt, you got a point there depending what kind of wooden palette

I was envisioning a palette that’s got about 4” space made from 2x4 s thru witch a rifle could be placed regardless how many boxes stacked on the upper platform

Do you have a photo of what type wooden palette was there on the 6th floor TBDS?

if it’s just  1x4 overlapping board type then. I’m in agreement that it would be difficult to quickly wedge rifle all the way underneath and probably would require removing boxes to lighten the load to do so
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 15, 2020, 08:28:08 PM
A glitch in the timeline....
Quote
January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.
 Should be [if it indeed happened] 1963
 March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right wing activist.
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons   
Notice the remarkable 'coincidence' that the pistol [supposedly ordered two months before the rifle was] was shipped and then claimed on respectively the very same day as the rifle.
What are the chances of this?
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 15, 2020, 08:38:10 PM
A glitch in the timeline....Notice the remarkable 'coincidence' that the pistol [supposedly ordered two months before the rifle was] was shipped and then claimed on respectively the very same day as the rifle.
What are the chances of this?
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?

The revolver was not ordered two months before the rifle was.  Jan 27, 1963 was the date that Oswald filled out the coupon, not the date that he mailed it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2020, 08:47:29 PM
A glitch in the timeline....Notice the remarkable 'coincidence' that the pistol [supposedly ordered two months before the rifle was] was shipped and then claimed on respectively the very same day as the rifle.
What are the chances of this?
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?

When seen in the "blue notebook " dossier that Lee created along with the BY photo and maps of the area near Walker's house the photo would serve to convince any viewer that Lee had been stalking Walker and planning to ambush him .   And that was the crux of the plot.... The bullet hole in Walker's window was intended to be mute evidence that someone had tried to kill Walker ( a very vocal foe of Fidel Castro)    Lee had created the false dossier with the idea that the police would trace the rifle ( which he had left for the police to find)   reminds one of the TSBD sixth floor !    Lee had planned to be a "fugitive" and on his way to Cuba when the police discovered the blue note book with the BY photo (CE 133A) and the photo of Walker's house in it.   

The plot never blossomed because the police didn't fall for the nonsense that Walker spewed......
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2020, 09:22:29 PM
Ok Walt, you got a point there depending what kind of wooden palette

I was envisioning a palette that’s got about 4” space made from 2x4 s thru witch a rifle could be placed regardless how many boxes stacked on the upper platform

Do you have a photo of what type wooden palette was there on the 6th floor TBDS?

if it’s just  1x4 overlapping board type then. I’m in agreement that it would be difficult to quickly wedge rifle all the way underneath and probably would require removing boxes to lighten the load to do so

Ok Walt, you got a point there

Thank you, Z....    But I hope you aren't simply taking my word....Have you seen Detective Studebaker's map of the sixth floor?    Studebaker measured the distance from the North Wall to the rifle on the floor, and recorded that distance as 15 feet 4 inches.   Since the aisle at the top of the stairs, that Lee would have had to pass through was approximately 10 feet from the north wall, he would have had to have reached across five feet and down four feet to place the eight pound rifle beneath the stack of boxes of books.    DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE???
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 15, 2020, 10:12:46 PM
Ok Walt, you got a point there

Thank you, Z....    But I hope you aren't simply taking my word....Have you see Detective Studebaker's map of the sixth floor?    Studebaker measured the distance from the North Wall to the rifle on the floor, and recorded that distance as 15 feet 4 inches.   Since the aisle at the top of the stairs, that Lee would have had to pass through was approximately 10 feet from the north wall, he would have had to have reached across five feet and down four feet to place the eight pound rifle beneath the stack of boxes of books.    DO YOU BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE???

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338942/m1/1/high_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Map showing steps started about 10' 6" from North wall. First row of boxes begin about 14' 3" from steps.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340211/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Note first row of boxes southward from steps. South is towards viewer.
Boxes in foreground at greater height were on a wood pallet.
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Rifle located immediately south of first row of boxes southward from steps.
Simple matter to reach over that row of boxes to place rifle on floor.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 15, 2020, 10:46:41 PM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338942/m1/1/high_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Map showing steps started about 10' 6" from North wall. First row of boxes begin about 14' 3" from steps.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340211/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Note first row of boxes southward from steps. South is towards viewer.
Boxes in foreground at greater height were on a wood pallet.
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Rifle located immediately south of first row of boxes southward from steps.
Simple matter to reach over that row of boxes to place rifle on floor.

Looking at the map in GIMP, the center of the aisle that Lee would have had to pass through was about four feet from where the rifle was found. If Oswald was reaching when he placed the rifle, the distance would have been less than that. It don't know what Walt means by "down four feet".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 15, 2020, 11:42:42 PM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338942/m1/1/high_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Map showing steps started about 10' 6" from North wall. First row of boxes begin about 14' 3" from steps.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340211/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Note first row of boxes southward from steps. South is towards viewer.
Boxes in foreground at greater height were on a wood pallet.
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Rifle located immediately south of first row of boxes southward from steps.
Simple matter to reach over that row of boxes to place rifle on floor.

Notice that Studebaker measured the wooden support beam at 9 1/2 inches......And the south side of the beam at the NW corner was 13 feet from the north wall.and north side of the row of boxes was 13 feet from the north wall.    So if a person were to reach across to place the rifle on the floor at 15' 4" he would be reaching across over two feet of space.  ( a 5' 9" man has an arm length of 22 inches.)  But not only would the man need to reach across over two feet he would need to put the eight pound rifle down about three feet ....  Is there anybody who believes that this feat is possible??   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 15, 2020, 11:57:15 PM
Looking at the map in GIMP, the center of the aisle that Lee would have had to pass through was about four feet from where the rifle was found. If Oswald was reaching when he placed the rifle, the distance would have been less than that. It don't know what Walt means by "down four feet".

Walt just went from "down four feet" to "over two feet". Some of this is stuff in his mind that he can picture but can't effectively communicate.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184777/m1/1/med_res/)

This policeman shows how someone could lean over the row of low-height boxes and place the rifle. Might have put an elbow on top of a box so as to reach the floor.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from North to South. Rifle had to be lifted over row of boxes in foreground to be lowered
to floor. The boxes there (three at camera-left foreground) were only stacked two-high.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 12:23:54 AM
Walt just went from "down four feet" to "over two feet". Some of this is stuff in his mind that he can picture but can't effectively communicate.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184777/m1/1/med_res/)

This policeman shows how someone could lean over the row of low-height boxes and place the rifle. Might have put an elbow on top of a box so as to reach the floor.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from North to South. Rifle had to be lifted over row of boxes in foreground to be lowered
to floor. The boxes there (three at camera-left foreground) were only stacked two-high.

I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 16, 2020, 01:08:11 AM
I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did.

You mean the way he disassembled then reassembled the rifle then took 3 hurried shots and managed 2 hits, including a head shot using a wonky scope, then ditched it neatly between some boxes without getting a single print on the rifle? Maybe you should address how Oswald managed that first. Was he a ghost?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2020, 02:27:14 AM
The revolver was not ordered two months before the rifle was.  Jan 27, 1963 was the date that Oswald filled out the coupon, not the date that he mailed it.

How do you know what date it was mailed?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 02:39:26 AM
How do you know what date it was mailed?

That's a fair question. I don't actually know the date it was mailed. How does Jerry Freeman know what date it was mailed? Have you asked him?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2020, 02:48:13 AM
Walt just went from "down four feet" to "over two feet". Some of this is stuff in his mind that he can picture but can't effectively communicate.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184777/m1/1/med_res/)

This policeman shows how someone could lean over the row of low-height boxes and place the rifle. Might have put an elbow on top of a box so as to reach the floor.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from North to South. Rifle had to be lifted over row of boxes in foreground to be lowered
to floor. The boxes there (three at camera-left foreground) were only stacked two-high.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.

The aisle that Lee Oswald allegedly dashed through can be seen at camera left....And the rifle was found on the floor beneath the pallet that is visible at camera right.  Reviiew Seymour Weitzman's affidavit and testimony about shining his flash light beneath that pallet ( which was buried beneath boxes of books at the time that he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor) 

Now how the hell could the skinny 5' 9" Lee Oswald reach across the boxes from the aisle and place the 8 pound rifle down beneath the pallet with the boxes of books stacked in it and then covered the top of the crevasse between the boxes by staking boxes on top of the boxes.   

I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 02:49:03 AM
You mean the way he disassembled then reassembled the rifle then took 3 hurried shots and managed 2 hits, including a head shot using a wonky scope, then ditched it neatly between some boxes without getting a single print on the rifle? Maybe you should address how Oswald managed that first. Was he a ghost?

Hi Jack, what ya drinking? Could you break down each of those claims please? He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage. Was that a difficult thing to do? He reassembled it somewhere in the TSBD. Is reassembling a Carcano a difficult task? Have you done it before? Elaborate on what you mean by 'hurried shots". How hurried were they? Was the scope wonky when Oswald used the rifle to shoot Kennedy? How do you know? Is it uncommon for identifiable prints to not be found on weapons suspected to have been used in a crime?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2020, 03:06:00 AM
Hi Jack, what ya drinking? Could you break down each of those claims please? He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage.

There’s no evidence that the C2766 rifle was disassembled and reassembled. Or ever in the Paine’s garage.

Quote
Was that a difficult thing to do?

Without a screwdriver, yes.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 16, 2020, 03:13:26 AM
Hi Jack, what ya drinking? Could you break down each of those claims please? He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage. Was that a difficult thing to do? He reassembled it somewhere in the TSBD. Is reassembling a Carcano a difficult task? Have you done it before? Elaborate on what you mean by 'hurried shots". How hurried were they? Was the scope wonky when Oswald used the rifle to shoot Kennedy? How do you know? Is it uncommon for identifiable prints to not be found on weapons suspected to have been used in a crime?

I'm drinking my usual, JD and H2O. And whatever you are drinking is preventing you from having a clue what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter where or when LHO disassembled/reassembled the rifle, only that you claim he did before taking 3 shots at JFK. And guess what is required for that? Touching the rifle over and over and over again, to the point where it would be really dumb to think that Oswald wouldn't have left a single print somewhere on the many, many places where he handled it during disassembly/reassembly. Personally, I think it's all bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns and LHO never touched the MC. The evidence, or lack there of, convinced me.

Is it uncommon for identifiable prints to not be found on weapons suspected to have been used in a crime?

Sure, you keep telling yourself that.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 16, 2020, 03:14:07 AM
You mean the way he disassembled then reassembled the rifle then took 3 hurried shots and managed 2 hits, including a head shot using a wonky scope, then ditched it neatly between some boxes without getting a single print on the rifle? Maybe you should address how Oswald managed that first. Was he a ghost?

disassembled then reassembled the rifle

Life can turn on a dime  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 03:16:06 AM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.

The aisle that Lee Oswald allegedly dashed through can be seen at camera left....And the rifle was found on the floor beneath the pallet that is visible at camera right.  Reviiew Seymour Weitzman's affidavit and testimony about shining his flash light beneath that pallet ( which was buried beneath boxes of books at the time that he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor) 

Now how the hell could the skinny 5' 9" Lee Oswald reach across the boxes from the aisle and place the 8 pound rifle down beneath the pallet with the boxes of books stacked in it and then covered the top of the crevasse between the boxes by staking boxes on top of the boxes.   

I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did.


Here's where the rifle was found:

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 03:16:45 AM

Without a screwdriver, yes.

How do you know?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 16, 2020, 04:07:10 AM
disassembled then reassembled the rifle

Life can turn on a dime  ;)

I get it. Did they find a dime on LHO and does it affect how he kept his prints off the rifle? Were his gloves found?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 16, 2020, 04:10:59 AM
How do you know?

Because there are 5 screws that attach the stock to the action.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 16, 2020, 03:09:32 PM
  He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage. 
Prove that this happened....unless you were peeking in the window at the time?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2020, 03:32:47 PM

Here's where the rifle was found:

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Here's where the rifle was found:

Wrong!....  Are you stupid and illiterate? How wide is the crack between the boxes that you have drawn the arrows to?  Two or three inches?.... How wide is the carcano with the bolt handle sticking out to the right and the scope sticking out to the left ?  (answer:  over 4 inches ) 

Can't you understand what Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone wrote?.....

Weitzman said that he was working his way west on the south side of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs, and he said he was down on the floor and shining his flashlight beneath the pallet when he spotted the rifle lying on the floor.   And Boone squeezed between the west wall and the row of boxes and removed a box that served as a closure for the top of a crevasse that was formed by the east/ west row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs.  When Boone removed the box that formed the lid he shined his light down into the dark crevasse and saw a tiny portion of the butt of the rifle that was lying on the floor. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 16, 2020, 03:33:45 PM
That's a fair question. I don't actually know the date it was mailed. How does Jerry Freeman know what date it was mailed? Have you asked him?
Sorry ...
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Supposedly information based on and taken from the Report.
Quote
January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.
 Should be [if it indeed happened] 1963
 March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right wing activist.
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons   
Quote
The revolver was not ordered two months before the rifle was.  Jan 27, 1963 was the date that Oswald filled out the coupon, not the date that he mailed it.
So...he filled out the coupon and let it [apparently] sit around for the 2 months you stated to earlier.
 Who does this?
Not responded to...
Quote
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 16, 2020, 03:35:24 PM
  How wide is the crack between the boxes that you have drawn the arrows to?  Two or three inches?.... 
Barely one inch. The blind could see that.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2020, 03:36:54 PM
Because there are 5 screws that attach the stock to the action.

And a dime is too thick to fit into the screw slots....  ( a worn dime might fit)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 16, 2020, 04:07:34 PM
I get it. Did they find a dime on LHO and does it affect how he kept his prints off the rifle? Were his gloves found?

He had gloves? Do tell.
Oswald had 3 dimes on him. A dead giveaway in some quarters.

Others will disagree with 'kept his prints off'
Prints are dead easy to at least smear. The term 'unusable' comes to mind.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 16, 2020, 04:10:18 PM
And a dime is too thick to fit into the screw slots....  ( a worn dime might fit)

I guess Cunningham's dimes were 'worn'.
Or the screws were.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
Sorry ...
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Supposedly information based on and taken from the Report.So...he filled out the coupon and let it [apparently] sit around for the 2 months you stated to earlier.
 Who does this?
Not responded to...

January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.

 ??? So, he ordered it and it took a year and two months before Seaport Traders finally got around to shipping it to him?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 05:13:53 PM
Barely one inch. The blind could see that.

Maybe that's your problem. You're blind.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 05:31:23 PM
Here's where the rifle was found:

Wrong!....  Are you stupid and illiterate? How wide is the crack between the boxes that you have drawn the arrows to?  Two or three inches?.... How wide is the carcano with the bolt handle sticking out to the right and the scope sticking out to the left ?  (answer:  over 4 inches ) 

3 or 4 inches. It's hard to judge to exactness.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49607/m1/1/

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338775/m1/1/

Zoom in on them both and examine the boxes and the printing and stamps on them. My placement of the rifle is correct. No doubt about it whatsoever.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 16, 2020, 05:37:14 PM
Because there are 5 screws that attach the stock to the action.

Mr. BALL. I notice you have a screwdriver there. Can you assemble it without the use of a screwdriver?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What can you use?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Any object that would fit the slots on the five screws that retain the stock to the action.
Mr. BALL. Could you do it with a 10-cent piece?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Will you do that--about how long will it take you?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I know I can do it, but I have never been timed as far as using a dime. I have been timed using a screwdriver, which required a little over 2 minutes.
Mr. BALL. 2 minutes with a screwdriver.
Try it with the dime and let's see how long it takes.
Okay. Start now. Six minutes.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think I can improve on that.
Mr. BALL. And the only tool you used was a 10-cent piece?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham1.htm

Six minutes on his first try using a dime. You call that difficult?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 16, 2020, 06:34:44 PM
Here's where the rifle was found:

Wrong!....  Are you stupid and illiterate? How wide is the crack between the boxes that you have drawn the arrows to?  Two or three inches?.... How wide is the carcano with the bolt handle sticking out to the right and the scope sticking out to the left ?  (answer:  over 4 inches ) 

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.

Quote
Can't you understand what Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone wrote?.....

Weitzman said that he was working his way west on the south side of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs, and he said he was down on the floor and shining his flashlight beneath the pallet when he spotted the rifle lying on the floor.   And Boone squeezed between the west wall and the row of boxes and removed a box that served as a closure for the top of a crevasse that was formed by the east/ west row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs.  When Boone removed the box that formed the lid he shined his light down into the dark crevasse and saw a tiny portion of the butt of the rifle that was lying on the floor.

Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 16, 2020, 08:00:14 PM
He had gloves? Do tell.
Oswald had 3 dimes on him. A dead giveaway in some quarters.

If there were any smeared prints, especially on the trigger, then Oswald did not wear gloves.

Quote
Others will disagree with 'kept his prints off'

Are those the same 'others' that Drumpf 'hears' things from?

Quote
Prints are dead easy to at least smear. The term 'unusable' comes to mind.

How many smeared 'unusable' prints were found on the rifle and how could they tell them apart from the many bumbling Keystone Kops that manhandled ALL the evidence with their bare hands? Fritz actually saw the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window in the sniper's nest and picked them up with his bare hands, placed them in his pocket then later tossed them back onto the floor for a staged in situ photo of the crime scene in a more believable ejection pattern.

The DPD handled all the evidence this way for the Crime of the Century, no less. Do you think they were ever this incompetent even for a common burglary? Were they nervous because this was the most important case of their lives? Or was it because they were worried about screwing up their roles in the Big Event, like finding the Mauser or mishandling the evidence or a rush to judgement or with inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments or letting Ruby gut shoot Oswald, etc.?

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 16, 2020, 08:35:07 PM
If there were any smeared prints, especially on the trigger, then Oswald did not wear gloves.

Is there a single case where an identifiable print was lifted off a trigger and used in court to convict?

Quote
Are those the same 'others' that Drumpf 'hears' things from?

How many smeared 'unusable' prints were found on the rifle and how could they tell them apart from the many bumbling Keystone Kops that manhandled ALL the evidence with their bare hands? Fritz actually saw the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window in the sniper's nest and picked them up with his bare hands, placed them in his pocket then later tossed them back onto the floor for a staged in situ photo of the crime scene in a more believable ejection pattern.

The DPD handled all the evidence this way for the Crime of the Century, no less. Do you think they were ever this incompetent even for a common burglary? Were they nervous because this was the most important case of their lives? Or was it because they were worried about screwing up their roles in the Big Event, like finding the Mauser or mishandling the evidence or a rush to judgement or with inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments or letting Ruby gut shoot Oswald, etc.?

He didn't count them but Day saw several unusable prints on the rifle. The wooden stock itself was absorbent and not good at retaining prints.

I doubt the validity of Tom Alyea's Fritz story. "More believable ejection pattern"? Did Fritz have a book with him on "Hull Ejection Patterns"? There was no Mauser. The BY photos have been authenticated. You're gullible.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 16, 2020, 09:08:13 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.

Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.

Mr. BALL - I have three pictures here which I have marked, respectively, D, E, F. I show you D first. Does that look anything like the location where you found the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
Mr. BALL - Looking from the top side of this picture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 16, 2020, 11:06:01 PM
Mr. BALL - I have three pictures here which I have marked, respectively, D, E, F. I show you D first. Does that look anything like the location where you found the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
Mr. BALL - Looking from the top side of this picture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat.

He was looking under the pallet AND through it's open areas when he saw the rifle. He was "looking under" as well as "looking over" to where the rifle was.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2020, 12:33:59 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.

Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.

You've completely ignored the fact that Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15' 4".....The narrow crack is only 13 feet from the north wall.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Trojan on February 17, 2020, 12:56:31 AM
Is there a single case where an identifiable print was lifted off a trigger and used in court to convict?

Probably not, but the fact that there was a smeared print on the trigger meant that Oswald did not wear gloves. In which case, where are all the other prints?

Quote
He didn't count them but Day saw several unusable prints on the rifle. The wooden stock itself was absorbent and not good at retaining prints.

Sure he did. Where's the report? And I don't mean a transcript of his bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.

Quote
I doubt the validity of Tom Alyea's Fritz story.

Of course you do.

Quote
"More believable ejection pattern"? Did Fritz have a book with him on "Hull Ejection Patterns"?

It doesn't take a genius to look at 3 hulls within a 1 foot radius and realize there is a problem with that.

Quote
There was no Mauser.

Sure there wasn't. Where did Craig get the 7.65 number from? His ass?

Quote
The BY photos have been authenticated. You're gullible.

LOL. Authenticated by whom, you? Besides, I was talking about the inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments by the DPD and the cutout superimposition of CE 399c. WTF was that for? (rhetorical) And how many photos did Marina take anyway? And what was Roscoe White doing with undocumented CE 399c? And I'm gullible?  :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 17, 2020, 02:01:30 AM
Probably not, but the fact that there was a smeared print on the trigger meant that Oswald did not wear gloves. In which case, where are all the other prints?

The wooden stock was absorbent. Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

Quote
Sure he did. Where's the report? And I don't mean a transcript of his bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns.

Of course you do.

It doesn't take a genius to look at 3 hulls within a 1 foot radius and realize there is a problem with that.

Sure there wasn't. Where did Craig get the 7.65 number from? His ass?

Is that a term for when he claims something he wasn't told and didn't read on the rifle?

   Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon,
                     you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
   Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.

Quote
LOL. Authenticated by whom, you? Besides, I was talking about the inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments by the DPD and the cutout superimposition of CE 399c. WTF was that for? (rhetorical) And how many photos did Marina take anyway? And what was Roscoe White doing with undocumented CE 399c? And I'm gullible?  :D

CE 399c?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 17, 2020, 02:04:10 AM
You've completely ignored the fact that Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15' 4".....The narrow crack is only 13 feet from the north wall.

The so-called crack is certainly south of the center of the brick column, which is centered on 13'.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 17, 2020, 02:07:45 AM
Maybe that's your problem. You're blind.
You apparently have more than one. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 17, 2020, 02:33:14 AM
You apparently have more than one.

Walt and you share a similar spatial perception problem.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Mitch Todd on February 17, 2020, 04:38:09 AM
Sure there wasn't. Where did Craig get the 7.65 number from? His ass?
Probably Weitzman. But Craig's testimony on the matter doesn't inspire confidence.

On 11/22/63, he swore out an affidavit and was interviewed by the FBI. Didn't mention the rifle.

In 1968, he and Penn Jones were interviewed by the LA Free Press. He told the LAFP that he saw the rifle when it was discovered, but "couldn't give its name because I don't know
foreign rifles." He did claim that a Mauser was found, but said it was a second rifle that was found on the roof. He attributed this knowledge not to his own firsthand experience, but to a reporter who was supposedly told by someone within the DPD.

One year later in his Shaw trial testimony, he said nothing about seeing "7.65 Mauser" or "Mauser 7.65" on the rifle.

In his 1971 screed "When They Kill a President," Craig says that Weitzman identified the rifle, but nothing about seeing "Mauser 7.65" on it.

It's not until 1973 that be begins to claim that he saw "Mauser 7.65" on the weapon, but that story is hard to believe given his previous years of silence on the matter. It's even harder to believe it when you realize that the '73 version of the story is directly contradicted by what he told the LA Free Press in '68.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 17, 2020, 05:34:10 AM
Six minutes on his first try using a dime. You call that difficult?

Wouldn’t you say that something that takes 6 minutes is more difficult than something that takes 2 minutes?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 17, 2020, 07:45:54 AM
If there were any smeared prints, especially on the trigger, then Oswald did not wear gloves.

Are those the same 'others' that Drumpf 'hears' things from?

How many smeared 'unusable' prints were found on the rifle and how could they tell them apart from the many bumbling Keystone Kops that manhandled ALL the evidence with their bare hands? Fritz actually saw the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window in the sniper's nest and picked them up with his bare hands, placed them in his pocket then later tossed them back onto the floor for a staged in situ photo of the crime scene in a more believable ejection pattern.

The DPD handled all the evidence this way for the Crime of the Century, no less. Do you think they were ever this incompetent even for a common burglary? Were they nervous because this was the most important case of their lives? Or was it because they were worried about screwing up their roles in the Big Event, like finding the Mauser or mishandling the evidence or a rush to judgement or with inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments or letting Ruby gut shoot Oswald, etc.?

By 'others' I mean the investigators
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2020, 03:22:20 PM
The wooden stock was absorbent. Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

Is that a term for when he claims something he wasn't told and didn't read on the rifle?

   Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon,
                     you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.
   Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.


CE 399c?

The wooden stock was absorbent.

This simply isn't true....The wooden stocks of the carcanos were oil finished ( so they wouldn't absorb moisture) 

Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

 PARTIAL  Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

The fact that the unidentifiable partial prints were found up near the stock  attests to the fact that the rifle was hastily wiped to destroy any finger prints on the rifle.
( the area is a recess and somewhat protected by the nearby stock)

And this hasty wiping indicates that it was NOT Lee Oswald who wiped the rifle.....  Only an idiot would argue that Lee Oswald would have wiped down the unusual and easily traceable rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald.    It wouldn't make any sense ..... finger prints or no fingerprints the rifle could easily be traced to Lee.

However...The person who had stolen the rifle and planted it, to incriminate Lee Oswald most certainly would have wanted to be sure that they had not left their prints on the rifle.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2020, 04:06:13 PM
The so-called crack is certainly south of the center of the brick column, which is centered on 13'.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Do you seriously believe that you can measure distances on a photograph?

You have shown that the rifle was 2' 4" south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs.   However this does not take into account that there were boxes stacked up about three or four feet high......( Boone had to squeeze between the west wall and the stacked up boxes ) So anybody who would attempt to place a rifle on the floor at 15' 4" would not only have had to reach across a 28 inch span, he would have had to have lowered the rifle about three feet down to the floor.  ...and slide it beneath the wooden pallet.    ( This would have been a feat for Plasticman)    No human could have placed that rifle beneath the pallet while standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.... THIS IS A FACT!   

The fact that the rifle had been carefully hidden beneath that pallet is proof that the rifle was placed the BEFORE the shooting.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 17, 2020, 04:55:30 PM
The wooden stock was absorbent.

This simply isn't true....The wooden stocks of the carcanos were oil finished ( so they wouldn't absorb moisture) 

    "Not every contact of a. finger or palm leaves a latent print. For example,
     if the surface is not susceptible to a latent print, if the finger or palm had
     no perspiration, or if the perspiration was mostly water and had evaporated,
     no print will be found.
        ...
     The wood and metal of the rifle was absorbent, and not conducive to
     recording a good print. However, the Dallas police developed by powder
     some faint ridge formations on the metal magazine housing in front of
     the trigger ..."
        -- Warren Report, p565

I think metal is generally less absorbent that wood; why prints were found on the trigger-guard housing.

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/man-holding-the-rifle-used-by-lee-harvey-oswald-in-his-assassination-picture-id2674266)  (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/21/article-2236046-1623D6BB000005DC-612_634x679.jpg)

What evidence is there that the Carcano's wood stock was "oil finished"?

See: "Firearm Factoids: Does a Lack of Fingerprints Exonerate Oswald?" ( Link (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm) )

Quote
Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

 PARTIAL  Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.

The fact that the unidentifiable partial prints were found up near the stock  attests to the fact that the rifle was hastily wiped to destroy any finger prints on the rifle.
( the area is a recess and somewhat protected by the nearby stock)

The trigger-guard housing is not recessed. So by your reasoning, that means the rifle wasn't wiped down.

Quote
And this hasty wiping indicates that it was NOT Lee Oswald who wiped the rifle.....  Only an idiot would argue that Lee Oswald would have wiped down the unusual and easily traceable rifle that was owned by Lee Oswald.    It wouldn't make any sense ..... finger prints or no fingerprints the rifle could easily be traced to Lee.

However...The person who had stolen the rifle and planted it, to incriminate Lee Oswald most certainly would have wanted to be sure that they had not left their prints on the rifle.

You would think someone planting evidence like that would be wearing gloves in the first place.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2020, 05:21:29 PM
    "Not every contact of a. finger or palm leaves a latent print. For example,
     if the surface is not susceptible to a latent print, if the finger or palm had
     no perspiration, or if the perspiration was mostly water and had evaporated,
     no print will be found.
        ...
     The wood and metal of the rifle was absorbent, and not conducive to
     recording a good print. However, the Dallas police developed by powder
     some faint ridge formations on the metal magazine housing in front of
     the trigger ..."
        -- Warren Report, p565

I think metal is generally less absorbent that wood; why prints were found on the trigger-guard housing.

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/man-holding-the-rifle-used-by-lee-harvey-oswald-in-his-assassination-picture-id2674266)  (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/21/article-2236046-1623D6BB000005DC-612_634x679.jpg)

What evidence is there that the Carcano's wood stock was "oil finished"?

See: "Firearm Factoids: Does a Lack of Fingerprints Exonerate Oswald?" ( Link (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm) )

The trigger-guard housing is not recessed. So by your reasoning, that means the rifle wasn't wiped down.

You would think someone planting evidence like that would be wearing gloves in the first place.

Riiiiight!....  You've got excellent 20 / 20 hindsight.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 17, 2020, 08:13:48 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Do you seriously believe that you can measure distances on a photograph?

You have shown that the rifle was 2' 4" south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs.   However this does not take into account that there were boxes stacked up about three or four feet high......( Boone had to squeeze between the west wall and the stacked up boxes ) So anybody who would attempt to place a rifle on the floor at 15' 4" would not only have had to reach across a 28 inch span, he would have had to have lowered the rifle about three feet down to the floor.  ...and slide it beneath the wooden pallet.    ( This would have been a feat for Plasticman)    No human could have placed that rifle beneath the pallet while standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.... THIS IS A FACT!   

The fact that the rifle had been carefully hidden beneath that pallet is proof that the rifle was placed the BEFORE the shooting.....

I'm not much good at  measuring distances on photographs but one doesn't need to be in order to know that my placement of the rifle is right. Just compare the two photos that I previously linked to. Zoom in on each of them and look closely at the boxes and the printing and stamps on them. The rifle was not placed beneath a pallet.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49607/m1/1/

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338775/m1/1/
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 17, 2020, 09:44:44 PM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/med_res)

The wooden pallet at lower-right seems to have its closed-in side running West-East. Would make it difficult for Weitzman to see a rifle underneath it.
(https://images.uline.com/is/image/content/dam/images/H/H3500/H-3445.jpg)

The other two pallets with the projections are "wing-type" pallets.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets (upper-center of background).
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 17, 2020, 10:25:58 PM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/med_res)

The wooden pallet at lower-right seems to have its closed-in side running West-East. Would make it difficult for Weitzman to see a rifle underneath it.
(https://images.uline.com/is/image/content/dam/images/H/H3500/H-3445.jpg)

The other two pallets with the projections are "wing-type" pallets.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets (upper-center of background).

I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets

Why wonder?.....Just read what Weitzman testified....

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
Mr. BALL - Looking from the top side of this picture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 18, 2020, 12:15:36 AM
I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets

Why wonder?.....Just read what Weitzman testified....

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
Mr. BALL - Looking from the top side of this picture?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat.

    "I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
     on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
     "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
        -- Weitzman

Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?

    "Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
     the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
     I believe there were more books in here."
        -- Weitzman

Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").

    "at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
        -- Weitzman

Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
          where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.

Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)

    "I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
        ...
     Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"

     I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"

        -- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)

"Looked between the cartons".

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
          looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
          which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
          and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
          remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
          north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
          tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
           both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
          You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
           then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
          "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
          particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.

"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 18, 2020, 12:26:22 AM
   
Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?

Boom!!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 01:37:49 AM
    "I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
     on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
     "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
        -- Weitzman

Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?

    "Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
     the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
     I believe there were more books in here."
        -- Weitzman

Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").

    "at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
        -- Weitzman

Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
          where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.

Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)

    "I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
        ...
     Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"

     I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"

        -- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)

"Looked between the cartons".

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
          looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
          which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
          and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
          remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
          north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
          tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
           both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
          You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
           then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
          "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
          particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.

"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.

Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?


Boone only saw a tiny portion of the butt of the rifle that was not beneath the pallet...  ( In fact boone might not have seen that tiny portion of the butt if Weitzman hadn't alerted him to the rifle on the floor beneath the pallet.  ( actually between the wings of the pallet )

 "at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"...Seymour Weitzman

Weitzman couldn't have known what Boone saw.... because he was down on the floor shining his flashlight beneath the stack of books that were on the pallet.

Meanwhile Boone had removed at least one box the served as the roof of the crevasse in which the rifle was lying on the floor. ("Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor") Boone shined his flashlight down into the dark crevasse, and he saw a tiny portion of the butt of the rifle protruding out from  beneath the boxes.

Then we have Mooney's statement that corroborates Weitzman and Boone... "I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"

And some added icing on the cake....Roger Craig's testimony....

Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
          and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
          remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
          north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
          tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
           both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
          You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
           then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
          "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
          particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.

Now how the hell could anybody have dashed by the spot and hid that rifle that was beneath the pallet of books that were stacked about four feet high????
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tim Nickerson on February 18, 2020, 01:52:08 AM
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 02:30:10 AM
    "I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
     on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
     "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
        -- Weitzman

Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?

    "Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
     the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
     I believe there were more books in here."
        -- Weitzman

Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").

    "at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
        -- Weitzman

Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
          where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.

Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)

    "I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
        ...
     Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"

     I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"

        -- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)

"Looked between the cartons".

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
          looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
          which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
          and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
          remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
          north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
          tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
           both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
          You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
           then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
          "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
          particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.

"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.

Jerry, what is the distance from the tip of Boones arrow and the north wall?

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 18, 2020, 02:57:22 AM
Jerry, what is the distance from the tip of Boones arrow and the north wall?

(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)

I would guess about 15', maybe more. The rifle was actually found to the West of that high stack that reaches to the "Stair Way" sign.

Boone's arrow is on the East side (towards the viewer) of the high stack. Maybe he didn't realize it. He certainly didnt point to a stack of cartons on a pallet, which are visible in the photo.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

In this view, looking South, the tall stack mentioned previously is to camera-left. The window on the West wall is to camera-right. Sunlight from it falls on the tall stack. The rifle was found on the floor on the opposite side of the six boxes in the foreground that are stacked two-high.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 03:33:26 PM
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)

I would guess about 15', maybe more. The rifle was actually found to the West of that high stack that reaches to the "Stair Way" sign.

Boone's arrow is on the East side (towards the viewer) of the high stack. Maybe he didn't realize it. He certainly didnt point to a stack of cartons on a pallet, which are visible in the photo.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

In this view, looking South, the tall stack mentioned previously is to camera-left. The window on the West wall is to camera-right. Sunlight from it falls on the tall stack. The rifle was found on the floor on the opposite side of the six boxes in the foreground that are stacked two-high.

Jerry, do you see any pallet beneath the boxes that formed the north wall of the crevasse ?

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Surely you've come to your senses and realize that  Seymour  Weitzman very clearly stated that the rifle was beneath the pallet.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 18, 2020, 05:10:26 PM
Jerry, do you see any pallet beneath the boxes that formed the north wall of the crevasse ?

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

Surely you've come to your senses and realize that  Seymour  Weitzman very clearly stated that the rifle was beneath the pallet.....

I have nothing more. Multiple Forum members have lent support for the DPD Crime Lab in-situ location. No one on the Forum, after pages and years of consideration of what you've presented, supports your alternative location.

That said, evidence validity isn't something determined by popularity.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 06:02:59 PM
    "I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
     on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
     "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
        -- Weitzman

Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?

    "Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
     the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
     I believe there were more books in here."
        -- Weitzman

Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").

    "at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
        -- Weitzman

Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
          where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.

Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)

    "I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
        ...
     Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"

     I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"

        -- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)

"Looked between the cartons".

Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
          looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
          which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
          and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
          remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
          north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
          tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
           both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
          You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
           then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
          "O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
          particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.

"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)

Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.

Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)

Who said anything about a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.....There were no cartons over the the rifle except the one or two boxes that served as to roof of the crevasse.  Just LOOK at the photo .....Can't you see that it would be a simple matter to slide the north boxes to the south and form a "cave" beneath the pallet.
And I know you've seen the Alyea film that shows Lt Day, Who is on the south side of the rifle,  kneeling down, and reaching out to grab the leather sling ( which is mounted on the left side of the rifle, and is up, toward the ceiling, when Day grabs it. ) he then lifts the rifle by the sling.   The rifle was lying on the floor with the bolt handle down and the sling side up.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 18, 2020, 06:11:48 PM
Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)

Who said anything about a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.....

You said the rifle was under the pallet. The pallets in that area are stacked five-feet high with cartons.

Quote
There were no cartons over the the rifle except the one or two boxes that served as to roof of the crevasse.  Just LOOK at the photo .....Can't you see that it would be a simple matter to slide the north boxes to the south and form a "cave" beneath the pallet.
And I know you've see the Alyea film that shows Lt Day, Who is on the south side of the rifle,  kneeling down, and reaching out to grab the leather sling ( which is mounted on the left side of the rifle but is up when Day grabs it. ) he then lifts the rifle by the sling.   The rifle was lying on the floor with the bolt handle down and the sling side up.

Unfortunately, the Alyea clip begins at the moment of pick-up; it can't say anything about how the rifle was originally positioned in the crack. Day acknowledged the in-situ photos and therefore he must have prepared the rifle for pickup. If he had not manipulated the rifle in order to safety pick it it up and instead just picked the rifle up by the sight, you would have faulted him for that.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 06:31:44 PM
I have nothing more. Multiple Forum members have lent support for the DPD Crime Lab in-situ location. No one on the Forum, after pages and years of consideration of what you've presented, supports your alternative location.

That said, evidence validity isn't something determined by popularity.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

This is a fake in situ photo ( above)  that the DPD created to support their lie about Lee dashing by the boxes and tossing the rifle aside as he fled.

(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

And this is what the scene looked like at the time ( about 1:45 ) the rifle was removed from beneath the wooden pallet.

Compare the boxes that have the blue arrows pointing to them with the boxes to the left side of the rifle in the fake in situ photo....They should appear to be the same boxes in the same positions in both photos.  ( If they are genuine) One glaring difference....Notice that the box above the butt of the rifle is open in the fake photo, That box was NOT open, and is sealed with tape, in the photo with the blue arrows.....One of the photos is a fake....  Another glaring difference... Notice that the photo with the blue arrows was obviously taken with strong sunlight shining on the boxes and floor.....whereas the official in situ photo appears to have been taken at night.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 07:38:12 PM
You said the rifle was under the pallet. The pallets in that area are stacked five-feet high with cartons.

Unfortunately, the Alyea clip begins at the moment of pick-up; it can't say anything about how the rifle was originally positioned in the crack. Day acknowledged the in-situ photos and therefore he must have prepared the rifle for pickup. If he had not manipulated the rifle in order to safety pick it it up and instead just picked the rifle up by the sight, you would have faulted him for that.

Yes, the  Alyea clip does begin at the moment that the kneeling Lt Day grabs the sling of the rifle which is lying on the floor. Watch at the 2:52 point to see him grab the sling. 

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 18, 2020, 09:41:28 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.

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

JohnM

Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box.....This is probably true.

Oswald was photographed with C2766.....This is NOT true.   Lee was photographed with a Mannlicher carcano....There is no way to know the serial number...However the rifle in Lee's hand's seems to be a bit different than the TSBD rifle.... The front sling swivel is on the bottom of the rifle in the BY photo   

Oswald's rifle was missing from the blanket in the Paine garage....  True ...there was no rifle in the blanket....But can you prove that the carcano was ever in that blanket?

C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.  True, a carcano with the serial # C 2766 was found well hidden beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on it. on the sixth floor.   But it is very easy to replace the barrel and stamp the new barrel with any number you desire. 

C2766 contained fresh fibers which matched Oswald's shirt fibers....   A ha!!....   The FBI claimed the fibers matched the shirt that Lee was wearing at the time of his arrest at the theater. ( and I don't doubt that this is true)....However that arrest shirt is NOT the shirt that Lee was wearing at the TSBD at the time of the shooting.

C2766 had Oswald's palm print..... This definitely a lie.  But I'm not going to go into the reason I know for a fact that it is a lie.   Because laying out the evidence is futile because it is  apparently too difficult for most folks to comprehend.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 19, 2020, 12:21:03 PM
If Weizmann was on the south side of stacked up boxes on the pallet and trying to look north underneath of them then he only had a 1/4 inch gap to see thru due to the 2x4s that run east/west

Then in addition to that is the wall of boxes that form the south side wall that completely hide the rifle and were stacked originally side by side with probably no more than a 1/8th inch gap along the east west direction

Therefore,IMO, Weitzman is “embellishing” this supposed sighting of the rifle UNLESS the rifle originally really was basically resting in the 4” gap available between upper and lower 1x4s and the rifle being parallel with the 2x4s structural frame

Since for some reason no photograph was taken of the ORIGINAL configuration of the 2 parallel rows of boxes BEFORE moving some of them out of the way to photo part of the rifle

Then all that can be proposed is that the gap was probably the same as what gap can be seen in the rest of the unmoved portion of walls

Which gap appears (as Walt already pointed out )is NOT 4” wide which is about what would be needed for width of the wooden stock plus off set scope plus bolt handle

IF that gap was only about 1” as it appears in the other section of unmoved boxes forming the 2 walls Then there should have been some scoring/dents etc on inner vertical sides of the boxes due to force of friction reaction to rifle stock and protruding elements of offset scope and the bolt handle
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 03:29:09 PM
If Weizmann was on the south side of stacked up boxes on the pallet and trying to look north underneath of them then he only had a 1/4 inch gap to see thru due to the 2x4s that run east/west

Then in addition to that is the wall of boxes that form the south side wall that completely hide the rifle and were stacked originally side by side with probably no more than a 1/8th inch gap along the east west direction

Therefore,IMO, Weitzman is “embellishing” this supposed sighting of the rifle UNLESS the rifle originally really was basically resting in the 4” gap available between upper and lower 1x4s and the rifle being parallel with the 2x4s structural frame

Since for some reason no photograph was taken of the ORIGINAL configuration of the 2 parallel rows of boxes BEFORE moving some of them out of the way to photo part of the rifle

Then all that can be proposed is that the gap was probably the same as what gap can be seen in the rest of the unmoved portion of walls

Which gap appears (as Walt already pointed out )is NOT 4” wide which is about what would be needed for width of the wooden stock plus off set scope plus bolt handle

IF that gap was only about 1” as it appears in the other section of unmoved boxes forming the 2 walls Then there should have been some scoring/dents etc on inner vertical sides of the boxes due to force of friction reaction to rifle stock and protruding elements of offset scope and the bolt handle

"If Weizmann was on the south side of stacked up boxes on the pallet and trying to look north underneath of them"

Zeon.... I've been posting information for you for several days, and you haven't even learned that Seymour Weitzman was moving from EAST to West as he approached the rifle that was lying on it's right side beneath the northern edge of the wooden pallet.  He was NOT  trying to look north underneath the pallet.

Perhaps you should review the thread.....  This isn't difficult.... Although the photos do tend to confuse those who aren't familiar with the area at the top of the stairs.

If anybody in the forum is confused or doesn't understand the crux of this information, please ask questions.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 04:42:14 PM
"If Weizmann was on the south side of stacked up boxes on the pallet and trying to look north underneath of them"

Zeon.... I've been posting information for you for several days, and you haven't even learned that Seymour Weitzman was moving from EAST to West as he approached the rifle that was lying on it's right side beneath the northern edge of the wooden pallet. 

Weitzman did move from the east side of the building to the west side to search, but he has never described walking westward between the pallets and the northmost row of boxes.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)

You said the rifle was under the pallet; now it's beneath the northern edge. It keeps creeping northward. The "northern edge" of the pallet in question (lower-right in photo above) is solid wood.

Quote
He was NOT  trying to look north underneath the pallet.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1138/images/img_1138_747_100.jpg)

   Mr. BALL - I have three pictures here which I have marked, respectively, D, E, F. I show
           you D first. Does that look anything like the location where you found the gun?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.

Quote
Perhaps you should review the thread.....  This isn't difficult.... Although the photos do tend to confuse those who aren't familiar with the area at the top of the stairs.

If anybody in the forum is confused or doesn't understand the crux of this information, please ask questions.   

The only confusion is from your interpretations.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 05:32:21 PM
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/hiddenrifle.jpg)

This is a fake in situ photo ( above)  that the DPD created to support their lie about Lee dashing by the boxes and tossing the rifle aside as he fled.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_10.jpg)

   Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, we took two from the same location when we was up on
          top of the stack of boxes shooting down at it, before they picked it up.

Quote
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)

And this is what the scene looked like at the time ( about 1:45 ) the rifle was removed from beneath the wooden pallet.

Compare the boxes that have the blue arrows pointing to them with the boxes to the left side of the rifle in the fake in situ photo....They should appear to be the same boxes in the same positions in both photos.  ( If they are genuine) One glaring difference....Notice that the box above the butt of the rifle is open in the fake photo, That box was NOT open, and is sealed with tape, in the photo with the blue arrows.....One of the photos is a fake....  Another glaring difference... Notice that the photo with the blue arrows was obviously taken with strong sunlight shining on the boxes and floor.....whereas the official in situ photo appears to have been taken at night.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)

The box you're referring to is sealed in both the photo you referred to ("blue arrows") and the Crime Lab's in-situ photo. It's a box stacked three-high.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 05:55:26 PM
Weitzman did move from the east side of the building to the west side to search, but he has never described walking westward between the pallets and the northmost row of boxes.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)

You said the rifle was under the pallet; now it's beneath the northern edge. It keeps creeping northward. The "northern edge" of the pallet in question (lower-right in photo above) is solid wood.

(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1138/images/img_1138_747_100.jpg)

   Mr. BALL - I have three pictures here which I have marked, respectively, D, E, F. I show
           you D first. Does that look anything like the location where you found the gun?
   Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.

The only confusion is from your interpretations.

Weitzman did move from the east side of the building to the west side to search, but he has never described walking westward between the pallets and the northmost row of boxes.

I don't know what the hell you're babbling about now..... Weitzman did walk eastward between the rows of boxes he then got down on the floor and shined his flashlight beneath the pallet, and he saw the rifle that was pointed at him lying on the floor.

You said the rifle was under the pallet; now it's beneath the northern edge. It keeps creeping northward. The "northern edge" of the pallet in question (lower-right in photo above) is solid wood.

Jerry, Because you seem to be to dishonest to admit the truth even to yourself,  Why don't you mark  the 15' 4" mark on the floor in the photo with the two blue arrows.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 06:37:07 PM
Weitzman did move from the east side of the building to the west side to search, but he has never described walking westward between the pallets and the northmost row of boxes.

I don't know what the hell you're babbling about now..... Weitzman did walk eastward between the rows of boxes he then got down on the floor and shined his flashlight beneath the pallet, and he saw the rifle that was pointed at him lying on the floor.

You said the rifle was under the pallet; now it's beneath the northern edge. It keeps creeping northward. The "northern edge" of the pallet in question (lower-right in photo above) is solid wood.

Jerry, Because you seem to be to dishonest to admit the truth even to yourself,  Why don't you mark  the 15' 4" mark on the floor in the photo with the two blue arrows.

I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches. Going by a slight gouge on the floorboards, the boxes that form the crevice seem to have sited a few inches to the North in the "blue arrow" photo. This might be due to the boxes being examined for prints or being moved to extract the rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 07:36:11 PM
I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches. Going by a slight gouge on the floorboards, the boxes that form the crevice seem to have sited a few inches to the North in the "blue arrow" photo. This might be due to the boxes being examined for prints or being moved to extract the rifle.


I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches.

Try being honest with yourself....We both know that the 9 inch square support columns were at 13 feet from the north wall....The box on the south side of the column  is NOT 28  inches long....  And that means that the 15 "4" mark is about a foot south of that box.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 07:55:17 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_10.jpg)

   Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, we took two from the same location when we was up on
          top of the stack of boxes shooting down at it, before they picked it up.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)

The box you're referring to is sealed in both the photo you referred to ("blue arrows") and the Crime Lab's in-situ photo. It's a box stacked three-high.

Yes that's correct the sealed box is the third box in a stack of three .......And it's right where the butt of the rifle is in the fake in situ photo ....And in place of the sealed box is a open box.   And where did the bright sunshine go??    In the photo with the blue arrows there is bright sunshine streaming through the window that is just a few feet west of the area....  But in the fake photo there is only camera flash illuminating the area.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 08:10:54 PM
I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches. Going by a slight gouge on the floorboards, the boxes that form the crevice seem to have sited a few inches to the North in the "blue arrow" photo. This might be due to the boxes being examined for prints or being moved to extract the rifle.

The box with the two blue arrows pointing to it is 14"6' from  the north wall.   which means that Studebaker measured the distance from the wall to the rifle 10 inches south of that box.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 19, 2020, 08:29:57 PM
Yawn! Btw I will end this here, if you want to discuss the rifle ownership then create your own thread.
Do you promise...with all your heart?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 08:41:18 PM
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_10.jpg)

   Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, we took two from the same location when we was up on
          top of the stack of boxes shooting down at it, before they picked it up.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)

The box you're referring to is sealed in both the photo you referred to ("blue arrows") and the Crime Lab's in-situ photo. It's a box stacked three-high.

What's the photo of the Detective perched on the boxes supposed to prove ??......   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 10:09:13 PM

I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches.

Try being honest with yourself....We both know that the 9 inch square support columns were at 13 feet from the north wall....The box on the south side of the column  is NOT 28  inches long....  And that means that the 15 "4" mark is about a foot south of that box.

If the wood column is centered on 13' from the North wall, the south face of the wood column is 13' 4 3/4" from the North wall. That leaves about 23 1/4" to get to 15' 4". I estimate the box to the immediate south of the column is 2" from the pillar and 18" long. Now we need 3 1/4" inches to get to 15' 4".

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_51417948a09433af44ba320be0efc074.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking West: Showing small gap between wood pillar and 18"-long box
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking East: Tall stack of cartons (right-foreground)
is about 3" south of box by the column
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking North: Gap where rifle is runs along front
of the tall stack

The front of the tall stack of cartons near the rifle location is a further 3"-or-so to the South of the front of the box by the column. That gets you to 15' 4".
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 10:45:10 PM
The box with the two blue arrows pointing to it is 14"6' from  the north wall.   which means that Studebaker measured the distance from the wall to the rifle 10 inches south of that box.

10" south of that box would leave you 20" short of the north edge of the pallet.

Zeon.... I've been posting information for you for several days, and you haven't even learned that Seymour Weitzman was moving from EAST to West as he approached the rifle that was lying on it's right side beneath the northern edge of the wooden pallet.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 10:53:32 PM
What's the photo of the Detective perched on the boxes supposed to prove ??......

Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)

   Mr. BALL. Let's see the shots you took of the place where the gun was located?
   Mr. STUDEBAKER. I know it's mine because my knees are in the picture.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 10:56:05 PM
If the wood column is centered on 13' from the North wall, the south face of the wood column is 13' 4 3/4" from the North wall. That leaves about 23 1/4" to get to 15' 4". I estimate the box to the immediate south of the column is 2" from the pillar and 18" long. Now we need 3 1/4" inches to get to 15' 4".

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_51417948a09433af44ba320be0efc074.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking West: Showing small gap between wood pillar and 18"-long box
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking East: Tall stack of cartons (right-foreground)
is about 3" south of box by the column
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking North: Gap where rifle is runs along front
of the tall stack

The front of the tall stack of cartons near the rifle location is a further 3"-or-so to the South of the front of the box by the column. That gets you to 15' 4".

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
THe wooden column is 9" square....Use it to find that the box on the south side of the column is 16 inche long.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 11:00:36 PM
10" south of that box would leave you 20" short of the north edge of the pallet.

That doesn't make any difference....  The rifle would still be BENEATH the pallet......  Even though it might not be DIRECTLY BELOW the pallet.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 19, 2020, 11:03:40 PM
Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)

   Mr. BALL. Let's see the shots you took of the place where the gun was located?
   Mr. STUDEBAKER. I know it's mine because my knees are in the picture.

Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

How do you explain the fact there is no bright sunlight illuminating the area ...and the box above the rifle is wide open?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 11:10:42 PM
Yes that's correct the sealed box is the third box in a stack of three .......And it's right where the butt of the rifle is in the fake in situ photo ....

The primary boxes north of the rifle are a row that's three-wide by two-high. They're all open in all the photos. What you pointing to is sealed box that on top of two others; it's sealed in all the photos.

Quote
And in place of the sealed box is a open box.   

No. The three open boxes don't move and the sealed box remains sealed.

Quote
And where did the bright sunshine go??    In the photo with the blue arrows there is bright sunshine streaming through the window that is just a few feet west of the area....  But in the fake photo there is only camera flash illuminating the area.

Sunlight didn't get enough to the west side of the building for light to reach the tall stack until, I guess, 2:30 or later.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/suncalc/dealey-plaza-suncalc-1430.png)

Studebaker took his in-situ photos about 1:25. The Alyea film shows no sunlight on the tall stack of boxes; Day had to take the rifle over to the window to see it better.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_9.jpg)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184774/m1/1/med_res/)

The sun also had to reach around the tall stack of carton on the pallet by the window. The post-discovery photos that have sunlight were taken much later than the in-situ photos.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 11:12:38 PM
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
THe wooden column is 9" square....Use it to find that the box on the south side of the column is 16 inche long.

The columns were 9 1/2" square on the DPD grid map. That makes the box 18" long.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 11:14:24 PM
That doesn't make any difference....  The rifle would still be BENEATH the pallet......  Even though it might not be DIRECTLY BELOW the pallet.

So the rifle is still shifting northward. LOL.

At least the Warren Report (and I) are sticking by the in-situ location.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 19, 2020, 11:25:55 PM
Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

How do you explain the fact there is no bright sunlight illuminating the area ...and the box above the rifle is wide open?
The sealed box is the one stacked three-high.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sealed box stacked three-high at upper-left; three open boxes visible between sealed box and tall stack
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sealed box stacked three-high at near-lower-left; three open boxes visible between sealed box and tall stack
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2020, 01:39:15 AM
The primary boxes north of the rifle are a row that's three-wide by two-high. They're all open in all the photos. What you pointing to is sealed box that on top of two others; it's sealed in all the photos.

No. The three open boxes don't move and the sealed box remains sealed.

Sunlight didn't get enough to the west side of the building for light to reach the tall stack until, I guess, 2:30 or later.

(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/suncalc/dealey-plaza-suncalc-1430.png)

Studebaker took his in-situ photos about 1:25. The Alyea film shows no sunlight on the tall stack of boxes; Day had to take the rifle over to the window to see it better.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_9.jpg)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184774/m1/1/med_res/)

The sun also had to reach around the tall stack of carton on the pallet by the window. The post-discovery photos that have sunlight were taken much later than the in-situ photos.

C'mon Jerry...Try being honest with yourself......You know that the the boxes above the rifle that are wide open in the fake insitu photo were NOT wide open in the photo with the blue arrows.   And you should be intelligent enough to see that the fake in situ photo was taken after dark..... Just look at the box at camera left....That box should be bathed in bright sunshine but it is darker than the box that was directly in front of the camera flash.... IOW...the box to camera left didn't receive the same amount of light as the box directly in front of the camera.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2020, 01:56:46 AM
Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)

   Mr. BALL. Let's see the shots you took of the place where the gun was located?
   Mr. STUDEBAKER. I know it's mine because my knees are in the picture.

Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

Of course not.....They had realized that Lee Oswald couldn't possible have hid the rifle beneath that pallet AFTER the shooting....So they had to move the rifle closer to the aisle to make it somewhat feasible for Lee to have put the rifle there ( as seen in there fake in situ photo) as he dashed by on his way with the encounter with Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom.

If you've viewed the WC "reenactment" of the insertion of the rifle then you should know beyond any doubt that Agent John Howlett couldn't replicate the imaginary  actions of Lee Oswald....So he had to used a light piece of 1" X 3" wood. He knew that he couldn't possibly have jammed the 8 pound, and 4 inch thick carcano  into the crack that was only 1 inch wide.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 20, 2020, 02:19:30 AM
C'mon Jerry...Try being honest with yourself......You know that the the boxes above the rifle that are wide open in the fake insitu photo were NOT wide open in the photo with the blue arrows.   

Now all three boxes are not open. And you can't orientate the one box that is sealed. You're gettin' to be a Ralph Cinque.

Quote
And you should be intelligent enough to see that the fake in situ photo was taken after dark..... Just look at the box at camera left....That box should be bathed in bright sunshine but it is darker that the box that was directly in front of the camera flash.... IOW...the box to camera left didn't receive the same amount of light as the box directly in front of the camera.

The amount of light reflected back is conditioned on the how much surface is perpendicular to the flash.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/1/med_res/)

Dark areas in a flash picture doesn't mean it was taken at night. Was this picture taken at night?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 20, 2020, 02:25:57 AM
Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:

Of course not.....They had realized that Lee Oswald couldn't possible have hid the rifle beneath that pallet AFTER the shooting....So they had to move the rifle closer to the aisle to make it somewhat feasible for Lee to have put the rifle there ( as seen in there fake in situ photo) as he dashed by on his way with the encounter with Baker and Truly in the second floor lunchroom.

Boone and Weitzman guarded the site until it was photographed by Studebaker. Both Day and Studebaker said the rifle hadn't been touched prior to being picked up. Boone and Weitzman arrowed exhibits that point to the same row of boxes shown in the photos with the rifle on the floor.

Quote
If you've viewed the WC "reenactment" of the insertion of the rifle then you should know beyond any doubt that Agent John Howlett couldn't replicate the imaginary  actions of Lee Oswald....So he had to used a light piece of 1" X 3" wood. He knew that he couldn't possibly have jammed the 8 pound, and 4 inch thick carcano  into the crack that was only 1 inch wide.

I don't think that trumps Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2020, 02:42:32 AM
Now all three boxes are not open. And you can't orientate the one box that is sealed. You're gettin' to be a Ralph Cinque.

The amount of light reflected back is conditioned on the how much surface is perpendicular to the flash.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/1/med_res/)

Dark areas in a flash picture doesn't mean it was taken at night. Was this picture taken at night?

You simply can't be honest can you, Jerry  ?   

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 20, 2020, 05:33:01 AM
Just ask Fritz how many hulls he tossed onto the floor.
He died in 1984 you can try to ask him
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 20, 2020, 06:14:44 AM
The sealed box is the one stacked three-high.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sealed box stacked three-high at upper-left; three open boxes visible between sealed box and tall stack
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sealed box stacked three-high at near-lower-left; three open boxes visible between sealed box and tall stack
Let's get this straight. You think Oswald shot that rifle from the 6th floor SE corner window very slowly because that is what Steve Austin's(Brennan) bionic eye-witnessed. And then you think Oswald ran as fast as Steve Austin across the 6th floor slowing down to calmly placed the rifle in that awful awkward spot and then raced down the stairs undetected like the invisible man, reappearing for Baker and all like it was a walk in the park. That is crazy. So he must have been the invisible man when leaving the building too, right?


                                                                           
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 20, 2020, 02:57:49 PM
Boone and Weitzman guarded the site until it was photographed by Studebaker. Both Day and Studebaker said the rifle hadn't been touched prior to being picked up. Boone and Weitzman arrowed exhibits that point to the same row of boxes shown in the photos with the rifle on the floor.

I don't think that trumps Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker.

Jerry, is 14' 6" the same as 15' 4' ?  ......  Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle, and recorded that distance as 15' 4"...

Why is there no bright sunshine in the in situ photo?   

Please explain how Lee Oswald could have placed the 4 inch thick rifle into a crack that was only about 1 inch wide?  ....And while you're explaining that tell me how he did that without leaving any finger prints on the rifle.     I'm sure you're not so obtuse that you think he could have wrestled the rifle into the crack and left no finger prints on the rifle.    You may recall that Lt Day reached out and picked the rifle by the leather sling and cleared the action of any live cartridges and then he started dusting for finger prints......  He found NONE......How would that be possible if Lee wrestled the rifle into the crack between the boxes.  ???
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 20, 2020, 05:27:53 PM
Let's get this straight. You think Oswald shot that rifle from the 6th floor SE corner window very slowly because that is what Steve Austin's(Brennan) bionic eye-witnessed. And then you think Oswald ran as fast as Steve Austin across the 6th floor slowing down to calmly placed the rifle in that awful awkward spot and then raced down the stairs undetected like the invisible man, reappearing for Baker and all like it was a walk in the park. That is crazy. So he must have been the invisible man when leaving the building too, right?                                                                         

What's "crazy" is that a Nazi is still allowed to post here.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 20, 2020, 06:42:03 PM
My point I was trying to make was that Weizmann must have seen the rifle INSIDE the 4” space gap of the pallet and this was where the rifle was originally before it was moved to the “set up” position as photographed

I have no doubt now that it WAS possible for a rifle to have been placed inside the  4” thru the open space under a pallet if the rifle is inserted thru either East or west end of a pallet

Therefore Walt’s theory of pre planting rifle is possible and is as simple as someone on ground floor wedging the rifle in the pallet using probably those wades pieces of paper seen in photo

The rifle is then transported to the 6th floor by the unwitting fork lift operator

It’s also possible that the rifle could have been placed inside the pallet after the shooting but IMO this would preclude Oswald having done so since travel time around to one of those available East or west end open part of a pallet and sliding rifle inside would add at least another 15 secs to the timeline which = Oswald cannot have made it to 2nd floor landing by 75 sec post shots fired.

My calculation of time required for Oswald on the 6th floor is as follows

5 secs to slowly withdraw rifle window allowing Malcolm Couch to spot it after hearing Bob Jackson shouting about seeing it

5 sec to get up from kneeling and get out of the tight space of the SN

25 secs to double time approx 8ft/ sec As Oswald travels 180 ft to get the boxes near staircase
(Note here added  3 sec for acceleration and deceleration to avg speed of 8ft/sec over 180ft= 22 sec

15 sec added to travel around stacked boxes, find the nearest pallet of boxes to hide the rifle underneath

10 sec to wipe rifle of prints and kneel down and insert rifle thru west end of the pallet while holding it with rag so as not to leave any prints
 
5 sec to get up from kneeling down at the pallet and travel to the staircase


Total time required = 65 secs of time used on the 6th floor before Oswald could have started a descent down the staircase at about a 10sec per floor pace.

Conclusions:
1.  Oswald cannot even barely make it to the 5th floor landing by 75 sec post shots
2. Oswald would not have passed by the 4th floor landing until 85 sec post shots therefore even higher probability Dorothy Garner should have seen him
before she saw Baker/Truly coming up the staircase

3.Oswald does not reach 2nd floor lunchroom until 105 sec post shots well beyond the 75 sec timeline required to have been seen by Baker as Baker looked thru the 2x2 window approx 80-83 sec post shots

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 20, 2020, 10:45:24 PM
What's "crazy" is that a Nazi is still allowed to post here.

Obviously Oswald didn't place the gun there. Now, what else were you trying to say? I think you are confused, we're not on that board. "Nazi"? You have a lot problems. You should sort them out they are interfering with this board. Your error
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 21, 2020, 03:21:40 AM
 John Myton,

What a silly question!

Don't you know that it's been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI and/or the evil, evil, evil Dallas Police Department and or the Dallas Sheriff's Department, etc, etc, etc, put it there?

D'oh

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 21, 2020, 03:51:49 AM
John Myton,

What a silly question!

Don't you know that it's been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI and/or the evil, evil, evil Dallas Police Department and or the Dallas Sheriff's Department, etc, etc, etc, put it there?

D'oh

--  MWT  ;)

You like Myton, that is a problem
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Thomas Graves on February 21, 2020, 04:02:56 AM
You like Myton, that is a problem

Peter,

Do you work for Vladimir Putin?

It sure seems that way.

You and all of the other deplorables are obviously enamored with his "useful idiot" (or outright agent?) Donald Trump.

And that is a problem ...

--  MWT  ;)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2020, 03:08:02 PM
He died in 1984 you can try to ask him

Put on a good flame proof  suit before you go....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2020, 03:16:01 PM
Let's get this straight. You think Oswald shot that rifle from the 6th floor SE corner window very slowly because that is what Steve Austin's(Brennan) bionic eye-witnessed. And then you think Oswald ran as fast as Steve Austin across the 6th floor slowing down to calmly placed the rifle in that awful awkward spot and then raced down the stairs undetected like the invisible man, reappearing for Baker and all like it was a walk in the park. That is crazy. So he must have been the invisible man when leaving the building too, right?


                                                                         

slowing down to calmly place the rifle in that awful awkward spot

Of course you're referring to the 1 inch wide crack in which he placed the 4 inch wide rifle ....   and left no finger prints on the rifle while wrestling that rifle into the crack.....


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 21, 2020, 04:55:14 PM
slowing down to calmly place the rifle in that awful awkward spot

Of course you're referring to the 1 inch wide crack in which he placed the 4 inch wide rifle ....   and left no finger prints on the rifle while wrestling that rifle into the crack.....

I am surprised they remembered to leave a rifle.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2020, 05:28:51 PM

I am surprised they remembered to leave a rifle.

Oh they wouldn't have forgotten the rifle ....It was THE instrumental piece of evidence in the framing of Lee Oswald.    Lee really tossed a monkey wrench into their plot when he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the murder.     If he had been there then it would have been a snap open and shut case....With the spent shells, the rifle, and Lee's corpse all right there as mute evidence that the Castro lovin commie had shot JFK, and he'd been shot and killed by an alert law enforcement   officer ( The 175 pound man who was dressed like a deputy sheriff in a khaki uniform and who was armed with a hunting rifle with a scope)   

The carcano had been hidden beside the logical escape route, beneath the boxes of books before the murder, but nobody would have asked any questions about when the dead commie had hid the rifle..... As the events unfolded ...they had to wait about 48 hours before they could silence that no good Castro lovin commie.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2020, 05:42:31 PM
With the spent shells, the rifle, and Lee's corpse all right there as mute evidence that the Castro lovin commie had shot JFK, and he'd been shot and killed by an alert law enforcement   officer ( The 175 pound man who was dressed like a deputy sheriff in a khaki uniform and who was armed with a hunting rifle with a scope) 

Wouldn't the alert law enforcement officer have had a difficult time explaining what he was doing on the 6th floor of the Depository building?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2020, 05:54:37 PM
Wouldn't the alert law enforcement officer have had a difficult time explaining what he was doing on the 6th floor of the Depository building?

Nope...He was on the roof as security for the Pres.....and he moved down to the sixth floor where he thought he would find the patsy.   But when he got to the sixth he found Bonnie Ray Williams and no patsy....He ordered BRW off of the sixth floor and then moved around behind the windows ( and probably tried to signal  the team leader that the patsy wasn't there).....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2020, 07:56:19 PM
Wouldn’t it have been kinda conspicuous that no other building had “security for the president” on the roof?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 21, 2020, 10:37:17 PM
Wouldn’t it have been kinda conspicuous that no other building had “security for the president” on the roof?

What do you think??
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 21, 2020, 10:43:04 PM
What do you think??

I think that if Oswald had been shot and killed in the TSBD by an “alert law enforcement officer”, that officer would have had a lot of ‘splaining to do.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2020, 12:03:37 AM
I think that if Oswald had been shot and killed in the TSBD by an “alert law enforcement officer”, that officer would have had a lot of ‘splaining to do.

Are you kidding??.....   Were you alive on 11/22/63.....   With the DPD and the FBI controlling....  The officer would have been hailed as a hero.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 22, 2020, 01:43:23 AM
Oh they wouldn't have forgotten the rifle ....It was THE instrumental piece of evidence in the framing of Lee Oswald.    Lee really tossed a monkey wrench into their plot when he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the murder.     If he had been there then it would have been a snap open and shut case....With the spent shells, the rifle, and Lee's corpse all right there as mute evidence that the Castro lovin commie had shot JFK, and he'd been shot and killed by an alert law enforcement   officer ( The 175 pound man who was dressed like a deputy sheriff in a khaki uniform and who was armed with a hunting rifle with a scope)   

The carcano had been hidden beside the logical escape route, beneath the boxes of books before the murder, but nobody would have asked any questions about when the dead commie had hid the rifle..... As the events unfolded ...they had to wait about 48 hours before they could silence that no good Castro lovin commie.   
How many fingerprints were found on the 6th floor? Was it a palm print and a fingerprint?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 22, 2020, 01:46:06 AM
Are you kidding??.....   Were you alive on 11/22/63.....   With the DPD and the FBI controlling....  The officer would have been hailed as a hero.

The officer would have been hailed as a hero

I heard that was Ruby's personal gig

Edit: Ruby's personal gig
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2020, 02:14:58 AM
The officer would have been hailed as a hero

I heard that was Ruby's gig


For once you're right......   Initially Ruby was puzzled that he wasn't being hailed as a hero..... ( In fact he received hundreds of telegrams and letters that congratulated him, and applauded him for murdering Lee Oswald.)   Just curious.....Were you one of those who sent a letter with money enclosed to Jack Ruby?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 22, 2020, 04:22:48 AM

For once you're right......   Initially Ruby was puzzled that he wasn't being hailed as a hero..... ( In fact he received hundreds of telegrams and letters that congratulated him, and applauded him for murdering Lee Oswald.)   Just curious.....Were you one of those who sent a letter with money enclosed to Jack Ruby?

I would rather have had Oswald stand trial. He would plead out and get life.
I would be more likely to send Marina money for her kid's shoes.

Your hero should be Little Prick#2 Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 22, 2020, 03:32:48 PM
I would rather have had Oswald stand trial. He would plead out and get life.
I would be more likely to send Marina money for her kid's shoes.

Your hero should be Little Prick#2 Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid.

Wow... That's got to be a record.... An idiot contradicting himself in in the same breath....

"I would rather have had Oswald stand trial".....     "Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid."
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on February 22, 2020, 09:59:53 PM
I would rather have had Oswald stand trial. He would plead out and get life.
I would be more likely to send Marina money for her kid's shoes.

Your hero should be Little Prick#2 Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid.
Bil, having trouble expressing yourself? You need to stop the shock treatment altogether and hit the bottle
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 23, 2020, 01:14:40 AM
Not sure if Walts preplant rifle theory is correct or not but something is amiss with the failure to photograph the original configuration wall of boxes BEFORE they were moved

It’s the same as the failure to photograph the Paper bag claimed to be right there on the floor in the SN and suggesting a dotted line outline in the
“Reconstruction photo” is proof it was there
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 23, 2020, 05:03:30 PM
Not sure if Walts preplant rifle theory is correct or not but something is amiss with the failure to photograph the original configuration wall of boxes BEFORE they were moved

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)

Near as I can determine, Boone, Weitzman, Studebaker and Day all testified or said nothing was moved prior to taking the in-situ photos, of which there were two.
Quote
It’s the same as the failure to photograph the Paper bag claimed to be right there on the floor in the SN and suggesting a dotted line outline in the
“Reconstruction photo” is proof it was there

They didn't immediately realize the paper bag was evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on February 23, 2020, 07:17:27 PM
They didn't immediately realize the paper bag was evidence.

It’s still not.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2020, 07:29:01 PM
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)

Near as I can determine, Boone, Weitzman, Studebaker and Day all testified or said nothing was moved prior to taking the in-situ photos, of which there were two.
They didn't immediately realize the paper bag was evidence.

No, they said the rifle wasn't touched....I believe someone started removing the boxes from above the rifle and either,  Boone  or Weitzman told them to leave the boxes alone because they might have finger prints on them....

So they recognized that the rifle had been placed on the floor beneath the pallet and then the boxes had to have been handled.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 23, 2020, 07:50:55 PM
Not sure if Walts preplant rifle theory is correct or not but something is amiss with the failure to photograph the original configuration wall of boxes BEFORE they were moved

It’s the same as the failure to photograph the Paper bag claimed to be right there on the floor in the SN and suggesting a dotted line outline in the
“Reconstruction photo” is proof it was there

Not sure if Walts preplant rifle theory is correct or not but something is amiss with the failure to photograph the original configuration wall of boxes BEFORE they were moved

12:30   Shots fired...

12: 31: 20  Baker and Truly encounter Lee Oswald in the second floor lunchroom...

At 12:30 Baker looked up at the TSBD and saw pigeons bursting from behind the Hertz sign on the roof of the TSBD......At 12:30: 20  Baker parked his motorcycle and ran into the TSBD.....   At 12:31 Baker started up the stairs....At 12:31: 10 Baker reached the 2nd floor landing....  It took ten seconds for Baker to climb one flight of stairs.   So it would have required about forty seconds for Baker to reach the sixth floor after encountering Lee Oswald in the lunchroom.....But Let's say he too 15 seconds to talk to Lee in the lunchroom and another 15 or 20 seconds to talk to the guy on either the third or fourth floor.....   So let's say it took Baker about 160 or 170 seconds after the first shot to reach the sixth floor.....  The rifle could not have been hidden in the manner it was hidden in less that about three minutes and the person would have to have been in the position that Boone was in when he saw the tiny portion of the butt of the rifle.  He could not have been in the aisle.    And he would still have been there when Baker arrived .....   Therefore the rifle could NOT have been hidden AFTER the shooting.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 23, 2020, 08:14:14 PM
Wow... That's got to be a record.... An idiot contradicting himself in in the same breath....

"I would rather have had Oswald stand trial".....     "Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid."

Ruby did the entire conspiracy-monger species a solid by (inadvertently) creating this conspiracy all by himself.

And, by association, a 'life' for you and your fellow paranoids.

And why are you talking about Trump ("an idiot who contradicts himself in the same breath") in the first place? I'm clearly addressing how Little Prick#2 inadvertently created a multi-million dollar industry that has given oh-so-many of your paranoid species a place where you can pretend to feel important, finally, in something in life.

No wonder you lot heap so much praise on Little Prick#1.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on February 23, 2020, 08:27:40 PM
Bil, having trouble expressing yourself? You need to stop the shock treatment altogether and hit the bottle

We certainly know how you express yourself
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 24, 2020, 04:37:34 PM
My point I was trying to make was that Weizmann must have seen the rifle INSIDE the 4” space gap of the pallet and this was where the rifle was originally before it was moved to the “set up” position as photographed

I have no doubt now that it WAS possible for a rifle to have been placed inside the  4” thru the open space under a pallet if the rifle is inserted thru either East or west end of a pallet

Therefore Walt’s theory of pre planting rifle is possible and is as simple as someone on ground floor wedging the rifle in the pallet using probably those wades pieces of paper seen in photo

The rifle is then transported to the 6th floor by the unwitting fork lift operator

It’s also possible that the rifle could have been placed inside the pallet after the shooting but IMO this would preclude Oswald having done so since travel time around to one of those available East or west end open part of a pallet and sliding rifle inside would add at least another 15 secs to the timeline which = Oswald cannot have made it to 2nd floor landing by 75 sec post shots fired.

My calculation of time required for Oswald on the 6th floor is as follows

5 secs to slowly withdraw rifle window allowing Malcolm Couch to spot it after hearing Bob Jackson shouting about seeing it

5 sec to get up from kneeling and get out of the tight space of the SN

25 secs to double time approx 8ft/ sec As Oswald travels 180 ft to get the boxes near staircase
(Note here added  3 sec for acceleration and deceleration to avg speed of 8ft/sec over 180ft= 22 sec

15 sec added to travel around stacked boxes, find the nearest pallet of boxes to hide the rifle underneath

10 sec to wipe rifle of prints and kneel down and insert rifle thru west end of the pallet while holding it with rag so as not to leave any prints
 
5 sec to get up from kneeling down at the pallet and travel to the staircase


Total time required = 65 secs of time used on the 6th floor before Oswald could have started a descent down the staircase at about a 10sec per floor pace.

Conclusions:
1.  Oswald cannot even barely make it to the 5th floor landing by 75 sec post shots
2. Oswald would not have passed by the 4th floor landing until 85 sec post shots therefore even higher probability Dorothy Garner should have seen him
before she saw Baker/Truly coming up the staircase

3.Oswald does not reach 2nd floor lunchroom until 105 sec post shots well beyond the 75 sec timeline required to have been seen by Baker as Baker looked thru the 2x2 window approx 80-83 sec post shots

I have no doubt now that it WAS possible for a rifle to have been placed inside the  4” thru the open space under a pallet if the rifle is inserted thru either East or west end of a pallet

4 inches?....There apparently was a much wider gap between the rows of boxes that made up the north and south sides of the crevasse  The photos seem to show a wider gap ...

The rifle was probably placed beneath the pallet from the west.....Because the heaviest part of the rifle was the butt end, and the butt was to the west  with the muzzle pointing east.    It would have been natural to handle the rifle by the heaviest end .....

Then after the rifle was placed on the floor beneath the pallet the person only needed to place a couple of boxes over the gap between the rows of boxes on the north and south sides  of the rifle and another to seal the west end of the crevasse. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 24, 2020, 05:01:44 PM
I have no doubt now that it WAS possible for a rifle to have been placed inside the  4” thru the open space under a pallet if the rifle is inserted thru either East or west end of a pallet

4 inches?....There apparently was a much wider gap between the rows of boxes that made up the north and south sides of the crevasse  The photos seem to show a wider gap ...

The rifle was probably placed beneath the pallet from the west.....Because the heaviest part of the rifle was the butt end, and the butt was to the west  with the muzzle pointing east.    It would have been natural to handle the rifle by the heaviest end .....

Then after the rifle was placed on the floor beneath the pallet the person only needed to place a couple of boxes over the gap between the rows of boxes on the north and south sides  of the rifle and another to seal the west end of the crevasse.

(https://images.uline.com/is/image/content/dam/images/H/H3500/H-3445.jpg)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/small_res/)  (https://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/653-06534951em-a-boy-reaching-under-a-sofa-to-retrieve-something.jpg)

Then along comes Weitzman with his face to the floor so he see through the 3/4" gap between the side-board of the pallet and the floor.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 24, 2020, 07:40:32 PM
(https://images.uline.com/is/image/content/dam/images/H/H3500/H-3445.jpg)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/small_res/)  (https://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/653-06534951em-a-boy-reaching-under-a-sofa-to-retrieve-something.jpg)

Then along comes Weitzman with his face to the floor so he see through the 3/4" gap between the side-board of the pallet and the floor.

Weitzman said that he shined his flashlight beneath the pallet and spotted the rifle.....  Do you doubt that he did?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 25, 2020, 10:17:13 PM
Wedging the rifle inside the space in the pallet would be a simple way the conspirators could get rifle to 6th floor with the minimal exposure of one of them being inside the TSBD

If there are pallets fully stacked with boxes that the conspirator KNOWS will be moved by forklift operator to the 6th floor BEFORE the JFK motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza

Someone enters the TSBD by annex dock building early Friday via west side door and wedges rifle inside one the pallet on the ground floor with the wads of paper and then exits via same west side door

Exposure time is probably only about
30 secs if one of pallets is inside the annex bldg part of ground floor and not in LOS of employees on the ground floor. Inside the TSBD proper
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 25, 2020, 10:25:54 PM
Wedging the rifle inside the space in the pallet would be a simple way the conspirators could get rifle to 6th floor with the minimal exposure of one of them being inside the TSBD

If there are pallets fully stacked with boxes that the conspirator KNOWS will be moved by forklift operator to the 6th floor BEFORE the JFK motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza

Someone enters the TSBD by annex dock building early Friday via west side door and wedges rifle inside one the pallet on the ground floor with the wads of paper and then exits via same west side door

Exposure time is probably only about
30 secs if one of pallets is inside the annex bldg part of ground floor and not in LOS of employees on the ground floor. Inside the TSBD proper


The rifle was placed there beneath the pallet while the pallet was sitting on the sixth floor with boxes of books stacked on it.....   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on February 25, 2020, 11:15:43 PM
Olay Walt, then if it were placed under the pallet the reason must be that in that location would be least probable place that rifle would be accidentally discovered before the shooting takes place

As opposed to having placed rifle between two vertical walls of boxes resting directly on the floor which might get moved individually as the workers were laying new sections of plywood floor prior to JFK motorcade arriving

Still don’t quite follow The reason for conspirators to place a rifle that would appear to be unfired due to corrosion Inside the barrel and a misaligned scope

If you are trying to set up a patsy to be suspected of having fired a rifle on that floor, placing a rifle with corroded barrel and misaligned scope seems a bit of a mistake imo
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2020, 12:54:24 AM
Olay Walt, then if it were placed under the pallet the reason must be that in that location would be least probable place that rifle would be accidentally discovered before the shooting takes place

As opposed to having placed rifle between two vertical walls of boxes resting directly on the floor which might get moved individually as the workers were laying new sections of plywood floor prior to JFK motorcade arriving

Still don’t quite follow The reason for conspirators to place a rifle that would appear to be unfired due to corrosion Inside the barrel and a misaligned scope

If you are trying to set up a patsy to be suspected of having fired a rifle on that floor, placing a rifle with corroded barrel and misaligned scope seems a bit of a mistake imo

Still don’t quite follow The reason for conspirators to place a rifle that would appear to be unfired due to corrosion Inside the barrel and a misaligned scope

When the conspirators and the investigators are one and the same ....Who's going to argue with the vaunted  FBI???    The barrel could have had a spiders nest in it and the FBI would simple have lied and  still have declared it the murder weapon.....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 26, 2020, 02:09:08 AM
Still don’t quite follow The reason for conspirators to place a rifle that would appear to be unfired due to corrosion Inside the barrel and a misaligned scope

When the conspirators and the investigators are one and the same ....Who's going to argue with the vaunted  FBI???    The barrel could have had a spiders nest in it and the FBI would simple have lied and  still have declared it the murder weapon.....

"Corrosion inside the barrel" doesn't mean it was from rust and non-use.

    "They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly
     corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they
     result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the
     firing of cartridges, bullets through it."
          -- Warren Report, USGPO, p550
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 26, 2020, 02:24:43 AM
"Corrosion inside the barrel" doesn't mean it was from rust and non-use.

    "They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly
     corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they
     result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the
     firing of cartridges, bullets through it."
          -- Warren Report, USGPO, p550


"Corrosion inside the barrel" doesn't mean it was from rust and non-use.


Firing a rifle with dirt or corrosion in the barrel is highly dangerous.....  However if there is dirt or corrosion in the barrel, a single projectile fired through the barrel will wipe out that dirt or corrosion....   Perhaps you've forgotten that The FBI said that the rifle had had THREE projectiles through the barrel....  That means the bore would have been clean....BUT ...The FBI would not test the rifle until it had been cleaned and oiled....  They weren't fools....They weren't about to fire that rifle with the dirt and corrosion in the barrel......   


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 28, 2020, 03:51:40 AM
"Corrosion inside the barrel" doesn't mean it was from rust and non-use.

    "They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly
     corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they
     result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the
     firing of cartridges, bullets through it."
          -- Warren Report, USGPO, p550
Whoever wrote that must have had corrosion of the brain. Rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139 can only indicate that it had not been fired that day. Some other rifle must have been used to shoot from that building.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2020, 05:22:26 PM
Whoever wrote that must have had corrosion of the brain. Rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139 can only indicate that it had not been fired that day. Some other rifle must have been used to shoot from that building.


    "They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly
     corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they
     result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the
     firing of cartridges, bullets through it."
          -- Warren Report, USGPO, p550



Whoever wrote that must have had corrosion of the brain.

Actually the corrosion occurs because the the extremely hot gasses from the burning propellant vaporizes and protective oil in the barrel and leaves it susceptible  to the humidity in the air which combines with the corrosive film that was deposited by the burning propellant.   That corrosion occurs more rapidly in a high humidity area.   

Rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139 can only indicate that it had not been fired that day.

Bulls eye!!.....  You're absolutely right!

Some other rifle must have been used to shoot from that building.

The physical evidence reveals that there were no shots fired from the SE corner window.   The bullet that hit Connally  MAY?  have been fired from the west end of the TSBD...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 28, 2020, 06:51:31 PM
Whoever wrote that must have had corrosion of the brain. Rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139 can only indicate that it had not been fired that day. Some other rifle must have been used to shoot from that building.

Who said there was "rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139"?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on February 28, 2020, 07:02:55 PM
Who said there was "rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139"?

 The FBI....  They would not test the rifle until the bore had been cleaned and oiled.     They were smart enough to realize that test firing that carcano with the dirty corroded barrel could be very dangerous.   Because the bullet may become lodged in the barrel before it can move down the barrel....and then the pressure from the burning gasses causes extremely high pressure in the firing chamber which could rupture the receiver and seriously injure or kill the user.  They sent the carcano to their armory to have it cleaned, oile, and inspected before they tested it.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on February 28, 2020, 07:48:45 PM
The FBI.... 

The FBI said the inside of the barrel had rust and debris?

Quote
They would not test the rifle until the bore had been cleaned and oiled.     

Probably a good precaution for anyone considering firing a rifle not their own for the first time.

Quote
They were smart enough to realize that test firing that carcano with the dirty corroded barrel could be very dangerous.   Because the bullet may become lodged in the barrel before it can move down the barrel....and then the pressure from the burning gasses causes extremely high pressure in the firing chamber which could rupture the receiver and seriously injure or kill the user.  They sent the carcano to their armory to have it cleaned, oile, and inspected before they tested it.

The FBI stated all this somewhere? Right?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 28, 2020, 08:44:59 PM
The FBI stated all this somewhere? Right?
Yeah...somewhere. (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on February 28, 2020, 09:33:27 PM
    The Persistent A. Ernest Jenner Jr.
He is gone now but still persists here------------
Quote
Mr. JENNER - I don't wish to be persistent, but was there anything that you saw about the duffelbags that lead you at that time to even think for an instant that there was anything long, slim and hard like a pole?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Or a gun, a rifle?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - No? Nothing?
Jenner didn't wish to be persistent? But did he ever persist ...
Quote
Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.
Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?
Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--
Mrs. PAINE - No.
All right Ruth--Let's try it a different way...Let's play hide the rifle in the blanket :-\
Quote
Mr. JENNER - For the record, I am placing the rifle in the folded blanket as Mrs. Paine folded it. This is being done without the rifle being dismantled. May the record show, Mr. Chairman, that the rifle fits well in the package from end to end, and it does not--
Mrs. PAINE - Can you make it flatter?
Mr. JENNER - No; because the rifle is now in there.
Mrs. PAINE - I just mean that--
Mr. JENNER - Was that about the appearance of the blanket wrapped package that you saw on your garage floor?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; although I recall it as quite flat.
Mr. JENNER - Flatter than it now appears to be?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes....
Quote
Mr. JENNER - Now directing your attention to the rifle itself, which is Commission Exhibit 189, when did you first see that rifle, if you have ever seen--
Mrs. PAINE - I saw a rifle I judge to have been the same one at the police station on the afternoon of November 22
The prosecution asks the witness to identify a weapon that they have already shown her as being in evidence...what was up with that?
[Mr Jenner meant to say CE 139]
Quote
Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?
 Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

Damn it Ruth...What good were you?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 15, 2020, 05:35:46 AM
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


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.

My brain works!

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

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."  Really? Let's look at what the HSCA actually concluded.

                                                                  HSCA & THE BALLISTICS TEST

The House Select Committee on Assassinations Firearms panel test-fired C-2766, and could not match its test bullets with either CE-399 (the magic bullet) or the test bullets fired by the FBI from what was allegedly the same rifle (CE-139).  From Volume I, page 464 of the HSCA hearings: 

        Mr. MCDONALD. Did you compare the FBI test bullets with your own test bullets that you recently fired out of 139?
        Mr. BATES. Yes, we also made a microscopic comparison of that.
        Mr. MCDONALD. And what did the comparison show?
        Mr. BATES. The results of this examination indicated that we could not determine whether the FBI test bullets were, in
        fact, fired from the rifle, CE-139.
        Mr. McDONALD. And would you please explain your answer?
        Mr. BATES. Based upon the microscopic comparison, there were differences  in the  individual  identifying
        characteristics  found within the land and groove impressions on the FBI test bullets and on the panel test bullets.


Hmmm... Which part of that say's Oswald was guilty?


                                                             THE CONDITION OF THE SIXTH FLOOR RIFLE

The experts from the US Army and the FBI who had tested the rifle discovered that it was actually not usable in its original state:

    Shims had to be applied to the telescopic sight before the rifle could be aimed.
    Even after the telescopic sight had been repaired, it proved unreliable and inaccurate.
    The condition of both the bolt and the trigger pull meant that the rifle could not be aimed accurately.

The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could not have caused any of the wounds to Kennedy, Connally or Tague, except by accident.


Hmmm..  So the HSCA concluded Oswald was guilty, after they found the rifle wasn't even usable? How does that work?


                                                                          NOTES FROM THE ABOVE

“They [the US Army marksmen] could not sight the weapon in using the telescope, and no attempt was made to sight it in using the iron sight. We did adjust the telescopic sight by the addition of two shims, one which tended to adjust the azimuth, and one which adjusted an elevation”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.443.

According to the FBI’s firearms specialist, “Every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. … We fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact.”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.405.

Problems with the bolt and the trigger mechanism: “There were several comments made — particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. … There was also comment made about the trigger pull … in the first stage the trigger is relatively free, and it suddenly required a greater pull to actually fire the weapon.”: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.449.

“The pressure to open the bolt was so great that that we tended to move the rifle off the target.”: ibid., p.451.


If I was one of those experts, I don't think I would have concluded guilt based on a rifle that was too spombleprofglidnoctobunsty to even work right. But Oswald swallowers love to swallow.

So the actual experts who tested the rifle stated it was a piece of spombleprofglidnoctobuns, too worn out to even work right. But how could that be if the rifle sent to A. Hidell was barely used? What's the sorry ass excuse for that, Oswald Swallowers?

How does a lightly used 36 inch 5 pound rifle turn into a 40.02 inch 8 pound barely usable rifle? What kind of nonsense is that? But go ahead, explain it.

The order showed a 36 inch 5 pound rifle was sent to A. Hidell. The ad in the paper said it was for a 36 inch 5 pound rifle. And yet a 40.02 inch 8 pound piece of spombleprofglidnoctobuns rifle was found instead. So explain that.

And why were the 2 rifle slings different? The 40.02 inch 8 pound rifle has a leather sling with a pad. And yet the backyard rifle had nylon sling with no pad.  Maybe an Oswald Swallower can explain that!

How could Oswald, who couldn't shoot for spombleprofglidnoctobuns, have shot Kennedy in the front from behind? The bullet that killed Kennedy came from the front. I'd bet one of the 2 men positioned in the pergola behind Zapruder with rifles would know.

Maybe take a magnify glass to the Moorman photo and point out which of those 2 (boogeymen) were Oswald, since he's so guilty.

The government drops ridiculous nonsensical goo, and the swallowers suck it all up. And not one of them is gonna explain any of it, because they can't. There is no explanation, except that Oswald was being framed.

"But the habitual lying government would never lie. I believe them." lol

If a swallower wants to try explaining it away, I'd sure love to hear it. I can just see it now...

"Isn't it obvious... the rifle was magic too, just like the bullets. Oswald received the magic 36 inch rifle, then after he shot it, the magic rifle turned into a 40.02 inch rifle. To cover for Oswald, so he could buy a coke before making it home through presidential motorcade in 30 minutes riding the bus and kill a cop."  : /

But your brain works...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 15, 2020, 06:20:15 PM
The FBI said the inside of the barrel had rust and debris?

Probably a good precaution for anyone considering firing a rifle not their own for the first time.

The FBI stated all this somewhere? Right?

The experts from the US Army and the FBI who had tested the rifle discovered that it was actually not usable in its original state:


The rifle was NOT USABLE ......    Do you understand what this means?      It means that the Carcano was NOT the murder weapon!!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 16, 2020, 04:20:27 PM
Too bad that doesn't prove anything except that its impossible. When did you decide to switch sides? Oh, it doesn't matter, I knew you would. I accept your apology in advance

The village idiot wrote:   "At day's end it comes down to the ability of the shooter to adapt and make the weapon useable if only for the time period required to accomplish a given task."

Even an expert sharpshooter would be a total dud in attempting to score any hits on a 9" paper plate at 50 yards with a full clip (6 rounds)  in  the TSBD carcano. 

And thank you Chappie, for proving once again that you have a prominent place in the village.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 16, 2020, 11:02:09 PM

THE BLUE-RIBBON BOYS
LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAND
--------------------------------
WC concluded 'probably'
HSCA concluded 'likely'

The Big Kahuna overall was the Stemmons sign (blocked Zapruder from MOI) which, in turn, prevented a precise, no-holds-barred-clear-Go/Don't Go-to-jail firing location. The Cuckoo's Nest location showed up in all cone trajectories IIRC. WC found this 'compelling'

Any claims of knoll hits would reveal them as being magic.

Hmmm... Which part of that say's Oswald was guilty?
>>> Somebody said that? Psst... lose that cringeworthy 'Hmmmm'.. it's 'girly-man' like 'easy-peasy'

The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could not have caused any of the wounds to Kennedy, Connally or Tague, except by accident.

>>> BINGO! It was accidental. The conspirators (somebody said there were conspirators so there must have been been) coaxed PatsyGuy (who apparently had a talent for making people swallow things) to fire downrange but not hit anything. But to the delight of Oswald Rabbit-Hole Apologists everywhere, he was far worse than even they expected: The little prick was so bad that he missed his assigned targets and hit Kennedy twice.

Later @Tippit, in an attempt to fire warning shots, he managed to hit the poor dumb cop instead. Not satisfied, and determined to get something right in his life, took a closer shot but only confirmed his loser status.

Some of the above is just a spoof because I said so.... Some of the above is just a spoof because I said so... Some of the above is just a spoof because I said so... 


EDIT in 'Girly-Man'
(Somebody's feathers got ruffled)

EDIT 'Some of the above'
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 16, 2020, 11:17:22 PM
>>> Somebody said that? Psst... lose that cringeworthy 'Hmmmm'.. it's gay, like 'easy-peasy'

Homophobe.

Quote
the little prick was so bad that he missed his assigned targets and Kennedy twice.

 :D

Like you know what the shooter was aiming at.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 16, 2020, 11:22:34 PM
Homophobe.

 :D

Like you know what the shooter was aiming at.

Somebody is even more cringeworthy

Ruffled your feathers, did I, big fella? Oh, wait... Perhaps 'girly-man'? Somebody said that before...
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Goth on March 17, 2020, 12:15:20 AM
The Blue Ribbon Boys Lonely Hearts Club Band
WC concluded 'probably'
HSCA concluded 'likely'

Stumbling block overall was Stemmons sign (blocked Zapruder from MOI) which, in turn, prevented a precise firing location. The Cuckoo's Nest location showed up in all cone trajectories IIRC. WC found this 'compelling'

Any claims of knoll hits would reveal them as the magic ones

Hmmm... Which part of that say's Oswald was guilty?
>>> Somebody said that? Psst... lose that cringeworthy 'Hmmmm'.. it's 'girly-man' like 'easy-peasy'

The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could not have caused any of the wounds to Kennedy, Connally or Tague, except by accident.
>>> BINGO! It was accident. The conspirators (somebody said there were conspirators so there must have been been) coaxed PatsyGuy (who apparently had a talent for making people swallow things) to fire downrange but not hit anything. But to the delight of Oswald Rabbit-Hole Apologists everywhere, he was far worse than even they expected: The little prick was so bad that he missed his assigned targets and Kennedy twice.

Later @Tippit, in an attempt to fire warning shots, he managed hit the poor dumb cop instead. Not satisfied, and determined to get something right in his life, took a closer shot but only confirmed his loser status.

The above sarcasm is just a spoof because I said so.... The above sarcasm is just a spoof because I said so... The above sarcasm is just a spoof because I said so... 

EDIT to Girly-Man
(Somebody's feathers got ruffled)

 Thumb1: It's one of your best, keep it up.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 17, 2020, 02:08:34 AM
Thumb1: It's one of your best, keep it up.

You betcha, sport
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 17, 2020, 02:25:30 AM
Somebody is even more cringeworthy

Ruffled your feathers, did I, big fella? Oh, wait... Perhaps 'girly-man'? Somebody said that before...

No, you’re just showing yourself to be the bigot you are.

Now you can join Kleinschmidt in his little “woman is an insult” club.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 17, 2020, 02:51:10 AM
No, you’re just showing yourself to be the bigot you are.

Now you can join Kleinschmidt in his little “woman is an insult” club.

That must be true because you just said so
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 17, 2020, 04:08:09 AM
Homophobe.

 :D

Like you know what the shooter was aiming at.

Like you don't know what a spoof is..
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 17, 2020, 04:26:02 AM
Like you don't know what a spoof is..

Don’t give up your day job.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 17, 2020, 06:22:48 AM
Don’t give up your day job.

Ditto

And everybody around here knows what your day (and night) job is.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 17, 2020, 06:45:06 AM
The village idiot wrote:   "At day's end it comes down to the ability of the shooter to adapt and make the weapon useable if only for the time period required to accomplish a given task."

Even an expert sharpshooter would be a total dud in attempting to score any hits on a 9" paper plate at 50 yards with a full clip (6 rounds)  in  the TSBD carcano. 

And thank you Chappie, for proving once again that you have a prominent place in the village.

Somebody should have painted red circles on those picnic plates
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 17, 2020, 07:00:38 AM
Exactly! If it really was the murder weapon there wouldn't have been a need to change the serial number on 1 of the 2 rifles used as evidence with the same serial numbers.  And for anyone who doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or still can't fathom the fact there's 2 different rifles, both claimed as the one murder weapon, let's make it easy.

In typography there are two different typesets for fonts. One is called "Serif" and the other is called "San-serif." Serif fonts have extra lines attached to the ends, like Times Roman for example. San-serif do not.

One rifle claimed to be the murder weapon uses Serif for the letter "C".  The other does not. How can the "C" be different if there's only one murder weapon? It can't. Which is 100% proof of a manufactured murder weapon. But why would they need to manufacture a murder weapon? Because one of the rifles was serial number C-2763, and the FBI turned the last "3" into a "6".

But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9)

Here's a link in case the photo doesn't show.  https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9


And if that still isn't enough to convince some of the harder head people who don't care about the truth and just wanna be right... here's more evidence that the 6th floor rifle wasn't the same as the one from the backyard photo.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6)

And link just in case...  https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6



Backyard Rifle: Nylon sling with no pad - sling clips on bottom of furniture vs TBD Rifle: Leather sling with pad - sling clips on side of furniture

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9


Do the math, because it isn't rocket science. Evidence of two different rifles = 100% frame up.

That's checkmate for anyone silly enough to continue arguing a moot fact.


And just for spombleprofglidnoctobunss & giggles, here's more proof Oswald was framed.

Nov 20, 1963 (Wed), Ralph Yates picked up a hitch-hiker who was carrying a 4-1/2 ft long package that he said contained “curtain rods”. This man asked Yates if he though a man could be shot from a window in a tall building. The young man then showed Yates a photograph of a man holding a rifle and asked Yates if he thought the President could be killed with an identical rifle. The man then asked Yates if he knew the President's parade route, and then asked Yates to drop him off at Elm and Houston (TSBD).  (LEE HARVEY OSWALD was working at the TSBD that entire day).

Explain that!
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 17, 2020, 07:05:39 AM
If Oswald's rifle is the one he's holding in the backyard photo then it isn't Oswald's rifle.


https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9

Do you see the difference?

If not, then go ahead and tell me which one of these 2 rifles is Oswald's.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6

Don't worry.... I'll wait!  8)

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 17, 2020, 07:15:47 AM
Exactly! If it really was the murder weapon there wouldn't have been a need to change the serial number on 1 of the 2 rifles used as evidence with the same serial numbers.  And for anyone who doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or still can't fathom the fact there's 2 different rifles, both claimed as the one murder weapon, let's make it easy.

In typography there are two different typesets for fonts. One is called "Serif" and the other is called "San-serif." Serif fonts have extra lines attached to the ends, like Times Roman for example. San-serif do not.

One rifle claimed to be the murder weapon uses Serif for the letter "C".  The other does not. How can the "C" be different if there's only one murder weapon? It can't. Which is 100% proof of a manufactured murder weapon. But why would they need to manufacture a murder weapon? Because one of the rifles was serial number C-2763, and the FBI turned the last "3" into a "6".

But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9)

Here's a link in case the photo doesn't show.  https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9


And if that still isn't enough to convince some of the harder head people who don't care about the truth and just wanna be right... here's more evidence that the 6th floor rifle wasn't the same as the one from the backyard photo.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6)

And link just in case...  https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6



Backyard Rifle: Nylon sling with no pad - sling clips on bottom of furniture vs TBD Rifle: Leather sling with pad - sling clips on side of furniture

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9


Do the math, because it isn't rocket science. Evidence of two different rifles = 100% frame up.

That's checkmate for anyone silly enough to continue arguing a moot fact.


And just for spombleprofglidnoctobunss & giggles, here's more proof Oswald was framed.

Nov 20, 1963 (Wed), Ralph Yates picked up a hitch-hiker who was carrying a 4-1/2 ft long package that he said contained “curtain rods”. This man asked Yates if he though a man could be shot from a window in a tall building. The young man then showed Yates a photograph of a man holding a rifle and asked Yates if he thought the President could be killed with an identical rifle. The man then asked Yates if he knew the President's parade route, and then asked Yates to drop him off at Elm and Houston (TSBD).  (LEE HARVEY OSWALD was working at the TSBD that entire day).

Explain that!

Okay

They are all serif font
Somebody bolded & blurred their way to BS:

Did you study with Ralphie by any chance?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 17, 2020, 07:44:01 AM
Just awaiting for the 'Prove it was Oswald's rifle' shenanigans.

I proved that it wasn't, without shenanigans. But if you'd like to try pulling your own shenanigans, I'll gladly wait. Just don't forget to provide photo evidence that can debunk mine. And good luck with that. 

In the mean time, what else might Oswald swallower try to say...? "But Oswald's finger prints were found on the boxes."

Ah yes, you mean his finger prints were found where he worked... handling boxes? Well then... that certainly spells out his guilt. Just what kind of dumb ass cops & FBI agents were on the case? How stupid obvious was the frame up in this situation... let's just have a look at real shenanigans.

So the police search for finger prints to id an assassin. Why was Oswald, an employee, the only possible suspect? Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

One obvious problem is that finger prints couldn't be identified in 1 day, because they didn't have computer systems capable of that. And yet Oswald was identified  as the suspect in less than hour. How could the cops in 1963 have done enough police work to positively ID Oswald, AN EMPLOYEE, as the only suspect? Does that make sense to anyone?

How many other possible suspects were there? How about everyone who worked there for starters. And yet they only zeroed in on Oswald. Why is that?

Page 249 of the WCR claims:

In addition to Oswald's print, a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on 4 boxes near the window of the 6th floor.

The Commission determined that none of the warehouse employees who might have customarily handled the boxes left prints which could be identified.

SAY WHAT?? READ THAT AGAIN! NONE OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLED THE BOXES LEFT PRINTS THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED!

So even though Oswald was an employee too, who also handled boxes, none of the other employees left finger prints that could be identified, except him. And no one thought to question that? You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to buy that. But for the cops and FBI to buy it too?  Let's continue. Same page.

All but 1 of the 25 definitely identifiable prints were the prints of 2 persons--an FBI employee and a member of the Dallas Police Department.

HOLY spombleprofglidnoctobuns!! LET'S READ THAT AGAIN! BECAUSE 24 OF THE 25 PRINTS ALL BELONGED TO 1 FBI AGENT & 1 COP.

One identifiable palmprint was not identified.  Say what?  READ IT AGAIN! ONE IDENTIFIABLE PRINT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED.  Well... why not?

Why would the police & FBI fail to pursue the identify of an unknown print at a crime scene? Which part of that isn't stupid as all hell? That shouldn't make sense to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense? Because that means there was a possible suspect, besides Oswald. How do they know he wasn't working with anyone? Wasn't important enough to find out? How the hell could the FBI & Police not care about that?

Unless they were the ones framing Oswald.  Is that a possibility? Look at my evidence for the 2 rifles. Not only was it possible, it's exactly what happened. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. You just have to stop swallowing all the nonsensical bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns that doesn't make any sense at all.

 


Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 17, 2020, 07:09:10 PM
I proved that it wasn't, without shenanigans. But if you'd like to try pulling your own shenanigans, I'll gladly wait. Just don't forget to provide photo evidence that can debunk mine. And good luck with that. 

In the mean time, what else might Oswald swallower try to say...? "But Oswald's finger prints were found on the boxes."

Ah yes, you mean his finger prints were found where he worked... handling boxes? Well then... that certainly spells out his guilt. Just what kind of dumb ass cops & FBI agents were on the case? How stupid obvious was the frame up in this situation... let's just have a look at real shenanigans.

So the police search for finger prints to id an assassin. Why was Oswald, an employee, the only possible suspect? Isn't there something wrong with that picture?

One obvious problem is that finger prints couldn't be identified in 1 day, because they didn't have computer systems capable of that. And yet Oswald was identified  as the suspect in less than hour. How could the cops in 1963 have done enough police work to positively ID Oswald, AN EMPLOYEE, as the only suspect? Does that make sense to anyone?

How many other possible suspects were there? How about everyone who worked there for starters. And yet they only zeroed in on Oswald. Why is that?

Page 249 of the WCR claims:

In addition to Oswald's print, a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on 4 boxes near the window of the 6th floor.

The Commission determined that none of the warehouse employees who might have customarily handled the boxes left prints which could be identified.

SAY WHAT?? READ THAT AGAIN! NONE OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLED THE BOXES LEFT PRINTS THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED!

So even though Oswald was an employee too, who also handled boxes, none of the other employees left finger prints that could be identified, except him. And no one thought to question that? You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to buy that. But for the cops and FBI to buy it too?  Let's continue. Same page.

All but 1 of the 25 definitely identifiable prints were the prints of 2 persons--an FBI employee and a member of the Dallas Police Department.

HOLY spombleprofglidnoctobuns!! LET'S READ THAT AGAIN! BECAUSE 24 OF THE 25 PRINTS ALL BELONGED TO 1 FBI AGENT & 1 COP.

One identifiable palmprint was not identified.  Say what?  READ IT AGAIN! ONE IDENTIFIABLE PRINT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED.  Well... why not?

Why would the police & FBI fail to pursue the identify of an unknown print at a crime scene? Which part of that isn't stupid as all hell? That shouldn't make sense to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense? Because that means there was a possible suspect, besides Oswald. How do they know he wasn't working with anyone? Wasn't important enough to find out? How the hell could the FBI & Police not care about that?

Unless they were the ones framing Oswald.  Is that a possibility? Look at my evidence for the 2 rifles. Not only was it possible, it's exactly what happened. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. You just have to stop swallowing all the nonsensical bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns that doesn't make any sense at all.

You're right....Lee Oswald was simply a patsy who was used and framed by Hoover's "Extra Special" agents, but your theory that the rifle serial number is a forgery is unconvincing.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 18, 2020, 01:54:04 AM
I do not really understand how a fingerprint can be examined by Nathan Darby an expert with 30 plus years of experience, found to be a match to Malcolm Wallace with 34 pets and the dismissed by a few points of dissimilarity
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on March 18, 2020, 03:46:25 AM
That must be true because you just said so

Bill, John does not really believe Oswald was innocent, he actually is upset that the WC= all men
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 18, 2020, 07:12:44 AM
Bill, John does not really believe Oswald was innocent, he actually is upset that the WC= all men

OMG
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jack Nessan on March 18, 2020, 08:29:33 AM
Exactly! If it really was the murder weapon there wouldn't have been a need to change the serial number on 1 of the 2 rifles used as evidence with the same serial numbers.  And for anyone who doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or still can't fathom the fact there's 2 different rifles, both claimed as the one murder weapon, let's make it easy.

In typography there are two different typesets for fonts. One is called "Serif" and the other is called "San-serif." Serif fonts have extra lines attached to the ends, like Times Roman for example. San-serif do not.

One rifle claimed to be the murder weapon uses Serif for the letter "C".  The other does not. How can the "C" be different if there's only one murder weapon? It can't. Which is 100% proof of a manufactured murder weapon. But why would they need to manufacture a murder weapon? Because one of the rifles was serial number C-2763, and the FBI turned the last "3" into a "6".

But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9)

Here's a link in case the photo doesn't show.  https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9


And if that still isn't enough to convince some of the harder head people who don't care about the truth and just wanna be right... here's more evidence that the 6th floor rifle wasn't the same as the one from the backyard photo.

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6)

And link just in case...  https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6



Backyard Rifle: Nylon sling with no pad - sling clips on bottom of furniture vs TBD Rifle: Leather sling with pad - sling clips on side of furniture

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9


Do the math, because it isn't rocket science. Evidence of two different rifles = 100% frame up.

That's checkmate for anyone silly enough to continue arguing a moot fact.


And just for spombleprofglidnoctobunss & giggles, here's more proof Oswald was framed.

Nov 20, 1963 (Wed), Ralph Yates picked up a hitch-hiker who was carrying a 4-1/2 ft long package that he said contained “curtain rods”. This man asked Yates if he though a man could be shot from a window in a tall building. The young man then showed Yates a photograph of a man holding a rifle and asked Yates if he thought the President could be killed with an identical rifle. The man then asked Yates if he knew the President's parade route, and then asked Yates to drop him off at Elm and Houston (TSBD).  (LEE HARVEY OSWALD was working at the TSBD that entire day).

Explain that!

They numbers and letters look the same. The white highlighting is a little deceiving. 

The other picture you can see the stamp on the receiver of the rifle in both pictures.

The bullet and bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found on the sixth floor. You believe the assassin still used a carcano but it was just a different carcano?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 18, 2020, 04:05:33 PM
They numbers and letters look the same. The white highlighting is a little deceiving. 

The other picture you can see the stamp on the receiver of the rifle in both pictures.

The bullet and bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found on the sixth floor. You believe the assassin still used a carcano but it was just a different carcano?

They numbers and letters look the same. The white highlighting is a little deceiving. 

Yes, I believe that you are right.    The major problem with the theory of stamping another barrel with the number C 2766 and fitting that barrel to a Carcano to create a forgery is the fact that the forgers would need the original rifle at hand so they could place each character in precisely the correct position on the new barrel.   And if they had the original in their hands ......Then why create a forgery???

The bullet and bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found on the sixth floor.

I know that the FBI "CLAIMED" that the unbelievable, nearly pristine, bullet ( CE 399) was fired through the barrel of the carcano with the serial number C2766 ....And that is possible true....BUT there is no way to determine WHEN that projectile was fired from C 2766.

And anybody who believes that the small fragments could be matched to the barrel of any specific gun is an ignorant damned fool.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 18, 2020, 07:43:37 PM
Bill, John does not really believe Oswald was innocent, he actually is upset that the WC= all men

I'm sure that if any women had been on the WC, you'd denigrate them.  Black people too.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 18, 2020, 07:45:47 PM
The bullet and bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found on the sixth floor.

You mean the bullet allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland hospital that you cannot show was even involved in the assassination?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 18, 2020, 09:29:20 PM
You mean the bullet allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland hospital that you cannot show was even involved in the assassination?

Yes, that's the bullet......Wouldn't it would be great IF IF somebody could prove that that pristine bullet was actually fired from the Carcano  C2766 on 11/22/63 during the ambush of President Kennedy.....   Or if somebody could prove that there was one iota of blood or tissue in the serrated cannelure of that bullet....
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2020, 01:24:14 AM
There will (not necessarily) be blood

https://www.quora.com/When-a-bullet-exits-the-body-will-some-blood-or-tissue-stick-to-it-or-does-the-bullet-exit-cleanly
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 19, 2020, 03:21:53 PM
There will (not necessarily) be blood

https://www.quora.com/When-a-bullet-exits-the-body-will-some-blood-or-tissue-stick-to-it-or-does-the-bullet-exit-cleanly

I addition to being ignorant about many aspects of this case you are apparently also ignorant about the story of the magic bullet..... 

The tale says that the bullet was lodged in Connally's leg and worked it's way out and fell onto the stretcher.   If that were the truth, there would definitely be blood and tissue in the serrated cannelure of the bullet.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 19, 2020, 05:35:55 PM
That's our Chapman.  Big on mouth, small on any knowledge about the case.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 19, 2020, 05:38:02 PM
Walt has suggested previously that there  was no one in the SE window because the MC rifle seems to be underneath pallets and unfired.

IMO it’s more probable there WAS a shooter at the SE window who used a semi auto rifle and fired those 3 shots in 4.8 secs , just as Harold Norman replicated the spacing and just as Norman described the sequence as hearing 1st shot, and seeing the president slump and then hearing 2 more shots rapidly fired

The “Klak klak” noise was from shells hitting and bouncing on the floor  and NOT from “bolt action” although a semi auto rifle might possibly have noise from bolt action too

The dilemma here is Arnold Rowland who sees some kind of rifle with large enough scope that he can see it from over 100 yds away , yet the SE rifle seen sticking out the window by Euins, Malcom Couch, Bob Jackson, Brennan, there is no scope visible
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2020, 07:56:13 PM
I addition to being ignorant about many aspects of this case you are apparently also ignorant about the story of the magic bullet..... 

The tale says that the bullet was lodged in Connally's leg and worked it's way out and fell onto the stretcher.   If that were the truth, there would definitely be blood and tissue in the serrated cannelure of the bullet.

So it wasn't a magic bullet after all, huh
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 19, 2020, 07:58:50 PM
That's our Chapman.  Big on mouth, small on any knowledge about the case.

It seems it was just magic that no blood was found..
(Damn, there goes that mouth again)

'Knowledge'
Information is not necessarily knowledge, and knowledge is not necessarily wisdom.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Peter Kleinschmidt on March 19, 2020, 08:52:49 PM
I'm sure that if any women had been on the WC, you'd denigrate them.  Black people too.


 "If" is your new argument.  Kennedy and Johnson talked about affirmative action but it didn't apply to the WC for some reason. That says a lot Johnson and says a lot about you. 









Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 12:46:54 AM
It seems it was just magic that no blood was found..
(Damn, there goes that mouth again)

'Knowledge'
Information is not necessarily knowledge, and knowledge is not necessarily wisdom.


Information is not necessarily knowledge, and knowledge is not necessarily wisdom.

You're right.... And who would know this better than yourself?    A fool who has neither the fundamental  knowledge nor  the wisdom to keep his mouth shut.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 23, 2020, 02:36:53 AM
That's our Chapman.  Big on mouth, small on any knowledge about the case.
Buy him for what he's worth... then sell him for what he thinks he's worth... and split the profit with me :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 23, 2020, 02:42:21 AM
Buy him for what he's worth... then sell him for what he thinks he's worth... and split the profit with me :D

Not on my bucket list. BTW, did you take a knee at Oswald's gravesite as well, big fella?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Mike Orr on March 24, 2020, 07:59:06 PM
IMO , Malcolm Wallace hid the rifle way before the JFK and his limo even got close to Dealy Plaza ! That put Wallace and the spotter and Loy Factor on the 6th floor !
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 25, 2020, 12:44:48 AM
IMO , Malcolm Wallace hid the rifle way before the JFK and his limo even got close to Dealy Plaza ! That put Wallace and the spotter and Loy Factor on the 6th floor !

Your theory and opinion is as good as anybody's.....   Because I doubt that we will ever learn WHO hid that carcano beneath the pallet of boxes.  There can be no serious argument that the rifle was not hidden beneath those boxes of books BEFORE the shooting.   Any person who is honest with himself will acknowledge that the rifle could not have been hidden as it was After the shooting( The rifle was on the floor beneath the pallet of heavy boxes of books that were stacked so high that a 5'9 inch man's arm is not long enough to reach the floor)     
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Tom Scully on March 26, 2020, 05:33:09 AM
Anybody want to attempt to explain why Fleda Ryder Bowen Mantooth's brother, Dial Ryder, and her former husband Jack Bowen, father of their son, wanted the public to believe Oswald just happened to present "his rifle" to both of them? Doesn't seem to fit the "lone nut" narrative, but more like conspiring of a felon or two, to plant or to cement a narrative? Below, it is established Jack Bowen, AKA John Cesar Grossi, was on good terms with both Dial Ryder's brother-in-law, felon Roy Mantooth, and with Mantooth's brother, "Robert Lee Mantooth" but Roy Mantooth was reported to use the name "Robert Lee Mantooth" as an alias.

An entry on this page describes John Cesar Grossi's arrest for impersonation of a US Navy officer in Detroit in 1946, a curious fete for a then teenager!
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137474&search=robert#relPageId=27&tab=page

James Herbert Martin, was assigned by the SS to shelter Marina Oswald despite his felony record of deserting the US Navy in Detroit followed by a car theft then transported through several states....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=217811&relPageId=688&search=martin_and%20navy%20and%201945

Martin stated "Government Agents had already conducted a background check on him and propositioned him to allow Marina and her two children to live with him in his home."
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=97748&relPageId=5

Quote
Both 1930 and 1940 US Census records for Martin's family, parents Hebert John and Gertrude Martin, (brother Robert in 1940 census) inidicate James Herbert Martin's age as 3 and 13, (born no earlier than in 1926.) Yet his birthdate in the FBI's arrest report is 6 October, 1925:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=14

Martin's US Navy enlistment date was 1 Oct., 1943, he may have been 5 days shy of his 17th birthday on that date.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=15

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71122&relPageId=8
Martin received a bad conduct discharge from the US Navy on 2 March, 1945, as a result of being A.W.O.L. and charged with crimes described below.:

June, 1945, James Herbert Martin sentenced to one year suspended and two years probation for interstate auto theft:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71123&relPageId=3

James Herbert Martin's probation was extended two years until 1950.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71128&relPageId=3

Edward Jay Epstein never seemed to discover Dial Ryder's nephew was the son of Jack Bowen or that Bowen was later arrested while representing he was Mantooth!

Link: Page 209 (https://books.google.com/books?id=mY13AAAAMAAJ&q=epstein+"jack+bowen"&dq=epstein+"jack+bowen"&hl=en&ppis=_c&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjguu35tLfoAhUHd98KHWvmA1oQ6AEwAXoECAYQAg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldEpsteinBowenDialRyderRifle.jpg)

Quote
Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald - Part 2 - Page 316books.google.com › books
Edward Jay Epstein - 1978 - ‎Snippet view
FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 316
The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald Edward Jay Epstein. Alexandra Taylor, George and ... The lack of security is corroborated by other former employees, including Dennis Ofstein and Jack Bowen. Robert Stovall, the president of the ...

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: Izraul Hidashi on March 26, 2020, 06:38:19 AM
@ Tom Scully

Quote: "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."

That's interesting. Did your research also reveal that Ralph Yates told his co-workers about the incident when he returned to work that day? Why would he make that up? More importantly, how would he have known about the curtain rods 2 days before the curtain rod thing supposedly happened? And how long after the incident did it take before the story of curtain rods reached the public? I don't think the curtain rod story came out before he reported.

Doesn't it seem highly unlikely that Ralph Yates could make something up like out of the blue 2 days before it actually happens? And when Yates saw the photo of Oswald he never said it was him. He said Oswald looked identical to the hitchhiker he picked up.

Those are important facts. What are the chances he made all that up when Oswald was clearly being framed? Somehow Oswald orders a 36inch 5 1/2lb slightly used rifle, and yet the one found was 40.02 inches, 8lbs and barely usable. And there's clearly 2 different rifles with the same serial number being used to frame him.

If you look at this photo, you can see one of the serial numbers was changed. Why would anyone do that? To frame him of course. And if people were trying to frame him, what are the chances that Ralph Yates story was true?

(https://photos.app.goo.gl/xmiRYtvHccU9v8EB9)

https://photos.app.goo.gl/xmiRYtvHccU9v8EB9
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 01, 2020, 02:37:49 AM
Ralph Yates is probably the best evidence that Frazier was right about the length of the package (that it was 27 inches) Oswald had on the morning of Nov 22nd 1963.

Yates is saying that Oswald brought the rifle in well before Nov 22nd.

Its not an entirely implausible scenario.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 01, 2020, 05:58:30 AM
Go back a couple of pages....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57760&search=yates_and+uncle#relPageId=144&tab=page
Ralph changed his story and from then on was all over the place with his report.
Also Mr Yates earlier had described a package that was four feet long.
 
Quote
The assassination of President Kennedy continued to suck innocent people into its whirlwind. One was a man who was kind enough to pick up a hitchhiker in Dallas. He was then caught up in darkness for the rest of his life.

Ralph Leon Yates was a refrigeration mechanic for the Texas Butcher Supply Company in Dallas, making his rounds to meat outlets on Wednesday, November 20, 1963. At 10:30 A.M. Ralph Yates was driving on the R. L. Thornton Expressway. He noticed a man hitchhiking in Oak Cliff near the Beckley Avenue entrance to the expressway. Yates stopped to pick up the man.

When the hitchhiker got into Yates’s pickup truck, he was carrying what Yates described later, in a statement to the FBI, as “a package wrapped in brown wrapping paper about "4 feet to 4½ feet long.”

Yates told the man he could put the package in the back of the pickup. The man said the package had curtain rods in it, and he would rather carry it with him in the cab of the truck. 
Read the full story------
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html
At 10:30 AM on Wednesday Nov 20...Oswald was working his job at the TSBD. His time card proved it.
The Curtain Rod Story was not invented until the cops created it after the shots were fired.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on April 01, 2020, 01:19:36 PM
Ralph Yates is probably the best evidence that Frazier was right about the length of the package (that it was 27 inches) Oswald had on the morning of Nov 22nd 1963.

Yates is saying that Oswald brought the rifle in well before Nov 22nd.

Its not an entirely implausible scenario.

Its not an entirely implausible scenario.

Actually, it is an entirely implausible scenario because there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald kept a rifle at the roominghouse. Earlene Roberts, who cleaned his room, stated that she had not even seen a revolver there, let alone a rifle. With so many people living there and having only a tiny room, how in the world would he have been able to bring in and hide a rifle without anybody seeing it.

Also, Oswald could not have known Kennedy would come to Dallas until perhaps some two days prior to his arrival. He went to Irving on Thursday evening and didn't return to his roominghouse until Friday afternoon. This means that, in theory, Oswald could have brought in a rifle to the TSBD on Wednesday or Thursday, but that would bring with it the risk of early discovery regardless of where he would have hidden the weapon.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 03:53:56 PM
Its not an entirely implausible scenario.

Actually, it is an entirely implausible scenario because there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald kept a rifle at the roominghouse. Earlene Roberts, who cleaned his room, stated that she had not even seen a revolver there, let alone a rifle. With so many people living there and having only a tiny room, how in the world would he have been able to bring in and hide a rifle without anybody seeing it.

Also, Oswald could not have known Kennedy would come to Dallas until perhaps some two days prior to his arrival. He went to Irving on Thursday evening and didn't return to his roominghouse until Friday afternoon. This means that, in theory, Oswald could have brought in a rifle to the TSBD on Wednesday or Thursday, but that would bring with it the risk of early discovery regardless of where he would have hidden the weapon.

Thanks for rebutting the silly tale that Yates created.....  Why some folks believe this kind of nonsense is a mystery to me.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 13, 2020, 11:41:07 AM
The Curtain Rod Story was not invented until the cops created it after the shots were fired.

Actually Buell Frazier was the one who told the cops about the curtain rods. And i dont think you can seriously fit Frazier in to any conspiracy. No known connection between the two prior to October.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on April 19, 2020, 08:06:35 AM
Okay. So did you read the story provided here in full? I just did. And here's the facts. Ralph Yates told a co worker about the incident that day. And he told the FBI about it 3 days after assassination. THREE DAYS! Now you claim he was just some crazy man that made it up. Right?

So according to YOU, and YOUR research, Ralph Yates was just some crazy man who made up this wild story about picking up a guy that looked exactly like Oswald,  right next to his boarding home. And his phony story was this fake person happened to be carrying a paper bag. And this fake man claimed the paper bag had curtain rods in it. And then he dropped the fake man in front of the depository.

Not a single member of the public knew about the paper bag curtain rod story that also came from a fellow employee of Oswald. So we have a crazy man who just made up a story that would be exactly similar to someone else, is that it? So not only was Ralph Yates crazy, but he was psychic as well. Right? Because his co-worker wasn't crazy. Why would his co-work lie to the FBI about Yates telling him that story 2 days before the assassination? What purpose would his co-worker have to lie about something that serious? DOES THAT REALLY MAKE SENSE TO YOU?

You can post all the crap you want about his mental state, but what you can't do is erase the facts. And because you can't explain them, you rather just dismiss them. LOL What are the odds that YATES could have made up a story like that? Were not talking about just making up something that didn't happen. Because supposedly 2 days later, that's exactly what happened. And there's no way YATES could have heard about it, because nobody but the police knew that.

And YOUR claim is... he was just crazy! Well okay... then you have to admit that he was also psychic. Otherwise, to ignore all that, means you're just as crazy as he was. Sorry, but for anyone to try that hard to ignore facts doesn't make sense. It sounds like you're more worried about seeming right.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 19, 2020, 01:52:50 PM
Okay. So did you read the story provided here in full? I just did. And here's the facts. Ralph Yates told a co worker about the incident that day. And he told the FBI about it 3 days after assassination. THREE DAYS! Now you claim he was just some crazy man that made it up. Right?

So according to YOU, and YOUR research, Ralph Yates was just some crazy man who made up this wild story about picking up a guy that looked exactly like Oswald,  right next to his boarding home. And his phony story was this fake person happened to be carrying a paper bag. And this fake man claimed the paper bag had curtain rods in it. And then he dropped the fake man in front of the depository.

I'm not claiming Yates was fake. I think he was being honest about what he thought he saw.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 03:27:43 PM
I'm not claiming Yates was fake. I think he was being honest about what he thought he saw.

Yes, your right, ......I know a person who has alzheimers , and they make up stories and actually believe the story happened.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 20, 2020, 03:17:39 AM
Yes, your right, ......I know a person who has alzheimers , and they make up stories and actually believe the story happened.

Maybe Oswald forgot that he just brought in the rifle that morning, to you know, assassinate the President. He was probably just tired and forgot to tell Fritz during questioning.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 04, 2022, 12:46:49 AM
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?
Ever notice that Mytton always asks a question that he already has his own pat answer for?
Yet..when someone of a skeptical nature asks something similar, he either ignores it or like others, just makes something up.
Asked about the return to Irving from New Orleans......
Quote
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
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. Do you remember whether the pistol was carried back in Mrs. Paine's car too?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where the pistol was.
So Lee allegedly loaded the rifle wrapped in a blanket but had a devil might care but I don't concern about who would unload it?
Do you remember whether the pistol was carried back in Mrs. Paine's car too?
That question was asked without really establishing whether or not a pistol was actually ever taken to New Orleans.
I don't know where the pistol was.
With that...Rankin then stopped asking Marina about the weapons.
Ask no more questions...you will hear no more lies.
They were repeated at the HSC hearings---
Quote
Mr. McDONALD. Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, he did.
Mr. McDONALD. And what did he do?
Mrs. PORTER. He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that.  :D
Mr. McDONALD. This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?
Mrs. PORTER. It is several occasions, maybe more than once.
Mr. McDONALD. He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. And the rifle under the raincoat?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.  :D

In 1964----
 Mrs Paine was badgered asked 14 times if she ever knew about any weapons owned by Lee Oswald during her first round of questions.
Her consistent answer ..."No I didn't".
The only thing that seems to make the 6th floor rifle-- "Oswald's rifle" is the consistent...non-stop.. redundant claim that it was Oswald's rifle.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 04, 2022, 04:02:31 PM
From the DVP blog---- A researcher question......
Quote
How do you explain that the DPD/FBI found no oil or instruments to clean a rifle at either Oak Cliff or Irving?
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Quote
It proves nothing. That's nothing more than another one of the many, many very weak "chaff" arguments that have been dredged up by conspiracy theorists since 1963.
There's no rule in the *"Assassin's Guidebook"* that demands Oswald have oil or cleaning implements at his home(s) to use on his weapons.
From the Warren hearings......
Quote
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
Mr. GOPADZE. She says she was not sworn in before. But now inasmuch as she is sworn in, she is going to tell the truth. ::)
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. Did your husband ever tell you why he was cleaning the--that is, that he had been using it and needed to be cleaned after use?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not ask him, because I thought it was quite normal that when you have a rifle you must clean it from time to time.
Then from the HSCA hearings....a more diligent, virtuous swabbing---
Quote
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall seeing him taking it out frequently from wherever he kept it, either to handle it or to clean it, to look at it, do whatever?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I did see him cleaning the rifle. That is true.
Mr. McDONALD. How often?
Mrs. PORTER. Maybe once a week.
*"The Assassin's Guidebook"*  :D
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on September 04, 2022, 05:18:32 PM
If gun oil was found among Oswald's possessions, Skeptic-Tank would be saying it was a necessary "plant" to tie Lil'Lee to the Carcano.

You don't have to clean a weapon that's not used all the time, nor do you need specific "gun oil" products. The gun magazines and stores pushed such products because they knew gun nuts would spent whatever it took so they could use it to lovingly caress their loved one. They could especially fool American NRAers who had lots of money and weren't all that educated.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 04, 2022, 05:21:45 PM
If gun oil was found among Oswald's possessions, Skeptic-Tank would be saying it was a necessary "plant" to tie Lil'Lee to the Carcano.

You don't have to clean a weapon that's not used all the time, nor do you need specific "gun oil" products. The gun magazines and stores pushed such products because they knew gun nuts would spent whatever it took so they could use it to lovingly caress their loved one. They could especially fool American NRAers who had lots of money and weren't all that educated.

lovingly caress their loved one.

You're a weirdo, Mr Organ.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 04, 2022, 11:37:23 PM

You're a weirdo, Mr Organ.   
Predictable....always out to push his political agenda   :-\
Meanwhile ignoring the focus = Oswald 'lovingly?' cleaned his [alleged] rifle every week--- Marina so invented testified.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Dan O'meara on September 08, 2022, 07:10:46 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.

JohnM

When taken at face value, any credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination, excludes Oswald - that's a fact.
The WC/LN narrative of Oswald hiding out in the SN and rushing downstairs after the assassination is blown out of the water by various witness statements, most damaging being Arnold Rowland's observation of a man with a rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived.

Once the evidence is accepted it becomes clear Oswald did not take the shots from the TSBD building.
Once this is accepted it becomes clear Oswald was framed for that crime.
By far and away, the most important piece of evidence that ties Oswald to the assassination is the rifle found on the 6th floor.
The best way to frame Oswald is to leave this rifle on the 6th floor. In this scenario, it was not Oswald who left the rifle on the 6th floor.

An alternative narrative would involve someone who had authority over Oswald, could get their hands on "Oswald's rifle" and who had access to the TSBD building at a time when no other employees were present. An alternate narrative would involve people on the ground doing the dirty work but there would be an "invisible thread" leading directly to those who might have a genuine motive for JFK's death.
An alternative narrative would explain the intensely suspicious fact that nearly every single man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to law enforcement officials.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 08, 2022, 08:13:17 PM
When taken at face value, any credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination, excludes Oswald - that's a fact.
The WC/LN narrative of Oswald hiding out in the SN and rushing downstairs after the assassination is blown out of the water by various witness statements, most damaging being Arnold Rowland's observation of a man with a rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived.

Once the evidence is accepted it becomes clear Oswald did not take the shots from the TSBD building.
Once this is accepted it becomes clear Oswald was framed for that crime.
By far and away, the most important piece of evidence that ties Oswald to the assassination is the rifle found on the 6th floor.
The best way to frame Oswald is to leave this rifle on the 6th floor. In this scenario, it was not Oswald who left the rifle on the 6th floor.

An alternative narrative would involve someone who had authority over Oswald, could get their hands on "Oswald's rifle" and who had access to the TSBD building at a time when no other employees were present. An alternate narrative would involve people on the ground doing the dirty work but there would be an "invisible thread" leading directly to those who might have a genuine motive for JFK's death.
An alternative narrative would explain the intensely suspicious fact that nearly every single man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to law enforcement officials.

An alternative narrative would involve someone who had authority over Oswald, could get their hands on "Oswald's rifle" and who had access to the TSBD building at a time when no other employees were present.

Sounds like  Roy Truly....   And what did Lee tell Captain Fritz?.....

Lee said that he'd seen the rifle in the possession of Roy Truly on Wednesday Nov 20 in the TSBD.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Zeon Mason on September 11, 2022, 12:22:54 AM
The Pre-planted rifle theory:
 
An MC rifle that had a paper trail created to make it appear Oswald mail ordered the rifle was well hidden on the 6th floor TSBD Late Thursday night or early Friday morning by wedging the rifle inside the 4” open space of a pallet stacked full of boxes and surrounded by walls of boxes resting directly on the floor next to the pallet.

Add the Escape by East Elevator theory:

The reason the 6th floor TSBD shooter did not use the MC rifle was to save time. By preplanting the MC rifle , the shooter ran carrying his own special type rifle with him immediately upon completion of shots fired, to the East elevator boarding it as quickly as 25 secs post shots.

An accomplice who had been holding the East elevator locked on the 6th floor , operated the elevator to carry the shooter( w/rifle  now folded under his coat) to the 2nd floor landing by 50 sec post shots.

The shooter exited from the East elevator into the 2nd floor storage room immediately adjacent to the east elevator shaft. From there he had option to temporarily hide his rifle and check out if was clear to continue by foot down the staircase to the 1st floor and exit via an open roll up door into the annex bldg, and ultimately exit via a west side door to the outside of TSBD.

The accomplice, at 50 sec post shots returned the east elevator to the 5th floor by 70 sec post shots where it was locked and stationary when Roy Truly locked up the shaft and shouted .

The accomplice, who heard Truly shouting may have then moved to the West elevator to take it down to the 1st floor as Baker and Truly started ascending the staircases.

Note: by using the East elevator the shooter was able to by pass Mrs Garner on the 4th floor unseen. The east elevator stopped on the 2nd floor landing just seconds AFTER Adams and Styles had started down the last staircase from 2nd to 1st floor.  Thus there was no LOS for A&S to the east elevator shaft from the point of beginning their descent (at 50 sec post shots ) down the last staircase.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on October 30, 2022, 01:18:00 PM
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?

Is this intended as a serious question? I take it you are unaware of the new evidence regarding Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting? Most of it is summarized very well in Oliver Stone's new documentary JFK Revisited.

Here's an exhaustive review of this new evidence:


Here's a question for you: Why is the rifle that Lt. Day was photographed carrying out of the TSBD obviously different from the rifle seen in the backyard rifle photos? In the backyard photos rifle, the strap is attached to the heel of the stock, but the rifle that Day carried out of the TSBD has a strap ring in the stock and the strap is attached in the stock. What gives?

Here's another question: Why is the wedding ring of the figure in the backyard rifle photos on the left hand in one picture but on the right hand in another? Are we supposed to believe that some reason the figure decided to take off his wedding ring and put it on the other hand in between the photos?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on October 30, 2022, 06:19:54 PM
Is this intended as a serious question? I take it you are unaware of the new evidence regarding Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting? Most of it is summarized very well in Oliver Stone's new documentary JFK Revisited.

Here's an exhaustive review of this new evidence:

Griffith's an Alt-Right MAGA apologist who wanders in here after he gets tired of the beatings he suffers at the "other" Forum.

Quote
Here's a question for you: Why is the rifle that Lt. Day was photographed carrying out of the TSBD obviously different from the rifle seen in the backyard rifle photos? In the backyard photos rifle, the strap is attached to the heel of the stock, but the rifle that Day carried out of the TSBD has a strap ring in the stock and the strap is attached in the stock. What gives?

I don't know where they get this stuff. Do you? The heel-end of the strap is attached in different places on the rifle?

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Allen_4.jpg)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ndVEA1txmZ9A0grHQ_O-ZyvxA3T89hlp)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1yT7i-FUaaZdVizgDHuyqUJ94USZ1y2gl)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1D6mxH-FpSniQ9kV5fVCP0t6EvCNHXFbH)
Quote
Here's another question: Why is the wedding ring of the figure in the backyard rifle photos on the left hand in one picture but on the right hand in another? Are we supposed to believe that some reason the figure decided to take off his wedding ring and put it on the other hand in between the photos?

Answered over a year ago: ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3527.msg136612.html#msg136612) )
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on October 30, 2022, 07:41:28 PM
Griffith's an Alt-Right MAGA apologist who wanders in here after he gets tired of the beatings he suffers at the "other" Forum.

I've corrected you on this before, but you just keep lying about it. I'm neither "Alt-Right" nor a Trump apologist. I've defended many of Trump's policies but have strongly criticized his conduct and have publicly declared many times that I hope he doesn't run again.

And, pray tell, in what other forum do I allegedly suffer "beatings"? The only other JFK forum I post in is the Education Forum's JFK Assassination Debate forum, which is dominated by WC critics with whom I agree the vast majority of the time on all matters pertaining to JFK's death. You're just making up stuff again.

Quote
I don't know where they get this stuff. Do you? The heel-end of the strap is attached in different places on the rifle?

Go watch the segment on this in JFK Revisited and look at the high-quality enlargements. Denying the problem won't make it go away.

Quote
Answered over a year ago: ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3527.msg136612.html#msg136612) )

And Galbraith's answer is still nonsense. He's using a poor version of 133-A, which shows the worst view of the ring on the right hand (if it shows the ring at all), as the comparison to 133-C to try to fool people into believing there were two rings. But if you look at 133-B, which shows a much clearer view of the ring on the right hand, you can see that it's the same ring as the ring on the left hand in 133-C. Just go watch the segment on this in JFK Revisited.

It's interesting to note that the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not attempt to address this issue, even though Jack White and others had raised it. The PEP answered every other argument that White made about the backyard photos, but they oddly said nothing about this one.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jerry Organ on October 30, 2022, 11:33:20 PM
I've corrected you on this before, but you just keep lying about it. I'm neither "Alt-Right" nor a Trump apologist. I've defended many of Trump's policies but have strongly criticized his conduct and have publicly declared many times that I hope he doesn't run again.

There's "Do as I say" and "Do as I do". You voted wholeheartedly for Trump twice, and will a third time. And you express Far Right views all the time.

Quote
And, pray tell, in what other forum do I allegedly suffer "beatings"? The only other JFK forum I post in is the Education Forum's JFK Assassination Debate forum, which is dominated by WC critics with whom I agree the vast majority of the time on all matters pertaining to JFK's death. You're just making up stuff again.

You're gaslighting, like a true Trump Republican.

    "You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp.  You really wanted
      an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam.  In other words, if you have to
      do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine.  If you want to firebomb
      Haiphong, fine.    If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
     interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
     "anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
               -- Paul Jolliffe

    "Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
     and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
               -- Benjamin Cole

    "It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
     cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
     and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
     indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
               -- Pat Speer

    "Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
     Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
     read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
     everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
     chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
               -- James Wilkinson

    "You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
     and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
     post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
     ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
     his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
               -- James Wilkinson

    "Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
     logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
               -- Paul Brancato

Quote
Go watch the segment on this in JFK Revisited and look at the high-quality enlargements. Denying the problem won't make it go away.

And Galbraith's answer is still nonsense. He's using a poor version of 133-A, which shows the worst view of the ring on the right hand (if it shows the ring at all), as the comparison to 133-C to try to fool people into believing there were two rings. But if you look at 133-B, which shows a much clearer view of the ring on the right hand, you can see that it's the same ring as the ring on the left hand in 133-C. Just go watch the segment on this in JFK Revisited.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1ndVEA1txmZ9A0grHQ_O-ZyvxA3T89hlp)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1yT7i-FUaaZdVizgDHuyqUJ94USZ1y2gl)

Is this one of those issues your CT "buddies" lap up and agree with you on?

The wedding ring on the right hand in 133-A doesn't cast a full shadow because of its angle to the sun. Notice how the right forearm in 133-A is sun-struck.

Compare with the same ring on the same hand in 133-B. Because the ring on the right hand is now more oblique toward the sun, the ring casts a full shadow onto the finger. Notice how the right forearm in 133-B is now no longer sun-struck because it is now angled oblique to the sun.

It's the same ring in 133-A and 133-B; just that the ring in 133-B projects a shadow that falls onto the width of the finger. This merely gives the ring a sense of depth lacking in 133-A.

Quote
It's interesting to note that the HSCA's Photographic Evidence Panel (PEP) did not attempt to address this issue, even though Jack White and others had raised it. The PEP answered every other argument that White made about the backyard photos, but they oddly said nothing about this one.

Jack White presented this issue to the HSCA? Seems pretty easy to refute. Can you show us where White presented the issue to the Photographic Evidence Panel?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on November 01, 2022, 09:27:15 PM
There's "Do as I say" and "Do as I do". You voted wholeheartedly for Trump twice, and will a third time. And you express Far Right views all the time.

You're a bald-faced liar. As I've explained to you before, I voted for Trump reluctantly; Trump was not even in my top three picks among GOP primary candidates; and I've been very critical of Trump's personal conduct in many forums. But don't let truth or facts get in your way.

My "Far Right" views?! Yeah, like my support for affirmative action, my support for Obamacare, my support for universal health insurance, my support for red flag laws, my support for a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, my support for full legal status for Dreamers, my support for the infrastructure bill that Biden signed, etc., etc., etc.? The problem is you're a left-wing wingnut who has no regard for truth and who regards anyone who votes for a candidate you don't like as "far right."

You're gaslighting, like a true Trump Republican.

    "You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp.  You really wanted
      an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam.  In other words, if you have to
      do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine.  If you want to firebomb
      Haiphong, fine.    If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
     interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
     "anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
               -- Paul Jolliffe

    "Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
               -- James DiEugenio

    "This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
     and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
               -- Benjamin Cole

    "It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
     cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
     and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
     indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
               -- Pat Speer

    "Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
     Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
     read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
     everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
     chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
               -- James Wilkinson

    "You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
     and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
     post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
     ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
     his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
               -- James Wilkinson

    "Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
     logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
               -- Paul Brancato

Is this one of those issues your CT "buddies" lap up and agree with you on?

Wow, just how gutter dishonest can you get? Sheesh, what dishonest trash.

One, I blew those people out of the water in the thread from which you're cherry-picking. Funny how you didn't quote any of my replies, where I pointed out the many statements they made that showed they had no clue what they were talking about. Folks, by all means, go to the JFK Assassination Debate forum in The Education Forum and read that thread on Oliver Stone's New JFK Documentaries and the Vietnam War, and you'll see how dishonest Jerry Organ's cherry-picking is, not to mention that I thoroughly refuted the replies of the people he's quoted.

Two, why didn't you quote any of the people in the thread who agreed with me, hey? Why did you only select the handful of ultra-liberals who disagreed with me? Answer: Because you're a liar.

Three, why didn't you quote from any of the two dozen or so other threads in that forum where nearly all conspiracy theorists agreed with me? Why did you pick just that one thread and only pick comments regarding the Vietnam War? You cherry-picked so dishonestly because that's what you do all the time here.

Four, why did you ignore the fact that when I talked about how most people agreed with me in that forum, I specifically said they agreed with me about the JFK assassination. The statements you just quoted all involve the Vietnam War.

The wedding ring on the right hand in 133-A doesn't cast a full shadow because of its angle to the sun. Notice how the right forearm in 133-A is sun-struck.

Compare with the same ring on the same hand in 133-B. Because the ring on the right hand is now more oblique toward the sun, the ring casts a full shadow onto the finger. Notice how the right forearm in 133-B is now no longer sun-struck because it is now angled oblique to the sun.

It's the same ring in 133-A and 133-B; just that the ring in 133-B projects a shadow that falls onto the width of the finger. This merely gives the ring a sense of depth lacking in 133-A.

Oh, of course. Yeah, you bet. It's the sun, the angle, a shadow, etc. Hogwash. You see what is not there because you have to see it.

Furthermore, you ignored the point that the ring in 133-B is clearly the same ring in 133-C but that it's on a different hand in the two photos. Did you just forget to address that key point?

By the way, where in 133-A do we see the ring on his left hand that we see on his left hand in 133-C? Where is it? Are you going to say the sun makes it vanish too? Why is there no ring on his left hand in 133-A? How did this large, obvious ring on the left hand in 133-C vanish in 133-A? Pray tell.

Jack White presented this issue to the HSCA? Seems pretty easy to refute. Can you show us where White presented the issue to the Photographic Evidence Panel?

Can you ever stop twisting and distorting? Did I say that White presented this issue to the HSCA? No, I did not. But you set up another dishonest strawman and proceeded from there, as you are wont to do.

The HSCA PEP did not limit their reply to what White had said in his HSCA presentation. The PEP responded to what critics had said in articles published in other sources. The ring contradiction had been raised by a number of critics. Yet, the HSCA chose to remain silent on the subject, even though, according to your delusions, it should have been low-hanging fruit.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 02, 2022, 03:10:51 AM

Here's another question: Why is the wedding ring of the figure in the backyard rifle photos on the left hand in one picture but on the right hand in another? Are we supposed to believe that some reason the figure decided to take off his wedding ring and put it on the other hand in between the photos?

Clearly there is a ring visible, on the right hand, on the fourth finger, in both photos, CE-133-A and CE-133-B.

Speaking of the ring on the right hand:

One ring in both the photos
One ring that ties them
One ring is in brightest sunlight
The other has a shadow
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 02, 2022, 03:18:23 AM

Griffith's an Alt-Right MAGA apologist who wanders in here after he gets tired of the beatings he suffers at the "other" Forum.

I've corrected you on this before, but you just keep lying about it. I'm neither "Alt-Right" nor a Trump apologist. I've defended many of Trump's policies but have strongly criticized his conduct and have publicly declared many times that I hope he doesn't run again.

I think Jerry is right. Come 2024, Michael will be arguing that Trump is the best option. I think Michael argues against Trump now to gain credibility. But when it counts, in 2024, he will be back to supporting Trump.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on November 02, 2022, 09:32:57 AM
Clearly there is a ring visible, on the right hand, on the fourth finger, in both photos, CE-133-A and CE-133-B.

Speaking of the ring on the right hand:

One ring in both the photos
One ring that ties them
One ring is in brightest sunlight
The other has a shadow

Do you the see the Tooth Fairy in 133-A as well? How about an alien? I mean, if you're going to see whatever you need to see, why stop with a ring?

Furthermore, you, like Jerry, are simply ignoring the key point that the ring in 133-B is clearly and plainly the same ring in 133-C but that it's on a different hand in those photos. It's on the right hand in B but on the left hand in C.

I think Jerry is right. Come 2024, Michael will be arguing that Trump is the best option. I think Michael argues against Trump now to gain credibility. But when it counts, in 2024, he will be back to supporting Trump.

If you think Jerry Organ is right, then you're as dishonest as he is. What liars you people are. You can go to the USMB or the ISF forum and check my posts on Trum going back to 2016 and see he was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates. You will also see that I have severely criticized his conduct for years and that I have repeatedly said that I hope he does not run in 2024. I've gotten into some heated exchanges with ardent Trump supporters for saying these things. But, don't let facts or the truth stop you.

When you review those posts of mine, you can also readily verify that I am not "Far Right" or "Alt-Right." You will see that I have defended Obamacare, supported universal health insurance, supported red flag laws, supported a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, supported full legal status for Dreamers, supported the infrastructure bill that most Republicans voted against, supported most forms of affirmative action, supported restricting rifle ownership to 21 and above, etc., etc. People who are far right and alt-right view those positions as heresy, FYI.

Now, if it's a choice between Cognitive Decline Joe Biden and Donald Trump in 2024, yes, absolutely, I will hold my nose and reluctantly vote for Trump as the lesser of two bad choices, as will many other Independents and centrist Republicans, only because we feel that Biden has done a bad job in too many areas, such as inflation rates that we haven't seen in decades, sky-rocketing food and gas prices, trying to ram transgenderism down the throats of schools and businesses, undoing the very successful regulatory reforms of 2016-2020, etc., etc.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 03, 2022, 02:07:36 AM

. . .

If you think Jerry Organ is right, then you're as dishonest as he is. What liars you people are. You can go to the USMB or the ISF forum and check my posts on Trum going back to 2016 and see he was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates. You will also see that I have severely criticized his conduct for years and that I have repeatedly said that I hope he does not run in 2024. I've gotten into some heated exchanges with ardent Trump supporters for saying these things. But, don't let facts or the truth stop you.

When you review those posts of mine, you can also readily verify that I am not "Far Right" or "Alt-Right." You will see that I have defended Obamacare, supported universal health insurance, supported red flag laws, supported a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, supported full legal status for Dreamers, supported the infrastructure bill that most Republicans voted against, supported most forms of affirmative action, supported restricting rifle ownership to 21 and above, etc., etc. People who are far right and alt-right view those positions as heresy, FYI.

Now, if it's a choice between Cognitive Decline Joe Biden and Donald Trump in 2024, yes, absolutely, I will hold my nose and reluctantly vote for Trump as the lesser of two bad choices, as will many other Independents and centrist Republicans, only because we feel that Biden has done a bad job in too many areas, such as inflation rates that we haven't seen in decades, sky-rocketing food and gas prices, trying to ram transgenderism down the throats of schools and businesses, undoing the very successful regulatory reforms of 2016-2020, etc., etc.

It doesn't matter about your support in 2016. Trump didn't show his true colors until 2017 ("There are good people on both sides").

It's easy to say in the 2020 and 2024 Republican primaries that you support someone else. Because Trump was a shoe in to win the primaries in 2020 and will be in 2024. The only thing that counts is the November election. And you supported him in 2020 and wlll support him in 2024. Just as I claimed.

If elected, Trump fixing elections in the future won't matter. He might get the 2024 election fixed next week, if enough of his "election deniers" win elections for governors and secretary of state. No, the only thing that matters is the current inflation rate. Having Trump in control of future elections, if he is running or his appointed successors running, doesn't matter.

Question:

What if Trump becomes President in 2025?
What if he gets control of elections in enough states to insure victories in future elections for President, the Senate and the House of Representatives?
What if 10 years down the road, you decide you don't like what Trump's successor is doing?

What are you going to do about it?

The opinions of the people of the United States won't matter.
The opinions of even the former MAGA crowd won't matter.

The entrenched authoritarian state will just keep a grip on power.

What would you do if that happens?


Of course, you will dodge the question.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on November 03, 2022, 09:52:02 PM
It doesn't matter about your support in 2016. Trump didn't show his true colors until 2017 ("There are good people on both sides").

It's easy to say in the 2020 and 2024 Republican primaries that you support someone else. Because Trump was a shoe in to win the primaries in 2020 and will be in 2024. The only thing that counts is the November election. And you supported him in 2020 and wlll support him in 2024. Just as I claimed.

If elected, Trump fixing elections in the future won't matter. He might get the 2024 election fixed next week, if enough of his "election deniers" win elections for governors and secretary of state. No, the only thing that matters is the current inflation rate. Having Trump in control of future elections, if he is running or his appointed successors running, doesn't matter.

Question:

What if Trump becomes President in 2025?
What if he gets control of elections in enough states to insure victories in future elections for President, the Senate and the House of Representatives?
What if 10 years down the road, you decide you don't like what Trump's successor is doing?

What are you going to do about it?

The opinions of the people of the United States won't matter.
The opinions of even the former MAGA crowd won't matter.

The entrenched authoritarian state will just keep a grip on power.

What would you do if that happens?


Of course, you will dodge the question.

I can't believe these are serious questions. What Kool-Aid are you drinking that makes you this paranoid? When did Trump ever try to "get control of elections" in any state? Whose vote tally had the most gigantic disparity between number of alleged votes and number of counties won? Not Trump's. His name starts with a "B" and ends with an "n."

And, FYI, the Deep State hated Trump and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 03, 2022, 11:05:49 PM
I can't believe these are serious questions. What Kool-Aid are you drinking that makes you this paranoid? When did Trump ever try to "get control of elections" in any state? Whose vote tally had the most gigantic disparity between number of alleged votes and number of counties won? Not Trump's. His name starts with a "B" and ends with an "n."

And, FYI, the Deep State hated Trump and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign.

the Deep State hated Trump and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign.

You say this in the same post where you call somebody else paranoid? Really?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 04, 2022, 02:59:34 PM

I can't believe these are serious questions. What Kool-Aid are you drinking that makes you this paranoid? When did Trump ever try to "get control of elections" in any state? Whose vote tally had the most gigantic disparity between number of alleged votes and number of counties won? Not Trump's. His name starts with a "B" and ends with an "n."

And, FYI, the Deep State hated Trump and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign.

When has Trump ever tried to control elections? Boy, that's a tough one.

How about when he got a mob to storm the Capitol to prevent the counting of Electoral Votes. And in mid riot made a tweet to the rioters that Mike Pence was the critical target.

How about endorcing Election Deniers are critical posts of Secretary of State in various states. His candidate in Wisconsin told his supporters that if they elect him, Republicans will never lose in Wisconsin again.

But, you again dodge my question, as I predicted.

If Trump does get control of the elections. If he gets enough officials in power to control future elections. And then you come to find, somewhere down the road that you don't like what Trump and/or his successors are doing,

What will you do?

Do you imagine that while the votes of Americans as a whole won't count, surely the votes of MAGA and former MAGA supporters will count and they will still control America?

If so, you are delusional.

* * * * *

By the way, I won't dodge my own question.

What if Biden tried to seize control of elections. Support candidates who declare that if they are elected, Democrats will never lose another election in their state? What would I do?

I will drop my support for the Democrats. The country would be doomed. Either the Republicans or Democrats will take over. In either case, I won't contribute to either side taking over. It wouldn't matter to me in Trump or Biden took over.

Now, what is your answer?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 04, 2022, 03:36:28 PM


By the way, I won't dodge my own question.

What if Biden tried to seize control of elections. Support candidates who declare that if they are elected, Democrats will never lose another election in their state? What would I do?

I will drop my support for the Democrats. The country would be doomed. Either the Republicans or Democrats will take over. In either case, I won't contribute to either side taking over. It wouldn't matter to me in Trump or Biden took over.

Now, what is your answer?

Biden has done that.  Hillary and Stacy Abrams contended their elections were stolen.  The Dems conspired with social media to suppress news stories before the election that might harm their chances.  They used the justice department to stage armed tactical predawn raids on the homes of people accused of non-violent process crimes.  Biden falsely claimed that changes in the election laws were "Jim Crow 2.0" etc.  Trump was an amateur compared to those guys.  You really think the sitting president and commander-in-chief would stage an "insurrection" by sending a random group of hillbillies to the Capitol?  LOL.  Trump had control of the US military and nuclear arsenal but "Jan. 6" was his plan?  Let the voters sort it out.  That is how a democracy works even though Biden and the Dems don't apparently like it.   
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Joe Elliott on November 04, 2022, 05:24:59 PM

Biden has done that.  Hillary and Stacy Abrams contended their elections were stolen.  The Dems conspired with social media to suppress news stories before the election that might harm their chances.  They used the justice department to stage armed tactical predawn raids on the homes of people accused of non-violent process crimes.  Biden falsely claimed that changes in the election laws were "Jim Crow 2.0" etc.  Trump was an amateur compared to those guys.  You really think the sitting president and commander-in-chief would stage an "insurrection" by sending a random group of hillbillies to the Capitol?  LOL.  Trump had control of the US military and nuclear arsenal but "Jan. 6" was his plan?  Let the voters sort it out.  That is how a democracy works even though Biden and the Dems don't apparently like it.

No, the Capitol riot is not how Democracy works. A Communist mob or a MAGA mob can't just storm the Capitol, and overturn Democracy, and "That's just how Democracy works". Even if all the members of a Communist mob or a MAGA mob are U. S. citizens. Democracy works by having the votes of all the people counted following the rule of law, with states officials and the courts being the final arbitrayers of what votes are valid or not. Not some mob, even if all the members of the mob are U. S. citizens.

No. Trump did not have control of the US military. Not so far as getting them to overturn Democracy. If General Michael Flynn had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and if the others in the military went along with him, yes, that would have been an option. And that would have been the option Trump would have chosen. Why use the Proud Boys when the military will do what ever you ask? But fortunately, General Mark Milley was in charge and using the military was never even remotely an option. He simply was not going to order troops to storm the Capitol. General Mark Milley sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, not to obey whatever order the President may give to him. And General Mark Milley did so.

I'm certain that if Trump becomes President again, he will do whatever it takes to get someone like General Michael Flynn as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maybe his brother. It will be a priority.

By the way, my question to Griffith is now being directed to you.

What do you intend to do if Trump is elected, establishes a permanent regime with himself or his chosen successor and charge of elections. And then you decide to change your mind. You want someone else in charge.

What do you think you and the current MAGA crowd would be able to do about it?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on November 05, 2022, 12:42:35 PM
No, the Capitol riot is not how Democracy works. A Communist mob or a MAGA mob can't just storm the Capitol, and overturn Democracy, and "That's just how Democracy works". Even if all the members of a Communist mob or a MAGA mob are U. S. citizens. Democracy works by having the votes of all the people counted following the rule of law, with states officials and the courts being the final arbitrayers of what votes are valid or not. Not some mob, even if all the members of the mob are U. S. citizens.

No. Trump did not have control of the US military. Not so far as getting them to overturn Democracy. If General Michael Flynn had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and if the others in the military went along with him, yes, that would have been an option. And that would have been the option Trump would have chosen. Why use the Proud Boys when the military will do what ever you ask? But fortunately, General Mark Milley was in charge and using the military was never even remotely an option. He simply was not going to order troops to storm the Capitol. General Mark Milley sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, not to obey whatever order the President may give to him. And General Mark Milley did so.

I'm certain that if Trump becomes President again, he will do whatever it takes to get someone like General Michael Flynn as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maybe his brother. It will be a priority.

By the way, my question to Griffith is now being directed to you.

What do you intend to do if Trump is elected, establishes a permanent regime with himself or his chosen successor and charge of elections. And then you decide to change your mind. You want someone else in charge.

What do you think you and the current MAGA crowd would be able to do about it?

Joe, this is just crazy talk. Sheesh. You must be kidding. If you seriously, genuinely fear that Trump has any desire to "establish a permanent regime with himself or his chosen successor," I feel sorry for you. That's just paranoia.

As I've said, I hope Trump does not run again, and if he does, I hope he fails to get the GOP nomination.

Anyway, why don't we get back to the backyard rifle photos and the fact that the ring in 133-C is nowhere to seen in 133-A and that it's the same size as the ring in 133-B but is on a different hand.

There's also the fact that when Oswald was booked, he was not wearing a ring on either hand. His wedding ring was handed over the Secret Service weeks after the assassination; supposedly, he had left it with Marina before going to work on 11/22. Go read the detailed DPD property memo for Oswald's belongings. Standard police procedure when booking a suspect is to have them remove all watches and jewelry, which they did to Oswald.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 05, 2022, 02:11:13 PM

By the way, my question to Griffith is now being directed to you.

What do you intend to do if Trump is elected, establishes a permanent regime with himself or his chosen successor and charge of elections. And then you decide to change your mind. You want someone else in charge.

What do you think you and the current MAGA crowd would be able to do about it?

That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Trump left office after the last election.  He is almost as old as Joe Biden at this point but he is going to establish "a permanent regime."  Wow.  Not even sure what that means.  That Trump is immortal?   Maybe take a break from MSNBC and watch something more factual like "Ancient Aliens." 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 05, 2022, 04:11:30 PM
You really think the sitting president and commander-in-chief would stage an "insurrection" by sending a random group of hillbillies to the Capitol?

Absolutely.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 05, 2022, 05:35:12 PM
That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Trump left office after the last election.  He is almost as old as Joe Biden at this point but he is going to establish "a permanent regime."  Wow.  Not even sure what that means.  That Trump is immortal?   Maybe take a break from MSNBC and watch something more factual like "Ancient Aliens."

That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Trump left office after the last election.

What a pathetic comment. What else was Trump going to do? Stay there, after all his efforts to overthrow the election had failed? If he had not left the White House he would have been thrown out.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jonathan Nolan on November 05, 2022, 11:05:39 PM
Interesting that the original thread about evidence and explaining the presence of the mannlicher carcano descended into off topic twaddle about the current deep state civil war. Hopefully this is not typical. If it is, it is highly suspicious given that many of the same families who participated in the JFK murder plot still hold power today.

To answer the original question, the rifle was brought to the building by the same team who included the shooter on the roof of the TSBD.

It isn't enough to simply scoff at alternate suggestions by the way. And in terms of the "mountains of evidence" all of it was tainted beyond usability in court when it was taken away by the FBI, breaking the chain of custody established in Dallas. Given the notoriety of FBI evidence falsification that has come to light in the decades since, it is easily understood as to why the break in the chain of evidence would make it unusable.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 06, 2022, 12:07:03 AM
Interesting that the original thread about evidence and explaining the presence of the mannlicher carcano descended into off topic twaddle about the current deep state civil war. Hopefully this is not typical. If it is, it is highly suspicious given that many of the same families who participated in the JFK murder plot still hold power today.

To answer the original question, the rifle was brought to the building by the same team who included the shooter on the roof of the TSBD.

It isn't enough to simply scoff at alternate suggestions by the way. And in terms of the "mountains of evidence" all of it was tainted beyond usability in court when it was taken away by the FBI, breaking the chain of custody established in Dallas. Given the notoriety of FBI evidence falsification that has come to light in the decades since, it is easily understood as to why the break in the chain of evidence would make it unusable.

To answer the original question, the rifle was brought to the building by the same team who included the shooter on the roof of the TSBD.

Now that you have answered the original question, what kind of evidence do you have to back it up?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jonathan Nolan on November 06, 2022, 07:08:28 AM
"Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle
The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side. Yet the WC wants us to believe that this uncashed, never-deposited money order was used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed President Kennedy. All monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions (1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited, stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order (PMO) purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago, would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National Bank of Chicago). The PMO would have been stamped a second time after passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. Finally the PMO would have been stamped a third time when returned to Federal Postal Money Order Center (FPMOC) in Kansas City. But the money order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.

This never deposited money order first appeared in the hands of Robert Jackson, an employee of the Federal Records Center, who lived in Alexandria, VA. Neither Mr. Jackson nor any employee of the Federal Records Center was questioned about the money order by the FBI or Warren Commission or HSCA or the Secret Service. At 9:35 PM (11/23/63) Jackson hand delivered this money order to J. Harold Marks, a Finance Officer for the US Postal Service, at his home in Arlington, VA. The initials that appear on the back of this money order were made by Jackson, Marks, and other Federal officials who took possession of the money order. The Secret Service made 5 photostats of this money order and sent the photostats to Dallas. The following day (11/24/63), at 10:00 AM, Secret Service Agent Grimes gave the original PMO to the FBI, and the money order soon vanished. The Warren Commission accepted photostats of this money order as "proof" that Oswald purchased this mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Apparently, not a single member of the WC nor its attorneys nor staff questioned the authenticity of this money order nor questioned the absence of a single bank stamp/endorsement.  To verify the authenticity and bank routing of this PMO, the Warren Commission only needed to ask the US Postal Department to conduct "payment research" on the money order. There is no cost for this service, but the results may have been a bit difficult for the WC to explain.

The Postal Money Order allegedly was purchased at the Dallas Post Office on March 12, 1963 at 10:30 A.M. According to Warren Commission documents, this money order was deposited into Klein's bank account in Chicago on February 15, 1963.  The Warren  Commission expected us to believe that the money order was deposited in the  First National  Bank of Chicago on  February 15,  1963--a month BEFORE the money order was purchased in Dallas! The money order and bank deposit printed in the Warren volumes in 1964 are both good examples of how the WC manipulated "evidence" in an attempt to frame Oswald as the Lone Assassin.  Oswald never purchased this money order nor was this money order ever deposited in Klein's bank account.  If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

https://harveyandlee.net/

https://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html

Good enough for me.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Duncan MacRae on November 06, 2022, 08:48:21 AM
Interesting that the original thread about evidence and explaining the presence of the mannlicher carcano descended into off topic twaddle about the current deep state civil war. Hopefully this is not typical. If it is, it is highly suspicious given that many of the same families who participated in the JFK murder plot still hold power today.

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Judy.gif)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 06, 2022, 11:13:26 AM
"Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle
The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side. Yet the WC wants us to believe that this uncashed, never-deposited money order was used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed President Kennedy. All monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions (1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited, stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order (PMO) purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago, would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National Bank of Chicago). The PMO would have been stamped a second time after passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. Finally the PMO would have been stamped a third time when returned to Federal Postal Money Order Center (FPMOC) in Kansas City. But the money order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.

This never deposited money order first appeared in the hands of Robert Jackson, an employee of the Federal Records Center, who lived in Alexandria, VA. Neither Mr. Jackson nor any employee of the Federal Records Center was questioned about the money order by the FBI or Warren Commission or HSCA or the Secret Service. At 9:35 PM (11/23/63) Jackson hand delivered this money order to J. Harold Marks, a Finance Officer for the US Postal Service, at his home in Arlington, VA. The initials that appear on the back of this money order were made by Jackson, Marks, and other Federal officials who took possession of the money order. The Secret Service made 5 photostats of this money order and sent the photostats to Dallas. The following day (11/24/63), at 10:00 AM, Secret Service Agent Grimes gave the original PMO to the FBI, and the money order soon vanished. The Warren Commission accepted photostats of this money order as "proof" that Oswald purchased this mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Apparently, not a single member of the WC nor its attorneys nor staff questioned the authenticity of this money order nor questioned the absence of a single bank stamp/endorsement.  To verify the authenticity and bank routing of this PMO, the Warren Commission only needed to ask the US Postal Department to conduct "payment research" on the money order. There is no cost for this service, but the results may have been a bit difficult for the WC to explain.

The Postal Money Order allegedly was purchased at the Dallas Post Office on March 12, 1963 at 10:30 A.M. According to Warren Commission documents, this money order was deposited into Klein's bank account in Chicago on February 15, 1963.  The Warren  Commission expected us to believe that the money order was deposited in the  First National  Bank of Chicago on  February 15,  1963--a month BEFORE the money order was purchased in Dallas! The money order and bank deposit printed in the Warren volumes in 1964 are both good examples of how the WC manipulated "evidence" in an attempt to frame Oswald as the Lone Assassin.  Oswald never purchased this money order nor was this money order ever deposited in Klein's bank account.  If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

https://harveyandlee.net/

https://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html

Good enough for me.

Not good enough for me. I have my doubts about the veracity of the rifle transaction, but John Armstrong's opinion about the money order isn't the evidence I asked for.

If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

This is BS. You don't have to purchase a rifle to be photographed with one. Also, to bring a rifle into the TSBD, you don't have to own it. Having it in your possession is enough.

Having said that, for a number of reasons, I personally seriously doubt that, in November 1963, Oswald had possession of the rifle that was found at the TSBD, but Armstrong's conclusion that Oswald couldn't have brought the rifle into the TSBD simply because he did not purchase is just plain silly.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 06, 2022, 02:37:41 PM
Not good enough for me. I have my doubts about the veracity of the rifle transaction, but John Armstrong's opinion about the money order isn't the evidence I asked for.

If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

This is BS. You don't have to purchase a rifle to be photographed with one. Also, to bring a rifle into the TSBD, you don't have to own it. Having it in your possession is enough.

Having said that, for a number of reasons, I personally seriously doubt that, in November 1963, Oswald had possession of the rifle that was found at the TSBD, but Armstrong's conclusion that Oswald couldn't have brought the rifle into the TSBD simply because he did not purchase is just plain silly.

In which Martin invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau once again.  He suspects everyone, and he suspects no one.  There are only "assumptions" and "opinions" in the contrarian wasteland that go round and round to no purpose.   Even after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," we are forever left to ponder as to whether this is meant to suggest that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  No answer is ever forthcoming.  It's down the rabbit hole again and again.  This is where Martin attempts to deflect by asking for "my" evidence as though I or anyone has discovered evidence like Sherlock Holmes not uncovered by the DPD and FBI, as documented by the WC, in the most extensive criminal investigation in history.  His standard appearing to be to satisfy his own subjective impossible standard of proof. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Charles Collins on November 06, 2022, 02:53:28 PM
"Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle
The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side. Yet the WC wants us to believe that this uncashed, never-deposited money order was used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed President Kennedy. All monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions (1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited, stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order (PMO) purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago, would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National Bank of Chicago). The PMO would have been stamped a second time after passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. Finally the PMO would have been stamped a third time when returned to Federal Postal Money Order Center (FPMOC) in Kansas City. But the money order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.

This never deposited money order first appeared in the hands of Robert Jackson, an employee of the Federal Records Center, who lived in Alexandria, VA. Neither Mr. Jackson nor any employee of the Federal Records Center was questioned about the money order by the FBI or Warren Commission or HSCA or the Secret Service. At 9:35 PM (11/23/63) Jackson hand delivered this money order to J. Harold Marks, a Finance Officer for the US Postal Service, at his home in Arlington, VA. The initials that appear on the back of this money order were made by Jackson, Marks, and other Federal officials who took possession of the money order. The Secret Service made 5 photostats of this money order and sent the photostats to Dallas. The following day (11/24/63), at 10:00 AM, Secret Service Agent Grimes gave the original PMO to the FBI, and the money order soon vanished. The Warren Commission accepted photostats of this money order as "proof" that Oswald purchased this mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Apparently, not a single member of the WC nor its attorneys nor staff questioned the authenticity of this money order nor questioned the absence of a single bank stamp/endorsement.  To verify the authenticity and bank routing of this PMO, the Warren Commission only needed to ask the US Postal Department to conduct "payment research" on the money order. There is no cost for this service, but the results may have been a bit difficult for the WC to explain.

The Postal Money Order allegedly was purchased at the Dallas Post Office on March 12, 1963 at 10:30 A.M. According to Warren Commission documents, this money order was deposited into Klein's bank account in Chicago on February 15, 1963.  The Warren  Commission expected us to believe that the money order was deposited in the  First National  Bank of Chicago on  February 15,  1963--a month BEFORE the money order was purchased in Dallas! The money order and bank deposit printed in the Warren volumes in 1964 are both good examples of how the WC manipulated "evidence" in an attempt to frame Oswald as the Lone Assassin.  Oswald never purchased this money order nor was this money order ever deposited in Klein's bank account.  If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."

https://harveyandlee.net/

https://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html

Good enough for me.


Good enough for me.


It never ceases to amaze me how readily some people accept anything that tries to create doubt about the WC’s works.

Here’s an excerpt directly from Armstrong’s article which appears to be in conflict with Armstrong’s claim that the MO should have been found in KC.

“Money orders issued on yellow forms are audited at Washington, DC, rather than the Money Order Center at Kansas City, MO."


And Armstrong’s claim that the banks should have stamped and dated the specified MO isn’t supported by any regulations that he cited. All the regulations that Armstrong cited regarding that aspect were dated well before the new system went into effect in 1963.

One of the newspaper articles (Lodi News-Sentinal, April 16, 1962) in Armstrong’s webpage states:

“The machines will be used for issuing domestic money orders. They will print and punch the amount for which the money order is issued in a tabulating machine code. The money orders can be processed entirely by machine.

Armstrong doesn’t show any of the newer style U.S. postal money orders with any bank stamps with dates. He only shows older paychecks. Why do you suppose he doesn’t show any of the newer style U.S. Postal Money Orders that have any bank stamps with dates? Could it be that they were no longer required for processing? I don’t believe that any machines of that era would have been able to read or process the stamps. If the newspaper article is correct, and the money orders can be processed entirely by machines, then why would the bank stamps be needed?


 http://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/u-s-postal-money-orders (http://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/u-s-postal-money-orders)
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 06, 2022, 03:04:21 PM
In which Martin invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau once again.  He suspects everyone, and he suspects no one.  There are only "assumptions" and "opinions" in the contrarian wasteland that go round and round to no purpose.   Even after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," we are forever left to ponder as to whether this is meant to suggest that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  No answer is ever forthcoming.  It's down the rabbit hole again and again.  This is where Martin attempts to deflect by asking for "my" evidence as though I or anyone has discovered evidence like Sherlock Holmes not uncovered by the DPD and FBI, as documented by the WC, in the most extensive criminal investigation in history.  His standard appearing to be to satisfy his own subjective impossible standard of proof.

Your obsession with me playing up again?

There's just no pleasing you, is there? First you complain that I only ask LNs critical questions and now you complain that I do the same with a CT. It's pathetic.

Even after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," we are forever left to ponder as to whether this is meant to suggest that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  No answer is ever forthcoming.

Stop lying for once. This was answered a long time ago.

His standard appearing to be to satisfy his own subjective impossible standard of proof.

This constant complaining, about a so-called "impossible standard of proof" is Richard's way of telling us that he hasn't got a shred of evidence to back up his claims. As far as Richard is concerned there shouldn't be a standard of proof at all. The bottom line is simply that Richard just blindly and without question believes the WC fairytale without being able to defend it with reasonable, plausible and credible arguments or even actual evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 06, 2022, 03:48:10 PM
Your obsession with me playing up again?

Even after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," we are forever left to ponder as to whether this is meant to suggest that Oswald wasn't the assassin.  No answer is ever forthcoming.

Stop lying for once. This was answered a long time ago.



LOL.  So you are now refusing to answer by falsely claiming to have answered?  How about just stating the answer here so there is no ambiguity on the matter?  You concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  Does that mean that you have concluded Oswald wasn't the assassin?  If not, then how could Oswald still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination from the 6th floor?  Clear it up for us.   Let me help since you are struggling.

Option 1:  confirm that your position is that Oswald wasn't the assassin because you have concluded "he didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor. 

Option 2:  explain how Oswald could still have been the assassin even if "he didn't come down the stairs" [here you fill in an explanation for how Oswald might have got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor without using the stairs under the known circumstances]. 

Good luck.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 06, 2022, 03:55:45 PM
LOL.  So you are now refusing to answer by falsely claiming to have answered?  How about just stating the answer here so there is no ambiguity on the matter?  You concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  Does that mean that you have concluded Oswald wasn't the assassin?  If not, then how could Oswald still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination from the 6th floor?  Clear it up for us.   Let me help since you are struggling.

Option 1:  confirm that your position is that Oswald wasn't the assassin because you have concluded "he didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor. 

Option 2:  explain how Oswald could still have been the assassin even if "he didn't come down the stairs" [here you fill in an explanation for how Oswald might have got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor without using the stairs under the known circumstances]. 

Good luck.

If anybody is struggling, it's you!

Full ignorance on display, yet again.

Why not have the courage to state YOUR own position?

I have stated my position, over and over again. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.

If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you concluded, then he wasn't the assassin.  Right?  Is that your position or not?

In the context of the official narrative, yes it is.

What part of "In the context of the official narrative, yes it is." do you still not understand?

Here are some bits of the conversation about this in another thread. You know, the one you ran away from as fast as you could.

The problem is that “Richard” has official narrative blinders on. He is incapable of operating outside of it.

Indeed. That's his biggest problem. He actually lost the argument some two months ago and still doesn't realize it. It's kinda sad, really.

Like any other fanatical zealot, Richard, can not imagine that his bible (i.e. the official narrative) could possibly be wrong.

Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot means that he wasn't on the 6th floor and thus that he could not have shot Kennedy from there. This would destroy a crucial part of the official narrative and justify the question what else there is in the official narrative that could also be wrong.

Obviously, Richard doesn't like or accept any of that, but he is not so dumb that he doesn't understand that he hasn't got a shred of evidence to put Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired (as he claimed) so he falls back on his faith like belief and simply hopes he can BS his way out of the mess he has created from himself by deflection and making (in his mind) big issues out of non-issues.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” - Mark Twain



Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 06, 2022, 04:16:23 PM
If anybody is struggling, it's you!

What part of "In the context of the official narrative, yes it is." do you still not understand?

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"?  How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.  I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.  Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor?   If that isn't what you are claiming, then what is it?  Again, this is not a trick question since you presumably know and support your own position and have confidence to share it with us.  Right?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 06, 2022, 05:18:09 PM
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"?  How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.  I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming. Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor?    If that isn't what you are claiming, then what is it?  Again, this is not a trick question since you presumably know and support your own position and have confidence to share it with us.  Right?

So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"? 

Boy, you rare really struggling.  You asked me a question, which I have now answered a dozen times or more. Beyond that, if the official narrative is indeed wrong then any scenario is possible.

How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.

Other than in your imagination, when did I make any suggestion?

I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."

That's easy. My position is that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, the official narrative is wrong on a crucial element of the case against Oswald and loses all credibility.

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.

Oh boy... this is all way over your head, isn't it. But let me confuse you so more; No that's not what I am claiming. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't back up with evidence.

Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor? 

Who said that he did? You still have your official narrative blinders on and keep running in circles of your own making.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 07, 2022, 02:19:29 PM
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"? 

Boy, you rare really struggling.  You asked me a question, which I have now answered a dozen times or more. Beyond that, if the official narrative is indeed wrong then any scenario is possible.

How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.

Other than in your imagination, when did I make any suggestion?

I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."

That's easy. My position is that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, the official narrative is wrong on a crucial element of the case against Oswald and loses all credibility.

Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.

Oh boy... this is all way over your head, isn't it. But let me confuse you so more; No that's not what I am claiming. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't back up with evidence.

Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor? 

Who said that he did? You still have your official narrative blinders on and keep running in circles of your own making.

Simple question:  If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," could he still have been the assassin in your opinion?  If so, how? 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2022, 04:20:21 PM
This is where Martin attempts to deflect by asking for "my" evidence as though I or anyone has discovered evidence like Sherlock Holmes not uncovered by the DPD and FBI, as documented by the WC, in the most extensive criminal investigation in history.

This is a load of BS, even by “Richard” standards. You make truth claims that even the FBI and the WC didn’t try to make. And you never substantiate a single one. All you do is strawman Martin over and over. Give it a rest.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 07, 2022, 04:27:04 PM
That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader.  Just tell us what you are suggesting. 

Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?

For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?

Put up or shut up, “Richard”.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 15, 2022, 02:32:06 PM
Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?

For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?

Put up or shut up, “Richard”.

Bump for Richard
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 15, 2022, 05:57:37 PM
Bump for Richard

Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement.  They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.  That evidence is widely available.  I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime.  The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 15, 2022, 08:21:48 PM
Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement.  They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.  That evidence is widely available.  I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime.  The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.

They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.

2 comments;

1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald

2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....

The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 15, 2022, 10:32:42 PM
No "law enforcement" official involved with investigating this crime (or any crime) would ever be so bold (read foolish) as to claim that anything can be proven "beyond any doubt".  That's pure "Richard".

What "Richard" charmingly refers to as "contrarian responses" is in fact plenty of reasonable doubt -- not just about his final conclusion, but with the authenticity of what little physical evidence actually exists.  Of course he desires it to be "good enough", but that's so he can maintain this "beyond any doubt" delusion.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 16, 2022, 01:36:14 AM
Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.

They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.

2 comments;

1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald

2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....

The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.  I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.   No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.   Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told."  It is laughable.  You should be ashamed.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 16, 2022, 09:27:34 AM
It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.  I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.   No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.   Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told."  It is laughable.  You should be ashamed.

It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.

Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.

I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.

Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.

I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.

The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!

But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 16, 2022, 02:21:33 PM
It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.

Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.

I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case.  Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is  merely an "opinion"?  LOL.

Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.

I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.

No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.

Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.

The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.

The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!

But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.

The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources.  Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact.  You are constantly mistaking your subjective contrarian view as rebuttal to actual evidence.  Can you understand the difference?  That is a rhetorical question since you cannot.  It is actually laughable that you take yourself so seriously while providing these rambling long-winded explanations of your bizarre contrarian nonsense.  Again, is it merely my "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address because that is what I have been "told."  How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"? 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 16, 2022, 02:39:54 PM
The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources.  Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact.  You are constantly mistaking your subjective contrarian view as rebuttal to actual evidence.  Can you understand the difference?  That is a rhetorical question since you cannot.  It is actually laughable that you take yourself so seriously while providing these rambling long-winded explanations of your bizarre contrarian nonsense.  Again, is it merely my "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address because that is what I have been "told."  How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"?

Wow. I knew you were living in another reality, but I didn't understand that it was so bad.

Staggering ignorance on display. Calling the WC report a "fact" is something only a totally unreasonable fanatical zealot would do. I don't care how many places the WC got their evidence from. They still cherry picked the parts they wanted to reach predetermined conclusions that are not even supported by the evidence. And of course it is a "prosecutor's brief". There is not a single word in favor of Oswald in the entire report. You really can't be so dumb that you do not understand this, but it seems you are.

How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"?

Pathetic argument of a drama queen. Nobody is dismissing all the evidence. How can I dismiss evidence that you have failed completely to provide. Also, some of the evidence is actually pointing to conclusions such as Oswald not coming down the stairs and not being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. I have asked you for the evidence for both of those claims and you haven't provided any of it. How can I dismiss evidence that clearly doesn't exist?

Btw scrutinizing evidence is not the same as dismissing it. But I fear you will never understand that.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 16, 2022, 03:30:37 PM
Wow. I knew you were living in another reality, but I didn't understand that it was so bad.

Staggering ignorance on display. You are so far gone that there is no way to have any kind of reasonable conversation with you, so I won't.

Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial.  The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.  The fact that the WC, as did every investigation conducted, concluded that Oswald was the assassin doesn't mean it is biased as Martin stupidly suggests.  Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.  Applying Martin's bizarre contrarian impossible standard of proof to any event in human history would preclude ever reaching any conclusion.  For example, it is merely my "opinion" that someone named George Washington was the first president because I rely upon the historical evidence of such compiled by others to reach this conclusion.  I have no time machine to confirm all this evidence for myself.  There are no such things as facts because individuals can only express their "opinion" no matter how well documented by the underlying evidence.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Only worthy of note for amusement because Martin takes his own nonsense so seriously. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 16, 2022, 04:35:51 PM
Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial.  The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.  The fact that the WC, as did every investigation conducted, concluded that Oswald was the assassin doesn't mean it is biased as Martin stupidly suggests.  Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.  Applying Martin's bizarre contrarian impossible standard of proof to any event in human history would preclude ever reaching any conclusion.  For example, it is merely my "opinion" that someone named George Washington was the first president because I rely upon the historical evidence of such compiled by others to reach this conclusion.  I have no time machine to confirm all this evidence for myself.  There are no such things as facts because individuals can only express their "opinion" no matter how well documented by the underlying evidence.  That is tin foil hat nonsense.  Only worthy of note for amusement because Martin takes his own nonsense so seriously.

Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial. 

Hilarious. So, you can't translate either.... Well, no surprise really....

The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.

Look up appeal to authority fallacy.

Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

So, now you agree the WC reached conclusions?

And, what makes you say that those conclusions were supported by evidence, when, in most cases, that clearly and demonstrably wasn't the case? Let me guess; it is your opinion and thus - in your mind - a fact.... HAHAHAHAHAHA

The bottom line is that you keep coming back to the same old "it's true because the WC said so" idiocy. Your indoctrination has clearly been completed.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 16, 2022, 05:50:18 PM
The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources.  Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact. 

The evidence (such as it is) is not an opinion, but the conclusions you have based on it most certainly is.  Do you really not understand the difference?  And what is this fetish you have about trying to relate everything to Lincoln?  "Oswald killed Kennedy" is nothing like "Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address".  The mere fact that you are attempting such a ridiculous false equivalency shows that you not only don't understand the Kennedy assassination, you don't understand basic logic or even the English language.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 17, 2022, 12:20:38 AM
Translation:  Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away.  Nothing I posted was controversial. 

Hilarious. So, you can't translate either.... Well, no surprise really....

The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses.  The most investigated criminal case in history.

Look up appeal to authority fallacy.

Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.

So, now you agree the WC reached conclusions?

And, what makes you say that those conclusions were supported by evidence, when, in most cases, that clearly and demonstrably wasn't the case? Let me guess; it is your opinion and thus - in your mind - a fact.... HAHAHAHAHAHA

The bottom line is that you keep coming back to the same old "it's true because the WC said so" idiocy. Your indoctrination has clearly been completed.

Prove to me that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in a way that satisfies the same contrarian standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt.  Or is it merely my "opinion" that Lincoln delivered that speech and doubt exists about this conclusion based upon an "appeal to authority fallacy" because I was not actually there and instead rely upon the evidence complied by others to reach this conclusion?  Demonstrate how a fact from human history can be proved to a contrarian's satisfaction or admit that, like Inspector Clouseau, you don't believe there are such things as facts.   At least not when it comes to Oswald's guilt.  Only "assumptions" and "opinions" because events that we did not witness come to us through investigations like the WC Report.  The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report.  Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.     
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 17, 2022, 04:12:30 PM
Weidmann is still not clever.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 17, 2022, 05:09:30 PM
Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.     

And they still can't demonstrate that their foregone conclusion is actually true.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 17, 2022, 05:25:10 PM
Oswald still got what he deserved
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 17, 2022, 05:51:08 PM
Oswald was unstoppable that day.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 19, 2022, 05:51:16 PM
Prove to me that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in a way that satisfies the same contrarian standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt.  Or is it merely my "opinion" that Lincoln delivered that speech and doubt exists about this conclusion based upon an "appeal to authority fallacy" because I was not actually there and instead rely upon the evidence complied by others to reach this conclusion?  Demonstrate how a fact from human history can be proved to a contrarian's satisfaction or admit that, like Inspector Clouseau, you don't believe there are such things as facts.   At least not when it comes to Oswald's guilt.  Only "assumptions" and "opinions" because events that we did not witness come to us through investigations like the WC Report.  The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report.  Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.     

The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report.  Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.

Hilarious. Is it really your childisch naive "logic" to believe that just because a report is extensive, it's conclusions have to be true and correct?

And talking about the WC report being "extensive"; where in the report can I find the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? Let me guess; I just have to assume he was and did so, just because a rifle that allegedly belonged to him was found on the 6th floor, right?.... Seriously?

Come to think of it; where is the "extensive" investigation of the total lack of a chain of custody for pieces of evidence like CE399, the grey/white jacket and Oswald's alleged revolver? Also, where is the investigation into the missing approx two minutes in the DPD radio recordings at around the time Tippit was shot?

How in the world can you call an investigation "extensive" when crucial witnesses such as Buell Frazier, Victoria Adams, Dorothy Garner and so on are either ignored or "discredited" simply because their story doesn't fit the official narrative?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 20, 2022, 01:50:49 PM
The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report.  Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.

Hilarious. Is it really your childisch naive "logic" to believe that just because a report is extensive, it's conclusions have to be true and correct?

And talking about the WC report being "extensive"; where in the report can I find the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? Let me guess; I just have to assume he was and did so, just because a rifle that allegedly belonged to him was found on the 6th floor, right?.... Seriously?

Come to think of it; where is the "extensive" investigation of the total lack of a chain of custody for pieces of evidence like CE399, the grey/white jacket and Oswald's alleged revolver? Also, where is the investigation into the missing approx two minutes in the DPD radio recordings at around the time Tippit was shot?

How in the world can you call an investigation "extensive" when crucial witnesses such as Buell Frazier, Victoria Adams, Dorothy Garner and so on are either ignored or "discredited" simply because their story doesn't fit the official narrative?

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.  This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself.  The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject.  And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.  But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on November 20, 2022, 02:41:44 PM
Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.  This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself.  The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject.  And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.  But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.
It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.

So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.

So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Paul J Cummings on November 20, 2022, 03:29:21 PM
Yeah maybe some of them should actually read the conclusion of the HSCA. You know the RECENT and actual INVESTIGATIVE report.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 20, 2022, 04:20:42 PM
Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.  This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself.  The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject.  And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.  But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.

And where exactly did I say that the investigation hasn't been extensive? I won't wait for the answer, because I never said that and you, as usual, made it up.

And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.

Are you for real? There has been doubt about Oswald's guilt from day one and you and your ilk have never been able to change that. Like it or not, the majority of the people has and probably will always have reasonable doubts about what happened on 11/22/63.

But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

Pathetic. It's pretty obvious that you can't show me where I can find the information I asked for in the WC report. The reason is of course that it isn't there. I suppose they were too busy to investigate Oswald's pubic hair. LOL
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 20, 2022, 04:25:51 PM
It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.

So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.

So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.

Before you write something stupid like this, perhaps you should educate yourself.

To prove someone guilty, a prosecutor must prove that the evidence presented in court is the same evidence that was recovered at the scene of an alleged crime. They must be able to show that the evidence was handled properly and was not contaminated or tampered with. If law enforcement does not properly handle evidence, the evidence can be challenged on the grounds that it was tampered with, that test results are faulty or inaccurate, or that evidence was planted at the scene of a crime. 

https://www.justcriminallaw.com/criminal-charges-questions/2020/08/26/chain-custody-important-criminal-case/

You and your ilk claim that Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit, but instantly complain when somebody asks you for the evidence to support that claim your "how dare they ask" reply is always the same. You can whine all you want about evidence being dismissed or questioned but the bottom line is that every time a problem with a piece of evidence is pointed out the LNs refuse to discuss it and dismiss it out of hand.

Reasonable people present the evidence and explain why it is persuasive and conclusive. LNs don't present evidence, don't discuss evidence, make false claims about the existence of evidence that simply doesn't exist and run away from a topic as soon as they notice that their BS isn't convincing anybody.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 20, 2022, 05:50:06 PM
What’s hilarious is “Richard’s” notion that pages and pages of written conjecture constitute “investigations” and somehow remove any doubt.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 20, 2022, 05:53:40 PM
Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt".

99% of the so-called “evidence of Oswald’s guilt” is not. And it’s not our fault that the little that remains is questionable or tainted in some way.

You rely on it because you want to rely on it — nothing more.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 21, 2022, 03:43:06 PM
Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.

And where exactly did I say that the investigation hasn't been extensive? I won't wait for the answer, because I never said that and you, as usual, made it up.

And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.

Are you for real? There has been doubt about Oswald's guilt from day one and you and your ilk have never been able to change that. Like it or not, the majority of the people has and probably will always have reasonable doubts about what happened on 11/22/63.

But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation.  LOL.

Pathetic. It's pretty obvious that you can't show me where I can find the information I asked for in the WC report. The reason is of course that it isn't there. I suppose they were too busy to investigate Oswald's pubic hair. LOL

Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt.  Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.  There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.  Certainly none has been provided by you.  You limit yourself to nitpicking the evidence against Oswald as though the void left by any claim that he wasn't the assassin is not relevant to the analysis.  Just a great mystery never to be addressed because you have some dim realization that if any of your nonsense were valid the resulting counternarrative that explains the known facts and evidence would be absurd.  You certainly don't want to address any of the implications of your looney claims for good reason.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2022, 07:05:23 PM
Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt.  Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.  That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.  There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else.  Certainly none has been provided by you.  You limit yourself to nitpicking the evidence against Oswald as though the void left by any claim that he wasn't the assassin is not relevant to the analysis.  Just a great mystery never to be addressed because you have some dim realization that if any of your nonsense were valid the resulting counternarrative that explains the known facts and evidence would be absurd.  You certainly don't want to address any of the implications of your looney claims for good reason.

Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt. 

Sorry, but your biased opinion that there isn't doubt isn't relevant.

Btw that's one hell of an argument; it's like a prosecutor saying to a juror; "sorry but your standard of proof is too high for my weak evidence to meet", so your opinion is irrelevant. Take that one into any court and see what happens. It's the perfect illustration of just how weak the case against Oswald really is.

Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.

Hilarious. There has been one main investigation where the evidence was selected. All other "investigations" worked with that same evidence. Over time sufficient additional information has been made public to conclude that all the investigations were flawed.

That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.

So, if that's true, why can't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? If, as you foolishly claim, the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin is supported by evidence, it should be easy for you to provide that evidence. The fact that you haven't been able to do so, for some 4 months now, is all the confirmation required to expose your hollow claims as utter BS. The WC report is full with claims that are not supported by the evidence!

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 21, 2022, 08:16:02 PM
Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt. 

Sorry, but your biased opinion that there isn't doubt isn't relevant.

Btw that's one hell of an argument; it's like a prosecutor saying to a juror; "sorry but your standard of proof is too high for my weak evidence to meet", so your opinion is irrelevant. Take that one into any court and see what happens.

Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.

Hilarious. There has been one main investigation where the evidence was selected. All other "investigations" worked with that same evidence. Over time sufficient additional information has been made public to conclude that all the investigations were flawed.

That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.

So, if that's true, why can't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? If, as you foolishly claim, the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin is supported by evidence, it should be easy for you to provide that evidence. The fact that you haven't been able to do so, for some 4 months now, is all the confirmation required to expose your hollow claims as utter BS. The WC report is full with claims that are not supported by the evidence!

When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.  You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2022, 08:48:22 PM
When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.  You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.

When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.

You mean the evidence that is so extremely weak it can't even meet any standard of proof?

You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.

There is no confusion on my part. On your part, that's another matter. You seem to confuse asking questions and scrutinizing evidence on a public forum as "defending a (guilty) client". I'm not defending anybody. If and when you show me the evidence that Oswald is guilty, I will gladly accept that, but given the fact that you have proven to be unable to provide any conclusive evidence for your claims and can't defend or explain the conclusions of the WC either, I seriously doubt we will ever get to such a conclusion.

I am also not the one who is confused about "having a discussion about the case", as there is no such discussion. There is one person asking questions and asking for evidence and another person (that would be you) who runs away from any kind of discussion as fast as he can.

The bottom line is (and has been the same since 1963) a simple one; when you claim somebody committed two murders you will have to provide the evidence to prove it. It doesn't matter if that's in a court of law or the court of public opinion. You are making claims that you can not support with actual evidence and your "believe it because the WC said so" is just about the most pathetic part of it.

It also makes me wonder why you are active on this board. You clearly do not want to discuss the case against Oswald or answer questions and present evidence.

Your entire position on this board could have been dealt with in one single post, saying: "I believe the WC report and don't want to discuss it"

So the question needs to be asked again; what makes you return to the forum day after day writing meaningless posts about things you don't want to discuss?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jon Banks on November 21, 2022, 08:54:56 PM
It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.

Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.

So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.

So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.


If you feel that the case that Oswald alone killed JFK is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt in spite of all the problems with the evidence, you're entitled to your own opinion.

What I don't understand is your expectation that others should overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 21, 2022, 09:18:56 PM

If you feel that the case that Oswald alone killed JFK is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt in spite of all the problems with the evidence, you're entitled to your own opinion.

What I don't understand is your expectation that others should overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations.

'overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations'
_are you going to tell us soon? Can't wait... No, really
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 21, 2022, 09:37:15 PM
When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.

You mean the evidence that is so extremely weak it can't even meet any standard of proof?

You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.

There is no confusion on my part. On your part, that's another matter. You seem to confuse asking questions and scrutinizing evidence on a public forum as "defending a (guilty) client". I'm not defending anybody. If and when you show me the evidence that Oswald is guilty, I will gladly accept that, but given the fact that you have proven to be unable to provide any conclusive evidence for your claims and can't defend or explain the conclusions of the WC either, I seriously doubt we will ever get to such a conclusion.

I am also not the one who is confused about "having a discussion about the case", as there is no such discussion. There is one person asking questions and asking for evidence and another person (that would be you) who runs away from any kind of discussion as fast as he can.

The bottom line is (and has been the same since 1963) a simple one; when you claim somebody committed two murders you will have to provide the evidence to prove it. It doesn't matter if that's in a court of law or the court of public opinion. You are making claims that you can not support with actual evidence and your "believe it because the WC said so" is just about the most pathetic part of it.

It also makes me wonder why you are active on this board. You clearly do not want to discuss the case against Oswald or answer questions and present evidence.

Your entire position on this board could have been dealt with in one single post, saying: "I believe the WC report and don't want to discuss it"

So the question needs to be asked again; what makes you return to the forum day after day writing meaningless posts about things you don't want to discuss?

You are not defending anyone?  LOL.  I've heard it all now.  Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt.  Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt, then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.  What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.  Just a grand mystery. Nothing to see there.  You are not even suggesting a conspiracy.  Just a great unknown in which everyone is supsect, and no one is a suspect.   

You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.   Your protestations to avoid admitting that you are a CTer are simply an acknowledgement of the absurdity of your claims.  A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything.  They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means.  Sound familiar?  And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect.  What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?  Even Bigfoot believers hold out hope of one day finding one, but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion. 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 21, 2022, 10:00:41 PM
'Book of Oswald'

1) Nothing is knowable
2) Nothing is provable
3) Nothing is believable

What's next? Free Nike shoes and a dirt nap?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 21, 2022, 10:34:39 PM
You are not defending anyone?  LOL.  I've heard it all now.  Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt.  Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt, then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.  What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.  Just a grand mystery. Nothing to see there.  You are not even suggesting a conspiracy.  Just a great unknown in which everyone is supsect, and no one is a suspect.   

You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.   Your protestations to avoid admitting that you are a CTer are simply an acknowledgement of the absurdity of your claims.  A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything.  They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means.  Sound familiar?  And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect.  What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?  Even Bigfoot believers hold out hope of one day finding one, but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.

So many words and nothing interesting.

Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt. 

Because that's how it works, you fool! Unlike you, I'm not just going to assume Oswald is guilty. When you claim the evidence is conclusive there shouldn't be any problem with somebody like me taking issue with that evidence.

Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt,

I'm not applying an "impossible standard of proof". Just one that you and your precious evidence seems to be unable to meet. You are behaving like a litte child who can't throw a ball through a hoop and then complains that the hoop is too small. It's hilarious.

then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.

What exactly am I suggesting?

What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.

More to your imagination and closed mind. First of all, and you will never accept it, there is very little physical evidence and most of it was handled poorly. Secondly, "the circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt" is nothing more than his presence at the TSBD and his alleged presence at 10th/Patton about 45 minutes later. That's it!

Having said that, if the official narrative tells us the correct story, one of the things that has always puzzled me is Oswald leaving the TSBD to go to his rooming house without showing any interest in the events at Dealey Plaza.

You are not even suggesting a conspiracy.

Don't have to. If Oswald was indeed set up and he didn't kill Kennedy, it automatically follows that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a given. Some people come up with theories about who was involved etc, but that's not something I'm interested in. In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it. I'm only looking into the case against Oswald by answering a simple question; does the evidence show he did it or not?

You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.

Hilarious. The "mail order law school" was particularly funny. But let me ask you this; do you have experience in dealing with pro bono defense attorneys from a mail order law school defending a guilty client?

A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything.  They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means.  Sound familiar?

Yes, that sounds familiar. So what? Your evidence can withstand scrutiny, can't it? Oh wait.... you don't present evidence.

And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect. 

What's with all the "you suggest" BS.

What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?

Where exactly did I say that I believe the case is unsolvable?

but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.

I don't lecture anything. I'll leave that to you. But I'm glad you finally start to understand just how flawed the evidence is.  Thumb1:

One question; when will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

Here's something novel, for once; why don't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired? Let's start with that, shall we?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Jon Banks on November 21, 2022, 11:49:08 PM
'overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations'
_are you going to tell us soon? Can't wait... No, really

Are you new here?

There are several super long threads about the problems with the evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 22, 2022, 12:32:41 AM
Are you new here?

There are several super long threads about the problems with the evidence.

The best thing I have ever done on this forum is to put Chapman on ignore. Not having to read his pathetic posts by putting him on ignore is something I recommend to everybody.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 22, 2022, 04:58:39 AM
Are you new here?

There are several super long threads about the problems with the evidence.

What, too soon?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 22, 2022, 06:36:45 AM
The best thing I have ever done on this forum is to put Chapman on ignore. Not having to read his pathetic posts by putting him on ignore is something I recommend to everybody.

Do something useful for once and donate a few bucks
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 22, 2022, 01:29:03 PM
So many words and nothing interesting.

Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt. 

Because that's how it works, you fool! Unlike you, I'm not just going to assume Oswald is guilty. When you claim the evidence is conclusive there shouldn't be any problem with somebody like me taking issue with that evidence.

Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt,

I'm not applying an "impossible standard of proof". Just one that you and your precious evidence seems to be unable to meet. You are behaving like a litte child who can't throw a ball through a hoop and then complains that the hoop is too small. It's hilarious.

then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.

What exactly am I suggesting?

What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.

More to your imagination and closed mind. First of all, and you will never accept it, there is very little physical evidence and most of it was handled poorly. Secondly, "the circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt" is nothing more than his presence at the TSBD and his alleged presence at 10th/Patton about 45 minutes later. That's it!

Having said that, if the official narrative tells us the correct story, one of the things that has always puzzled me is Oswald leaving the TSBD to go to his rooming house without showing any interest in the events at Dealey Plaza.

You are not even suggesting a conspiracy.

Don't have to. If Oswald was indeed set up and he didn't kill Kennedy, it automatically follows that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a given. Some people come up with theories about who was involved etc, but that's not something I'm interested in. In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it. I'm only looking into the case against Oswald by answering a simple question; does the evidence show he did it or not?

You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.

Hilarious. The "mail order law school" was particularly funny. But let me ask you this; do you have experience in dealing with pro bono defense attorneys from a mail order law school defending a guilty client?

A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything.  They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means.  Sound familiar?

Yes, that sounds familiar. So what? Your evidence can withstand scrutiny, can't it? Oh wait.... you don't present evidence.

And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect. 

What's with all the "you suggest" BS.

What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?

Where exactly did I say that I believe the case is unsolvable?

but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.

I don't lecture anything. I'll leave that to you. But I'm glad you finally start to understand just how flawed the evidence is.  Thumb1:

One question; when will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

Here's something novel, for once; why don't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired? Let's start with that, shall we?

So many meaningless words.  Do you have any other hobbies?  I would assume there are things to do in "Europe" other than discuss the JFK assassination but perhaps not.   You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?  Tell us how so.  How would someone go about solving the case to your impossible standard of proof absent a time machine?  For example, what would you use for evidence?  Spin us a contrarian yarn for a good laugh.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 22, 2022, 01:57:52 PM
So many meaningless words.  Do you have any other hobbies?  I would assume there are things to do in "Europe" other than discuss the JFK assassination but perhaps not.   You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?  Tell us how so.  How would someone go about solving the case to your impossible standard of proof absent a time machine?  For example, what would you use for evidence?  Spin us a contrarian yarn for a good laugh.

This was my question;

When will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

It seems this pathetic rant of yours provides the answer.

One more comment; you also seem unable to stop lying.

You said; You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?

What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it."

So, there are two possibilities; you either can't comprehend what you are reading or you are simply lying.

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 22, 2022, 03:21:53 PM
This was my question;

When will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?

It seems this pathetic rant of yours provides the answer.

One more comment; you also seem unable to stop lying.

You said; You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?

What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it."

So, there are two possibilities; you either can't comprehend what you are reading or you are simply lying.

So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated.  If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults? 
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 22, 2022, 03:38:25 PM
So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated.  If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults?

Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.

As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 22, 2022, 03:54:33 PM
What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination. 

…which you have consistently failed to enumerate in any way. BTW, “government said so” is not evidence.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 22, 2022, 06:37:31 PM
Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.

As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?

It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 22, 2022, 07:54:12 PM
It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.

Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.

What evidence would that be? You haven't produced any and as John already said “government said so” is not evidence.

Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.

Really? How do you figure? When you produce the evidence of Oswald's guilt, which you claim exists, that would solve the case, wouldn't it? Or could it be that such evidence simply doesn't exist, after all?

In any event, let's get back to discussing the case, shall we?

As the WC report doesn't contain the information, when will you be producing the evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot?

Do you think you will be able to produce this evidence before the end of the year or shall we just conclude that you make foolish claims you can't support with evidence?
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2022, 12:51:59 PM
It's great when you can't keep your story straight.  You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting:  "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA.   So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy.  Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.  Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.  You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults.  A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.

Speaking of endless commentary and insults, you have yet to produce a single evidence-based argument about the actual case. Calling somebody’s position “looney” is not an argument.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Richard Smith on November 23, 2022, 02:59:06 PM
Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.

What evidence would that be? You haven't produced any and as John already said “government said so” is not evidence.

Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.

Really? How do you figure? When you produce the evidence of Oswald's guilt, which you claim exists, that would solve the case, wouldn't it? Or could it be that such evidence simply doesn't exist, after all?

In any event, let's get back to discussing the case, shall we?

As the WC report doesn't contain the information, when will you be producing the evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot?

Do you think you will be able to produce this evidence before the end of the year or shall we just conclude that you make foolish claims you can't support with evidence?

Try to follow along.  You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  You also suggest that you do not believe it is possible to solve a conspiracy to figure out who was behind it if one existed.  The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable.  You have reached the end of the line absent a time machine.  But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you.  Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance as to the issue of Oswald's guilt.  No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.  Whether you agree with that is not relevant.  There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts.  That is not grounds for doubt.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 23, 2022, 03:22:40 PM
Try to follow along.  You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt.  You also suggest that you do not believe it is possible to solve a conspiracy to figure out who was behind it if one existed.  The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable.  You have reached the end of the line absent a time machine.  But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you.  Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance to as to the issue of Oswald's guilt.  No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.  Whether you agree with that is not relevant.  There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts.  That is not grounds for doubt.

You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt.

What evidence would that be? You haven't presented any!

The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable.

Wouldn't the case be solved if you produced the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt you claim exists?

But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you.

Typical LN stupidity. You claim Oswald is guilty and that he was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. If you want me to accept and believe that, you do indeed need to produce the evidence that supports that claim. There is nothing bizarre about it. What is absolutely bizarre is somebody like you making claims he can/will not support with evidence.

Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance to as to the issue of Oswald's guilt.

My doubt is just as relevant and your believe that Oswald is guilty.

No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.

Nobody is asking for "additional evidence". Just evidence to support your pathetic claims will do. Obviously you can't present any such evidence because you don't have any.

There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts.  That is not grounds for doubt.

There are plenty of fantical zealots in the world who claim to know the truth and have the "facts". Whatever clowns like that say is automatically grounds for doubt.

Bottom line; you claim Oswald is guilty, but you can't defend or explain the WC conclusions nor can you present any evidence of that alleged guilt. In short, you've got nothing and are just blowing hot air.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: John Iacoletti on November 23, 2022, 03:35:15 PM
No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact.  It has been done.

(https://media.tenor.com/yYhklLepkb4AAAAd/dead-lmaooo.gif)

Arrogant false bravado isn’t evidence either.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 23, 2022, 04:49:51 PM
'It is accomplished' ~ Revelations
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Bill Chapman on November 23, 2022, 04:52:07 PM
Oswald got what he deserved.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on November 25, 2022, 11:02:50 AM
For those who keep peddling the lone-gunman theory, have you just not read any of the scholarly research that refutes the case against Oswald? Are you not aware of the gaping holes in the so-called "evidence" that the Dallas police collected?

Are you aware that we have known for over a decade now, thanks mainly to ARRB disclosures, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat?

Are you just not aware of any of this evidence?

If you think the case against Oswald is solid, I invite you to read my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view)

Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on November 25, 2022, 11:51:51 AM
Have you just not read any of the scholarly research that refutes the case against Oswald? Are you not aware of the gaping holes in the so-called "evidence" that the Dallas police collected?

Are you aware that we have known for over a decade now, thanks mainly to ARRB disclosures, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat?

Are you just not aware of any of this evidence?

If you think the case against Oswald is solid, I invite you to read my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald":

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view)

Might I suggest that you go back to the post you've quoted from and pay attention? You will find that the words in bold are a quote from the text I was replying to and thus not my own words.

My response was that it is silly to say that Oswald couldn't have posed for the BY photos holding a rifle if he had not purchased or received a rifle from Klein's. You don't have to buy or own a rifle to be photographed with one.

You may also find that I don't think the case against Oswald is solid.
Title: Re: CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on November 25, 2022, 02:03:07 PM
Might I suggest that you go back to the post you've quoted from and pay attention? You will find that the words in bold are a quote from the text I was replying to and thus not my own words.

My response was that it is silly to say that Oswald couldn't have posed for the BY photos holding a rifle if he had not purchased or received a rifle from Klein's. You don't have to buy or own a rifle to be photographed with one.

You may also find that I don't think the case against Oswald is solid.

Ah, yes, I got lost in the chain of quotes. I've adjusted my reply accordingly.