JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Patrick Jackson on March 13, 2020, 12:07:09 PM

Title: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Patrick Jackson on March 13, 2020, 12:07:09 PM
I am one of those very few who are not LN nor CT.
One question is keeping my mind for several years.
I believe Oswald was on the front steps but if he did not do it, who did? If not him, who was on the sixth floor window, who created the SN, who fired the shots, hide the rifle?
Also, if you believe the shots did not come from the sixth floor window, who placed the shells, who hide the rifle, made the SN?
Is there another person inside TSBD at 12-12:30 PM who could do this?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 13, 2020, 01:54:35 PM
I am one of those very few who are not LN nor CT.
One question is keeping my mind for several years.
I believe Owalad was on the front steps but if he did not do it, who did? If not him, who was on the sixth floor window, who created the SN, who fired the shots, hide the rifle?
Also, if you believe the shots did not come from the sixth floor window, who placed the shells, who hide the rifle, made the SN?
Is there another person inside TSBD at 12-12:30 PM who could do this?
Who is Owalad? Anyway-- if Oswald was not the assassin, then the the cops obviously conspired to frame him...which they did.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Patrick Jackson on March 13, 2020, 02:23:24 PM
Who is Owalad? Anyway-- if Oswald was not the assassin, then the the cops obviously conspired to frame him...which they did.
Corrected to Oswald, thank you.
So, what do you think, in which moment they started framing him?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Margaret Kelly on March 13, 2020, 02:30:11 PM
Corrected to Oswald, thank you.
So, what do you think, in which moment they started framing him?

The starting point is the car that honked outside Oswalds rooming house at 1pm. I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, but i am saying that if there was, that incident is key to unraveling it.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Richard Smith on March 13, 2020, 02:30:40 PM
I am one of those very few who are not LN nor CT.
One question is keeping my mind for several years.
I believe Oswald was on the front steps but if he did not do it, who did? If not him, who was on the sixth floor window, who created the SN, who fired the shots, hide the rifle?
Also, if you believe the shots did not come from the sixth floor window, who placed the shells, who hide the rifle, made the SN?
Is there another person inside TSBD at 12-12:30 PM who could do this?

You are not a CTer but believe Oswald was on the front steps?  That's a bit difficult to reconcile.  The evidence on the 6th floor was either put there by Oswald or left in an effort to frame him.  There doesn't seem to be a third option where Oswald was simply unlucky and all the evidence pointed to him. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 13, 2020, 03:06:36 PM
You are not a CTer but believe Oswald was on the front steps?  That's a bit difficult to reconcile.  The evidence on the 6th floor was either put there by Oswald or left in an effort to frame him.  There doesn't seem to be a third option where Oswald was simply unlucky and all the evidence pointed to him.


The evidence on the 6th floor was either put there by Oswald or left in an effort to frame him.

I've always entertained the idea that Lee himself could have set the stage, by planting the shells and the rifle before the shooting.  I believe that he was using the same basic scenario that he had employed  for the hoax at General Walker's in April.   Lee thought that he was playing a role in an ATTEMPT to shoot JFK.  The goal was to appear to be a friend of Castro, so he would be allowed asylum  in Cuba, where he could gather information about the nuclear missiles that were there during the missile crisis of 62.     

There's not an iota of doubt in my mind that the spent shells and the Carcano were planted on the sixth floor BEFORE the shooting..... and Lee could have been the person who planted them.   

"or left in an effort to frame him." [....   The fact that the Carcano had been wiped clean of finger prints does indeed seem to indicate that Lee Oswald was NOT the person who planted the rifle......  But either way...The rifle was not fired that day and it was hidden beneath the boxes of books BEFORE the shooting.

 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Organ on March 14, 2020, 03:47:38 PM
You are not a CTer but believe Oswald was on the front steps?  That's a bit difficult to reconcile.  The evidence on the 6th floor was either put there by Oswald or left in an effort to frame him.  There doesn't seem to be a third option where Oswald was simply unlucky and all the evidence pointed to him.

Same with the Birthers, Clintonphobes and Truthers. Just citizen-investigators asking "honest questions" with no agenda in mind.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on March 14, 2020, 05:53:16 PM
In order to believe Oswald didn't shoot JFK one has to believe in some pretty strange happenings including some incredibly bad luck on his part, some incredibly fortuitous luck on the part of the conspirators, and a nearly unlimited capability of the people who framed him, killed JFK, and then kept it all quiet for all of these years.

You have to believe in part that all of the eyewitnesses lied or were coerced or were wrong, all of the evidence - forensic, ballistic, fingerprint, handwriting, photographic - is wrong or corrupt and that alternative explanations on what happened somehow are not only possible but were carried out. And then kept quiet.

We can add the element of time: time is, after all, the chief enemy of conspiracies because over time the acts are revealed, people talk, evidence is found; but time is also paradoxically the enemy of conspiracy theories because over time the acts aren't revealed and people don't talk: a negative is essentially proven. Evidence that should show the conspiracy is not discovered.

As Robert Oswald said about the assassination, asking questions is good, raising doubt is fine, but after the tenth time, the twentieth, it's enough: Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 14, 2020, 08:43:11 PM
You have to believe in part that all of the eyewitnesses lied or were coerced or were wrong,

No you don’t. There’s aren’t any eyewitnesses as to who shot JFK.

Quote
all of the evidence - forensic, ballistic, fingerprint, handwriting, photographic - is wrong or corrupt and that alternative explanations on what happened somehow are not only possible but were carried out. And then kept quiet.

No you don’t. There is no forensic, ballistic, fingerprint, handwriting, photographic evidence as to who shot JFK.

This is the strawman of all strawmen. You assume that the evidence actually proves who did it. Even if all the evidence was authentic (and what little there is, is all questionable or tainted in some way), it doesn’t prove who did the shooting.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 15, 2020, 06:25:04 AM
In order to believe Oswald didn't shoot JFK one has to believe in some pretty strange happenings including some incredibly bad luck on his part, some incredibly fortuitous luck on the part of the conspirators, and a nearly unlimited capability of the people who framed him, killed JFK, and then kept it all quiet for all of these years.

You have to believe in part that all of the eyewitnesses lied or were coerced or were wrong, all of the evidence - forensic, ballistic, fingerprint, handwriting, photographic - is wrong or corrupt and that alternative explanations on what happened somehow are not only possible but were carried out. And then kept quiet.

We can add the element of time: time is, after all, the chief enemy of conspiracies because over time the acts are revealed, people talk, evidence is found; but time is also paradoxically the enemy of conspiracy theories because over time the acts aren't revealed and people don't talk: a negative is essentially proven. Evidence that should show the conspiracy is not discovered.

As Robert Oswald said about the assassination, asking questions is good, raising doubt is fine, but after the tenth time, the twentieth, it's enough: Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

In order to swallow the Oswald pill and believe he did shoot, one would have to ignore their common sense and own eyes.

Everyone saw the head shot come from the front. But because the habitual lying government claims Oswald did it from behind, the swallowers swallow it up. Maybe one of the 2 men with rifles behind Zapruder could tell you who shot him. Yes, those 2 men were there. What a coincidence that's where the shot came from.  :/

But let's ignore our eyes and believe the Marine who couldn't shoot worth a shit did it with a 40 inch rifle that the Army experts said wasn't capable of shooting in its condition. And even though Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle, and the order shows a 36 inch rifle was sent, we'll just ignore the fact a 40 inch rifle was found, so we can swallow the Oswald tale.

The tale that a Marine, who could have positioned himself on the roof, rather do it from a window, at his work. And even though Oswald claimed he was on the 1st floor having lunch and was able to magically know the only 2 other people who were in there, we'll just ignore our common sense. Oswald must have been a psychic to guess who was in the 1st floor lunch room while he was busy shooting the president in the front of his head from behind, on the 6th floor.  :/

And this is the magical part where Oswald somehow makes it all the way home to get a gun a murder a cop within 30 minutes. Actually less than that.

I lived in Dallas and I took the bus to my girlfriends house in Oak Cliff all the time. I know exactly how long the damn bus takes. If you really think Oswald could have shot the president at 12:30. Then took the elevator to the 1st floor to buy a coke. Then went down to the 1st floor where he was stopped by a cop, chatted with police, then walked out the front a few blocks to the bus stop (which had to be 12:45 by then), wait for the bus traveling through presidential motorcade traffic, hop on the bus, ride it a few stops, then get off, then hail a taxi (which had to be close to 1:00 by then).

But why would he leave the safety of a bus, after shooting the president? That's beyond me. It was the safest place he could have been. But he decides to get off, find a taxi, and then travel through the motorcade traffic and at least 12 stop lights to Oak Cliff.

All in time to go home, grab a gun and a jacket, then walk the 15 minutes to kill a cop (who was killed around 1:10).
Then he ditches his jacket, but not the gun, to go see a movie.  ::)

There's no way in hell Oswald could have done all that in 30 minutes. And if you think he could, then take your butt to downtown Dallas and get on a bus to Oak Cliff. See how long it takes you without a presidential motorcade.

And why the hell would Oswald even need a jacket when it was barely 1:00 in the afternoon in hot ass Texas? He was already wearing a long sleeve flannel shirt, which he was arrested in. How in gods name does any of that make sense to grown ass people? LOL It's just ridiculous.

I'm sure the 2 men behind Zapruder with rifles would agree.

And then the police, who haven't even done an investigation, or tested finger prints, or anything else, automatically know who their man is. All because a trained Marine left as much evidence as possible. smh  Just wow.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on March 15, 2020, 06:41:49 AM

The evidence on the 6th floor was either put there by Oswald or left in an effort to frame him.

I've always entertained the idea that Lee himself could have set the stage, by planting the shells and the rifle before the shooting.  I believe that he was using the same basic scenario that he had employed  for the hoax at General Walker's in April.   Lee thought that he was playing a role in an ATTEMPT to shoot JFK.  The goal was to appear to be a friend of Castro, so he would be allowed asylum  in Cuba, where he could gather information about the nuclear missiles that were there during the missile crisis of 62.     

There's not an iota of doubt in my mind that the spent shells and the Carcano were planted on the sixth floor BEFORE the shooting..... and Lee could have been the person who planted them.   

"or left in an effort to frame him." [....   The fact that the Carcano had been wiped clean of finger prints does indeed seem to indicate that Lee Oswald was NOT the person who planted the rifle......  But either way...The rifle was not fired that day and it was hidden beneath the boxes of books BEFORE the shooting.

How does 36 in 5 1/2 pound rifle turn into a 40.02 in 8lb rifle? 

How do 3 police officers with military backgrounds swear the rifle was a Mauser, not because it looked like one but because they read it on the barrel, then 2 change their story. And the one who didn't change his story (because he knew what he saw and wasn't gonna lie) gets fired.

It aint rocket science.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 15, 2020, 05:46:56 PM
The starting point is the car that honked outside Oswalds rooming house at 1pm. I'm not saying there was a conspiracy, but i am saying that if there was, that incident is key to unraveling it.

Ok.... Now if we can prove with 100% certainty that someone honked a car horn in front of the rooming house during the time that Lee was in his room changing his clothes...... and IF that sound of the car horn wasn't just someone honking a greeting at a friend who was passing by.    Then we can unravel the whole mystery about the murder of President Kennedy....  Astonishing!!

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 18, 2020, 04:41:20 PM
In order to swallow the Oswald pill and believe he did shoot, one would have to ignore their common sense and own eyes.

Everyone saw the head shot come from the front. But because the habitual lying government claims Oswald did it from behind, the swallowers swallow it up. Maybe one of the 2 men with rifles behind Zapruder could tell you who shot him. Yes, those 2 men were there. What a coincidence that's where the shot came from.  :/

But let's ignore our eyes and believe the Marine who couldn't shoot worth a shit did it with a 40 inch rifle that the Army experts said wasn't capable of shooting in its condition. And even though Oswald ordered a 36 inch rifle, and the order shows a 36 inch rifle was sent, we'll just ignore the fact a 40 inch rifle was found, so we can swallow the Oswald tale.

The tale that a Marine, who could have positioned himself on the roof, rather do it from a window, at his work. And even though Oswald claimed he was on the 1st floor having lunch and was able to magically know the only 2 other people who were in there, we'll just ignore our common sense. Oswald must have been a psychic to guess who was in the 1st floor lunch room while he was busy shooting the president in the front of his head from behind, on the 6th floor.  :/

And this is the magical part where Oswald somehow makes it all the way home to get a gun a murder a cop within 30 minutes. Actually less than that.

I lived in Dallas and I took the bus to my girlfriends house in Oak Cliff all the time. I know exactly how long the damn bus takes. If you really think Oswald could have shot the president at 12:30. Then took the elevator to the 1st floor to buy a coke. Then went down to the 1st floor where he was stopped by a cop, chatted with police, then walked out the front a few blocks to the bus stop (which had to be 12:45 by then), wait for the bus traveling through presidential motorcade traffic, hop on the bus, ride it a few stops, then get off, then hail a taxi (which had to be close to 1:00 by then).

But why would he leave the safety of a bus, after shooting the president? That's beyond me. It was the safest place he could have been. But he decides to get off, find a taxi, and then travel through the motorcade traffic and at least 12 stop lights to Oak Cliff.

All in time to go home, grab a gun and a jacket, then walk the 15 minutes to kill a cop (who was killed around 1:10).
Then he ditches his jacket, but not the gun, to go see a movie.  ::)

There's no way in hell Oswald could have done all that in 30 minutes. And if you think he could, then take your butt to downtown Dallas and get on a bus to Oak Cliff. See how long it takes you without a presidential motorcade.

And why the hell would Oswald even need a jacket when it was barely 1:00 in the afternoon in hot ass Texas? He was already wearing a long sleeve flannel shirt, which he was arrested in. How in gods name does any of that make sense to grown ass people? LOL It's just ridiculous.

I'm sure the 2 men behind Zapruder with rifles would agree.

And then the police, who haven't even done an investigation, or tested finger prints, or anything else, automatically know who their man is. All because a trained Marine left as much evidence as possible. smh  Just wow.

How do 3 police officers with military backgrounds swear the rifle was a Mauser, not because it looked like one but because they read it on the barrel, then 2 change their story. And the one who didn't change his story (because he knew what he saw and wasn't gonna lie) gets fired.

The ridiculous tale that the rifle found hidden beneath boxes of books on the sixth floor was a Mauser, has been shown to be utterly false .....

Mr Hidashi.....While I admire the fact that you refuse to have the wool pulled over your eyes by " government experts" , and flatly reject the officially approved tale about the murder of JFK.    You do yourself much harm by spewing nonsense.    Clearly you don't know many of the elementary facts of the case so you regurgitate erroneous disinformation which discredits your conclusion that the murder was a conspiracy created by powerful individuals in positions of control in the US government.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 19, 2020, 06:14:23 PM
My current theory is that the MC rifle was as Walt suggests “well hidden” and imo may actually be wedged INSIDE of the volume of space of a pallet stacked full of boxes

It’s easier for the shooter not to have deal with possible complications after the fact having to carry his own precision semi auto rifle and also plant  the MC rifle

My addition to Walts pre planted theory is that there WAS a solitary shooter at the SE window using a Semi auto rifle with scope on it like Arnold Rowland saw, when this same shooter was seen earlier at 12:15pm at the SW window

This shooter might have been Malcolm Wallace but that 34 pt matched print that Nathan Darby matched has seemly refuted by declaring some points found of not matching

I have to question those “dissimilar” points if that is because the print found is irregular and degraded as compared to a pristine fingerprint on record in Malcolm Wallace arrest record

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 20, 2020, 05:50:11 PM
My current theory is that the MC rifle was as Walt suggests “well hidden” and imo may actually be wedged INSIDE of the volume of space of a pallet stacked full of boxes

It’s easier for the shooter not to have deal with possible complications after the fact having to carry his own precision semi auto rifle and also plant  the MC rifle

My addition to Walts pre planted theory is that there WAS a solitary shooter at the SE window using a Semi auto rifle with scope on it like Arnold Rowland saw, when this same shooter was seen earlier at 12:15pm at the SW window

This shooter might have been Malcolm Wallace but that 34 pt matched print that Nathan Darby matched has seemly refuted by declaring some points found of not matching

I have to question those “dissimilar” points if that is because the print found is irregular and degraded as compared to a pristine fingerprint on record in Malcolm Wallace arrest record

My current theory is that the MC rifle was as Walt suggests “well hidden” and imo may actually be wedged INSIDE of the volume of space of a pallet stacked full of boxes

It is a fact that prior to the discovery of the carcano by Weitzman and Boone, many of the officers who were there on the sixth floor between 12:30 pm and 2:30 pm, swore that they had searched for a rifle ALONG the obvious "escape route" from the SE corner to the NW corner of the sixth floor.....and nobody saw the rifle.... If the rifle had been in the position that the official in situ photos depict it to be someone would have seen the rifle.    And furthermore Deputy Boone would not have had to move a box that was forming the roof of a cave in which the rifle was hidden.    And if the rifle was jammed between the boxes as depicted in the in situ photo, Seymour Weitzman could not have seen it by looking beneath the pallet.

Any rational and intelligent person can understand that the rifle was well hidden and it WAS LAYING ON IT'S SIDE  on the floor when Lt Day grabbed it by the leather sling and pulled it from the place where it had been WELL HIDDEN. 

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 20, 2020, 06:08:02 PM
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117

"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs"


-----------------------------

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=86

Lillian Mooneyham
a.Dallas County clerk watching motorcade from Judge King's windows on the second floor, southwest corner, Criminal
Courts Building, with Mrs. Rose Clark and Jeanette hooker.
b.Heard three shots(?)
c.Heard first shot; saw President slump; thought it was Firecracker.
d.Second and third shots were closer together.
e.Saw Mrs. Kennedy climb on back of car.
f.Mooneyham went Judge Hyer's windows on the third floor of Records Building.
g.People running to pergola.
h.4 1/2 to 5 minutes after shots she sees man standing behind some boxes on the 6th floor, TSBD.


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 20, 2020, 06:27:26 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mancarryingguncase%20001.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 20, 2020, 06:42:45 PM
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69117

"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs"


-----------------------------

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=40395&relPageId=86

Lillian Mooneyham
a.Dallas County clerk watching motorcade from Judge King's windows on the second floor, southwest corner, Criminal
Courts Building, with Mrs. Rose Clark and Jeanette hooker.
b.Heard three shots(?)
c.Heard first shot; saw President slump; thought it was Firecracker.
d.Second and third shots were closer together.
e.Saw Mrs. Kennedy climb on back of car.
f.Mooneyham went Judge Hyer's windows on the third floor of Records Building.
g.People running to pergola.
h.4 1/2 to 5 minutes after shots she sees man standing behind some boxes on the 6th floor, TSBD.

"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs"


They were fooled by the reversing of the chronology of the photos..... the box on the sill is positioned differently......But not because the box was moved in the thirty seconds after the shots were fired..... The Powell photo was taken BEFORE the shooting.....and the Dillard photo was taken DURING the shooting..... And they verified that "no human face or form could be detected"   and the reason that  "no human face or form could be detected" is because there was nobody firing a rifle from that window.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 20, 2020, 10:00:24 PM
The Powell photo was taken BEFORE the shooting.....and the Dillard photo was taken DURING the shooting.....

LOL
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 20, 2020, 11:27:54 PM
"The panel studied two photographs taken within minutes of the assassination. While no human face or form could be detected
in the sixth floor southeast window, the panel was able to conclude that a stack of boxes had been rearranged during the
interval of the taking of the two photographs"


They were fooled by the reversing of the chronology of the photos....
SENATOR COOPER - Have you fired other types of rifles other than the one you used?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; the first one I had was a 30-30 Marlin lever type.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you ever seen the rifle that is alleged to have belonged to Lee Oswald?

Mr. BAKER - I saw it, a photograph of it, in the newspaper.

SENATOR COOPER - Do you know what kind of rifle it is?

Mr. BAKER - Not offhand. I heard it was some foreign make gun. Most of the boys down there at the police

department have had dealings with foreign type guns, rifles, you know of this kind, and a lot of them sell them,

and a lot of them rework them, you know, make them into deer rifles.. the box on the sill is positioned differently......But not because the box was moved in the thirty seconds after the shots were fired..... The Powell photo was taken BEFORE the shooting.....and the Dillard photo was taken DURING the shooting..... And they verified that "no human face or form could be detected"   and the reason that  "no human face or form could be detected" is because there was nobody firing a rifle from that window.


"The Powell photo was taken BEFORE the shooting.....and the Dillard photo was taken DURING the shooting"

I think you're wrong about the timing of the photos. What information are you basing your conclusion on?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 20, 2020, 11:56:32 PM
How do 3 police officers with military backgrounds swear the rifle was a Mauser, not because it looked like one but because they read it on the barrel, then 2 change their story. And the one who didn't change his story (because he knew what he saw and wasn't gonna lie) gets fired.

The ridiculous tale that the rifle found hidden beneath boxes of books on the sixth floor was a Mauser, has been shown to be utterly false .....

According to whom, you?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 21, 2020, 12:15:55 AM
According to whom, you?

Mr Trojan...Are you visually impaired?    There are dozens of photos that clearly show that the rifle that was recovered from beneath the boxes on the sixth floor was without any doubt a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.  The earliest photos were taken by Tom Alyea and they show Lt Day dusting a MANNLICHER CARCANO with finger print powder.

But unless you extract your head....you'll never see that this is the truth.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 21, 2020, 12:25:17 AM
Mr Trojan...Are you visually impaired?    There are dozens of photos that clearly show that the rifle that was recovered from beneath the boxes on the sixth floor was without any doubt a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.  The earliest photos were taken by Tom Alyea and they show Lt Day dusting a MANNLICHER CARCANO with finger print powder.

But unless you extract your head....you'll never see that this is the truth.

Pls extract your own head, I'm talking about the 1st rifle they found, which was the token rifle that someone took a few shots with from the SN. The Carcano never fired a shot. Fritz was supposed to avoid finding the Mauser but you know how inept the DPD was. They passed it off as one of theirs.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 21, 2020, 01:39:17 PM
Pls extract your own head, I'm talking about the 1st rifle they found, which was the token rifle that someone took a few shots with from the SN. The Carcano never fired a shot

Fritz was supposed to avoid finding the Mauser but you know how inept the DPD was. They passed it off as one of theirs.

There was only ONE rifle found on the sixth floor....   And two,  6.5 mm spent shells.    Weitzman and Boone found the 6.5mm CARCANO where it had been well hidden beneath a pallet of book boxes.  There are many photos that clearly show the rifle is a 6.5mm Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.

Do you think the conspirators would have been so stupid that they would have planted the spent 6.5mm Carcano shells and then planted a rifle of a different caliber???     Even Roger Craig admitted that it wouldn't have made logical sense to plant spent shells that didn't fit the rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 21, 2020, 05:52:19 PM
Mr Trojan...Are you visually impaired?    There are dozens of photos that clearly show that the rifle that was recovered from beneath the boxes on the sixth floor was without any doubt a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.  The earliest photos were taken by Tom Alyea and they show Lt Day dusting a MANNLICHER CARCANO with finger print powder.

If you really think you can identify a specific brand and model number from the fuzzy, washed out Alyea film then you have quite an imagination.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 21, 2020, 05:55:17 PM
There was only ONE rifle found on the sixth floor....   And two,  6.5 mm spent shells.    Weitzman and Boone found the 6.5mm CARCANO where it had been well hidden beneath a pallet of book boxes.  There are many photos that clearly show the rifle is a 6.5mm Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.

According to whom, you? Why do you persist in trusting the recollections of the DPD? The ONLY trustworthy person was maybe Alyea but did he film Roger Craig misreading the barrel of the MC and say 7.65mm Mauser instead of 6.5mm Carcano? Personally, I don't know who to believe. But I certainly can't definitively claim a Mauser wasn't found and Craig made it all up.

Quote
Do you think the conspirators would have been so stupid that they would have planted the spent 6.5mm Carcano shells and then planted a rifle of a different caliber???     Even Roger Craig admitted that it wouldn't have made logical sense to plant spent shells that didn't fit the rifle.

Yes I do think they were that stupid and their intention was to NOT find the Mauser, which Fritz knew was there and where not to look. But some other DPD Keystone Cop who didn't pay attention at the briefing found it. Of course I can't be sure if there was a Mauser but neither can you. Otherwise, you have to explain what orifice Roger Craig pulled "7.65" from.  Extract your head and let me know.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 21, 2020, 08:33:18 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 21, 2020, 08:39:39 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-0013.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 21, 2020, 09:44:00 PM
Seymour 'saw less' than he should have according to his later statements. He said he saw the bolt action and assumed it a Mauser, the de facto standard for bolt-action rifles of that era. The Carcano had a similar appearance, but even if he had only heard rumours about the Carcano bad reputation (let alone knowing it at-a-glance) he would, arguably, assume a Mauser would be used over said Carcano in a Kennedy assassination attempt.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Zeon Mason on March 21, 2020, 10:32:59 PM
M1941 Johnson semi auto rifle

1. Disassembled easily fits in a 24” length x 8” width paper bag
2. Was the rifle issued to Bay of Pigs invasion soldiers by CIA
3. Can fire 3 shots rapidly and accurately in 4.8 secs just By trigger squeeze
4. Makes “click” sound similar to bolt action rifle after each round is fired and shell automatically ejected
5. An M1941 Johnson rifle  may have been owned by a known CIA operative named “Loran Hall” who had WC testimony he had been approached and offered 50K but turned it down

6. Oswald made contact with anti Castro Cubans in New Orleans, most notably, Carlos Bringuier
7. Bringuier and Loran Hall were photographed together
8. Sylvia Odio thinks she saw Oswald in her apartment in company with 2 “ Mexicans
9. Sylvia Odio, Bringuier and Hall all members of same Anti Castro Cuban organization
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 21, 2020, 11:06:55 PM
If you really think you can identify a specific brand and model number from the fuzzy, washed out Alyea film then you have quite an imagination.

OMG!....  Are you really this ignorant about rifles??  I'm sure that you've seen Alyea's film of Liar J.C. Day dusting the rifle for prints.  Anybody who has one good eye can see that that rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.   It's simply a matter of LOOKING at that very distinctive rifle and comparing  it with photos of CE 139 ( or a gun book, or website)  to know without any doubt that the rifle is a carcano.

P.S. I'll try to find and post the Alyea film that shows Liar Day dusting the rifle.


EXTRACT YOUR HEAD AND OPEN YOUR EYES......  Starting at 3:07 ......  Also at 3:42
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2020, 03:48:19 AM
Any body who has one good eye can see that that rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle. 

Then why did 3 deputies (one of whom who worked at a sporting goods store) with 6 good eyes call it a Mauser?

And not just a Mauser, but a 7.65 Mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 22, 2020, 04:07:51 AM
OMG!....  Are you really this ignorant about rifles??  I'm sure that you've seen Alyea's film of Liar J.C. Day dusting the rifle for prints.  Any body who has one good eye can see that that rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.   It's simply a matter of LOOKING at that very distinctive rifle and comparing  it with photos of CE 139 to know without any doubt that the rifle is a carcano.

P.S. I'll try to find and post the Alyea film that shows Liar Day dusting the rifle.


EXTRACT YOUR HEAD AND OPEN YOUR EYES......  Starting at 3:07 ......  Also at 3:42

Any body who has one good eye can see that that rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano

Then somebody should channel Earlene Roberts. And I'm available apparently, at least according to the guy who called me a cyclops.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 22, 2020, 04:21:12 PM
Then why did 3 deputies (one of whom who worked at a sporting goods store) with 6 good eyes call it a Mauser?

And not just a Mauser, but a 7.65 Mauser.

Riiiiiight!......   The conspirators were so stupid that they planted 6.5mm Carcano shells beneath the window and then planted a 7.65 Mauser beneath the boxes in the NW corner....   They thought that nobody would notice that 6.5mm Carcano shells ( and live round) could not be fired in a 7.65mm Mauser.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2020, 06:31:42 PM
Riiiiiight!......   The conspirators were so stupid that they planted 6.5mm Carcano shells beneath the window and then planted a 7.65 Mauser beneath the boxes in the NW corner....   They thought that nobody would notice that 6.5mm Carcano shells ( and live round) could not be fired in a 7.65mm Mauser.....

I didn’t claim that “conspirators” planted anything.

P.S. how do you know that 6.5mm Carcano shells were beneath the window?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 22, 2020, 08:50:05 PM
I didn’t claim that “conspirators” planted anything.

P.S. how do you know that 6.5mm Carcano shells were beneath the window?

There comes a point when a good investigator simply accepts some information as valid even though there may be those who doubt.....  So, my dear Mr Iacoletti I'm compelled to accept ( because of the overwhelming evidence provided by virtually all of the police officers) that the spent shells were 6.5mm .

However..... you are free to believe that the rifle was a 7.65 mauser if you wish to appear to be in imbecile.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 22, 2020, 09:24:55 PM
So, my dear Mr Iacoletti I'm compelled to accept ( because of the overwhelming evidence provided by virtually all of the police officers) that the spent shells were 6.5mm .

I thought you called all the Dallas cops “damn liars”...
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 22, 2020, 10:19:52 PM
There comes a point when a good investigator simply accepts some information as valid even though there may be those who doubt.....  So, my dear Mr Iacoletti I'm compelled to accept ( because of the overwhelming evidence provided by virtually all of the police officers) that the spent shells were 6.5mm .

However..... you are free to believe that the rifle was a 7.65 mauser if you wish to appear to be in imbecile.

You're far more sensible when you're channeling your LNer mode.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 12:00:24 AM
I thought you called all the Dallas cops “damn liars”...

No liar,  lies 100% of the time.....  In the overall scheme of things the DPD were "damned liars".....  And some were more prolific liars than others....Two of the biggest liars were Captain Will Fritz, and Detective John Carl Day......
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 23, 2020, 12:19:36 AM
No liar,  lies 100% of the time.....  In the overall scheme of things the DPD were "damned liars".....  And some were more prolific liars than others....Two of the biggest liars were Captain Will Fritz, and Detective John Carl Day......

What about Roger Craig? Was he a damned liar too? Why would a conspirator lie about reading "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel of the rifle? He was obviously not "in on it" so why do you think he was lying?

If Craig was telling the truth, then there were 2 rifles and Alyea didn't film the Mauser. Otherwise, if ANY shots came from the SN then it was NOT from the Carcano because that was the patsy rifle that was pre-planted as were the hulls. Or do you still believe that the MC was used in the assassination?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 12:34:23 AM
Then why did 3 deputies (one of whom who worked at a sporting goods store) with 6 good eyes call it a Mauser?

And not just a Mauser, but a 7.65 Mauser.

John, watch this video frame by frame .....Starting at the first frame....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-L8ZBnJxU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-L8ZBnJxU)

What is the position of the rifle in the first frame when Lt Day reaches out and grabs the sling ?     What is the position of that leather sling?... Is it at 12:00 O'clock ( toward the ceiling)   3:00 O'Clock ----6:00 O'Clock --or 9:00 O'Clock  ?     
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 12:38:42 AM
What about Roger Craig? Was he a damned liar too? Why would a conspirator lie about reading "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel of the rifle? He was obviously not "in on it" so why do you think he was lying?

If Craig was telling the truth, then there were 2 rifles and Alyea didn't film the Mauser. Otherwise, if ANY shots came from the SN then it was NOT from the Carcano because that was the patsy rifle that was pre-planted as were the hulls. Or do you still believe that the MC was used in the assassination?

Roger Craig had a real mental problem.....( Mary Ferrell who knew Craig personally, said that Craig was a compulsive liar)   Once he had stuck his neck out and swore that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser, his mental problem would not llow him to admit that he was wrong.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 23, 2020, 12:58:12 AM
Roger Craig had a real mental problem.....( Mary Ferrell who knew Craig personally, said that Craig was a compulsive liar)   Once he had stuck his neck out and swore that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser, his mental problem would not llow him to admit that he was wrong.

That's pretty damned thin. So Craig's "mental problem" invented the 7.65 Mauser part? And why do you believe that the rifle Craig was reading was the same rifle in the Alyea film? Was it because Fritz or Day said so?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 23, 2020, 01:22:51 AM
That's pretty damned thin. So Craig's "mental problem" invented the 7.65 Mauser part? And why do you believe that the rifle Craig was reading was the same rifle in the Alyea film? Was it because Fritz or Day said so?
Craig didn't claim that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped into the barrel until his videotaped interview with Lane in 1973. His 1971 account of the rifle's discovery "When They Kill A President" In '68 doesn't mention it. Nor did Craig mention it in his Shaw trial testimony. Craig and Penn Jones were given a joint interview by the LA Free Press in 1968. This is what Craig said in that interview:

"RC: ...I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle — there's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop It in there, I'm six feet tall, and I couldn't reach down and pick that, rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in 'em by moving some of 'em to get to that rifle. And there wasn't a scratch on that rifle, and the scope was not one fraction out of kilter.

FP: Did you handle that rifle?

RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles. I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon."

His '68 story excludes the '73 version, and vice versa. You'd think that he would have gotten his story straight, had it happened that way.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 23, 2020, 02:20:49 AM
Craig didn't claim that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped into the barrel until his videotaped interview with Lane in 1973. His 1971 account of the rifle's discovery "When They Kill A President" In '68 doesn't mention it. Nor did Craig mention it in his Shaw trial testimony. Craig and Penn Jones were given a joint interview by the LA Free Press in 1968. This is what Craig said in that interview:

"RC: ...I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle — there's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop It in there, I'm six feet tall, and I couldn't reach down and pick that, rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in 'em by moving some of 'em to get to that rifle. And there wasn't a scratch on that rifle, and the scope was not one fraction out of kilter.

FP: Did you handle that rifle?

RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles. I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon."

His '68 story excludes the '73 version, and vice versa. You'd think that he would have gotten his story straight, had it happened that way.


Getting his story straight was not the issue when there was enormous pressure on him NOT to bring up the Mauser. He knew the implications when he realized that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the 7.65mm Mauser. In his mind, at least, it implied a conspiracy, which leads you to wonder why he would put his life on the line to recount it. So your best guess is that Craig was a nut job who called out a conspiracy, which was all in his head. Alrighty then, case closed!

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 23, 2020, 03:18:44 AM
John watch this video frame by frame .....Starting at the first frame....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-L8ZBnJxU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep-L8ZBnJxU)

What is the position of the rifle in the first frame when Lt Day reaches out and grabs the sling ?     What is the position of that leather sling?... Is it at 12:00 O'clock ( toward the ceiling)    12:15 ----12:30---or 12:45 ?   

It looks to me like the rifle is lying on its right side with the scope to the right and the sling to the left.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 23, 2020, 04:30:07 AM
Then why did 3 deputies (one of whom who worked at a sporting goods store) with 6 good eyes call it a Mauser?

And not just a Mauser, but a 7.65 Mauser.
What a lot of people would call a model '91 Mauser, aka an Argentine Mauser.  That particular model has a distinctive single-stack steel magazine that extends down below the forestock rather like a Carcano's. Subsequent Mausers use a dual-stack magazine that fit completely within the forestock. Beginning in the late 1950s, the Argentine government began to sell off its old Mauser bolt action rifles beginning with the model 91s. A number of firms imported them and sold them as-is, or "sporterized" them, shortening the barrels and replacing the stocks with something more along the lines of a hunting rifle. From what one a.a.jfk poster remembered, Sears and a number of other retail chains sold them in the early '60's. Weitzman may have simply seen the magazine peeking out from under the forestock and assumed that it was one of the Argie Mausers just based on that.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 23, 2020, 12:42:50 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1.jpg)


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 23, 2020, 12:44:40 PM
Later on  ???

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi2.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi3.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi4.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 05:27:20 PM
That's pretty damned thin. So Craig's "mental problem" invented the 7.65 Mauser part? And why do you believe that the rifle Craig was reading was the same rifle in the Alyea film? Was it because Fritz or Day said so?

So Craig's "mental problem" invented the 7.65 Mauser part?

No, Roger Craig did NOT invent the Mauser....  Craig heard Weitzman speculate that the rifle looked like a 7.65 Mauser, and Craig respected Weitzman's statement and accepted it as a fact.    This happened before the rifle was removed from beneath the pallet, and Weitzman had not gotten a good look at the rifle at that time. 

And why do you believe that the rifle Craig was reading was the same rifle in the Alyea film? Was it because Fritz or Day said so?

I'm positive that the rifle that Alyea filmed as Day picked it up from the floor and held it up to Captain Fritz was with out any doubt a model 91/38 Mannlicher carcano....   And I certainly would NOT believe either Detective Liar Day or The Captain of Liars Will Fritz.....  I have two good eyes and I know what a carcano looks like.

Just minutes after pulling the rifle from beneath the pallet Detective Day went to work on the carcano....Dusting it with finger print powder and looking for prints ( see Alyea's film) Those images leave no doubt that the rifle is a Mannlicher Carcano.     This is very simple.....Al you have to do is extract your head and LOOK.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 06:05:14 PM
It looks to me like the rifle is lying on its right side with the scope to the right and the sling to the left.

This doesn't make sense to me......  Here's the way the rifle was , and is, configured.... The Leather sling , and the scope are  mounted off to the left hand side of the rifle the bolt knob is on the right hand side of the rifle ( naturally, because most folks are right handed. )

You are right... the rifle is lying on it's right side with the bolt knob on the floor ( knob at 6 O'Clock).....The leather sling that Day reaches out and grabs, is up ( at the 12;00 O' Clock position)

How does this compare with the official  in situ photo which depicts the rifle as being jammed between boxes of books with the leather sling at the 9:00 o clock position?     Could Detective Day have reached out and grabbed the sling and lifted the rifle if it had been jammed between the boxes of books ?



   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Louis Earl on March 23, 2020, 06:57:15 PM
Quote
But why would he leave the safety of a bus, after shooting the president? That's beyond me. It was the safest place he could have been. But he decides to get off, find a taxi, and then travel through the motorcade traffic and at least 12 stop lights to Oak Cliff.
Quote

The bus was stuck in traffic and LHO had to be home in a hurry to meet up with someone at his rooming house.  Whoever was driving the fake cop car got cold feet after tooting the horn for LHO and getting no response. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 07:14:16 PM
The bus was stuck in traffic and LHO had to be home in a hurry to meet up with someone at his rooming house.  Whoever was driving the fake cop car got cold feet after tooting the horn for LHO and getting no response.

Would you believe that Lee Oswald didn't murder JFK?.......  Therefore he wasn't fleeing from anybody....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 23, 2020, 07:55:20 PM
Craig didn't claim that he saw "7.65 Mauser" stamped into the barrel until his videotaped interview with Lane in 1973. His 1971 account of the rifle's discovery "When They Kill A President" In '68 doesn't mention it. Nor did Craig mention it in his Shaw trial testimony. Craig and Penn Jones were given a joint interview by the LA Free Press in 1968. This is what Craig said in that interview:

"RC: ...I was also present when the rifle was found. Now this rifle — there's no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop It in there, I'm six feet tall, and I couldn't reach down and pick that, rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in 'em by moving some of 'em to get to that rifle. And there wasn't a scratch on that rifle, and the scope was not one fraction out of kilter.

FP: Did you handle that rifle?

RC: Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles. I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon."

His '68 story excludes the '73 version, and vice versa. You'd think that he would have gotten his story straight, had it happened that way.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/craigandjonespage7.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 08:02:55 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/craigandjonespage7.jpg)

WHY??.... Do you perpetuate this BS???  I'm sure you aren't visually impaired.... OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK at Alyea's film.   The rifle that Boone and Weitzman found hidden beneath the pallet was a Mannlicher Carcano.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 23, 2020, 08:26:24 PM
WHY??.... Do you perpetuate this BS???  I'm sure you aren't visually impaired.... OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK at Alyea's film.   The rifle that Boone and Weitzman found hidden beneath the pallet was a Mannlicher Carcano.

Their 1st day reports and in Weitzman's case a 2nd day report as well say something different.

I'm not perpetuating anything, only pointing out the evidence.

Signed sworn and notarized affidavits are evidence.

Claiming you know everything that happened on the 6th floor TSBD based on the available Alyea film is a perpetuation.

Alyea himself said a good deal of the film he took didn't see the light of day.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 23, 2020, 08:36:59 PM
WHY??.... Do you perpetuate this BS???  I'm sure you aren't visually impaired.... OPEN YOUR EYES AND LOOK at Alyea's film.   The rifle that Boone and Weitzman found hidden beneath the pallet was a Mannlicher Carcano.

By the way, I posted the newspaper interview because another poster had posted a few lines from it and I thought having the entire article available may add to the conversation.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 08:55:09 PM
Their 1st day reports and in Weitzman's case a 2nd day report as well say something different.

I'm not perpetuating anything, only pointing out the evidence.

Signed sworn and notarized affidavits are evidence.

Claiming you know everything that happened on the 6th floor TSBD based on the available Alyea film is a perpetuation.

Alyea himself said a good deal of the film he took didn't see the light of day.

Claiming you know everything that happened on the 6th floor TSBD based on the available Alyea film is a perpetuation.


I make no such claim.....BUT....There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Tom Alyea filmed Detective Day as he checked a Model (91/ 38 ) Mannlicher Carcano for finger prints prints just minutes after Day pulled that carcano from beneath the pallet where it had been hidden..

This is so utterly simple that most six year old kids can see and compare the pictures of the rifle with picture at a Carcano website.....And KNOW that the rifle that Day is examining is a Mannlicher Carcano.

Alyea himself said a good deal of the film he took didn't see the light of day.

Yes....And I believe that is true....  So ask yourself WHO would have cut up Tom Alyea's film...and for what reason.

Tom Alyea said that he filmed Detective Day as Day used scotch tape to lift a print from the rifle  .....I'm 100% sure that Tom did in fact film Day lifting a print from the rifle, but that segment has never been seen....  WHO would not have wanted us to see Detective Day in the act of lifting a print " off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip"  ????
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 23, 2020, 09:08:50 PM
Claiming you know everything that happened on the 6th floor TSBD based on the available Alyea film is a perpetuation.


I make no such claim.....BUT....There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Tom Alyea filmed Detective Day as he checked a Model (91/ 38 ) Mannlicher Carcano for finger prints prints just minutes after Day pulled that carcano from beneath the pallet where it had been hidden..

This is so utterly simple that most six year old kids can see and compare the pictures of the rifle with picture at a Carcano website.....And KNOW that the rifle that Day is examining is a Mannlicher Carcano.

Alyea himself said a good deal of the film he took didn't see the light of day.

"This is so utterly simple that most six year old kids can see and compare the pictures of the rifle with picture at a Carcano website.....And KNOW that the rifle that Day is examining is a Mannlicher Carcano."

Yet we have 3 experienced LE officers in the room, within an arms length of the rifle when it was found, and they thought it was a Mauser.

Who's the 6 year old?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 23, 2020, 09:24:03 PM
"This is so utterly simple that most six year old kids can see and compare the pictures of the rifle with picture at a Carcano website.....And KNOW that the rifle that Day is examining is a Mannlicher Carcano."

Yet we have 3 experienced LE officers in the room, within an arms length of the rifle when it was found, and they thought it was a Mauser.

Who's the 6 year old?


Any little kid can look at the pictures of Detective Day dusting the rifle and then compare those images with pictures of a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano in a gun book, and see that the rifle in Day's hands is in fact a carcano.

Even Roger Craig ( the jerk who started this controversy ) after several years had passed tried to wiggle away from his idiotic lie......When he said a Mauser had been found on the roof of the TSBD, later that afternoon.     IOW..... He had not seen a 7.65 Mauser with that identification"stamped right there on the barrel"....

Because....Roger Craig went back to the Sheriff's office with the powerful flashlights before Detective Day left the TSBD with the Carcano.....So he couldn't have been in the TSBD  'Later that afternoon to see a Mauser that had been found on the roof"
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 24, 2020, 12:26:36 AM

Getting his story straight was not the issue when there was enormous pressure on him NOT to bring up the Mauser. He knew the implications when he realized that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the 7.65mm Mauser. In his mind, at least, it implied a conspiracy, which leads you to wonder why he would put his life on the line to recount it. So your best guess is that Craig was a nut job who called out a conspiracy, which was all in his head. Alrighty then, case closed!
By the time of the LAFP interview, Craig had been working for Garrison for a few months. He was also spouting off a lot of CT stuff; just check out the rest of the LAFP article. If Craig was feeling too much pressure to say that he saw "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle, then he wouldn't have told the LAFP all that other stuff. Nor would he have or r-u-n-n-o-f-t to the Big Easy to work for Big Jim's investigation. Similarly, if he was feeling too much heat to bring up the rifle stamp in "When They Kill A President," then he wouldn't have written it at all -- WTKaP is just one long laundry list of conspiracy claims.

As to why he did this, Mary Ferrell knew him. Her opinion of him can be summed up with the following quote from something she posted back in the day on Prodigy:

"When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that "they" prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had 'seen something or other'"

Weisberg, who also knew Craig, had a similarly low opinion of Craig:

"Roger Craig may be a brave guy and all of that, but he is also full of what is generally reserved for toilets. I have gone over his annotation of his testimony, as printed, and his account of the changes is utterly impossible. I spent too many years working with court reporters, particularly, the firm the Commission used, to find it possible to credit this in any way. More, have traced that testimony all the way from Dallas to the Government Printing Office, and it is printed as it was taken down, I have copies of the typescript sent to the GPO, and I have the letter of transmittal to DC the bills for taking it, the whole story. Roger is, despite Penn's [Penn Jones] great love for him, at best simply wrong, in the newer areas, what he embellished his original testimony with. Now I have met Roger, and he is a fine-looking, clean-cut kind of guy who appears to be truthful, serious and all that-just like dozens of guys I once guarded in an Army locked ward in a large mental institution. He does not impress me as the kind of guy who is out to make trouble. But he is"

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 24, 2020, 12:36:00 AM
"This is so utterly simple that most six year old kids can see and compare the pictures of the rifle with picture at a Carcano website.....And KNOW that the rifle that Day is examining is a Mannlicher Carcano."

Yet we have 3 experienced LE officers in the room, within an arms length of the rifle when it was found, and they thought it was a Mauser.

Who's the 6 year old?
"3 experienced LE officers in the room." Experienced with what, exactly? More precisely, exactly what expertise do you think they had in precisely identifying weapons?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 24, 2020, 02:01:19 AM
"3 experienced LE officers in the room." Experienced with what, exactly? More precisely, exactly what expertise do you think they had in precisely identifying weapons?
Quote
Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 24, 2020, 03:33:09 AM
Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.

So how long was "awhile"?

Actually, we don't need you to tell us. Weitzman already did that for us in his testimony:

"Mr. BALL - Where were you born?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BALL - Were you educated here in this State?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Partially here and Indiana.
Mr. BALL - How far did you go through school?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I went through college, graduated in engineering, 1945.
Mr. BALL - When did you come to Texas?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Do you mean back to Texas?
Mr. BALL - Back to Texas.
Mr. WEITZMAN - Right after the service was over and when I came out of the service.
Mr. BALL - Did you graduate from school before you went into the service?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I finished up after I received my discharge. I went back to Indiana to engineering school in South Bend and finished my degree in 1945.
Mr. BALL - What school?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Allison Division of General Motors Engineering School.
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you went to Dallas?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Went in business for myself.
Mr. BALL - What kind of business?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Dresses, garments, ladies garments.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I went on the road as district supervisor and manager for Holly's Dress Shops in New York, 115 Fifth Avenue, and I supervised 26 stores for them for approximately 15 years.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I took over as general manager of the Lamont Corp. which is a discount operation and the headquarters, which was Galveston, Tex. We had stores in Dallas, Fort Worth, Louisiana, Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz. At the end of 1960, I closed up all the stores, retired from the discount operation and went to work for Robie Love in Dallas County, precinct 1.
Mr. BALL - You've been there ever since as deputy constable?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That's right."

So, he gets his sheepskin in 1945, then promptly goes to work supervising a chain of dress shops for 15 years. 1945 + 15 brings us up to about 1960. That's when he assumes a new position as general manager of Lamont's in Galveston. He closes up the company by the end of 1960, then assumes his position as a deputy constable. That gives him about a year, if that, to "be in the sporting goods business".  Not just firearms, but baseball bats, tennis racquets, golf clubs, and basketball hoops all mixed in there as well. And I don't get the impression that "a discount operation" would be a good description for a place that was just a sporting goods store. Weitzman's description sounds more like a discount department store chain, where the sporting goods were a subset of a much larger mix of merchandise.

Now, tell me how a year of running a flailing department store chain turned Weitzman into an expert on firearms.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 24, 2020, 02:59:20 PM
"3 experienced LE officers in the room." Experienced with what, exactly? More precisely, exactly what expertise do you think they had in precisely identifying weapons?

Walt posted that a 6 year old could identify the Carcano in the grainy Alyea film by comparing it to a picture of one on the internet.

I simply pointed out that there were 3 experienced LE officers in the room, with a much better view of the rifle than Walt's 6 year old, who identified the rifle as a Mauser.

As far as experience, nothing in particular as far as weapons identification other than training/experience in evidence collection and greater familiarity of firearms than the general public.

Thank you for bringing up the subject again and giving me a chance to reiterate my point.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2020, 03:12:12 PM
So how long was "awhile"?

Actually, we don't need you to tell us. Weitzman already did that for us in his testimony:

"Mr. BALL - Where were you born?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BALL - Were you educated here in this State?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Partially here and Indiana.
Mr. BALL - How far did you go through school?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I went through college, graduated in engineering, 1945.
Mr. BALL - When did you come to Texas?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Do you mean back to Texas?
Mr. BALL - Back to Texas.
Mr. WEITZMAN - Right after the service was over and when I came out of the service.
Mr. BALL - Did you graduate from school before you went into the service?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I finished up after I received my discharge. I went back to Indiana to engineering school in South Bend and finished my degree in 1945.
Mr. BALL - What school?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Allison Division of General Motors Engineering School.
Mr. BALL - What did you do when you went to Dallas?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Went in business for myself.
Mr. BALL - What kind of business?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Dresses, garments, ladies garments.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I went on the road as district supervisor and manager for Holly's Dress Shops in New York, 115 Fifth Avenue, and I supervised 26 stores for them for approximately 15 years.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I took over as general manager of the Lamont Corp. which is a discount operation and the headquarters, which was Galveston, Tex. We had stores in Dallas, Fort Worth, Louisiana, Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz. At the end of 1960, I closed up all the stores, retired from the discount operation and went to work for Robie Love in Dallas County, precinct 1.
Mr. BALL - You've been there ever since as deputy constable?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That's right."

So, he gets his sheepskin in 1945, then promptly goes to work supervising a chain of dress shops for 15 years. 1945 + 15 brings us up to about 1960. That's when he assumes a new position as general manager of Lamont's in Galveston. He closes up the company by the end of 1960, then assumes his position as a deputy constable. That gives him about a year, if that, to "be in the sporting goods business".  Not just firearms, but baseball bats, tennis racquets, golf clubs, and basketball hoops all mixed in there as well. And I don't get the impression that "a discount operation" would be a good description for a place that was just a sporting goods store. Weitzman's description sounds more like a discount department store chain, where the sporting goods were a subset of a much larger mix of merchandise.

Now, tell me how a year of running a flailing department store chain turned Weitzman into an expert on firearms.

Thank you for taking the time to analyze Seymour Weitzman's employment record.    I don't believe it's a critical issue, but the record does seem to cast doubt on Weitzman's claim to have been "in the sporting goods business, or having managed or run a sporting goods store.....

Weitzman's expertise isn't really very important....So there's no need to attack him...... He simply saw a bit of the rifle beneath the pallet as they waited for Detective Day and Captain Fritz to come to the site, and ventured that the rifle looked like a Mauser.  Roger Craig heard Weitzman's WAG and accepted it as if the rifle was in fact a Mauser .    Roger Craig is the problem....

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2020, 03:38:13 PM
Walt posted that a 6 year old could identify the Carcano in the grainy Alyea film by comparing it to a picture of one on the internet.

I simply pointed out that there were 3 experienced LE officers in the room, with a much better view of the rifle than Walt's 6 year old, who identified the rifle as a Mauser.

As far as experience, nothing in particular as far as weapons identification other than training/experience in evidence collection and greater familiarity of firearms than the general public.

Thank you for bringing up the subject again and giving me a chance to reiterate my point.

Gary, You apparently are looking at a poor copy of Tom Alyea's film.....The youtube copy that I linked to is clear enough to easily identify the rifle as a Model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano.   (Some copies of Alyea's film are indeed very blurry....And there's a good reason that "someone" blurred the images .  Any photo or film that revealed useful information was " lost" damaged, or discredited in some manner.

 



Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 24, 2020, 03:41:26 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0045.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2020, 04:06:59 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/craigandjonespage7.jpg)

No liar lies every time they open their mouth.   In fact the best liars know that they need to be truthful 95% of the time.   ( Intelligence agents are trained to lie only when necessary)  This news paper article of the interview of Roger Craig is a very interesting study in a lying....   Roger Craig was a liar who could lie convincingly, but he most certainly did not lie every time he made a statement..   

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/craigandjonespage7.jpg)


In the newspaper article Roger Craig says this:... quote.....  "I was also present when the rifle was found, and there' s no possible way that a man could lay that rifle between those boxes. He had to drop it in there. I'm six feet tall and I couldn't reach down and pick that rifle out without climbing on top of those boxes and getting down in em and by moving some of them to get to the rifle."  ....unquote

This observation by Roger Craig confirms what I've been posting for years.....  The rifle was not jammed between boxes of books as the official DPD in situ photos depict.   The rifle was laying on the floor at the bottom of a "cave" which was created by stacks of boxes.   Recall that Deputy Boone said that he removed a box that was forming the ceiling of the "cave" and shined his powerful flashlight down into the "cave" and he then spotted a small portion of the butt of the rifle as it lay on the floor at the bottom of the cave.   And Seymour Weitzman who had approached the same site from the east was down on the floor and shining his flashlight beneath a pallet with boxes of books stacked on it, when he spotted the rifle laying on the floor beneath the pallet.  Weitzman and Boone both saw the rifle laying on the floor... NOT jammed between the boxes of books as the fake DPD in situ photo depicts..
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 24, 2020, 04:45:13 PM
Thank you for taking the time to analyze Seymour Weitzman's employment record.
A question was asked and answered.
Probably, most of the trolls here have never touched a rifle...they know who they are.
Quote
Mr. BALL - What branch of service were you in?
Mr. WEITZMAN - U.S. Air Force.
Mr. BALL - Did you handle rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.
I understand that the rifle that was ultimately produced was more correctly called a Carcano Carbine.
This is rather than a Mannlicher Carcano [which is actually incorrect]
There was a Mauser in the building just 2 days before---- according to testimony.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2020, 04:53:33 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0045.jpg)


Study the images closely..... Does the official DPD in situ photo show the same scene as Tom Alyea's film?   All witnesses said that the rifle was not touched before Detective JC Day  picked it up by the leather sling.   We can see Detective Day performing that action in the Alyea film......  What is the position and orentation of the carcano when Detective Day reaches out and grabs the leather sling?    If the rifle had been jammed between the boxes as depicted in the official DPD in situ photo would it have been feasible for Day to have grabbed the leather sling and lifted the rifle as he is seen doing in the Alyea film??.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 24, 2020, 10:44:30 PM
Walt posted that a 6 year old could identify the Carcano in the grainy Alyea film by comparing it to a picture of one on the internet.

I simply pointed out that there were 3 experienced LE officers in the room, with a much better view of the rifle than Walt's 6 year old, who identified the rifle as a Mauser.

As far as experience, nothing in particular as far as weapons identification other than training/experience in evidence collection and greater familiarity of firearms than the general public.

Thank you for bringing up the subject again and giving me a chance to reiterate my point.
Walt's 6 year-old is hyperbole, but he's right. Few bolt action rifle designs have a fixed magazine that projects down from the forestock. Of those, the shape of the Carcano's is unique. You can see the shape of the mag housing clearly in the Alyea film, and there's no question that the rifle seen in the film is a Carcano. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 24, 2020, 10:45:49 PM
Thank you for taking the time to analyze Seymour Weitzman's employment record.    I don't believe it's a critical issue, but the record does seem to cast doubt on Weitzman's claim to have been "in the sporting goods business, or having managed or run a sporting goods store.....

Weitzman's expertise isn't really very important....So there's no need to attack him...... He simply saw a bit of the rifle beneath the pallet as they waited for Detective Day and Captain Fritz to come to the site, and ventured that the rifle looked like a Mauser.  Roger Craig heard Weitzman's WAG and accepted it as if the rifle was in fact a Mauser .    Roger Craig is the problem....
I'm not attacking Weitzman. I have no reason to doubt that he was "in the sporting goods business for awhile," but the circumstances he described give no reason to consider him any kind of firearms expert.  He never claimed to have been one, himself.  He was promoted to that status years after the fact by none other than Roger Craig in When They Kill a President:

"Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons."   

I figure Roger Craig really is the problem, just like you said.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 24, 2020, 11:41:41 PM
I'm not attacking Weitzman. I have no reason to doubt that he was "in the sporting goods business for awhile," but the circumstances he described give no reason to consider him any kind of firearms expert.  He never claimed to have been one, himself.  He was promoted to that status years after the fact by none other than Roger Craig in When They Kill a President:

"Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons."   

I figure Roger Craig really is the problem, just like you said.

Thank you, Mitch....  For explaining that I wasn't singling anybody out as being dumber than a six year old....  I was merely pointing out how easy it is to see with your own eyes that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano.

the circumstances he described give no reason to consider him any kind of firearms expert. He never claimed to have been one, himself.

That's right....Weitzman recognized that he had made a mistake by offering a WAG about the make of the rifle, and he tried to make people understand that he had made an innocent ( and human)  mistake.   But the conspirators ( Hoover) who were bent on creating as much confusion and disinformation as possible would not support him in his apology, they wanted CT's to regurgitate the Mauser nonsense as a way of making all CT's appear to be "kooks'.   

I figure Roger Craig really is the problem, just like you said.

Yes....And even though I know that Roger Craig was a sick man..... I'd pee on his grave if I had the opportunity.


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 25, 2020, 02:58:41 AM
Thank you, Mitch....  For explaining that I wasn't singling anybody out as being dumber than a six year old....  I was merely pointing out how easy it is to see with your own eyes that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano.

the circumstances he described give no reason to consider him any kind of firearms expert. He never claimed to have been one, himself.

That's right....Weitzman recognized that he had made a mistake by offering a WAG about the make of the rifle, and he tried to make people understand that he had made an innocent ( and human)  mistake.   But the conspirators ( Hoover) who were bent on creating as much confusion and disinformation as possible would not support him in his apology, they wanted CT's to regurgitate the Mauser nonsense as a way of making all CT's appear to be "kooks'.   

I figure Roger Craig really is the problem, just like you said.

Yes....And even though I know that Roger Craig was a sick man..... I'd pee on his grave if I had the opportunity.

Why would you piss on anyone's grave you sick bastard? Especially on someone who was just trying to alert us that this was a conspiracy. You have no idea what context or order the Alyea film was shot and who is telling the truth and how any of it went down. Why the hell did Fritz allow Alyea to be there in the first place? All you've got is a tenuous identification of a rifle on grainy film that you assume is THE one and only rifle found at the scene even when the DPD planted the damn thing and didn't even use it. If any token shots came from the SN it wasn't with the MC, which makes the Mauser more plausible. It was a perfect substitute bolt action rifle because it might actually hit the target and it won't jam on you. And if it had a scope on it, I'll bet it was aligned correctly and sighted in.

Craig said he read "Mauser" off the barrel and even pointed it out to Weitzman who he said confirmed it at the time. Do you actually think that Weitzman was going to back him up once he realized this was a conspiracy? You assume Craig was lying because you think the film contradicts his testimony. Instead you believe Fritz, Day and Weitzman and you think the film is gospel even though you are only seeing what the conspirators want you to see. Craig may have been lying but I think that Weitzman and others saw a Mauser and it got scrubbed from the scene the way that the Zapruder film got scrubbed of all evidence that showed more than 1 shooter.

Your problem is you want to piss on the wrong grave.


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 25, 2020, 03:06:09 PM
Why would you piss on anyone's grave you sick bastard? Especially on someone who was just trying to alert us that this was a conspiracy. You have no idea what context or order the Alyea film was shot and who is telling the truth and how any of it went down. Why the hell did Fritz allow Alyea to be there in the first place? All you've got is a tenuous identification of a rifle on grainy film that you assume is THE one and only rifle found at the scene even when the DPD planted the damn thing and didn't even use it. If any token shots came from the SN it wasn't with the MC, which makes the Mauser more plausible. It was a perfect substitute bolt action rifle because it might actually hit the target and it won't jam on you. And if it had a scope on it, I'll bet it was aligned correctly and sighted in.

Craig said he read "Mauser" off the barrel and even pointed it out to Weitzman who he said confirmed it at the time. Do you actually think that Weitzman was going to back him up once he realized this was a conspiracy? You assume Craig was lying because you think the film contradicts his testimony. Instead you believe Fritz, Day and Weitzman and you think the film is gospel even though you are only seeing what the conspirators want you to see. Craig may have been lying but I think that Weitzman and others saw a Mauser and it got scrubbed from the scene the way that the Zapruder film got scrubbed of all evidence that showed more than 1 shooter.

Your problem is you want to piss on the wrong grave.

someone who was just trying to alert us that this was a conspiracy.

I agree that Roger Craig knew that there was a conspiracy behind the coup d e'tat....   And he was trying to expose it.    The problem is:....He tried to lie into evidence a Mauser that never existed.    His inflated ego ( and mental problem) would not allow him to admit that he had made a mistake in accepting Seymour Weitzman's WAG as factual information.     Craig could have been honest, and simply have said that Weitzman had mis-identified the Manlicher Carcano as a Mauser, and he had based his identification of the rifle on Weitzman's WAG.    But his ego and mental problem wouldn't permit him to say that. 

Incidentally, Mr Trojan...You display  many of the same symptoms that Roger Craig displayed.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 25, 2020, 03:27:40 PM
Why would you piss on anyone's grave you sick bastard? Especially on someone who was just trying to alert us that this was a conspiracy. You have no idea what context or order the Alyea film was shot and who is telling the truth and how any of it went down. Why the hell did Fritz allow Alyea to be there in the first place? All you've got is a tenuous identification of a rifle on grainy film that you assume is THE one and only rifle found at the scene even when the DPD planted the damn thing and didn't even use it. If any token shots came from the SN it wasn't with the MC, which makes the Mauser more plausible. It was a perfect substitute bolt action rifle because it might actually hit the target and it won't jam on you. And if it had a scope on it, I'll bet it was aligned correctly and sighted in.

Craig said he read "Mauser" off the barrel and even pointed it out to Weitzman who he said confirmed it at the time. Do you actually think that Weitzman was going to back him up once he realized this was a conspiracy? You assume Craig was lying because you think the film contradicts his testimony. Instead you believe Fritz, Day and Weitzman and you think the film is gospel even though you are only seeing what the conspirators want you to see. Craig may have been lying but I think that Weitzman and others saw a Mauser and it got scrubbed from the scene the way that the Zapruder film got scrubbed of all evidence that showed more than 1 shooter.

Your problem is you want to piss on the wrong grave.

You assume Craig was lying because you think the film contradicts his testimony. Instead you believe Fritz, Day and Weitzman and you think the film is gospel

WRONG!!.....   I Absolutely KNOW that Craig was lying.....and here's how I know that he was lying....

Originally Craig said that at the time that Fritz and Day were examining the rifle he saw the words "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel" 

Later when he was being question by the Newspaper reporter he said that the Mauser was found" LATER THAT AFTERNOON" on the roof of the TSBD.

I'm sure that even you can see the problem......   But I'll explain it for you...  If the Mauser wasn't found until after Craig left the TSBD at around 2:00 pm then he sure as hell couldn't have seen what he claimed he had seen.

P.S.  I most certainly am not taking Fritz and Day's word about the rifle being a Mannlicher Carcano....( Neither Day nor Fritz knew what kind of rifle they had picked up off the floor) I'm believing my own eyes...( as you should) ...  The Tom Alyea film that I posted is not grainy or blurry....and it clearly shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher Carcano.....you know it,  because you try to discredit the film.

You need professional mental help Mr Trojan......

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 25, 2020, 05:48:27 PM
You need professional mental help Mr Trojan......

I'm not the one who wants to piss on someone's grave just because he was trying to alert you about the conspiracy. Get a grip. And you don't know jack shit about whether a Mauser was found in the TSBD based on whether Craig was lying about reading the barrel. Craig was apparently one of the few non-conspirators at the scene and he also claimed he saw 3 hulls near the window lined up no more than an inch apart. You think he was lying about that too, don't you? Who didn't change their story back then once they realized this was a conspiracy and their life was in danger? Weitzman comes to mind. If Craig was lying it was to out the conspiracy. And for that, you call him a mental case and you want to piss on his grave. Get help you sick bastard.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 25, 2020, 07:34:06 PM
I'm not the one who wants to piss on someone's grave just because he was tying to alert you about the conspiracy. Get a grip. And you don't know jack shit about whether a Mauser was found in the TSBD based on whether Craig was lying about reading the barrel. Craig was apparently one of the few non-conspirators at the scene and he also claimed he saw 3 hulls near the window lined up no more than an inch apart. You think he was lying about that too, don't you? Who didn't change their story back then once they realized this was a conspiracy and their life was in danger? Weitzman comes to mind. If Craig was lying it was to out the conspiracy. And for that, you call him a mental case and you want to piss on his grave. Get help you sick bastard.

I detest Roger Craig because with his lying he he has created a huge obstacle  to getting to the truth.....   Many mini minds actually believe that the rifle was a Mauser because of Roger Craig.   They believe him and refuse to use their own God given eyes and minds.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 25, 2020, 07:55:10 PM
Walt's 6 year-old is hyperbole, but he's right. Few bolt action rifle designs have a fixed magazine that projects down from the forestock. Of those, the shape of the Carcano's is unique. You can see the shape of the mag housing clearly in the Alyea film, and there's no question that the rifle seen in the film is a Carcano.

If it's that easy to see what kind of a rifle it was, how did Boone and Weitzman not see it?
They were in the room at arm's length when it was found.

They both hand wrote reports saying it was a Mauser.
Then signed sworn notarized affidavits saying same.
In fact Weitzman signed an affidavit on the 23rd saying it was a Mauser.

The logical conclusion, IMO, if the film is so conclusive of a Carcano being found, is that there was a second rifle found that wasn't recorded on film. Or if it was,  that film was ghosted.


 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 25, 2020, 08:48:30 PM
If it's that easy to see what kind of a rifle it was, how did Boone and Weitzman not see it?
They were in the room at arm's length when it was found.

They both hand wrote reports saying it was a Mauser.
Then signed sworn notarized affidavits saying same.
In fact Weitzman signed an affidavit on the 23rd saying it was a Mauser.

The logical conclusion, IMO, if the film is so conclusive of a Carcano being found, is that there was a second rifle found that wasn't recorded on film. Or if it was,  that film was ghosted.

If it's that easy to see what kind of a rifle it was, how did Boone and Weitzman not see it?

It's very easy to see that the rifle was a Mannlicher Carcano...because we can use 20 /20 hindsight.... We have the ability to compare the Alyea film images against the pictures in gun books or on line gun websites.... But at the time the rifle was discovered hidden beneath the boxes of books nobody recognized the unusual rifle.  Weitzman made a WAG in attempting to identify the rifle but he was wrong.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 25, 2020, 10:31:19 PM
You assume Craig was lying because you think the film contradicts his testimony. Instead you believe Fritz, Day and Weitzman and you think the film is gospel
[...]
Originally Craig said that at the time that Fritz and Day were examining the rifle he saw the words "7.65 Mauser stamped right there on the barrel" 

Later when he was being question by the Newspaper reporter he said that the Mauser was found" LATER THAT AFTERNOON" on the roof of the TSBD.

I'm sure that even you can see the problem......   But I'll explain it for you...  If the Mauser wasn't found until after Craig left the TSBD at around 2:00 pm then he sure as hell couldn't have seen what he claimed he had seen.
[...]
You need professional mental help Mr Trojan......
You have the timeline backwards, Walt. The "Mauser 7.65" claim didn't appear until 1973. It went like this:

Craig didn't mention the rifle at all in his 11/23/63 DCSD report. The rifle is also not mentioned in his 11/23/63 FBI interview.  In his WC testimony in the spring of '64, he testified to being present when the rifle was found, but nothing about its make or caliber. In his '68 LA Free Press interview, he said he didn't know what kind of rifle it was, but had heard that the Mauser was found on the roof. Testifying at the Shaw trial a year later, Craig recounts being present for the discovery of the rifle, never describes it as a Mauser, despite having the opportunity to do so. In his magnum opus, When They Kill a President, Craig said that Weitzman ID'ed the rifle as a Mauser, but Craig remained silent on his own identification of it.  Finally, in 1973, Craig claimed to have seen "Mauser 7.65" on the weapon.
 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 25, 2020, 10:38:07 PM
If it's that easy to see what kind of a rifle it was, how did Boone and Weitzman not see it?
They were in the room at arm's length when it was found.

They both hand wrote reports saying it was a Mauser.
Then signed sworn notarized affidavits saying same.
In fact Weitzman signed an affidavit on the 23rd saying it was a Mauser.

The logical conclusion, IMO, if the film is so conclusive of a Carcano being found, is that there was a second rifle found that wasn't recorded on film. Or if it was,  that film was ghosted.
To say that a rifle looks like a Carcano, you have to know what a Carcano looks like to begin with. There is no evidence that either Boone or Weitzman had any idea of what a Carcano was, much less what one might look like. Boone said that he didn't know what it was, but simply repeated what he heard someone else say, so Boone's testimony proves nothing other than he had ears. Weitzman for his part simply said he made a mistake, and there is no evidence otherwise.

The rest is just a big pile that your own imagination has stacked up.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 25, 2020, 10:56:02 PM
To say that a rifle looks like a Carcano, you have to know what a Carcano looks like to begin with. There is no evidence that either Boone or Weitzman had any idea of what a Carcano was, much less what one might look like. Boone said that he didn't know what it was, but simply repeated what he heard someone else say, so Boone's testimony proves nothing other than he had ears. Weitzman for his part simply said he made a mistake, and there is no evidence otherwise.

The rest is just a big pile that your own imagination has stacked up.
??? ???
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 25, 2020, 11:16:05 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 25, 2020, 11:16:23 PM
You have the timeline backwards, Walt. The "Mauser 7.65" claim didn't appear until 1973. It went like this:

Craig didn't mention the rifle at all in his 11/23/63 DCSD report. The rifle is also not mentioned in his 11/23/63 FBI interview.  In his WC testimony in the spring of '64, he testified to being present when the rifle was found, but nothing about its make or caliber. In his '68 LA Free Press interview, he said he didn't know what kind of rifle it was, but had heard that the Mauser was found on the roof. Testifying at the Shaw trial a year later, Craig recounts being present for the discovery of the rifle, never describes it as a Mauser, despite having the opportunity to do so. In his magnum opus, When They Kill a President, Craig said that Weitzman ID'ed the rifle as a Mauser, but Craig remained silent on his own identification of it.  Finally, in 1973, Craig claimed to have seen "Mauser 7.65" on the weapon.


I think that you'll find that Roger Craig did say the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser.   But It really doesn't matter WHEN he made that statement....It has taken root and many fools actually believe it...   The posts on this thread prove that there are idiots who refuse to use their God given eyes and brain and continue to argue that the rifle was a Mauser and it was switched for the carcano to frame Lee Oswald.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 25, 2020, 11:23:07 PM
Weitzman signed this sworn notarized affidavit on Saturday the 23rd.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 12:03:03 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)

Here's proof that the identification of the rifle as as 7.65 Mauser was thought to be the truth on 11/22/63....

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 26, 2020, 12:05:38 AM

I think that you'll find that Roger Craig did say the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser.   But It really doesn't matter WHEN he made that statement....It has taken root and many fools actually believe it...   The posts on this thread prove that there are idiots who refuse to use their God given eyes and brain and continue to argue that the rifle was a Mauser and it was switched for the carcano to frame Lee Oswald.

Weitzman said it was a 7.65 Mauser too. According to you, Craig got it from him. But neither of them read anything off the barrel, right? Since Weitzman was no expert, he couldn't just make a guess and leave it at that. He had to examine the rifle to confirm it, right? So how could he have examined the rifle on the 22nd and sign an affidavit the next day claiming it was a 7.65 Mauser? That's a pretty specific mistake under the circumstances which only a fool would think was irrelevant.

The only way for you to prove your case is to show the film frames where Fritz handed the rifle to Weitzman and after having examined it, claimed it was a 7.65 Mauser, then handed it back to Fritz. That's Weiztman's testimony. Then you must take a screen grab of the best quality frame from that sequence and positively ID the rifle as a MC and not a Mauser. That is the only way you can keep from looking more like an idiot with your "extract your head and see it with your own eyes" horseshit. Otherwise, you're shilling for the conspirators no different than a LNer.

There very well might not have been a Mauser, but sure as hell not because you say so.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 12:17:43 AM
Weitzman said it was a 7.65 Mauser too. According to you, Craig got it from him. But neither of them read anything off the barrel, right? Since Weitzman was no expert, he couldn't just make a guess and leave it at that. He had to examine the rifle to confirm it, right? So how could he have examined the rifle on the 22nd and sign an affidavit the next day claiming it was a 7.65 Mauser? That's a pretty specific mistake under the circumstances which only a fool would think was irrelevant.

The only way for you to prove your case is to show the film frames where Fritz handed the rifle to Weitzman and after having examined it, claimed it was a 7.65 Mauser, then handed it back to Fritz. That's Weiztman's testimony. Then you must take a screen grab of the best quality frame from that sequence and positively ID the rifle as a MC and not a Mauser. That is the only way you can keep from looking more like an idiot with your "extract your head and see it with your own eyes" horseshit. Otherwise, you're shilling for the conspirators no different than a LNer.

There very well might not have been a Mauser, but sure as hell not because you say so.

There very well might not have been a Mauser, but sure as hell not because you say so.

How stupid are you?.....I have never ever said anybody should simply accept my word....I have repeatedly told everybody to OPEN their eyes and LOOK at Tom Alyea's film of Detective Day examining the rifle, and decide for themselves.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 26, 2020, 12:46:48 AM
There very well might not have been a Mauser, but sure as hell not because you say so.

How stupid are you?.....I have never ever said anybody should simply accept my word....I have repeatedly told everybody to OPEN their eyes and LOOK at Tom Alyea's film of Detective Day examining the rifle, and decide for themselves.

How stupid are you?.....What makes you so sure that the rifle Day is holding in the Alyea film is the same rifle that Craig and Weitzman were referring to? Did you even read my last post? Find the part in the film where Weitzman is examining the rifle and I will OPEN my lying eyes and concede your point. And since Weitzman was no expert, how did HE know the caliber of a Mauser was "7.65"? Did YOU know that Mr. self-described "expert" who CLAIMS to own a Carcano. Or is that just another one of your legendary fabrications? Why don't you take a backyard photo of yourself holding it with today's paper to prove it.  ;D
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 01:12:03 AM
How stupid are you?.....What makes you so sure that the rifle Day is holding in the Alyea film is the same rifle that Craig and Weitzman was referring to? Did you even read my last post? Find the part in the film where Weitzman is examining the rifle and I will OPEN my lying eyes and concede your point. And since Weitzman was no expert, how did HE know the caliber of a Mauser was "7.65"? Did YOU know that Mr. self-described "expert" who CLAIMS to own a Carcano. Or is that just another one of your legendary fabrications? Why don't you take a backyard photo of yourself holding it with today's paper to prove it.  ;D

Jack, I'm through debating with you...You're a bona fide idiot.......
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 26, 2020, 01:13:41 AM
Jack, I'm through debating with you...You're a bona fide idiot.......

I know you are but what am I? An idiot says what?  Check and mate. :D
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 26, 2020, 05:10:36 AM
??? ???
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
Yes, we know. Seen it all before, countless times. And it doesn't change anything.

The Alyea film shows a Carcano, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The rifle shown in press photos as it left the TSBD was a Carcano, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The rifle in evidence is a Carcano.

The contrafactuals are Weitzman's and Boone's affidavits and reports of interviews all taken within the first day or two after the assassination, and an assertion by Roger Craig 10 years after the fact. 

However:

Boone says that he only said "Mauser" because he heard someone else say it, so he's no authority.

Weitzman testified that he was the guy who said it, but said he was mistaken, which would mean that Boone was, too.

No one has even come close to establishing that either Boone or Weitzman knew enough about firearms to tell a Carcano from a Mauser from a Mannlicher from a Schmidt-Rubin from an Enfield, etc.

That leaves Craig, but Craig's 1973 story about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on the barrel is directly contradicted by his earlier, 1968 story that he didn't know what the rifle was. Not to mention all those years of not having mentioned "7.65 Mauser" at all.

There is film and photo on one side. On the other, a guy who only repeated what he'd heard someone else say, a guy who just said he made a mistake, and some dude who really couldn't get his story straight.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2020, 01:28:52 PM
Weitzman’s affidavit was from Saturday - long after the Carcano seen being carried out of the TSBD was in evidence. The excuse he gave in his retraction was that he only saw it “at a glance”, but not only did his affidavit give a very specific caliber for the rifle, he also described the rifle, scope, and strap in quite a lot of detail for just a “glance”.

Curry was forced to retract his statement that the FBI had prior knowledge of Oswald, but it was true.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Nessan on March 26, 2020, 02:08:17 PM
They seen 6.5 stamped on the carcano receiver and assumed it was the 7.65 x 53. Never have seen "7.65 mauser" stamped on one of the guns, ever. The barrel is covered by the hand guard.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 02:36:55 PM
Yes, we know. Seen it all before, countless times. And it doesn't change anything.

The Alyea film shows a Carcano, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The rifle shown in press photos as it left the TSBD was a Carcano, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The rifle in evidence is a Carcano.

The contrafactuals are Weitzman's and Boone's affidavits and reports of interviews all taken within the first day or two after the assassination, and an assertion by Roger Craig 10 years after the fact. 

However:

Boone says that he only said "Mauser" because he heard someone else say it, so he's no authority.

Weitzman testified that he was the guy who said it, but said he was mistaken, which would mean that Boone was, too.

No one has even come close to establishing that either Boone or Weitzman knew enough about firearms to tell a Carcano from a Mauser from a Mannlicher from a ScmidRubin from an Enfield, etc.

That leaves Craig, but Craig's 1973 story about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on the barrel is directly contradicted by his earlier, 1968 story that he didn't know what the rifle was. Not to mention all those years of not having mentioned "7.65 Mauser" at all.

There is film and photo on one side. On the other, a guy who only repeated what he'd heard someone else say, a guy who just said he made a mistake, and some dude who really couldn't get his story straight.


This FBI memo which was written by FBI agent  BrianSayers has always puzzled me.....

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)

It says:...Mr SEYMOUR WIETZMAN Deputy Constable Dallas County Constable's office  was interviewed in the presence of Detective CW BROWN, Homicide  Bureau, Dallas Police Department. He furnished the following information.

Question....Did FBI agent Sayers interview Seymour Weitzmam ?.... Or did he get the information from Detective CW Brown who had interviewed Weitzman.

Since there are several errors in the report  ie;  The report says that Seymour Weitzman was in the SW corner of the sixth floor and Boone was in the NW corner of the sixth floor and called to Weitzman when he found the rife.     This is not true.....Both Boone and Weitzman were in the NW corner and only a few feet apart.   Boone was facing east with his back against the west wall, and Weitzman was on the floor shining his flashlight west beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. He was looking in the direction of  Boone's feet...

I'm compelled to wonder if Sayers actually interviewed Weitzman.   and if he did ...did he screw up other things that Weitzman allegedly  said?? 

PS....I did not write Brian Sawyers ......I wrote Brian   Albert Sawyers......and I have attempted to correct that by erasing the name "Brian " and inserting Albert, but it doesn't change....  Can anybody explain this?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 02:42:02 PM
Weitzman’s affidavit was from Saturday - long after the Carcano seen being carried out of the TSBD was in evidence. The excuse he gave in his retraction was that he only saw it “at a glance”, but not only did his affidavit give a very specific caliber for the rifle, he also described the rifle, scope, and strap in quite a lot of detail for just a “glance”.

Curry was forced to retract his statement that the FBI had prior knowledge of Oswald, but it was true.

The screwy part of Sayer's report says that Weitzman actually had the rifle in his hands and Captain Fritz " appeared and took the rifle from him"

WHERE did Sayers get that idea???
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 26, 2020, 02:44:15 PM
Yes, we know. Seen it all before, countless times. And it doesn't change anything.

The Alyea film shows a Carcano, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The rifle shown in press photos as it left the TSBD was a Carcano, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The rifle in evidence is a Carcano.

The contrafactuals are Weitzman's and Boone's affidavits and reports of interviews all taken within the first day or two after the assassination, and an assertion by Roger Craig 10 years after the fact. 

However:

Boone says that he only said "Mauser" because he heard someone else say it, so he's no authority.

Weitzman testified that he was the guy who said it, but said he was mistaken, which would mean that Boone was, too.

No one has even come close to establishing that either Boone or Weitzman knew enough about firearms to tell a Carcano from a Mauser from a Mannlicher from a Schmidt-Rubin from an Enfield, etc.

That leaves Craig, but Craig's 1973 story about seeing "7.65 Mauser" on the barrel is directly contradicted by his earlier, 1968 story that he didn't know what the rifle was. Not to mention all those years of not having mentioned "7.65 Mauser" at all.

There is film and photo on one side. On the other, a guy who only repeated what he'd heard someone else say, a guy who just said he made a mistake, and some dude who really couldn't get his story straight.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser5.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser8.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser3.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2020, 03:13:27 PM
PS....I did not write Brian Sawyers ......I wrote Brian   BrianSawyers......and I have attempted to correct that by erasing the name "Brian " and inserting Albert, but it doesn't change....  Can anybody explain this?

Must be one of Duncan's automatic word replacement scripts.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 03:32:20 PM
Must be one of Duncan's automatic word replacement scripts.

Yes....  I think you're right. ...but it is frustrating.   

Do you have any idea how Sayers got the idea that Seymour Weitzman actually had the rifle in his hands and Fritz "appeared and took it from him"
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Tom Scully on March 26, 2020, 03:52:57 PM
.....

PS....I did not write Brian Sawyers ......I wrote Brian   BrianSawyers......and I have attempted to correct that by erasing the name "Brian " and inserting Albert, but it doesn't change....  Can anybody explain this?

Walt, it is a script. My "work around" is to spell it using the number 1 as a substitute for the non-capital letter L :

A1bert

Responding to the question asked in the OP of this thread....

What do you make of this... I discovered and documented Grossi / Bowen informing author Epstein that Oswald brought his MC rifle to their place of employment and that James H Martin had an interestingly similar criminal background as Grossi / Bowen with the US Navy at approx. the same time, both were car thieves, and Martin claimed the government had run his background and "propositioned him" into taking Marina and her two girls into his home. Not the stuff of lone nuttery!

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=71122&search=martin_and+%221941+chevrolet+car%22#relPageId=4&tab=page
FBI - HSCA Subject File: James Herbert Martin/
https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1252

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? ....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 26, 2020, 04:17:54 PM
Yes....  I think you're right. ...but it is frustrating.   

Do you have any idea how Sayers got the idea that Seymour Weitzman actually had the rifle in his hands and Fritz "appeared and took it from him"

Maybe it actually happened.  You can't expect that the small amount of remaining Alyea footage captured everything that happened.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 04:23:06 PM
Walt, it is a script. My "work around" is to spell it using the number 1 as a substitute for the non-capital letter L :

A1bert

Responding to the question asked in the OP of this thread....

Thank you, Tom..... I'll try that the next time....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 26, 2020, 04:51:29 PM
Maybe it actually happened.  You can't expect that the small amount of remaining Alyea footage captured everything that happened.

Maybe it actually happened.

 Virtually everybody who was present after the rifle was discovered, said that nobody touched the rifle before Lt Day picked it off the floor.   If Weitzman had picked up the rifle he probably would have been fired on the spot.  I seriously doubt that Weitzman ever had his hands on the carcano.....  However There is a very real possibilty that Weitzman examined a 7.65 Mauser that he had been told was the rifle that he and Boone had discovered.     Recall that initially the authorities were adamant that the rifle was a Mauser....and many news reports said that the rifle was a Mauser.   

A1bert Sawyers report sounds as though Weitzman was given a Mauser and asked to describe it....Which he did...and his description seems to be describing a 7.65 Mauser....NOT the carcano.    One of the most interesting points is Weitzman saying the the rear of the bolt was damaged .....  The bolt of the carcano ( C2766) is definitely NOT damaged.....

I can only speculate that by Saturday the conspirators were getting very nervous and knew that they had no case against Lee Oswald....Thus they might have been preparing to present the Mauser as the murder weapon or the weapon of Lee Oswald's acomplice.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Tom Scully on March 26, 2020, 05:10:07 PM
Maybe it actually happened.

 Virtually everybody who was present after the rifle was discovered, said that nobody touched the rifle before Lt Day picked it off the floor.   If Weitzman had picked up the rifle he probably would have been fired on the spot.  I seriously doubt that Weitzman ever had his hands on the carcano.....  However There is a very real possibilty that Weitzman examined a 7.65 Mauser that he had been told was the rifle that he and Boone had discovered.     Recall that initially the authorities were adamant that the rifle was a Mauser....and many news reports said that the rifle was a Mauser.   

A1bert Sawyers report sounds as though Weitzman was given a Mauser and asked to describe it....Which he did...and his description seems to be describing a 7.65 Mauser....NOT the carcano.    One of the most interesting points is Weitzman saying the the rear of the bolt was damaged .....  The bolt of the carcano ( C2766) is definitely NOT damaged.....

I can only speculate that by Saturday the conspirators were getting very nervous and knew that they had no case against Lee Oswald....Thus they might have been preparing to present the Mauser as the murder weapon or the weapon of Lee Oswald's acomplice.....

Walt, why are you being so stubborn? Dial Ryder and his brother-in-law, Grossi AKA Bowen both claim they saw Oswald's rifle and one of Oswald's wallets had this lie-berry card inside!
"eyes" dotted, "tees" crossed, Walt. Suggest you finally, "get with the program"!

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDialRyderBossGreener.jpg)

Dial Ryder's sister Fleta married, back to back, two felons, but so what!

LINK (https://books.google.com/books?ppis=_c&id=mY13AAAAMAAJ&dq=epstein+rifle+"jack+bowen"&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=work+showed+"jack+bowen") :

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldEpsteinBowenDialRyderRifle.jpg)

(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibraryCard.jpg)

Quote
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29053767/fleta-l_-mantooth
Fleta L. Ryder Mantooth
BIRTH   3 May 1923
Claremont, Richland County, Illinois, USA
DEATH   14 Aug 2008 (aged 85)
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.

During World War II she built B-29's and B-17's in Illinois and Fort Worth, Texas. She worked for U.S. Brass in assembly for 20 years and most recently for Olney I.S.D. in food services. She was a member of the Southside Baptist Church and the Cross Country Emmaus Community.

She moved to Olney from Abilene, Texas in 1990. She was preceded in death by two sisters, Fern Boyett and Mardella Cox.

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.

(http://jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibrarCardSonBirth.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 27, 2020, 12:50:22 AM
Weitzman’s affidavit was from Saturday - long after the Carcano seen being carried out of the TSBD was in evidence. The excuse he gave in his retraction was that he only saw it “at a glance”, but not only did his affidavit give a very specific caliber for the rifle, he also described the rifle, scope, and strap in quite a lot of detail for just a “glance”.
So how did Weitzman describe the rifle? In his affidavit, he said this: "The rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."

And in the FBI report describing Constable Weitzman's excellent adventure, the rifle is described thus:

"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood, apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

Most of the described detail is nothing that anyone couldn't pick up in Weitzman's putative glance. The color of the stock and it's well-worn, rough appearance are nothing that can't be picked up in that first look at the rifle. Same with the color of the metal -- it's a gun that happens to be imaginatively described as being a "gun metal color." Weitzman's attempt to be more specific does little better: "gray or blue" --he can't even settle on a particular hue. The sling is "thick," "leather," and "brownish-black," none of which require any study beyond that first glance to figure out. So far, we have a very generic, if well-used, rifle.

Here's where it gets interesting. He is fairly specific about the scope. It's 4 x 18, and of "apparent Japanese manufacture." So how would he have known? Easy. That information is printed on the scope in big white letters on a black background for easy reading:

(https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=e2bf150daf6f8f297d94a9d0029c40cd&attachmentid=42456&d=1366765013)
 
Now, there's one particular feature of the rifle that Weitzman decided to call out. "A five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard." Kinda like this:

(https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/7426172628/9196697/img_6197.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg)

What you're looking at here is the action of a Mauser Model 1891, often known as an Argentine Mauser. The model 1889/1890/1891 Mausers (all essentially the same design) have that fixed single-stack magazine extending down below the forestock. They are the only Mauser rifles with that magazine configuration. The previous models had a  tubular magazine, and later ones (from the model 1893 on) were made with a double-stack magazine that didn't extend beneath the forestock. And all of the 1889/1890/1891 Mausers were chambered at the factory in 7.65x53. Single stack magazines fell out of favor in the bolt action world in the 1890's. Most post-WWI designs were derived from the Model 98, including it's more compact, double stack magazine.

As I've said previously, the Argentine government began to unload it's old bolt action rifles for surplus in the late '50s. A lot of these rifles wound up in the US, where they were picked up by budget-conscious shooters. Someone who had run into an Argentine Mauser, but had no particular exposure to the larger world of surplus bolt action rifles, could easily have seen a Carcano with it's prominent single stack magazine and assumed that it was one of the Argentine rifles based on that feature alone. And once they decided that, they "knew" that the rifle would have been chambered in 7.65 Mauser.

Curry was forced to retract his statement that the FBI had prior knowledge of Oswald, but it was true.
I think it was something more like, Curry said that the FBI hadn't told the DPD about Oswald at one of Curry's impromptu new conferences. Then, news stories beganto appear regarding "sources in the Dallas Police" who claimed that the FBI admitted that they knew Oswald could be a threat, which is a bit different from what Curry told the press.  Of course, that brought a on a mighty thundering cloudburst of wrath from The J Edgar. Curry wound up saying that the FBI had not told anyone in the DPD that the FBI considered Oswald a threat to JFK. The whole issue turns on a single conversation between Hosty and Revill. Revill always maintained that Hosty told him that the FBI knew LHO could be a threat. Hosty maintained until his death that Revill's accusation was simply untrue. If only someone had been there to film the conversation, like Alyea recording the discovery of the rifle! ;-P

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 27, 2020, 01:07:31 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser5.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser8.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser3.jpg)
Can you tell me exactly what those photos have to do with what I'd said?

BTW, if you've been around milsurps for a bit and look closely, you'll notice the tool marks where some took a grinder to the top of the receivers on the top two rifles (it's easier to see on the second photo).  That's because the Argentine government required that their military rifles have the national crest removed from their surplus firearms before they could sold for export. The "7.65 Mauser" was added decades after the rifles' manufacture. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in reaction to RFK's assassination.  One of it's provisions was that imported firearms were required to have the caliber 
engraved on the weapon after 1968. In the two top cases, you're looking at the result.   

The bottom example is a k98 made during the Nazi era. There is no "7.65" (it would be chambered for 8mm x 57), so I have no idea what you're getting at.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 01:33:10 AM
So how did Weitzman describe the rifle? In his affidavit, he said this: "The rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."

And in the FBI report describing Constable Weitzman's excellent adventure, the rifle is described thus:

"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood, apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

Most of the described detail is nothing that anyone couldn't pick up in Weitzman's putative glance. The color of the stock and it's well-worn, rough appearance are nothing that can't be picked up in that first look at the rifle. Same with the color of the metal -- it's a gun that happens to be imaginatively described as being a "gun metal color." Weitzman's attempt to be more specific does little better: "gray or blue" --he can't even settle on a particular hue. The sling is "thick," "leather," and "brownish-black," none of which require any study beyond that first glance to figure out. So far, we have a very generic, if well-used, rifle.

Here's where it gets interesting. He is fairly specific about the scope. It's 4 x 18, and of "apparent Japanese manufacture." So how would he have known? Easy. That information is printed on the scope in big white letters on a black background for easy reading:

(https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=e2bf150daf6f8f297d94a9d0029c40cd&attachmentid=42456&d=1366765013)
 
Now, there's one particular feature of the rifle that Weitzman decided to call out. "A five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard." Kinda like this:

(https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/7426172628/9196697/img_6197.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg)

What you're looking at here is the action of a Mauser Model 1891, often known as an Argentine Mauser. The model 1889/1890/1891 Mausers (all essentially the same design) have that fixed single-stack magazine extending down below the forestock. They are the only Mauser rifles with that magazine configuration. The previous models had a  tubular magazine, and later ones (from the model 1893 on) were made with a double-stack magazine that didn't extend beneath the forestock. And all of the 1889/1890/1891 Mausers were chambered at the factory in 7.65x53. Single stack magazines fell out of favor in the bolt action world in the 1890's. Most post-WWI designs were derived from the Model 98, including it's more compact, double stack magazine.

As I've said previously, the Argentine government began to unload it's old bolt action rifles for surplus in the late '50s. A lot of these rifles wound up in the US, where they were picked up by budget-conscious shooters. Someone who had run into an Argentine Mauser, but had no particular exposure to the larger world of surplus bolt action rifles, could easily have seen a Carcano with it's prominent single stack magazine and assumed that it was one of the Argentine rifles based on that feature alone. And once they decided that, they "knew" that the rifle would have been chambered in 7.65 Mauser.
I think it was something more like, Curry said that the FBI hadn't told the DPD about Oswald at one of Curry's impromptu new conferences. Then, news stories beganto appear regarding "sources in the Dallas Police" who claimed that the FBI admitted that they knew Oswald could be a threat, which is a bit different from what Curry told the press.  Of course, that brought a on a mighty thundering cloudburst of wrath from The J Edgar. Curry wound up saying that the FBI had not told anyone in the DPD that the FBI considered Oswald a threat to JFK. The whole issue turns on a single conversation between Hosty and Revill. Revill always maintained that Hosty told him that the FBI knew LHO could be a threat. Hosty maintained until his death that Revill's accusation was simply untrue. If only someone had been there to film the conversation, like Alyea recording the discovery of the rifle! ;-P

Wow!...an excellent post Mitch.....You've raised many debatable points and I think that's great! 

Let's start with you last statement first.....

Revill always maintained that Hosty told him that the FBI knew LHO could be a threat. Hosty maintained until his death that Revill's accusation was simply untrue.

Revill immediately wrote a memo to his boss Captain Gannaway after Hosty imparted the information to him at about 2:50 pm .    I seriously doubt that Revill would have immediately notified Captain Gannaway if Hosty hadn't told him exactly what Revill said he did.  Revill was one of the good cops on the DPD, while Hosty worked for the most corrupt and evil monster (JEH) that ever held high office in the US..   

Now to the part of your post that has me most excited....


"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood, apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

It seems clear to me that Weitzman actually had a 7.65 Mauser in his hands as he examined it and described it.   He's NOT describing the 6.5mm Carcano that was discovered beneath the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD.   It appears that Weitzman was handed a 7.65 Mauser and asked to describe it.   Let's parse Weitzman's description.


"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.

A five shot clip .... The Carcano uses a six shot clip......  And it does NOT lock on the underside of the receiver.   The Carcano six cartridge clip loads from the top of the receiver.

The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

The metal of the TSBD carcano is a very definite dark blue......And the rear portion of the bolt is NOT visibly worn.  However the metal of a mauser is gray colored.

The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood,

The wood of the TSBD Carcano is NOT rough.....The wood is not highly polished but it's not "rough"  The carcano has an oil finish.....

apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent.

You've seen photos of the TSBD carcano.....Do you think the stock is beat up,  does it appear to have scratches or gouges?

This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture.

This bit doesn't mean much.....except for the fact that the Scope on the TSBD carcano was CLEARLY marked as  Holly wood Optics,  having been manufactured in Japan ...so there would have been no reason to speculate.

It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

The TSBD carcano was NOT equipped with a thick "brown black" leather sling.....and it was NOT a bandoleer type sling ....


I hope you will accept my post in the vein intended....I'm certainly not attacking you....I'm merely pointing out that it looks to me like Weitzman was describing a 7.65 Mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2020, 06:07:03 AM
Most of the described detail is nothing that anyone couldn't pick up in Weitzman's putative glance.

Then you have a way different idea of what constitutes a “glance” then I do. If he examined the rifle long enough to read and remember the printing on the scope, to notice the wear on the bolt, and damage to the stock he didn’t just “glance” at it. And if he took enough time to read the printing on the scope, why didn’t he notice the “made in Italy” stamp on the Carcano?

And he didn’t say he glanced at it and assumed it was a Mauser because of the external appearance, he said it was a 7.65 Mauser with a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The Carcano doesn’t have a 5-shot clip or a clip under the receiver.

Quote
If only someone had been there to film the conversation, like Alyea recording the discovery of the rifle! ;-P

Hang on. There’s nothing about the existing Alyea footage that would tell you that the rifle was just discovered. Or that it was the only rifle discovered.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 01:21:38 PM
Then you have a way different idea of what constitutes a “glance” then I do. If he examined the rifle long enough to read and remember the printing on the scope, to notice the wear on the bolt, and damage to the stock he didn’t just “glance” at it. And if he took enough time to read the printing on the scope, why didn’t he notice the “made in Italy” stamp on the Carcano?

And he didn’t say he glanced at it and assumed it was a Mauser because of the external appearance, he said it was a 7.65 Mauser with a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The Carcano doesn’t have a 5-shot clip or a clip under the receiver.

Hang on. There’s nothing about the existing Alyea footage that would tell you that the rifle was just discovered. Or that it was the only rifle discovered.

 There’s nothing about the existing Alyea footage that would tell you that the rifle was just discovered. Or that it was the only rifle discovered.

Surely you jest.....  It's very obvious that Tom Alyea was filming the recovery of the rifle from beneath the boxes of books.    Tom Alyea was there during the recovery of the rifle and left shortly afterwards.....  I truly can't believe that you would challenge the authenticity of the film......
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2020, 02:56:05 PM
There’s nothing about the existing Alyea footage that would tell you that the rifle was just discovered. Or that it was the only rifle discovered.

Surely you jest.....  It's very obvious that Tom Alyea was filming the recovery of the rifle from beneath the boxes of books.

He filmed somebody picking it up off the floor.  That doesn't mean it was the moment it was discovered.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 03:17:41 PM
So how did Weitzman describe the rifle? In his affidavit, he said this: "The rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."

And in the FBI report describing Constable Weitzman's excellent adventure, the rifle is described thus:

"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood, apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

Most of the described detail is nothing that anyone couldn't pick up in Weitzman's putative glance. The color of the stock and it's well-worn, rough appearance are nothing that can't be picked up in that first look at the rifle. Same with the color of the metal -- it's a gun that happens to be imaginatively described as being a "gun metal color." Weitzman's attempt to be more specific does little better: "gray or blue" --he can't even settle on a particular hue. The sling is "thick," "leather," and "brownish-black," none of which require any study beyond that first glance to figure out. So far, we have a very generic, if well-used, rifle.

Here's where it gets interesting. He is fairly specific about the scope. It's 4 x 18, and of "apparent Japanese manufacture." So how would he have known? Easy. That information is printed on the scope in big white letters on a black background for easy reading:

(https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=e2bf150daf6f8f297d94a9d0029c40cd&attachmentid=42456&d=1366765013)
 
Now, there's one particular feature of the rifle that Weitzman decided to call out. "A five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard." Kinda like this:

(https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/7426172628/9196697/img_6197.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg)

What you're looking at here is the action of a Mauser Model 1891, often known as an Argentine Mauser. The model 1889/1890/1891 Mausers (all essentially the same design) have that fixed single-stack magazine extending down below the forestock. They are the only Mauser rifles with that magazine configuration. The previous models had a  tubular magazine, and later ones (from the model 1893 on) were made with a double-stack magazine that didn't extend beneath the forestock. And all of the 1889/1890/1891 Mausers were chambered at the factory in 7.65x53. Single stack magazines fell out of favor in the bolt action world in the 1890's. Most post-WWI designs were derived from the Model 98, including it's more compact, double stack magazine.

As I've said previously, the Argentine government began to unload it's old bolt action rifles for surplus in the late '50s. A lot of these rifles wound up in the US, where they were picked up by budget-conscious shooters. Someone who had run into an Argentine Mauser, but had no particular exposure to the larger world of surplus bolt action rifles, could easily have seen a Carcano with it's prominent single stack magazine and assumed that it was one of the Argentine rifles based on that feature alone. And once they decided that, they "knew" that the rifle would have been chambered in 7.65 Mauser.
I think it was something more like, Curry said that the FBI hadn't told the DPD about Oswald at one of Curry's impromptu new conferences. Then, news stories beganto appear regarding "sources in the Dallas Police" who claimed that the FBI admitted that they knew Oswald could be a threat, which is a bit different from what Curry told the press.  Of course, that brought a on a mighty thundering cloudburst of wrath from The J Edgar. Curry wound up saying that the FBI had not told anyone in the DPD that the FBI considered Oswald a threat to JFK. The whole issue turns on a single conversation between Hosty and Revill. Revill always maintained that Hosty told him that the FBI knew LHO could be a threat. Hosty maintained until his death that Revill's accusation was simply untrue. If only someone had been there to film the conversation, like Alyea recording the discovery of the rifle! ;-P

Most of the described detail is nothing that anyone couldn't pick up in Weitzman's putative glance. The color of the stock and it's well-worn, rough appearance are nothing that can't be picked up in that first look at the rifle. Same with the color of the metal -- it's a gun that happens to be imaginatively described as being a "gun metal color." Weitzman's attempt to be more specific does little better: "gray or blue" --he can't even settle on a particular hue. The sling is "thick," "leather," and "brownish-black," none of which require any study beyond that first glance to figure out. So far, we have a very generic, if well-used, rifle.

 Weitzman's description of a rifle does not appear to be what could be expected from a quick glance at the rifle.    Particularly if the rifle was a carcano.  Weitzman's detailed description seems to be the result of a hands on examination of a 7.65 Mauser. 

I've been hoping to discuss FBI agent A1bert Sawyers report with an intelligent and  knowledgeable  person for a long time.....It appears to me that Seymour Weitzman was given a 7.65 Mauser and asked to describe it......Which he did.     It's kind interesting that One of the first things that alerted me to the idea that he was not describing the quick glance at a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano was the "worn bolt" of the rifle....I fail to see how Weitzman could have noticed some thing that didn't exist on the Carcano....  ( the bolt is not noticeably worn)   And another thing that caught my attention was the description of the leather sling....Which Weitzman described as "thick, brownish black leather.....  I've seen many old leather slings on old military rifles and   Weitzman's  description does fit my observation of those old slings.....Particularly the old German slings.   But his description does NOT fit the sling on the TSBD carcano.....  That "Sling" is not a sling at all....It is a rather light duty carrying strap with a with shoulder pad attached to it....  It appears to have been made for use by a sentry who had to stand long hours of guard duty with the rifle on his shoulder.   And it is not what I would call "brownish black".....  It is black      The finished side of the strap is BLACK ...and of course the unfinished side is rough tan leather.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2020, 03:47:30 PM
That's a good point, Walt.  It's one thing to say "I glanced at it and it looked like a Mauser".  It's quite another thing to give a detailed description that doesn't actually fit the thing supposedly being described.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 04:13:03 PM
He filmed somebody picking it up off the floor.  That doesn't mean it was the moment it was discovered.

He filmed somebody picking it up off the floor.  That doesn't mean it was the moment it was discovered.

Surely you recognize Detective JC  Day as the man picking up the carcano.....   And yes you're right ...Weitznan and Boone had discovered the carcano about 10 or 15 minutes prior to Day picking up the rifle.  So it was discovered sometime prior to Alyea's filming the removal of the rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 27, 2020, 04:14:43 PM
Can you tell me exactly what those photos have to do with what I'd said?

BTW, if you've been around milsurps for a bit and look closely, you'll notice the tool marks where some took a grinder to the top of the receivers on the top two rifles (it's easier to see on the second photo).  That's because the Argentine government required that their military rifles have the national crest removed from their surplus firearms before they could sold for export. The "7.65 Mauser" was added decades after the rifles' manufacture. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in reaction to RFK's assassination.  One of it's provisions was that imported firearms were required to have the caliber engraved on the weapon after 1968. In the two top cases, you're looking at the result.   

The bottom example is a k98 made during the Nazi era. There is no "7.65" (it would be chambered for 8mm x 57), so I have no idea what you're getting at.


"you'll notice the tool marks where some took a grinder to the top of the receivers on the top two rifles (it's easier to see on the second photo).  That's because the Argentine government required that their military rifles have the national crest removed from their surplus firearms before they could sold for export."

Yes, you're correct. Argentina started grinding their national crest off exported rifles in the 1930's.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact."

The "7.65 Mauser" was added decades after the rifles' manufacture. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in reaction to RFK's assassination.  One of it's provisions was that imported firearms were required to have the caliber engraved on the weapon after 1968.

That doesn't mean 7.65 wasn't added to any exported rifles before 1968. Seems like it would be a natural to add it to the place where the national crest was was ground off the rifles.

 Also, since the majority of the Argentine '91 7.65 rifles imported into the US had the national crest ground off, and Boone and Weitzman were, according to you and most WC apologists, making a guess after a quick glance, could you show me the area on the TSBD Carcano where the crest was ground off that would have given them that impression?

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 27, 2020, 04:37:07 PM
That's a good point, Walt.  It's one thing to say "I glanced at it and it looked like a Mauser".  It's quite another thing to give a detailed description that doesn't actually fit the thing supposedly being described.

Thank you, John.....Now here's something that I never would have known if Mitch hadn't posted such nice clear colored photos of the Carcano carrying strap....

(https://www.milsurps.com/attachment.php?s=e2bf150daf6f8f297d94a9d0029c40cd&attachmentid=42456&d=1366765013)

The official tale regarding the carrying strap says that Lee Oswald made the strap from an old US Air Force pistol holster...... The photo that Mitch posted shows the rivets are European type rivets....  Did the US Air Force purchase equipment from European manufacturers ??    And if Lee made the strap....would he have use European rivets?   And how long does it take for verdigris to form? ....     There is verdigris  on the rivets? 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 27, 2020, 04:57:14 PM
I didn't even know there were European type rivets...
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 27, 2020, 06:48:09 PM
And why the hell would Oswald even need a jacket when it was barely 1:00 in the afternoon in hot ass Texas? He was already wearing a long sleeve flannel shirt, which he was arrested in.

Dallas temp was about 50°F (10°C) with gusty winds, and note that people were wearing jackets, overcoats. etc.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 29, 2020, 02:26:45 AM
He filmed somebody picking it up off the floor.  That doesn't mean it was the moment it was discovered.

Surely you recognize Detective JC  Day as the man picking up the carcano.....   And yes you're right ...Weitznan and Boone had discovered the carcano about 10 or 15 minutes prior to Day picking up the rifle.  So it was discovered sometime prior to Alyea's filming the removal of the rifle.

So Walt, do you still think there was absolutely, positively no Mauser? And if you think Weitzman actually did handle a Mauser, then don't you owe Roger Craig an apology for calling him a mental case and for wanting to piss on his grave?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2020, 02:57:15 AM
So Walt, do you still think there was absolutely, positively no Mauser? And if you think Weitzman actually did handle a Mauser, then don't you owe Roger Craig an apology for calling him a mental case and for wanting to piss on his grave?

Roger Craig...LIED and said that the carcano was actually a mauser.....   I never said that there was no mauser involved "somewhere" in the pile of information  / dis- information.  I think I've been clear on my position that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered  was a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano.

Roger Craig is responsible for many shallow reasoning individuals who  spew the garbage that the rifle was a  Mauser....  Craig lied, and people who refuse to extract their heads and open their EYES, and LOOK, at Tom Alyea's film,  believed Roger Craig...

No, I absolutely DO NOT owe Roger Craig an apology.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 29, 2020, 03:29:37 AM
Roger Craig...LIED and said that the carcano was actually a mauser.....   I never said that was no mauser involved "somewhere" in the pile of information  / dis- information.  I think I've been clear on my position that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered  was a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano.

Roger Craig is responsible for many shallow reasoning individuals who  spew the garbage that the rifle was a  Mauser....  Craig lied, and people who refuse to extract their heads and open their EYES, and LOOK, at Tom Alyea's film,  believed Roger Craig...

No, I absolutely DO NOT owe Roger Craig an apology.....

Why don't you want to piss on Weitzman's, Day's and Fritz's graves then, if lying is your only criteria for calling Craig a mental case? You must despise Trump then.

ps. Why do you keep insisting that Craig was referring to the rifle in the film, especially when there could have been 2 rifles found in the TSBD? Was a Mauser a standard DPD issued weapon? If there was a Mauser found at the scene, then Houston, we have  problem. Isn't that more important than your obsession with Craig being a liar?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2020, 03:28:32 PM
Why don't you want to piss on Weitzman's, Day's and Fritz's graves then, if lying is your only criteria for calling Craig a mental case? You must despise Trump then.

ps. Why do you keep insisting that Craig was referring to the rifle in the film, especially when there could have been 2 rifles found in the TSBD? Was a Mauser a standard DPD issued weapon? If there was a Mauser found at the scene, then Houston, we have  problem. Isn't that more important than your obsession with Craig being a liar?

Why do you keep insisting that Craig was referring to the rifle in the film, especially when there could have been 2 rifles found in the TSBD?

Are you now backing away from your position that Roger Craig was referring to the rifle that he saw Detective Day and Captain Fritz examining just seconds after Detective Day picked the rifle off the floor?

Roger Craig said that he was right there at the time and he saw "stamped right there on the barrel....7.65 Mauser"....

Tom Alyea filmed that same scene.....And roger Craig can be seen in the BACKGROUND ....He's NOT right there where he would be able to read any stamping on the rifle.   And furthermore...Tom Alyea's film clearly shows that the rifle being examined by Day and Fritz is with out any doubt a Mannlicher Carcano.

There MAY( a possibility)  have been a Mauser in the TSBD that afternnon....But Roger Craig never saw it....  Craig said that he heard that a mauser had been found on the roof ( where it had been dropped by some law enforcement officer)    Now that's an absurd story if there ever was one....Can you imagine an officer dropping a rifle and then just leaving it where it had fallen???.....   

I'll make ya deal Jack....  You go ahead and believe these fantastic tales....But don't expect me to debate them with you.....

PS...  I despise Roger Craig because he definitely had solid evidence that is vital to this case , but he destroyed his credibility by telling absurd lies.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2020, 04:39:18 PM
What about Roger Craig? Was he a damned liar too? Why would a conspirator lie about reading "7.65 Mauser" off the barrel of the rifle? He was obviously not "in on it" so why do you think he was lying?

If Craig was telling the truth, then there were 2 rifles and Alyea didn't film the Mauser. Otherwise, if ANY shots came from the SN then it was NOT from the Carcano because that was the patsy rifle that was pre-planted as were the hulls. Or do you still believe that the MC was used in the assassination?

If Craig was telling the truth, then there were 2 rifles and Alyea didn't film the Mauser. Otherwise, if ANY shots came from the SN then it was NOT from the Carcano because that was the patsy rifle that was pre-planted as were the hulls. Or do you still believe that the MC was used in the assassination?

You're right Tom Alyea did NOT film anybody with a Mauser.....   He filmed Detective JC Day examining a Mannlicher Carcano.

if ANY shots came from the SN then it was NOT from the Carcano

There were no shots fired from what was imaginatively referred to as a "Sniper's Nest"....  And you're right , The Carcano that was discovered where it had been well hidden was never fired that day.

the patsy rifle that was pre-planted as were the hulls.

You're right....The Mannlicher Carcano was planted by hiding it beneath boxes of books PRIOR to the shooting, just as the spent shells were planted beneath the window PRIOR to the shooting.  The Mannlicher Carcano was not fired that day.

do you still believe that the MC was used in the assassination?

I have long maintained that the Carcano was never fired on 11/22/63......  You apparently are confusing me with some other person.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2020, 05:43:40 PM
Why don't you want to piss on Weitzman's, Day's and Fritz's graves then, if lying is your only criteria for calling Craig a mental case? You must despise Trump then.

ps. Why do you keep insisting that Craig was referring to the rifle in the film, especially when there could have been 2 rifles found in the TSBD? Was a Mauser a standard DPD issued weapon? If there was a Mauser found at the scene, then Houston, we have  problem. Isn't that more important than your obsession with Craig being a liar?

Why do you keep insisting that Craig was referring to the rifle in the film,

Here ya go Jack....Listen to Roger....and see if can answer your question.

At 10:25 notice that Roger says that He and Luke mooney found the spent shells beneath the window.    Was Craig with mooney when the shells were discovered?
At 13:15 Roger says that they weren't more than six inches from the rifle, As Fritz held it, and "right there on the barrel was stamped 7.65 Mauser.."..
 Get yourself a bag of popcorn, and sit back and watch the movie of an unabashed liar spinning his tale....

 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 29, 2020, 10:00:28 PM
Wow!...an excellent post Mitch.....You've raised many debatable points and I think that's great! 

Let's start with you last statement first.....

Revill always maintained that Hosty told him that the FBI knew LHO could be a threat. Hosty maintained until his death that Revill's accusation was simply untrue.

Revill immediately wrote a memo to his boss Captain Gannaway after Hosty imparted the information to him at about 2:50 pm .    I seriously doubt that Revill would have immediately notified Captain Gannaway if Hosty hadn't told him exactly what Revill said he did.  Revill was one of the good cops on the DPD, while Hosty worked for the most corrupt and evil monster (JEH) that ever held high office in the US..   
Like I said, it comes down to what Hosty actually told Revill, and by extension how Revill related that to Gannaway. The point of contention in Revills memo is pretty non-specific: "they [FBI] had information that this subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy." Exactly what that means is anyone's guess. In one sense, anyone this side of Stephen Hawking would be "capable of committing the assassination." Only Hosty and Revill really know. The original point is that the subject that Curry backed down on wasn't what he'd said in the press conference, which was that the FBI hadn't told the DPD that Oswald was in town.


Now to the part of your post that has me most excited....

"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard. The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood, apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

It seems clear to me that Weitzman actually had a 7.65 Mauser in his hands as he examined it and described it.   He's NOT describing the 6.5mm Carcano that was discovered beneath the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD.   It appears that Weitzman was handed a 7.65 Mauser and asked to describe it.   
Where did Weitzman ever say that he was handed, or ever held, the rifle? Where did anyone else not named Roger Craig ever said they saw Weitzman handed, or ever held the, rifle? Who claimed that they saw two rifles found in the depository?

Let's parse Weitzman's description.

"a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

A five shot clip .... The Carcano uses a six shot clip......  And it does NOT lock on the underside of the receiver.   The Carcano six cartridge clip loads from the top of the receiver.
To begin with, "clip" in itself isn't a particularly specific term. Using "clip" in the sense of "en bloc  clip," Mausers simply don't use them. The Carcano uses a clip that locks into the magazine somewhere below the receiver. When the last round is chambered, the sides of the clip collapse inwards, unlocking it and (hopefully) allowing it to fall through the hole in the bottom of the magazine. Doesn't always work that way, but that's the design. This usage fits, combines with the Carcano's operating system fits Sawyer's description of a "clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Using "clip" in the sense of "stripper clip," yes, Mausers use those, but they don't lock into anything, especially on the underside of the receiver. There's a guide notch for it cut into the top of the receiver, but that's at the top, not the bottom. And it doesn't lock anything in place.  This usage, combined with the Mauser operating system, does not fit Sawyer's "clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Finally, there's "clip" in the sense of "a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm," as Mirriam-Webster says. Quite a few people use the term this way. As I've already mentioned, the Mauser model 91's have a magazine that is definitely "locked" and very conspicuously located "on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard." That fits a model 91 Mauser very well, and (again) the underslung magazine is a feature that the Carcano shares.

Of the three possibilities for the definition of clip, the "Mauser-only," stripper clip explanation is the one that just doesn't work. Myself, I find it interesting that of all of the rifle's mechanical features that could be brought out, it's the magazine that gets emphasized. That strengthens the "clip=magazine" conclusion quite a bit.

Now, on the to the five-round vs six round thing. Is it a Mauser because Weitzman saw five rounds in the magazine, or did Weitzman first decide that the rifle was a Mauser, therefore it had a five-round capacity? The first possibility leads to something of a problem: if the magazine held five rounds, and Fritz ejected on from the chamber, then that rifle couldn't have fired a shot. And where did anyone say Weitzman or anyone else emptied the magazine? Or, in an alternative silliness, Did Weitzman just happen to have a fistful of ammunition of the proper caliber, and decided to top the rifle off to determine it's capacity? Neither of those "five rounds first" scenarios are satisfying. Nor is there any evidence to support them: who claimed that anyone did anything to check the magazine capacity on the rifle? The only explanation still standing is the Mauser-first one: Once Weitzman decided the rifle was a Mauser, then it held five rounds because Mausers hold five rounds. And that means the number of rounds described simply isn't probative.

The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

The metal of the TSBD carcano is a very definite dark blue......And the rear portion of the bolt is NOT visibly worn.  However the metal of a mauser is gray colored.
Here I am bursting your bubble:

"Gun metal color, gray or blue" comes from Sayers' 11/23 report. Boone's 11/22 report says the rifle was blued. Weitzman was asked by the WC whether it was gray or blue, and he replied "blue."
So we have gray or blue, blue, and blue. That doesn't add up to gray. However, you're wrong about Mausers being gray. On '91's, the barrel, receiver, trigger, trigger guard, and magazine are all blued. Only the bolt was left au naturel. Most Mausers I've seen are that way. The exceptions that I've seen are K98K's made during WWII, and that may be due to the good ol' wartime finish, especially later in the war. My '91 was definitely blued at the factory.

The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown color and of rough wood,

The wood of the TSBD Carcano is NOT rough.....The wood is not highly polished but it's not "rough"  The carcano has an oil finish.....

apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent.

You've seen photos of the TSBD carcano.....Do you think the stock is beat up,  does it appear to have scratches or gouges?
Lt Day thought the rifle's wooden parts were rough: "I noted that the stock was too rough apparently to take fingerprints."

One of the best high resolution photo sets of CE139 that I know of are maintained by the National Archives, and are stored here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134. It's a javascript page, so I can't directly link the images. However, you have the advantage of being able to pan and zoom as much as you want.

Another JS-limited page is here Getty:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/passport-rifle-bullets-and-other-items-belonging-to-news-photo/50681899?adppopup=true 
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/passport-rifle-bullets-and-other-items-belonging-to-news-photo/50681902?adppopup=true

Another couple, that I can link directly to:
(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wmur/23005074-23005074.jpg)
(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wmur/23005076-23005076.jpg)

The wood definitely looks rough, dinged, and scratched to me, especially near the butt ends of the stock. And the wear on the edges of the safety lever at the end of the bolt knob is apparent, as well as the wear on the bolt knob.


This rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope  of apparent Japanese manufacture.

This bit doesn't mean much.....except for the fact that the Scope on the TSBD carcano was CLEARLY marked as  Holly wood Optics,  having been manufactured in Japan ...so there would have been no reason to speculate.
It's not "Hollywood Optics" It's:

      4 x 18 COATED
ORDNANCE OPTICS INC
HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA

      010  JAPAN

Anyway, my point is that "4x18" and "JAPAN" are prominently printed on the scope in nice white letters on a black background. Easy to read without needing any real study.


It was also equipped with a thick, brown-black leather bandolier type sling."

The TSBD carcano was NOT equipped with a thick "brown black" leather sling.....and it was NOT a bandoleer type sling ....

On the leather bandolier rifle slings I've seen, the bandolier part is a fat piece that is attached to the sling proper. Like what these guys sell:

https://brassstacker.com/Rifle-Sling-and-Cartridge-Bandolier-1.html

I figure that's because the sling has to be able to be comfortably wrapped around you forearm, and a leather bandolier would be too bulky and stiff to do that.  I figure someone saw the fat oval part of the "sling" and took it from there to bandolierland.

I hope you will accept my post in the vein intended....I'm certainly not attacking you....I'm merely pointing out that it looks to me like Weitzman was describing a 7.65 Mauser.
Well, honestly, it's nice to be appreciated.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 29, 2020, 10:48:18 PM
Roger Craig said that he was right there at the time and he saw "stamped right there on the barrel....7.65 Mauser"....

Tom Alyea filmed that same scene.....And roger Craig can be seen in the BACKGROUND ....He's NOT right there where he would be able to read any stamping on the rifle. 

How do you know that Craig was taking about the same sequence that Alyea filmed? Also please point out Craig in the Alyea film. That’s a new one on me.

Quote
I'll make ya deal Jack....  You go ahead and believe these fantastic tales....

You mean like “red signal rings”, Stetson hats, and airplane signaling electric razors?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2020, 10:54:10 PM
Like I said, it comes down to what Hosty actually told Revill, and by extension how Revill related that to Gannaway. The point of contention in Revills memo is pretty non-specific: "they [FBI] had information that this subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy." Exactly what that means is anyone's guess. In one sense, anyone this side of Stephen Hawking would be "capable of committing the assassination." Only Hosty and Revill really know. The original point is that the subject that Curry backed down on wasn't what he'd said in the press conference, which was that the FBI hadn't told the DPD that Oswald was in town.

Where did Weitzman ever say that he was handed, or ever held, the rifle? Where did anyone else not named Roger Craig ever said they saw Weitzman handed, or ever held the, rifle? Who claimed that they saw two rifles found in the depository?
To begin with, "clip" in itself isn't a particularly specific term. Using "clip" in the sense of "en bloc  clip," Mausers simply don't use them. The Carcano uses a clip that locks into the magazine somewhere below the receiver. When the last round is chambered, the sides of the clip collapse inwards, unlocking it and (hopefully) allowing it to fall through the hole in the bottom of the magazine. Doesn't always work that way, but that's the design. This usage fits, combines with the Carcano's operating system fits Sawyer's description of a "clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Using "clip" in the sense of "stripper clip," yes, Mausers use those, but they don't lock into anything, especially on the underside of the receiver. There's a guide notch for it cut into the top of the receiver, but that's at the top, not the bottom. And it doesn't lock anything in place.  This usage, combined with the Mauser operating system, does not fit Sawyer's "clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Finally, there's "clip" in the sense of "a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm," as Mirriam-Webster says. Quite a few people use the term this way. As I've already mentioned, the Mauser model 91's have a magazine that is definitely "locked" and very conspicuously located "on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard." That fits a model 91 Mauser very well, and (again) the underslung magazine is a feature that the Carcano shares.

Of the three possibilities for the definition of clip, the "Mauser-only," stripper clip explanation is the one that just doesn't work. Myself, I find it interesting that of all of the rifle's mechanical features that could be brought out, it's the magazine that gets emphasized. That strengthens the "clip=magazine" conclusion quite a bit.

Now, on the to the five-round vs six round thing. Is it a Mauser because Weitzman saw five rounds in the magazine, or did Weitzman first decide that the rifle was a Mauser, therefore it had a five-round capacity? The first possibility leads to something of a problem: if the magazine held five rounds, and Fritz ejected on from the chamber, then that rifle couldn't have fired a shot. And where did anyone say Weitzman or anyone else emptied the magazine? Or, in an alternative silliness, Did Weitzman just happen to have a fistful of ammunition of the proper caliber, and decided to top the rifle off to determine it's capacity? Neither of those "five rounds first" scenarios are satisfying. Nor is there any evidence to support them: who claimed that anyone did anything to check the magazine capacity on the rifle? The only explanation still standing is the Mauser-first one: Once Weitzman decided the rifle was a Mauser, then it held five rounds because Mausers hold five rounds. And that means the number of rounds described simply isn't probative.
Here I am bursting your bubble:

"Gun metal color, gray or blue" comes from Sayers' 11/23 report. Boone's 11/22 report says the rifle was blued. Weitzman was asked by the WC whether it was gray or blue, and he replied "blue."
So we have gray or blue, blue, and blue. That doesn't add up to gray. However, you're wrong about Mausers being gray. On '91's, the barrel, receiver, trigger, trigger guard, and magazine are all blued. Only the bolt was left au naturel. Most Mausers I've seen are that way. The exceptions that I've seen are K98K's made during WWII, and that may be due to the good ol' wartime finish, especially later in the war. My '91 was definitely blued at the factory.
Lt Day thought the rifle's wooden parts were rough: "I noted that the stock was too rough apparently to take fingerprints."

One of the best high resolution photo sets of CE139 that I know of are maintained by the National Archives, and are stored here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134. It's a javascript page, so I can't directly link the images. However, you have the advantage of being able to pan and zoom as much as you want.

Another JS-limited page is here Getty:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/passport-rifle-bullets-and-other-items-belonging-to-news-photo/50681899?adppopup=true 
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/passport-rifle-bullets-and-other-items-belonging-to-news-photo/50681902?adppopup=true

Another couple, that I can link directly to:
(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wmur/23005074-23005074.jpg)
(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wmur/23005076-23005076.jpg)

The wood definitely looks rough, dinged, and scratched to me, especially near the butt ends of the stock. And the wear on the edges of the safety lever at the end of the bolt knob is apparent, as well as the wear on the bolt knob.

It's not "Hollywood Optics" It's:

      4 x 18 COATED
ORDNANCE OPTICS INC
HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA

      010  JAPAN

Anyway, my point is that "4x18" and "JAPAN" are prominently printed on the scope in nice white letters on a black background. Easy to read without needing any real study.

 
On the leather bandolier rifle slings I've seen, the bandolier part is a fat piece that is attached to the sling proper. Like what these guys sell:

https://brassstacker.com/Rifle-Sling-and-Cartridge-Bandolier-1.html

I figure that's because the sling has to be able to be comfortably wrapped around you forearm, and a leather bandolier would be too bulky and stiff to do that.  I figure someone saw the fat oval part of the "sling" and took it from there to bandolierland.
Well, honestly, it's nice to be appreciated.

A bandoleer type sling is a sling that will hold a few cartridge in loops on the sling ....Just a a bandoleer cartridge pistol belt is one that has loops to hold extra cartridges.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 29, 2020, 10:58:20 PM
Now, on the to the five-round vs six round thing. Is it a Mauser because Weitzman saw five rounds in the magazine, or did Weitzman first decide that the rifle was a Mauser, therefore it had a five-round capacity? The first possibility leads to something of a problem: if the magazine held five rounds, and Fritz ejected on from the chamber, then that rifle couldn't have fired a shot. And where did anyone say Weitzman or anyone else emptied the magazine? Or, in an alternative silliness, Did Weitzman just happen to have a fistful of ammunition of the proper caliber, and decided to top the rifle off to determine it's capacity? Neither of those "five rounds first" scenarios are satisfying. Nor is there any evidence to support them: who claimed that anyone did anything to check the magazine capacity on the rifle? The only explanation still standing is the Mauser-first one: Once Weitzman decided the rifle was a Mauser, then it held five rounds because Mausers hold five rounds. And that means the number of rounds described simply isn't probative.

This seems really contrived to me. He described details that he didn’t actually see but invented them to match his assumption that he saw a Mauser? Why would anyone do that? He’s supposed to be describing what he saw.

And who says that Weitzman’s Mauser fired a shot?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 29, 2020, 11:56:35 PM
This seems really contrived to me. He described details that he didn’t actually see but invented them to match his assumption that he saw a Mauser? Why would anyone do that? He’s supposed to be describing what he saw.
It's simple syllogistic logic. If you know that Mausers hold 5 rounds, and you think that a rifle you see is a Mauser, then you are liable to that the "Mauser" hold five rounds.

And who says that Weitzman’s Mauser fired a shot?
Who said that Weitzman or Boone or anyone else found a second rifle, separate from the Carcano seen in the Alyea film?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 30, 2020, 12:02:20 AM

"you'll notice the tool marks where some took a grinder to the top of the receivers on the top two rifles (it's easier to see on the second photo).  That's because the Argentine government required that their military rifles have the national crest removed from their surplus firearms before they could sold for export."

Yes, you're correct. Argentina started grinding their national crest off exported rifles in the 1930's.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact."

The "7.65 Mauser" was added decades after the rifles' manufacture. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed in reaction to RFK's assassination.  One of it's provisions was that imported firearms were required to have the caliber engraved on the weapon after 1968.

That doesn't mean 7.65 wasn't added to any exported rifles before 1968. Seems like it would be a natural to add it to the place where the national crest was was ground off the rifles.

 Also, since the majority of the Argentine '91 7.65 rifles imported into the US had the national crest ground off, and Boone and Weitzman were, according to you and most WC apologists, making a guess after a quick glance, could you show me the area on the TSBD Carcano where the crest was ground off that would have given them that impression?

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)
Who said anything about a crest, ground off or not, on the rifle found in the TSBD? Do you even know what you're arguing, or why you're arguing it?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 30, 2020, 12:32:26 AM
Maybe it actually happened.  You can't expect that the small amount of remaining Alyea footage captured everything that happened.
What evidence is there for a second rifle being discovered?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 30, 2020, 01:32:47 AM
What evidence is there for a second rifle being discovered?

Doesn't Weitzman's signed affidavit that he examined a Mauser on the 22nd give you the slightest bit of pause? Otherwise, why would you think he knew Mausers were 7.65 caliber and a Mauser held 5 rounds? He admitted that he was no expert. Do you really think that Weitzman was describing a rifle from another day or the MC?

If Weitzman was telling the truth (before he thought better of it) then there were 2 rifles found on the 22nd. In which case, the Mauser was not captured on film because Fritz pulled a switcheroo before Alyea started filming. Fritz seemed to be in control of what got documented and how to stage the crime scene before any film was shot.  For example, Fritz tampered with the crime scene by picking up the 3 hulls with his bare hands and put them in his pocket, then later staged an in situ photograph of the hulls in a more scattered (believable) arrangement by tossing them onto the floor so a rookie cop could take a photo of them. If he could do that, then what's the big deal about pulling a switcheroo with the rifle, if he had to because a DPD bumpkin stumbled onto the Mauser by mistake?

Otherwise, you have to believe the testimony of the conspirators that the 1st rifle found was the MC. Why you and Walt believe Fritz and Day is beyond me. Screw the film. Fritz staged that too. Alyea might have been oblivious to it all, but I doubt he would have been allowed to be there if Fritz didn't  have control over the narrative his film portrayed.

But since you are a LNer, you think the MC is THE 1 and only rifle, which Oswald used to kill the POTUS with a magic bullet and a wonky scope from the 6th floor of the TSBD. And definitely NOT with a Mauser! Walt thinks the whole Mauser story is insane BS but his crazy conspiracy theory is AOK.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 30, 2020, 02:22:15 AM
Who said anything about a crest, ground off or not, on the rifle found in the TSBD? Do you even know what you're arguing, or why you're arguing it?

I'm not arguing anything with you. Just pointing out some facts and asking questions.

The majority of model '91 Argentine 7.65 Mausers imported into the US had the Argentine national crest ground off.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact."

Pertinent to the conversation because of the alleged Boone and Weitzman misidentification of a rifle in the TSBD. Apparently a '91 Argentine Mauser because it's the Mauser that most resembles the TSBD Carcano. My question: Is there something on the TSBD Carcano  that would have given them the impression it had a ground off Argentine national crest?


'91 Argentine Mauser with crest ground off and caliber stamped on.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/mauser8.jpg)

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 02:41:33 AM
It's simple syllogistic logic. If you know that Mausers hold 5 rounds, and you think that a rifle you see is a Mauser, then you are liable to that the "Mauser" hold five rounds.
Who said that Weitzman or Boone or anyone else found a second rifle, separate from the Carcano seen in the Alyea film?


It's simple syllogistic logic. If you know that Mausers hold 5 rounds, and you think that a rifle you see is a Mauser, then you are liable to that the "Mauser" hold five rounds.

That's right....Weitzman apparently was familiar with the Argentine Mauser, so he knew that it held five rounds.....This is one of the things that leads me to believe that Weitzman actually had his hands on a 7.65 Mauser.  (And that most definitely was NOT on the sixth floor that afternoon. )

Who said that Weitzman or Boone or anyone else found a second rifle, separate from the Carcano seen in the Alyea film?

Roger Craig made that claim..... Not that I believe that...I'm just tellin you that Roger Craig said that. 

Please, Let's not let this degenerate into petty arguments about the features of Argentine Mausers....   Let's try to come up a reasonable explanation for the FBI report of A1bert Sawyer....and Weitzman's very specific description of a 7.65 mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2020, 04:05:33 AM
What evidence is there for a second rifle being discovered?

Three sheriff’s deputies saying they saw a Mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 30, 2020, 04:12:41 AM
Doesn't Weitzman's signed affidavit that he examined a Mauser on the 22nd give you the slightest bit of pause? Otherwise, why would you think he knew Mausers were 7.65 caliber and a Mauser held 5 rounds? He admitted that he was no expert. Do you really think that Weitzman was describing a rifle from another day or the MC?
If I had a dollar for single every time I saw someone say that X was a Y, but it turned out to be something else, I'd be a filthy rich man. Weitzman was a guy whose expertise with rifles originates from his yearlong stint winding down a chain of discount stores. That's it. On the other hand, we have the Alyea film of Day removing the rifle and the news photos of it being taken from the TSBD.

If Weitzman was telling the truth (before he thought better of it) then there were 2 rifles found on the 22nd. In which case, the Mauser was not captured on film because Fritz pulled a switcheroo before Alyea started filming. Fritz seemed to be in control of what got documented and how to stage the crime scene before any film was shot.  For example, Fritz tampered with the crime scene by picking up the 3 hulls with his bare hands and put them in his pocket, then later staged an in situ photograph of the hulls in a more scattered (believable) arrangement by tossing them onto the floor so a rookie cop could take a photo of them. If he could do that, then what's the big deal about pulling a switcheroo with the rifle, if he had to because a DPD bumpkin stumbled onto the Mauser by mistake?

Otherwise, you have to believe the testimony of the conspirators that the 1st rifle found was the MC. Why you and Walt believe Fritz and Day is beyond me. Screw the film. Fritz staged that too. Alyea might have been oblivious to it all, but I doubt he would have been allowed to be there if Fritz didn't  have control over the narrative his film portrayed.

But since you are a LNer, you think the MC is THE 1 and only rifle, which Oswald used to kill the POTUS with a magic bullet and a wonky scope from the 6th floor of the TSBD. And definitely NOT with a Mauser! Walt thinks the whole Mauser story is insane BS but his crazy conspiracy theory is AOK.  Thumb1:
Of what you wrote, the parts that aren't baseless assertions are just circular logic. "I'm claiming there was a conspiracy, and if there's any evidence against what I'm claiming then it's because The Conspiracy made it that way."
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 30, 2020, 04:30:19 AM
Three sheriff’s deputies saying they saw a Mauser.
That's not evidence of two rifles, it's evidence of one. Who said that they found a Carcano and a Mauser? And which Sherrif's deputies are those?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2020, 05:59:47 AM
That's not evidence of two rifles, it's evidence of one. Who said that they found a Carcano and a Mauser? And which Sherrif's deputies are those?

Weitzman, Boone, and Craig. They all stated that they saw a Mauser. You’re convinced that the Alyea film shows a Carcano. That’s two rifles.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 30, 2020, 06:02:12 AM
If I had a dollar for single every time I saw someone say that X was a Y, but it turned out to be something else, I'd be a filthy rich man. Weitzman was a guy whose expertise with rifles originates from his yearlong stint winding down a chain of discount stores. That's it. On the other hand, we have the Alyea film of Day removing the rifle and the news photos of it being taken from the TSBD.
Of what you wrote, the parts that aren't baseless assertions are just circular logic. "I'm claiming there was a conspiracy, and if there's any evidence against what I'm claiming then it's because The Conspiracy made it that way."

Now you're sounding like the LNer that you are. Alyea was the person who said Fritz staged the in situ photo of the hulls? So is he a liar too? Then why do you consider his film gospel? Oh right, the LNer thing and your denial of any evidence against it.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2020, 01:22:52 PM
'Mauser' was in effect the generic term for all bolt-action rifles.



Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 30, 2020, 04:35:11 PM
'Mauser' was in effect the generic term for all bolt-action rifles.

At least in the context of WC apologists defending their apology.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on March 30, 2020, 04:55:01 PM
'Mauser' was in effect the generic term for all bolt-action rifles.

Sure it was. And “7.65 caliber” was a generic term for any caliber, and “5 shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard” is a generic term for rifles that don’t have those things.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 06:15:15 PM
Sure it was. And “7.65 caliber” was a generic term for any caliber, and “5 shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard” is a generic term for rifles that don’t have those things.

For once Chappie is right....   Many folks referred to any bolt action large caliber rifle as a "Mauser", which was a misnomer of course but it's true.   Many folks call any bottled soft drink a "coke"
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 30, 2020, 06:43:15 PM
For once Chappie is right....   Many folks referred to any bolt action large caliber rifle as a "Mauser", which was a misnomer of course but it's true.   Many folks call any bottled soft drink a "coke"

Most people call a bottle of Coke a coke when it says coke on the side of the bottle.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

~snip~

"All of the 1891 Argentine Mauser rifles and carbines were manufactured in Berlin first at Ludwig Loewe & Company, and after 1896 at Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken Aktien-Gesellschaft (“DWM”)." 

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)

(l.)" A 90-degree turndown bolt handle was standard on carbines. (ctr.) Graduated out to 2,000 meters, the rear sight also folds flat. (r.) Rollmarked from Berlin and shipped to Argentina, , the 1891 Mauser would also have the Argentine national crest on the front receiver band. Whether made by Loewe or DWM, the 1891 Argentine Mausers are beautifully made firearms well-known for their spectacular receiver markings. In addition to the model designation and the manufacturer information,"

~snip~
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 06:43:46 PM
Like I said, it comes down to what Hosty actually told Revill, and by extension how Revill related that to Gannaway. The point of contention in Revills memo is pretty non-specific: "they [FBI] had information that this subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy." Exactly what that means is anyone's guess. In one sense, anyone this side of Stephen Hawking would be "capable of committing the assassination." Only Hosty and Revill really know. The original point is that the subject that Curry backed down on wasn't what he'd said in the press conference, which was that the FBI hadn't told the DPD that Oswald was in town.

Where did Weitzman ever say that he was handed, or ever held, the rifle? Where did anyone else not named Roger Craig ever said they saw Weitzman handed, or ever held the, rifle? Who claimed that they saw two rifles found in the depository?
To begin with, "clip" in itself isn't a particularly specific term. Using "clip" in the sense of "en bloc  clip," Mausers simply don't use them. The Carcano uses a clip that locks into the magazine somewhere below the receiver. When the last round is chambered, the sides of the clip collapse inwards, unlocking it and (hopefully) allowing it to fall through the hole in the bottom of the magazine. Doesn't always work that way, but that's the design. This usage fits, combines with the Carcano's operating system fits Sawyer's description of a "clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Using "clip" in the sense of "stripper clip," yes, Mausers use those, but they don't lock into anything, especially on the underside of the receiver. There's a guide notch for it cut into the top of the receiver, but that's at the top, not the bottom. And it doesn't lock anything in place.  This usage, combined with the Mauser operating system, does not fit Sawyer's "clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Finally, there's "clip" in the sense of "a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm," as Mirriam-Webster says. Quite a few people use the term this way. As I've already mentioned, the Mauser model 91's have a magazine that is definitely "locked" and very conspicuously located "on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard." That fits a model 91 Mauser very well, and (again) the underslung magazine is a feature that the Carcano shares.

Of the three possibilities for the definition of clip, the "Mauser-only," stripper clip explanation is the one that just doesn't work. Myself, I find it interesting that of all of the rifle's mechanical features that could be brought out, it's the magazine that gets emphasized. That strengthens the "clip=magazine" conclusion quite a bit.

Now, on the to the five-round vs six round thing. Is it a Mauser because Weitzman saw five rounds in the magazine, or did Weitzman first decide that the rifle was a Mauser, therefore it had a five-round capacity? The first possibility leads to something of a problem: if the magazine held five rounds, and Fritz ejected on from the chamber, then that rifle couldn't have fired a shot. And where did anyone say Weitzman or anyone else emptied the magazine? Or, in an alternative silliness, Did Weitzman just happen to have a fistful of ammunition of the proper caliber, and decided to top the rifle off to determine it's capacity? Neither of those "five rounds first" scenarios are satisfying. Nor is there any evidence to support them: who claimed that anyone did anything to check the magazine capacity on the rifle? The only explanation still standing is the Mauser-first one: Once Weitzman decided the rifle was a Mauser, then it held five rounds because Mausers hold five rounds. And that means the number of rounds described simply isn't probative.
Here I am bursting your bubble:

"Gun metal color, gray or blue" comes from Sayers' 11/23 report. Boone's 11/22 report says the rifle was blued. Weitzman was asked by the WC whether it was gray or blue, and he replied "blue."
So we have gray or blue, blue, and blue. That doesn't add up to gray. However, you're wrong about Mausers being gray. On '91's, the barrel, receiver, trigger, trigger guard, and magazine are all blued. Only the bolt was left au naturel. Most Mausers I've seen are that way. The exceptions that I've seen are K98K's made during WWII, and that may be due to the good ol' wartime finish, especially later in the war. My '91 was definitely blued at the factory.
Lt Day thought the rifle's wooden parts were rough: "I noted that the stock was too rough apparently to take fingerprints."

One of the best high resolution photo sets of CE139 that I know of are maintained by the National Archives, and are stored here: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134. It's a javascript page, so I can't directly link the images. However, you have the advantage of being able to pan and zoom as much as you want.

Another JS-limited page is here Getty:

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/passport-rifle-bullets-and-other-items-belonging-to-news-photo/50681899?adppopup=true 
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/passport-rifle-bullets-and-other-items-belonging-to-news-photo/50681902?adppopup=true

Another couple, that I can link directly to:
(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wmur/23005074-23005074.jpg)
(https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/ibmig/cms/image/wmur/23005076-23005076.jpg)

The wood definitely looks rough, dinged, and scratched to me, especially near the butt ends of the stock. And the wear on the edges of the safety lever at the end of the bolt knob is apparent, as well as the wear on the bolt knob.

You're kidding.....There's no damage to the bolt, and the stock isn't battered as Weitzman described....

It's not "Hollywood Optics" It's:

      4 x 18 COATED
ORDNANCE OPTICS INC
HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA

      010  JAPAN

Anyway, my point is that "4x18" and "JAPAN" are prominently printed on the scope in nice white letters on a black background. Easy to read without needing any real study.

 
On the leather bandolier rifle slings I've seen, the bandolier part is a fat piece that is attached to the sling proper. Like what these guys sell:

https://brassstacker.com/Rifle-Sling-and-Cartridge-Bandolier-1.html

I figure that's because the sling has to be able to be comfortably wrapped around you forearm, and a leather bandolier would be too bulky and stiff to do that.  I figure someone saw the fat oval part of the "sling" and took it from there to bandolierland.
Well, honestly, it's nice to be appreciated.

The point of contention in Revills memo is pretty non-specific: "they [FBI] had information that this subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy." Exactly what that means is anyone's guess.

A reporter for the DMN reported in an story in the DMN for April 24, 1964, that FBI special agent James Hosty told Lt. Jack Revill of the DPD that...Quote....We knew that he was capable of assassinating the president, but we didn't dream that he would do it"....unquote

According to Lt  Jack Revill   it was this statement that prompted him to report Hosty's remarks to his boss, Captain Gannaway.



Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 06:59:47 PM
If I had a dollar for single every time I saw someone say that X was a Y, but it turned out to be something else, I'd be a filthy rich man. Weitzman was a guy whose expertise with rifles originates from his yearlong stint winding down a chain of discount stores. That's it. On the other hand, we have the Alyea film of Day removing the rifle and the news photos of it being taken from the TSBD.
Of what you wrote, the parts that aren't baseless assertions are just circular logic. "I'm claiming there was a conspiracy, and if there's any evidence against what I'm claiming then it's because The Conspiracy made it that way."

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
The very detailed description given by Seymour Weitzman cannot be dismissed as the "quick glimpse" that Weitzman said he got of the rifle as it lay on the floor beneath the boxes of books.   The fact that FBI agent A1bert Sawyers said that Captain Fritz came and took the rifle away from Weitzman, is a positive statement that Weitzman actually had the 7.65 Mauser in his hands.

We know that Fritz never took any rifle away from Weitzman in the TSBD that afternoon.....So when did Fritz present a mauser to Weitzman , and what was Fritz's motive from putting Weitzman on record as identifying  a rifle as a 7.65 Mauser??
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2020, 07:07:03 PM
At least in the context of WC apologists defending their apology.

Nah. In the context of detectives using a generic description for a bolt action rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on March 30, 2020, 07:22:03 PM
Nah. In the context of detectives using a generic description for a bolt action rifle.

The claim being they thought it was a model 1891 Argentine Mauser because it most resembled the TSBD Carcano.
However the Argentine Mausers had easily identifiable markings.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

~snip~

"All of the 1891 Argentine Mauser rifles and carbines were manufactured in Berlin first at Ludwig Loewe & Company, and after 1896 at Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken Aktien-Gesellschaft (“DWM”)." 

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)

(l.)" A 90-degree turndown bolt handle was standard on carbines. (ctr.) Graduated out to 2,000 meters, the rear sight also folds flat. (r.) Rollmarked from Berlin and shipped to Argentina, , the 1891 Mauser would also have the Argentine national crest on the front receiver band. Whether made by Loewe or DWM, the 1891 Argentine Mausers are beautifully made firearms well-known for their spectacular receiver markings. In addition to the model designation and the manufacturer information,"

~snip~
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2020, 07:37:47 PM
'Coke' is a generic term, as in let's go for a Coke
'Kleenex' is a generic term for all brands of facial tissue
'Mauser' is a generic term for all bolt-action rifles
'Oswald' is a generic term for all the other shooters



Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 30, 2020, 09:16:38 PM
 
'Coke' is a generic term, as in let's go for a Coke
'Kleenex' is a generic term for all brands of facial tissue
'Mauser' is a generic term for all bolt-action rifles
'Oswald' is a generic term for all the other shooters
& 'Chapman' is a generic term for trolls.
I just couldn't help that one :-\
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 30, 2020, 09:44:05 PM
Avoided at every turn following his death were the statements of Lee Oswald that he had reportedly told Capt Fritz he saw a couple of rifles in the TSBD that week. Failing to recap what inspired that account...the Commissioners called Mr Warren Caster to relay his involvement in all of this.
Quote
Mr. BALL. And then you went back to work, I guess?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I picked both rifles up in cartons just like they were, this was during the noon hour, and as I entered the Texas School Book Depository Building on my way up to the buying office, I stopped by Mr. Truly's office, and while I was there we examined the two rifles that I had purchased.
Mr. BALL. Did you take them out of the carton?
Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. Who was there besides you and Mr. Truly?
Mr. CASTER. Well, I'm not really sure who was there. I think you were there, Bill, and Mr. Shelley was there---and Mr. Roy Truly. The only people that I know about, in any event, were there; there were workers there at the time, but I'm not quite sure how many. I couldn't even tell you their names. I don't know the Texas School Book Depository workers there in the shipping department
Mr. BALL. In that office, though, Truly's office, how many were there?
Mr. CASTER. We weren't in Mr. Truly's immediate office, we were just there over the counter. 
Caster dodged that question. Who told him to?
Quote
Well, I'm not really sure who was there. I think you were there, Bill, and Mr. Shelley was there---and Mr. Roy Truly.
Yeah, uh Oswald being there must have slipped his mind ::)
How many WERE there Mr Caster?
Notice how any recollection of Oswald's presence when the rifles were viewed were circumvented by the entire proceeding?
Way to go there--truth was our only client. Truth got screwed at every turn.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 10:04:52 PM
Avoided at every turn following his death were the statements of Lee Oswald that he had reportedly told Capt Fritz he saw a couple of rifles in the TSBD that week. Failing to recap what inspired that account...the Commissioners called Mr Warren Caster to relay his involvement in all of this.  Caster dodged that question. Who told him to? Yeah, uh Oswald being there must have slipped his mind ::)
How many WERE there Mr Caster?
Notice how any recollection of Oswald's presence when the rifles were viewed were circumvented by the entire proceeding?
Way to go there--truth was our only client. Truth got screwed at every turn.

Oswald being there must have slipped his mind ::)

Yes...And If Lee hadn't told Fritz that he'd seen ---" ( this?) rifle and two other's"---  outside of Mr Truly's office the day before yesterday ( quote from Hosty's notes)  The police would never have known about Mr Caster's rifles.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 30, 2020, 10:22:35 PM
Avoided at every turn following his death were the statements of Lee Oswald that he had reportedly told Capt Fritz he saw a couple of rifles in the TSBD that week. Failing to recap what inspired that account...the Commissioners called Mr Warren Caster to relay his involvement in all of this.  Caster dodged that question. Who told him to? Yeah, uh Oswald being there must have slipped his mind ::)
How many WERE there Mr Caster?
Notice how any recollection of Oswald's presence when the rifles were viewed were circumvented by the entire proceeding?
Way to go there--truth was our only client. Truth got screwed at every turn.


FBI agent James Hosty who was there at the first interrogation of Lee Oswald kept his hand scribbled notes of the interrogation.
 Hosty scribbled...Quote--- "Day before yesterday,  Mr Truley had rifle and two others 1st floor outside office"--- unquote

Notice how Lee Oswald's statement matches Caster's statement with regard to the location where the rifles were being displayed and seen.

Those who deny that Lee told Cap't. Fritz ( and Hosty) that he had seen this rifle and two others outside Mr Truly's office ...always try to argue that Hosty meant that there were two other men outside Truly's office that Wednesday ...But here's what Mr Caster said about the number of men who were there...

Mr. CASTER. "Well, I'm not really sure who was there. I think you were there, Bill, and Mr. Shelley was there---and Mr. Roy Truly. The only people that I know about, in any event, were there; there were workers there at the time, but I'm not quite sure how many. I couldn't even tell you their names".

There most certainly was more than "two other men"....   Lee was referring to the number of rifles that he saw..... this "rifle and two other's" and NOT the number of men.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 30, 2020, 11:27:21 PM
& 'Chapman' is a generic term for trolls.
I just couldn't help that one :-\

'Chapman' is generic for the hunters of trolls
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 12:51:41 AM
Weitzman, Boone, and Craig. They all stated that they saw a Mauser. You’re convinced that the Alyea film shows a Carcano. That’s two rifles.
It's also one rifle, a guy who doesn't know guns as well as he might like to believe, a guy who takes his cue from the guy who doesn't quite know guns that well, and a semi-pro liar who's spent years spinning a self-contradictory story.

Where's the unambiguous evidence of two rifles in the depository? Who claimed that they saw two rifles in the depository? That's the kind of thing you need right now.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 01:15:18 AM
Now you're sounding like the LNer that you are. Alyea was the person who said Fritz staged the in situ photo of the hulls? So is he a liar too? Then why do you consider his film gospel? Oh right, the LNer thing and your denial of any evidence against it.
Alyea didn't say that Fritz staged the photos of the cartridge cases. Alyea said that he filmed the cases from over the top of boxes on the West side of the SN. When Alyea wanted a closeup shot of the shells, Fritz picked them up and held them up to the camera.  And where did Alyea say that Fritz staged anything with the rifle?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 01:23:23 AM
I'm not arguing anything with you. Just pointing out some facts and asking questions.

The majority of model '91 Argentine 7.65 Mausers imported into the US had the Argentine national crest ground off.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact."

Pertinent to the conversation because of the alleged Boone and Weitzman misidentification of a rifle in the TSBD. Apparently a '91 Argentine Mauser because it's the Mauser that most resembles the TSBD Carcano. My question: Is there something on the TSBD Carcano  that would have given them the impression it had a ground off Argentine national crest?
The Carcano receiver was blued; same with the Argie Mausers. Bluing is a surface treatment. When you grind off that surface, it exposes the underlying steel against the dark remaining bluing. Over many years, the exposed steel will develop a brownish patina, but even then, it's easy to tell the difference between the ground area and the blued OEM surface. And in 1963, the underlying steel wouldn't have had quite so much time to develop that patina. To my knowledge, no one ever claimed to have seen anything on the rifle found in the TSBD that would indicate such a modification.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 01:48:49 AM

It's simple syllogistic logic. If you know that Mausers hold 5 rounds, and you think that a rifle you see is a Mauser, then you are liable to that the "Mauser" hold five rounds.

That's right....Weitzman apparently was familiar with the Argentine Mauser, so he knew that it held five rounds.....This is one of the things that leads me to believe that Weitzman actually had his hands on a 7.65 Mauser.  (And that most definitely was NOT on the sixth floor that afternoon. )
I can't even figure out how you're so sure that Weitzman held anything that day. Sayers' report is hearsay, not even a quote. The D/FW FBI team was interviewing an awful lot of people over that weekend, retreating to their offices in the the Federal building, then reconstructing those interviews from whatever notes they took combined with whatever they could remember. Given the workload, exacting accuracy might not be wisely expected.


Who said that Weitzman or Boone or anyone else found a second rifle, separate from the Carcano seen in the Alyea film?

Roger Craig made that claim..... Not that I believe that...I'm just tellin you that Roger Craig said that. 

Please, Let's not let this degenerate into petty arguments about the features of Argentine Mausers....   Let's try to come up a reasonable explanation for the FBI report of A1bert Sawyer....and Weitzman's very specific description of a 7.65 mauser.
How can you not talk about a "very specific description of a 7.65 mauser" and not have "petty arguments about the features of Argentine Mausers?"
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 01:56:10 AM
The point of contention in Revills memo is pretty non-specific: "they [FBI] had information that this subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy." Exactly what that means is anyone's guess.

A reporter for the DMN reported in an story in the DMN for April 24, 1964, that FBI special agent James Hosty told Lt. Jack Revill of the DPD that...Quote....We knew that he was capable of assassinating the president, but we didn't dream that he would do it"....unquote

According to Lt  Jack Revill   it was this statement that prompted him to report Hosty's remarks to his boss, Captain Gannaway.
I think that's a funny thing to say. If they "didn't dream that he would do it" then why would they think that "he was capable of assassinating the President," at least in the sense that "capable of assassinating the President" meaning that they considered Oswald to be inherently dangerous.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 31, 2020, 02:05:36 AM
I can't even figure out how you're so sure that Weitzman held anything that day. Sayers' report is hearsay, not even a quote. The D/FW FBI team was interviewing an awful lot of people over that weekend, retreating to their offices in the the Federal building, then reconstructing those interviews from whatever notes they took combined with whatever they could remember. Given the workload, exacting accuracy might not be wisely expected.

How can you not talk about a "very specific description of a 7.65 mauser" and not have "petty arguments about the features of Argentine Mausers?"

I can't even figure out how you're so sure that Weitzman held anything that day. Sayers' report is hearsay, not even a quote. The D/FW FBI team was interviewing an awful lot of people over that weekend, retreating to their offices in the the Federal building, then reconstructing those interviews from whatever notes they took combined with whatever they could remember. Given the workload, exacting accuracy might not be wisely expected.

Now you're answering the question....You're saying that A1bert Sawers didn't write his report after he and Detective "Charlie" Brown interviewed Weitzman, And that Sawer's just worked from notes that he jotted down.   You may be right, because I've wondered if Sawyer's was drunk when he wrote that report, because he screwed up some of the details.....Details that we know are facts ....... 

Do you know if Weitzman ever read that report? 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 31, 2020, 03:10:00 AM
A reporter for the DMN reported in an story in the DMN for April 24, 1964, that FBI special agent James Hosty told Lt. Jack Revill of the DPD that
Quote
We knew that he was capable of assassinating the president, but we didn't dream that he would do it"
According to Lt  Jack Revill   it was this statement that prompted him to report Hosty's remarks to his boss, Captain Gannaway.
Remember my Charles Givens post? The one where no Oswald did it supporter ever commented on? Because it exposes Revill for the back stabbing slimy weasel that he was?
About the cowardly Givens that changed his testimony in order for the cops to frame Oswald?
This post.................
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1960.msg53015.html#msg53015
 Crooked cop Revill ----  https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133#relPageId=304
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 31, 2020, 03:11:54 AM
'Chapman' is generic for the hunters of trolls
Don't flatter yourself ::)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 31, 2020, 03:21:19 AM
Don't flatter yourself ::)

All LNers share equally in the hunt.

'Freeman' is generic for the CT 'all-evidence-is-faked-planted-altered-in-some-way' crowd.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on March 31, 2020, 03:28:39 AM
Alyea didn't say that Fritz staged the photos of the cartridge cases. Alyea said that he filmed the cases from over the top of boxes on the West side of the SN. When Alyea wanted a closeup shot of the shells, Fritz picked them up and held them up to the camera.  And where did Alyea say that Fritz staged anything with the rifle?

Sez you. Are you trying to split hairs re Fritz staging the crime scene? WTF was the Captain of the DPD faking an "official forensic" in situ photo of the ejection pattern of the 6.5mm spent hulls in the sniper's nest? Roger "the liar" Craig said about 10 minutes before the rifle was discovered he came across 3 hulls near the window in the sniper's nest lined up in a tight group no more than an inch apart. Then Fritz came along and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and placed them in his pocket. No in situ photo, no picking them up with a pencil and bagging them and definitely NOT touching them without gloves. Don't you realize that very action is the smoking gun of this case? Why would a seasoned detective tamper with crucial evidence to the Crime of the Century unless he was implicated somehow? Did he panic? Was he a buffoon? You tell me.

The most significant day in Fritz's career was being tasked to lead the investigation into the assassination of the POTUS at ground zero. So what does he do? He stages photos of the crime scene and tampers with evidence. The DPD were so dirty in all this it is laughable that anyone could deny it. Fritz tampering with evidence at the crime scene, their convergence on Oswald less than an hour after he supposedly shot JFK. The backyard photos have DPD stink all over them. And finally delivering Oswald to Ruby to give them plausible deniability for Oswald's murder.

And then the LNers congratulate Ol' Cappy Fritz for some damn fine detective work. He solved the case in record time and took out the lone nut assassin who whacked JFK. Top shelf! Suckers.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 04:26:11 AM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
The very detailed description given by Seymour Weitzman cannot be dismissed as the "quick glimpse" that Weitzman said he got of the rifle as it lay on the floor beneath the boxes of books.   The fact that FBI agent A1bert Sawyers said that Captain Fritz came and took the rifle away from Weitzman, is a positive statement that Weitzman actually had the 7.65 Mauser in his hands.

We know that Fritz never took any rifle away from Weitzman in the TSBD that afternoon.....So when did Fritz present a mauser to Weitzman , and what was Fritz's motive from putting Weitzman on record as identifying  a rifle as a 7.65 Mauser??
Whaddya mean by "very detailed?" The color of the rifle's metal, color and general surface and condition of the stock, and the sling are things that could be gathered in seconds from 10 feet. The wear on the safety, rear bolt, and bolt handle don't require much study of the rifle, even a few feet away. Ditto with the white letters on the black scope.

If it were a "very detailed" description I would expect to see a mention of the "Modelo Argentino 1891" that is prominently engraved on the side of the receiver and a serial number, which would appear in several places on the rifle. And Mr Craig reminds me the we should also have expected to see where the Argentine national crest had been removed from the top of the receiver, along with the bluing. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on March 31, 2020, 04:30:15 AM
Me: Alyea didn't say that Fritz staged the photos of the cartridge cases. Alyea said that he filmed the cases from over the top of boxes on the West side of the SN. When Alyea wanted a closeup shot of the shells, Fritz picked them up and held them up to the camera.  And where did Alyea say that Fritz staged anything with the rifle?

Sez you. Are you trying to split hairs re Fritz staging the crime scene? WTF was the Captain of the DPD faking an "official forensic" in situ photo of the ejection pattern of the 6.5mm spent hulls in the sniper's nest? Roger "the liar" Craig said about 10 minutes before the rifle was discovered he came across 3 hulls near the window in the sniper's nest lined up in a tight group no more than an inch apart. Then Fritz came along and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and placed them in his pocket. No in situ photo, no picking them up with a pencil and bagging them and definitely NOT touching them without gloves. Don't you realize that very action is the smoking gun of this case? Why would a seasoned detective tamper with crucial evidence to the Crime of the Century unless he was implicated somehow? Did he panic? Was he a buffoon? You tell me.

The most significant day in Fritz's career was being tasked to lead the investigation into the assassination of the POTUS at ground zero. So what does he do? He stages photos of the crime scene and tampers with evidence. The DPD were so dirty in all this it is laughable that anyone could deny it. Fritz tampering with evidence at the crime scene, their convergence on Oswald less than an hour after he supposedly shot JFK. The backyard photos have DPD stink all over them. And finally delivering Oswald to Ruby to give them plausible deniability for Oswald's murder.

And then the LNers congratulate Ol' Cappy Fritz for some damn fine detective work. He solved the case in record time and took out the lone nut assassin who whacked JFK. Top shelf! Suckers.
Not sez me. Sez Alyea. Now, I asked you a question. Where did Alyea say that Fritz staged anything with the rifle?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 31, 2020, 05:46:52 AM
All LNers share equally in the hunt. 'Freeman' is generic for the CT 'all-evidence-is-faked-planted-altered-in-some-way' crowd.
All LNers share equally in the hunt smell.
'Freeman' is generic for the CT 'all-evidence-is actually was-faked-planted-altered-or ignored-in-some-way' crowd.
And don't you forget it!
There I fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 31, 2020, 07:28:07 AM
All LNers share equally in the hunt smell.
'Freeman' is generic for the CT 'all-evidence-is actually was-faked-planted-altered-or ignored-in-some-way' crowd.
And don't you forget it!
There I fixed it for you.

You're neither clever, well-spoken, nor correct.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on March 31, 2020, 01:50:12 PM
You're neither clever, well-spoken, nor correct.
Oh ouch! I'd say why not go get a life...but in your case---it's way too late.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on March 31, 2020, 05:21:35 PM
Whaddya mean by "very detailed?" The color of the rifle's metal, color and general surface and condition of the stock, and the sling are things that could be gathered in seconds from 10 feet. The wear on the safety, rear bolt, and bolt handle don't require much study of the rifle, even a few feet away. Ditto with the white letters on the black scope.

If it were a "very detailed" description I would expect to see a mention of the "Modelo Argentino 1891" that is prominently engraved on the side of the receiver and a serial number, which would appear in several places on the rifle. And Mr Craig reminds me the we should also have expected to see where the Argentine national crest had been removed from the top of the receiver, along with the bluing.

Mitch, I had high hope that I was dealing with an honest man....   Looks like I was wrong.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on March 31, 2020, 06:05:29 PM
Oh ouch! I'd say why not go get a life...but in your case---it's way too late.

Again, not clever
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 01, 2020, 01:04:16 AM
Alyea didn't say that Fritz staged the photos of the cartridge cases. Alyea said that he filmed the cases from over the top of boxes on the West side of the SN. When Alyea wanted a closeup shot of the shells, Fritz picked them up and held them up to the camera.  And where did Alyea say that Fritz staged anything with the rifle?

This is probably one of the few things conspiracy theorists are right about. There is serious doubt the famous photo of the three shells on the ground is how the assassin left the scene. Fritz probably lifted one or more up and had a good look before putting it back.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 01, 2020, 05:08:13 AM
It's also one rifle, a guy who doesn't know guns as well as he might like to believe, a guy who takes his cue from the guy who doesn't quite know guns that well, and a semi-pro liar who's spent years spinning a self-contradictory story.

Yes, I know that’s the excuse.

Quote
Where's the unambiguous evidence of two rifles in the depository? Who claimed that they saw two rifles in the depository? That's the kind of thing you need right now.

There isn’t unambiguous evidence of anything in this case.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 01, 2020, 05:40:23 AM
Again, not clever
Again, not clever
« Last Edit: Today at 12:09:04 PM by Bill Chapman »
You have to go back and edit three words? :D
Why don't you quit while you're behind on all this generic crap?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 05:33:11 PM
Sez you. Are you trying to split hairs re Fritz staging the crime scene? WTF was the Captain of the DPD faking an "official forensic" in situ photo of the ejection pattern of the 6.5mm spent hulls in the sniper's nest? Roger "the liar" Craig said about 10 minutes before the rifle was discovered he came across 3 hulls near the window in the sniper's nest lined up in a tight group no more than an inch apart. Then Fritz came along and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and placed them in his pocket. No in situ photo, no picking them up with a pencil and bagging them and definitely NOT touching them without gloves. Don't you realize that very action is the smoking gun of this case? Why would a seasoned detective tamper with crucial evidence to the Crime of the Century unless he was implicated somehow? Did he panic? Was he a buffoon? You tell me.

The most significant day in Fritz's career was being tasked to lead the investigation into the assassination of the POTUS at ground zero. So what does he do? He stages photos of the crime scene and tampers with evidence. The DPD were so dirty in all this it is laughable that anyone could deny it. Fritz tampering with evidence at the crime scene, their convergence on Oswald less than an hour after he supposedly shot JFK. The backyard photos have DPD stink all over them. And finally delivering Oswald to Ruby to give them plausible deniability for Oswald's murder.

And then the LNers congratulate Ol' Cappy Fritz for some damn fine detective work. He solved the case in record time and took out the lone nut assassin who whacked JFK. Top shelf! Suckers.

The DPD were so dirty in all this it is insane that anyone could deny it. Fritz tampering with evidence at the crime scene, their convergence on Oswald less than an hour after he supposedly shot JFK. The backyard photos have DPD stink all over them. And finally delivering Oswald to Ruby to give them plausible deniability for Oswald's murder.

The evidence against Fritz, is far stronger than the evidence against Lee Oswald....  Unfortunately Fritz had the backing of the Dallas DA, Henry Wade, and the Director of the FBI J.Edgar Hoover, while Lee Oswald was simply just another hapless nobody, and "piss ant" and patriotic sucker to be exploited. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 05:41:11 PM
The Carcano receiver was blued; same with the Argie Mausers. Bluing is a surface treatment. When you grind off that surface, it exposes the underlying steel against the dark remaining bluing. Over many years, the exposed steel will develop a brownish patina, but even then, it's easy to tell the difference between the ground area and the blued OEM surface. And in 1963, the underlying steel wouldn't have had quite so much time to develop that patina. To my knowledge, no one ever claimed to have seen anything on the rifle found in the TSBD that would indicate such a modification.

I think that someone familiar enough with the Argentine Mauser to mistake the TSBD Carcano for one would also be familiar with 2 of it's main identifiable characteristics. The ground off Argentine national crest and the receiver markings noting the model designation and the manufacturer information.
My take from this is the opposite of yours. I don't think anyone mistook a Carcano for a Argentine Mauser. The logical conclusion is 2 rifles recovered. The Mauser didn't fit the LN story and was ghosted.

-----------------------------

The majority of model '91 Argentine 7.65 Mausers imported into the US had the Argentine national crest ground off.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact."

------------------------------

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

~snip~

"All of the 1891 Argentine Mauser rifles and carbines were manufactured in Berlin first at Ludwig Loewe & Company, and after 1896 at Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken Aktien-Gesellschaft (“DWM”)." 

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)

(l.)" A 90-degree turndown bolt handle was standard on carbines. (ctr.) Graduated out to 2,000 meters, the rear sight also folds flat. (r.) Rollmarked from Berlin and shipped to Argentina, , the 1891 Mauser would also have the Argentine national crest on the front receiver band. Whether made by Loewe or DWM, the 1891 Argentine Mausers are beautifully made firearms well-known for their spectacular receiver markings. In addition to the model designation and the manufacturer information,"

~snip~
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 06:02:15 PM
I think that someone familiar enough with the Argentine Mauser to mistake the TSBD Carcano for one would also be familiar with 2 of it's main identifiable characteristics. The ground off Argentine national crest and the receiver markings noting the model designation and the manufacturer information.
My take from this is the opposite of yours. I don't think anyone mistook a Carcano for a Argentine Mauser. The logical conclusion is 2 rifles recovered. The Mauser didn't fit the LN story and was ghosted.

-----------------------------

The majority of model '91 Argentine 7.65 Mausers imported into the US had the Argentine national crest ground off.

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

"Collectors in the U.S., though, often find the national crest ground off of Argentine 1891 Mausers. This was done in the aftermath of the Chaco War of 1935, which pitted Bolivia and Paraguay against one another in a vicious albeit brief struggle for control of South America’s resource-rich Chaco Boreal. Argentina provided Paraguay with a large number of Model 1891 Mausers during the conflict in a move that jeopardized its relationship with Bolivia. The presence of unground national crests made it impossible to deny Argentina’s direct support for Paraguay, so after the war Argentina instituted a law requiring the removal of the national crest from any gun leaving the country. Although the government in Buenos Aires later dropped this requirement, by then most of the Argentine 1891 Mausers had been ground, and this accounts for why it is rare to find one with the crest intact."

------------------------------

https://gunsinthenews.com/1891-argentine-mauser-history/

~snip~

"All of the 1891 Argentine Mauser rifles and carbines were manufactured in Berlin first at Ludwig Loewe & Company, and after 1896 at Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken Aktien-Gesellschaft (“DWM”)." 

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)

(l.)" A 90-degree turndown bolt handle was standard on carbines. (ctr.) Graduated out to 2,000 meters, the rear sight also folds flat. (r.) Rollmarked from Berlin and shipped to Argentina, , the 1891 Mauser would also have the Argentine national crest on the front receiver band. Whether made by Loewe or DWM, the 1891 Argentine Mausers are beautifully made firearms well-known for their spectacular receiver markings. In addition to the model designation and the manufacturer information,"

~snip~

The logical conclusion is 2 rifles recovered. The Mauser didn't fit the LN story and was ghosted.

Why logical??    We have solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano, ( even though Weitzman at first thought it was a 7.65 Mauser)   And we know that Fritz was NOT in the TSBD after 2:30 pm that afternoon. ( might be wrong about the exact time that Fritz Left the TSBD but we know he was back at his office before 3:00 pm )   So if there was a Mauser recovered Fritz wouldn't have been there to "take the rifle away from Weitzman" ( who left the TSBD at about 2:00pm.)     If A1bert Sawer's report isn't the result of a drunken confused mind then Weitzman's handling of a 7.65 Mauser had to have occurred either later that Friday evening or Saturday morning.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 06:09:23 PM
The logical conclusion is 2 rifles recovered. The Mauser didn't fit the LN story and was ghosted.

Why logical??    We have solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano, ( even though Weitzman at first thought it was a 7.65 Mauser)   And we know that Fritz was NOT in the TSBD after 2:30 pm that afternoon. ( might be wrong about the exact time that Fritz Left the TSBD but we know he was back at his office before 3:00 pm )   So if there was a Mauser recovered Fritz wouldn't have been there to "take the rifle away from Weitzman" ( who left the TSBD at about 2:00pm.)     If A1bert Sawer's report isn't the result of a drunken confused mind then Weitzman's handling of a 7.65 Mauser had to have occurred either later that Friday evening or Saturday morning.

"We have solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano"

 ???

There's photographic evidence showing Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?

We have hand written and typed, signed, notarized affidavits from both Boone and Fritz stating they found a 7.65 Mauser.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 06:28:45 PM
"We have solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano"

 ???

There's photographic evidence showing Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?

We have hand written and typed, signed, notarized affidavits from both Boone and Fritz stating they found a 7.65 Mauser.

There's photographic evidence showing Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?

Do you have a problem understanding what is written?    I never said that there is photographic proof  showing Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano...Here's what I wrote....."We have solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano,"

The Alyea film  clearly shows Lt Day picking up the Mannlicher Carcano  from the floor beneath the pallet .........And other clips show Day examining that Mannlicher Carcano and carrying it from the building.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 06:45:59 PM
There's photographic evidence showing Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?

Do you have a problem understanding what is written?    I never said that there is photographic proof  showing Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano...Here's what I wrote....."We have solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano,"

The Alyea film  clearly shows Lt Day picking up the Mannlicher Carcano  from the floor beneath the pallet .........And other clips show Day examining that Mannlicher Carcano and carrying it from the building.

How is film of Day picking up and examining a Carcano solid photographic evidence of Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?

They both signed notarized affidavits saying they found a 7.65 Mauser.

The affidavits are admissible evidence.

The portions of the Alyea film, that still exist, are only a partial record of what occurred on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 07:00:45 PM
How is film of Day picking up and examining a Carcano solid photographic evidence of Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?

They both signed notarized affidavits saying they found a 7.65 Mauser.

The affidavits are admissible evidence.

The portions of the Alyea film, that still exist, are only a partial record of what occurred on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63.

How is film of Day picking up and examining a Carcano solid photographic evidence of Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?


Gary, Do you realize that you're making yourself look really stupid?

Surely you don't believe that Alyea would have filmed anything but events as they happened...do you?

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 01, 2020, 07:07:10 PM
Gary, Do you realize that you're making yourself look really stupid?

Surely you don't believe that Alyea would have filmed anything but events as they happened...do you?

What a stupid question.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 07:07:10 PM
How is film of Day picking up and examining a Carcano solid photographic evidence of Boone and Weitzman finding a Carcano?


Gary, Do you realize that you're making yourself look really stupid?

Surely you don't believe that Alyea would have filmed anything but events as they happened...do you?

Does this mean that you're not going to explain how film of Day picking up a Carcano proves that Boone and Weitzman found it?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 07:09:42 PM
Does this mean that you're not going to explain how film of Day picking up a Carcano proves that Boone and Weitzman found it?

Does this mean that you're not going to explain how film of Day picking up a Carcano proves that Boone and Weitzman found it?

Nope...If you can't figger it out then you lack the brains to be discussing this case.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 07:13:43 PM
Does this mean that you're not going to explain how film of Day picking up a Carcano proves that Boone and Weitzman found it?

Nope...If you can't "figger" it out then you lack the brains to be discussing this case.

Ok Walt. I guess I'm just not smart enough to "figger" it out.

I was hoping you could explain how you "figgered" it out.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 07:32:11 PM
Ok Walt. I guess I'm just not smart enough to "figger" it out.

I was hoping you could explain how you "figgered" it out.

I think you're just playing dumb.....And trying to antagonize me.....  Because most ten year old kids could deduce from the affidavits and testimony that after they ( Boone and Weitzman)  discovered the carcano beneath the pallet of boxes they stayed right there and waited for Fritz and Day to come to the site.  And Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day at that site.    This is sooooo elementary that I'm embarrassed for you.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 07:43:27 PM
I think you're just playing dumb.....And trying to antagonize me.....  Because most ten year old kids could deduce from the affidavits and testimony that after they ( Boone and Weitzman)  discovered the carcano beneath the pallet of boxes they stayed right there and waited for Fritz and Day to come to the site.  And Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day at that site.    This is sooooo elementary that I'm embarrassed for you.

"from the affidavits"

 ???

Says 7.65.mauser


(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 07:59:15 PM
I think you're just playing dumb.....And trying to antagonize me.....  Because most ten year old kids could deduce from the affidavits and testimony that after they ( Boone and Weitzman)  discovered the carcano beneath the pallet of boxes they stayed right there and waited for Fritz and Day to come to the site.  And Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day at that site.    This is sooooo elementary that I'm embarrassed for you.

"after they ( Boone and Weitzman)  discovered the carcano beneath the pallet of boxes they stayed right there and waited for Fritz and Day to come to the site."

Have you read the "supplementary investigation report" below?

Let me help you with a quote from it.

"Deputy Boone called out that he had found the rifle shoved down between 2 rows of pasteboard boxes of books. Capt. Fritz took over the search at this time and one of the other Deputies who had been in the building came and told us that Sheriff Decker had given orders to let the City take over the investigation and for the Deputies to return to the sheriffs office, which we did."

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 01, 2020, 09:18:00 PM
"after they ( Boone and Weitzman)  discovered the carcano beneath the pallet of boxes they stayed right there and waited for Fritz and Day to come to the site."

Have you read the "supplementary investigation report" below?

Let me help you with a quote from it.

"Deputy Boone called out that he had found the rifle shoved down between 2 rows of pasteboard boxes of books. Capt. Fritz took over the search at this time and one of the other Deputies who had been in the building came and told us that Sheriff Decker had given orders to let the City take over the investigation and for the Deputies to return to the sheriffs office, which we did."

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)

"Deputy Boone called out that he had found the rifle shoved down between 2 rows of pasteboard boxes of books. Capt. Fritz took over the search at this time and one of the other Deputies who had been in the building came and told us that Sheriff Decker had given orders to let the City take over the investigation and for the Deputies to return to the sheriffs office, which we did."

Deputy Boone called out that that he had found the rifle......  Actually it was Weitzman who first spotted the carcano on the floor beneath the pallet of books but Weitzman was down on his belly shining his flashlight beneath the pallet and Boone was standing up on the West side of the rifle beneath the pallet. So Boone yelled out that they had found the rifle) Fritz came over to where Boone and Weitzman were and took charge ......    Fritz took over at this time ....

Isn't it clear to you that Tom Alyea filmed Detective Day as he lifted the MANNLICHER CARCANO from the floor.....

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 01, 2020, 10:11:41 PM
I think you're just playing dumb.....And trying to antagonize me.....  Because most ten year old kids could deduce from the affidavits and testimony that after they ( Boone and Weitzman)  discovered the carcano beneath the pallet of boxes they stayed right there and waited for Fritz and Day to come to the site.  And Tom Alyea filmed Lt Day at that site.    This is sooooo elementary that I'm embarrassed for you.

Would you like me to help you extract your head?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 01, 2020, 10:16:07 PM
"Deputy Boone called out that he had found the rifle shoved down between 2 rows of pasteboard boxes of books. Capt. Fritz took over the search at this time and one of the other Deputies who had been in the building came and told us that Sheriff Decker had given orders to let the City take over the investigation and for the Deputies to return to the sheriffs office, which we did."

Deputy Boone called out that that he had found the rifle......  Actually it was Weitzman who first spotted the carcano on the floor beneath the pallet of books but Weitzman was down on his belly shining his flashlight beneath the pallet and Boone was standing up on the West side of the rifle beneath the pallet. So Boone yelled out that they had found the rifle) Fritz came over to where Boone and Weitzman were and took charge ......    Fritz took over at this time ....

Isn't it clear to you that Tom Alyea filmed Detective Day as he lifted the MANNLICHER CARCANO from the floor.....

Deputies Boone and Weitzman find a rifle between some boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Fritz takes charge of the area.

Sheriff Decker relays orders to turn over the investigation to the City and for his men to return to the Sheriff's offices.

Boone and Weitzman return the sheriff offices where they hand write reports of their account of finding a 7.65 Mauser.

Their reports are typed up as Sworn Affidavits. They are signed by both officers and Notarized.

Mean time Alyea films Lt. Day picking up MANNLICHER CARCANO from the floor of the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

How does Alyea's film prove Boone and Weitzman found the Carcano?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2020, 01:17:08 AM
Deputies Boone and Weitzman find a rifle between some boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Fritz takes charge of the area.

Sheriff Decker relays orders to turn over the investigation to the City and for his men to return to the Sheriff's offices.

Boone and Weitzman return the sheriff offices where they hand write reports of their account of finding a 7.65 Mauser.

Their reports are typed up as Sworn Affidavits. They are signed by both officers and Notarized.



Mean time Alyea films Lt. Day picking up MANNLICHER CARCANO from the floor of the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

How does Alyea's film prove Boone and Weitzman found the Carcano?

The Alyea film does not prove that Weitzman and Boone found the carcano, and I never have made that claim.....I've told you repeatedly that virtually everybody who was there on the sixth floor said that Weitzman and Boone  discovered the carcano......   ( even though they didn't know what kind of rifle they had found and Weitzman speculated and made a WAG that it was a 7.65 Mauser)  So you'll need to refute every man that was there if you doubt that Weitzman and Boone found the carcano.

Weitzman and Boone didn't leave the sixth floor the instant Fritz arrived at the site....( They can be seen in photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano.)

And simply because they said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser does NOT make it a fact.   Weitzman clearly said that he had guessed about the rifle being a Mauser, and "Much to his sorrow" he was wrong.   The rifle was NOT a Mauser.....

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, Gary ?

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 01:22:51 AM
Weitzman and Boone didn't leave the sixth floor the instant Fritz arrived at the site....( They can be seen in photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano.)

I'd still like to see these photos.

Quote
And simply because they said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser does NOT make it a fact.   Weitzman clearly said that he had guessed about the rifle being a Mauser, and "Much to his sorrow" he was wrong.

So what?  Brennan clearly said that he really could ID Oswald but lied to the police instead.  All that means is that they were pressured to retract their statements.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2020, 01:34:57 AM
I'd still like to see these photos.

So what?  Brennan clearly said that he really could ID Oswald but lied to the police instead.  All that means is that they were pressured to retract their statements.

I'd still like to see these photos.

If you haven't seen the photos you haven't been looking.

Brennan clearly said that he really could ID Oswald but lied to the police instead.

 Yes , that's true...Brennan did say that when he appeared before LBJ's Cover up committee.... He'd have been crazy to refuse to say that....He understood very well that his family could be in danger if he didn't cooperate.  ( The Cops told him that on 11/22/63 )    And Brennan was convinced that he'd better cooperate when he saw Lee Oswald lynched while surrounded by the same cops who had tried to coerce him into identifying Lee Oswald as the 175 pound man who was dressed a light khaki colored clothing ........
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 03:19:11 AM
So I guess you get to decide when people who said they were wrong are telling the truth or not. Who lived longer, Craig or Weitzman?

Please post the photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano that show Weitzman and Boone in them and point out Weitzman and Boone.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Tom Scully on April 02, 2020, 03:46:06 AM
So I guess you get to decide when people who said they were wrong are telling the truth or not. Who lived longer, Craig or Weitzman?

Please post the photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano that show Weitzman and Boone in them and point out Weitzman and Boone.

John, what is your end game, or is your participation in this never ending Mauser vs MC debate, not goal oriented?

Here is an excerpt of the "leading lights" Lane and Weisberg attempting 40+ years ago, to make the argument you are.
Help me to understand why you think this is worth your time. What I read on this Lane / Weisberg page so far persuades me this pursuit is futile.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9926&relPageId=34&search=lane_and%20weisberg%20and%20mauser

Politics are described as, "the art of the possible". Contrast that description with this thread.

You, yourself hit on my argument.:

Quote
So I guess you get to decide when people who said they were wrong are telling the truth or not. Who lived longer, Craig or Weitzman?

Example, there are things that can conceivably be accomplished, vs whether or not a Mauser was actually discovered on the Sixth Floor.
I wanted to find out if Postal Safety Manager, John Martin, Jr., age 58, maker of a relevant, brief 8 mm film, had indeed returned to his birthplace to live, Minnesota.
The 1963 Dallas City directory listed his wife as Emma M Martin. I wondered if the couple was related to John T Martin of Minnesota, who filmed Edwin Walker's home and Oswald in NOLA on the same 8 mm film reel.

Recently I found a yearbook photo that is definitely of John T Martin, but so far I cannot trace him further than Weisbeg's and Schoen's face-to-face, 1968 encounter.
(http://jfkforum.com/images/EdwinWalkerMartinCRP.jpg)

The Postal Safety Manager was located in a Texas grave, John Wylie Martin. Jr., 1905 - 1993.
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29225958/john-wylie-martin

John, I strongly suspect those who find the Mauser debate worth repeated discussion, are indifferent to any resolution of any incompletely understood component of JFK Assassination research. I cannot change that approach of others, but I can offer alternative pursuits and methods.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 02, 2020, 03:51:54 AM
The Alyea film does not prove that Weitzman and Boone found the carcano, and I never have made that claim.....I've told you repeatedly that virtually everybody who was there on the sixth floor said that Weitzman and Boone  discovered the carcano......   ( even though they didn't know what kind of rifle they had found and Weitzman speculated and made a WAG that it was a 7.65 Mauser)  So you'll need to refute every man that was there if you doubt that Weitzman and Boone found the carcano.

Weitzman and Boone didn't leave the sixth floor the instant Fritz arrived at the site....( They can be seen in photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano.)

And simply because they said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser does NOT make it a fact.   Weitzman clearly said that he had guessed about the rifle being a Mauser, and "Much to his sorrow" he was wrong.   The rifle was NOT a Mauser.....

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, Gary ?

Why do you act like an arrogant child when someone disagrees with you? Especially when you're FOS. No way in hell Weitzman gave such precise details on a sworn affidavit describing a Mauser, without positively identifying it. Maybe that is something you can relate to, but no one else would do that.  Instead you keep sidestepping the issue and refer to your gospel Alyea film and....testimony from EVERYONE on the 6th floor that day. I'd like to see that list, and make sure to put a check mark beside each person that wasn't a DPD conspirator.

Seems to me that Fritz told the only 2 non-conspirators, Craig and Weitzman, they could go home after Weitzman handed Fritz back the Mauser. Where was the Alyea footage of that scene? Where is the Alyea footage of the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window no more than an inch apart? Why do you think that Fritz gave Alyea free rein to film any goddamned thing he wanted? Are you that naive to assume that the Alyea film wasn't directed by Fritz? He directed all the other photography at the scene and he and Day were hamming it up in front of the cameras. Do you think they weren't in control of the narrative that all the film footage showed of them? Fritz obviously kept Alyea at bay until he wanted something filmed. You just fell for it so hard that you started calling people retarded for doubting that the film didn't show a natural sequence of events and doubting the testimony of all the conspirators and wanting to piss on the grave of the whistle blower. But then you are a Trumptard, after all.

Do you think the Medical Staff at Bethesda were mentally ill because they saw a big hole in the back of JFK's head, when the autopsy photos clearly showed a small bullet hole near the top of the head? Your problem is you believe your lying eyes. Fool.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 02, 2020, 06:37:03 AM
Mitch Todd: It's also one rifle, a guy who doesn't know guns as well as he might like to believe, a guy who takes his cue from the guy who doesn't quite know guns that well, and a semi-pro liar who's spent years spinning a self-contradictory story.

Yes, I know that’s the excuse.
If it were just an excuse, you'd be able to marshal some cogent argument against it. But you got nothing, so you have nothing to say.

Mitch Todd: Where's the unambiguous evidence of two rifles in the depository? Who claimed that they saw two rifles in the depository? That's the kind of thing you need right now.

There isn’t unambiguous evidence of anything in this case.
The universe is full of ambiguity, what with all that quantum mechanics and Goedel and his incompleteness theorem and whatnot. But if you want to claim that Weitzman/Boone saw a different rifle than what's shown in the Alyea film, you need something independent from a statement made by a guy who admitted that he was wrong, the fool who followed him, and some dude who years later comes up with a couple of mutually-contradictory stories about the rifle. You need something like witnesses who saw both rifles. Where are they?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 02, 2020, 06:38:16 AM
So I guess you get to decide when people who said they were wrong are telling the truth or not. Who lived longer, Craig or Weitzman?

Please post the photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano that show Weitzman and Boone in them and point out Weitzman and Boone.
Point out where Weitzman and/or Boone said that the rifle in the Alyea film is not the rifle that they saw.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Tom Scully on April 02, 2020, 12:42:17 PM
Aren't results the best measure of the utility of our filters enhancing or restricting the process of inquiry? Example, if you dismiss everything documented by the FBI or the DPD, you will have an easier time, but conversely, who will you convince, anticipating who your potential readership will likely be, if you take the records, statements, or evidence presented by either law enforcement agency as gospel?

The internet has been a useful resource for 20+ years, but how much of the basis of current debate is influenced primarily by pre-internet authors and film makers?
How much of our POVs is influenced excessively by research that was based on incomplete information, gaps filled in by suspicion of worst case scenario?

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Roberts%20Craig/Item%2002.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MauserCraigRobertsJgaryShawCakebread.jpg)

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340385/m1/3/?q=%22joseph%20ball%22
(http://jfkforum.com/images/MauserCraigRobertsJgaryShaw3rdEmptyHull.jpg)


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 02, 2020, 03:01:03 PM
The Alyea film does not prove that Weitzman and Boone found the carcano, and I never have made that claim.....I've told you repeatedly that virtually everybody who was there on the sixth floor said that Weitzman and Boone  discovered the carcano......   ( even though they didn't know what kind of rifle they had found and Weitzman speculated and made a WAG that it was a 7.65 Mauser)  So you'll need to refute every man that was there if you doubt that Weitzman and Boone found the carcano.

Weitzman and Boone didn't leave the sixth floor the instant Fritz arrived at the site....( They can be seen in photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano.)

And simply because they said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser does NOT make it a fact.   Weitzman clearly said that he had guessed about the rifle being a Mauser, and "Much to his sorrow" he was wrong.   The rifle was NOT a Mauser.....

Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, Gary?


"Weitzman and Boone didn't leave the sixth floor the instant Fritz arrived at the site...."

Fritz was on the 6th floor before Boone and Weitzman found a rifle stuffed between book boxes.

"( They can be seen in photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano.)"

I would like to see these photos.

"And simply because they said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser does NOT make it a fact."

The signed, sworn and notarized affidavits stating they did find a 7.65 Mauser are admissible as evidence.

So it's a bit more than them simply stating they found the rifle.

"Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, Gary?"

I don't. Most times I engage you on this forum I do feel like a fool for doing so though.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2020, 04:33:38 PM

"Weitzman and Boone didn't leave the sixth floor the instant Fritz arrived at the site...."

Fritz was on the 6th floor before Boone and Weitzman found a rifle stuffed between book boxes.

"( They can be seen in photos taken of Fritz and Day examining the Carcano.)"

I would like to see these photos.

"And simply because they said the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser does NOT make it a fact."

The signed, sworn and notarized affidavits stating they did find a 7.65 Mauser are admissible as evidence.

So it's a bit more than them simply stating they found the rifle.

"Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself, Gary?"

I don't. Most times I engage you on this forum I do feel like a fool for doing so though.

You expose yourself as an ignoramus in nearly every post    ( an ignoramous who knows very little about the fundamental facts of the case)

For example... Only a ignorant fool would present the affidavits of Boone and Weitman as proof that the rifle they discovered was a 7.65 Mauser when there are dozens of photos that clearly show that the rifle is a carcano and they were wrong in their first WAG about the rifle.   And Only an ignoramus would totally ignore the follow up affidavits in which they stated that they were wrong about the rifle being a mauser. 

So the photos show that they were wrong and they stated that they were wrong.....But please continue to display your ignorance...  because it definitely does NOT enhance your credibility.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 06:51:59 PM
If it were just an excuse, you'd be able to marshal some cogent argument against it.

I have to come up with an argument against your pure speculation that Weitzman described a clip that wasn't there, but that he just assumed was there because the rifle looked like a Mauser?  Please.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 06:53:02 PM
Point out where Weitzman and/or Boone said that the rifle in the Alyea film is not the rifle that they saw.

I never claimed they did.  I don't even have any reason to believe that Weitzman and/or Boone ever saw the Alyea film.  Do you?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 06:55:36 PM
For example... Only a ignorant fool would present the affidavits of Boone and Weitman as proof that the rifle they discovered was a 7.65 Mauser when there are dozens of photos that clearly show that the rifle is a carcano and they were wrong in their first WAG about the rifle.

We're still waiting to see these photos of Boone and Weitzman examining the Alyea rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2020, 07:02:09 PM
We're still waiting to see these photos of Boone and Weitzman examining the Alyea rifle.

WHO??? in the hell said that there are photos  of Weitzman and Boone examining the CARCANO that Lt Day had picked up from beneath the boxes of books?   

Weitzman, Boone, and Craig do appear in Tom Alyea's film ...They are in the background and no where near Fritz or the CARCANO.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 07:09:19 PM
WHO??? in the hell said that there are photos  of Weitzman and Boone examining the CARCANO that Lt Day had picked up from beneath the boxes of books?   

Weitzman, Boone, and Craig do appear in Tom Alyea's film ...They are in the background and no where near Fritz or the CARCANO.

Please point them out in the Alyea frame of your choice.

And why do you assume that their examination of the Mauser they described would have been captured in the Alyea film clips that you have seen?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2020, 08:29:44 PM
Please point them out in the Alyea frame of your choice.

And why do you assume that their examination of the Mauser they described would have been captured in the Alyea film clips that you have seen?

Please show me where Boone described a mauser.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 02, 2020, 08:32:59 PM
Please show me where Boone described a mauser.....

(https://i0.wp.com/jfkboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Boone-affadavit2.jpg?w=550&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 02, 2020, 08:49:32 PM
(https://i0.wp.com/jfkboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Boone-affadavit2.jpg?w=550&ssl=1)

Duh...The way I read Boone's affidavit it says "What appeared to be a 7.65 mauser"....  THATt My Dear Johnny is NOT a description of a 7.65 Mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 02, 2020, 11:28:25 PM
I think that someone familiar enough with the Argentine Mauser to mistake the TSBD Carcano for one would also be familiar with 2 of it's main identifiable characteristics. The ground off Argentine national crest and the receiver markings noting the model designation and the manufacturer information.
My take from this is the opposite of yours. I don't think anyone mistook a Carcano for a Argentine Mauser. The logical conclusion is 2 rifles recovered. The Mauser didn't fit the LN story and was ghosted.
[...]
Your logic assumes that Weitzman/Boone were bolt-action cognoscenti enough to know that the crest would be ground off (and that different rifles would not have their national crests ground off). It also assumes that they saw the ground off crest and/or the receiver markings. There is no evidence whatsoever that either assumption is true. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 03:57:41 PM
Duh...The way I read Boone's affidavit it says "What appeared to be a 7.65 mauser"....  THATt My Dear Johnny is NOT a description of a 7.65 Mauser.

This is most certainly a description:

"what appeared to be a 7.65mm Mauser with a telescopic sight. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 03:58:52 PM
Your logic assumes that Weitzman/Boone were bolt-action cognoscenti enough to know that the crest would be ground off (and that different rifles would not have their national crests ground off). It also assumes that they saw the ground off crest and/or the receiver markings. There is no evidence whatsoever that either assumption is true.

If Weitzman was capable of reading the printing on the scope, then he was capable of reading "made in Italy" on the rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 03, 2020, 04:16:19 PM
The rifle was Kleenex/Coke/Mauser in appearance
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 04:24:56 PM
This is most certainly a description:

"what appeared to be a 7.65mm Mauser with a telescopic sight. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."

a telescopic sight. The rifle had what appeared to be a brownish, black stock and blue steel, metal parts."

That describes the Mannlicher Carcano.....  Weitzman got a quick glimpse of the carcano as Day and Fritz were examining the rifle and made a WAG at the calber, and manufacturer....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 04:40:49 PM
That describes the Mannlicher Carcano.....  Weitzman got a quick glimpse of the carcano as Day and Fritz were examining the rifle and made a WAG at the calber, and manufacturer....

Except that was Boone's description.

You yourself have admitted that Weitzman described a Mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 04:51:12 PM
Except that was Boone's description.

You yourself have admitted that Weitzman described a Mauser.

Boone got the information from Weitzman.....Are you really this stupid, John?

You yourself have admitted that Weitzman described a Mauser.

He sure did!.... No doubt about it...But Weitzman did NOT give that description before he departed the TSBD at about 2:00pm that afternoon....
I've tried to discuss FBI agent A1bert Sawyers report with a knowledgeable  and honest person, but so far, nobody has  approached.

Sawyer's report is baffling to me..... for example ...Where the hell did he get the idea that Weitzman had a 7.65 Mauser IN HIS HANDS when Captain Fritz came and took the rifle from him????

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 05:13:25 PM
When did Boone ever say that he got his information from Weitzman?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 05:17:10 PM
If Weitzman was capable of reading the printing on the scope, then he was capable of reading "made in Italy" on the rifle.

What a ridiculous assumption..... Perhaps you should have opened your eyes and LOOKED at photo of the two inscriptions....A person nearly needs a magnifying glass to see the MADE ITALY stamped on the barrel whereas the inscription on the scope can easily be read at arms length ( or further)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 05:29:09 PM
Your logic assumes that Weitzman/Boone were bolt-action cognoscenti enough to know that the crest would be ground off (and that different rifles would not have their national crests ground off). It also assumes that they saw the ground off crest and/or the receiver markings. There is no evidence whatsoever that either assumption is true.

Mitch, isn't this response carrying it a bit further than necessary?    Don't you agree that Weitzman simply made a WAG at the manufacturer of the rifle as he caught glimpse of it as Day and Fritz examined the rifle?  Weitzman didn't have the opportunity to closely examine the rifle, so he wouldn't have known if the crest was ground off.   Fritz simply asked if anybody recognized the make of rifle....and Weitzman ventured a WAG that it "looked like a 7.65 Mauser".....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 05:47:01 PM
What a ridiculous assumption..... Perhaps you should have opened your eyes and LOOKED at photo of the two inscriptions....A person nearly needs a magnifying glass to see the MADE ITALY stamped on the barrel whereas the inscription on the scope can easily be read at arms length ( or further)

Do you have a photo that shows both in comparison?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 05:49:31 PM
Do you have a photo that shows both in comparison?

Look in the WR
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 05:53:48 PM
Look in the WR

Nope.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 06:13:35 PM
Nope.

I'm sure you can find photos that show the stamping on the Carcano and the inscription on the scope......But if it's unimportant to you to get your facts straight, I certainly don't give a damn, if you wish to continue to spew nonsense.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 03, 2020, 06:19:20 PM
I'm sure you can find photos that show the stamping on the Carcano and the inscription on the scope......

No, I haven't.  That's why I asked.  After all, you stated as a fact that "a person nearly needs a magnifying glass to see the MADE ITALY stamped on the barrel whereas the inscription on the scope can easily be read at arms length".
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 06:54:54 PM
No, I haven't.  That's why I asked.  After all, you stated as a fact that "a person nearly needs a magnifying glass to see the MADE ITALY stamped on the barrel whereas the inscription on the scope can easily be read at arms length".

As I said...I don't give a damn if you wish to remain ignorant....The photos have been posted many times....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 03, 2020, 10:03:07 PM
    Fritz simply asked if anybody recognized the make of rifle....and Weitzman ventured a WAG that it "looked like a 7.65 Mauser".....
A 7.65 mm hot potato------
Quote
Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.
Quote
Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir.
Mr Freeman.... Why not? You handled it.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 03, 2020, 10:24:51 PM
Your logic assumes that Weitzman/Boone were bolt-action cognoscenti enough to know that the crest would be ground off (and that different rifles would not have their national crests ground off). It also assumes that they saw the ground off crest and/or the receiver markings. There is no evidence whatsoever that either assumption is true.

I agree, there is no evidence in the affidavits, crime reports or testimony of the ground off Argentine national crest or the  receiver markings noting the model number and manufacturing location indicating a '91 Argentine Mauser.

The WC, LN idea is that Boone and Weitzman misidentified the TSBD Carcano as a 7.65 mauser. Specifically one that resembles the Carcano enough to fool several veteran LE officers. A Argentine Model 1891 7.65 Mauser is the suspect as it looks similar to the Carcano examined by LT. Day on the 6th floor TSBD on 11/22/63.

Herein lies the problem. Anyone familiar with that model Mauser would also be familiar with 2 of it's most prominent identifying characteristics: The ground off Argentine national crest and the receiver markings.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser.jpg)

Since, as you noted in your post, these were never mentioned there are a couple possibilities.

1.) A 7.65 mauser was found by Boone and Weitzman, just not a model '91 Argentine, and it quickly disappeared.
2.) There is another model 7.65 mauser that resembles the Carcano enough to fool those officers.

IMO the 1st option is the most likely.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 03, 2020, 10:27:59 PM
A 7.65 mm hot potato------Mr Freeman.... Why not? You handled it.

Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. BOONE - I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.


This is the truth.....However.... Weitzman may have suggested that it looked like a 7.65 Mauser before Fritz made that statement and Fritz heard it.

Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.
Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?
Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?
Mr. BALL. Yes
Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.
Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.


And this is the lie.....Notice that Fritz lies just like Roger Craig..... Mr. BALL. "Did you think it was a Mauser?"  No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.   While Fritz is correct and the caliber is stamped on the rear sight ...He didn't say that he read that from the rifle, and furthermore there is no stamping on the rifle that identifies it as a carcano, or a mauser, or Yosemite Sam's blunderbuss ..... Fritz was lying.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 04, 2020, 12:08:42 AM
I have to come up with an argument against your pure speculation that Weitzman described a clip that wasn't there, but that he just assumed was there because the rifle looked like a Mauser?  Please.
I think we need to add some lost context here. This particular subthread has gone on like this:

Me 0: It's also one rifle, a guy who doesn't know guns as well as he might like to believe, a guy who takes his cue from the guy who doesn't quite know guns that well, and a semi-pro liar who's spent years spinning a self-contradictory story.

Iacoletti 1: Yes, I know that’s the excuse.

Me 2: If it were just an excuse, you'd be able to marshal some cogent argument against it. But you got nothing, so you have nothing to say.

Iacoletti 3: I have to come up with an argument against your pure speculation that Weitzman described a clip that wasn't there, but that he just assumed was there because the rifle looked like a Mauser?

This particular exchange started with the reliability of statements by Weitzman, Boone, and Craig vis a' vis the rifle. It seems to have mysteriously and abruptly segued from to something about "a clip that wasn't there," which isn't really something that I've actually argued. Either you didn't understand, or just don't care to.  What I've said about Weitzman, Boone, and Craig is not speculation: Weitzman is on the record saying that was wrong. Boone is also on the record that he simply repeated what he heard someone else say. Craig's record is a bit different: he told mutually-contradictory stories that only damaged his credibility. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 04, 2020, 12:11:30 AM
I never claimed they did.  I don't even have any reason to believe that Weitzman and/or Boone ever saw the Alyea film.  Do you?
Didn't say you claimed to. But I figure that if you want to push forwards with the idea that there were two rifles, showing that Boone or Weitzman claimed that the rifle in the Alyea film (or in any of the photos and/or film of the rifle) was not the rifle they found would be a good start.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 04, 2020, 12:16:12 AM
If Weitzman was capable of reading the printing on the scope, then he was capable of reading "made in Italy" on the rifle.
"Made Italy" was stamped into the metal of the rifle. That is, it was rifle-colored text on a rifle-colored background, give or take the lighting. The scope was plain white text on a black background. Contrast matters.

The best-quality set of photos of the rifle I know of is here:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134

Show me, in those photos, where the text on the scope is. Then show me where, in those photos, the "made italy" stamp is. It doesn't have to be particularly legible, I just want to be able to see that it's there.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 04, 2020, 12:17:58 AM
Mitch, isn't this response carrying it a bit further than necessary?    Don't you agree that Weitzman simply made a WAG at the manufacturer of the rifle as he caught glimpse of it as Day and Fritz examined the rifle?  Weitzman didn't have the opportunity to closely examine the rifle, so he wouldn't have known if the crest was ground off.   Fritz simply asked if anybody recognized the make of rifle....and Weitzman ventured a WAG that it "looked like a 7.65 Mauser".....
That's basically what I've been saying all along. Though I don't think it was a WAG. I think Weitzman knew enough about the Agentine Mausers to know about the protruding magazine, but did [not] know enough to realize that other rifles had them.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 04, 2020, 12:31:02 AM
That's basically what I've been saying all along. Though I don't think it was a WAG. I think Weitzman knew enough about the Agentine Mausers to know about the protruding magazine, but did know enough to realize that other rifles had them.

I concur 100 %.....However, can you explain the FBI report that was written by A1bert Sawyer? I realize this requires speculation but that report has me baffled....What the hell was going on??
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 05, 2020, 02:07:37 AM
I agree, there is no evidence in the affidavits, crime reports or testimony of the ground off Argentine national crest or the  receiver markings noting the model number and manufacturing location indicating a '91 Argentine Mauser.

The WC, LN idea is that Boone and Weitzman misidentified the TSBD Carcano as a 7.65 mauser. Specifically one that resembles the Carcano enough to fool several veteran LE officers. A Argentine Model 1891 7.65 Mauser is the suspect as it looks similar to the Carcano examined by LT. Day on the 6th floor TSBD on 11/22/63.

Herein lies the problem. Anyone familiar with that model Mauser would also be familiar with 2 of it's most prominent identifying characteristics: The ground off Argentine national crest and the receiver markings.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/7.65%20mauser.jpg)

Since, as you noted in your post, these were never mentioned there are a couple possibilities.

1.) A 7.65 mauser was found by Boone and Weitzman, just not a model '91 Argentine, and it quickly disappeared.
2.) There is another model 7.65 mauser that resembles the Carcano enough to fool those officers.

IMO the

1st option is the most likely.
To begin with, the rifle only fooled one law enforcement officer: Seymore Weitzman. Weitzman was a Deputy Constable, a position who main functions are to serve process and provide JoPs with bailiffs. Even then, he didn't join until 1961. Nothing implies Weitzman possessed any particularly useful knowledge regarding identifying firearms. For that matter Boone had only been a Deputy for about a year, and supposedly holds the record as the youngest deputy that Decker ever hired. I doubt he was a firearms expert, either. Those are your "veteran law enforcement officers."

The rest is just a non-sequitur.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 05, 2020, 02:09:46 AM
I concur 100 %.....However, can you explain the FBI report that was written by A1bert Sawyer? I realize this requires speculation but that report has me baffled....What the hell was going on??
Which part of the Sawyer report? I went over the description of the rifle in that memo. You mean the part about Fritz taking the rifle from Weitzman?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 05, 2020, 04:09:48 AM
To begin with, the rifle only fooled one law enforcement officer: Seymore Weitzman. Weitzman was a Deputy Constable, a position who main functions are to serve process and provide JoPs with bailiffs. Even then, he didn't join until 1961. Nothing implies Weitzman possessed any particularly useful knowledge regarding identifying firearms. For that matter Boone had only been a Deputy for about a year, and supposedly holds the record as the youngest deputy that Decker ever hired. I doubt he was a firearms expert, either. Those are your "veteran law enforcement officers."

The rest is just a non-sequitur.

"To begin with, the rifle only fooled one law enforcement officer:"

I guess I'm not explaining myself clear enough.
The TSBD Carcano wasn't mistaken for a model 1891 Argentine 7.65 mauser by any of the LE officers present.
That Mauser's build quality and distintive markings compared to the Carcano make the idea one was mistaken for the other improbable.

"Nothing implies Weitzman possessed any particularly useful knowledge regarding identifying firearms"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9926&relPageId=34&search=lane_and%20weisberg%20and%20mauser
"In addition to Weitzman having a familiarity of rifles because of his sporting good operation and his own interest,
Weitzman was an engineer, a graduate engineer."


"Boone had only been a Deputy for about a year, and supposedly holds the record as the youngest deputy that Decker ever hired.
I doubt he was a firearms expert"


Boone didn't need to be a firearms expert to tell the difference between a Carcano and a Argentine Mauser. This is Dallas, Texas, a gun culture, and as pointed out by Officer Marion Baker in his WC testimony.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you fired other types of rifles other than the one you used?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; the first one I had was a 30-30 Marlin lever type.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you ever seen the rifle that is alleged to have belonged to Lee Oswald?

Mr. BAKER - I saw it, a photograph of it, in the newspaper.

SENATOR COOPER - Do you know what kind of rifle it is?

Mr. BAKER - Not offhand. I heard it was some foreign make gun. Most of the boys down there at the police

department have had dealings with foreign type guns, rifles, you know of this kind, and a lot of them sell them,

and a lot of them rework them, you know, make them into deer rifles.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2020, 04:10:17 PM
"To begin with, the rifle only fooled one law enforcement officer:"

I guess I'm not explaining myself clear enough.
The TSBD Carcano wasn't mistaken for a model 1891 Argentine 7.65 mauser by any of the LE officers present.
That Mauser's build quality and distintive markings compared to the Carcano make the idea one was mistaken for the other improbable.

"Nothing implies Weitzman possessed any particularly useful knowledge regarding identifying firearms"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9926&relPageId=34&search=lane_and%20weisberg%20and%20mauser
"In addition to Weitzman having a familiarity of rifles because of his sporting good operation and his own interest,
Weitzman was an engineer, a graduate engineer."


"Boone had only been a Deputy for about a year, and supposedly holds the record as the youngest deputy that Decker ever hired.
I doubt he was a firearms expert"


Boone didn't need to be a firearms expert to tell the difference between a Carcano and a Argentine Mauser. This is Dallas, Texas, a gun culture, and as pointed out by Officer Marion Baker in his WC testimony.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you fired other types of rifles other than the one you used?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; the first one I had was a 30-30 Marlin lever type.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you ever seen the rifle that is alleged to have belonged to Lee Oswald?

Mr. BAKER - I saw it, a photograph of it, in the newspaper.

SENATOR COOPER - Do you know what kind of rifle it is?

Mr. BAKER - Not offhand. I heard it was some foreign make gun. Most of the boys down there at the police

department have had dealings with foreign type guns, rifles, you know of this kind, and a lot of them sell them,

and a lot of them rework them, you know, make them into deer rifles.


Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he 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." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Mr. BALL - Did you touch it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?

Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.

Mr. WEITZMAN - 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 [indicating].



Mr. WEITZMAN - Down on the floor.
Mr. BALL - Shows the location of the gun on the floor?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.

I guess I'm not explaining myself clear enough.
The TSBD Carcano wasn't mistaken for a model 1891 Argentine 7.65 mauser by any of the LE officers present.


HUH??? How can you say that when Weitzman testified that he referred to the Carcano as a 7.65 Mauser?

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.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2020, 04:26:45 PM
Which part of the Sawyer report? I went over the description of the rifle in that memo. You mean the part about Fritz taking the rifle from Weitzman?

I just noticed this in Weitzman's testimony......

Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.

This explains when Weitzman talked to Detective "Charlie" Brown, and FBI agent A1bert sawyer........He was called to the Police department later that afternoon after he  had left the TSBD.


P.S.    There's no doubt in my mind that someone presented a 7.65 mauser at that interview and asked Weitzman to describe it.  And I'll bet that Mauser was presented to Weitzman as the rifle( the carcano) that he had caught a glimpse of on the sixth floor earlier that afternoon.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2020, 09:54:17 PM
This is the truth.....However.... Weitzman may have suggested that it looked like a 7.65 Mauser before Fritz made that statement and Fritz heard it.

Walt, how do you discern between your truth tellers and your “damn liars”?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2020, 09:57:20 PM
Walt, how do you discern between your truth tellers and your “damn liars”?

I've been at this a looooong time.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2020, 10:00:04 PM
This particular exchange started with the reliability of statements by Weitzman, Boone, and Craig vis a' vis the rifle. It seems to have mysteriously and abruptly segued from to something about "a clip that wasn't there," which isn't really something that I've actually argued.

Yes it is. The fact remains that Weitzman originally described details (which is inconsistent with his later retraction which claimed he just saw it “at a glance”). Furthermore, he described details (like the clip) that are inconsistent with the Carcano rifle in evidence. Your excuse for how that happened is pure speculation.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2020, 10:03:03 PM
Didn't say you claimed to. But I figure that if you want to push forwards with the idea that there were two rifles, showing that Boone or Weitzman claimed that the rifle in the Alyea film (or in any of the photos and/or film of the rifle) was not the rifle they found would be a good start.

At the moment, I don’t see any reason to assume that the rifle that they described in their original affidavits was the same rifle shown in the Alyea clip.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2020, 10:06:56 PM
I've been at this a looooong time.....

So has Ralph Cinque.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2020, 10:12:06 PM
Yes it is. The fact remains that Weitzman originally described details (which is inconsistent with his later retraction which claimed he just saw it “at a glance”. Furthermore, he described details (like the clip) that are inconsistent with the Carcano rifle in evidence. Your excuse for how that happened is pure speculation.



Either you didn't understand, or just don't care to.  What I've said about Weitzman, Boone, and Craig is not speculation: Weitzman is on the record saying that was wrong. Boone is also on the record that he simply repeated what he heard someone else say. Craig's record is a bit different: he told mutually-contradictory stories that only damaged his credibility.

The fact remains that Weitzman originally described details

NO, he did NOT..... Weitzman was called back to examine a rifle later that afternoon for Detective CW Brown, and FBI agent A1bert Sawyers. and THAT's the rifle he described for Sawyers.  ORIGINALLY ( at the time Day picked the rifle up from the floor ) he simply said that the rifle looked like a 7.65 mauser.  He never DESCRIBED any details at that time. 

Here's what Weitzman told the WC lawyer....
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2020, 10:24:39 PM
So has Ralph Cinque.

Did Ralph know that the initials DPD meant...  Damned poor Deceivers?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 05, 2020, 10:47:53 PM
NO, he did NOT..... Weitzman was called back to examine a rifle later that afternoon for Detective CW Brown, and FBI agent A1bert Sawyers. and THAT's the rifle he described for Sawyers.  ORIGINALLY ( at the time Day picked the rifle up from the floor ) he simply said that the rifle looked like a 7.65 mauser.  He never DESCRIBED any details at that time. 

Well, that’s the story you made up. That’s not what Weitzman said in his affidavit.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 05, 2020, 10:55:35 PM
Well, that’s the story you made up. That’s not what Weitzman said in his affidavit.

No I didn't make up the testimony of Weitzman telling Ball that he went to the DPD later that afternoon for an interview.

Post the affidavit..... 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 06, 2020, 12:54:31 AM
No I didn't make up the testimony of Weitzman telling Ball that he went to the DPD later that afternoon for an interview.

Post the affidavit.....

I mean the bit about him being called back to examine a rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 06, 2020, 01:03:53 AM
I mean the bit about him being called back to examine a rifle.

Weitzman basically said that he saw a mauser later that afternoon..... Use your head John.   Weitzmen said that he got only a quick glimpse of the rifle at the time Day picked the rifle up from the floor, and from that quick glimpse he assumed that it was a 7.65 mauser.  He couldn't have gave the details that FBI agent Sawyers recorded in his report from the information his eyes gathered when Day lifted the carcano up from the floor.

When Weitzman was being interviewed by sawyers he  had to have been given a 7.65 mauser to describe.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 06, 2020, 03:15:01 PM

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 06, 2020, 04:16:23 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)

What's the point ( or points) that you're attempting to make?   

Thanks for posting Sawyer's report. The part enclosed in red is the pertinent part.

Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found   Where and when was this rifle found ??

as a 7.65 caliber bolt action rifle which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.

This clearly describes a 7.65 Argentine mauser.

The metal parts of this rifle were of gun metal color , gray or blue.

The TSBD carcano's metal was blue.

and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

The rear of the bolt on the carcano is NOT visibly worn.

The wooden portions of this rifle were  dark brown in color and of rough wood,

The wooden stock of the carcano is black  and it is NOT rough wood.

apparently having been used or damaged  to considerable extent.

The carcano stock is not battered or damaged....

This rifle is equipped with a four power scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

The scope on the Carcano is clearly marked ..."MADE IN JAPAN"

It is also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

The Carcano has a light duty black leather finished, carry strap the backside of the strap is unfinished rough tan leather.... it is NOT a bandolier type sling.

After he observed the rifle to the extent described above Captain Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him.

HUH???    This doesn't fit with any other witness report ......

He did not make note of any serial number on the rifle.
He observed Captain Fritz eject one rifle round of ammunition from this rifle.

Really???? Fritz would have given a loaded rifle to Weitzman??

  At this point he discontinued his search of the sixth floor of the building.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 06, 2020, 07:43:06 PM
What's the point ( or points) that you're attempting to make?

Posted the FBI report to counter your made up interpretation of it, in reply #250, at the top of this page.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 06, 2020, 07:49:19 PM
Posted the FBI report to counter your made up interpretation of it, in reply #250, at the top of this page.

Made Up??....  Get you head out!.....  I'm trying to decipher Sawyer's report..... 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on April 07, 2020, 01:56:53 AM
Whether or not a Mauser was found in the TSBD is irrelevant, as the bullet found at Parkland after falling out of the Governor's thigh, as well as the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limousine were determined to have been fired through the barrel of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.

No bullets or cartridges of 7.65 mm were ever recovered at the assassination scenes: the TSBD, Dealey Plaza etc.

Lead fragments recovered from the victims' bodies and the limousine were analyzed using Neutron Activation Analyses and it turned out that they all originated from the recovered bullet and fragments.

The evidence tying Oswald to the "assassination rifle" is questionable or so I am lead to believe.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2020, 02:16:06 AM
Whether or not a Mauser was found in the TSBD is irrelevant, as the bullet found at Parkland after falling out of the Governor's thigh, as well as the to large bullet fragment recovered from the limousine were determined to have been fired through the barrel of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.

No bullets or cartridges of 7.65 mm were ever recovered at the assassination scenes: the TSBD, Dealey Plaza etc.

Lead fragments recovered from the victims' bodies and the limousine were analyzed using Neutron Activation Analyses and it turned out that they all originated from the recovered bullet and fragments.

The evidence tying Oswald to the "assassination rifle" is questionable or so I am lead to believe.

While I agree in general with you Joffrey...there are several points that I would not agree with.....

Whether or not a Mauser was found in the TSBD is irrelevant,   Yes it is irrelevant for the reason you point out....But it IS relevant from the perspective that "Someone" was attempting to introduce a mauser into the evidence stream  ( see FBI agent  A1bert Sawers report)

What was the reason???
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on April 07, 2020, 02:44:19 PM
While I agree in general with you Joffrey...there are several points that I would not agree with.....

Whether or not a Mauser was found in the TSBD is irrelevant,   Yes it is irrelevant for the reason you point out....But it IS relevant from the perspective that "Someone" was attempting to introduce a mauser into the evidence stream  ( see FBI agent  A1bert Sawers report)

What was the reason???

I  believe it was a matter of mis-identification of the Mannlicher-Carcano. Apparently, it is similar in appearance as the Mauser in question. On the picture below, a Mauser on top and the Mannlicher-Carcano at the bottom.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-1FTxM/s1600/2Rifles.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2020, 04:41:35 PM
I  believe it was a matter of mis-identification of the Mannlicher-Carcano. Apparently, it is similar in appearance as the Mauser in question. On the picture below, a Mauser on top and the Mannlicher-Carcano at the bottom.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-1FTxM/s1600/2Rifles.jpg)

I  believe it was a matter of mis-identification of the Mannlicher-Carcano.

Joffery, THAT  is what the discussion has been about for decades.....   And you're right.... BUT there had to have been a 7.65 mauser in Weitzman's hands or he could not have gave the detailed description of that mauser.

There's no doubt what- so- ever that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano ....SO the question becomes...WHO tried to introduce a 7.65 mauser into the evidence stream, and what was their motive???
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2020, 04:56:42 PM
I  believe it was a matter of mis-identification of the Mannlicher-Carcano. Apparently, it is similar in appearance as the Mauser in question. On the picture below, a Mauser on top and the Mannlicher-Carcano at the bottom.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-1FTxM/s1600/2Rifles.jpg)

Both of the rifles illustrated are Mannlicher Carcano..... So they should look alike........ 

It's interesting that someone has photographically mounted a scope on the carcano in the lower photo....  It's hilarious !!   They've "mounted" the scope on the right hand side, which would render the rifle useless.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on April 07, 2020, 06:04:04 PM
Both of the rifles illustrated are Mannlicher Carcano..... So they should look alike........ 

It's interesting that someone has photographically mounted a scope on the carcano in the lower photo....  It's hilarious !!   They've "mounted" the scope on the right hand side, which would render the rifle useless.....

The top one is supposed to be a Mauser. Here's another picture:

(https://isgp-studies.com/miscellaneous/death_list/data/Craig/mannlicher-carcano-vs-mauser-scope-attachment.jpg)

The scope on the Carcano was wobbly and shins had to be installed to make it stable enough for firing tests. And it turned out to be defective.

Could Weitzmann have described the Mannlicher-Carcano but misnamed it as a Mauser?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2020, 06:53:34 PM
The top one is supposed to be a Mauser. Here's another picture:

(https://isgp-studies.com/miscellaneous/death_list/data/Craig/mannlicher-carcano-vs-mauser-scope-attachment.jpg)

The scope on the Carcano was wobbly and shins had to be installed to make it stable enough for firing tests. And it turned out to be defective.

Could Weitzmann have described the Mannlicher-Carcano but misnamed it as a Mauser?

Both photos that you originally posted are Mannlicher Carcanos ..... However On closer inspection I believe that the scope being mounted on the righ hand side is an optical illusion which creates an optical confusion. ....

Could Weitzmann have described the Mannlicher-Carcano but misnamed it as a Mauser?

No, absolutely not!  Weitzman definitely had a 7.65 Mauser in his hands when he described the rifle....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on April 07, 2020, 08:16:05 PM
Both photos that you originally posted are Mannlicher Carcanos ..... However On closer inspection I believe that the scope being mounted on the righ hand side is an optical illusion which creates an optical confusion. ....

Could Weitzmann have described the Mannlicher-Carcano but misnamed it as a Mauser?

No, absolutely not!  Weitzman definitely had a 7.65 Mauser in his hands when he described the rifle....

I don't think it is likely that a Mauser was introduced into evidence as you state. Note that Weitzman does not mention specific characteristics like the serial number, the clip, the home-made sling etc. In his signed Affidavit of November 23rd he states that the rifle was a

- 7.65 (wrong)
- Mauser (wrong)
- bolt-action (correct)
- equipped with a 4/18 scope (correct)
- with a thick leather brownish black sling (correct.)

Nowhere in the record is there any reference to TWO rifles being discovered, it was always just the one. It does not make sense for any conspirators to create a paper trail leading from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano via the Hidell alias to Oswald's PO box and back to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and then to leave the wrong rifle at the crime scene!

On the one hand the conspirators devised a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel, but also so sloppy to leave the wrong evidence behind? I don't buy that.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on April 07, 2020, 08:25:16 PM
But then:

(https://content.invisioncic.com/r16296/post-3674-087832200%201313690716.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2020, 08:40:28 PM
I don't think it is likely that a Mauser was introduced into evidence as you state. Note that Weitzman does not mention specific characteristics like the serial number, the clip, the home-made sling etc. In his signed Affidavit of November 23rd he states that the rifle was a

- 7.65 (wrong)
- Mauser (wrong)
- bolt-action (correct)
- equipped with a 4/18 scope (correct)
- with a thick leather brownish black sling (correct.)

Nowhere in the record is there any reference to TWO rifles being discovered, it was always just the one. It does not make sense for any conspirators to create a paper trail leading from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano via the Hidell alias to Oswald's PO box and back to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and then to leave the wrong rifle at the crime scene!

On the one hand the conspirators devised a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel, but also so sloppy to leave the wrong evidence behind? I don't buy that.

- 7.65 (wrong)  Correct.... Weitzman knew what he was looking at....and he said it was a 7.65 Mauser
- bolt-action (correct)
- equipped with a 4/18 scope (correct)
- with a thick leather brownish black sling (correct.)    Wrong.... The Mannlicher carcano DID NOT have a thick brownish black leather sling.  The Carcano had a light duty BLACK carrying strap.....The strap was unfinished tan leather on the backside and polished black leather on the finished side....and it as NOT a bandolier type sling, it was a carrying strap that had a wide leather patch incorporated into the assembly .  These patches are designed for sentry duty, and they are to prevent the narrow strap from diggin into a sentry's shoulder as he stands his post.

Nobody has ever mentioned that General Walker served in Italy during WWII....The carcano looks very much like a war trophy  ( except for the scope)
Mussolini had an elite group as his body guards...( The Guardie del Duce)  Those guards were equipped with special black uniforms, which included high black boots and Mannlicher carcanos that were painted black and special black straps with the wide patch. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 07, 2020, 09:34:39 PM
I don't think it is likely that a Mauser was introduced into evidence as you state. Note that Weitzman does not mention specific characteristics like the serial number, the clip, the home-made sling etc. In his signed Affidavit of November 23rd he states that the rifle was a

- 7.65 (wrong)
- Mauser (wrong)
- bolt-action (correct)
- equipped with a 4/18 scope (correct)
- with a thick leather brownish black sling (correct.)

Nowhere in the record is there any reference to TWO rifles being discovered, it was always just the one. It does not make sense for any conspirators to create a paper trail leading from the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano via the Hidell alias to Oswald's PO box and back to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and then to leave the wrong rifle at the crime scene!

On the one hand the conspirators devised a plan so cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel, but also so sloppy to leave the wrong evidence behind? I don't buy that.

I don't think it is likely that a Mauser was introduced into evidence as you state

I didn't state that.....  I said that it appears as if "someone" ( Fritz & co.  ?) was attempting to  introduce a 7.65 mauser into the evidence stream.....  At the time ( Friday afternoon) the conspirators were in a bit of a panic....( Lee Oswald was still alive and protesting his arrest) They may have been preparing a fall back position by claiming they had found a mauser in the TSBD that they suspected belonged to one of Oswald's confederates...  That's pure speculation, but the fact remains that Fritz gave Weitzman a 7.65 Mauser and Weitzman described that mauser for FBI agent A1bert Sawyer.    FWIW.... Sawyer was from the Houston office of the FBI, and he wasn't even in the TSBD when the Carcano was found......so his report cannot be from the time that Weitzman saw Detective Day pick the rifle up from the floor.

Why do I feel that I'm required to argue both sides of this coin?......  I'm 100% certain that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mannlicher Carcano,, while at the same time I'm 100% certain that Weitzman had a 7.65 mauser in his hands and described that mauser for FBI agent A1bert Sawyer .....

I do know that Weitzman testified that he was ordered to report to the police station later that Friday afternoon.....long after he had departed the TSBD at about 2:00pm.   The question is:....  Why was Weitzman ordered to report to the police station?? 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 07, 2020, 09:35:13 PM
Whether or not a Mauser was found in the TSBD is irrelevant, as the bullet found at Parkland after falling out of the Governor's thigh, as well as the two large bullet fragments recovered from the limousine were determined to have been fired through the barrel of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.

You mean the two fragments that were allegedly found and removed by a secret service deputy and a navy corpsman before the FBI arrived to process the limo, and for which there is no documented chain of custody? The fragments that were so mutilated that Robert Frazier matched then up by lining up marks “in his mind” because they didn’t line up under the microscope? Those fragments? Is there any evidence that those fragments ever went through Kennedy or Connally?

Quote
No bullets or cartridges of 7.65 mm were ever recovered at the assassination scenes: the TSBD, Dealey Plaza etc.

Supposedly the ARRB found an empty evidence envelope that was dated 2 December 1963 and indicating that it was a 7.65 mm shell found in Dealey Plaza.

Quote
Lead fragments recovered from the victims' bodies and the limousine were analyzed using Neutron Activation Analyses and it turned out that they all originated from the recovered bullet and fragments.

That is way overstated.  All NAA tells you is what concentrations of antimony were in the various fragments.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 08, 2020, 04:45:30 AM
"To begin with, the rifle only fooled one law enforcement officer:"

I guess I'm not explaining myself clear enough.
The TSBD Carcano wasn't mistaken for a model 1891 Argentine 7.65 mauser by any of the LE officers present.
That Mauser's build quality and distintive markings compared to the Carcano make the idea one was mistaken for the other improbable.
We already figured out your first assertion. The second requires that you have someone who not only knows the difference between the two rifles, and is in a position to be able to clearly see said markings. In the right light, you can see engraving on a rifle from an arms length away. Don't count on reading it much further away than that. And that's in good light.

"Nothing implies Weitzman possessed any particularly useful knowledge regarding identifying firearms"

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9926&relPageId=34&search=lane_and%20weisberg%20and%20mauser
"In addition to Weitzman having a familiarity of rifles because of his sporting good operation and his own interest, Weitzman was an engineer, a graduate engineer."
Weizman had an engineering degree, which in itself has nothing to do with whether Weitzman knew anything at all about firearms. And, by the time he encountered the rifle in the TSBD, he'd spent the bulk of his adult life in the rag trade. His sole foray into "the sporting goods business" was the year --if that-- he spent winding down a small-chain "discount operation."

"Boone had only been a Deputy for about a year, and supposedly holds the record as the youngest deputy that Decker ever hired.
I doubt he was a firearms expert"


Boone didn't need to be a firearms expert to tell the difference between a Carcano and a Argentine Mauser. This is Dallas, Texas, a gun culture, and as pointed out by Officer Marion Baker in his WC testimony.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you fired other types of rifles other than the one you used?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; the first one I had was a 30-30 Marlin lever type.

SENATOR COOPER - Have you ever seen the rifle that is alleged to have belonged to Lee Oswald?

Mr. BAKER - I saw it, a photograph of it, in the newspaper.

SENATOR COOPER - Do you know what kind of rifle it is?

Mr. BAKER - Not offhand. I heard it was some foreign make gun. Most of the boys down there at the police

department have had dealings with foreign type guns, rifles, you know of this kind, and a lot of them sell them,

and a lot of them rework them, you know, make them into deer rifles.

I'm well aware of "Dallas, Texas gun culture." In fact, I'm part of it. And as a part of it,  I can tell you that there are guys out there who own a half-dozen model 98's who would be mystified by a model 91 if they saw it on someone's wall. The '91's are mechanically different from the later Mausers in a number of ways. Because of that, they aren't as sought after, and are somewhat obscure any more.

Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like? For that matter, how many of those "Dallas gun culture" cops saw the rifle and said it was definitely a 7.65 Mauser?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2020, 06:21:40 AM
You can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t know what rifles looked like then why were they so specific about it being a 7.65 Mauser?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 08, 2020, 07:06:03 AM
You can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t know what rifles looked like then why were they so specific about it being a 7.65 Mauser?
I didn't say that "they" didn't know what the rifles looked like beforehand. Weitzman had to have known something about a 7.65. Mauser, since he was the source of the ID. As for why he was so specific, I've covered this before, but I guess everyone forgot, or just didn't pay attention.  Beginning in the late '50's, the Argentinian military began to unload it's inventory of old bolt action service rifles. First to go were the old model 91 Mausers. The 89, 90, and 91 models (effectively, they were the same design) were unique among Mauser rifles in that they had a single stack magazine that extended well below the forestock to about the bottom of the trigger guard. All of them were chambered in 7.65x53 Mauser, which didn't turn out to be that popular of a military cartridge. The upshot is, it you see a Mauser with the single stack magazine, the factory chambered it in 7.65 x 53. The thing is, there are more than one bolt action rifles with that dangling single stack magazine out there. If you don't know about the others, but are familiar with the model 91, it can't be too hard to see that magazine sticking out of a Carcano and [wrongly] think it's a Mauser 7.65.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2020, 03:55:15 PM
You can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t know what rifles looked like then why were they so specific about it being a 7.65 Mauser?

You can’t have it both ways. If they didn’t know what rifles looked like then why were they so specific about it being a 7.65 Mauser?

They??    Only Weitzman said ( spoken ) that he thought the rifle was a 7.65 mauser, and he said he based that on a quick glimpse of the rifle as Detective Day picked it up from the floor.  ( Although Fritz denied that he had speculated that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser, it's entirely possible that Fritz did say ...." it looks like a 7.65 Mauser" .... and Weitzman may have concurred with that observation )
At any rate .... Boone based his statement ( affidavit) on Weitzman's pronouncement and NOT an actual visual observation.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 08, 2020, 04:02:43 PM
We already figured out your first assertion. The second requires that you have someone who not only knows the difference between the two rifles, and is in a position to be able to clearly see said markings. In the right light, you can see engraving on a rifle from an arms length away. Don't count on reading it much further away than that. And that's in good light.
Weizman had an engineering degree, which in itself has nothing to do with whether Weitzman knew anything at all about firearms. And, by the time he encountered the rifle in the TSBD, he'd spent the bulk of his adult life in the rag trade. His sole foray into "the sporting goods business" was the year --if that-- he spent winding down a small-chain "discount operation."
I'm well aware of "Dallas, Texas gun culture." In fact, I'm part of it. And as a part of it,  I can tell you that there are guys out there who own a half-dozen model 98's who would be mystified by a model 91 if they saw it on someone's wall. The '91's are mechanically different from the later Mausers in a number of ways. Because of that, they aren't as sought after, and are somewhat obscure any more.

Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like? For that matter, how many of those "Dallas gun culture" cops saw the rifle and said it was definitely a 7.65 Mauser?

"The second requires that you have someone who not only knows the difference between the two rifles, and is in a position to be able to clearly see said markings"

If the markings on the rifle are observable why do they need to know the difference? They brought their own lights to do the search so visibility wouldn't have been a problem.

"Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like?"

You tell me. It's only an issue if you're a WC apologist and need Boone and Weitzman to misidentify the TSBD Carcano as a Mauser to explain the affidavit and investigation reports they filed saying they found a mauser.
The model '91 comes up because it looks the most like the Carcano and they would have to have some knowledge of it to mistake one for the other.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2020, 04:30:18 PM
"The second requires that you have someone who not only knows the difference between the two rifles, and is in a position to be able to clearly see said markings"

If the markings on the rifle are observable why do they need to know the difference? They brought their own lights to do the search so visibility wouldn't have been a problem.

"Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like?"

You tell me. It's only an issue if you're a WC apologist and need Boone and Weitzman to misidentify the TSBD Carcano as a Mauser to explain the affidavit and investigation reports they filed saying they found a mauser.
The model '91 comes up because it looks the most like the Carcano and they would have to have some knowledge of it to mistake one for the other.

WHY??  Is there a discussion about the markings on a 7'65 Argentine Mauser??    Weitzman said that at the time Detective Day picked up the rifle he got only a quick glimse of the rifle and based on that quick glimpse he assumed the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser.   The most prominent characteristic that both the Carcano and the Argentine mauser share is the magazine below the receiver forward of the trigger guard.   Weitzman couldn't have seen any small identifying marking on the rifle, He saw that magazine forward of the trigger guard and assumed the rifle was a mauser which was much more common than the unusual Mannlicher Carcano.

Even when Weitzman was handed a 7.65 Mauser at the police department later that afternoon he did not describe the small stamping on the mauser....The first identifying characteristic he described in A1bert Sawyer's report was the MAGAZINE below the receiver and forward of the trigger guard.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2020, 06:46:47 PM
I didn't say that "they" didn't know what the rifles looked like beforehand. Weitzman had to have known something about a 7.65. Mauser, since he was the source of the ID. As for why he was so specific, I've covered this before, but I guess everyone forgot, or just didn't pay attention.

You "covered" it before with an invented "here's what could have happened" scenario.  Here's what also could have happened:  Boone Weitzman, and Craig described a 7.65 Mauser in detail because what they saw was a 7.65 Mauser.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2020, 06:48:04 PM
At any rate .... Boone based his statement ( affidavit) on Weitzman's pronouncement and NOT an actual visual observation.

Boone's affidavit says nothing about "Weitzman said 7.65 Mauser and I took his word for it".
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2020, 07:46:08 PM
Boone's affidavit says nothing about "Weitzman said 7.65 Mauser and I took his word for it".

Ok , Johnny (and any other numbskull that believes that  the rifle Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser, ) You can continue along in your ignorance while ignoring the blatantly obvious photographic evidence, that the rifle was a Model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano .... Far be it from me, to continue to try to help you extract your head.   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2020, 07:54:22 PM
Go figure that "Walt made up a story" isn't considered sufficient evidence.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Joffrey van de Wiel on April 08, 2020, 08:18:52 PM
You mean the two fragments that were allegedly found and removed by a secret service deputy and a navy corpsman before the FBI arrived to process the limo, and for which there is no documented chain of custody? The fragments that were so mutilated that Robert Frazier matched then up by lining up marks “in his mind” because they didn’t line up under the microscope? Those fragments? Is there any evidence that those fragments ever went through Kennedy or Connally?

I am referring to the pieces of evidence labeled Q1 (the stretcher bullet), Q2 and Q3 (the nose and tail of another bullet) by Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI/BuLAb. According to him, the chain of custody for these items was intact, as he told Counsel Specter during his examination.

One must be careful not to revert to the old "there's-no-proper-chain-of-custody" ploy too often. Q2 and Q3 were recovered by Federal Agents. Q1 was discovered on a stretcher by a civilian, who handed it over to another civilian. After that, the "pristine bullet" was in the possession of Federal Agents and transferred to BuLab. The two civilians are known by name. So the chain if custody is intact, as far as I can tell.

The only odd thing is that the two civilians did not recognize Q1/CE399 when it was shown to them in a later stage. I am sure there is a logical explanation, but haven't been able to find one yet. 

Quote
Supposedly the ARRB found an empty evidence envelope that was dated 2 December 1963 and indicating that it was a 7.65 mm shell found in Dealey Plaza.

Yes. A FBI envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122) dated 12/2/1963 was released in 1995 by the Assassinations Record Review Board. It had the following label: "7.65 shell found in Dealey Plaza on 12/02/1963. Determined of no value and destroyed."

This is intriuging as the Mauser supposedly found in the TSBD was of the same caliber. But the Bureau determined that the shell had "no value" and destroyed it. Why? Could it be that it had no relation to the assassination?

Quote
That is way overstated.  All NAA tells you is what concentrations of antimony were in the various fragments.

Please look at this video. In it, professor Ken Rahn, University of Rhode Island, Department of Atmospheric Chemistry explains why NAA is valuable in determining the origin of the lead fragments.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?183565-5/warren-report-lone-assassin-theory-part-2


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2020, 08:22:11 PM
Ok , Johnny (and any other numbskull that believes the rifle Weitzman and Boone discovered was a Mauser, ) You can continue along in your ignorance while ignoring the blatantly obvious photographic evidence, that the rifle was a Model 91 / 38 Mannlicher Carcano .... Far be it from me, to continue to try to help you extract your head.   

Still an idiot I see. Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser dumbass? Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

After submitting his sworn affidavit, Weitzman realized that the Mauser was not the same rifle captured on film and that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the rifle. Ding ding ding! That's the sound inside your head after you extract it from your dumbass. That was the moment that Weitzman KNEW he was dealing with a conspiracy and he had to do some serious backtracking. So it all became a misunderstanding. He must have been thinking about a Mauser that he was holding at some other time, some other day. So of course his story changed as did Craig's story. However, Craig took way more risk as a whistle blower than Weitzman did.

All you seem to know is that you are a self appointed expert who thinks he has positively identified that a Carcano was portrayed on the Alyea film. Even if you are right, you know jack shit re the sequence of the filming and whether Alyea was directed to film whatever Fritz allowed him to film or whether Fritz pulled a rifle switcheroo before Alyea filmed anything. Why did Fritz ask Craig and Weitzman to leave before the rifle "discovery" was filmed? You have no fricken idea how it all went down. So stop pretending like you do. No one is 100% certain about anything, especially YOU.

There might not have been a Mauser found on the 6th floor and Weitzman and Craig might have lied and/or been mistaken. But YOU sure as hell don't know that just because you think you can ID the Carcano on the Alyea film. You're worse than the WC defenders. At least they aren't quite as arrogant and insulting when they are FOS. Extract your head, sucker.



Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2020, 08:40:44 PM
Still an idiot I see. Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser dumbass? Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

After submitting his sworn affidavit, Weitzman realized that the Mauser was not the same rifle captured on film and that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the rifle. Ding ding ding! That's the sound inside your head after you extract it from your dumbass. That was the moment that Weitzman KNEW he was dealing with a conspiracy and he had to do some serious backtracking. So it all became a misunderstanding. He must have been thinking about a Mauser that he was holding at some other time, some other day. So of course his story changed as did Craig's story. However, Craig took way more risk as a whistle blower than Weitzman did.

All you seem to know is that you are a self appointed expert who thinks he has positively identified that a Carcano was portrayed on the Alyea film. Even if you are right, you know jack shit re the sequence of the filming and whether Alyea was directed to film whatever Fritz allowed him to film or whether Fritz pulled a rifle switcheroo before Alyea filmed anything. Why did Fritz ask Craig and Weitzman to leave before the rifle "discovery" was filmed? You have no fricken idea how it all went down. So stop pretending like you do. No one is 100% certain about anything, especially YOU.

There might not have been a Mauser found on the 6th floor and Weitzman and Craig might have lied and/or been mistaken. But YOU sure as hell don't know that just because you think you can ID the Carcano on the Alyea film. You're worse than the WC defenders. At least they aren't quite as arrogant and insulting when they are FOS. Extract your head, sucker.

Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

It exists only in your imagination .....

What bunch of imbeciles!!..... None is so blind as he who will not see......

Are you literate  enough to understand the testimony below?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he 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." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Mr. BALL - Did you touch it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I'm not sure what the lieutenant's name was, but I remember Captain Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2020, 09:05:48 PM
I am referring to the pieces of evidence labeled Q1 (the stretcher bullet), Q2 and Q3 (the nose and tail of another bullet) by Special Agent Robert A. Frazier of the FBI/BuLAb. According to him, the chain of custody for these items was intact, as he told Counsel Specter during his examination.

Frazier got them from Special Agent Orrin Bartlett.  How they got to Bartlett is not documented in any way by the people who allegedly found them, or Bartlett.

Quote
One must be careful not to revert to the old "there's-no-proper-chain-of-custody" ploy too often. Q2 and Q3 were recovered by Federal Agents.

Not true.  One of them was allegedly recovered by a Navy corpsman. What was he doing messing with a crime scene before the FBI arrived?

Quote
Q1 was discovered on a stretcher by a civilian, who handed it over to another civilian. After that, the "pristine bullet" was in the possession of Federal Agents and transferred to BuLab. The two civilians are known by name. So the chain if custody is intact, as far as I can tell.

The "another civilian" said that the bullet he handled was pointed.  But I'm not sure what difference it makes whether CE399 was really the bullet that Tomlinson found, since it doesn't in fact prove anything about the assassination.

Quote
Yes. A FBI envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122) dated 12/2/1963 was released in 1995 by the Assassinations Record Review Board. It had the following label: "7.65 shell found in Dealey Plaza on 12/02/1963. Determined of no value and destroyed."

This is intriuging as the Mauser supposedly found in the TSBD was of the same caliber. But the Bureau determined that the shell had "no value" and destroyed it. Why? Could it be that it had no relation to the assassination?

Why would the FBI ever destroy evidence found in Dealey Plaza only 10 days after the assassination.  Could it be because it didn't fit with the predetermined narrative?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2020, 10:43:35 PM
Still an idiot I see. Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser dumbass? Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

After submitting his sworn affidavit, Weitzman realized that the Mauser was not the same rifle captured on film and that the 6.5mm hulls did not match the rifle. Ding ding ding! That's the sound inside your head after you extract it from your dumbass. That was the moment that Weitzman KNEW he was dealing with a conspiracy and he had to do some serious backtracking. So it all became a misunderstanding. He must have been thinking about a Mauser that he was holding at some other time, some other day. So of course his story changed as did Craig's story. However, Craig took way more risk as a whistle blower than Weitzman did.

All you seem to know is that you are a self appointed expert who thinks he has positively identified that a Carcano was portrayed on the Alyea film. Even if you are right, you know jack shit re the sequence of the filming and whether Alyea was directed to film whatever Fritz allowed him to film or whether Fritz pulled a rifle switcheroo before Alyea filmed anything. Why did Fritz ask Craig and Weitzman to leave before the rifle "discovery" was filmed? You have no fricken idea how it all went down. So stop pretending like you do. No one is 100% certain about anything, especially YOU.

There might not have been a Mauser found on the 6th floor and Weitzman and Craig might have lied and/or been mistaken. But YOU sure as hell don't know that just because you think you can ID the Carcano on the Alyea film. You're worse than the WC defenders. At least they aren't quite as arrogant and insulting when they are FOS. Extract your head, sucker.

Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser

So you acknowledge that the Alyea flm shows that Day picked up a Mannlicher Carcano and many photos show Day carrying a Mannlicher Carcano from the building....Well that's a start.

Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman,
Who said that there was anybody with a video camera at the police station later that afternoon when Weitzman was summoned to be interviewed by FBI agent A1bert Sawyer.??    Do you have any evidence that Weitzman was filmed as he examined that 7.65 Mauser that Fritz had handed him?

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2020, 10:49:21 PM
Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman, him examining it and declaring it a Mauser, then Fritz taking it from him and asking him to go home?

It exists only in your imagination .....

What bunch of imbeciles!!..... None is so blind as he who will not see......

Are you literate  enough to understand the testimony below?
Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he 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." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Mr. BALL - Did you touch it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I'm not sure what the lieutenant's name was, but I remember Captain Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.

Did you not even read my post dumbass? Was this interview conducted before or after he realized this was a conspiracy? What would your testimony be if you did actually see a Mauser then realized you were being caught up in a conspiracy, besides crapping your pants?  You'd claim that you were the biggest dumbass on the planet for thinking it was a Mauser, let alone submitting a sworn affidavit to that effect. Are you suggesting that Weitzman's affidavit came AFTER his interview?

Do you finally get it? Didn't think so.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2020, 11:00:31 PM
Who is denying that the Alyea film doesn't show a Mauser

So you acknowledge that the Alyea flm shows that Day picked up a Mannlicher Carcano and many photos show Day carrying a Mannlicher Carcano from the building....Well that's a start.

Your problem is that's the ONLY thing you are focused on. This all stems from your superiority complex when it comes to rifles and your assumption that everyone else is a moron who wouldn't know a MC if it bit them in the arse. I don't recall anyone claiming the rifle shown in the Alyea film was a Mauser.

Quote
Where is the footage of Fritz handing the rifle to Weitzman,
Who said that there was anybody with a video camera at the police station later that afternoon when Weitzman was summoned to be interviewed by FBI agent A1bert Sawyer.??    Do you have any evidence that Weitzman was filmed as he examined that 7.65 Mauser that Fritz had handed him?

By the time Weitzman was interviewed he was singing a different tune. Getting caught up in a coup d'etat will do that to you.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 08, 2020, 11:07:13 PM
Did you not even read my post dumbass? Was this interview conducted before or after he realized this was a conspiracy? What would your testimony be if you did actually see a Mauser then realized you were being caught up in a conspiracy, besides crapping your pants?  You'd claim that you were the biggest dumbass on the planet for thinking it was a Mauser, let alone submitting a sworn affidavit to that effect. Are you suggesting that Weitzman's affidavit came AFTER his interview?

Do you finally get it? Didn't think so.

What would your testimony be if you did actually see a Mauser then realized you were being caught up in a conspiracy,

But Weitzman was very clear that  he caught only a glimpse of the rifle , ( and photos clearly show was a carcano)    Later he realized that he was mistaken in his initial assumption.   And I seriously doubt that Weitzman realized that he was caught up in a conspiracy as early as Friday ..... 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 08, 2020, 11:15:11 PM
What would your testimony be if you did actually see a Mauser then realized you were being caught up in a conspiracy,

But Weitzman was very clear that  he caught only a glimpse of the rifle , ( and photos clearly show was a carcano)    Later he realized that he was mistaken in his initial assumption.   And I seriously doubt that Weitzman realized that he was caught up in a conspiracy as early as Friday .....

But Weitzman was very clear that  he caught only a glimpse of the rifle

Backtracking.

Later he realized that he was mistaken in his initial assumption.

Mistaken? Right.

And I seriously doubt that Weitzman realized that he was caught up in a conspiracy as early as Friday .....

Of course you're 100% certain....based on....his backtracking.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 08, 2020, 11:33:40 PM
But Weitzman was very clear that  he caught only a glimpse of the rifle ,

And his detailed description belies that claim.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 12:05:08 AM
But Weitzman was very clear that  he caught only a glimpse of the rifle

Backtracking.

Later he realized that he was mistaken in his initial assumption.

Mistaken? Right.

And I seriously doubt that Weitzman realized that he was caught up in a conspiracy as early as Friday .....

Of course you're 100% certain....based on....his backtracking.

Who?? Who?   Thought that the ambush murder was a conspiracy by sundown on Friday?  Can you name one person?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 12:28:19 AM
And his detailed description belies that claim.

his detailed description belies that claim.

That detailed description is from FBI agent A1bert Sawyer's report  which Weitzman gave later that afternoon.....Since Sawyer worked out of the Houston FBI office, I'm not sure that FBI agent Sawyer was in Dallas when Weitzman left the TSBD after seeing Detective Day pick up the rifle from the floor.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 12:43:14 AM
"The second requires that you have someone who not only knows the difference between the two rifles, and is in a position to be able to clearly see said markings"

If the markings on the rifle are observable why do they need to know the difference? They brought their own lights to do the search so visibility wouldn't have been a problem.
Who said they would have been observable under the circumstances? More importantly, who said they observed said markings? No one.

"Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like?"

You tell me. It's only an issue if you're a WC apologist and need Boone and Weitzman to misidentify the TSBD Carcano as a Mauser to explain the affidavit and investigation reports they filed saying they found a mauser.
The model '91 comes up because it looks the most like the Carcano and they would have to have some knowledge of it to mistake one for the other.
You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things. Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 09, 2020, 01:54:04 AM
Who said they would have been observable under the circumstances? More importantly, who said they observed said markings? No one.

quote author=Gary Craig link=topic=2433.msg81878#msg81878 date=1586358163]
"Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like?"

You tell me. It's only an issue if you're a WC apologist and need Boone and Weitzman to misidentify the TSBD Carcano as a Mauser to explain the affidavit and investigation reports they filed saying they found a mauser.
The model '91 comes up because it looks the most like the Carcano and they would have to have some knowledge of it to mistake one for the other.

You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things. Good luck with that.

"You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things."

You got it wrong. I'm not claiming they found/saw a Argentine Mauser. The Argentine Mauser is only interjected into the conversation because it's the 7.65 Mauser that looks the most like the Carcano. Legitimizes the concept of misidentification.

My point is if, as WC apologists contend, Boone and Weitzman mistook the Carcano for a Argentine Mauser they would need to have been familiar enough with it to mistake one for the other. If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.

IMO The '91 Argentine 7.65 Mauser is a smoke screen. Part of the cover-up. A sleight of hand trick. Make one Mauser appear and
another disappear.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 02:06:06 AM
"You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things."

You got it wrong. I'm not claiming they found/saw a Argentine Mauser. The Argentine Mauser is only interjected into the conversation because it's the 7.65 Mauser that looks the most like the Carcano. Legitimizes the concept of misidentification.

My point is if, as WC apologists contend, Boone and Weitzman mistook the Carcano for a Argentine Mauser they would need to have been familiar enough with it to mistake one for the other. If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.

IMO The '91 Argentine 7.65 Mauser is a smoke screen. Part of the cover-up. A sleight of hand trick. Make one Mauser appear and
another disappear.

 If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.


The ONE prominent characteristic that is common to both the carcano and the mauser is the unusual magazine , which is located beneathe the receiver and forward of the trigger guard.     THAT"s what Seymour Weitzman saw ai a glance and THAT's what caused him to think the rifle was a mauser.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 02:21:49 AM
The ONE prominent characteristic that is common to both the carcano and the mauser is the unusual magazine , which is located beneathe the receiver and forward of the trigger guard.     THAT"s what Seymour Weitzman saw ai a glance and THAT's what caused him to think the rifle was a mauser.....

What about the 5-shot clip?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 03:15:56 AM
What about the 5-shot clip?
How did Weitzman know how many rounds it held? Was it:
a) Once he decided it was a Mauser, said it was 5 because Mausers hold 5 rounds?
b) happened to be carrying several rounds of Mauser ammo, and started loading them into the weapon just to see how many fit?
c) picked up the rifle and unloaded five rounds from the magazine?

If you want to argue b) or c), you'd better have a damn good reason to claim either.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 03:18:45 AM
You "covered" it before with an invented "here's what could have happened" scenario.  Here's what also could have happened:  Boone Weitzman, and Craig described a 7.65 Mauser in detail because what they saw was a 7.65 Mauser.
James Young only said that the bullet was delivered to Bethesda by a corpsman in an envelope. He didn't say that it was recovered or discovered by the corpsman. 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 04:05:30 AM
"You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things."
You got it wrong. I'm not claiming they found/saw a Argentine Mauser. The Argentine Mauser is only interjected into the conversation because it's the 7.65 Mauser that looks the most like the Carcano. Legitimizes the concept of misidentification.

My point is if, as WC apologists contend, Boone and Weitzman mistook the Carcano for a Argentine Mauser they would need to have been familiar enough with it to mistake one for the other. If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.

IMO The '91 Argentine 7.65 Mauser is a smoke screen. Part of the cover-up. A sleight of hand trick. Make one Mauser appear and
another disappear.
1.) The prominent identifying characteristic on a model 89/90/91 is the magazine. If you've studied enough, you can pick out one on these rifles from 50 feet away based solely on magazine.
2.) Accurate identification using the magazine requires a certain level of knowledge of the model 89/90/91, as well as a certain level of knowledge of the design of other single-stack magazine rifles.
3.) If you have some knowledge, but not enough, you're prone to making mistakes.
4.) The rifle that most resembles the Carcano isn't a Mauser '91, it's a Gew88, which isn't a coincidence, BTW. OK, maybe a Mannlicher M1893.


 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 09, 2020, 04:45:07 AM
1.) The prominent identifying characteristic on a model 89/90/91 is the magazine. If you've studied enough, you can pick out one on these rifles from 50 feet away based solely on magazine.
2.) Accurate identification using the magazine requires a certain level of knowledge of the model 89/90/91, as well as a certain level of knowledge of the design of other single-stack magazine rifles.
3.) If you have some knowledge, but not enough, you're prone to making mistakes.
4.) The rifle that most resembles the Carcano isn't a Mauser '91, it's a Gew88, which isn't a coincidence, BTW. OK, maybe a Mannlicher M1893.

Sure, but who would take a "glance" at a rifle and make up all that crap, even if he did know the caliber of a Mauser and how many bullets the clip held?  Especially for a sworn affidavit pertaining to the assassination of the POTUS! No one would do that. Weitzman was obviously pressured into recanting his sworn testimony and concede that he only glanced at the rifle and guessed it was a Mauser. Sure, his affidavit was a guesstimate. Only a LNer believes that.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 05:03:07 AM
Sure, but who would take a "glance" at a rifle and make up all that crap, even if he did know the caliber of a Mauser and how many bullets the clip held?  Especially for a sworn affidavit pertaining to the assassination of the POTUS! No one would do that. Weitzman was obviously pressured into recanting his sworn testimony and concede that he only glanced at the rifle and guessed it was a Mauser. Sure, his affidavit was a guesstimate. Only a LNer believes that.
Who said he made up any of it? That's what he honestly thought at the time. But just because he honestly thought so doesn't mean he was right. People do that all the time. The rest is just a bunch of your patented baseless assertions.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 09, 2020, 05:11:53 AM
Who said he made up any of it? That's what he honestly thought at the time. But just because he honestly thought so doesn't mean he was right. People do that all the time. The rest is just a bunch of your patented baseless assertions.

Why do you think Weitzman pretended like he knew what the rifle was, at a glance? This was a pretty important event to just "wing it", don't you think?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 05:45:38 AM
Why do you think Weitzman pretended like he knew what the rifle was, at a glance? This was a pretty important event to just "wing it", don't you think?
When did I ever say Weitzman pretended anything? 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 09, 2020, 05:59:12 AM
When did I ever way Weitzman pretended anything?

I never said you claimed anything, I asked you a question. Why do you think Weitzman pretended he knew the rifle was a Mauser, conjured up specific details about it, at a glance, and swear by it?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 06:06:14 AM
I never said you claimed anything, I asked you a question. Why do you think Weitzman pretended he knew the rifle was a Mauser, conjured up specific details about it, at a glance, and swear by it?
Your question presupposes that either I've said Weitzman pretended whatever, or that I think that Weitzman pretended whatever. Both presumptions are the result of your own cognitive disfunctions.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 07:52:48 AM
How did Weitzman know how many rounds it held? Was it:
a) Once he decided it was a Mauser, said it was 5 because Mausers hold 5 rounds?
b) happened to be carrying several rounds of Mauser ammo, and started loading them into the weapon just to see how many fit?
c) picked up the rifle and unloaded five rounds from the magazine?

If you want to argue b) or c), you'd better have a damn good reason to claim either.

Seriously, Mitch? You have to load/unload a clip to see how many bullets it holds?

You don’t have to have a damn good reason to argue A? Weitzman never said he was just assuming that the rifle had a 5 shot clip. I thought you claimed he didn’t know anything about rifles.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 07:53:59 AM
James Young only said that the bullet was delivered to Bethesda by a corpsman in an envelope. He didn't say that it was recovered or discovered by the corpsman.

Huh? What does that have to do with the Mauser?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 04:06:07 PM
What about the 5-shot clip?

Please show me where there is any mention of the number of cartridges the rifle could hold PRIOR to Weitzman's late Friday afternoon interview with FBI agent Sawyer.

Show me where anybody said anything about the cartridge capacity of the rifle prior to Sawyers interview of Seymour Weitzman.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 04:34:44 PM
Please show me where there is any mention of the number of cartridges the rifle could hold PRIOR to Weitzman's late Friday afternoon interview with FBI agent Sawyer.

It's Sayers.  Please show me anything that says this interview took place "late Friday afternoon".
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 05:19:59 PM
It's Sayers.  Please show me anything that says this interview took place "late Friday afternoon".

John, I asked:....Please show me where there is any mention of the number of cartridges the rifle could hold PRIOR to Weitzman's late Friday afternoon interview with FBI agent Sawyer.    So WHY would you reply ....It's Sayers.   Do you know what "prior " means?

Please show me anything that says this interview took place "late Friday afternoon".

Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he 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." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Mr. BALL - Did you touch it?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I'm not sure what the lieutenant's name was, but I remember Captain Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.
Mr. BALL - What did you do after that?
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, I returned to my office and I was called down to the city that afternoon later to make a statement on what I had seen.

  After Weitzman saw Fritz eject the live "6.5mm carc" cartridge from the CARCANO at about 2:00pm in the TSBD , he returned to his office and I was called down to the city later that afternoon  to make a statement  ( for FBI agent A1bert Sawyers ) on what I had seen.  LATER THAT AFTERNOON.... We know that Weitzman left the TSBD somewhere around 2:15 pm ...so LATER that afternoon would probably be at least a couple of hours after he left the TSBD.

Weitzman could also have said :  "At that interview I was  handed a 7.65 Mauser and asked to describe it, which I did."   I don't know where this 7.65 Mauser came from or why I was asked to describe it"   But Captain Fritz came and took the Mauser from me and I saw him eject a cartridge from the rifle. "   



Mr. BALL - Would you mind making a mark there with a pen? That is on F. Draw on Exhibit F, draw an arrow. The arrow in ink on F shows the location?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Down on the floor.
Mr. BALL - Shows the location of the gun on the floor?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.


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.


Weitzman has to be referring to the "GLANCE" that he got of the carcano at the TSBD when Detective Day picked the carcano UP OFF THE FLOOR.

Weitzman can't be referring to the interview by Sawyer in the above reply, because the detailed description in Sawyer's report reveals that he most certainly got far more than a "GLANCE" at the rifle that Captain Fritz took from him at the police station.

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.

When he was at the TSBD

Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 05:44:24 PM
John, I asked:....Please show me where there is any mention of the number of cartridges the rifle could hold PRIOR to Weitzman's late Friday afternoon interview with FBI agent Sawyer.    So WHY would you reply ....It's Sayers.

Because for some reason, you keep calling him "Sawyer".

Sayers' report says November 23.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 09, 2020, 05:56:34 PM
The evolving FBI reports

special agent
Brian Sayers
11/23/63

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)

special agent
Raymond M. Lester
11/24/63

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi2a.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi3a.png)

special agent
Vincent E. Drain
9/10/64

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi4a.png)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 06:02:10 PM
Because for some reason, you keep calling him "Sawyer".

Sayers' report says November 23.

That's an insipid dodge, John......    Simply because Sayer's report is dated 11/23/63 does NOT mean the interview took place on Saturday  11/23/63.

And Weitzman himself said that he was called to the Police department later that Friday afternoon......   So he interview took place on Friday 11/22/63 and Sayer's typed up the report on Saturday  11/23/63.   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 06:09:22 PM
The way the FD-302s worked is that the date at the bottom next to the word "on" was the date that the interview actually occurred.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 06:21:00 PM
The evolving FBI reports

special agent
Brian Sayers
11/23/63

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)

special agent
Raymond M. Lester
11/24/63

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi2a.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi3a.png)

special agent
Vincent E. Drain
9/10/64

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi4a.png)

Ok So you've presented three reports.... What is your conclusion about the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered?  Do you believe the rifle was a Mauser?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 09, 2020, 06:27:07 PM
That's an insipid dodge, John......    Simply because Sayer's report is dated 11/23/63 does NOT mean the interview took place on Saturday  11/23/63.

And Weitzman himself said that he was called to the Police department later that Friday afternoon......   So he interview took place on Friday 11/22/63 and Sayer's typed up the report on Saturday  11/23/63.   

So are you claiming that Weitzman gave his interview on the 22nd and submitted a sworn affidavit on the 23rd that completely undermined his testimony??? You'ld rather go this route than admit you might be mistaken, like Weitzman?  ;D
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 06:35:29 PM
The way the FD-302s worked is that the date at the bottom next to the word "on" was the date that the interview actually occurred.

No, I don't believe that is correct, and I think you are mistaken.... The date the report was written is right at the top of the report.

Sayer's certainly didn't write the report as he was interviewing Weitzman.   He jotted down notes as he interviewed Weitzman on 11 /22/63 ....AND I suspect he read Weitzman's affidavit and THAT may be the reason his report is so confusing.  He incorporated information from Weitzman's affidavit with information he received from his interview and he made a mess of the info.


Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 06:37:48 PM
So are you claiming that Weitzman gave his interview on the 22nd and submitted a sworn affidavit on the 23rd that completely undermined his testimony??? You'ld rather go this route than admit you might be mistaken, like Weitzman?  ;D

Post the affidavit for the 23rd.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 09, 2020, 06:45:07 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-0013.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 07:08:23 PM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzman20hand20written.jpg)

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-0013.jpg)

Very interesting, Gary..... This hand written document says YESTERDAY  November 22nd.....And Then later describes a rifle that Weitzman assumes was the same rifle that he had caught a glimpse of at about 2:00  pm on 11/22/63....  But Late on 11/22/63 Weitzman had been given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for FBI agent Sayer.   Do you see the problem?     Between 2:00pm on 11/22/63 and sometime on 11/23 /63 Weitzman was given a 7.65 mauser....Which he must have assumed was the rifle that he and Boone had discovered in the TSBD.   We know that a mauser was NOT the rifle they discovered but "someone" wanted Weitzman to believe that the rifle he examined and described was the carcano that had been found.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 07:19:03 PM
Very interesting, Gary..... This hand written document says YESTERDAY  November 22nd.....And Then later describes a rifle that Weitzman assumes was the same rifle that he had caught a glimpse of at about 2:00  pm on 11/22/63....  But Late on 11/22/63 Weitzman had been given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for FBI agent Sayer.   Do you see the problem?     Between 2:00pm on 11/22/63 and sometime on 11/23 /63 Weitzman was given a 7.65 mauser....Which he must have assumed was the rifle that he and Boone had discovered in the TSBD.   We know that a mauser was NOT the rifle they discovered but "someone" wanted Weitzman to believe that the rifle he examined and described was the carcano that had been found.


That "someone" had to have been Captain Fritz.....  What the hell was Fritz trying to pull??   
He apparently handed Weitzman a 7.65 Mauser to examine and described for FBI agent Sayer......

Where the hell did Fritz get this Mauser?     I believe that the mauser had been recovered at the TSBD ( Caster's rifle?) and Fritz who was a bit senile became confused and thought it was the same rifle ( the carcano)  that he and Day had examined at about 2:00 pm 11/22/63

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 09, 2020, 07:20:44 PM
Very interesting, Gary..... This hand written document says YESTERDAY  November 22nd.....And Then later describes a rifle that Weitzman assumes was the same rifle that he had caught a glimpse of at about 2:00  pm on 11/22/63....  But Late on 11/22/63 Weitzman had been given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for FBI agent Sayer.   Do you see the problem?     Between 2:00pm on 11/22/63 and sometime on 11/23 /63 Weitzman was given a 7.65 mauser....Which he must have assumed was the rifle that he and Boone had discovered in the TSBD.   We know that a mauser was NOT the rifle they discovered but "someone" wanted Weitzman to believe that the rifle he examined and described was the carcano that had been found.
"But Late on 11/22/63 Weitzman had been given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for FBI agent Sayer."

You just made that up. Sayer's report doesn't say anything about Weitzman being given a Mauser to examine. It says he and Boone found a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD at about 1:22pm on 11/22/63.

"We know that a mauser was NOT the rifle they discovered but "someone" wanted Weitzman to believe that the rifle he examined and described was the carcano that had been found."

I don't know who "we" is but I do know you just made up more BS.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 07:39:11 PM
"But Late on 11/22/63 Weitzman had been given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for FBI agent Sayer."

You just made that up. Sayer's report doesn't say anything about Weitzman being given a Mauser to examine. It says he and Boone found a 7.65 Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD at about 1:22pm on 11/22/63.

"We know that a mauser was NOT the rifle they discovered but "someone" wanted Weitzman to believe that the rifle he examined and described was the carcano that had been found."

I don't know who "we" is but I do know you just made up more BS.

Well If Weitzman wasn't given a 7.65 Mauser to examine and describe ....Then why the hell did FBI agent Sayer say that "Capt Ftitz appeared and took the mauser from Weitzman.

1/23/63[/b]
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 07:39:24 PM
Very interesting, Gary..... This hand written document says YESTERDAY  November 22nd.....And Then later describes a rifle that Weitzman assumes was the same rifle that he had caught a glimpse of at about 2:00  pm on 11/22/63....  But Late on 11/22/63 Weitzman had been given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for FBI agent Sayer.   Do you see the problem?

Yes, the problem is that you completely made up the story about Weitzman being given a 7.65 Mauser to examine late on 11/22/63.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 07:47:35 PM
Yes, the problem is that you completely made up the story about Weitzman being given a 7.65 Mauser to examine late on 11/22/63.

I did??....  I made this up??

After he had observed THIS RIFLE to the extent described above Captain Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 07:57:57 PM
I did??....  I made this up??

After he had observed THIS RIFLE to the extent described above Captain Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him.

Yeah, where does it say "later at the police station"?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 08:02:45 PM
Yeah, where does it say "later at the police station"?

Ok ....You tell me what you think  Weitzman meant when he said that he was summoned to the police station LATER that afternoon for in interview.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 08:16:42 PM
He's probably thinking of his 11/23 affidavit, because Ball goes on to say "In this statement, it says Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber", which appears word for word in that affidavit.

The Sayers interview is not a "statement".
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 09:18:34 PM
He's probably thinking of his 11/23 affidavit, because Ball goes on to say "In this statement, it says Captain Fritz took charge of the rifle and ejected one live round from the chamber", which appears word for word in that affidavit.

The Sayers interview is not a "statement".

After he had observed THIS RIFLE to the extent described above Captain Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him.

Perhaps I can make this a little easier for you.....  WHEN do you think that Captain Fritz "Appeared and took the" mauser from Weitzman?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 09:25:37 PM
After he had observed THIS RIFLE to the extent described above Captain Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him.

Perhaps I can make this a little easier for you.....  WHEN do you think that Captain Fritz "Appeared and took the" mauser from Weitzman?

I don't know, but I don't see any evidence that his happened later that afternoon at the police station.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 09:37:28 PM
I don't know, but I don't see any evidence that his happened later that afternoon at the police station.

Oh c'mon John.....  What do think Weitzman meant when he said he went to the police station later that afternoon?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 09, 2020, 09:56:27 PM
I think he meant what he said:  that he was called down to make a statement on what he had seen.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 09, 2020, 10:29:35 PM
I think he meant what he said:  that he was called down to make a statement on what he had seen.

You left off the part where Weitzman said that he was called down LATER THAT AFTERNOON.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 11:36:38 PM
You "covered" it before with an invented "here's what could have happened" scenario.  Here's what also could have happened:  Boone Weitzman, and Craig described a 7.65 Mauser in detail because what they saw was a 7.65 Mauser.
You can call it what you want, but my "invention" explains the situation of the rifle's ID without having to add assumptions. Your path requires the insertion of a second rifle and/or a big coverup.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 11:43:21 PM
Seriously, Mitch? You have to load/unload a clip to see how many bullets it holds?

You don’t have to have a damn good reason to argue A? Weitzman never said he was just assuming that the rifle had a 5 shot clip. I thought you claimed he didn’t know anything about rifles.
Unless the "clip" has witness holes, has some kind of window, or is transparent, the only way to determine it's capacity firsthand is to loading cartridges (not just bullets) into the thing until it's full. If you have another method, you're free to tell us all about it. Actually, I kinda figure that you would have by now. 

And, I never said that Weitzman "didn’t know anything about rifles." I've maintained that he knew just enough about a particular rifle, and not enough about others, to make a mistake.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 09, 2020, 11:45:48 PM
Huh? What does that have to do with the Mauser?
You're the guy who brought up Young's story about the corpsman in this thread, so its up to you to explain it's relevancy.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 12:17:59 AM
You can call it what you want, but my "invention" explains the situation of the rifle's ID without having to add assumptions.

You're kidding, right?  Your explanation is one giant assumption.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 12:20:01 AM
Unless the "clip" has witness holes, has some kind of window, or is transparent, the only way to determine it's capacity firsthand is to loading cartridges (not just bullets) into the thing until it's full. If you have another method, you're free to tell us all about it. Actually, I kinda figure that you would have by now.

So maybe the clip that Weitzman described had a window.  Your explanation is that he didn't see a clip at all, but just assumed it into existence.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 12:26:07 AM
You're the guy who brought up Young's story about the corpsman in this thread, so its up to you to explain it's relevancy.

When did I do that?  And who's Young?

And why did you quote my post that had nothing to do with a a corpsman in order to make this response?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/mitch-huh.png)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 12:32:13 AM
So maybe the clip that Weitzman described had a window.  Your explanation is that he didn't see a clip at all, but just assumed it into existence.

Weitzman was speaking from familiarity  with the 7.65 Mauser.......He knew that the Argentine mauser had a five shot clip that locked forward of the trigger guard....He knew that Just as well as you might know that your car holds 24 gallons of gas....... 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 10, 2020, 12:35:28 AM
You're kidding, right?  Your explanation is one giant assumption.
What giant assumption is that?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 10, 2020, 12:37:04 AM
So maybe the clip that Weitzman described had a window.  Your explanation is that he didn't see a clip at all, but just assumed it into existence.
If it had a window, then the rifle wasn't a Mauser.

Unless you're talking about an en bloc clip. Then the rifle would also not be a Mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 10, 2020, 12:43:33 AM
When did I do that?  And who's Young?

And why did you quote my post that had nothing to do with a a corpsman in order to make this response?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/mitch-huh.png)

I guess that's what I get for juggling quotes. I was trying to reply this:

Not true.  One of them was allegedly recovered by a Navy corpsman. What was he doing messing with a crime scene before the FBI arrived?

The source for that was a Dr James Young who was one of the white house physicians. But, as I've said, he didn't say that the corpsman found the fragment, just that the corpsman showed up at Bethesda with it and three skull fragments in an envelope.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 12:47:35 AM
Weitzman was speaking from familiarity  with the 7.65 Mauser.......He knew that the Argentine mauser had a five shot clip that locked forward of the trigger guard....He knew that Just as well as you might know that your car holds 24 gallons of gas.......

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?  He was telling Sayers what he saw, not giving him a lesson on Mauser design.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 12:48:09 AM
If it had a window, then the rifle wasn't a Mauser.

Unless you're talking about an en bloc clip. Then the rifle would also not be a Mauser.

Weitzman knows what he saw better than you do.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 10, 2020, 12:54:59 AM
Weitzman knows what he saw better than you do.
He knows what he saw better than you do, too.

And he said he was wrong about the "Mauser."
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 01:01:16 AM
I guess that's what I get for juggling quotes. I was trying to reply this:

The source for that was a Dr James Young who was one of the white house physicians. But, as I've said, he didn't say that the corpsman found the fragment, just that the corpsman showed up at Bethesda with it and three skull fragments in an envelope.

I don't know about that.  I've never heard of James Young.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0216a.gif)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 01:11:25 AM
Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?  He was telling Sayers what he saw, not giving him a lesson on Mauser design.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.....  I don't know who else is using commonsense.....But It obvious to me that Weitznan was familiar with the 7.65 mauser....  Afterall he caught a glimpse of the magazine on the carcano and assumed that the carcano was a mauser. 

 And when he was given a mauser to examine and describe LATER that afternoon at the police department he started by reciting what he knew about the mauser....Thus  Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Why can't you see this John?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 10, 2020, 01:18:49 AM
I don't know about that.  I've never heard of James Young.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0216a.gif)
Interesting. That was a new one for me. This is from Young's account to Herman and Sobocinski:

"[Young reading from a manuscript that he'd written about the events of 11/22:] 'I thought on the way home I would stop and offer my assistance to Doctor Burkley at Bethesda and see if I could get him to get some rest. This was obviously to no avail. Upon meeting him we were joined by Chief Hendrix [a corpsman who'd accompanied Burkley on the Texas trip] who had just happened to go to the hospital as well. We shortly were joined by Chiefs Mills and Martinell [corpsmen on the White house detail] who had brought an envelope to Bethesda which contained material removed from the convertible which they had been requested to obtain' This I'm going to put in parenthetically. This is not written. Doctor Burkley and I had requested them, at the request of Doctor Humes, to go down to the White House after three or four hours at the autopsy room. And Humes had said that he was missing some bones from the President's skull. And he wondered whether there might be some pieces left in the back of the Queen Mary and that he would like to get those pieces and bring them back to Bethesda so he could reconstruct the head"

As an addendum, if Mills identified that the C2 fragment as the one he recovered, then there isn't a problem with chain of possession.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 10, 2020, 02:38:41 AM
Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.....  I don't know who else is using commonsense.....But It obvious to me that Weitznan was familiar with the 7.65 mauser....  Afterall he caught a glimpse of the magazine on the carcano and assumed that the carcano was a mauser. 

 And when he was given a mauser to examine and describe LATER that afternoon at the police department he started by reciting what he knew about the mauser....Thus  Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Why can't you see this John?

Why can't you just admit that you can't be 100% certain of anything? Your stubbornness and bias is no different than the LNers. If you had not committed yourself to this scenario and calling everyone a moron that doesn't buy into it, you'd be all over the LNers for denying there was a Mauser. You even admitted that Fritz handed Weitzman a Mauser for cripe sakes!  :D But you just can't admit to being wrong, and to hell with logic and critical thinking. Pride falleth before the man.

Answer the question, was Weitzman interviewed before or after he submitted his affidavit? If you can't answer then you're done. If it was after then he was recanting his story because he got alerted to the conspiracy. If it was before, then Houston we have a problem. It wouldn't be a matter of being mistaken, it would be insanity to go on record undermining your own testimony and blow the whistle. This meant the interview had to come after the affidavit for your flimsy "mistaken" excuse to apply. Then Weitzman had to confuse the MC with the Mauser that Fritz showed him, which is BS.

And lastly, if you actually believe that Fritz might have showed Weitzman a Mauser at the police station, then why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor, then recanted his testimony once he realized he was caught up in a coup d'etat? The fact that there WAS a Mauser at all should give you pause. Use some common sense for a change and stop accusing others of not having any. It makes you look even more foolish.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 04:33:52 AM
He knows what he saw better than you do, too.

Yep and he described a rifle in detail that didn’t match a Carcano, despite your attempts to spin his statement into a Mauser owner’s manual.

Quote
And he said he was wrong about the "Mauser."

Yes he did. His detailed description didn’t match the narrative.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 04:40:56 AM
Interesting. That was a new one for me. This is from Young's account to Herman and Sobocinski:

That’s interesting to me as well because it conflicts with Frazier’s version of how those fragments got from the limo to him.

Quote
As an addendum, if Mills identified that the C2 fragment as the one he recovered, then there isn't a problem with chain of possession.

It doesn’t say what the identification was based on though. And I don’t recall Bartlett identifying them.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 10, 2020, 07:13:36 AM
Yep and he described a rifle in detail that didn’t match a Carcano, despite your attempts to spin his statement into a Mauser owner’s manual.

Yes he did. His detailed description didn’t match the narrative.
What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

So lets go back to the description of the rifle as it appears in Sayers' report:

a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,
All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.
As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano. Weitzman says he didn't touch the rifle or look into it's workings, and his other statements about its discovery either imply that he didn't or at least do not contradict that idea. Therefore, it's safe to say that he didn't see an en block clip, which would require handling the rifle, or at least getting a very close look at the open end of the magazine. This leaves the interpretation of "clip" as "magazine." Both the Model 91 Mauser and the Carcano had magazines that fit Weitzman's description. In fact, the magazines on both rifles are very conspicuously located under the receiver forward of the trigger in a way that later Mauser rifles lack as do their derivatives and evolutions (Springfield M1906, Enfield P13/P14/M1917, Winchester models 54 and 70, Ruger M77, Remington Model 30, et al)   

As for the five shot part, we just went thought that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in. The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic. The box-magazine Mausers generally hold 5 rounds. At least, I can't think of an exception among them off the top of my head.

The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue and
A gun who metal parts are gun metal colored, you say? Imagine that!

the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.
Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.
Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.
As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling
And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser. The "five shot" doesn't do it for you, because you can't show that he knew that the rifle's magazine held five rounds directly from observing it.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 02:39:04 PM
Why can't you just admit that you can't be 100% certain of anything? Your stubbornness and bias is no different than the LNers. If you had not committed yourself to this scenario and calling everyone a moron that doesn't buy into it, you'd be all over the LNers for denying there was a Mauser. You even admitted that Fritz handed Weitzman a Mauser for cripe sakes!  :D But you just can't admit to being wrong, and to hell with logic and critical thinking. Pride falleth before the man.

Answer the question, was Weitzman interviewed before or after he submitted his affidavit? If you can't answer then you're done. If it was after then he was recanting his story because he got alerted to the conspiracy. If it was before, then Houston we have a problem. It wouldn't be a matter of being mistaken, it would be insanity to go on record undermining your own testimony and blow the whistle. This meant the interview had to come after the affidavit for your flimsy "mistaken" excuse to apply. Then Weitzman had to confuse the MC with the Mauser that Fritz showed him, which is BS.

And lastly, if you actually believe that Fritz might have showed Weitzman a Mauser at the police station, then why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor, then recanted his testimony once he realized he was caught up in a coup d'etat? The fact that there WAS a Mauser at all should give you pause. Use some common sense for a change and stop accusing others of not having any. It makes you look even more foolish.

 was Weitzman interviewed before or after he submitted his affidavit?

Commonsense would dictate that Weitzman and Boone would have been told to submit an affidavit as soon as they got back to the office after leaving the TSBD.  And I suspect that FBI Agent A1bert Sayer had a copy of Weitzman's affidavit when he interviewed Weitzman late Friday afternoon.  ( Police use affidavits all the time when interviewing a person, because an affidavit provides a basis that they can work from.



if you actually believe that Fritz might have showed Weitzman a Mauser at the police station, then why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor,


Of course I believe that Weitzman was given a 7.65 Mauser and asked to describe it for the record.....I would not say it if I didn't believe it, what kind of nonsense would that be?..... Is that something that you would do?

why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor,

So you think I shouldn't believe my eyes??......  I've seen Tom Alyea's film.......

If it was after then he was recanting his story because he got alerted to the conspiracy

Weitzman is on record as saying he was mistaken ....He said that he only caught a quick glance at the rifle when Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR and he thought the rifle appeared to be a 7.65 mauser.      Do you really believe that there was any talk of a conspiracy just a couple of hours after the coup d e'tat?

Weitzman said that he caught a glance at the rifle when Detective Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR and thought it was a mauser.  The very detailed description of the mauser in Sayers report is NOT something that anybody could give with only a quick glimpse of the rifle.   I'm convinced that Weitzman had a 7.65 mauser in his hands, and provided Sayers with the very detailed description for his report. 

 It's very clear that you have an agenda that requires the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered to be a mauser......  Unfortunately, for you,  Tom Alyea's film reveals quite clearly that the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 05:16:46 PM
What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

What I know is completely irrelevant.  Weitzman said he saw a Mauser with a 5 shot clip.  It's not my job to explain how he determined that, just as it's not your job to decide that he didn't really see what he claimed to see.

Quote
a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,
All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

Bull.  You can't determine the caliber of a rifle by glancing at its trigger guard.

Quote
which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.
As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano.

That also doesn't matter.  You don't know what Weitzman knew or didn't know about the design of the Mauser.  He's describing what he saw, not what he knows about how Mausers are built.

What's the point of mentioning a 5-shot clip that he never really saw?

Quote
As for the five shot part, we just went thought that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

Then take it up with Weitzman.  He's the one who said the rifle he examined had a 5-shot clip.

Quote
The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic.

They didn't ask him how many rounds a Mauser holds.  They asked him to describe what he saw.

Quote
the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.
Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Quote
The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.
Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

Show me the dark brown rough damaged wood on CE139.

Quote
The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.
As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

The fact remains that CE139 is stamped "Made in Italy" and "6.5".  You don't just get to decide what Weitzman could see easily and what he could not.

Quote
It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling
And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

Quote
In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser.

There's nothing in Weitzman's detailed description that would prove that he saw CE139.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 05:19:18 PM
So you think I shouldn't believe my eyes??......  I've seen Tom Alyea's film.......

Maybe because the Alyea film isn't the be all and end all of everything that happened on the 6th floor that day?

Quote
Weitzman is on record as saying he was mistaken ....

So is Brennan.  But you don't just take his word for it.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 05:50:24 PM
Maybe because the Alyea film isn't the be all and end all of everything that happened on the 6th floor that day?

So is Brennan.  But you don't just take his word for it.

Maybe because the Alyea film isn't the be all and end all of everything that happened on the 6th floor that day?

That's true...And I've never said that it is the be all and end all of everything that happened on the sixth floor that day......But it is solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered definitely was a Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.   And Alyea's film is supported by the photos that were taken as Day left the TSBD carrying a Mannlicher Carcano.

If your suggesting that a mauser was found there on the sixth floor, can you provide one scintilla of solid evidence to support that idea


So is Brennan.  But you don't just take his word for it.

HUH??    I have no idea what you're referring to.....   Brennan wasn't even in the TSBD....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 05:55:20 PM
That's true...And I've never said that it is the be all and end all of everything that happened on the sixth floor that day......But it is solid photographic evidence that the rifle that Boone and Weitzman discovered definitely was a Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

I'm still waiting for you to point out Boone and Weitzman in the Alyea footage.

Quote
If your suggesting that a mauser was found there on the sixth floor, can you provide one scintilla of solid evidence to support that idea

Statements from 3 deputies who all said they saw a Mauser.  That's evidence.


Quote
So is Brennan.  But you don't just take his word for it.

HUH??    I have no idea what you're referring to.....   Brennan wasn't even in the TSBD....

You make a point of Weitzman retracting his original statement to discredit his original statement, but Brennan also retracted his original statement that he could not make an identification in the lineup.  Do you believe Brennan's retraction?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 06:11:43 PM
I'm still waiting for you to point out Boone and Weitzman in the Alyea footage.

Statements from 3 deputies who all said they saw a Mauser.  That's evidence.


You make a point of Weitzman retracting his original statement to discredit his original statement, but Brennan also retracted his original statement that he could not make an identification in the lineup.  Do you believe Brennan's retraction?

I'm still waiting for you to point out Boone and Weitzman in the Alyea footage.

I believe they are near Roger Craig in the background behind Fritz as he is filmed looking at the Carcano as Day holds it.  ( why is this important??)

Statements from 3 deputies who all said they saw a Mauser.  That's evidence.

No, that's not evidence ....Particularly when they retracted their statements.

Brennan also retracted his original statement that he could not make an identification in the lineup.

This kind crap makes me angry..... Weitzman and Boone corrected their mistaken identification almost immediately , whereas Brennan changed his mind when he appeared before LBJ's Cover up committee....   

By the time that Brennan appeared before the WC he was ready to swear that he saw the Joker ( from Batman) if that's what Henry Wade and the DPD wanted him to say.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 10, 2020, 06:30:55 PM
I believe they are near Roger Craig in the background behind Fritz as he is filmed looking at the Carcano as Day holds it.  ( why is this important??)

Because you claimed that they could be seen in the footage.  I want to know where.

Quote
Statements from 3 deputies who all said they saw a Mauser.  That's evidence.

No, that's not evidence ....Particularly when they retracted their statements.

Craig didn't.  And, yes, it's still evidence.  They said it.

Quote
This kind crap makes me angry..... Weitzman and Boone corrected their mistaken identification almost immediately , whereas Brennan changed his mind when he appeared before LBJ's Cover up committee....   

What does "almost immediately" mean?  Brennan "changed his mind" a few days later after a few friendly visits from the FBI.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 07:18:31 PM
Because you claimed that they could be seen in the footage.  I want to know where.

Craig didn't.  And, yes, it's still evidence.  They said it.

What does "almost immediately" mean?  Brennan "changed his mind" a few days later after a few friendly visits from the FBI.

Ok John....Let's get this down in B&W.....  You believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was actually a 7.65 mauser.

Do I have that correct?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 10, 2020, 07:54:22 PM
I'm still waiting for you to point out Boone and Weitzman in the Alyea footage.

I believe they are near Roger Craig in the background behind Fritz as he is filmed looking at the Carcano as Day holds it.  ( why is this important??)

Statements from 3 deputies who all said they saw a Mauser.  That's evidence.

No, that's not evidence ....Particularly when they retracted their statements.

Brennan also retracted his original statement that he could not make an identification in the lineup.

This kind crap makes me angry..... Weitzman and Boone corrected their mistaken identification almost immediately , whereas Brennan changed his mind when he appeared before LBJ's Cover up committee....   

By the time that Brennan appeared before the WC he was ready to swear that he saw the Joker ( from Batman) if that's what Henry Wade and the DPD wanted him to say.

"No, that's not evidence ....Particularly when they retracted their statements."

A notarized affidavit that's been signed and sworn to by it's author is evidence.
The only reason their feet weren't held to the fire is because there was no trial and no defense attorney to grill them.

"Weitzman and Boone corrected their mistaken identification almost immediately"

A lot of mistakes seemed to have been corrected after Ozzie was Lynched and everybody knew there wouldn't be a trial.

Go along to get along.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 08:04:16 PM
"No, that's not evidence ....Particularly when they retracted their statements."

A notarized affidavit that's been signed and sworn to by it's author is evidence.
The only reason their feet weren't held to the fire is because there was no trial and no defense attorney to grill them.

"Weitzman and Boone corrected their mistaken identification almost immediately"

A lot of mistakes seemed to have been corrected after Ozzie was Lynched and everybody knew there wouldn't be a trial.

Go along to get along.

OK Gary, Let's get this in B&W..... You believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a 7.65 mauser.   Do I have that right?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 08:14:17 PM
I'm still waiting for you to point out Boone and Weitzman in the Alyea footage.

Statements from 3 deputies who all said they saw a Mauser.  That's evidence.


You make a point of Weitzman retracting his original statement to discredit his original statement, but Brennan also retracted his original statement that he could not make an identification in the lineup.  Do you believe Brennan's retraction?

Why are you dodging and dancing around?     If you know the truth, then let's hear it.    My sole objective here is to determine the facts.

I'll admit that Sayer's FBI report has my head spinning......But, It does seem to indicate that Weitzman was given a 7.65 mauser to examine and describe for the record.   What I want to know is WHERE DID this mauser come from, and what was the motive for getting Weitzman to describe that mauser?

Is it possible that Sayer's was exhausted when he typed up that report and mixed information from Weitzman's affidavit with the information he had obtained when he interviewed Weitzman?   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 10, 2020, 08:17:15 PM

OK Gary, Let's get this in B&W..... You believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a 7.65 mauser.   Do I have that right?


They put in B&W that they did.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 08:23:33 PM
They put in B&W that they did.

Do you believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a 7.65 Mauser?   Yes or No.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 10, 2020, 08:29:09 PM
Do you believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a 7.65 Mauser?   Yes or No.....

STFU
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 10, 2020, 08:33:21 PM
STFU

WOW!..... You're certainly a man who will stand by his beliefs are you?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 10, 2020, 11:56:28 PM
Do you believe that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a 7.65 Mauser?   Yes or No.....
There is footage taken on the 6th floor on the day showing Oswalds rifle. So Oswalds rifle was there.

In theory, a police officer could have gone in to the TSBD with an unregistered (illegal) rifle. Put it down while searching the TSBD with the other police officers and one of those police officers then picked up his unregistered rifle and thought he had found the assassins rifle. Rather than admit that the rifle was his, the police offficer who owned the rifle said nothing until later that weekend when he admitted that it was his rifle. Then the DPD covered up the issue from the public. Police officers do stupid things all the time.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 01:07:09 AM
There is footage taken on the 6th floor on the day showing Oswalds rifle. So Oswalds rifle was there.

In theory, a police officer could have gone in to the TSBD with an unregistered (illegal) rifle. Put it down while searching the TSBD with the other police officers and one of those police officers then picked up his unregistered rifle and thought he had found the assassins rifle. Rather than admit that the rifle was his, the police offficer who owned the rifle said nothing until later that weekend when he admitted that it was his rifle. Then the DPD covered up the issue from the public. Police officers do stupid things all the time.
If this scenario was true..... Why would Weitzman be given a 7.65 Mauser to examine and describe .....  Wouldn't Fritz have keft the mauser out of sight?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 03:00:47 AM
There is footage taken on the 6th floor on the day showing Oswalds rifle. So Oswalds rifle was there.

In theory, a police officer could have gone in to the TSBD with an unregistered (illegal) rifle. Put it down while searching the TSBD with the other police officers and one of those police officers then picked up his unregistered rifle and thought he had found the assassins rifle. Rather than admit that the rifle was his, the police offficer who owned the rifle said nothing until later that weekend when he admitted that it was his rifle. Then the DPD covered up the issue from the public. Police officers do stupid things all the time.

There is footage that was taken by Tom Alyea on the sixth floor at the time the rifle was lifted from THE FLOOR which shows the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.     Please provide the absolute proof that that Carcano belonged to Lee Oswald.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 11, 2020, 12:50:33 PM
There is footage that was taken by Tom Alyea on the sixth floor at the time the rifle was lifted from THE FLOOR which shows the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.     Please provide the absolute proof that that Carcano belonged to Lee Oswald.

The footage is too grainy to show any numbers. What this shows us is that a carcano was on the 6th floor. Not a mauser.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 01:28:55 PM
The footage is too grainy to show any numbers. What this shows us is that a carcano was on the 6th floor. Not a mauser.

What this shows us is that a carcano was on the 6th floor.

What this shows us is that a carcano was on the 6th floor.   That's correct the carcano was ON THE FLOOR and not jammed between any boxes as the fake in situ photos depict.   

This is important because the position of the rifle ON THE FLOOR was over three feet away from the aisle at the top of the stairs ...and DOWN in a cavern that was about three feet deep.   No 5 " 9" man could have reached across that span and placed the rifle there ON THE FLOOR in a few seconds after the shooting.

That carcano was placed in that position BEFORE the shooting.....It was strictly a plant , just as the spent shells were strictly a plant....  Those items were there to frame Lee Oswald.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 04:43:12 PM
The footage is too grainy to show any numbers. What this shows us is that a carcano was on the 6th floor. Not a mauser.

this shows us is that a carcano was on the 6th floor. Not a mauser.

Thank You.... You are one of the few who will not gouge his eyes out because of what those eyes tell him.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 11, 2020, 05:47:06 PM
Guys...who cares anymore if there was a Mauser, a Carcano, or a Daisy BB gun? It will not prove Oswald shot JFK.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 07:00:14 PM
Guys...who cares anymore if there was a Mauser, a Carcano, or a Daisy BB gun? It will not prove Oswald shot JFK.

The mauser BS is one piece of excrement that needs to be flushed down the toilet and eliminated from the record of disinformation ....

Many simple CT's want to cling to the BS as a way of arguing that Lee was innocent. ...and the rifle found was not a carcano.

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 11, 2020, 07:28:10 PM
The mauser BS is one piece of excrement that needs to be flushed down the toilet and eliminated from the record of disinformation ....

Many simple CT's want to cling to the BS as a way of arguing that Lee was innocent. ...and the rifle found was not a carcano.

You STILL don't get it because you are bereft of critical thinking. For some reason you think that the Alyea film demonstrates that a Mauser was not found at the scene. That's pure BS so stop contending that it does. Logic doesn't work that way. For the last time (which I doubt), no one is denying that the Alyea film shows a Carcano, which was just how Fritz wanted it.

Now tell us again why this proves a Mauser was not also found on the 6th floor just like Wietzman claimed before Fritz removed it? It might not have been where the Carcano was planted so give that excuse up. And don't give me more Weitzman was mistaken crap. You don't believe that except to cling to your "there was no Mauser, except for the one that Weitzman identified". Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? And while you are at it, why did Fritz hand Weitzman a Mauser to identify if it was not somehow related to the "Big Event"? This was a conspiracy, right?

Many simple CT's want to cling to the BS as a way of arguing that Lee was innocent. ...and the rifle found was not a carcano.

Give it a rest and just admit you were wrong that it was impossible that Weitzman AND Craig saw a Mauser on the 6th floor. Of course no one trusts your 100% certainty anyway, because you only want to save face for being monumentally wrong. And an apology to Craig is in order for wanting to piss on his grave for blowing the whistle on the Big Event you Trumptard.  ;D

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 08:26:19 PM
You STILL don't get it because you are bereft of critical thinking. For some reason you think that the Alyea film demonstrates that a Mauser was not found at the scene. That's pure BS so stop contending that it does. Logic doesn't work that way. For the last time (which I doubt), no one is denying that the Alyea film shows a Carcano, which was just how Fritz wanted it.

Now tell us again why this proves a Mauser was not also found on the 6th floor just like Wietzman claimed before Fritz removed it? It might not have been where the Carcano was planted so give that excuse up. And don't give me more Weitzman was mistaken crap. You don't believe that except to cling to your "there was no Mauser, except for the one that Weitzman identified". Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? And while you are at it, why did Fritz hand Weitzman a Mauser to identify if it was not somehow related to the "Big Event"? This was a conspiracy, right?

Many simple CT's want to cling to the BS as a way of arguing that Lee was innocent. ...and the rifle found was not a carcano.

Give it a rest and just admit you were wrong that it was impossible that Weitzman AND Craig saw a Mauser on the 6th floor. Of course no one trusts your 100% certainty anyway, because you only want to save face for being monumentally wrong. And an apology to Craig is in order for wanting to piss on his grave for blowing the whistle on the Big Event you Trumptard.  ;D

Jack, Apparently you are of the mind set that thinks insults and name calling will win the debate.   

 no one is denying that the Alyea film shows a Carcano,

 So you agree that the rifle that Day picked up FROM THE FLOOR  was a carcano.  Well, that's basis to start from.


just admit you were wrong that it was impossible that Weitzman AND Craig saw a Mauser on the 6th floor.

I'll be happy to do that, but I need proof that such a thing happened.   There was only one rifle found and there is not one iota of evidence that a mauser was found on the sixth floor.  There were dozens of police officers and news men on the sixth floor at the time and absolutely NOBODY reported seeing a mauser or a second gun......  Weitzman said that at first glance he assumed the carcano was a 7.65 mauser but he was mistaken...and the Alyea film shows that Weitzman was in fact mistaken.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 11, 2020, 08:52:57 PM
You STILL don't get it because you are bereft of critical thinking. For some reason you think that the Alyea film demonstrates that a Mauser was not found at the scene. That's pure BS so stop contending that it does. Logic doesn't work that way. For the last time (which I doubt), no one is denying that the Alyea film shows a Carcano, which was just how Fritz wanted it.

Now tell us again why this proves a Mauser was not also found on the 6th floor just like Wietzman claimed before Fritz removed it? It might not have been where the Carcano was planted so give that excuse up. And don't give me more Weitzman was mistaken crap. You don't believe that except to cling to your "there was no Mauser, except for the one that Weitzman identified". Do you realize how ignorant that sounds? And while you are at it, why did Fritz hand Weitzman a Mauser to identify if it was not somehow related to the "Big Event"? This was a conspiracy, right?

Many simple CT's want to cling to the BS as a way of arguing that Lee was innocent. ...and the rifle found was not a carcano.

Give it a rest and just admit you were wrong that it was impossible that Weitzman AND Craig saw a Mauser on the 6th floor. Of course no one trusts your 100% certainty anyway, because you only want to save face for being monumentally wrong. And an apology to Craig is in order for wanting to piss on his grave for blowing the whistle on the Big Event you Trumptard.  ;D

why did Fritz hand Weitzman a Mauser to identify if it was not somehow related to the "Big Event"?

Pssst Jack,.... Don't look now but you're askin the same question that I've been asking.

The problem is we don't know that Fritz handed Weitzman that 7.65 mauser.    That is suggested by Sayer saying that Captain Fritz appeared and took the mauser from Weitzman, but we don't know it it was Fritz who handed the mauser to Weitzman.   

It seems to me that Sayer was either very tired , or drunk,  when he typed up his report.   It appears that he was working from notes that he took while interviewing Weitzman and affidavits that were written on 11/22/63.     He certainly appears to be confused.....  I simply can't imagine that Fritz would hand Weitzman a loaded rifle ....But Sayer says that Captain fritz appeared and took the rifle from Weitzman and ejected a live round from the rifle.   

This bit about Fritz ejecting a live round seems to be what was recorded in the affidavits as what happened on Friday afternoon when Day handed the Carcano to Fritz...... 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 12, 2020, 02:22:54 AM
I'll be happy to do that, but I need proof that such a thing happened.

You don't need any proof to posit that Weitzman was handed a Mauser to describe when he was back at the police station.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 12, 2020, 12:43:46 PM
Guys...who cares anymore if there was a Mauser, a Carcano, or a Daisy BB gun? It will not prove Oswald shot JFK.

Well if there WAS a mauser it proves the DPD were lying. In case, there was no Mauser so its not an issue. Simple case of misidentification.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 12, 2020, 11:17:19 PM
Enough with the Mauser already.

Quote
The ammunition used in the rifle was American ammunition recently made by the Western Cartridge Co. [WCC], which manufactures such ammunition currently. In tests with the same kind of ammunition, experts fired Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle more than 100 times without any misfires.
[WCR page 646]

A deliberate lie!

(https://i2.wp.com/jfkboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/bullet-Oilin-letter.jpg?w=461&ssl=1)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2020, 03:25:53 AM
Enough with the Mauser already.
 [WCR page 646]

A deliberate lie!

(https://i2.wp.com/jfkboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/bullet-Oilin-letter.jpg?w=461&ssl=1)

Two lies.....The Warren Report  page 646   AND the letter from Winchester Western.....   

WW had produced the 6.5 mm Carcano ammo for the CIA under a Marine Corp contract  ....... There are films of Cuban's being trained for an attack on Cuba, and they are using Mannlicher Carcanos.      The CIA was providing the training and materials....   The carcanos were cheap and plentiful so all the CIA needed was fresh ammo ....and Winchester Western provided it .
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2020, 04:36:03 AM
Well if there WAS a mauser it proves the DPD were lying. In case, there was no Mauser so its not an issue. Simple case of misidentification.

The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff. They mishandled all the evidence. They converged on Oz within an hour of the Big Event. The were all over the backyard photos. They served up Oz to Ruby on a silver platter. They were without a doubt conspirators in the Big Event under the tutelage of Hoover, Who knows what deal they struck. They were the scum of the earth, not the heroes the LNers claim they were.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 13, 2020, 05:44:02 AM
They were without a doubt conspirators in the Big Event under the tutelage of Hoover, Who knows what deal they struck. They were the scum of the earth, not the heroes the LNers claim they were.

Big claims need big evidence. And i dont see any.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 13, 2020, 06:15:01 AM
Big claims need big evidence. And i dont see any.

You haven't been looking then. Read more threads and get back to us with specific qualms. Or look at my prev posts if you like. I'm not shy about making big claims. I don't pretend that I am right about everything. It's just my best guess based on the evidence. I am a scientist and I evaluate evidence using logic and critical thinking. The more you know about something, the better your guess.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 13, 2020, 07:04:11 AM
There are films of Cuban's being trained for an attack on Cuba, and they are using Mannlicher Carcanos.      The CIA was providing the training and materials....   The carcanos were cheap and plentiful so all the CIA needed was fresh ammo ....and Winchester Western provided it .

Where are these films, and how do you know they are using fresh Winchester Western ammo?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 13, 2020, 11:23:38 AM
Where are these films, and how do you know they are using fresh Winchester Western ammo?
There is footage in the Frontline documentary called "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but i'm not sure the footage is clear enough to make a positive identification of a Carcano rifle.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2020, 08:40:48 PM
There is footage in the Frontline documentary called "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" but i'm not sure the footage is clear enough to make a positive identification of a Carcano rifle.

Can you post a link to "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?.....   The video that I recall shows Cuban "Freedom Fighters" with Mannlicher Carcanos in their hands....I believe the video was taken in the summer of 1963 when they CIA was planning another attack on Cuba.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 13, 2020, 09:04:02 PM
The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff. They mishandled all the evidence. They converged on Oz within an hour of the Big Event. The were all over the backyard photos. They served up Oz to Ruby on a silver platter. They were without a doubt conspirators in the Big Event under the tutelage of Hoover, Who knows what deal they struck. They were the scum of the earth, not the heroes the LNers claim they were.

The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff.

Yes, And Will Fritz was at the head of the pack of liars......     And since he was becoming senile, he wasn't a very good liar.

His handling of the spent shells and the live round is as bad as anything Roger Craig lied about.....       
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 13, 2020, 11:23:26 PM
Mitch Todd: What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

Iacoletti: What I know is completely irrelevant.  Weitzman said he saw a Mauser with a 5 shot clip.  It's not my job to explain how he determined that, just as it's not your job to decide that he didn't really see what he claimed to see.

You are the guy who is pushing the idea that Weitzman determined the magazine's capacity via direct observation. It is your responsibility to show how Weitzman would be able to do that just by looking.


Weitzman 302: a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,

Mitch Todd: All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

Iacoletti: Bull.  You can't determine the caliber of a rifle by glancing at its trigger guard.

That's not what I said. I said, "single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard." "Trigger guard" is the where; "single stack magazine" is the what. When you see that style of magazine on a Mauser bolt-action rifle, you know that the rifle came from the factory chambered in 7.65x53. It's the only caliber that particular model came in.


Weitzman 302: which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.

Mitch Todd: As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano.

Iacoletti: That also doesn't matter.  You don't know what Weitzman knew or didn't know about the design of the Mauser.  He's describing what he saw, not what he knows about how Mausers are built. What's the point of mentioning a 5-shot clip that he never really saw?

Now that's rich! You wanna jump me because you think I'm being presumptuous about what Weitzman would have known, yet you wanna lecture me that Weitzman was only "describing what he saw." Let's play your hand by your own rules: You have no idea whether Weitzman was describing something he saw, or something that he divined from what he saw, or something he divined from what he thought he saw. For that matter, Sayers doesn't directly quote Weitzman in the report, so we can't be sure how much of the description was what Weitzman actually said, some misremembrance by Sayers, or an editorial addition by the hopefully helpful FBI agent.

As to why it would be mentioned in that particular case, maybe FBI HQ was curious to know whether the rifle was a single shot or a repeater. But, who knows?


Mitch Todd: As for the five shot part, we just went through that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

Iacoletti: Then take it up with Weitzman.  He's the one who said the rifle he examined had a 5-shot clip.

And why did he say that the "clip" held five shots? They're little steel boxes that are only open on one end, and that end is only one round wide. Unless you want to claim that he was gifted with clairvoyance or x-ray vision, you're stuck with him grabbing some rifle ammunition out of his pockets and loading the rifle until it's full. Of course, you can just resign yourself to the inevitable: Weitzman already knew that Mauser bolt action rifles hold five rounds. Once he decided the rifle was a Mauser, then he "knew" the capacity of the "clip".


Mitch Todd: The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic.

Iacoletti: They didn't ask him how many rounds a Mauser holds. They asked him to describe what he saw. You don't know what they actually asked him.

You don't know what they actually asked him, either. So why do you get off trying to scold me when you did the same thing one sentence before your scold gland kicked in?


Weitzman 302: the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

Mitch Todd: Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

Iacoletti: Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Ah, so now you're going to change the subject, huh?

This is from the National Archives: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134).

The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

For reference, here are a couple of good close-up shots of the rear of a Carcano bolt from other Carcano rifles. They show the bluing on the nut, and different degrees or wear on the nut and knurling:

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/54wAAOSwxyJbiHsO/s-l1600.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5nEAAOSwqn1eEqGE/s-l1600.jpg)


Weitzman 302: The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.

Mitch Todd: Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

Iacoletti: Show me the dark brown rough damaged wood on CE139.

Day talks about this in his testimony, but look at the photos in the archive. They show the dark color of the wood, as well as its rough-and-tumble surface.


Weitzman 302: The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

Mitch Todd: As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

Iacoletti: The fact remains that CE139 is stamped "Made in Italy" and "6.5".  You don't just get to decide what Weitzman could see easily and what he could not.

We've been over this particular issue before in this thread; see post #232. I pointed out that the text on the scope is white on a black background, while the stamping and etching on the rifle is gun metal letters on a gun metal background. Contrast still matters. I then asked you to look at the set of photos of CE139 maintained by the National Archives and show me where the text on the scope is, then show me where the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps are. It may just be me, but I don't recall you responding to that request. Mind you, I don't really expect you to show me legible text, just where we can see the text in the photos. It's the same photo set as before: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134). The rough condition of the wood stock is evident in these photos, as is the stock's color.


Weitzman 302: It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

Mitch Todd: And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


Mitch Todd: In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser.

Iacoletti: There's nothing in Weitzman's detailed description that would prove that he saw CE139.

Technically true, but nothing in Weitzman's description that could identify it as *any* specific individual rifle. However, that's not really the point being argued here, now is it?



Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 14, 2020, 01:14:37 AM
The DPD lied about all kinds of stuff.

Yes, And Will Fritz was at the head of the pack of liars......     And since he was becoming senile, he wasn't a very good liar.

His handling of the spent shells and the live round is as bad as anything Roger Craig lied about.....     

Fritz was too easy going. Wasn't even looking at Oswald as he was being led to his death in the basement of the DPD.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 14, 2020, 02:27:56 AM
You are the guy who is pushing the idea that Weitzman determined the magazine's capacity via direct observation. It is your responsibility to show how Weitzman would be able to do that just by looking.

No.  It's not.  Whether you think he was able to or not, that's what he described.  If you want to claim that he described stuff he didn't actually see then it's your job to prove that with something other than conjecture.

Quote
That's not what I said. I said, "single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard." "Trigger guard" is the where; "single stack magazine" is the what. When you see that style of magazine on a Mauser bolt-action rifle, you know that the rifle came from the factory chambered in 7.65x53. It's the only caliber that particular model came in.

You might know that, but you don't know that Weitzman and Boone knew that.  And that that's the reason they said "7.65".

Quote
Now that's rich! You wanna jump me because you think I'm being presumptuous about what Weitzman would have known, yet you wanna lecture me that Weitzman was only "describing what he saw." Let's play your hand by your own rules: You have no idea whether Weitzman was describing something he saw, or something that he divined from what he saw, or something he divined from what he thought he saw.

"Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser . . ."

"After he had observed this rifle to the extent described above . . ."

Quote
Mitch Todd: As for the five shot part, we just went through that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

I came out of it just fine, thank you.  Ego isn't evidence.  He observed and described a 5 shot clip.  Full stop.  I don't know how this happened and neither do you.

Quote
Iacoletti: Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Ah, so now you're going to change the subject, huh?

I'm not changing the subject.  If you're so sure he saw and described CE139, then CE139 should match Weitzman's description.  Without a bunch of contrived handwaving.

Quote
The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/knurling.png)

But didn't Weitzman say "the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn"?

Quote
Day talks about this in his testimony, but look at the photos in the archive. They show the dark color of the wood, as well as its rough-and-tumble surface.

But there's a difference between "rough and tumble" and "used or damaged to a considerable extent".

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/rifle-stock.png)

Quote
Weitzman 302: The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

Mitch Todd: As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading.

Apparent Japanese manufacture?  It just says "JAPAN".  It says "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA" in bigger letters.

Quote
We've been over this particular issue before in this thread; see post #232. I pointed out that the text on the scope is white on a black background, while the stamping and etching on the rifle is gun metal letters on a gun metal background. Contrast still matters.

You don't know how much it matters in this case, because you don't know what Weitzman looked at.

Quote
I then asked you to look at the set of photos of CE139 maintained by the National Archives and show me where the text on the scope is, then show me where the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps are.

They're not visible in these particular photo angles.  And if Weitzman only examined these particular photos, you might have a point.  At least about the engravings, if not the stock and the bolt and the strap.

Quote
Weitzman 302: It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

Mitch Todd: And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

You don't.  But if he is describing CE139, why don't several of the details (like the sling) match his description?

Quote
The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."

Well of course you do.  Because you want it to be this rifle that Weitzman was describing.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 14, 2020, 03:04:04 AM
Mitch Todd: What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

Iacoletti: What I know is completely irrelevant.  Weitzman said he saw a Mauser with a 5 shot clip.  It's not my job to explain how he determined that, just as it's not your job to decide that he didn't really see what he claimed to see.

You are the guy who is pushing the idea that Weitzman determined the magazine's capacity via direct observation. It is your responsibility to show how Weitzman would be able to do that just by looking.


Weitzman 302: a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,

Mitch Todd: All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

Iacoletti: Bull.  You can't determine the caliber of a rifle by glancing at its trigger guard.

That's not what I said. I said, "single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard." "Trigger guard" is the where; "single stack magazine" is the what. When you see that style of magazine on a Mauser bolt-action rifle, you know that the rifle came from the factory chambered in 7.65x53. It's the only caliber that particular model came in.


Weitzman 302: which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.

Mitch Todd: As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano.

Iacoletti: That also doesn't matter.  You don't know what Weitzman knew or didn't know about the design of the Mauser.  He's describing what he saw, not what he knows about how Mausers are built. What's the point of mentioning a 5-shot clip that he never really saw?

Now that's rich! You wanna jump me because you think I'm being presumptuous about what Weitzman would have known, yet you wanna lecture me that Weitzman was only "describing what he saw." Let's play your hand by your own rules: You have no idea whether Weitzman was describing something he saw, or something that he divined from what he saw, or something he divined from what he thought he saw. For that matter, Sayers doesn't directly quote Weitzman in the report, so we can't be sure how much of the description was what Weitzman actually said, some misremembrance by Sayers, or an editorial addition by the hopefully helpful FBI agent.

As to why it would be mentioned in that particular case, maybe FBI HQ was curious to know whether the rifle was a single shot or a repeater. But, who knows?


Mitch Todd: As for the five shot part, we just went through that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

Iacoletti: Then take it up with Weitzman.  He's the one who said the rifle he examined had a 5-shot clip.

And why did he say that the "clip" held five shots? They're little steel boxes that are only open on one end, and that end is only one round wide. Unless you want to claim that he was gifted with clairvoyance or x-ray vision, you're stuck with him grabbing some rifle ammunition out of his pockets and loading the rifle until it's full. Of course, you can just resign yourself to the inevitable: Weitzman already knew that Mauser bolt action rifles hold five rounds. Once he decided the rifle was a Mauser, then he "knew" the capacity of the "clip".


Mitch Todd: The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic.

Iacoletti: They didn't ask him how many rounds a Mauser holds. They asked him to describe what he saw. You don't know what they actually asked him.

You don't know what they actually asked him, either. So why do you get off trying to scold me when you did the same thing one sentence before your scold gland kicked in?


Weitzman 302: the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.

Mitch Todd: Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

Iacoletti: Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Ah, so now you're going to change the subject, huh?

This is from the National Archives: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134).

The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

For reference, here are a couple of good close-up shots of the rear of a Carcano bolt from other Carcano rifles. They show the bluing on the nut, and different degrees or wear on the nut and knurling:

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/54wAAOSwxyJbiHsO/s-l1600.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5nEAAOSwqn1eEqGE/s-l1600.jpg)


Weitzman 302: The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.

Mitch Todd: Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

Iacoletti: Show me the dark brown rough damaged wood on CE139.

Day talks about this in his testimony, but look at the photos in the archive. They show the dark color of the wood, as well as its rough-and-tumble surface.


Weitzman 302: The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.

Mitch Todd: As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

Iacoletti: The fact remains that CE139 is stamped "Made in Italy" and "6.5".  You don't just get to decide what Weitzman could see easily and what he could not.

We've been over this particular issue before in this thread; see post #232. I pointed out that the text on the scope is white on a black background, while the stamping and etching on the rifle is gun metal letters on a gun metal background. Contrast still matters. I then asked you to look at the set of photos of CE139 maintained by the National Archives and show me where the text on the scope is, then show me where the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps are. It may just be me, but I don't recall you responding to that request. Mind you, I don't really expect you to show me legible text, just where we can see the text in the photos. It's the same photo set as before: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134 (https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305134). The rough condition of the wood stock is evident in these photos, as is the stock's color.


Weitzman 302: It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling

Mitch Todd: And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


Mitch Todd: In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser.

Iacoletti: There's nothing in Weitzman's detailed description that would prove that he saw CE139.

Technically true, but nothing in Weitzman's description that could identify it as *any* specific individual rifle. However, that's not really the point being argued here, now is it?


The cocking-piece nuts at the rear of the bolt were blued at the factory. You can still see that the bluing remains on the neck of the nut, but it's worn off of the knurling. Also, notice that the bolt handle knob shows use-related polishing compared to the blotchily oxidized bolt body.

For reference, here are a couple of good close-up shots of the rear of a Carcano bolt from other Carcano rifles. They show the bluing on the nut, and different degrees or wear on the nut and knurling:

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/54wAAOSwxyJbiHsO/s-l1600.jpg)
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5nEAAOSwqn1eEqGE/s-l1600.jpg)

Mitch...you're being intellectually dishonest....There is no wear visible on the bolt of the carcano.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 14, 2020, 06:23:41 PM
No.  It's not.  Whether you think he was able to or not, that's what he described.  If you want to claim that he described stuff he didn't actually see then it's your job to prove that with something other than conjecture.

You might know that, but you don't know that Weitzman and Boone knew that.  And that that's the reason they said "7.65".

"Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser . . ."

"After he had observed this rifle to the extent described above . . ."

I came out of it just fine, thank you.  Ego isn't evidence.  He observed and described a 5 shot clip.  Full stop.  I don't know how this happened and neither do you.

I'm not changing the subject.  If you're so sure he saw and described CE139, then CE139 should match Weitzman's description.  Without a bunch of contrived handwaving.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/knurling.png)

But didn't Weitzman say "the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn"?

But there's a difference between "rough and tumble" and "used or damaged to a considerable extent".

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/rifle-stock.png)

Apparent Japanese manufacture?  It just says "JAPAN".  It says "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA" in bigger letters.

You don't know how much it matters in this case, because you don't know what Weitzman looked at.

They're not visible in these particular photo angles.  And if Weitzman only examined these particular photos, you might have a point.  At least about the engravings, if not the stock and the bolt and the strap.

You don't.  But if he is describing CE139, why don't several of the details (like the sling) match his description?

Well of course you do.  Because you want it to be this rifle that Weitzman was describing.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/knurling.png)

The part that you've circled in red is the safety on a Mannlicher Carcano ....The Mauser is totally different and THAT is what Weitzman was describing....NOT a carcano.    The term the "rear of the bolt" is not very lucid.....  Did he mean the bolt knob ( handle) or the bolt itself .... At any rate there is NO PART of the CARCANO bolt that is visibly worn.      This is one of the points that convinced me that Weitzman was handling a mauser, and not a carcano.


Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


A bandolier type holster belt is one that has loops in which cartridges can be inserted.....  We've all seen the bandolier type belts that many police forces used when the revolvers were common.   And Bandolier type rifle slings have loops for carrying spare cartridges....   The wide pad on the sling on the carcano is a sentry type carrying strap. .....and it most certainly is NOT a thick heavy brownish black  sling.   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Mitch Todd on April 15, 2020, 12:47:09 AM
Iacoletti: Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

The sling is very dark brown or black on one side and brown on the other. Whether the sling would be considered to be "thick" or not would depend on how kinky you are. Every leather bandolier sling I've seen, the bandolier is a separate part that's significantly wider than the sling itself. The sling proper passes through holes on either end of the bandolier, or the assembled sling is held together via loops or buckles. The CE139 sling is two leather straps that are attached to a wider, oval leather pad with metal loops. So, yeah, I can see someone calling it a "bandolier type sling."


A bandolier type holster belt is one that has loops in which cartridges can be inserted.....  We've all seen the bandolier type belts that many police forces used when the revolvers were common.   And Bandolier type rifle slings have loops for carrying spare cartridges....   The wide pad on the sling on the carcano is a sentry type carrying strap. .....and it most certainly is NOT a thick heavy brownish black  sling.
Lemme go for the quick win here before I hit a couple more posts later.

I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

I had an uncle who lived about a mile and a half away when I was a kid. He had a security business and was, for a time, a reserve police officer IIRC. Had the belt with cartridge loops and the whole nine yards: revolver, cuffs, nightstick, flashlight, pouch for a speed loader, the whole shebang. A belt can be pretty cool when you're 10, if it's decorated with the right accessories. It was thick, it was wide, it was surprisingly stiff for a belt. It was heavy. Heavy for a belt, just by itself. All that was because of all the cop bling it had to support. It seemed to do its job pretty well. But I wouldn't want to use it as a sling.

I'm sure you know, if maybe others don't, that one of the prime purposes of a sling is to help the shooter hold a rifle steady while aiming. This function generally involves the shooter wrapping the sling around his or her non-dominant forearm to take up slack and help keep the sling taut. Something as wide and stiff as one of those bandolier gunbelts is going to be too stiff, heavy and bulky to be very useful as a rifle sling. I've seen a number of what you could call leather "bandolier slings'" over the years though they don't seem to be too popular.  And everyone of these leather slings that I could call a "bandolier sling" looks something like this:

(https://brassstacker.com/images/P/Brass-Stacker-Rick-Lowe-Sootch00-Rifle-Sling-Cartridge-Bandolier.jpg)

where the bandolier piece is separate from the rest of the sling, relatively short, and wider than the sling proper. Connected to the sling with metal loops or buckles or just a pair of holes that the sling slides through, like in the example I posted. The idea is that the semi-fixed bandolier piece can be moved to keep it out of the way when you need to wrap it around your arm to assume a proper shooting position. While the pad on the CE139 "sling" doesn't have loops, it does give the sling the kind of silhouette one would expect from a "bandolier type sling."
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 15, 2020, 01:30:44 AM
Lemme go for the quick win here before I hit a couple more posts later.

I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

I had an uncle who lived about a mile and a half away when I was a kid. He had a security business and was, for a time, a reserve police officer IIRC. Had the belt with cartridge loops and the whole nine yards: revolver, cuffs, nightstick, flashlight, pouch for a speed loader, the whole shebang. A belt can be pretty cool when you're 10, if it's decorated with the right accessories. It was thick, it was wide, it was surprisingly stiff for a belt. It was heavy. Heavy for a belt, just by itself. All that was because of all the cop bling it had to support. It seemed to do its job pretty well. But I wouldn't want to use it as a sling.

I'm sure you know, if maybe others don't, that one of the prime purposes of a sling is to help the shooter hold a rifle steady while aiming. This function generally involves the shooter wrapping the sling around his or her non-dominant forearm to take up slack and help keep the sling taut. Something as wide and stiff as one of those bandolier gunbelts is going to be too stiff, heavy and bulky to be very useful as a rifle sling. I've seen a number of what you could call leather "bandolier slings'" over the years though they don't seem to be too popular.  And everyone of these leather slings that I could call a "bandolier sling" looks something like this:

(https://brassstacker.com/images/P/Brass-Stacker-Rick-Lowe-Sootch00-Rifle-Sling-Cartridge-Bandolier.jpg)

where the bandolier piece is separate from the rest of the sling, relatively short, and wider than the sling proper. Connected to the sling with metal loops or buckles or just a pair of holes that the sling slides through, like in the example I posted. The idea is that the semi-fixed bandolier piece can be moved to keep it out of the way when you need to wrap it around your arm to assume a proper shooting position. While the pad on the CE139 "sling" doesn't have loops, it does give the sling the kind of silhouette one would expect from a "bandolier type sling."

It seemed to do its job pretty well. But I wouldn't want to use it as a sling.

I was NOT saying that a pistol belt was the sling on the mauser....  I used the pistol belt to make the point that the loops for spare cartridges are what constitute a Bandolier type sling.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 15, 2020, 02:15:24 AM
Lemme go for the quick win here before I hit a couple more posts later.

I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

I had an uncle who lived about a mile and a half away when I was a kid. He had a security business and was, for a time, a reserve police officer IIRC. Had the belt with cartridge loops and the whole nine yards: revolver, cuffs, nightstick, flashlight, pouch for a speed loader, the whole shebang. A belt can be pretty cool when you're 10, if it's decorated with the right accessories. It was thick, it was wide, it was surprisingly stiff for a belt. It was heavy. Heavy for a belt, just by itself. All that was because of all the cop bling it had to support. It seemed to do its job pretty well. But I wouldn't want to use it as a sling.

I'm sure you know, if maybe others don't, that one of the prime purposes of a sling is to help the shooter hold a rifle steady while aiming. This function generally involves the shooter wrapping the sling around his or her non-dominant forearm to take up slack and help keep the sling taut. Something as wide and stiff as one of those bandolier gunbelts is going to be too stiff, heavy and bulky to be very useful as a rifle sling. I've seen a number of what you could call leather "bandolier slings'" over the years though they don't seem to be too popular.  And everyone of these leather slings that I could call a "bandolier sling" looks something like this:

(https://brassstacker.com/images/P/Brass-Stacker-Rick-Lowe-Sootch00-Rifle-Sling-Cartridge-Bandolier.jpg)

where the bandolier piece is separate from the rest of the sling, relatively short, and wider than the sling proper. Connected to the sling with metal loops or buckles or just a pair of holes that the sling slides through, like in the example I posted. The idea is that the semi-fixed bandolier piece can be moved to keep it out of the way when you need to wrap it around your arm to assume a proper shooting position. While the pad on the CE139 "sling" doesn't have loops, it does give the sling the kind of silhouette one would expect from a "bandolier type sling."

where the bandolier piece is separate from the rest of the sling,   

It appears to be riveted to the sling....

(https://brassstacker.com/images/P/Brass-Stacker-Rick-Lowe-Sootch00-Rifle-Sling-Cartridge-Bandolier.jpg)

This is what Weitzman was describing..... A thick leather brownish black  BANDOLIER type sling.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 15, 2020, 03:01:27 AM
Lemme go for the quick win here before I hit a couple more posts later.

Hope springs eternal.

Quote
I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

Of course not. You’re determined to jam that square peg into a round hole.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 15, 2020, 04:59:04 PM
Lemme go for the quick win here before I hit a couple more posts later.

I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

I had an uncle who lived about a mile and a half away when I was a kid. He had a security business and was, for a time, a reserve police officer IIRC. Had the belt with cartridge loops and the whole nine yards: revolver, cuffs, nightstick, flashlight, pouch for a speed loader, the whole shebang. A belt can be pretty cool when you're 10, if it's decorated with the right accessories. It was thick, it was wide, it was surprisingly stiff for a belt. It was heavy. Heavy for a belt, just by itself. All that was because of all the cop bling it had to support. It seemed to do its job pretty well. But I wouldn't want to use it as a sling.

I'm sure you know, if maybe others don't, that one of the prime purposes of a sling is to help the shooter hold a rifle steady while aiming. This function generally involves the shooter wrapping the sling around his or her non-dominant forearm to take up slack and help keep the sling taut. Something as wide and stiff as one of those bandolier gunbelts is going to be too stiff, heavy and bulky to be very useful as a rifle sling. I've seen a number of what you could call leather "bandolier slings'" over the years though they don't seem to be too popular.  And everyone of these leather slings that I could call a "bandolier sling" looks something like this:

(https://brassstacker.com/images/P/Brass-Stacker-Rick-Lowe-Sootch00-Rifle-Sling-Cartridge-Bandolier.jpg)

where the bandolier piece is separate from the rest of the sling, relatively short, and wider than the sling proper. Connected to the sling with metal loops or buckles or just a pair of holes that the sling slides through, like in the example I posted. The idea is that the semi-fixed bandolier piece can be moved to keep it out of the way when you need to wrap it around your arm to assume a proper shooting position. While the pad on the CE139 "sling" doesn't have loops, it does give the sling the kind of silhouette one would expect from a "bandolier type sling."

I'm well aware of a pistol belt. But that's not what I'm talking about, and I suspect not what the Sayers/Weitzman is getting at.

So you've known all along what a bandoliertype sling is.... Thank you for exposing your dishonesty.   

You also know that Weitzman was describing a mauser in Sayer's report.   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 15, 2020, 05:08:20 PM
No.  It's not.  Whether you think he was able to or not, that's what he described.  If you want to claim that he described stuff he didn't actually see then it's your job to prove that with something other than conjecture.

You might know that, but you don't know that Weitzman and Boone knew that.  And that that's the reason they said "7.65".

"Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser . . ."

"After he had observed this rifle to the extent described above . . ."

I came out of it just fine, thank you.  Ego isn't evidence.  He observed and described a 5 shot clip.  Full stop.  I don't know how this happened and neither do you.

I'm not changing the subject.  If you're so sure he saw and described CE139, then CE139 should match Weitzman's description.  Without a bunch of contrived handwaving.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Is this what you're talking about?

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/knurling.png)

But didn't Weitzman say "the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn"?

But there's a difference between "rough and tumble" and "used or damaged to a considerable extent".

(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/rifle-stock.png)

Apparent Japanese manufacture?  It just says "JAPAN".  It says "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA" in bigger letters.

You don't know how much it matters in this case, because you don't know what Weitzman looked at.

They're not visible in these particular photo angles.  And if Weitzman only examined these particular photos, you might have a point.  At least about the engravings, if not the stock and the bolt and the strap.

You don't.  But if he is describing CE139, why don't several of the details (like the sling) match his description?

Well of course you do.  Because you want it to be this rifle that Weitzman was describing.

A picture is worth a thousand words. 
(http://iacoletti.org/jfk/knurling.png)


[mg]http://iacoletti.org/jfk/rifle-stock.png[/img]


Please describe the finish on the stock of this carcano......   Does it appear to have been painted black?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 02:16:25 AM
Hope springs eternal.

Of course not. You’re determined to jam that square peg into a round hole.

We've discussed this enough to draw a conclusion......  That conclusion is:   Seymour Weitzman examined a 7.65 mauser for FBI agent A1lbert Sayers.   WHERE did this mauser come from??   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 16, 2020, 04:33:15 AM
We've discussed this enough to draw a conclusion......  That conclusion is:   Seymour Weitzman examined a 7.65 mauser for FBI agent A1lbert Sayers.   WHERE did this mauser come from??   

The 6th floor of the TSBD.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 02:04:20 PM
The 6th floor of the TSBD.

Please provide verification.....  Perhaps you can provide statements or affidavits of 6 or 8 men who were there ....and a second rifle would have been stupendous news which would have got the attention of a news man with a camera....  Can you provide a single photo to back up your theory?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 16, 2020, 06:44:08 PM
Please provide verification.....  Perhaps you can provide statements or affidavits of 6 or 8 men who were there ....and a second rifle would have been stupendous news which would have got the attention of a news man with a camera....  Can you provide a single photo to back up your theory?

That conclusion is:   Seymour Weitzman examined a 7.65 mauser for FBI agent A1lbert Sayers.   WHERE did this mauser come from??

Where is your proof that Weitzman examined a 7.65 Mauser? My conclusion as to where it came from is just as valid a guess as your claim that there was a Mauser at all. You are the one who is absolutely 100% certain there was no Mauser found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, yet you are sure Sayers pulls a Mauser out of his ass for Weitzman to examine, but it was back at the Police Station where at least 6 to 8 men must have seen it. So where are their affidavits? You need to prove that Craig and Weitzman lied before you claim they did not see a Mauser at the crime scene, which Fritz quickly removed (not replaced) before Alyea filmed anything. You have utterly failed to do that because film and photos can't prove what wasn't there. Why didn't Alyea film the ejected hulls in the SN? I suppose that means that Alyea was also a liar and working for Fritz. After all, if he didn't film it, it didn't happen, right?

I never claimed with any certainty that a Mauser was mistakenly discovered at the crime scene and removed before filming. Only that your 100% certainty that Craig was mentally ill and FOS is misguided because you rely exclusively on your lying eyes to know whether film footage tells the whole tale. That's not how critical thinking works unless you have an agenda. Yours is you have a hate on for Craig because, like Heir Drumpf, you think whistle blowers are dirty rats.

If this was a conspiracy then what did the conspirators do with whistle blowers? They either painted them crazy and/or removed them permanently, like Fritz did with the Mauser on the 6th floor.  ;D
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 16, 2020, 07:26:02 PM
"Deputy Boone called out that he had found the rifle shoved down between 2 rows of pasteboard boxes of books. Capt. Fritz took over the search at this time and one of the other Deputies who had been in the building came and told us that Sheriff Decker had given orders to let the City take over the investigation and for the Deputies to return to the sheriffs office, which we did."

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/theSNbag001.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 16, 2020, 07:30:19 PM
They wrote down 7.65 Mauser.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 16, 2020, 07:35:28 PM
Weitzman was interveiwed by a special agent from the FBI and he descrided what they, (he and Boone), found.
A 7.65 Mauser.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 07:52:15 PM
That conclusion is:   Seymour Weitzman examined a 7.65 mauser for FBI agent A1lbert Sayers.   WHERE did this mauser come from??

Where is your proof that Weitzman examined a 7.65 Mauser? My conclusion as to where it came from is just as valid a guess as your claim that there was a Mauser at all. You are the one who is absolutely 100% certain there was no Mauser found on the 6th floor of the TSBD, yet you are sure Sayers pulls a Mauser out of his ass for Weitzman to examine, but it was back at the Police Station where at least 6 to 8 men must have seen it. So where are their affidavits? You need to prove that Craig and Weitzman lied before you claim they did not see a Mauser at the crime scene, which Fritz quickly removed (not replaced) before Alyea filmed anything. You have utterly failed to do that because film and photos can't prove what wasn't there. Why didn't Alyea film the ejected hulls in the SN? I suppose that means that Alyea was also a liar and working for Fritz. After all, if he didn't film it, it didn't happen, right?

I never claimed with any certainty that a Mauser was mistakenly discovered at the crime scene and removed before filming. Only that your 100% certainty that Craig was mentally ill and FOS is misguided because you rely exclusively on your lying eyes to know whether film footage tells the whole tale. That's not how critical thinking works unless you have an agenda. Yours is you have a hate on for Craig because, like Heir Drumpf, you think whistle blowers are dirty rats.

If this was a conspiracy then what did the conspirators do with whistle blowers? They either painted them crazy and/or removed them permanently, like Fritz did with the Mauser on the 6th floor.  ;D

Where is your proof that Weitzman examined a 7.65 Mauser?

 Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 16, 2020, 08:33:13 PM
Thanks Gary!

Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Then my proof is Weitzman's sworn affidavit that said the same thing. But he was mistaken, right?

Walt, the reason Sayers gave Weitzman a Mauser to describe was for plausible deniability. If Sayers knew that Weitzman had seen a Mauser then he needed to show him one that he could have been mistaken about. What Weitzman ultimately did was recant his story and claim he thought the Mauser he was shown came from the 6th floor. This is all fine and dandy ONLY if this happened on the afternoon/eve of the 22nd and before Weitzman's sworn affidavit. The DPD would only set him up like that if they knew Weitzman had prev read 7.65 Mauser off the barrel and assumed he would state that on his affidavit. What other explanation can you come up with why Weitzman was shown the Mauser and asked to describe it? Plausible deniability, of course.  It's like having an outsider whack Oswald instead of killing him at the theater. They were constantly having to clean up their messes along the way.

Lastly, how sure are you that no token shots came from the 6th floor? If you think it's possible, and you know the Carcano wasn't used, then what rifle would they have used instead? A similar rifle? A rifle that wouldn't jam? Where would they have ditched that rifle? Would they have put it on the roof? Is it possible that someone saw it before it left the 6th floor? And why am I even typing the word "Mauser", if it wasn't used as a surrogate for the Carcano? You are a CT aren't you? Assume this was a conspiracy and start thinking like a conspirator. What is the significance of the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed at the time?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 16, 2020, 08:49:10 PM
Thanks Gary!

Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Then my proof is Weitzman's sworn affidavit that said the same thing. But he was mistaken, right?

Walt, the reason Sayers gave Weitzman a Mauser to describe was for plausible deniability. If Sayers knew that Weitzman had seen a Mauser then he needed to show him one that he could have been mistaken about. What Weitzman ultimately did was recant his story and claim he thought the Mauser he was shown came from the 6th floor. This is all fine and dandy ONLY if this happened on the afternoon/eve of the 22nd and before Weitzman's sworn affidavit. The DPD would only set him up like that if they knew Weitzman had prev read 7.65 Mauser off the barrel and assumed he would state that on his affidavit. What other explanation can you come up with why Weitzman was shown the Mauser and asked to describe it? Plausible deniability, of course.  It's like having an outsider whack Oswald instead of killing him at the theater. They were constantly having to clean up their messes along the way.

Lastly, how sure are you that no token shots came from the 6th floor? If you think it's possible, and you know the Carcano wasn't used, then what rifle would they have used instead? A similar rifle? A rifle that wouldn't jam? Where would they have ditched that rifle? Would they have put it on the roof? Is it possible that someone saw it before it left the 6th floor? And why am I even typing the word "Mauser", if it wasn't used as a surrogate for the Carcano? You are a CT aren't you? Assume this was a conspiracy and start thinking like a conspirator. What is the significance of the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed at the time?

What is the significance of the Mauser, which you acknowledge existed at the time?

THAT is the question........ I'm absolutely certain that the rifle Weitzman and Boone discovered was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano and it was laying on the floor about 5 feet from the east wall and 15 feet 4 inches from the north wall.  Weitzman was asked to examine a mauser later that afternoon for FBI agent A1bert Sayers.    Or Sayers simply took the info from the affidavits and wove a story around that information.....   It is a fact that some FBI agents twisted the witnesses reports.    Whatever happened...... the photos clearly show that the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered was a carcano.

As far as I know Weitzman was never asked to read Sayer's report and comment on the accuracy.....   Many of the witnesses said that they read the FBI reports about what they had witnessed and found the FBI had totally twisted their account.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 03:16:30 PM
Weitzman was interveiwed by a special agent from the FBI and he descrided what they, (he and Boone), found.
A 7.65 Mauser.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)

Weitzman was interveiwed by a special agent from the FBI and he descrided what they, (he and Boone), found.
A 7.65 Mauser.


he described what he and Boone had found.....This is where the rubber meets the road.....Tom Alyea's film definitely shows Lt Day picking up a carcano FROM THE FLOOR and holding it up to Captain Fritz.... then another clip shows Day and Fritz examining the carcano ....and then more footage shows Lt Day dusting the carcano for finger prints.     THIS obviously is the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered LYING ON THE FLOOR at the bottom of a cavern of boxes of books.

However FBI agent A1bert Sayers said in a report that Seymour Weitzman described a 7.65 mauser for him.....  That could not have happened in the TSBD at around 2:00pm that day because Sayers wasn't in the TSBD at that time....( he was probably traveling between Houston and Dallas at that time)   Weitzman said that he was called to the police department later that afternoon and was interviewed by Sayers at that time.     

Sayers said that Weitzman described a 7.65 mauser which had a thick brownish black bandolier type sling on it... and the rear of the bolt was badly worn.

The carcano has a BLACK, light duty, SENTRY type sling ....and there is no sign of wear on the rear of the bolt..... Clearly the mauser is NOT the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered beneath the boxes of books..... 
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 03:41:05 PM
They wrote down 7.65 Mauser.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)


(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boonebluesteel2.jpg)

Deputy Boone wrote:.... "In the NW corner of the building, approximately three (3) feet from the east wall of the stairwell, behind a row of cases of books, I saw the rifle."

I wanted to point out that Boone originally said nothing about the rifle being jammed between boxes of books .....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 17, 2020, 04:20:29 PM
Weitzman WC Testimony

Mr. Ball - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
(...)
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

---------------------------------------------------------

Let's see where Weitzman actually read on the rifle that it was a Mauser. Or a Carcano, for that matter. Seems to me that glances are enough proof for some people
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 04:32:06 PM
Weizmann WC Testimony

I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.

(...)

Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

Let's see where Weitzmann actually read on the rifle that it was a Mauser. Or a Carcano.

Seems to me that glancing at things seems enough proof for some folks
No bias there, huh..

Yes.....When the rifle was picked up Weitzman and Boone only had a glance at it ....And at a glance a carcano could be mistaken for a 7.65 mauser because of the magazine below the action of the rifle.   BUT..... The description that FBI man Sayers said Weitzman gave of the rifle is quite detailed and not the product of a quick glance.  There's no doubt that the description that Sayer's gave in his report is describing a 7.65 mauser.....   

If Weitzman was the source of that description, then I'd like to know what the hell was the idea of showing him a 7.65 mauser and leading him to believe that it was the rifle that he and Boone had discovered.....
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 17, 2020, 04:51:59 PM
Is Weitzman's name is spelled wrong on this report? Typed by someone else?
Sometime on 11/23/63. No discription of the rifle.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/TSBDrifle1.png)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 05:00:49 PM
Is Weitzman's name is spelled wrong on this report? Typed by someone else?
Sometime on 11/23/63. No discription of the rifle.

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/TSBDrifle1.png)

Thanks Gary, for the additional confirmation that the carcano was not touched by anyone until Lt. Day reached down and picked it up by the strap.   However....The rifle may not have been touched but there were boxes of books removed from around the rifle.   Day couldn't have picked up the rifle as he did, if it had been surrounded by the boxes that had hidden it from view.   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 17, 2020, 05:01:25 PM
Still waiting for someone to show proof that Weitzman actually read on the rifle itself that it was a Mauser
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 07:44:25 PM
Still waiting for someone to show proof that Weitzman actually read on the rifle itself that it was a Mauser

I doubt that you would believe Weitzman himself......
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 17, 2020, 09:05:16 PM
Weitzman WC Testimony

Mr. Ball - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
(...)
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

---------------------------------------------------------

Let's see where Weitzman actually read on the rifle that it was a Mauser. Or a Carcano, for that matter. Seems to me that glances are enough proof for some people

"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."

Hmmm, In the FBI interview below he states: "The rifle was equipped with a four-power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture".
Is there another FBI report where he states the scope is a 2.5 Weaver?

(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/weitzmanfbi1a.jpg)
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 17, 2020, 09:18:17 PM
Thanks Gary, for the additional confirmation that the carcano was not touched by anyone until Lt. Day reached down and picked it up by the strap.   However....The rifle may not have been touched but there were boxes of books removed from around the rifle.   Day couldn't have picked up the rifle as he did, if it had been surrounded by the boxes that had hidden it from view.

Obviously this wasn't typed up by Weitzman or signed off by him.
We know officers claimed the alleged snipers nest was cordoned off and nothing touched when in fact that wasn't so.
This particular report smells of CYA.
IMO
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 17, 2020, 11:56:54 PM
Weitzman WC Testimony

Mr. Ball - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.
Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?
Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.
Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.
(...)
Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

---------------------------------------------------------

Let's see where Weitzman actually read on the rifle that it was a Mauser. Or a Carcano, for that matter. Seems to me that glances are enough proof for some people

The detailed description that Weitzman gave ( if Weitzman gave that description)  in Seyers report is much too detailed to be attributed to just a glance.   
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 18, 2020, 01:56:28 PM
 
Obviously this wasn't typed up by Weitzman or signed off by him.
We know officers claimed the alleged snipers nest was cordoned off and nothing touched when in fact that wasn't so.
This particular report smells of CYA.
IMO

In mine too.
 
Quote
Mr. BALL - What happened then?
Mr. BOONE - Some of the other officers came over to look at it. I told them to stand back, not to get around close, they might want to take prints of some of the boxes, and not touch the rifle. And at that time Captain Fritz and an ID man came over. I believe the ID man's name was Lieutenant Day--I am not sure. They came over and the weapon was photographed as it lay. And at that time Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was.
Quote
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do in connection with the rifle at that particular time?
Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz was present. After we got the photographs I asked him if he was ready for me to pick it up, and he said, yes. I picked the gun up by the wooden stock. I noted that the stock was too rough apparently to take fingerprints, so I picked it up, and Captain Fritz opened the bolt as I held the gun. A live round fell to the floor
Quote
Mr. BALL - The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Lieutenant Day and Captain Fritz?
Mr. WEITZMAN - I'm not sure what the lieutenant's name was, but I remember Captain Fritz.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.
Quote
Mr. BALL. What happened after that?
Mr. FRITZ. A few minutes later some officer called me and said they had found the rifle over near the back stairway and I told them same thing, not to move it, not to touch it, not to move any of the boxes until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day could get over there he made pictures of that.
Mr. BALL. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then?
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself.........
What?...did Capt Fritz think about keeping it as a souvenir?
Deputy Sheriffs Craig and Mooney were not asked who actually picked up the rifle.
We could surmise that Fritz and Day held hands and picked it up together.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 18, 2020, 02:05:42 PM
Still waiting for testimony revealing who read 'Mauser' on the rifle
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 03:21:33 PM
In mine too.
 What?...did Capt Fritz think about keeping it as a souvenir?
Deputy Sheriffs Craig and Mooney were not asked who actually picked up the rifle.
We could surmise that Fritz and Day held hands and picked it up together.

There's no reason to question the manner in which Day picked up the carcano....Everybody who was there at the time ( at least four officers) said that Day picked it up by the strap....and that's exactly what is seen in the Alyea film.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 18, 2020, 04:13:54 PM
There's no reason to question the manner in which Day picked up the carcano....Everybody who was there at the time ( at least four officers) said that Day picked it up by the strap....and that's exactly what is seen in the Alyea film.

How many wrote and signed notarized affidavits describing a Italian 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 04:27:08 PM
How many wrote and signed notarized affidavits describing a Italian 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?

Do you doubt that Day picked up the rifle by the strap?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 18, 2020, 04:37:53 PM
Do you doubt that Day picked up the rifle by the strap?

Answer the question about the affidavits first.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 05:25:43 PM
Answer the question about the affidavits first.

What is the bottom line?..... What are you trying to prove?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gary Craig on April 18, 2020, 06:03:08 PM
What is the bottom line?..... What are you trying to prove?

You're that far gone you can't even answer a question?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 06:15:00 PM
You're that far gone you can't even answer a question?

Yes, I guess I am....  So why don't you answer the question?...What's your excuse.?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 18, 2020, 08:31:41 PM
Still waiting for testimony revealing who read 'Mauser' on the rifle

Roger Craig claimed that he saw that "Stamped right there on the barrel "7.65 Mauser,  when Capt Fritz was examining the carcano. Craig said that he wasn't more than six or eight inches from the rifle, and he saw stamped right there on the barrel ---"7.65 Mauser".
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on April 19, 2020, 03:38:26 AM
OK one more time...
   
Quote
Mr. BOONE - Captain Fritz picked it up by the strap, and it was removed from the place where it was.
   
Quote
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do in connection with the rifle at that particular time?
    Mr. DAY.    I picked the gun up by the wooden stock.
Quote
   Mr. BALL - Did you see Captain Fritz remove anything from the gun?
    Mr. WEITZMAN - No, sir; I did not.

Quote
     Mr. FRITZ.   I told them same thing, not to move it, not to touch it until we could get pictures, and as soon as Lieutenant Day                       could get over there he made pictures of that.
     If Lt Day had his camera and this camera was a press camera [a Speed Graphic like seen at 2:50 in the clip?] He would have to set it down to pick up the rifle. The guy with the press camera had a hat and coat.
      Walt points out that it is Lt Carl Day at 2:55...handling the rifle. Did he remove his hat and coat?
      Also it is possible [and it looks like] that scene was re-created for the movie camera and for the sake of a television report.
      Just see the way the guys are gathered around. Apparently, the mentioned live round had already been ejected. The man with              the rifle practically stuck it in his own face.
      Seymour Weitzman apparently fell asleep when Fritz did that ejecting because he didn't seem to see Fritz remove anything from the rifle.
       At 3:40...I think that was for show also just because I think it was.
       Sir... dust the rifle again so we can get it on film.
       The entire 6th floor was filled with dust and no fingerprints were produced....except--- 
       The mention of the chicken bone and soda bottle [5:00] being found at the window was broadcast around the world.
       To this very day...Oswald is believed to have been eating this lunch while waiting for the motorcade.
       They dusted the bottle and the chicken bone? And...I never heard?
        According to one account of the many accounts...because Oswald's prints weren't found on them--the soda bottle and    chicken bone were thrown away. The locations of this evidence were various.....
        https://books.google.com/books?id=9XEhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq=chicken+bone+and+soda+bottle+6th+floor+jfk&source=bl&ots=yJpjrRu-fI&sig=ACfU3U1ppZkNTMac9p1XqSs6mJS1_lARTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0-Pebt_PoAhVCXawKHa6MC1YQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 19, 2020, 03:53:36 AM
Roger Craig claimed that he saw that "Stamped right there on the barrel "7.65 Mauser,  when Capt Fritz was examining the carcano. Craig said that he wasn't more than six or eight inches from the rifle, and he saw stamped right there on the barrel ---"7.65 Mauser".

Craig was not referring to when Alyea was filming Fritz examining the carcano. Why do you keep claiming he was?
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Jack Trojan on April 19, 2020, 03:55:28 AM
             If Lt Day had his camera and this camera was a press camera [a Speed Graphic like seen at 2:50 in the clip?] He would have to set it down to pick up the rifle. The guy with the press camera had a hat and coat.
      Walt points out that it is Lt Carl Day at 2:55...handling the rifle. Did he remove his hat and coat?
      Also it is possible [and it looks like] that scene was re-created for the movie camera and for the sake of a television report.
      Just see the way the guys are gathered around. Apparently, the mentioned live round had already been ejected. The man with              the rifle practically stuck it in his own face.
      Seymour Weitzman apparently fell asleep when Fritz did that ejecting because he didn't seem to see Fritz remove anything from the rifle.
       At 3:40...I think that was for show also just because I think it was.
       Sir... dust the rifle again so we can get it on film.
       The entire 6th floor was filled with dust and no fingerprints were produced....except--- 
       The mention of the chicken bone and soda bottle [5:00] being found at the window was broadcast around the world.
       To this very day...Oswald is believed to have been eating this lunch while waiting for the motorcade.
       They dusted the bottle and the chicken bone? And...I never heard?
        According to one account of the many accounts...because Oswald's prints weren't found on them--the soda bottle and    chicken bone were thrown away. The locations of this evidence were various.....
        https://books.google.com/books?id=9XEhAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq=chicken+bone+and+soda+bottle+6th+floor+jfk&source=bl&ots=yJpjrRu-fI&sig=ACfU3U1ppZkNTMac9p1XqSs6mJS1_lARTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi0-Pebt_PoAhVCXawKHa6MC1YQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=

Ding ding ding, I believe we have a bingo!
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 19, 2020, 05:07:58 PM
Craig was not referring to when Alyea was filming Fritz examining the carcano. Why do you keep claiming he was?

Craig didn't know about the Alyea footage when he began making his claims about a mauser. If he had known that footage existed, he would not have told lies!
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Bill Chapman on April 19, 2020, 05:22:44 PM
Roger Craig claimed that he saw that "Stamped right there on the barrel "7.65 Mauser,  when Capt Fritz was examining the carcano. Craig said that he wasn't more than six or eight inches from the rifle, and he saw stamped right there on the barrel ---"7.65 Mauser".

Cite that
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on April 19, 2020, 05:58:01 PM
Craig didn't know about the Alyea footage when he began making his claims about a mauser. If he had known that footage existed, he would not have told lies!

I believe that you're right.    But the film has Roger Craig superimposed on it and Roger is saying that he saw "stamped right there on the barrel was the inscription "&.65 Mauser"
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Gerry Down on April 19, 2020, 07:12:30 PM
Roger is saying that he saw "stamped right there on the barrel was the inscription "&.65 Mauser"

He didn't say that until many years later. Never said it at all at the WC.
Title: Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on April 19, 2020, 11:26:16 PM
He didn't say that until many years later. Never said it at all at the WC.

Didn't 2 deputy sheriffs say the same thing? One being deputy sheriff Seymour Weitzman, who wrote in his report the next day that he found a 7.65 Mauser?  Three men with firearms experience all claimed the same thing. What are the odds? Clearly evidence was being planted all around. So isn't plausible that there could have really been a Mauser?

How many other rifles were seen at the TBD that day?

Here's a Remington Model 8 .. why was it there? https://photos.app.goo.gl/HBy3YVL2NffW9GNt8

What need did the police have for bringing rifles into the TBD? There were plenty of cops with handguns, right?

Is this another rifle in the TBD between boxes? https://photos.app.goo.gl/mVjHy5SG8XHWkXYU7

This guy has a rifle (or maybe a shotgun) https://photos.app.goo.gl/Uz1FoKrL8DNoWifQ6

And there's evidence of 2 Carcano's  https://photos.app.goo.gl/bNNQv5MiFtn9sK7t7

So how far fetched is it that there could have been a Mauser? 3 different cops said they saw a Mauser. 2 changed their story. The 1 who didn't was fired. Seriously... How much more evidence do people need in order to see the fuckery involved?