JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on July 24, 2021, 05:07:40 AM

Title: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on July 24, 2021, 05:07:40 AM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on July 24, 2021, 01:57:36 PM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have Oswald just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

When one has the mindset that no one in a position of authority can be trusted, everything is a conspiracy of one type or another, and trying to make any sense of it whatsoever is futile, your points don’t matter. All that matters is that they have come up with some questions that can be used to bring up more questions which adds more suspicion, conjecture, and innuendo.

My question to those who have that type of mindset is: Why has no credible evidence of a conspiracy been uncovered after almost 58-years of intense scrutiny by thousands of people?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on July 24, 2021, 02:54:09 PM
When one has the mindset that no one in a position of authority can be trusted, everything is a conspiracy of one type or another, and trying to make any sense of it whatsoever is futile, your points don’t matter. All that matters is that they have come up with some questions that can be used to bring up more questions which adds more suspicion, conjecture, and innuendo.

My question to those who have that type of mindset is: Why has no credible evidence of a conspiracy been uncovered after almost 58-years of intense scrutiny by thousands of people?

Who determines credibility? How about you go into detail as to which 'official' in a position of authority can be trusted regarding the JFK assassination. Thanks
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 24, 2021, 03:09:50 PM
When one has the mindset that no one in a position of authority can be trusted, everything is a conspiracy of one type or another, and trying to make any sense of it whatsoever is futile, your points don’t matter. All that matters is that they have come up with some questions that can be used to bring up more questions which adds more suspicion, conjecture, and innuendo.

My question to those who have that type of mindset is: Why has no credible evidence of a conspiracy been uncovered after almost 58-years of intense scrutiny by thousands of people?

The CT response to that would be that conspiracy books are full of proof.

CT mindset is the profoundly adolescent 'nobody can tell me what to say, think, believe, or do' If you've had kids, you'll know all about that phase in their development.  :D
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 24, 2021, 05:00:59 PM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM
Of all of these questions the two that are most striking to me are: "Why not plant witnesses in Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald shoot JFK?" and "Why not have Ruth Paine or Marina or Norman/Jarman/Williams more fully implicate Oswald in the shooting" Such as, he expressed hatred towards JFK, they saw him with a large package that morning, et cetera. Conspiracy believers say that there were all kinds of government agents or assets at the scene of the shooting. But none came forward and said they saw Oswald shoot from the window. Why not?

Hell, why not plant a note/letter from Oswald after Ruby shot him admitting guilt and giving his reasons, e.g., he hated the US, JFK was waging war on his hero Castro, et cetera? Oswald is dead. He can't refute it. One of the key points that Oswald defenders always raise is the question of motive. Well, here's the way to answer it.

If these powerful groups who were allegedly behind the assassination wanted to frame Oswald they could have done many more things to implicate him. But they didn't.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 24, 2021, 08:38:10 PM
Too bad Zapruder wasn't in Brennan's position. But no problem for CTers; they'd just claim Oswald as a lookalike and need proof that he was shooting at anyone in particular. Same-old, same-old.. but from (literally) a different angle.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Rick Plant on July 25, 2021, 12:24:26 AM
Too bad Zapruder wasn't in Brennan's position. But no problem for CTers; they'd just claim Oswald as a lookalike and need proof that he was shooting at anyone in particular. Same-old, same-old.. but from (literally) a different angle.

Making a claim like this?


The Two Oswalds: It’s the theory to end all theories. And the theory to begin all theories

Fashions and fads swirl around the world of JFK conspiracy theories just as anywhere else. Today the most trendy, cutting-edge area of research is the Two Oswalds theory, which provides certain proof that some people may have too much time on their hands. The theory has been around in one form or another at least since Richard H. Popkin published The Second Oswald in 1966. But in recent years it has been refined, if that’s the word. It claims there were actually two people who, for around ten years, lived as Lee Harvey Oswald. One was the son of Marguerite Oswald who was born in New Orleans and grew up in Fort Worth, and the second, perhaps a boy from Hungary with physical features similar to Lee’s, was a plant by the CIA or some other powerful and secret organization who, at about age thirteen, began living a parallel life as Lee’s double. The attraction of this theory is that it fits neatly with any number of other conspiracy theories involving the CIA, the KGB, the FBI, and Castro. Any of them, the speculation goes, could have manipulated the Two Oswald situation to its benefit. How the doubles behaved when it came time to murder the president is murky, but in general, one Oswald, the plant, is left holding the bag (“I’m a patsy”) while the other Oswald, the son of Marguerite, ostensibly working for the CIA, gets away, his existence and involvement unsuspected.

The theory is so implausible that its popularity now might be taken as a sign that conspiracy research has at last hit a dead end. It’s one thing to believe that Oswald was involved in a plot; it’s another to believe that the plot began when he was thirteen. Who could believe this stuff and why? To answer those questions I spent two days in Tulsa, Oklahoma, this summer with John Armstrong, a 48-year-old contractor and oilman who is the leading proponent of the Two Oswalds theory. Armstrong is a relative latecomer to conspiracy research, getting into the game eight years ago after attending JFK assassination classes at the University of Texas at Arlington. He has since coauthored a book, Dead Witnesses (Consolidated Press); made numerous multimedia presentations on the Two Oswalds to groups, including the JFK Lancer and COPA (Coalition on Political Assassinations) conventions, the two conspiracy research assemblies that meet in Dallas every November; written for Probe magazine, which is published by the Citizens for Truth About the Kennedy Assassination; and devotes from twenty to forty hours a week to the subject, which has filled two studies in the home in suburban Tulsa that he shares with his family. He hardly fits the profile of a conspiracy nut. Rather, I found him to be a congenial, if sometimes obsessive kind of guy (it goes with the territory) who obviously isn’t in it for the money, judging from his home and six expensive sportscars.

The existence of two Oswalds would be simple enough to prove. All that would be necessary is valid physical evidence showing Oswald at place A and valid physical evidence showing a second Oswald at place B at the same time. (If the deception lasted almost eleven years, from the time Oswald was thirteen until November 1963, such evidence must be in abundance.) Armstrong can’t do that. Instead, Armstrong regaled me for hours with minutiae. It was clear that he suffers from the conspiracy buff’s disease of admitting all supposed evidence that supports his thesis no matter how shaky and ignoring all evidence that undermines it no matter how certain. Here are a few of Armstrong’s many claims:

• Of the 451 photos taken of Oswald’s personal effects by the Dallas Police Department, 210 were never returned by the FBI.

• The description of a Minox spy camera that Dallas police officer Gus Rose testified he found in Oswald’s duffel bag was changed by someone at the FBI to that of a Minox light meter. • A sixth-grade photograph from Ridglea West Elementary in Fort Worth, with Lee Harvey, one of the tallest kids in the class, on the top row, doesn’t agree with a New York psychiatrist’s description of the thirteen-year-old Oswald as short a year later.

• Accounts from Oswald’s co-workers in New Orleans conflict with the employment history detailed in the Warren report; some witnesses said he was working there at the same time he was supposed to have been in the military.

• W-2 forms relating to Oswald’s employment in 1955 and 1956 had taxpayer identification numbers that weren’t issued until 1964, according to correspondence from the Internal Revenue Service.

• A woman in Yuma, Arizona, filed a report with the FBI after the assassination that said her son had befriended a Marxist-quoting Oswald at age thirteen in Stanley, North Dakota, during the summer of 1953, when he was supposed to have been in New York.

• There are several accounts of encounters with Oswald in New Orleans, in Florida, and in Havana during the time he was supposed to have been in Russia, two from car salesmen who remembered Oswald inquiring about purchasing a fleet of trucks to send to Cuba.

• Ray Carney, the former news director at KBOX radio station in Dallas said Oswald tried to obtain from him the names of pilots who had volunteered on airborne missions over Cuba.

• Armstrong has even compiled a list of more than twenty people who remembered seeing Oswald driving a car, though he didn’t have a driver’s license.

• Frances Irene Hise said she met “Ozzie” Oswald in the company of her friend Jack Ruby several times at the Carousel Club in Dallas in the summer and fall of 1963.

• Mary Lawrence, the head waitress at Lucas B&B Cafe on Oak Lawn, said she saw Ruby and Oswald together at the restaurant the night after the assassination.

• Dub Stark, the owner of the Top Ten record shop in Oak Cliff, said Oswald and Officer J. D. Tippit were both in his store on the day of the assassination.

• Numerous eyewitnesses placed Oswald at various times in the company of anti-Castro Cuban exile groups and pro-Castro supporters. Robert McKeown, a Houston-area businessman who had provided arms to Fidel Castro during the Cuban revolution and was visited by Castro in Houston in 1959 after the revolution, testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978 that Oswald showed up at his doorstep trying to buy rifles in September 1963.

Most of these pieces of evidence, Armstrong believes, were ignored by investigators or either suppressed or withheld by the FBI. Armstrong has his own reasons for believing these assertions are credible, but it would take a lifetime to double-check them all. That’s how Armstrong is spending his life, not how I’m going to spend mine. Still, why would an otherwise reasonable and successful man live like this? Why devote yourself to proving a theory that is ludicrous on its face? I found the answer unexpectedly. There were two items he showed me that flew in under my radar. There is in fact a memo from J. Edgar Hoover written in 1960 saying “there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate.” But an even more intriguing moment occurred for me when Armstrong began talking about Frank Kudlaty. Kudlaty was the vice principal at Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth, where I was a student on November 22, 1963. Kudlaty told Armstrong of handing over Oswald’s school records to two agents from the FBI the day after the assassination. According to the Warren Commission, Lee Harvey Oswald attended junior high schools in New York and New Orleans but not in Fort Worth. The FBI denies the existence of the Stripling records.

I tracked down Kudlaty in Waco, where he now lives in retirement after a lengthy career as a school administrator in several Texas cities. He related the incident that turned out to be his brush with infamy. The day after the assassination, Mr. Wylie, Stripling’s principal, asked him to pull Oswald’s records and hand them over to FBI agents. Kudlaty recalled those events and briefly examined the records before handing them over. “I do recall the grades were not good,” he told me. That has bothered him ever since. “A person of that mind could teach himself Russian and pass himself as Russian? I don’t think so,” Kudlaty said.

The Hoover memo and that short conversation with Kudlaty put more doubt in my mind than the two days I spent with Armstrong and his blizzard of documents. Is there a good explanation for what happened to those records? Was Kudlaty wrong? And what was Hoover talking about in that memo, and what’s the story behind it? I don’t know the answers and I’m not going to devote my life to finding out. But here was one undeniable, strange, and tantalizing fact in the memo and the personal testimony of a man I knew and respected, and that almost had me going. It was enough to let me understand why a man like Armstrong has fallen under the spell of the Two Oswalds.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/the-two-oswalds/
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on July 25, 2021, 01:37:29 PM
Who determines credibility? How about you go into detail as to which 'official' in a position of authority can be trusted regarding the JFK assassination. Thanks

More questions, why am I not surprised?

To a young child, the story of Santa Claus is typically credible. As the child matures, some of the details of the story become less believable. Eventually…..

To the less informed, the conspiracy theories might seem credible. As more details are learned, the conspiracy theories typically become less believable, at least to those who listen to reason. Sadly, most people do not know very many of the details of the assassination and many of them fall prey to those who feed off their paranoia.

Trust is something that can be earned by trustworthy behavior. Whether one trusts another person or not can depend on one’s prior experiences in life. Those who have had a lot of experiences with people who are not trustworthy will likely be less inclined to trust others. Those who have had a lot of experiences with people who are trustworthy are usually more inclined to trust others unless they prove themselves untrustworthy by their behavior.

Attitude, and knowledge (or lack of knowledge) can be the determine factors in the answers to your questions….
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on July 25, 2021, 08:38:42 PM
More questions, why am I not surprised?

Attitude, and knowledge (or lack of knowledge) can be the determine factors in the answers to your questions….

You don't have the knowledge when asked to name reliable authoritative figures dictating to us plebs what is credible, or not.

And you also have a condescending manner. It's like you've decided conspiracy theorists in the JFK case have no right to debate certain aspects of the 'events'. All because the American state, and its actors, they gave us some really dumb scenario to all agree to is what really happened. I personally think the vigorous defenders of the Warren crap are patriots, patriots embarrassed at how corrupted and failed state they really are. Because all dominoes since 11 22 63 fall. And you can't handle the absolute spombleprofglidnoctobuns show that has ensued since. Darkened this world for all of us.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on July 25, 2021, 10:18:49 PM
You don't have the knowledge when asked to name reliable authoritative figures dictating to us plebs what is credible, or not.

And you also have a condescending manner. It's like you've decided conspiracy theorists in the JFK case have no right to debate certain aspects of the 'events'. All because the American state, and its actors, they gave us some really dumb scenario to all agree to is what really happened. I personally think the vigorous defenders of the Warren crap are patriots, patriots embarrassed at how corrupted and failed state they really are. Because all dominoes since 11 22 63 fall. And you can't handle the absolute spombleprofglidnoctobuns show that has ensued since. Darkened this world for all of us.

Another common trait of the paranoid conspiracy theorists, jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. ::)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 26, 2021, 12:39:33 AM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

Great points John.  The objective of many CTers appears to be to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt by any means possible.  The narrative behind these pedantic nitpicking interpretations of the evidence don't have to add up to anything, make any sense, or even be
mutually consistent or supported by any evidence whatsoever.  Most CTers don't even consider the implications of their claims having validity.  The sole objective is to raise false doubt as to Oswald's guilt like a defense attorney.  They don't believe they have to prove anything or consider what did happen if Oswald is innocent or a "patsy."  In reality, however, if you are suggesting that alternative A didn't happen and by necessity something else like alternative B must have happened, then a good test of this theory is the evidence and plausibility of alternative B.  But because all the evidence points to Oswald's guilt, the plausibility of any alternative to Oswald as the assassin is absolutely ludicrous and has to be avoided at all costs fo avoid highlight the absurdity of their claims. 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Alan Ford on July 26, 2021, 01:09:57 AM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

Why suppress Mr Oswald's claim that he "went outside to watch P. Parade"?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on July 26, 2021, 02:41:26 AM
Why suppress Mr Oswald's claim that he "went outside to watch P. Parade"?

I told you before that Oswald was speaking in future tense, after Oswald ran into Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor Oswald made no secret that he went outside but if he was trying to create an alibi surely even you must agree he would have used past tense and explain "then I went outside and watched the P.Parade"

Besides we have Oswald himself on film no less, agreeing that he was inside which is totally corroborated by his interrogators.

Reporter:  "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald:  "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."


And please don't try on your absurd notion that the outside steps were somehow inside because the outside steps as described by his workmates were outside.

Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.

Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not right then I didn't. I say, you know, he was supposed to come by during our lunch hour so you don't get very many chances to see the President of the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been down to Texas very much I went out there to see him and just like everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by


Sarah Stanton who was on the steps described to the FBI that after hearing the shots "immediately went into the building".

(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wcd_0089a-FBI-REPORT-November-23-1963..jpg?w=778)

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on July 26, 2021, 01:17:15 PM
Another common trait of the paranoid conspiracy theorists, jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions. ::)


Trust, but verify -- a common mantra in legal/journalist circles ... but seemingly disputed by 'Oswald did it' believers. It seems like skepticism of the official facts is not welcomed, especially to those that have already concluded it was only Oswald. This is quite an interesting stubborn mindset. This stubborn refusal to accept it was any other shooter or scenario than the one we're given to accept always pits you against the so called conspiracy theorist. To the point where you are unable to stop yourself name calling and smearing -- when you've been challenged to back up what you say.

When stating that we should trust authorities and their conclusions, I simply asked you to give a detailed example of authoritative figures or institutions involved in the solving of JFK's murder that we can thoroughly trust. You made the statement. And you cannot back it up.  You obviously can't (is this a sign that you don't believe what you publicly speak to be truth?}. You wouldn't resort to smearing someone that challenges your thinking if you were so sure!

So as you don't wanna play the game: I will give a little example of something I find odd about that occurred with the three tramps scenario. Nothing that solves the 'who done it' Just something odd, not quite right about what an 'authoritative figure', a cop, someone we should all be able to trust when they make statements, someone that might be giving false testimony. A cop that might have been lying to the public. But why? why on the day that JFK was murdered and he was the guy that supposedly took part in the arrest of 3 potential assassins?

So Marvin Wise, the lead cop in the 1st of seven 3 tramps photos (the alleged Ed Lansdale back to us flashing something from inside his coat). Marvin is accused by 'conspiracy theorists' of wearing an earpiece. Non-standard Dallas cop equipment. Or maybe cops that day were issued with earpieces? I don't think it's ever been substantiated. But if there were cops with non-standard issued earpieces on duty that day, and Wise was one of them, why did he deny he was wearing an earpiece? he got a letter from his doctor stating Wise had an ear infection. This is Marvin Wise that stated he knew Jack Ruby before he became a cop. He knew Ruby before the assassination. The he and his wife regularly danced at Ruby's club. He claimed Ruby was "pro-law-enforcement''. I guess he needed to substantiate why he had a relationship Jack Ruby. It did look odd.

But the photo of him walking along with the three tramps and our interesting alleged Ed Lansdale looking fellow appears to show Marvin Wise had something in his ear. Not the cotton wool?, as he claimed. See for yourself.

(https://i.postimg.cc/s2L4XRzL/Marvin-Wise-three-tramps.jpg)

I'd say the 'conspiracy theorists' had a point. There does look to be more than cotton wool in Marvin Wise's  right ear.

Marvin Wise wrote down the three tramps names on a piece of paper and left the piece of paper in his locker for ''over a year''. in actual fact he stated he kept the pieces of paper containing the tramps names until 1966, when he moved to the vice squad. Wise stated that the Warren Commission never asked him about the three tramps arrested. That they weren't interested in knowing the names or any details, as they never asked him about them. They were interested in his relationship with Jack Ruby. Marvin Wise was assigned to the basement on the 24th. An admitted friend of Jack Ruby was in attendance and on duty when Jack Ruby somehow got into the basement and shot dead Oswald. Marvin Wise was then sent to Parkland Hospital to 'guard' the operating room containing the shooting victim of his friend, Jack Ruby.

The same cop who escorted 3 suspects across dealey plaza. Wrote down their names on a pieces of paper and just discarded them. No apparent professional curiosity about these 'hobo's and what they were doing behind the grassy knoll. And then only when around the time the JFK movie was released the Dallas police department suddenly found the (blank non-fingerprinted) arrest sheet's, supposedly identifying the three tramps, Wise then said, around the time, he also saw on the news a report about the three tramps, that's when Marvin Wise remembered the individual names of all three tramps!. It all came back to him. When questioned by the HSCA in the mid 70s: Wise said he destroyed the names of the three tramps, and he did not know the names of the three individuals. He couldn't remember even one of the three tramps names. Not one, no first names or surnames. Even though he could have gone a long way to possibly making himself look like a competent police officer doing his job on the day the president of the united states was assassinated and he supposedly helped arrest 3 strange suspicious people behind the grassy knoll hiding in box cars. It was lucky for him, though, that the helpful Dallas Police and the news report re-jogged his memory some years later!

(https://i.postimg.cc/h4XZBpLv/embossed-cop.jpg)



The same cops that stated they patted down and searched the three tramps and found nothing suspicious. Although Wise said he found a single blade bone handle knife on the older tramp. He didn't think anything of it, Wise even put the tramps knife in his waistband. Wise said he felt embarrassed and that he wasting detectives time bringing these 'hobo's' to Sheriff Decker's office.

Did they even 'pat down' and thoroughly search the tramps? Officer Vaughn stated the tramps were give a good patting down for weapons. It was a windy day in Dallas and luckily for us the taller tramp revealed to us what appears to be a walkie talkie shaped object hidden down his sock or attached to his leg. Tricked those cops didn't he. Cops would never think of checking the legs of a potential murder suspect, would they?

(https://i.postimg.cc/5tLHMcP1/taller-tramp-leg.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/RCXWmLT3/Tallest-Tramps-right-leg-2.png)

It's all interesting, because what Officer Chambers (William Earl Chambers) remembered in a 1992 FBI interview (03/03/92). Chambers is the named arresting officer of the three tramps. His name appears as the arresting officer on the 3 Dallas police arrest sheets (found around the time of Stone's JFK movie release). He recalled an officer, 'Cpt OR. Jones' (sic) in the forgery division was assigned to firstly watch and then with questioning the 'hobo's' and finding ''which one shot the president''. And Chambers recalled a discussion to have the three hobo's hands gun powder tested. No mention of what prevented them. So there was some real cop work going on with these hobo's. Some cops actually did their job. I don't think there needed to be an entire police force to neglect their duties/detective work. Appears to have been just a few. A few cops on the scene at several important moments in the assassination and enabled the most important acts to go unchallenged. Seeing these 'Hobos' were actually, at one point, suspected of killing the president, you'd think there would have been some professional desire to really do there job and make sure they could rule out these odd guys seen (immediately after the shooting) running down the tracks and hiding in a train carriage.

(https://i.postimg.cc/x8BvFd3H/shot-the-president.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/Bb2Tk0YV/shot-the-president2.jpg)

Of course, something prevented the cops doing their work. There's a lot of strange anomalies. Like for instance why weren't these, at one point, potential murder suspects even finger printed? Their arrest sheets are incomplete and appear to have been produced to keep inquisitive minds quiet.

Gedney's arrest sheet is not completed and therefore not valid. Doyle & Abrams, the same, incomplete. No finger print's. No arrest number's/id's.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7Z0F9Gn3/Gedneys-arrest-sheet-incomplete.jpg) 

Just google Oswald's arrest sheet for-instance. If you want to see a Dallas Police arrest sheet without any loose ends. A thumb print. An arrest number & ID.

I don't think there's any paranoid conspiracy theorist jumping to conclusions about you. I think you just cannot back up your claims. And I can show some inconsistencies in the 'authorities' involved with providing the truth.

Oswald couldn't have had a more trustworthy accompanying 'guard; than officer Marvin Wise at Parkland hospital. Just like when Marvin Wise subjected the three tramps to a thoroughly, professional, police officer's job, when he escorted them across dealey plaza, He was so inquisitive, wanting to get down the bottom of who these guy's were. har har, that was sarcasm! He had changed his mind about them by the time he got to Decker's office. He felt embarrassed! He didn't want to waste police time, even though he had just apprehended 3 suspicious characters running and hiding in a train. Doesn't seem logical? why wouldn't he be eager to be hero. Be part of American folklore! he arrested potential dangerous suspects, one possibly the assassin! in the most famous murder case in American history! He sure as hell wouldn't have let his 'friend' Jack Ruby just go forth, unchallenged, and shoot Oswald, would he?

a lot of the documents can be found re three tramps at Dennis Morrissette's site. Or I can post them
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 26, 2021, 07:08:58 PM
the arrest of 3 potential assassins?

LOL!  :D  Objectionable and amusing with the same stroke.

Quote
But the photo of him walking along with the three tramps and our interesting alleged Ed Lansdale looking fellow appears to show Marvin Wise had something in his ear. Not the cotton wool?, as he claimed. See for yourself.

I'd say the 'conspiracy theorists' had a point. There does look to be more than cotton wool in Marvin Wise's  right ear.

Well.. sure looks like a strand of cotton wool rolled up in a "tube" to better fit the ear canal. The 1977 HSCA Interview:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "Wise stated that he had an ear infection from swimming and had
     cotton in it. He stated that it probably was hanging out because
     he had run a good distance and it may have come loose. He said
     that his doctor then is still his doctor now."

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184799/m1/1/high_res/)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184800/m1/1/high_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The cotton seems to have work loose as pictures of Wise, the policeman in the lead, taken on Houston show nothing projecting from his ear.

Quote
3 strange suspicious people behind the grassy knoll hiding in box cars.

LOL!  What drama!!!  Is La Scala in season?

Quote
It was a windy day in Dallas and luckily for us the taller tramp revealed to us what appears to be a walkie talkie shaped object hidden down his sock or attached to his leg. Tricked those cops didn't he. Cops would never think of checking the legs of a potential murder suspect, would they?

Looks like a bottle. Some hobos drank.

(https://images1.dallasobserver.com/imager/u/magnum/9449896/robert_groden_dealey_plaza_5-7-2017_by_jim_schutze.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Hobo
 
(https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/james-fetzer.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Hobo
 
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MlHqpV_8pss/hqdefault.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Hobo

Quote
It's all interesting, because what Officer Chambers (William Earl Chambers) remembered in a 1992 FBI interview (03/03/92). Chambers is the named arresting officer of the three tramps. His name appears as the arresting officer on the 3 Dallas police arrest sheets (found around the time of Stone's JFK movie release). He recalled an officer, 'Cpt OR. Jones' (sic) in the forgery division was assigned to firstly watch and then with questioning the 'hobo's' and finding ''which one shot the president''. And Chambers recalled a discussion to have the three hobo's hands gun powder tested. No mention of what prevented them.

Chambers didn't "arrest" the hobos in the Plaza, and, by 1992, was guessing or conflating things about the incident.

Quote
Seeing these 'Hobos' were actually, at one point, suspected of killing the president,

One 1992 interview of a policeman trying to reconstruct something thirty years ago. It must not have been that compelling originally as Chambers didn't do anything about it at the time. Probably the more vague a memory is, the more chance for embellishment. Is there another officer or report saying the tramps were asked which one killed the President?

Quote
you'd think there would have been some professional desire to really do there job and make sure they could rule out these odd guys seen (immediately after the shooting) running down the tracks and hiding in a train carriage.

The officers who escorted the hobos said they (the officers) did quite a bit of activity before being told to go see Bowers. Seems at least past one o'clock. I imagine Bowers had it in for people "hopping" freights and wanted to exploit the police presence to "teach" the tramps a lesson. Some railroads had "bulls" who beat up tramps on railroad property.

Quote
Like for instance why weren't these, at one point, potential murder suspects even finger printed?

Because they weren't murder suspects. They were detained for questioning.

Quote
Their arrest sheets are incomplete and appear to have been produced to keep inquisitive minds quiet.

A child can be inquisitive.

Quote
Gedney's arrest sheet is not completed and therefore not valid. Doyle & Abrams, the same, incomplete. No finger print's. No arrest number's/id's.

Just google Oswald's arrest sheet for-instance. If you want to see a Dallas Police arrest sheet without any loose ends. A thumb print. An arrest number & ID.

(https://i.postimg.cc/7Z0F9Gn3/Gedneys-arrest-sheet-incomplete.jpg)

Wise said the Tramp reports were "dummy sheets" (arrest forms used for another purpose) and that only those booked were thumb-printed. The Tramps weren't arrested but were detained all weekend in case of questioning.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on July 26, 2021, 08:09:06 PM

(https://i.postimg.cc/BZg6NTF4/billy-bass.jpg)

The cotton seems to have work loose as pictures of Wise, the policeman in the lead, taken on Houston show nothing projecting from his ear.



An easy to make error on your part. The cop now in front, in the lead, is actually Billy Bass (in this particular photo you've posted). Who was at the rear in the first picture, the picture showing Wise with the strange earpiece. See, they've changed a bit, Marvin Wise has gone from the frame. But nice try.

That's what you get when all you want to do is just debunk everything, for the sake of it.

(https://i.postimg.cc/JnfTTRrv/wise-ass.jpg)

Billy Bass has a whistle or something near the pistol on his right hip. And more details on his shirt on the right chest.

(https://i.postimg.cc/50L52LJK/wise-ass2.jpg)

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on July 26, 2021, 08:47:58 PM
Also, just so you know, @Jerry Organ, Marvin Wise stated to FBI 03/06/92.

The prisoners he escorted that day were released, that day, not 2 or 3 days, as the Doyle tramp character stated. No the tramps Marvin Wise escorted were released THAT DAY, DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1tdjFpVG/WISE-AND-TRAMPS.jpg)

Doyle's FBI interview in 1992, also.

(https://i.postimg.cc/J0cY2Sdq/doyle-released.jpg)

The reason you are mixed up is because there were two groups of tramps arrested. The lot with cops Marvin Wise, Billy Bass, William Chambers, and a group of tramps arrested immediately after the assassination, which I believe were the tramps Harold Doyle, John Gedney, and Gus Abrams.

Harold Doyle stated there were arrested immediately after the assassination and walked past angry crowds. Well there are no crowds in the series of three tramps photos. 



Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 26, 2021, 11:04:19 PM
An easy to make error on your part. The cop now in front, in the lead, is actually Billy Bass (in this particular photo you've posted). Who was at the rear in the first picture, the picture showing Wise with the strange earpiece. See, they've changed a bit, Marvin Wise has gone from the frame. But nice try.

(https://toddleopold.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/71d07326332e96e2c8da2b0a5099b6e3.jpeg)

If this is Wise, the cotton is no longer there.

Quote
That's what you get when all you want to do is just debunk everything, for the sake of it.

I posted pictures I thought proved my point, just like you did. In this case, I was wrong. Now you admit you're wrong about the "arrest reports" requiring a thumb-print.


Also, just so you know, @Jerry Organ, Marvin Wise stated to FBI 03/06/92.

The prisoners he escorted that day were released, that day, not 2 or 3 days, as the Doyle tramp character stated. No the tramps Marvin Wise escorted were released THAT DAY, DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION.

Given that it's going on thirty years for these memories, I doubt Wise would have accurately recalled, and if he did, the deputy could have been mistaken. The "investigative prisoners" were not held at the county jail for long, being sent to the city jail. Could be someone thought they were "released" from county.

Quote
Doyle's FBI interview in 1992, also.

The reason you are mixed up is because there were two groups of tramps arrested. The lot with cops Marvin Wise, Billy Bass, William Chambers, and a group of tramps arrested immediately after the assassination, which I believe were the tramps Harold Doyle, John Gedney, and Gus Abrams.

Harold Doyle stated there were arrested immediately after the assassination and walked past angry crowds. Well there are no crowds in the series of three tramps photos. 

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184799/m1/1/high_res/)  (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rzjBc8KlhIxNr2WPGUf747tUb8LVKhSU)

Sorry, but there was only one group of "tramps". I would guess the shadows show them walking along Houston about 2:30 PM. The Star-Telegram photographer who took the photo of the tramps by the gates arrived there about 2 PM. A photo (that showed the rooftop clock) taken just before the tramps photo shows the time as 2:19.

We don't have 1963-era photos of Doyle, Gedney and Abrams making a direct match-up difficult. Doyle and Gedney were still alive in 1992 and confirmed they were two of the tramps in the photographs. Wise and Roy Vaughn also identified the three tramps in the photos as Doyle, Gedney and Abrams.

If the walk-through of the Group A tramps was "immediately" after the assassination (when you contend there would have been "crowds") then pictures of that would have been taken, probably before 1 PM. Freelance photographer Jim Murray was in the Plaza until 1:15., leaving a few minutes to get film and shooting more film until 1:45. Newspaper photographer William Allen began shooting film in the Plaza about 12:40; he took pictures of one tramp parade, the 2:30 PM one.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 26, 2021, 11:09:03 PM
Imagine that CTers have gone over this case to the extent that an apparent cotton ball in the ear of a cop has become a topic but they still can't construct any plausible alternative narrative that explains away the evidence against Oswald. 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 27, 2021, 12:24:06 AM
Of all of these questions the two that are most striking to me are: "Why not plant witnesses in Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald shoot JFK?" and "Why not have Ruth Paine or Marina or Norman/Jarman/Williams more fully implicate Oswald in the shooting" Such as, he expressed hatred towards JFK, they saw him with a large package that morning, et cetera. Conspiracy believers say that there were all kinds of government agents or assets at the scene of the shooting. But none came forward and said they saw Oswald shoot from the window. Why not?

Hell, why not plant a note/letter from Oswald after Ruby shot him admitting guilt and giving his reasons, e.g., he hated the US, JFK was waging war on his hero Castro, et cetera? Oswald is dead. He can't refute it. One of the key points that Oswald defenders always raise is the question of motive. Well, here's the way to answer it.

If these powerful groups who were allegedly behind the assassination wanted to frame Oswald they could have done many more things to implicate him. But they didn't.

"Why not plant witnesses in Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald shoot JFK?"   

Answer .... Because Lee did not shoot JFK...... And if someone had swore they saw Lee shoot JFK and then someone like Marrion Baker ( for example) or some other person swore that he had seen LHO at a time when it made the witness statement obvious BS .....The police( if it had been a honest investigation)  would have called the witness and questioned  WHY they had reported something that they couldn't possibly have seen.....

You're not using your head......

The the number of people who knew of the plot to murder JFK had to be kept to a very small group.....The more people with knowledge of the plot, the greater the danger of the plot being discovered and foiled.   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on July 27, 2021, 02:43:53 AM
"Why not plant witnesses in Dealey Plaza who say they saw Oswald shoot JFK?"   

Answer .... Because Lee did not shoot JFK...... And if someone had swore they saw Lee shoot JFK and then someone like Marrion Baker ( for example) or some other person swore that he had seen LHO at a time when it made the witness statement obvious BS .....The police( if it had been a honest investigation)  would have called the witness and questioned  WHY they had reported something that they couldn't possibly have seen.....

You're not using your head......

The the number of people who knew of the plot to murder JFK had to be kept to a very small group.....The more people with knowledge of the plot, the greater the danger of the plot being discovered and foiled.   

Quote
The the number of people who knew of the plot to murder JFK had to be kept to a very small group.....

Huh?, In practically every one of your thousands of posts you seem to implicate someone new, for instance just in the above post you are already suggesting the Police hadn't been honest, exactly who else besides the Dallas Police was responsible and why? And if there was even one group beyond the Dallas Police, wouldn't that make a conspiracy that wasn't very small?

JohnM

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on July 27, 2021, 04:16:54 AM
I ask why no credible evidence of a conspiracy has been uncovered after all these years. And get treated to the absurd photo of what appears to be the outline of a flask of booze under the pants leg of one of the hobos! How paranoid do you have to be to believe that it looks like a walkie talkie?  ???
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on July 27, 2021, 08:10:15 AM
It's interesting how suddenly now the cop has bad memory. Marvin Wise confirmed in his FBI statement the three tramps he escorted from the railtracks were released ... it appears ... IMMEDIATELY upon being taken in. No questioning, just released.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1tdjFpVG/WISE-AND-TRAMPS.jpg)

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Alan Ford on July 27, 2021, 10:12:26 AM
I told you before that Oswald was speaking in future tense, after Oswald ran into Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor Oswald made no secret that he went outside but if he was trying to create an alibi surely even you must agree he would have used past tense and explain "then I went outside and watched the P.Parade"

Besides we have Oswald himself on film no less, agreeing that he was inside which is totally corroborated by his interrogators.

Reporter:  "Were you in the building at the time?"
Oswald:  "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."


And please don't try on your absurd notion that the outside steps were somehow inside because the outside steps as described by his workmates were outside.

Mr. LOVELADY - That's on the second floor; so, I started going to the domino room where I generally went in to set down and eat and nobody was there and I happened to look on the outside and Mr. Shelley was standing outside with Miss Sarah Stanton, I believe her name is, and I said, "Well, I'll go out there and talk with them, sit down and eat my lunch out there, set on the steps," so I went out there.

Mr. BALL - You were standing where?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just outside the glass doors there.
Mr. BALL - That would be on the top landing of the entrance?
Mr. SHELLEY - yes.

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; not right then I didn't. I say, you know, he was supposed to come by during our lunch hour so you don't get very many chances to see the President of the United States and being an old Texas boy, and [he] never having been down to Texas very much I went out there to see him and just like everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come by


Sarah Stanton who was on the steps described to the FBI that after hearing the shots "immediately went into the building".

(https://i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/wcd_0089a-FBI-REPORT-November-23-1963..jpg?w=778)

JohnM

Tsk, tsk, Mr Mytton these weak copes of yours have already been dealt with multiple times....................

-Since 2019 the claim that Mr Oswald never placed himself outside for the motorcade is dead
-In the exchange with the reporter, Mr Oswald simply and snippily confirms that he was at his place of employment at the time of the shooting
-The enclosed, roofed front entrance steps are at once part of the building (not out on the street) and outside

So! I repeat my question: Why was Mr Oswald's claim in custody that he "went outside to watch P. Parade" suppressed in all the official interrogation reports?

 Thumb1:
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on July 27, 2021, 01:20:32 PM
I don’t know what is going on with this website. It changes the word that can mean a container of booze to spombleprofglidnoctobuns in my previous post in this thread. And when I try to correct it that word keeps on being changed when I post it. Same thing in this post.

Now I am getting paranoid. What is going on?

Duncan, can you look into this please?

 ???


Edit: I guess since the word for the container of booze begins with an f and ends with a k that the software doesn’t let it display. Rather ridiculous I think.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 27, 2021, 04:11:45 PM
Huh?, In practically every one of your thousands of posts you seem to implicate someone new, for instance just in the above post you are already suggesting the Police hadn't been honest, exactly who else besides the Dallas Police was responsible and why? And if there was even one group beyond the Dallas Police, wouldn't that make a conspiracy that wasn't very small?

JohnM

In practically every one of your thousands of posts you seem to implicate someone new,

Huh??.....  You really are confused aren't you, Chum......  For years I've stood on my belief that Lyin Bastard Johnson, and J Edna Hoover are the pinnacle of the plot.     There's nobody new..... THEY CONTROLLED the "investigation"  ........  and orchestrated the tale presented to us in the Warren Report.   Some stupid, gutless, suckers  like yourself actually believe that mountain of BS, is the truth.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on July 28, 2021, 01:38:11 AM
In practically every one of your thousands of posts you seem to implicate someone new,

Huh??.....  You really are confused aren't you, Chum......  For years I've stood on my belief that Lyin Bastard Johnson, and J Edna Hoover are the pinnacle of the plot.     There's nobody new..... THEY CONTROLLED the "investigation"  ........  and orchestrated the tale presented to us in the Warren Report.   Some stupid, gutless, suckers  like yourself actually believe that mountain of BS, is the truth.

Hey slow down champ and enough of the unnecessary insults, it's nice that you finally tell us who was the prime enchiladas but that wasn't the discussion!
I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you'll disclose, was it either Johnson or Hoover that;
planted the rifle,
planted 3 shells in the snipers nest,
planted an Oswald finger printed brown paper bag,
altered the Zapruder film,
altered the autopsy photos,
altered the Xrays,
shot Tippit,
planted shells at the Tippit crime scene,
planted a revolver on Oswald,
altered testimony,
etc etc,

And if neither of those men did any of those specific actions then by definition someone else did and therefore it wasn't just Hoover or Johnson involved in the conspiracy but literally a cast of hundreds knowingly being involved and covering up the killing the President.

As I said with virtually every post you keep adding more and more conspirators to your already massive pile, and I appreciate that you've finally admitted who you believe were the head Conspirators but that will sadly not automatically erase the rest of the conspirators who you claim were involved.

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2021, 01:23:50 PM
Hey slow down champ and enough of the unnecessary insults, it's nice that you finally tell us who was the prime enchiladas but that wasn't the discussion!
I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you'll disclose, was it either Johnson or Hoover that;
planted the rifle,
planted 3 shells in the snipers nest,
planted an Oswald finger printed brown paper bag,
altered the Zapruder film,
altered the autopsy photos,
altered the Xrays,
shot Tippit,
planted shells at the Tippit crime scene,
planted a revolver on Oswald,
altered testimony,
etc etc,

And if neither of those men did any of those specific actions then by definition someone else did and therefore it wasn't just Hoover or Johnson involved in the conspiracy but literally a cast of hundreds knowingly being involved and covering up the killing the President.

As I said with virtually every post you keep adding more and more conspirators to your already massive pile, and I appreciate that you've finally admitted who you believe were the head Conspirators but that will sadly not automatically erase the rest of the conspirators who you claim were involved.

JohnM

'Hoover or Johnson involved'

(https://i.postimg.cc/0yc7QsvD/Me-I-thought-that-was-you.png)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2021, 01:30:25 PM
I don’t know what is going on with this website. It changes the word that can mean a container of booze to spombleprofglidnoctobuns in my previous post in this thread. And when I try to correct it that word keeps on being changed when I post it. Same thing in this post.

Now I am getting paranoid. What is going on?

Duncan, can you look into this please?

 ???


Edit: I guess since the word for the container of booze begins with an f and ends with a k that the software doesn’t let it display. Rather ridiculous I think.

Replaces swear words and such
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on July 28, 2021, 01:41:15 PM
Replaces swear words and such

The word I was trying to use starts with an f, then an l, then an a, then an s, and lastly a k. It isn’t a swear word at all. Whatever parameters that are programmed into the software to identify swear words is not completely accurate. That’s the point I was making.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Duncan MacRae on July 28, 2021, 01:58:35 PM
I don’t know what is going on with this website. It changes the word that can mean a container of booze to spombleprofglidnoctobuns in my previous post in this thread. And when I try to correct it that word keeps on being changed when I post it. Same thing in this post.

Now I am getting paranoid. What is going on?

Duncan, can you look into this please?

 ???


Edit: I guess since the word for the container of booze begins with an f and ends with a k that the software doesn’t let it display. Rather ridiculous I think.

Fixed, thanks for alerting me to the problem, Charles.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2021, 02:22:35 PM
The word I was trying to use starts with an f, then an l, then an a, then an s, and lastly a k. It isn’t a swear word at all. Whatever parameters that are programmed into the software to identify swear words is not completely accurate. That’s the point I was making.

I got 'booyah' changed to 'holy hell' recently
Years ago I got a word changed to something about 'clean socks'
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2021, 03:04:38 PM
Hey slow down champ and enough of the unnecessary insults, it's nice that you finally tell us who was the prime enchiladas but that wasn't the discussion!
I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you'll disclose, was it either Johnson or Hoover that;
planted the rifle,
planted 3 shells in the snipers nest,
planted an Oswald finger printed brown paper bag,
altered the Zapruder film,
altered the autopsy photos,
altered the Xrays,
shot Tippit,
planted shells at the Tippit crime scene,
planted a revolver on Oswald,
altered testimony,
etc etc,

And if neither of those men did any of those specific actions then by definition someone else did and therefore it wasn't just Hoover or Johnson involved in the conspiracy but literally a cast of hundreds knowingly being involved and covering up the killing the President.

As I said with virtually every post you keep adding more and more conspirators to your already massive pile, and I appreciate that you've finally admitted who you believe were the head Conspirators but that will sadly not automatically erase the rest of the conspirators who you claim were involved.

JohnM

'... with virtually every post you keep adding more and more conspirators to your already massive pile

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 28, 2021, 04:31:01 PM
'... with virtually every post you keep adding more and more conspirators to your already massive pile

What they argue - the larger capital "C" conspiracy as opposed to a small one involving Oswald as a willing agent - simply cannot be done. Not and kept quiet. Not planned in advanced - and kept quiet - not pulled off - and kept quiet - not covered up for half a century - and kept quiet. It simply cannot be done.

It's not just the numbers involved - and as John Mytton said you can't just say "LBJ did it!" or "Hoover did it!"; you have to count their underlings or minions who actually had to conduct this conspiracy - but the variety of people and groups. Hoover did not like the CIA. The CIA didn't trust Hoover. The FBI didn't like the DPD. Democrats hated Republicans and vice versa. At least two generations of people have come and gone inside these agencies.

And nothing has been found?

If, however, you believe in this giant "they" and "them", this sort of "blob" of people and agencies and groups then it makes some sense. But there is no "they" and "them". It's a long series of people and groups and agencies and departments - all often at odds with one another - that simply could not pull off what is alleged.

There's a famous quote from the political scientist Hannah Arendt that goes: "An oligarchy is rule by a minority; a democracy is rule by the majority; and a bureaucracy is rule by no one." These were bureaucracies behind this alleged conspiracy. You can't get them to agree to something like this. That's not how the real world works.

But in conspiracy world anything and everything are not only possible but actually done.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 28, 2021, 04:57:17 PM
What they argue - the larger capital "C" conspiracy as opposed to a small one involving Oswald as a willing agent - simply cannot be done. Not and kept quiet. Not planned in advanced - and kept quiet - not pulled off - and kept quiet - not covered up for half a century - and kept quiet. It simply cannot be done.

It's not just the numbers involved - and as John Mytton said you can't just say "LBJ did it!" or "Hoover did it!"; you have to count their underlings or minions who actually had to conduct this conspiracy - but the variety of people and groups. Hoover did not like the CIA. The CIA didn't trust Hoover. The FBI didn't like the DPD. Democrats hated Republicans and vice versa. At least two generations of people have come and gone inside these agencies.

And nothing has been found?

If, however, you believe in this giant "they" and "them", this sort of "blob" of people and agencies and groups then it makes some sense. But there is no "they" and "them". It's a long series of people and groups and agencies and departments - all often at odds with one another - that simply could not pull off what is alleged.

There's a famous quote from the political scientist Hannah Arendt that goes: "An oligarchy is rule by a minority; a democracy is rule by the majority; and a bureaucracy is rule by no one." These were bureaucracies behind this alleged conspiracy. You can't get them to agree to something like this. That's not how the real world works.

But in conspiracy world anything and everything are not only possible but actually done.


you can't just say "LBJ did it!" or "Hoover did it!"; you have to count their underlings or minions who actually had to conduct this conspiracy -

If you're looking for the actual snipers who shot JFK.....  I don't believe that's possible.    ( Unless one of them left a signed confession )

But it should be abundantly clear that Lee Oswald was NOT one of the killers .      It amazes me that the LNers are so blind to the FACTS that crush the nonsense presented to us as the official U.S. government approved gospel  truth .   

Just one simple FACT for example ......   The cheap old carcano that is presented to us as the murder weapon.

Anybody with a functioning brain should be able to understand that that rusty old carcano could NOT have performed in the manner it would have had to perform, to accomplish the amazing task the government says it did.  ( Three shots in less than seven seconds )   Even in the hands of a world champion rifleman that old carcano could NOT have been the murder weapon.

And this is just one of the dozen of FACTS that indicate that the WR is a pile of BS, and Lee Oswald was simply the Patsy he told us he was.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2021, 05:00:38 PM
What they argue - the larger capital "C" conspiracy as opposed to a small one involving Oswald as a willing agent - simply cannot be done. Not and kept quiet. Not planned in advanced - and kept quiet - not pulled off - and kept quiet - not covered up for half a century - and kept quiet. It simply cannot be done.

It's not just the numbers involved - and as John Mytton said you can't just say "LBJ did it!" or "Hoover did it!"; you have to count their underlings or minions who actually had to conduct this conspiracy - but the variety of people and groups. Hoover did not like the CIA. The CIA didn't trust Hoover. The FBI didn't like the DPD. Democrats hated Republicans and vice versa. At least two generations of people have come and gone inside these agencies.

And nothing has been found?

If, however, you believe in this giant "they" and "them", this sort of "blob" of people and agencies and groups then it makes some sense. But there is no "they" and "them". It's a long series of people and groups and agencies and departments - all often at odds with one another - that simply could not pull off what is alleged.

There's a famous quote from the political scientist Hannah Arendt that goes: "An oligarchy is rule by a minority; a democracy is rule by the majority; and a bureaucracy is rule by no one." These were bureaucracies behind this alleged conspiracy. You can't get them to agree to something like this. That's not how the real world works.

But in conspiracy world anything and everything are not only possible but actually done.

'you can't just say "LBJ did it!" or "Hoover did it!"
> High school drop-out OT#OB recently declared that there was no rifle in that blanket. Hell, even one blanket fiber found in that bag raised my eyebrows, I can tell you.
> Mr Ford (not Henry) often declares that Oswald shot nobody. Nobody. How dare he call Kennedy a nobody!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 28, 2021, 05:18:08 PM

you can't just say "LBJ did it!" or "Hoover did it!"; you have to count their underlings or minions who actually had to conduct this conspiracy -

If you're looking for the actual snipers who shot JFK.....  I don't believe that's possible.    ( Unless one of them left a signed confession )

But it should be abundantly clear that Lee Oswald was NOT one of the killers .      It amazes me that the LNers are so blind to the FACTS that crush the nonsense presented to us as the official U.S. government approved gospel  truth .   

Just one simple FACT for example ......   The cheap old carcano that is presented to us as the murder weapon.

Anybody with a functioning brain should be able to understand that that rusty old carcano could NOT have performed in the manner it would have had to perform, to accomplish the amazing task the government says it did.  ( Three shots in less than seven seconds )   Even in the hands of a world champion rifleman that old carcano could NOT have been the murder weapon.

And this is just one of the dozen of FACTS that indicate that the WR is a pile of BS, and Lee Oswald was simply the Patsy he told us he was.

'Three shots in less than seven seconds'
> Two shots in 8.3 seconds.

The clock starts after the first shot

0:00 BOOM>click-click
?:??  BOOM>click-click
8:03  BOOM>click-click
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 28, 2021, 07:04:39 PM
'Three shots in less than seven seconds'
> Two shots in 8.3 seconds.

The clock starts after the first shot

0:00 BOOM>click-click
?:??  BOOM>click-click
8:03  BOOM>click-click


Let's try to stick to the FACTS.....on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men"  acknowledged that the witnesses at the scene estimated that the shots were fired in "5 to 6 seconds"......

on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men" concluded that the "three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately  4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds"

Your "honorable men" couldn't even stick to the witnesses testimonies ......( 5 to 6 seconds) ...those "honorable men" felt they had to distort the facts by claiming the the period was from "4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds" .....

And now you're attempting to stretch the truth even more.......  Now let's knock off the lying,,,,, The witnesses said the shots were fied in 5 or 6 seconds....  And the Carcano could NOT have performed that feat.....

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 28, 2021, 11:56:34 PM

Let's try to stick to the FACTS.....on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men"  acknowledged that the witnesses at the scene estimated that the shots were fired in "5 to 6 seconds"......

on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men" concluded that the "three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately  4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds"

Your "honorable men" couldn't even stick to the witnesses testimonies ......( 5 to 6 seconds) ...those "honorable men" felt they had to distort the facts by claiming the the period was from "4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds" .....

And now you're attempting to stretch the truth even more.......  Now let's knock off the lying,,,,, The witnesses said the shots were fied in 5 or 6 seconds....  And the Carcano could NOT have performed that feat.....

The only way witnesses could accurately gauge the time span of three shots would be if they have recently spent considerable time at a shooting range where they observed hundreds of random three-shot firings and heard their announced time spans.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 29, 2021, 03:23:28 PM

Let's try to stick to the FACTS.....on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men"  acknowledged that the witnesses at the scene estimated that the shots were fired in "5 to 6 seconds"......

on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men" concluded that the "three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately  4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds"

Your "honorable men" couldn't even stick to the witnesses testimonies ......( 5 to 6 seconds) ...those "honorable men" felt they had to distort the facts by claiming the the period was from "4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds" .....

And now you're attempting to stretch the truth even more.......  Now let's knock off the lying,,,,, The witnesses said the shots were fied in 5 or 6 seconds....  And the Carcano could NOT have performed that feat.....

It comes down to acquiring 'feel' for the bolt action of the Carcano, and the fact that Oswald had no pressure to meet a pre-set firing sequence. Asking testers to instantly overcome those hurdles is tantamount to asking a tennis player to suddenly use somebody else's racquet at match point.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2021, 04:34:06 PM
It comes down to acquiring 'feel' for the bolt action of the Carcano, and the fact that Oswald had no pressure to meet a pre-set firing sequence. Asking testers to instantly overcome those hurdles is tantamount to asking a tennis player to suddenly use somebody else's racquet at match point.
It's been shown multiple times that you can easily fire two shots with a Carcano rifle in 5-6 seconds. The "clock" doesn't "start" until the first shot is fired. Then the shooter has 5-6 seconds to fire two additional shots. It's not three shots in 5-6 seconds; it's two shots AFTER the first in 5-6 seconds.

In any case, the Zapruder film shows that two shots were fired in five seconds. One was at roughly Z-223 and a second at Z-313. That's 90 frames or five seconds. And the entire shooting sequence - depending on the first shot - took around 8-9 seconds. So 8-9 seconds for two shots. So those earwitnesses who estimated that the entire sequence took 4-6 seconds are very likely wrong.



Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 29, 2021, 07:22:16 PM
It comes down to acquiring 'feel' for the bolt action of the Carcano, and the fact that Oswald had no pressure to meet a pre-set firing sequence. Asking testers to instantly overcome those hurdles is tantamount to asking a tennis player to suddenly use somebody else's racquet at match point.

It comes down to acquiring 'feel' for the bolt action of the Carcano,

Utter nonsense from someone who clearly has never fired a carcano......

Even an expert rifleman could not acquire a "feel" for the cranky carcano......   Because the carcano was not designed to be a rapid fire sniper rifle.

The carcano is designed to compress the firing pin spring on the extraction stroke ( up stroke of the bolt handle) and this cumbersome action ALWAYS causes the sights to be pulled off target , which requires the shooter to reacquire the target and realign the sights on target.  ( this action requires several seconds )   There is NO WAY to acquire a "feel" for this balky action and sloppy trigger)

But even if the rifle had been modified to cock on the closing stroke.....and then "maybe? " the rifle could have fired three rounds in 6 seconds....the shooter still would not have been able to hit the target because the scope was mounted askew......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 29, 2021, 08:41:16 PM
The only way witnesses could accurately gauge the time span of three shots would be if they have recently spent considerable time at a shooting range where they observed hundreds of random three-shot firings and heard their announced time spans.

The HSCA testers hit 1.6 sec for two shots. Twice.

I gauge time between actions by using 'one steamboat', two steamboat, three steamboat... each takes one second
Way better than guessing.

But Murray(?) Couch, riding in a press vehicle and experienced with bolt-action rifles apparently, said the time between the second and third shots  sounded about right (2.5 seconds)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 29, 2021, 08:49:40 PM
The word I was trying to use starts with an f, then an l, then an a, then an s, and lastly a k. It isn’t a swear word at all. Whatever parameters that are programmed into the software to identify swear words is not completely accurate. That’s the point I was making.

The admins are watching*

(https://i.postimg.cc/6qbwGvH5/admins-are-watching.png)


*swiped from an animated GIF
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 29, 2021, 09:22:52 PM

Let's try to stick to the FACTS.....on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men"  acknowledged that the witnesses at the scene estimated that the shots were fired in "5 to 6 seconds"......

on page 117 of your bible  ( the WR)  LBJ's "Special Select Hand Picked Committee of venerated, and honorable men" concluded that the "three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately  4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds"

Your "honorable men" couldn't even stick to the witnesses testimonies ......( 5 to 6 seconds) ...those "honorable men" felt they had to distort the facts by claiming the the period was from "4.8 to in excess of 7 seconds" .....

And now you're attempting to stretch the truth even more.......  Now let's knock off the lying,,,,, The witnesses said the shots were fied in 5 or 6 seconds....  And the Carcano could NOT have performed that feat.....

Oswald proved you wrong
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 29, 2021, 09:34:22 PM
The HSCA testers hit 1.6 sec for two shots. Twice.

I gauge time between actions by using 'one steamboat', two steamboat, three steamboat... each takes one second
Way better than guessing.

But Murray(?) Couch riding in a press vehicle and experienced with bolt-action rifles apparently, said the time between the second and third shots  sounded about right (2.5 seconds)

No one is going to be using "steamboat" because they all thought the first shot was a one-offer. Many thought a potential "backfire" or "fire-cracker". A few who claimed they knew it was a gunshot on the first report probably didn't think it would be repeated (I think a few thought it might be a boisterous Texan firing his gun into the air). With all that was occurring, I suspect no one would be using "steamboat" reckoning for shots two and three, either.

The witnesses had no anticipation that a shot spanning exercise would be needed. So how can any shot span reconstruction be anything but unscientific guesstimation?

People aren't that good at estimating time intervals, especially with distractions as in Dealey Plaza. It could be that Derek Chauvin (and maybe the three other officers charged) thought he had Floyd pinned down for a "few" minutes, not enough to kill him. But this event is the extremely rare one where we have full video that tells the whole story, that the kneeling on the neck was over nine minutes. I'm not excusing Chauvin, just offering this as a potential example of poor time estimation.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Izraul Hidashi on July 29, 2021, 10:50:03 PM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

KOOKY THEORIES HUH?  LOL 

You mean like Oswald firing an unusable gun 3x in 8.31 seconds, acculturate, running 100 feet through obstacles then taking to hide the gun..

WHY HIDE THE GUN? Leaving the shells and hiding the gun makes no sense. What's the point of hiding a gun on the same floor like the police  wouldn't find it? Not even the dumbest of dumbasses would do that!

Then run 5 flights of stairs in 40 seconds, run another 15 feet to the break room, and run in to officer Baker without even being out of breath. Even superman would have a hard time pulling that off. But there's nothing dumbass about that kooky story, right? Of course not. LOL

Here's an idea. Take video of yourself running 5 flights of stairs in 40 seconds for all of us to see, since YOU actually believe, and even defend, that idiocy. No point arguing about it when you can just show all of us how easily that can be done.


In fact, Mr. "Not even the dumbest of dumbasses..." why not shoot a bolt action rifle 3 times accurately in 8 seconds while you're at it! Show us how ridiculous are theories (or common sense) really is, Mr. Talker!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 30, 2021, 12:37:31 AM
KOOKY THEORIES HUH?  LOL 

You mean like Oswald firing an unusable gun 3x in 8.31 seconds, acculturate, running 100 feet through obstacles then taking to hide the gun..

Kooky ...

Quote
WHY HIDE THE GUN? Leaving the shells and hiding the gun makes no sense. What's the point of hiding a gun on the same floor like the police  wouldn't find it? Not even the dumbest of dumbasses would do that!

Picking up the shells would cost time and he would be in possession of them. What should he have done? Picked up the shells and threw them across the sixth floor? They would still be found.

But holding onto the rifle allows him to get pass anyone on the sixth floor. And he might have been wiping prints (why make it easy for the police he hated?). By time "Lil' Lee gets to the steps, there's a chance he can sneak or buff his way outside. But not with the rifle.

Quote
Then run 5 flights of stairs in 40 seconds, run another 15 feet to the break room, and run in to officer Baker without even being out of breath. Even superman would have a hard time pulling that off. But there's nothing dumbass about that kooky story, right? Of course not. LOL

"Superman"? LOL! SuperGrandma could have done it. Ossie was 24-years-old, lean and wiry. And the stairs were downward.

    “A test was also conducted to determine the time required to walk
     from the southeast corner of the sixth floor to the second-floor
     lunchroom by stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret
     Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor
     along the east aisle to the northeast corner. He placed the rifle on
     the floor near the site where Oswald's rifle was actually found after
     the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-
     floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal
     walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test, at a
     “fast walk” took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed
     immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary
     to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back
     to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of
     either test run.”
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Warren Report, USGPO, p.152

(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01349/leeharvey_1349859c.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Oswald's not even sweating in this picture.

Quote
Here's an idea. Take video of yourself running 5 flights of stairs in 40 seconds for all of us to see, since YOU actually believe, and even defend, that idiocy. No point arguing about it when you can just show all of us how easily that can be done.


In fact, Mr. "Not even the dumbest of dumbasses..." why not shoot a bolt action rifle 3 times accurately in 8 seconds while you're at it! Show us how ridiculous are theories (or common sense) really is, Mr. Talker!

That's the Loony part. That one has to "make" both of Oswald's shots to the President such that they each land in the same square millimeter as did the ones to Kennedy. Can't be done. Oswald himself, if he were alive and as he was on November 22nd, couldn't do what were unique things in terms of timing and where the shots struck. On the day of the assassination, if Oswald waited 1/100th-of-a-second before firing a shot, we would be talking about a different set of wounds.

One can only roughly duplicate the shots, as the Australians did in 2004:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=17ek8ENh-VHGpBNaK77KvwIeiuoh_7U9-)

They got a Carcano bullet through two body masses (they happened to break two rib surrogates, not just one), and the bullet was intact with an longitudinal twist and the lead core squeezed, like CE399.

The fact that it's impossible to duplicate each last thing down to the microscopic level allow the critics to claim it can't be done.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 30, 2021, 05:30:01 PM
Oswald proved you wrong

You will attribute the impossible to Lee Oswald simply to continue to make a fool of yourself.....

Lee Oswald nor any other mortal could have fired that cranky old carcano accurately even if they would have an hour to fire three shots...
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 31, 2021, 12:45:09 AM
You will attribute the impossible to Lee Oswald simply to continue to make a fool of yourself.....

Lee Oswald nor any other mortal could have fired that cranky old carcano accurately even if they would have an hour to fire three shots...

If that were true, then why plant that rifle to frame Oswald for the crime?  At least be logically consistent with your fantasies.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 31, 2021, 03:21:28 AM
If that were true, then why plant that rifle to frame Oswald for the crime?  At least be logically consistent with your fantasies.

Pssst has the authorities convinced you that the cranky old carcano with the scope mounted askew was the murder weapon? 
If so, then all that was necessary was the ability to convince ignorant, trusting, suckers that the rifle was the murder weapon.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2021, 06:52:57 AM
No one is going to be using "steamboat" because they all thought the first shot was a one-offer. Many thought a potential "backfire" or "fire-cracker". A few who claimed they knew it was a gunshot on the first report probably didn't think it would be repeated (I think a few thought it might be a boisterous Texan firing his gun into the air). With all that was occurring, I suspect no one would be using "steamboat" reckoning for shots two and three, either.

The witnesses had no anticipation that a shot spanning exercise would be needed. So how can any shot span reconstruction be anything but unscientific guesstimation?

People aren't that good at estimating time intervals, especially with distractions as in Dealey Plaza. It could be that Derek Chauvin (and maybe the three other officers charged) thought he had Floyd pinned down for a "few" minutes, not enough to kill him. But this event is the extremely rare one where we have full video that tells the whole story, that the kneeling on the neck was over nine minutes. I'm not excusing Chauvin, just offering this as a potential example of poor time estimation.

People aren't that good at estimating time intervals
I am
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2021, 03:51:26 PM
Pssst has the authorities convinced you that the cranky old carcano with the scope mounted askew was the murder weapon? 
If so, then all that was necessary was the ability to convince ignorant, trusting, suckers that the rifle was the murder weapon.

'the cranky old carcano'
> Says the cranky old fart with multiple fabrications, well at least according to Mr Neil McKneely.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2021, 04:33:18 PM
Pssst has the authorities convinced you that the cranky old carcano with the scope mounted askew was the murder weapon? 
If so, then all that was necessary was the ability to convince ignorant, trusting, suckers that the rifle was the murder weapon.

Tell us what use a patsy would serve.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 31, 2021, 05:30:41 PM
Pssst has the authorities convinced you that the cranky old carcano with the scope mounted askew was the murder weapon? 
If so, then all that was necessary was the ability to convince ignorant, trusting, suckers that the rifle was the murder weapon.

It's your claim that the MC rifle was incapable of being used to assassinate JFK.  If it were true that the MC rifle was incapable of being used to assassinate JFK as you (falsely) claim, then why plant that rifle to implicate Oswald in the assassination instead of a rifle that was capable of the deed?  Were the fantasy conspirators lacking in access to other rifles?  There is no evidence whatsoever as to the condition of the scope at the moment of the assassination.  It is entirely possible that it became "askew" when Oswald dropped it on his way out after the assassination.  It is also possible that the scope was removed and reattached in the search for prints. 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 31, 2021, 08:07:04 PM
To sum up "Mytton's" kooky theory:

A "vast conspiracy" (tm) would have planted evidence that was actually convincing.  Therefore we should assume that this unconvincing evidence proves that Oswald did it.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2021, 10:30:40 PM
KOOKY THEORIES HUH?  LOL 

You mean like Oswald firing an unusable gun 3x in 8.31 seconds, acculturate, running 100 feet through obstacles then taking to hide the gun..

WHY HIDE THE GUN? Leaving the shells and hiding the gun makes no sense. What's the point of hiding a gun on the same floor like the police  wouldn't find it? Not even the dumbest of dumbasses would do that!

Then run 5 flights of stairs in 40 seconds, run another 15 feet to the break room, and run in to officer Baker without even being out of breath. Even superman would have a hard time pulling that off. But there's nothing dumbass about that kooky story, right? Of course not. LOL

Here's an idea. Take video of yourself running 5 flights of stairs in 40 seconds for all of us to see, since YOU actually believe, and even defend, that idiocy. No point arguing about it when you can just show all of us how easily that can be done.


In fact, Mr. "Not even the dumbest of dumbasses..." why not shoot a bolt action rifle 3 times accurately in 8 seconds while you're at it! Show us how ridiculous are theories (or common sense) really is, Mr. Talker!

N'uh: Two times in 8.3 seconds. First shot starts the clock, leaving the next two all 8.3 sec
How can it be otherwise, unless one inhabits the far shores of the lunatic fringe (aka CT Central)

Mr Common-Sense, is the gun 'unstable' to you or to Oswald? How would you know that it was necessarily unstable to the little twerp?

Why produce a video of oneself challenging the timeline unless you are his age, height, weight, same fitness level —such as lugging boxes of books around all day — and exact endocrine system that produces the Oswald metabolism and sweat output results?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on July 31, 2021, 11:13:15 PM
WHY HIDE THE GUN? Leaving the shells and hiding the gun makes no sense. What's the point of hiding a gun on the same floor like the police  wouldn't find it? Not even the dumbest of dumbasses would do that!

He needed to bugger off, not crawl around on the floor looking for spent shells. The rifle? 'This is my rifle, this is my gun'* That's the least he could do.

*Marine indoctrination
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 31, 2021, 11:42:11 PM
It's your claim that the MC rifle was incapable of being used to assassinate JFK.  If it were true that the MC rifle was incapable of being used to assassinate JFK as you (falsely) claim, then why plant that rifle to implicate Oswald in the assassination instead of a rifle that was capable of the deed?  Were the fantasy conspirators lacking in access to other rifles?  There is no evidence whatsoever as to the condition of the scope at the moment of the assassination.  It is entirely possible that it became "askew" when Oswald dropped it on his way out after the assassination.  It is also possible that the scope was removed and reattached in the search for prints.


If it were true that the MC rifle was incapable of being used to assassinate JFK as you (falsely) claim, then why plant that rifle to implicate Oswald in the assassination instead of a rifle that was capable of the deed?

Because they had a photo of LEE holding a carcano like the one that was hidden beneath the pallet of books on the sixth floor.....And they had the paper trail that revealed that Lee had ordered a carcano from Kleins......   All they needed was to convince the gullible unkowing suckers that the rifle was the murder weapon.  ( They certainly succeeded in your case) 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 01, 2021, 08:22:26 PM

If it were true that the MC rifle was incapable of being used to assassinate JFK as you (falsely) claim, then why plant that rifle to implicate Oswald in the assassination instead of a rifle that was capable of the deed?

Because they had a photo of LEE holding a carcano like the one that was hidden beneath the pallet of books on the sixth floor.....And they had the paper trail that revealed that Lee had ordered a carcano from Kleins......   All they needed was to convince the gullible unkowing suckers that the rifle was the murder weapon.  ( They certainly succeeded in your case)

So now you are citing the WC's evidence that links Oswald to rifle!  Unreal.  I thought all this evidence was deemed fake or insufficient by CTers to connect Oswald to the MC rifle?  If you accept that Oswald owned the MC rifle found on the 6th floor, how did your fantasy conspirators arrange to plant it in the TSBD?  If Oswald was working with them in Gomer Pyle-like bliss without a clue as to what was going on, they could have arranged for him to pose in photos with any rifle they wanted.  They would just tell him to do so - right?  Hand him a rifle capable of the deed, snap a picture and forge a few documents linking him to that rifle instead.  None of your fantasies adds up to any coherent alternative narrative per the OP.  It is just applying ad hoc reasoning to series of facts to reach a desired outcome.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 02, 2021, 07:17:28 PM
So now you are citing the WC's evidence that links Oswald to rifle!  Unreal.  I thought all this evidence was deemed fake or insufficient by CTers to connect Oswald to the MC rifle?  If you accept that Oswald owned the MC rifle found on the 6th floor, how did your fantasy conspirators arrange to plant it in the TSBD?  If Oswald was working with them in Gomer Pyle-like bliss without a clue as to what was going on, they could have arranged for him to pose in photos with any rifle they wanted.  They would just tell him to do so - right?  Hand him a rifle capable of the deed, snap a picture and forge a few documents linking him to that rifle instead.  None of your fantasies adds up to any coherent alternative narrative per the OP.  It is just applying ad hoc reasoning to series of facts to reach a desired outcome.

So now you are citing the WC's evidence that links Oswald to rifle!

NOW??? What the hell do you mean NOW ??   I've always accepted the evidence presented....     But I certainly don't accept the various interpretations of that evidence.....   The evidence is solid that Captain Fritz had a BY photo in his possession....   He admitted it, and described what appeared in that photo BEFORE the Photo was officially "discovered" in the Paine's garage. 

I thought all this evidence was deemed fake or insufficient by CTers to connect Oswald to the MC rifle? 

If you had a functioning brain you would not attempt to bind all CT's together as an amalgamation ......The one thing that CT's have in common is their refusal to accept that a dog turd ( the Warren Report)is a candy bar....   Unlike the LNers who have bitten off some of that " candy bar" and are contentedly chewing.....while arguing that it's genuine..
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 04, 2021, 01:47:12 AM
To sum up "Mytton's" kooky theory:

A "vast conspiracy" (tm) would have planted evidence that was actually convincing.  Therefore we should assume that this unconvincing evidence proves that Oswald did it.

Huh? The physical evidence that links Oswald to the crime has always been rock solid but listen carefully, the OP is all about the CT's multiple unagreed theories that attempt to extrapolate disparate insignificant pieces of evidence into an unexplained contradictory narrative that could never possibly make logical sense, for instance having a triangulated shooter in front of Kennedy when your patsy is behind, has and always will be straight up ridiculous, but undeterred 55+ years later we still have naïve CT's pushing this lunacy.

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 04, 2021, 06:16:23 PM
Huh? The physical evidence that links Oswald to the crime has always been rock solid but listen carefully, the OP is all about the CT's multiple unagreed theories that attempt to extrapolate disparate insignificant pieces of evidence into an unexplained contradictory narrative that could never possibly make logical sense, for instance having a triangulated shooter in front of Kennedy when your patsy is behind, has and always will be straight up ridiculous, but undeterred 55+ years later we still have naïve CT's pushing this lunacy.

JohnM
The questions you asked in the original post reveal a sort of "motivated incuriousness" on the part of the Oswald defenders in general and the conspiracy advocates specifically. Motivated, deliberate, willful lack of curiosity.

As in: if there was a large scale conspiracy done by powerful groups behind the event then "Why didn't they plant witnesses in Dealey Plaza to say they saw Oswald shoot JFK?" Isn't that obvious? Or "Why didn't they make Marina say Oswald hated JFK?"

Wouldn't a curious person about this matter ask those questions? Wouldn't someone looking at the conspiracy claims raise them? Out of curiosity?

There's a motivated and deliberate lack of curiosity about these areas that expose the good faith questioners about the evidence from the bad faith questioners. This is an example of one.

But if one wants to be a sort of Mark Lane here defending Oswald (Lane did it to for ideological and personal reasons; why are others doing it?) then never mind.

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Robert Reeves on August 04, 2021, 06:17:23 PM
for instance having a triangulated shooter in front of Kennedy when your patsy is behind, has and always will be straight up ridiculous, but undeterred 55+ years later we still have naïve CT's pushing this lunacy.

JohnM

Not if the first shot misses, and the second shot doesn't have the desired effect, JFK appears to be still alive after two shots!

You now have a problem. And one problem a military-style assassination would have already accounted for, and to overcome.Then you go into emergency mode. Issue orders to stop the limo. Leave nothing to chance, just have to kill the target. The cover-up story will hold tight because the people now in charge don't have the motivation to get down the truth.

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 04, 2021, 08:49:16 PM
NOW??? What the hell do you mean NOW ??

Strawman “Smith” doesn’t pay attention to what anybody says. He’s too busy building strawmen to argue with.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 04, 2021, 08:50:18 PM
Huh? The physical evidence that links Oswald to the crime has always been rock solid

LOL
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 05, 2021, 03:04:18 AM
So now you are citing the WC's evidence that links Oswald to rifle!

NOW??? What the hell do you mean NOW ??   I've always accepted the evidence presented....     But I certainly don't accept the various interpretations of that evidence.....   The evidence is solid that Captain Fritz had a BY photo in his possession....   He admitted it, and described what appeared in that photo BEFORE the Photo was officially "discovered" in the Paine's garage. 

I thought all this evidence was deemed fake or insufficient by CTers to connect Oswald to the MC rifle? 

If you had a functioning brain you would not attempt to bind all CT's together as an amalgamation ......The one thing that CT's have in common is their refusal to accept that a dog turd ( the Warren Report)is a candy bar....   Unlike the LNers who have bitten off some of that " candy bar" and are contentedly chewing.....while arguing that it's genuine..

So the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor belonged to LHO?  And the WC evidence linking him to this particular rifle is authentic?  Wow that will come as a shock to your fellow contrarians with their "Oswald's rifle - LOL." 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jon Banks on August 05, 2021, 04:45:09 PM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

The logical fallacy of your post is the assumption that there is consensus around one single conspiracy theory.

In reality, there is only consensus around the idea of JFK being killed by a conspiracy plot. The "who" and "how" depends on whom you talk to.

But I've also found over the years that Lone-nut narrative folks don't agree on everything as well. There's no consensus on "how" Oswald alone killed JFK or what his motive was.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 05, 2021, 06:14:21 PM
So the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor belonged to LHO?  And the WC evidence linking him to this particular rifle is authentic?  Wow that will come as a shock to your fellow contrarians with their "Oswald's rifle - LOL."

I don't know if that carcano belonged to Lee Oswald......  I've always thought that George De M was the owner.  He bought the MO and had Lee order the rifle from Kleins......     Lee didn't have the money necessary to buy the rifle.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 06, 2021, 06:20:05 AM
So the MC rifle that was found on the 6th floor belonged to LHO?  And the WC evidence linking him to this particular rifle is authentic?  Wow that will come as a shock to your fellow contrarians with their "Oswald's rifle - LOL."

Not at all.  Anybody who has been paying attention for the last 13 years instead of making up one strawman argument after another is very familiar with Walt's fabrications.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 06, 2021, 07:44:26 PM
Not at all.  Anybody who has been paying attention for the last 13 years instead of making up one strawman argument after another is very familiar with Walt's fabrications.

The title for this thread asks....."where does my theory go?"

My theory ( based on solid evidence)  Leads to the inescapable  conclusion that Lee Oswald was simply the patsy that he told us he was.


Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 07, 2021, 01:25:08 AM
The title for this thread asks....."where does my theory go?"

My theory ( based on solid evidence)  Leads to the inescapable  conclusion that Lee Oswald was simply the patsy that he told us he was.

Nut on nut debate is very entertaining.  It's like watching UFO believers argue about whether the aliens who abducted them are grey or green. 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 07, 2021, 02:02:11 AM
The logical fallacy of your post is the assumption that there is consensus around one single conspiracy theory.

In reality, there is only consensus around the idea of JFK being killed by a conspiracy plot. The "who" and "how" depends on whom you talk to.

But I've also found over the years that Lone-nut narrative folks don't agree on everything as well. There's no consensus on "how" Oswald alone killed JFK or what his motive was.

Quote
The logical fallacy of your post is the assumption that there is consensus around one single conspiracy theory.

Seriously, your incorrect usage of my apparent "logical fallacy" has zero connection between the rest of your sentence and what I wrote in the OP. Let me make this clear, my thread title is the very antithesis of what you claim you see, I ask CT's to ask "yourself" where "my" theory goes, where do I even remotely indicate that there is any "consensus" between the widely disparate CT theories?
Let me repeat the words I used in the opening sentence and please this time take careful note, "I see Kooky "theories" that go absolutely nowhere, are "contradictory" and as a narrative make zero logical sense.", so in a nutshell I mention "theories" not theory and to reinforce this disparity I subtly introduce the concept that the "theories" are "contradictory".

Quote
In reality, there is only consensus around the idea of JFK being killed by a conspiracy plot. The "who" and "how" depends on whom you talk to.

No kidding, Einstein.

Quote
There's no consensus on "how" Oswald alone killed JFK...

As far as I can see, the consensus from the "WC/HSCA endorsers" is that Oswald took his rifle to work and killed the President with the same rifle but I am open to your further analysis.

Quote
or what his motive was.

Motive is not always necessary to prove a crime, as other evidence may be sufficient. Further, even when there is reasonable motive for why a person would have committed a crime, a motive alone is not sufficient, absent some other evidence as to why a particular defendant is guilty.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motive

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 07, 2021, 01:18:23 PM
Nut on nut debate is very entertaining.  It's like watching UFO believers argue about whether the aliens who abducted them are grey or green.

Yes, or:

(https://i.vgy.me/3TNTC8.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 07, 2021, 10:04:15 PM
If you're a conspiracy-monger, high school drop-out, or Oswald arse-kisser, you might be a redneck.

Since I have none of those afflictions/mutations and continue to thrive with the LNer brand, my ask will be couched in true LNer spirit with the term 'where do CTer conspiracy theories go to when they die'

Firstly, these lazy CTer theories, once heard by people who have at least a high-school diploma, fall apart immediately by way of their own dead-weight paranoia.

Secondly, they go back to from whence they came: The far shores of the lunatic fringe.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 08, 2021, 06:14:44 PM
Nut on nut debate is very entertaining.  It's like watching UFO believers argue about whether the aliens who abducted them are grey or green.

The LNer contingent is very much like the holocaust deniers.....  No matter how much evidence is presented that the murder of JFK was simply an old fashion coup d' e'tat  and Lee Oswald was the scape goat....   The Lner's will deny .......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 08, 2021, 06:28:30 PM
The LNer contingent is very much like the holocaust deniers.....  No matter how much evidence is presented that the murder of JFK was simply an old fashion coup d' e'tat  and Lee Oswald was the scape goat....   The Lner's will deny .......

Mi no comprende.

There's a paper and verbal trail of the Nazis wanting the Jews to be exterminated or "removed". There's a trail of Oswald defecting, hating the United States and buying the weapons used on November 22nd.

The concentration camps that were freed and had gas chambers and crematoriums were run by Nazis. The day of the assassination, Oswald had no alibi, his rifle is found on the sixth floor and he killed Officer Tippit.

So there's no film of a SS guard flipping the switch; there's no film of Oswald pulling the trigger.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 08, 2021, 06:52:37 PM
Mi no comprende.

There's a paper and verbal trail of the Nazis wanting the Jews to be exterminated or "removed". There's a trail of Oswald defecting, hating the United States and buying the weapons used on November 22nd.

The concentration camps that were freed and had gas chambers and crematoriums were run by Nazis. The day of the assassination, Oswald had no alibi, his rifle is found on the sixth floor and he killed Officer Tippit.

So there's no film of a SS guard flipping the switch; there's no film of Oswald pulling the trigger.

There's a trail of Oswald defecting, hating the United States and buying the weapons used on November 22nd.

As I said....  No matter how much evidence is presented .....The Lner's like the holocaust deniers will not open their eyes to the facts, and they will continue to believe the big lie....

How do you know what was in Lee's heart???.....  Did he hate the US?? ...or was that stated to fool  the Russians into accepting him as a genuine defector??   If he truly was a defector ....Then, Why did the US government send him a draft card ( when he was in a country from which he could not be drafted) that classified him as A-! and the card was signed "Gut Schieffer' ( German --- Good Mariner )



There's a trail of Oswald defecting, hating the United States and buying the weapons used on November 22nd.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 08, 2021, 07:26:39 PM
there's no film of Oswald pulling the trigger.

Not necessary.

(https://i.postimg.cc/wMktfFBT/A-VIEW-TO-A-KILL-SMALL.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 08, 2021, 10:28:53 PM
there's no film of Oswald pulling the trigger.

So what else do you have, Jerry?

there's no film of Oswald pulling the trigger.

If such a photo existed.... It would have to have been taken at a location somewhere other than the sixth floor window.....Lee told the interrogators that he was on the first floor at the time the President's motorcade passed by the TSBD..... And Lee DESCRIBED the passing by of the Domino room by two of his fellow employees ( Jarman & Norman) at 12:25 ....Which attests to the fact that he was on the first floor at the time Jarman and Norman passed through the first floor shipping area.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 08, 2021, 10:54:16 PM
there's no film of Oswald pulling the trigger.

If such a photo existed.... It would have to have been taken at a location somewhere other than the sixth floor window.....Lee told the interrogators that he was on the first floor at the time the President's motorcade passed by the TSBD.....

If Oswald was the assassin, wouldn't he claim he was somewhere else anyway?

Quote
And Lee DESCRIBED the passing by of the Domino room by two of his fellow employees ( Jarman & Norman) at 12:25 ....Which attests to the fact that he was on the first floor at the time Jarman and Norman passed through the first floor shipping area.

Actually Oswald said he had lunch with the two, meaning he saw them together at some point on the first floor (not necessarily 12:25), or he merely based it on the routine the two had for having lunch. Even if Oswald stayed on the sixth floor after noon, he would have known Jarman and Norman had stayed together because the two arrived underneath the SN window before the assassination.

What are the odds, that a suspect desperate for an alibi, describes having lunch with the only two co-workers he thought might have been together since noon? Even the most guilty will grasp at any alibi, however weak.

(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58031/58031-h/images/i_p148.jpg)

If they're headed for the back stairs, how could Oswald have seen them passing through the first floor area? If Oswald saw them walking by along the outside of the building, wouldn't he have given that detail, rather than claim he was having lunch with them?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 09, 2021, 12:29:11 AM
 an advanced degree in the world of counterfactuals
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 09, 2021, 12:54:57 AM
If Oswald was the assassin, wouldn't he claim he was somewhere else anyway?

Actually Oswald said he had lunch with the two, meaning he saw them together at some point on the first floor (not necessarily 12:25), or he merely based it on the routine the two had for having lunch. Even if Oswald stayed on the sixth floor after noon, he would have known Jarman and Norman had stayed together because the two arrived underneath the SN window before the assassination.

What are the odds, that a suspect desperate for an alibi, describes having lunch with the only two co-workers he thought might have been together since noon? Even the most guilty will grasp at any alibi, however weak.

(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58031/58031-h/images/i_p148.jpg)

If they're headed for the back stairs, how could Oswald have seen them passing through the first floor area? If Oswald saw them walking by along the outside of the building, wouldn't he have given that detail, rather than claim he was having lunch with them?

If Oswald was the assassin, wouldn't he claim he was somewhere else anyway?

Sure that would be logical ...Except.... Lee Described an action that took place on the first floor at 12:26....He had to have witnessed that action to describe it.

What are the odds, that a suspect desperate for an alibi, describes having lunch with the only two co-workers he thought might have been together since noon? Even the most guilty will grasp at any alibi, however weak.

There are TWO major flaws within this statement.....First off Lee never told the interrogators about seeing Norman and Jarman as an alibi....He was merely telling them what he saw while he was on the first floor at 12:26..... And a MAJOR flaw....Lee never said that he was having lunch with Jarman and Norman.....He said he ate lunch ALONE....And J & N passed by the lunchroom as he was eating his lunch.

If they're headed for the back stairs, how could Oswald have seen them passing through the first floor area?

WOW!...Your ignorance of the basic facts is hanging out a country mile..... Jarman and Norman were NOT going to the back stairs....They were headed for the west elevator which opened into the first floor shipping room....And the 1st floor lunchroom doorway opened onto the first floor shipping room .....Lee was eating his lunch ALONE in that lunchroom..... And J&N would have passed by the windows on the east and north sides of the lunchroom ....Lee would have had to have been blind to avoid seeing them....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 09, 2021, 01:07:54 AM
When one has the mindset that no one in a position of authority can be trusted, everything is a conspiracy of one type or another, and trying to make any sense of it whatsoever is futile, your points don’t matter. All that matters is that they have come up with some questions that can be used to bring up more questions which adds more suspicion, conjecture, and innuendo.

My question to those who have that type of mindset is: Why has no credible evidence of a conspiracy been uncovered after almost 58-years of intense scrutiny by thousands of people?

When everyone has the mindset that everyone in a position of authority can be trusted, nothing is a conspiracy of one type or another, and trying to make any sense of it whatsoever is futile, your points don’t matter. All that matters is that we have come up with some answers that can be used to bring up more answers which adds more certainty, unanimity, and consensus

My question to those who have that type of mindset is: Why has so much credible evidence of a conspiracy been uncovered after almost 58-years of intense obfuscation by thousands of people?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2021, 02:18:04 AM
My question to those who have that type of mindset is: Why has so much credible evidence of a conspiracy been uncovered after almost 58-years of intense obfuscation by thousands of people?

Very interesting, if there is "so much credible evidence of a conspiracy" then you should be able to tell us the alternate narrative, please enlighten us and tell us in your own words where this "credible evidence" leads?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 09, 2021, 02:20:19 AM
it was a jedi mind trick or did you miss that part? Bit if you insist two caskets at Bethesda was a t least a bad look
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 09, 2021, 02:23:30 AM
it was a jedi mind trick or did you miss that part?

No worries, as I suspected you clearly lack the deductive reasoning skills to analyse your own evidence.

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 09, 2021, 02:28:21 AM
 I do prefer induction as a first step but i know you can skip ahead eh..

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 09, 2021, 02:50:11 AM
If Oswald was the assassin, wouldn't he claim he was somewhere else anyway?

Sure that would be logical ...Except.... Lee Described an action that took place on the first floor at 12:26....He had to have witnessed that action to describe it.

Oswald gave the time?

Quote
What are the odds, that a suspect desperate for an alibi, describes having lunch with the only two co-workers he thought might have been together since noon? Even the most guilty will grasp at any alibi, however weak.

There are TWO major flaws within this statement.....First off Lee never told the interrogators about seeing Norman and Jarman as an alibi....He was merely telling them what he saw while he was on the first floor at 12:26..... And a MAJOR flaw....Lee never said that he was having lunch with Jarman and Norman.....He said he ate lunch ALONE....And J & N passed by the lunchroom as he was eating his lunch.

No note-takers said Oswald used the word "alone".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
     One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
     man whose name he did not know."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Fritz

     "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
     during this period."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Bookhout

    "said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
     He described one of them as ‘Junior,’ a colored boy, and the other
     was little short negro boy."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Kelley

Quote
If they're headed for the back stairs, how could Oswald have seen them passing through the first floor area?

WOW!...Your ignorance of the basic facts is hanging out a country mile..... Jarman and Norman were NOT going to the back stairs....They were headed for the west elevator which opened into the first floor shipping room....And the 1st floor lunchroom doorway opened onto the first floor shipping room .....

Yes, for some reason, I thought they took the back stairs. But the route they took would need the domino room door open and Oswald in a very tight area inside the domino room, in order for him to have seen them. And that doesn't relate to Oswald having the three in the same room eating their lunch together.

Quote
Lee was eating his lunch ALONE in that lunchroom..... And J&N would have passed by the windows on the east and north sides of the lunchroom ....Lee would have had to have been blind to avoid seeing them....

But then Oswald speaks of the two men being in the domino room having lunch with him. This is without mentioning that there is no evidence that Oswald took a lunch to work or bought lunch.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 09, 2021, 04:06:04 AM
Oswald gave the time?

No note-takers said Oswald used the word "alone".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
     One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
     man whose name he did not know."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Fritz

Oswald gave the time?

     "recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
     during this period."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Bookhout

    "said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
     He described one of them as ‘Junior,’ a colored boy, and the other
     was little short negro boy."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — Kelley

Yes, for some reason, I thought they took the back stairs. But the route they took would need the domino room door open and Oswald in a very tight area inside the domino room, in order for him to have seen them. And that doesn't relate to Oswald having the three in the same room eating their lunch together.

But then Oswald speaks of the two men being in the domino room having lunch with him. This is without mentioning that there is no evidence that Oswald took a lunch to work or bought lunch.

Oswald gave the time?

Duh!..... No, Lee did NOT give the time when he saw Jarman and Norman walk by....Jarman said that they left the front of the TSBD to go to the fifth floor at 12:25 and they arrived on the fifth floor at 12:28.... That would place them near the Domino room at about 12:26.....And Lee Oswald saw them.....

Oswald speaks of the two men being in the domino room having lunch with him.

No,... Lee DID NOT speak of Jarman and Norman or anybody else having lunch with him....He said he ate lunch ALONE in that 1st floor lunchroom.   Lee would have known better than to claim something that could easily be shown to be a lie....And if he had said he ate lunch with whoever, the cops could easily have asked the party if they had eaten lunch with Lee Oswald.....Nobody ever asked Jarman or Norman if they had eaten lunch with Lee....


Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 12:42:26 AM
Time after time I see Kooky theories that go absolutely nowhere, are contradictory and as a narrative make zero logical sense. It seems like the only reason for these paranoid delusions is just so the Ct's can imagine a conspiracy so huge it's beyond their wildest, wettest dreams therefore no effort is made to link the enormity of their claims and oblivious bliss can persist.
Following are some basic questions addressing the above and some other questions which would have made setting up your patsy so much easier, because on one hand the conspirators were extremely clever and had a ton of accurate foresight with the ability to cover up their crimes for more than half a century and on the other hand the Government were so incompetent and their plan had so many holes that even the dumbest dumbasses around here could figure it out.

Why use or plant a Mauser when you want to set up your patsy with an Italian Carcano?
Why have a shooter in front when your Patsy is behind?
Why make up a potentially easily refuted bus trip to nowhere?
Why is Ruth Paine a possible conspirator when she said she never saw the rifle, never said Oswald spoke badly of Kennedy, never saw Oswald beat Marina and never saw the long package on the morning of the 22nd, well educated Ruth could have been the most powerful eyewitness of them all but she wasn't.
Why fake the Zapruder film when to the layman it shows a "back and to the left" motion?
Why use the Zapruder film to prove stuff when on the other hand you claim the Zapruder film is faked?
Why not have a dozen people who all saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window?
Why plant a pointy bullet on Connally's stretcher?
Why use a military rifle which is designed to injure, when you are clearly trying to kill your victim because Kennedy's back wound may have been survivable with a FMJ bullet whereas an expanding bullet might have ripped his head off?
Why use different type of bullets like an exploding bullet from the front, when you are trying to link the assassination to a single weapon?
Why invent an extensive paper trail of a rifle purchase which involved many innocent people and different companies when you could just fill out a coupon and mail it?
Why not have "Oswald" just buy a rifle and continue to buy ammo from a shop and have the shop owner remember him?
Why not have more people see the long brown package?
Why not have the Police say Oswald admitted owning the rifle, having his backyard photo taken, taking a long package to work and hating Kennedy?
...etc etc

JohnM

 This perspective is reliant on the hackneyed notion that everyone needs to be in on a conspiracy Without going into this point by point, some other themes might include; having lots of witnesses is problematic for lots of reasons so a single witness should not be surprising you're one witness is part of the conspiracy to an event Also included in this list are basically a straw man such as the Mauser question Certainly, anyone getting to pick and choose points, which are not necessarily integral to a conspiracy counter narrative, and instead more likely simply arising from  happenstance and idiosyncratic players in the events And on it it could go
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 10, 2021, 12:54:53 AM
This perspective is reliant on the hackneyed notion that everyone needs to be in on a conspiracy

How on Earth do you draw that conclusion? You're making the ill founded assumption that every one of those boxes must be ticked but that was never my point, surely a conspiracy that involves setting up a patsy would rely on easily achievable additional evidence that would make a conviction a slam dunk, like for instance additional eyewitnesses who actually claimed they saw Oswald pull the trigger, isn't that a no brainer?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 01:04:24 AM
How on Earth do you draw that conclusion? You're making the ill founded assumption that every one of those boxes must be ticked but that was never my point, surely a conspiracy that involves setting up a patsy would rely on easily achievable additional evidence that would make a conviction a slam dunk, like for instance additional eyewitnesses who actually claimed they saw Oswald pull the trigger, isn't that a no brainer?

JohnM

 Where are you coming up with the claim I am saying every one of the boxes must be ticked? I was trying to respond to general themes for all conspiracies than specifics, but in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 10, 2021, 01:57:34 AM
Where are you coming up with the claim I am saying every one of the boxes must be ticked? I was trying to respond to general themes for all conspiracies than specifics, but in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

Quote
in regard to more witnesses seeing Oswald I thought the point of a conspiracy would be to mislead and in that case Oswald would not have actually been the shooter

I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, anybody?, but let's get serious, the general thinking of the Conspiracy community seems to be and this is no exaggeration is that every person in Dallas but Oswald was involved, now what I believe is the most critical evidence in the public's mind in any murder is eyewitnesses and for solid evidence of this observation is just look at how all the eyewitnesses in the Tippit murder are harrassed and reviled by the above mentioned conspiracy community. So by extension wouldn't it be obvious to the conspirators who went to extreme lengths to plant rifles, plant prints, plant fibers, invented extensive paper trails, manipulated the autopsy photos/X-Rays, altered the Zapruder film etc etc that planting some eyewitnesses who all said that Oswald was in the sniper's nest be almost obligatory?

Not saying that the following image is manufactured evidence but the overall impression that these men all saw someone shooting from above is undeniable.

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dZ7b6oOJ2Os/VS_bx9e51aI/AAAAAAAAAdc/SAY55F-_ddY/s1600/mlkbalcony2.png)

JohnM


Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 02:38:13 AM
I'm sure that makes sense to somebody, anybody?, but let's get serious, the general thinking of the Conspiracy community seems to be and this is no exaggeration is that every person in Dallas but Oswald was involved, now what I believe is the most critical evidence in the public's mind in any murder is eyewitnesses and for solid evidence of this observation is just look at how all the eyewitnesses in the Tippit murder are harrassed and reviled by the above mentioned conspiracy community. So by extension wouldn't it be obvious to the conspirators who went to extreme lengths to plant rifles, plant prints, plant fibers, invented extensive paper trails, manipulated the autopsy photos/X-Rays, altered the Zapruder film etc etc that planting some eyewitnesses who all said that Oswald was in the sniper's nest be almost obligatory?



(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dZ7b6oOJ2Os/VS_bx9e51aI/AAAAAAAAAdc/SAY55F-_ddY/s1600/mlkbalcony2.png)



JohnM

It seemed like your original point was something a long the lines that the reading of the present conspiracy theorists was too outlandish, and that if this has been a real conspiracy it would have to had been way toned down I think some of the reasons Therefore it would seem the exercise becomes how do we recognize a sensible conspiracy Am I getting closer?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 10, 2021, 03:11:49 AM
It seemed like your original point was something a long the lines that the reading of the present conspiracy theorists was too outlandish, and that if this has been a real conspiracy it would have to had been way toned down I think some of the reasons Therefore it would seem the exercise becomes how do we recognize a sensible conspiracy Am I getting closer?

Let me put this another way, if you "Matt Grantham" was going to set up a Patsy how would you go about it and what sort of rules would you have in place i order to make the public believe? For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 03:16:56 AM
 There are of course many layers of whether this event qualified within a reasonable context for a suspected conspiracy Certainly the the arrival of the national security state apparatus just 15 years earlier was a development, for many, that cast a new shadow on events such as this Eisenhower's 'unwarranted influence warning just two days before JFK's swearing in certainly set a context for concern. and then their are the Operation Northwoods, Bay of Pigs, and all those other issues that we can agree to disagree on So I remain a little unclear what criteria it is that you are looking at in any kind of general terms You have your list I know, and it may or may not be a shorthand for something that can be explained in terms of more overarching narratives So far I am not understanding, so far if you can place your arguments amidst such narratives, or if you are just looking at the particular applications
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 03:22:05 AM
Let me put this another way, if you "Matt Grantham" was going to set up a Patsy how would you go about it and what sort of rules would you have in place i order to make the public believe? For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

 Well I think they did a beautiful job if Oswald was indeed a patsy Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK when he was basically a low level agent of some sort I am not trying to be sarcastic or patronizing, but, if that was true it was a great job I cannot think of anything much to improve on it

 Killing him however, I believe was a mistake Maybe a plan like this had to have had that eventuality if he knew a little too much And it was only a mistake if you were really concerned about what the American people would think and what further ramifications it might have If you jsut wanted JFK dead and did not want any direct ramifications it worked out just fine
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 03:36:35 AM
For example would you have a potentially easily exposed sniper in front when your lone nut patsy was behind?

JohnM

 OK Sorry I lost track of this part This pretty nuts and bolts This is a little hard to follow My first reaction is it seems like an absurd proposition but I assume you are serious Maybe drug the patsy, have him out front leaning out window if possible and then have the real killer operate the gun from behind him not really sure where we are going with this
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 10, 2021, 03:40:30 AM
Well I think they did a beautiful job if Oswald was indeed a patsy Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK when he was basically a low level agent of some sort I am not trying to be sarcastic or patronizing, if that was true it was a great job I cannot think of anything much to improve on it

 Killing him however, I believe was a mistake Maybe a plan like this had to have had that eventuality if he knew a little too much

Quote
Set up a cover story that he was a communist who hated JFK

Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Quote
when he was basically a low level agent of some sort

Why setup a man who has direct links to your own organisation?

Quote
Killing him however, I believe was a mistake

Being devils advocate here but if Oswald was a "patsy" with absolutely no knowledge then perhaps you're right but even if Oswald had the slightest inkling wouldn't killing him be the perfect answer because a dead man tells no tales?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Matt Grantham on August 10, 2021, 04:05:23 AM
Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

 Well then perhaps they should have done a better jo on that score I think the american public believed he did based on his supposed views

Why setup a man who has direct links to your own organisation?

 To get him to do things you want him to do Bring a rifle to work etc


Being devils advocate here but if Oswald was a "patsy" with absolutely no knowledge then perhaps you're right but even if Oswald had the slightest inkling wouldn't killing him be the perfect answer because a dead man tells no tales?

JohnM

  Yes As I stated it was a good strategy unless you cared about the fact a good percentage of the american public would not go for it
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 10, 2021, 04:16:30 PM
Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Why setup a man who has direct links to your own organisation?

Being devils advocate here but if Oswald was a "patsy" with absolutely no knowledge then perhaps you're right but even if Oswald had the slightest inkling wouldn't killing him be the perfect answer because a dead man tells no tales?

JohnM

there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Do you think the act of blowing JFK's brains out was an act of love and admiration?   Or do you acknowledge the obvious ...That whoever murdered JFK despised him....   

It's been obvious since 12:30 11/ 22/ 63 that whoever was responsible for blowing JFK's brains out did not love or admire him...   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 10, 2021, 04:28:18 PM
there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy.

Do you think the act of blowing JFK's brains out was an act of love and admiration?   Or do you acknowledge the obvious ...That whoever murdered JFK despised him....   

It's been obvious since 12:30 11/ 22/ 63 that whoever was responsible for blowing JFK's brains out did not love or admire him...

Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.  Thus, the lack of any rational motive doesn't raise doubt as to guilt of the assassin.  And Oswald's motive can only be known to himself.  So it's the old impossible standard of proof trick being applied to raise false doubt.  The evidence confirms that Oswald did it.  Why is something that we have some insight based on what we know about him but just because no one can ever confirm his motive with scientific precision is not the basis for any doubt of his guilt.   I don't believe that Oswald had any personal animosity for JFK.  Rather, JFK was a symbol, as the President, of a system that Oswald detested.  He would have shot Nixon, LBJ, or whomever drove down Elm that day as the President.  Opportunity knocked for a nut job with a penchant for political assassination.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 10, 2021, 07:51:12 PM
Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.  Thus, the lack of any rational motive doesn't raise doubt as to guilt of the assassin.  And Oswald's motive can only be known to himself.  So it's the old impossible standard of proof trick being applied to raise false doubt.  The evidence confirms that Oswald did it.  Why is something that we have some insight based on what we know about him but just because no one can ever confirm his motive with scientific precision is not the basis for any doubt of his guilt.   I don't believe that Oswald had any personal animosity for JFK.  Rather, JFK was a symbol, as the President, of a system that Oswald detested.  He would have shot Nixon, LBJ, or whomever drove down Elm that day as the President.  Opportunity knocked for a nut job with a penchant for political assassination.

Complete and utter BS!......   Most rational people recognize the  murder of President Kennedy as the act of a person who despised him.....     And as Mr M stated.....   LHO did not hate JFK.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 10, 2021, 08:17:02 PM
Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.  Thus, the lack of any rational motive doesn't raise doubt as to guilt of the assassin.  And Oswald's motive can only be known to himself.  So it's the old impossible standard of proof trick being applied to raise false doubt.  The evidence confirms that Oswald did it.  Why is something that we have some insight based on what we know about him but just because no one can ever confirm his motive with scientific precision is not the basis for any doubt of his guilt.   I don't believe that Oswald had any personal animosity for JFK.  Rather, JFK was a symbol, as the President, of a system that Oswald detested.  He would have shot Nixon, LBJ, or whomever drove down Elm that day as the President.  Opportunity knocked for a nut job with a penchant for political assassination.

Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.     

 I agree.......And there are many accounts that reveal that LBJ was not rational.... But there are no accounts that reveal that Lee Oswald was not a rational person.    Question:.... Did Lee stand tall and crow to the whole wide world that he had assassinated President Kennedy?    If he was a nut....and he had shot JFK, .he most certainly would have proclaimed his prowess to the whole wide world.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 10, 2021, 09:25:03 PM
Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.     

 I agree.......And there are many accounts that reveal that LBJ was not rational....

LBJ wasn't on the sixth floor firing a rifle.

Quote
But there are no accounts that reveal that Lee Oswald was not a rational person.

There are. You just bundled them into a tidy box with a bright bow on top, and called it a "cover story" for a "mission" into the USSR.

Quote
Question:.... Did Lee stand tall and crow to the whole wide world that he had assassinated President Kennedy?    If he was a nut....and he had shot JFK, .he most certainly would have proclaimed his prowess to the whole wide world.

Then where would that leave him? No cause célèbre drama for the not-to-happen trial where he could have showboated (CTish) his "superior" knowledge of photographic technique, forensics, medical science and geopolitics; maybe become a "scholar" in prison. Oswald admitting he shot Kennedy was also admitting he shot Tippit; cop-killers aren't that popular.

Oswald might have admitted to his crimes if he had been seen with the rifle by the NW corner or if he had been apprehended at the scene of the Tippit murder. But things went his way until the theatre. He was on a winning streak; he wasn't going to suddenly drop his hatred of police and authority when he could instead do nothing to help them. He remained true to himself; the fighter and resister.

(https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920518_400.jpg)

A lot of people believed this guy's "sincere" proclamations of innocence.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 10, 2021, 11:32:00 PM
Complete and utter BS!......   Most rational people recognize the  murder of President Kennedy as the act of a person who despised him.....     And as Mr M stated.....   LHO did not hate JFK.

Quote
And as Mr M stated.....   LHO did not hate JFK.

I stated nothing of the kind, what I said was "Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy." We can't possibly know what was going on inside Oswald's head but even if Oswald did hate Kennedy and that's what motivated him, then that alone is not enough to convict Oswald but the mountain of evidence is certainly persuasive. *wink*
This is why you make so many mistakes, you want to fill in the blanks with your own overactive imagination much to the detriment of the point you're trying to make.

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 10, 2021, 11:56:25 PM
LBJ wasn't on the sixth floor firing a rifle.

There are. You just bundled them into a tidy box with a bright bow on top, and called it a "cover story" for a "mission" into the USSR.

Then where would that leave him? No cause célèbre drama for the not-to-happen trial where he could have showboated (CTish) his "superior" knowledge of photographic technique, forensics, medical science and geopolitics; maybe become a "scholar" in prison. Oswald admitting he shot Kennedy was also admitting he shot Tippit; cop-killers aren't that popular.

Oswald might have admitted to his crimes if he had been seen with the rifle by the NW corner or if he had been apprehended at the scene of the Tippit murder. But things went his way until the theatre. He was on a winning streak; he wasn't going to suddenly drop his hatred of police and authority when he could instead do nothing to help them. He remained true to himself; the fighter and resister.

(https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1992/1101920518_400.jpg)

A lot of people believed this guy's "sincere" proclamations of innocence.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 10, 2021, 11:56:40 PM
I stated nothing of the kind, what I said was "Except there is no evidence that Oswald hated Kennedy." We can't possibly know what was going on inside Oswald's head but even if Oswald did hate Kennedy and that's what motivated him, then that alone is not enough to convict Oswald but the mountain of evidence is certainly persuasive. *wink*
This is why you make so many mistakes, you want to fill in the blanks with your own overactive imagination much to the detriment of the point you're trying to make.

JohnM
John, we had this claim - it's the only one that I know of where Oswald allegedly was critical of JFK - from Volkmar Schmidt. This is from the PBS special "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".

NARRATOR: "At a party in February 1963, Oswald was introduced to oil geologist Volkmar Schmidt. The two hunkered down by a window to talk politics.

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: "Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Schmidt's problem re credibility is that he was interviewed shortly after the assassination by the FBI and he said he and Oswald never discussed politics in their discussion. And nowhere in the FBI interview did he mention the above obsession by LHO. His story is simply not credible to me.

On the other hand, it's very odd that if Oswald was pretending to be a Marxist, pretending to be a supporter of Castro's that anti-Kennedy views wouldn't be part of this cover or "legend." In other words, if he's told to be a pro-Castro supporter or a Marxist, wouldn't part of that act consist of expressing anti-Kennedy views? It makes no sense otherwise. Why pretend to dislike the US and not also pretend to dislike the head of that country?

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2021, 12:30:23 AM
John, we had this claim - it's the only one that I know of where Oswald allegedly was critical of JFK - from Volkmar Schmidt. This is from the PBS special "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".

NARRATOR: "At a party in February 1963, Oswald was introduced to oil geologist Volkmar Schmidt. The two hunkered down by a window to talk politics.

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: "Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Schmidt's problem re credibility is that he was interviewed shortly after the assassination by the FBI and he said he and Oswald never discussed politics in their discussion. And nowhere in the FBI interview did he mention the above obsession by LHO. His story is simply not credible to me.

On the other hand, it's very odd that if Oswald was pretending to be a Marxist, pretending to be a supporter of Castro's that anti-Kennedy views wouldn't be part of this cover or "legend." In other words, if he's told to be a pro-Castro supporter or a Marxist, wouldn't part of that act consist of expressing anti-Kennedy views? It makes no sense otherwise. Why pretend to dislike the US and not also pretend to dislike the head of that country?

if he's told to be a pro-Castro supporter or a Marxist, wouldn't part of that act consist of expressing anti-Kennedy views?

Therein lies the problem...... Lee wasn't a marionette .....  I doubt that anybody dictated to him about what he should or should not do.      Lee was freelance and made up and controlled his own "stage plays."     
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 11, 2021, 12:39:01 AM
John, we had this claim - it's the only one that I know of where Oswald allegedly was critical of JFK - from Volkmar Schmidt. This is from the PBS special "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".

NARRATOR: "At a party in February 1963, Oswald was introduced to oil geologist Volkmar Schmidt. The two hunkered down by a window to talk politics.

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: "Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Schmidt's problem re credibility is that he was interviewed shortly after the assassination by the FBI and he said he and Oswald never discussed politics in their discussion. And nowhere in the FBI interview did he mention the above obsession by LHO. His story is simply not credible to me.

On the other hand, it's very odd that if Oswald was pretending to be a Marxist, pretending to be a supporter of Castro's that anti-Kennedy views wouldn't be part of this cover or "legend." In other words, if he's told to be a pro-Castro supporter or a Marxist, wouldn't part of that act consist of expressing anti-Kennedy views? It makes no sense otherwise. Why pretend to dislike the US and not also pretend to dislike the head of that country?

Thanks Steve, I think that Oswald's(Hidell) main motivation was his wanting to be accepted as a Marxist and any political leader that spoke ill of Fidel Castro was put on Oswald's hit list, CT's claim that the left Kennedy and the extreme right Walker had no connection but I believe that in Oswald's eyes, what connected Kennedy and Walker was their dislike of the Cuban regime.

Fritz was the one of the last people to spend considerable time with Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Have you any views of your own as to motive from your talks with him? Did you get any clues as to possible motive in assassinating the President?
Mr. FRITZ. I can only tell you what little I know now. I am sure that we have people in Washington here that can tell far more than I can.
Mr. DULLES. Well, you saw the man and the others didn't see the man.
Mr. FRITZ. I got the impression, I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
(At this point the Chief Justice entered the hearing room.)

Mr. FRITZ. I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing. I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, I think he had--he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that.


Oswald in New Orleans handing out "Hands off Cuba" leaflets

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcREIgle_n5Ym3Lqvxrwg9MsOnZBFGg2wBDjTVE5nFQA6LF8x8Q&s)

(https://neworleanshistorical.org/files/fullsize/9838d4cff8e68d9b73e4a4bcf9b9d07a.jpg)

Oswald's "Fair play for Cuba" membership card where he was also the Chapter President.

(https://i.postimg.cc/vByVsPVC/oswald-fair-play-for-cuba-member.jpg)

Three days before Oswald killed Kennedy, there was this newspaper article in the Dallas Times Herald of Kennedy saying that it would be a happy day if the Castro government was ousted.

(https://i.postimg.cc/V6JFJZ6v/WH-Vol26-0053a.gif)

Oswald's personal possessions had a number of positive Castro literature.

(https://i.postimg.cc/MK5mMHNL/oswald-literature.jpg)

A week after the Dallas Herald Times reported that Walker wanted to  "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba" Oswald ordered his rifle and not long after Oswald took surveillance photos of General Walkers house and a little later Oswald tried to kill General Walker.

In February 1963, Walker joined Billy Hargis on an anti-communist tour named "Operation Midnight Ride".[24] In a speech Walker made on March 5, reported in the Dallas Times Herald, he called on the United States military to "liquidate the [communist] scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba."[25] Seven days later, Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle by mail, using the alias "A. Hidell".[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Walker

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQ822SnJYZCpzMys89HFCy5YUyGSz8wNb3-gg&usqp=CAU)

Do the Math!

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2021, 12:39:36 AM
if he's told to be a pro-Castro supporter or a Marxist, wouldn't part of that act consist of expressing anti-Kennedy views?

Therein lies the problem...... Lee wasn't a marionette .....  I doubt that anybody dictated to him about what he should or should not do.      Lee was freelance and made up and controlled his own "stage plays."   

'I doubt that anybody dictated to him about what he should or should not do'
> Oswald: 'I'm just a PATSY!'

Oops..
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 11, 2021, 01:02:01 AM
'I doubt that anybody dictated to him about what he should or should not do'
> Oswald: 'I'm just a PATSY!'

Oops..
They ordered him to fake defect to the USSR, he then denounced (as part of this act) the US while in the Soviet Union, they ordered him back to the US, they ordered him to pretend to admire Castro, they ordered him to Mexico City to fake defect (or try to) to Cuba, they ordered him to bring his rifle to the TSBD.....

And he went along with all of this and much much more.

But having him say critical things about JFK was a bridge too far, was something he simply wouldn't do.

If he's pretending to be a Marxist, if he's pretending to admire Castro, if he's pretending to denounce the US, he's going to pretend to dislike Kennedy as part of this act. That's obvious to anyone.

But he didn't. Why not?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2021, 01:05:54 AM
'I doubt that anybody dictated to him about what he should or should not do'
> Oswald: 'I'm just a PATSY!'

Oops..

Hey stupid......   Lee being a freelance who created his own scenes , doesn't mean that others couldn't have used his antics for their own schemes.      And made him a scapegoat.       You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 11, 2021, 01:42:29 AM
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41WNsb0q0DL._SY373_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)

And there's that 1970 book by Albert H. Newman "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: The Reasons Why".

The author tried to delve into Oswald's avowed Marxism. For one thing, he noticed that among the items found in Oswald's room at N. Beckley was a Soviet-era Turist radio. Newman thought it a shortwave radio; he took the cheapest shortwave radio he could buy to Oak Cliff and discovered the reception of the twice-nightly English broadcasts of Radio Havana was three-times stronger in Dallas than in New York City. Newman suggested that Oswald was being radicalized by the broadcasts.

James H. Johnston, in his 2019 book "Murder, Inc.: The CIA under John F. Kennedy" appears to have discredited Newman's claim.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
                                       
Quote
Newman was wrong, however, about the radio being a shortwave. The Turist has two frequency bands, which are known as long wave and medium wave, selected by buttons on the top. The medium-wave band is the same as A M radio in the United States. Short waves travel farther than the long wave bands. That Newman was able to pick up Radio Havana in Dallas on a short-wave frequency isn't surprising, but picking up Cuban stations on the frequencies that Oswald's radio was designed for might be harder. Frequencies used for A M radio travel well over water at night but degrade within a short distance after reaching land. therefore, while a Cuban station operating on the A M band might be heard at night along the Gulf Coast, Oswald might have had difficulty hearing it inland in Dallas. On the other hand, an amateur radio operator in Dallas, contacted for this book, said that he is able to pick up shortwave transmissions from Cuba on a frequency that is just above the A M radio band.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — p.327
               
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2021, 01:50:42 AM
They ordered him to fake defect to the USSR, he then denounced (as part of this act) the US while in the Soviet Union, they ordered him back to the US, they ordered him to pretend to admire Castro, they ordered him to Mexico City to fake defect (or try to) to Cuba, they ordered him to bring his rifle to the TSBD.....

And he went along with all of this and much much more.

But having him say critical things about JFK was a bridge too far, was something he simply wouldn't do.

If he's pretending to be a Marxist, if he's pretending to admire Castro, if he's pretending to denounce the US, he's going to pretend to dislike Kennedy as part of this act. That's obvious to anyone.

But he didn't. Why not?

Dr Hartogs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#cite_note-WarrenChapter7-18

"Lee has to be diagnosed as "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies". Lee has to be seen as an emotionally, quite disturbed youngster who suffers under the impact of really existing emotional isolation and deprivation, lack of affection, absence of family life and rejection by a self involved and conflicted mother."[17]

[17] Chapter 7: Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-7.html#newyork
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2021, 02:07:53 AM
Dr Hartogs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#cite_note-WarrenChapter7-18

"Lee has to be diagnosed as "personality pattern disturbance with schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies". Lee has to be seen as an emotionally, quite disturbed youngster who suffers under the impact of really existing emotional isolation and deprivation, lack of affection, absence of family life and rejection by a self involved and conflicted mother."[17]

[17] Chapter 7: Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-7.html#newyork

Hey Crapman.... This is nothing new.... It's the same old BS you liars have been trying to sell for the last half century....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2021, 06:52:16 AM

Do the Math!

JohnM

High school drop-outs are the last people you should be asking to do anything at all, let alone the math..
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2021, 07:17:18 AM
Hey stupid......   Lee being a freelance who created his own scenes , doesn't mean that others couldn't have used his antics for their own schemes.      And made him a scapegoat.       You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you.

Odd-wald + Odd-walt: Liars R us
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jon Banks on August 11, 2021, 01:16:45 PM
John, we had this claim - it's the only one that I know of where Oswald allegedly was critical of JFK - from Volkmar Schmidt. This is from the PBS special "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?".

NARRATOR: "At a party in February 1963, Oswald was introduced to oil geologist Volkmar Schmidt. The two hunkered down by a window to talk politics.

VOLKMAR SCHMIDT: "Lee Harvey Oswald brought up in the conversation with me the fact that he really felt very angry about the support which the Kennedy administration gave to the Bay of Pigs invasion. It turned out that Lee Harvey Oswald really idealized socialism of Cuba, while he was critical of the socialism in the Soviet Union. And he was just obsessed with his anger towards Kennedy."

Schmidt's problem re credibility is that he was interviewed shortly after the assassination by the FBI and he said he and Oswald never discussed politics in their discussion. And nowhere in the FBI interview did he mention the above obsession by LHO. His story is simply not credible to me.

On the other hand, it's very odd that if Oswald was pretending to be a Marxist, pretending to be a supporter of Castro's that anti-Kennedy views wouldn't be part of this cover or "legend." In other words, if he's told to be a pro-Castro supporter or a Marxist, wouldn't part of that act consist of expressing anti-Kennedy views? It makes no sense otherwise. Why pretend to dislike the US and not also pretend to dislike the head of that country?

Oswald was a complicated guy but as someone of the Left, I don’t see how supporting Marxism equates to disliking the US. One can criticize capitalism and racism (Oswald did both but so too did MLK Jr) while not disliking the US as a whole.

Of course, in the early 1960s it made no difference. Being labeled a “Commie” was almost as bad as being labeled a Nazi.

In other words, the nuances of Oswald’s views didn’t matter at the time when JFK was murdered. The facts that he was a self-identified Marxist and had lived in the USSR looked bad enough in the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2021, 05:09:52 PM
Oswald was a complicated guy but as someone of the Left, I don’t see how supporting Marxism equates to disliking the US. One can criticize capitalism and racism (Oswald did both but so too did MLK Jr) while not disliking the US as a whole.

Of course, in the early 1960s it made no difference. Being labeled a “Commie” was almost as bad as being labeled a Nazi.

In other words, the nuances of Oswald’s views didn’t matter at the time when JFK was murdered. The facts that he was a self-identified Marxist and had lived in the USSR looked bad enough in the court of public opinion.

The facts that he was a self-identified Marxist and had lived in the USSR looked bad enough in the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion.....    Where did the public get the information on which they based their opinion?  News papers radio and TV......  And the reporters got their information from the authorities.....Like Henry Wade who told reporters that they had found Lee Oswald's finger prints on the rifle.....It was a bare faced lie, they had not found any identifiable finger prints on the rifle, but the reporters didn't know that, so they passed that information to the public.   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 11, 2021, 07:18:19 PM
The facts that he was a self-identified Marxist and had lived in the USSR looked bad enough in the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion.....    Where did the public get the information on which they based their opinion?  News papers radio and TV......  And the reporters got their information from the authorities.....Like Henry Wade who told reporters that they had found Lee Oswald's finger prints on the rifle.....It was a bare faced lie, they had not found any identifiable finger prints on the rifle, but the reporters didn't know that, so they passed that information to the public.

Carl Day, Dallas Crime Lab on work done November 22nd ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on
     the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear.
     Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than
     try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the
     barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the
     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of
     the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the
     woodstock loose."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent—of the traces of
     prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766 ...
     They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee
     Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."

Day's photographs of the trigger-housing prints were confirmed as Oswald's in the 1993 PBS-TV NOVA Frontline program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (See also: "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, p.120 and "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi, pp.803-04)

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://theundefeated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ulysha-renee.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Dallas Police Department.)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 11, 2021, 07:33:26 PM
Oswald was a complicated guy but as someone of the Left, I don’t see how supporting Marxism equates to disliking the US. One can criticize capitalism and racism (Oswald did both but so too did MLK Jr) while not disliking the US as a whole.

Of course, in the early 1960s it made no difference. Being labeled a “Commie” was almost as bad as being labeled a Nazi.

In other words, the nuances of Oswald’s views didn’t matter at the time when JFK was murdered. The facts that he was a self-identified Marxist and had lived in the USSR looked bad enough in the court of public opinion.
Jon: Yes, but he wrote that he disliked the American political and economic systems. He compared them, unfavorably, to the Soviet system. He said both were "slave" systems that needed to be overthrown. Michael Paine said that Oswald told him that the US system was irredeemable and couldn't be changed; that it needed to be replaced.

Here's Oswald: "I have lived under both systems; I have sought the answers and although it would be very easy to dupe myself into believing one system is better than the other, I know they are not.
I despise the representatives of both systems whether they be socialist or Christian democracies, whether they be labor or conservative, they are all products of the two systems. "

So, whether he disliked America or not he certainly didn't care for our economic and political systems. Whether his belief in Marxism was simply an explanation for the world he disliked - and given his childhood it's understandable that he'd be alienated from it - or not can be debated I guess. I think he had a bit more sophisticated understanding of some of its basic concepts than others think, e.g., his views on surplus value for example were pretty solid.

As to his views on JFK: they are a puzzle, aren't they? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if this was an act I would think part of it would be to denounce JFK. But if he was a sincere Marxist (as he understood it) and an admirer of Castro I would also think he'd be critical of JFK. But we can't find anything other than the Schmidt story.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 11, 2021, 07:53:08 PM
Complete and utter BS!......   Most rational people recognize the  murder of President Kennedy as the act of a person who despised him.....     And as Mr M stated.....   LHO did not hate JFK.

Even if it were a confirmed fact that "LHO did not hate JFK" that means absolutely nothing in terms of his guilt.  The evidence is used to prove guilt.  There is an abundance that links Oswald to this crime.  But again, JFK was also the President of the United States.  Not just a person.  Someone with a axe to grind with the US might take that out on its most prominent representative.  So even if LHO did not "hate" JFK he still had an obvious motive for targeting him because Oswald was a political nut job.   And you cannot discount the fact that the opportunity fell into Oswald's lap.  JFK's motorcade literally drove by his place of work affording him the chance.  Oswald did not "target" JFK in the sense that he had to seek him out as most assassins have to do.  JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 11, 2021, 08:45:26 PM
Even if it were a confirmed fact that "LHO did not hate JFK" that means absolutely nothing in terms of his guilt.  The evidence is used to prove guilt.  There is an abundance that links Oswald to this crime.  But again, JFK was also the President of the United States.  Not just a person.  Someone with a axe to grind with the US might take that out on its most prominent representative.  So even if LHO did not "hate" JFK he still had an obvious motive for targeting him because Oswald was a political nut job.   And you cannot discount the fact that the opportunity fell into Oswald's lap.  JFK's motorcade literally drove by his place of work affording him the chance.  Oswald did not "target" JFK in the sense that he had to seek him out as most assassins have to do.  JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight.

'JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight'
And Oswald ran right into an abundance of witnesses along his line of flight.

Poetic justice-cum-what-goes-around-comes-around, right there.

 ;D
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2021, 08:55:40 PM
Carl Day, Dallas Crime Lab on work done November 22nd ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on
     the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear.
     Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than
     try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the
     barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the
     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of
     the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the
     woodstock loose."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent—of the traces of
     prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766 ...
     They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee
     Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."

Day's photographs of the trigger-housing prints were confirmed as Oswald's in the 1993 PBS-TV NOVA program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (See also: "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, p.120 and "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi, pp.803-04)

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://theundefeated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ulysha-renee.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Dallas Police Department.)


"I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on
     the side of the gun at the bookstore
.

They still were rather unclear.

Here Day admits that the prints on the side of the MAGAZINE were UNCLEAR
   
 Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than
     try to lift them.

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.



I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."

This is simply Day lying.....  Anybody who is familiar with the carcano knows that there is no such location on the carcano.

Day elaborated about the place he said he found the palmprint when he testified before the WC. He said that he saw the palm print  on the metal barrel and the print extened beneath the wooden stock.  There is no wooden stock three inches back from the muzzle of the rifle. There is a steel bayonet lug about 3 1/2 inches back from the muzzle and that bayonet lug surrounds the barrel.

    "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent—of the traces of
     prints on the side of the magazine housing
of the gun No. C-2766 ...
     They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee
     Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."

Day is lying again.....  Nobody ever identified "the unclear" partial prints that Day saw on the rifle's magazine .
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 11, 2021, 09:41:44 PM

"I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on
     the side of the gun at the bookstore
.

They still were rather unclear.

Here Day admits that the prints on the side of the MAGAZINE were UNCLEAR

It was only with digital technology that the print photos could be seen under varying contrasts to bring out the detail. Now the process didn't add detail and combining the same print from one photo to another is a perfectly legitimate way of evaluating prints in photographs.

Quote
 
 Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than
     try to lift them.

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.

I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."

This is simply Day lying.....  Anybody who is familiar with the carcano knows that there is no such location on the carcano. Part of

Day elaborated about the place he said he found the palmprint when he testified before the WC. He said that he saw the palm print  on the metal barrel and the print extened beneath the wooden stock.  There is no wooden stock three inches back from the muzzle of the rifle. There is a steel bayonet lug about 3 1/2 inches back from the muzzle and that bayonet lug surrounds the barrel.

Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/40712/35100473_2.jpg)

I have no trouble reconciling where Day found the barrel print.

Quote
    "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent—of the traces of
     prints on the side of the magazine housing
of the gun No. C-2766 ...
     They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee
     Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."

Day is lying again.....  Nobody ever identified "the unclear" partial prints that Day saw on the rifle's magazine .

Even on the day of the assassination, Day thought there was information (but not enough for a legal-standard "match") to tentatively link the prints to those of 'Lil' Lee. Years later, in the PBS-Frontline program, Day's tentative work on the trigger-guard housing fingerprints was re-examined by one of the nation's most prominent Latent Print Examiners, who said they matched positively to Oswald's.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "As a result of an exacting and detailed examination and comparison under
     varying degrees of magnification and illumination, I have reached the
     conclusion that the developed latent prints are the fingerprints of Lee
     Harvey Oswald's right middle finger (#3) and right ring finger (#4) as
     they appear on the inked fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 12, 2021, 10:12:30 AM
Latona (FBI) saw no signs of anyone having even attempted to process the rifle.

Instead of your usual running and obfuscation how about we analyse where this little factoid leads?
Doesn't it logically follow from your above observation that the (FBI) clearly had no connection to the Dallas Police in setting up Oswald?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 12, 2021, 10:16:59 AM
When Scalise examined differing contrasted photos he confirmed that Oswald's prints were on the trigger guard of Oswald's rifle.


JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 12, 2021, 04:08:39 PM
The evidence is used to prove guilt.

Is that why you always come up empty handed?

There is an abundance that links Oswald to this crime.

For close to two weeks you have been trying, and failed, to "link" Oswald to a clipboard -- ROFL

But again, JFK was also the President of the United States.  Not just a person.  Someone with a axe to grind with the US might take that out on its most prominent representative.  So even if LHO did not "hate" JFK he still had an obvious motive for targeting him because Oswald was a political nut job.   And you cannot discount the fact that the opportunity fell into Oswald's lap.  JFK's motorcade literally drove by his place of work affording him the chance.  Oswald did not "target" JFK in the sense that he had to seek him out as most assassins have to do.  JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight.

As usual, your psycho-babble goes nowhere, awesome!

Typical Otto rebuttal.  It contains the usual personal insult, deflection from the issue under discussion (with no relevance to that issue), no substance, and adds nothing to the discussion.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 05:21:17 PM
It was only with digital technology that the print photos could be seen under varying contrasts to bring out the detail. Now the process didn't add detail and combining the same print from one photo to another is a perfectly legitimate way of evaluating prints in photographs.

Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/40712/35100473_2.jpg)

I have no trouble reconciling where Day found the barrel print.

Even on the day of the assassination, Day thought there was information (but not enough for a legal-standard "match") to tentatively link the prints to those of 'Lil' Lee. Years later, in the PBS-Frontline program, Day's tentative work on the trigger-guard housing fingerprints was re-examined by one of the nation's most prominent Latent Print Examiners, who said they matched positively to Oswald's.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "As a result of an exacting and detailed examination and comparison under
     varying degrees of magnification and illumination, I have reached the
     conclusion that the developed latent prints are the fingerprints of Lee
     Harvey Oswald's right middle finger (#3) and right ring finger (#4) as
     they appear on the inked fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."


on the day of the assassination, Day thought there was information (but not enough for a legal-standard "match") to tentatively link the prints to those of 'Lil' Lee.

Then please explain how it was possible for Henty Wade on 11- 22-63 to stand in front of reporters and boldly  announce that they had found Lee Oswald's prints on the rifle.  ????

This bold lie from Henry Wade was probably the KEY lie that caused the public to start believing that Lee Oswald was guilty.

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 05:41:29 PM
Latona (FBI) saw no signs of anyone having even attempted to process the rifle.

Day's prints are utter and total BS.

Your "reconciling" should come as no surprise.


I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/40712/35100473_2.jpg)

Here are the measurements of that area of the carcano.....

A)  11" from  firing end of the barrel ( muzzle) to the front barrel band

B) 6 1/4" ( not 3 ") to the from the muzzle to the  front of the wooden stock

C)  10 inches from the Muzzle to the front of the upper wooden hand guard

The is the only place where detective Day's description of the place he claimed he had found the "palm print" that is is even remotely similar to Day's description......It's the only place that the wooden stock and the metal barrel join where a human hand could deposit a print......( Day said he saw the print on the metal barrel and it extended back beneath the wooden stock.

Day was simply conjuring up an image of a rifle ......   when he was creating the lie.

LOOK at the photo of the carcano and try to reconcile a location that fits the description that Day invented.

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 05:57:56 PM
It was only with digital technology that the print photos could be seen under varying contrasts to bring out the detail. Now the process didn't add detail and combining the same print from one photo to another is a perfectly legitimate way of evaluating prints in photographs.

Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/40712/35100473_2.jpg)

I have no trouble reconciling where Day found the barrel print.

Even on the day of the assassination, Day thought there was information (but not enough for a legal-standard "match") to tentatively link the prints to those of 'Lil' Lee. Years later, in the PBS-Frontline program, Day's tentative work on the trigger-guard housing fingerprints was re-examined by one of the nation's most prominent Latent Print Examiners, who said they matched positively to Oswald's.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "As a result of an exacting and detailed examination and comparison under
     varying degrees of magnification and illumination, I have reached the
     conclusion that the developed latent prints are the fingerprints of Lee
     Harvey Oswald's right middle finger (#3) and right ring finger (#4) as
     they appear on the inked fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."

Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")


OK, Mr O..... Please show me where the three inches back is related to?      3 inches from WHERE??  And if the print was on the SIDE of the barrel then why did Day write on the index card,  that it was "Off UNDERSIDE" of gun barrel "
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 06:37:24 PM
Latona (FBI) saw no signs of anyone having even attempted to process the rifle.

Day's prints are utter and total BS.

Your "reconciling" should come as no surprise.

Day's prints are utter and total BS.

The entire story about the palm prints is nothing but pure fabrication.     But I don't know how to open peoples eyes this fact.

There is ample evidence that Day discovered the so called palm print while examining the rifle in the TSBD just minutes after he lifted the carcano from THE FLOOR where it had been hidden beneath boxes of books  ( there is film footage showing Day lifting the rifle from the FLOOR ( It was NOT jammed between boxes of books as the DPD in situ photos depict it.)

Day spotted what he thought was a palm print on the WOODEN foregrip and he lifted that smudge using cellophane tape.  Tom Alyea watched him as le lifted that " print"    After lifting the "print Day placed that cellophane tape on a white index card and scrawled the pertinent information on that index card.  Day wrote.... " Off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip" on rifle C 2766  He also initialed and dated the card.

That's where the so called "palm print originated....  It was sent to the FBI along with the other evidence at midnight ..... The FBI lab examined the smudge on the cellophane tape and reported that it was useless for identification purposes.

Then they discovered that Henry Wade had proclaimed that they had found Oswald's prints on the rifle.....But the FBI knew that no such incriminating evidence had been sent to them....  That's when the DPD ( JC Day) and the FBI created the whopper about how Day had dismantled the rifle and found the print.    Watta CROCK!!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 07:09:25 PM
It was only with digital technology that the print photos could be seen under varying contrasts to bring out the detail. Now the process didn't add detail and combining the same print from one photo to another is a perfectly legitimate way of evaluating prints in photographs.

Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/40712/35100473_2.jpg)

I have no trouble reconciling where Day found the barrel print.

Even on the day of the assassination, Day thought there was information (but not enough for a legal-standard "match") to tentatively link the prints to those of 'Lil' Lee. Years later, in the PBS-Frontline program, Day's tentative work on the trigger-guard housing fingerprints was re-examined by one of the nation's most prominent Latent Print Examiners, who said they matched positively to Oswald's.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "As a result of an exacting and detailed examination and comparison under
     varying degrees of magnification and illumination, I have reached the
     conclusion that the developed latent prints are the fingerprints of Lee
     Harvey Oswald's right middle finger (#3) and right ring finger (#4) as
     they appear on the inked fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."

(https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/40712/35100473_2.jpg)

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel

OK ,Mr O..... Would you please point out the location on the rifle where Day said that he saw " a trace of a print ON THE SIDE OF THE BARREL......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jon Banks on August 12, 2021, 07:43:02 PM
Jon: Yes, but he wrote that he disliked the American political and economic systems. He compared them, unfavorably, to the Soviet system. He said both were "slave" systems that needed to be overthrown. Michael Paine said that Oswald told him that the US system was irredeemable and couldn't be changed; that it needed to be replaced.

In 1963, after spending some time in the USSR, Oswald publicly ridiculed the USSR, the American Communist Party, and said he preferred the US over the USSR.

"He still held the ideals of the Soviets, was still a Marxist, but did not like the widespread lack of material goods that the Russians had to endure"


https://jfkassassination.net/parnell/ce2649.htm

"communist U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radicals"

http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-oswald-speech-in-alabama


I don't know if his contradictory statements represent growth from his teenage years to becoming an adult. Or if it's evidence that his prior statements weren't sincere and were being used to create a persona that would make it easier for him to get into the USSR (or Cuba).

It's also worth noting that Oswald didn't participate in the American Communist Party and didn't associate with any known Communists.

But again, he did identify as a Marxist and to most Americans in 1963, the "Marxist vs Communist" thing was a difference without distinction.

In other words, if Oswald was being used as a Patsy, the fact that he proclaimed to be a Marxist was bad enough to convince most Americans that he was an anti-American Communist in 1963. With 20/20 hindsight, we can see that his views on politics were complex and sometimes contradictory.

His brother, Robert, said Lee wanted to be an "American" (whatever that means) when he returned from the USSR.


So, whether he disliked America or not he certainly didn't care for our economic and political systems. Whether his belief in Marxism was simply an explanation for the world he disliked - and given his childhood it's understandable that he'd be alienated from it - or not can be debated I guess. I think he had a bit more sophisticated understanding of some of its basic concepts than others think, e.g., his views on surplus value for example were pretty solid.

Most people with Left-wing views are dissatisfied with the Status Quo and want to improve America.

Oswald may very well have been "anti-American" but I don't view his Marxist or anti-capitalist beliefs as evidence of anti-Americanism. After all, capitalism exists lots of other places besides America.

There were very legitimate reasons for criticizing capitalism and racism in Oswald's time.

Recognizing America's flaws and wanting to create a fairer economic and political system shouldn't be mistaken for hatred of the US.

See the quote below from Martin Luther King Jr:


"I am convinced that capitalism has seen its best days in American, and not only in America, but in the entire world. It is a well known fact that no social institution can survive when it has outlived its usefulness. This, capitalism has done. It has failed to meet the needs of the masses."


https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/notes-american-capitalism


As to his views on JFK: they are a puzzle, aren't they? If he was pretending to be a Marxist, if this was an act I would think part of it would be to denounce JFK. But if he was a sincere Marxist (as he understood it) and an admirer of Castro I would also think he'd be critical of JFK. But we can't find anything other than the Schmidt story.

Per Marina and others close to Oswald, he liked JFK's stances on Civil Rights. It also seems overlooked that Gen. Edwin Walker's aggressive opposition to Civil Rights, not his views on Cuba, might be what motivated Oswald's hatred of Walker.

Given Oswald's alleged love for Castro, I agree that one would expect him to hate JFK who presided over the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis. But JFK's views on Cuba were pretty much the consensus in the US government at the time so maybe Oswald didn't hold that against him.

He did in fact tell Captain Fritz that he was aware that Lyndon Johnson wouldn't be any different on Cuba policies.

If there was no Conspiracy, maybe Governor Connally was his intended target? If Oswald was a political extremist, he would've been proud to have killed JFK. Most terrorists express pride when they successfully hit their intended target.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 07:53:20 PM
Carl Day, Dallas Crime Lab on work done November 22nd ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on
     the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear.
     Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than
     try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the
     barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the
     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of
     the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the
     woodstock loose."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
    "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent—of the traces of
     prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766 ...
     They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee
     Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."

Day's photographs of the trigger-housing prints were confirmed as Oswald's in the 1993 PBS-TV NOVA Frontline program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (See also: "JFK First Day Evidence" by Gary Savage, p.120 and "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi, pp.803-04)

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://theundefeated.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/ulysha-renee.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(Yet another example of the exemplary unbiased work contributed by the Dallas Police Department.)

I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the     woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day

Lets try to parse Detective Day's statement......

"I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock."

In this statement Day says he' has spotted the "unclear" palm print on the SIDE of the barrel.....

"I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint "    

In this statement he indicates that when he started to take the woodstock off the rifle he " noted traces of a palmprint "
This sounds like two different prints.....He said that he had already seen  "a trace of a print"...and that what had prompted him to "take the woodstock off"....Then he noted traces of a palm print. that was near the firing end of the barrel ( normally called the muzzle) 

"about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the  woodstock loose."...DPD detective JC Day

The front of the woodstock is 5 1/4" back from the "firing end" ( muzzle)......and the side of the barrel above the wooden foregrip is 9 inches to the rear of the muzzle.

Day also testified that he removed the stock and dusted the area with black finger print powder......then he claimed that he used cellophane tape to lift the print.    And he said that the print was still visible on the barrel and the FBI should have been able to see that print......However The FBI man was far better qualified in examining finger prints than detective Day  and he testified that he saw not a trace of a print nor did he see any finger print powder on the barrel.... 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jon Banks on August 12, 2021, 08:07:34 PM
Even if it were a confirmed fact that "LHO did not hate JFK" that means absolutely nothing in terms of his guilt.  The evidence is used to prove guilt.  There is an abundance that links Oswald to this crime.  But again, JFK was also the President of the United States.  Not just a person.  Someone with a axe to grind with the US might take that out on its most prominent representative.  So even if LHO did not "hate" JFK he still had an obvious motive for targeting him because Oswald was a political nut job.   And you cannot discount the fact that the opportunity fell into Oswald's lap.  JFK's motorcade literally drove by his place of work affording him the chance.  Oswald did not "target" JFK in the sense that he had to seek him out as most assassins have to do.  JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight.

I agree that the lack of a clearly defined motive doesn't exonerate Oswald. It's just one of many weird things about the JFK assassination case. Taken collectively with other problems with the case, I continue to believe the case is unsolved and might've been a conspiracy.


I disagree that he was likely a Nut-job. Calling both Oswald and Ruby "Nut-jobs" is the defense of last resort when people can't explain their motives for doing certain things that they did.

Oswald was diagnosed with Personality Disorder issues, he wasn't diagnosed with any known mental illness. Personality Disorders and Mental Illness aren't the same. Some speculate that he had Aspergers or was Autistic. Aspergers wasn't widely recognized in the 1950s-1960s. 

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Richard Smith on August 12, 2021, 08:19:20 PM
I agree that the lack of a clearly defined motive doesn't exonerate Oswald. It's just one of many weird things about the JFK assassination case. Taken collectively with other problems with the case, I continue to believe the case is unsolved and might've been a conspiracy.


I disagree that he was likely a Nut-job. Calling both Oswald and Ruby "Nut-jobs" is the defense of last resort when people can't explain their motives for doing certain things that they did.

Oswald was diagnosed with Personality Disorder issues, he wasn't diagnosed with any known mental illness. Personality Disorders and Mental Illness aren't the same. Some speculate that he had Aspergers or was Autistic. Aspergers wasn't widely recognized in the 1950s-1960s.

The act of shooting the President is not a rational one.  There can't be a rational motive for doing so.  There was something wrong with Oswald as demonstrated in many ways.  His defection to the USSR.  Not normal.  His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.  His desire to defect to Cuba and trips to the Cuban Embassy.  Not normal.  Whether he had some type of clinical mental illness can be debated but there is no doubt that he was a very strange guy.  Of course there are lots of odd people (some of whom frequent this forum) who never commit any violent act.  But Oswald certainly falls within the category of suspect individuals.  The FBI was keeping tabs on him.  His own wife went to check on whether his rifle was still in the garage when she heard of JFK's assassination.  That speaks volumes that his wife was suspicious that he might commit the crime even before the police arrived.  He was the type.  That doesn't make him guilty.  That is what the evidence proves, but Oswald's personality is entirely consistent with being the assassin and nothing about his alleged lack of "motive" casts any doubt on his guilt as was suggested.  That is not a defense of last resort but reality.  Only Oswald can ever explain why he did it but it was no real surprise to anyone who knew him.  He was a lifelong malcontent with a screw loose. 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 12, 2021, 09:02:20 PM
The act of shooting the President is not a rational one.  There can't be a rational motive for doing so.  There was something wrong with Oswald as demonstrated in many ways.  His defection to the USSR.  Not normal.  His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.  His desire to defect to Cuba and trips to the Cuban Embassy.  Not normal.  Whether he had some type of clinical mental illness can be debated but there is no doubt that he was a very strange guy.  Of course there are lots of odd people (some of whom frequent this forum) who never commit any violent act.  But Oswald certainly falls within the category of suspect individuals.  The FBI was keeping tabs on him.  His own wife went to check on whether his rifle was still in the garage when she heard of JFK's assassination.  That speaks volumes that his wife was suspicious that he might commit the crime even before the police arrived.  He was the type.  That doesn't make him guilty.  That is what the evidence proves, but Oswald's personality is entirely consistent with being the assassin and nothing about his alleged lack of "motive" casts any doubt on his guilt as was suggested.  That is not a defense of last resort but reality.  Only Oswald can ever explain why he did it but it was no real surprise to anyone who knew him.  He was a lifelong malcontent with a screw loose.


 His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.

How do you know that Walker's assailant intended to kill him ??

Were you involved in the shooting?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jon Banks on August 12, 2021, 09:40:26 PM
The act of shooting the President is not a rational one.  There can't be a rational motive for doing so.

So the CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro were irrational?

I don't condone politically motivated violence or terrorism but political assassinations and terrorism CAN be rationalized if the killer intends to achieve some sort of political End.

I'm not convinced that Oswald had a political motive (assuming for the sake of argument that he acted alone).

If he was motivated by politics, it would still be wrong but not necessarily irrational.


There was something wrong with Oswald as demonstrated in many ways.  His defection to the USSR.  Not normal.  His attempt to kill Walker.  Not normal.  His desire to defect to Cuba and trips to the Cuban Embassy.  Not normal.  Whether he had some type of clinical mental illness can be debated but there is no doubt that he was a very strange guy.


We agree that he was "Odd" and not normal for the times in which he lived.

But political idealism and strange behavior doesn't equate to mental illness.

If he had lived a few years longer, he arguably would've fit in with the New Left movements of the late-1960s/early-1970s.


Of course there are lots of odd people (some of whom frequent this forum) who never commit any violent act.  But Oswald certainly falls within the category of suspect individuals.  The FBI was keeping tabs on him.  His own wife went to check on whether his rifle was still in the garage when she heard of JFK's assassination.  That speaks volumes that his wife was suspicious that he might commit the crime even before the police arrived.  He was the type.  That doesn't make him guilty.  That is what the evidence proves, but Oswald's personality is entirely consistent with being the assassin and nothing about his alleged lack of "motive" casts any doubt on his guilt as was suggested.  That is not a defense of last resort but reality.  Only Oswald can ever explain why he did it but it was no real surprise to anyone who knew him.  He was a lifelong malcontent with a screw loose.

The FBI and CIA kept tabs on him prior to the assassination but there's no evidence that they viewed Oswald as a violent extremist.

J Edgar Hoover and the FBI spied on thousands of Americans from Far-Left activists to members of the KKK. Most of the people the FBI spied on weren't violent extremists.

The reasons for the CIA's interest in Oswald prior to the assassination are less clear and should be investigated further...
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 13, 2021, 12:37:55 AM
So the CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro were irrational?

I don't condone politically motivated violence or terrorism but political assassinations and terrorism CAN be rationalized if the killer intends to achieve some sort of political End.

I'm not convinced that Oswald had a political motive (assuming for the sake of argument that he acted alone).

If he was motivated by politics, it would still be wrong but not necessarily irrational.



We agree that he was "Odd" and not normal for the times in which he lived.

But political idealism and strange behavior doesn't equate to mental illness.

If he had lived a few years longer, he arguably would've fit in with the New Left movements of the late-1960s/early-1970s.


The FBI and CIA kept tabs on him prior to the assassination but there's no evidence that they viewed Oswald as a violent extremist.

J Edgar Hoover and the FBI spied on thousands of Americans from Far-Left activists to members of the KKK. Most of the people the FBI spied on weren't violent extremists.

The reasons for the CIA's interest in Oswald prior to the assassination are less clear and should be investigated further...

The FBI and CIA kept tabs on him prior to the assassination but there's no evidence that they viewed Oswald as a violent extremist.

Less than 2 1/2 hours after JFK was murdered in Dealey Plaza , FBI agent James Hosty told DPD detective, Jack Revlll ..that  A communist named Lee Oswald had killed President Kennedy FBI agent Hosty also told Revill that the FBI was aware of the subject ( LHO) and the FBI had information that the subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy...

Many LNer's will see no problem with Hosty's statement.....But the most glaring lie is Hosty's statement that Lee Oswald had killed JFK.     At 2:50 pm there had been NO investigation what-so- ever on which Hosty could have based his statement....

There's no doubt that this is true.....  Except

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 13, 2021, 03:42:46 AM
Day said the print was three inches from the forward end of the wooden fore-stock, not three inches from the muzzle. Above that area of the fore-stock, half of the metal barrel remains exposed. That's where the hardworking and sharp-eyed Day saw part of the palm print exposed. ("I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock.")


OK, Mr O..... Please show me where the three inches back is related to?      3 inches from WHERE??  And if the print was on the SIDE of the barrel then why did Day write on the index card,  that it was "Off UNDERSIDE" of gun barrel "

Day first saw a part of it peeking up on the barrel as the barrel sat in the wooden stock. When Day removed the barrel from the stock, he saw that much more of that same print was underneath the barrel ("Off Underside"). Pretty straight forward, if you ask me.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wz0WdafZopYhvTehNalGEsFkEvEjEgES)

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 13, 2021, 06:01:13 PM
'JFK came to Dallas and drove right into Oswald's line of sight'
And Oswald ran right into an abundance of witnesses along his line of flight.
      So that we may see the super duper flash precision timing of "Oswald's Escape" once again--- 12:30...shots fired. 10 minutes and 6 blocks later...He is boarding a bus [snicker]-- 4 minutes and 3 blocks after that, he has entered a taxi and is instantly on his way to Oak Cliff [giggle]-- 6 minutes after that, the cabbie drops him off sundry blocks south of his room [cough] --That gave the murderous assassin 6 minutes to get to his room and grab his pistol [just in case he had to shoot some random cop] :-\  The suspect is then given 15 minutes and the shortest distance possible [maybe] to arrive at the rendezvous point of the Tippit encounter.....Defies logic!  How long was that encounter? Didn't matter. The Report apologists ignore the likelihood of all these events and just merely agree with the original Dallas Police narrative....Oswald is your guy= case closed. Do we see where that theory went?
Ridiculous as it is...that is the theory that went into the history books.
 http://www.mapmanusa.com/cci-killing-kennedy-6.html
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 13, 2021, 06:12:37 PM
Day first saw a part of it peeking up on the barrel as the barrel sat in the wooden stock. When Day removed the barrel from the stock, he saw that much more of that same print was underneath the barrel ("Off Underside"). Pretty straight forward, if you ask me.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wz0WdafZopYhvTehNalGEsFkEvEjEgES)

Thank you for posting the pictures of the carcano stock,and barrel.  It's a shame that you couldn't have supported your argument by posting a picture of the INSIDE ( barrel side) of the wooden stock.    Because if you could see the inside of the stock at the bayonet lug then you'd know that there is NOTHING on the barrel that would create what you have pointed out as  "POSSIBLE MARK FROM BAYONET LOCK OR TAPE EDGES"

There is no place on the  inside of the stock or the metal barrel at the foregrip that looks like the photo of the "palm print" (CE 639) on the 3 X 5 Index card.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wz0WdafZopYhvTehNalGEsFkEvEjEgES)

CE 639 ... The palm print...CE 2003 Volume 24...page 260

It's nice to see that you believe the print was lifted from the bottom side of the WOODEN foregrip, Where the slot for the folded bayonet blade is cut into the wooden foregrip. ( though you attempt to obfuscate that fact by writing "Possible mark from bayonet lock or tape edges"   That slot is clearly visible in the photo (CE 639). and can be measured by scaling the photo (The Card measures 3" X 5")  The bayonet blade slot measures 3/16" across and it extends about 2 1/2 inches to the rear of the Bayonet lug.  It's obvious that the "palm print" lift was lifted off the bottom of WOODEN foregrip.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 13, 2021, 07:23:03 PM
Day first saw a part of it peeking up on the barrel as the barrel sat in the wooden stock. When Day removed the barrel from the stock, he saw that much more of that same print was underneath the barrel ("Off Underside"). Pretty straight forward, if you ask me.

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wz0WdafZopYhvTehNalGEsFkEvEjEgES)

[i"WOODEN FORESTOCK ENDS BEHIND METAL FITTING"[/i]

The "metal fitting" is called the front band ........ It has two screws through it that passes through the bayonet lug and the fore end of the wooden stock, which secures the stock and barrel together. 

The bayonet lug is securely clamped to the metal barrel and the bayonet lug has a  heavy rectangular extension ( 1/4 " across) that extends to the rear of the lug. This extension is bored by toe holes that allow the two screws to tie the barrel and stock together at the foe end.

The POINT behind all of this is; the fact that the slot that is seen in the "palm print photo" (CE 639) is only 3/16 across  while the extension of the bayonet lug is 25% wider  than the bayonet slot.....Thus, the mark on the "palm Print" photo couldn't possibly been created by the bayonet lug.......   

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wz0WdafZopYhvTehNalGEsFkEvEjEgES)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2021, 07:40:39 PM
Shooting the president is not the act of a rational person.  Thus, the lack of any rational motive doesn't raise doubt as to guilt of the assassin.

No, but the lack of any rational evidence does.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2021, 07:46:55 PM
Day's photographs of the trigger-housing prints were confirmed as Oswald's in the 1993 PBS-TV NOVA Frontline program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"

BS.  30 years later a guy pulls photos out of a briefcase that he claims are from the alleged rifle and a fingerprint card that he claims are Oswald's prints and gets another guy to give a subjective opinion that they match.  When the guys at the FBI who examined the actual rifle said they could not be matched.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2021, 07:49:38 PM
Doesn't it logically follow from your above observation that the (FBI) clearly had no connection to the Dallas Police in setting up Oswald?

Doesn't it logically flow that Day's little story is inconsistent with the facts?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2021, 07:56:00 PM
From the "Findings and conclusions of Vincent J. Scalice" 8HSCA248:

(157) 8. Latent fingerprint recovered from the trigger guard of a 6.5-millimeter, Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial no. C2766, processed
at the Dallas Police Department. It is of no value for identification purposes.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2021, 07:59:24 PM
Oswald was diagnosed with Personality Disorder issues, he wasn't diagnosed with any known mental illness.

Any mental health professional will tell you that you can't diagnose personality disorders in children.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 13, 2021, 08:01:23 PM
Thank you for posting the pictures of the carcano stock,and barrel.  It's a shame that you couldn't have supported your argument by posting a picture of the INSIDE ( barrel side) of the wooden stock.

The print wasn't lifted from the inside of the wooden stock.

Quote
Because if you could see the inside of the stock at the bayonet lug then you'd know that there is NOTHING on the barrel that would create what you have pointed out as  "POSSIBLE MARK FROM BAYONET LOCK OR TAPE EDGES"

You're going to have to start doing your own graphics. ::)

Quote
There is no place on the  inside of the stock or the metal barrel at the foregrip that looks like the photo of the "palm print" (CE 639) on the 3 X 5 Index card.

CE 639 ... The palm print...CE 2003 Volume 24...page 260

It's nice to see that you believe the print was lifted from the bottom side of the WOODEN foregrip,

I don't believe that. You learn to gaslight from Fox News and Breitbart?

Quote
Where the slot for the folded bayonet blade is cut into the wooden foregrip. ( though you attempt to obfuscate that fact by writing "Possible mark from bayonet lock or tape edges"   That slot is clearly visible in the photo (CE 639). and can be measured by scaling the photo (The Card measures 3" X 5")  The bayonet blade slot measures 3/16" across and it extends about 2 1/2 inches to the rear of the Bayonet lug.  It's obvious that the "palm print" lift was lifted off the bottom of WOODEN foregrip.

I don't think it's the slot for the retracted bayonet blade that's grooved in the wooden fore-stock.

What makes you think the card is 3" X 5"?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2021, 08:01:38 PM
He was the type.

Only to people predisposed to think he was guilty.  How is wanting to go to Cuba "not normal"?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 13, 2021, 08:49:20 PM
BS.  30 years later a guy pulls photos out of a briefcase that he claims are from the alleged rifle and a fingerprint card that he claims are Oswald's prints and gets another guy to give a subjective opinion that they match.  When the guys at the FBI who examined the actual rifle said they could not be matched.

So "Rusty" Livingstone of the Dallas Crime Lab was making up trigger-guard-housing photos that showed prints from, what, a rubber-cast of "Lil" Lee's right hand?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 14, 2021, 01:27:52 AM
So "Rusty" Livingstone of the Dallas Crime Lab was making up trigger-guard-housing photos that showed prints from, what, a rubber-cast of "Lil" Lee's right hand?

I believe that Rusty Livingstone was trying to expose the conspiracy through his nephew, Gary Savage.    Livingston knew that the DPD had fabricated false evidence to incriminate Lee Oswald, but was afraid to expose the bastards ( the thin blue line)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 14, 2021, 11:48:03 PM
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce637.jpg)

Walt ...
What makes you think Day's palm-print card is 3" X 5"?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 15, 2021, 12:34:19 AM
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce637.jpg)

Walt ...
What makes you think Day's palm-print card is 3" X 5"?

3' X 5" is the standard size for a file card ( index file card) That system is obsolete and no longer used.....But it was very common back in the sixties....  And I believe There is a WC exhibit that has a ruler next to the card which verifies ....

I never dreamed that anybody would be so ignorant as to ask the size of a index file card.....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 15, 2021, 03:01:34 AM
3' X 5" is the standard size for a file card ( index file card) That system is obsolete and no longer used.....But it was very common back in the sixties....  And I believe There is a WC exhibit that has a ruler next to the card which verifies ....

Can't find it.  :-X

Quote
I never dreamed that anybody would be so ignorant [ :D ] as to ask the size of a index file card.....

3 X 5 is one of many standard sizes for "index cards".

CE 367 Exhibit if proportioned to index card values ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
  Height Exact  Width Exact 
3 X 5    3" - 4 13/16"  5" - 3 1/8"  5% Out
4 X 6    4" - 6 3/8"  6" - 3 3/4"  6% Out
5 X 8    5" - 7.96"  8" - 5.02"  Best Match
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The "Best Match" makes the "bayonet slot" groove 1/4".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(I think it's a random card size and maybe bigger than 5 X 8.)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 15, 2021, 08:21:32 PM
Can't find it.  :-X

3 X 5 is one of many standard sizes for "index cards".

CE 367 Exhibit if proportioned to index card values ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
  Height Exact  Width Exact 
3 X 5    3" - 4 13/16"  5" - 3 1/8"  5% Out
4 X 6    4" - 6 3/8"  6" - 3 3/4"  6% Out
5 X 8    5" - 7.96"  8" - 5.02"  Best Match
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The "Best Match" makes the "bayonet slot" groove 1/4".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(I think it's a random card size and maybe bigger than 5 X 8.)

I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove.....

(I think it's a random card size and maybe bigger than 5 X 8.)

So you think the card that Day placed the cellophane tape that held the lifted "palm print was "bigger than 5" X 8."

That's very interesting.....because the edges of the tape that detective Day used to lift prints is clearly visible on CE 639,and can be measured and compared to the width of the card....... so the card would have been 3.5 times larger than the tape.....Or the tape would have been 3.5 times narrower that the width of the card.   If the card was 5X8...Then the tape would have been 1.42 inches wide.....   The width of the tape that Day used was discussed in the hearing ( and I don't recall what the width of the tape was) but I believe the 1.42 inches is close to the width of the tape recorded in the testimony....

So it appears your guess is pretty close ....And the card was indeed 5" X 8"....

 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 15, 2021, 09:18:42 PM
I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove.....

(I think it's a random card size and maybe bigger than 5 X 8.)

So you think the card that Day placed the cellophane tape that held the lifted "palm print was "bigger than 5" X 8."

That's very interesting.....because the edges of the tape that detective Day used to lift prints is clearly visible on CE 639,and can be measured and compared to the width of the card....... so the card would have been 3.5 times larger than the card.....Or the tape would have been 3.5 times narrower that the width of the card.   If the card was 5X8...Then the tape would have been 1.42 inches wide.....   The width of the tape that Day used was discussed in the hearing ( and I don't recall what the width of the tape was) but I believe the 1.42 inches is close to the width of the tape recorded in the testimony....

So it appears your guess is pretty close ....And the card was indeed 5" X 8"....

I think it would have to be 1.5"-wide tape, which means the card is odd-sized.

Would you please measure the circumference of the barrel? Could Day have been using 2"-wide tape?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 15, 2021, 10:26:47 PM
I think it would have to be 1.5"-wide tape, which means the card is odd-sized.

Would you please measure the circumference of the barrel? Could Day have been using 2"-wide tape?

I think it would have to be 1.5"-wide tape, which means the card is odd-sized.

!.5 inch wide tape would have wrapped 3/4 ( 75% ) of the way around the 2.023 inch metal barrel
   

Would you please measure the circumference of the barrel? Could Day have been using 2"-wide tape?

Since the circumference of the barrel is 2.023 inches...( 2 inches)....The diameter is .625 inches....  IOW   2 inch wide tape would have wrapped completely around the metal barrel.    Therefore the tape was probably not 2 inches wide...

How about 1 inch wide tape?.....   Very simple....the barrel is 2 inches in circumference so the 1" tape would wrap half way around the barrel.....   Still not what we see in CE 639......


Now lets try it with the wooden foregrip....which is half round....The bottom portion is round and the diameter is 1.32 inches, which means if there was an upper portion the circumference would be 4.14 inches.....But we can ignore the circumference....and work with the diameter ( 1.32 ") of the round lower portion of the fore grip.....1.32"( Half circumference (4.14")= 2.07 inches)

A one  inch wide tape would wrap about 1/4 way around the wooden forestock ...( 4.14 inch circ) . and this works out very nicely when compared to the photo of the "palm print" as seen in CE 639....

Soooo.....It would appear that the so called palm print was lifted from the WOODEN FOREGRIP of the carcano...

And that is verified by the photo it's self which records the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip.







Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2021, 12:32:31 AM
I think it would have to be 1.5"-wide tape, which means the card is odd-sized.

!.5 inch wide tape would have wrapped 3/4 ( 75% ) of the way around the 2.023 inch metal barrel
   

Would you please measure the circumference of the barrel? Could Day have been using 2"-wide tape?

Since the circumference of the barrel is 2.023 inches...( 2 inches)....The diameter is .625 inches....  IOW   2 inch wide tape would have wrapped completely around the metal barrel.    Therefore the tape was probably not 2 inches wide...

Let's see. Two-inch lifting tape would fit, therefore, by your logic, it probably wouldn't?

    "He [Lt. Carl Day] then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over
     the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting
     the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card.
     He said he then compared the lift to Oswald's palm print card
     and was certain that it was Oswald’s."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — First Day Evidence (1993 book by Gary Savage)

I would think Day would want as much information off that barrel as his most-appropriate-width lifting tape would give him.

Quote
How about 1 inch wide tape?.....   Very simple....the barrel is 2 inches in circumference so the 1" tape would wrap half way around the barrel.....   Still not what we see in CE 639......

Now lets try it with the wooden foregrip....which is half round....The bottom portion is round and the diameter is 1.32 inches, which means if there was an upper portion the circumference would be 4.14 inches.....But we can ignore the circumference....and work with the diameter ( 1.32 ") of the round lower portion of the fore grip.....1.32"( Half circumference (4.14")= 2.07 inches)

A one  inch wide tape would wrap about 1/4 way around the wooden forestock ...( 4.14 inch circ) . and this works out very nicely when compared to the photo of the "palm print" as seen in CE 639....

Soooo.....It would appear that the so called palm print was lifted from the WOODEN FOREGRIP of the carcano...

The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159a.jpg)

Quote
And that is verified by the photo it's self which records the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip.

But if Carl Day correctly remembered he used two-inch lifting tape, then the linear impression is 1/4" across (too wide for a bayonet slot; just right for the bayonet lock on the underside of the barrel).
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 01:28:59 AM
Let's see. Two-inch lifting tape would fit, therefore, by your logic, it probably wouldn't?

    "He [Lt. Carl Day] then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over
     the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting
     the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card.
     He said he then compared the lift to Oswald's palm print card
     and was certain that it was Oswald’s."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
          — First Day Evidence (1993 book by Gary Savage)

I would think Day would want as much information off that barrel as his most-appropriate-width lifting tape would give him.

The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159a.jpg)

But if Carl Day correctly remembered he used two-inch lifting tape, then the linear impression is 1/4" across (too wide for a bayonet slot; just right for the bayonet lock on the underside of the barrel).

Now we're getting to the basics.....

Let's see. Two-inch lifting tape would fit, therefore, by your logic, it probably wouldn't?

The DIAMETER of the barrel is .625 inches....and the CIRCUMFERENCE is 1.96 ( 2 inches) inches....  So the entire distance around the metal barrel is 2 inches....  If you used two inch tape it would go all the way around the barrel ( which is ridiculous) because according to Day the print was on the bottom ( first he said it was on the side of the barrel but he changed his mind about that) the print covered just the area on the width of the tape  ....It sure as hell didn't encircle the entire 2 inch circumference of the barrel.

If you think differently...Then please explain how a human could wrap his palm entirely around a  5/8" (.625") diameter tube.....

"He [Lt. Carl Day] then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over
     the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting
     the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card.


OK ....If Day was using two inch wide tape....then the card would have been 7 inches wide.....because we can see the edges of the tape in the photo of the "palm print" (CE 639) and the card is 3.5 times larger than the tape .....That would make the length of the card 11.5"....Do you believe the card was 7" X 11.5" ??.....


if Carl Day correctly remembered he used two-inch lifting tape, then the linear impression is 1/4" across (too wide for a bayonet slot; just right for the bayonet lock on the underside of the barrel).

Yes, the bayonet slot is actually ( measured) about 3/16 of an inch across....
And the rear extension of the bayonet lug is .331" ( measured) across  ...It is NOT 1/4 inch!.....

But the real kick in the pants for your argument is the FACT that the lug extends down beneath the round metal barrel about 3/8 of an inch   ....This 3/8 would prevent the lifting tape from coming into contact with the metal  barrel.   So that shoots your theory down.......

PS.... I'm truly enjoying this exchange.... Please keep trying.....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Paul May on August 16, 2021, 02:41:57 AM
In practically every one of your thousands of posts you seem to implicate someone new,

Huh??.....  You really are confused aren't you, Chum......  For years I've stood on my belief that Lyin Bastard Johnson, and J Edna Hoover are the pinnacle of the plot.     There's nobody new..... THEY CONTROLLED the "investigation"  ........  and orchestrated the tale presented to us in the Warren Report.   Some stupid, gutless, suckers  like yourself actually believe that mountain of BS, is the truth.

Governments are common targets for conspiracy theories. They offer someone tangible to blame for unfortunate events, are often disliked and rarely give immediate, comprehensive or definitive answers. Even when government officials respond with emphatic denials, distrust is common.

A common rhetorical device of conspiracy theorists ... is to advance speculations and then criticize the authorities for not definitively refuting them. They also rely on an inherently implausible claim of a coverup by government agencies that don't really have a very good record of covering things up.


Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2021, 03:05:02 AM
Now we're getting to the basics.....

Let's see. Two-inch lifting tape would fit, therefore, by your logic, it probably wouldn't?

The DIAMETER of the barrel is .625 inches....and the CIRCUMFERENCE is 1.96 ( 2 inches) inches.... 

I have a manufactured roll of 2" packing tape and it's 1/8" short of 2".

Quote
So the entire distance around the metal barrel is 2 inches....  If you used two inch tape it would go all the way around the barrel ( which is ridiculous) because according to Day the print was on the bottom ( first he said it was on the side of the barrel but he changed his mind about that) the print covered just the area on the width of the tape  ....It sure as hell didn't encircle the entire 2 inch circumference of the barrel.

The print covers about 3/4 of the tape. I would think that Day would secure the tape in an area where the print wasn't, then slowly roll it over the area of the print. It would be prudent to utilize the full circumference with two-inch tape.

Quote
If you think differently...Then please explain how a human could wrap his palm entirely around a  5/8" (.625") diameter tube.....

(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/horatio-greenough-right-hand-holding-short-rod-quint-lox.jpg)

The fleshy part of the palm (little-finger side) would conform to the shape of the barrel.

Quote
"He [Lt. Carl Day] then placed a strip of 2" scotch tape over
     the developed print and rubbed it down before finally lifting
     the tape containing the print off and placed it on a card.


OK ....If Day was using two inch wide tape....then the card would have been 7 inches wide.....because we can see the edges of the tape in the photo of the "palm print" (CE 639) and the card is 3.5 times larger than the tape .....That would make the length of the card 11.5"....Do you believe the card was 7" X 11.5" ??.....

More a ratio of 3:1. If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8"

Quote
if Carl Day correctly remembered he used two-inch lifting tape, then the linear impression is 1/4" across (too wide for a bayonet slot; just right for the bayonet lock on the underside of the barrel).

Yes, the bayonet slot is actually ( measured) about 3/16 of an inch across....
And the rear extension of the bayonet lug is .331" ( measured) across  ...It is NOT 1/4 inch!.....

I was going by what you said earlier ...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
         
The bayonet lug is securely clamped to the metal barrel and the bayonet lug has a  heavy rectangular extension ( 1/4 " across) that extends to the rear of the lug.
         

BTW, the linear impression is 1/4" on the 5 X 8 card, and .31" on the 6 X 9 5/8 card. Might even be .33" on the actual car.

Quote
But the real kick in the pants for your argument is the FACT that the lug extends down beneath the round metal barrel about 3/8 of an inch   ....This 3/8 would prevent the lifting tape from coming into contact with the metal  barrel.   So that shoots your theory down.......

No, I earlier suggested the linear impression could have been "tape edges", meaning a groove had been cut in the lifting tape. It sounds like Day would have to do that, and he probably did it many times before as not all fingerprints are on flat surfaces and some may be near projections.

Quote
PS.... I'm truly enjoying this exchange.... Please keep trying.....

I too am enjoying it.   :D

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-22-2018/5ikoSN.gif) (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gif/snoopy-vs-the-red-baron-5ikoSN)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 03:49:11 AM
I have a manufactured roll of 2" packing tape and it's 1/8" short of 2".

The print covers about 3/4 of the tape. I would think that Day would secure the tape in an area where the print wasn't, then slowly roll it over the area of the print. It would be prudent to utilize the full circumference with two-inch tape.

(https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/horatio-greenough-right-hand-holding-short-rod-quint-lox.jpg)

The fleshy part of the palm (little-finger side) would conform to the shape of the barrel.



I too am enjoying it.   :D

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/7-22-2018/5ikoSN.gif) (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gif/snoopy-vs-the-red-baron-5ikoSN)
  • Carl Day lifted the palmprint off the barrel, recording doing so on the mounting card
  • The FBI confirmed that Day's palmprint life had come off the C2766 rifle barrel
  • Day testified under oath he lifted the palmprint off the barrel on November 22nd
  • Day told Gary Savage and "Rusty" Livingston he used 2" tape
  • The lift has no woodgrain pattern as if it had come off the wood forestock
  • There is no 3 X 5 card; Walt Fab

The fleshy part of the palm (little-finger side) would conform to the shape of the barrel.

So now you're saying that the print SURROUNDED the entire circumference of the barrel...... Then why didn't Day say that he saw a print that wrapped all the way around the barrel?


The lift has no woodgrain pattern as if it had come off the wood forestock..

  Ahhh... that takes me back to page one.....Many many years ago when  I first saw the photo of the "palm print "  (CE 639) i saw the wood grain  on the photo.....At that time ( 30  years ago ) the LNers explained that wood grain seen in the photo, as having been transferred to the metal barrel and that's why the wood grain appears in the photo.    At that time I didn't know that the wooden forestock is not in tight contact with the metal barrel as it is on many rifles.   So I accepted that as a plausible explanation.     

And thank you for printing my favorite cartoon character....  Snoopy, always brings chuckles....


Now then..... can we agree on the width of the tape and the size of the card it's stuck to??
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2021, 04:41:51 AM
The fleshy part of the palm (little-finger side) would conform to the shape of the barrel.

So now you're saying that the print SURROUNDED the entire circumference of the barrel...... Then why didn't Day say that he saw a print that wrapped all the way around the barrel?

The fleshy part of the palm would conform to whatever area of the barrel was appropriate to its size. You're twisting those words into the palm contorting to fully surround the barrel. Cheap semantics.

Quote
The lift has no woodgrain pattern as if it had come off the wood forestock..

  Ahhh... that takes me back to page one.....Many many years ago when  I first saw the photo of the "palm print "  (CE 639) i saw the wood grain  on the photo.....At that time ( 30  years ago ) the LNers explained that wood grain seen in the photo, as having been transferred to the metal barrel and that's why the wood grain appears in the photo.    At that time I didn't know that the wooden forestock is not in tight contact with the metal barrel as it is on many rifles.   So I accepted that as a plausible explanation.     

And thank you for printing my favorite cartoon character....  Snoopy, always brings chuckles....

Now then..... can we agree on the width of the tape and the size of the card it's stuck to??

I'm leaning towards Day's statement that the lifting tape was 2". Do you believe the tape is one-inch and stuck on a 3" X 5" index card?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 03:23:02 PM
The fleshy part of the palm would conform to whatever area of the barrel was appropriate to its size. You're twisting those words into the palm contorting to fully surround the barrel. Cheap semantics.

I'm leaning towards Day's statement that the lifting tape was 2". Do you believe the tape is one-inch and stuck on a 3" X 5" index card?

The fleshy part of the palm would conform to whatever area of the barrel was appropriate to its size. You're twisting those words into the palm contorting to fully surround the barrel. Cheap semantics.

You believe the tape was 2 inches wide.....But, If that were the truth, then the tape would have completely surrounded the circumference ( 2.03") of the metal barrel.    And I pointed out that the LNers ( yourself included) have always believed Day's tale that he spotted a print on the SIDE of the barrel which prompted him to remove the wooden forestock, and then he saw the print ON THE BOTTOM of the metal barrel.......according to Day's tale .... The print did not completely surround the metal barrel .....   But the photo of the print (CE639) "palm print" shows that the print completely transects the tape on the card....So if the tape was two inches wide and the print completely covers the tape from side to side then the print would have had to been completely around the 2 inch circumference of the metal barrel.     

Do you still want to maintain that the tape was 2 inches wide?

Do you believe the tape is one-inch and stuck on a 3" X 5" index card?

No, this discussion has convinced me that the card had to have been bigger than 3" X 5" ..... Probably 5" X  8".....

This is the reason that I'm truly enjoying this discussion......   I believe that I'm making progress and in the end you're going to be compelled to admit that detective Day's tale is pure BS....and the print was actually lifted from the wooden forestock and it was nothing but an unidentifiable smudge that the "experts" ( liars ) transformed into Lee Oswald's palm print.

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 16, 2021, 06:38:22 PM
Would it be feasible to determine the relative portion of the palm that is depicted by the latent print lifted by the tape? If so, measuring a palm of someone with a hand size similar to LHO might let you determine the approximate size of the tape and the card.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 07:02:34 PM
Would it be feasible to determine the relative portion of the palm that is depicted by the latent print lifted by the tape? If so, measuring a palm of someone with a hand size similar to LHO might let you determine the approximate size of the tape and the card.


The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159a.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 07:25:36 PM
To the less informed, the conspiracy Warren Commission theories might seem credible. As more details are learned, the conspiracy Warren Commission theories typically become less believable, at least to those who listen to reason. Sadly, most people do not know very many of the details of the assassination and many of them fall prey to those who feed off their paranoia hatred toward Oswald.

Also works fine.


One sees the glass as half full..... The other sees the glass as half empty.      Only the person who knows whether the glass is being emptied or filled can be correct.....

And the LNers are convinced that the official story from the WR is true and they will not scrutinize the story......On the other hand the CT's have seen giant flaws in the official tale and attempt to use those flaws while at the same time accepting other serious flaws as facts....   Example.....  A large portion of all debaters from both sides believe that the carcano was the murder weapon, because the authorities said so.....   I'm 100% certain that the carcano was not the murder weapon and it was never fired that day....   

This is a huge hurdle to try to get over......  because the entire case revolves around that carcano ..........The carcano is a central piece of evidence....   However there is more than ample evidence that refutes the FBI's stance that the carcano was the murder weapon.     One simply needs to accept that the FBI was lying.....and that's a huge hurdle....

 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2021, 08:15:59 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 09:04:43 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)

Impressions from under this band should appear on lift

No, not under the band.....  The lift was made from the wooden forgrip and the band did in fact interfer with the tape lying smoothly on the foregrip.  That band can be seen at the far left of the lift.

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 16, 2021, 09:21:59 PM

The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159a.jpg)

I personally can’t see enough detail of the print or the lift from those photos to be any more exact than a general estimate. But a similar area on my hand as indicated by the circle on the print measures no more than 1-1/2”. So how does that fit in with the argument?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2021, 09:56:59 PM
Impressions from under this band should appear on lift

No, not under the band.....  The lift was made from the wooden forgrip and the band did in fact interfer with the tape lying smoothly on the foregrip.  That band can be seen at the far left of the lift.

I forgot. You think Day lied about disassembling the rifle.

I see no impression of the band on the left. You're making it up as you go along. It's like Mormonism.  :D
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 10:38:41 PM
I forgot. You think Day lied about disassembling the rifle.

I see no impression of the band on the left. You're making it up as you go along. It's like Mormonism.  :D

(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)

No Jerry, I'm not making things up as we go along......I've been posting this same information for decades.   Check back and find out....

If you'll look directly below JCDay's signature (in the upper left corner of the card ) you see that the tape was not in contact with the surface from which the print was lifted.....  I believe it was that metal barrel band that lifted the tape away from the surface.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2021, 10:43:42 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)

No Jerry, I'm not making things up as we go along......I've been posting this same information for decades.   Check back and find out....

If you'll look directly below JCDay's signature (in the upper left corner of the card ) you see that the tape was not in contact with the surface from which the print was lifted.....  I believe it was that metal barrel band that lifted the tape away from the surface.

1) That's not an impression and certainly not "That band can be seen at the far left of the lift."

2) It's way outside the area of the band if the tape is 1".

3) The corner on the upper-right is also void of dust.

I don't see why Day would press down hard on the corners. Not where the print was and he needed a corner to lift the tape back up.

But nice try.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2021, 10:57:51 PM
1) That's not an impression and certainly not "That band can be seen at the far left of the lift."

2) It's way outside the area of the band if the tape is 1".

3) The corner on the upper-right is also void of dust.

I don't see why Day would press down hard on the corners. Not where the print was and he needed a corner to lift the tape back up.

But nice try.

I don't see why Day would press down hard on the corners. Not where the print was and he needed a corner to lift the tape back up.

Day would lightly have pressed the tape over the area where he believed there was a print.....He wouldn't have "pressed down hard" and risk distorting the print.... So basically the tape was "floating" and the barrel band would have prevented  the tape from making solid contact  with the surface.

Have you now decided that the tape was 1 inch wide?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2021, 03:58:41 AM
Would it be feasible to determine the relative portion of the palm that is depicted by the latent print lifted by the tape? If so, measuring a palm of someone with a hand size similar to LHO might let you determine the approximate size of the tape and the card.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/9e/76/Z94qgLtp_o.jpg)

Here's a first attempt at trying to compare Oswald's palmprint to the one on Day's lift.

(if not to scale on your monitor, check on PC,
Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout;
I had mine on 125%)

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/med_res/)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 17, 2021, 01:15:15 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/9e/76/Z94qgLtp_o.jpg)

Here's a first attempt at trying to compare Oswald's palmprint to the one on Day's lift.

(if not to scale on your monitor, check on PC,
Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout;
I had mine on 125%)

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/med_res/)

Nice work there Jerry, thanks! If I am looking at this correctly, the 2” tape appears to be the closest in relative scale. If that is true, what does that say about the size of the card?

Note, I have to say that it was more than a little bit eerie to put my hand up to the screen to compare the size of my hand to the size of the LHO print. It brought home the fact that he was human better than all the information I have read and the photos that I have seen.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2021, 04:24:34 PM
Nice work there Jerry, thanks! If I am looking at this correctly, the 2” tape appears to be the closest in relative scale. If that is true, what does that say about the size of the card?

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8. I think it may be time to rule out Walt's decades-long fabrication that the tape is one-inch and the card 3 X 5. All that time, he didn't do any empirical investigative work; it was all Weisbergian wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposition and overblown preachy innuendo. He seems to think a no-nonsense approach short-changes things.

Quote
Note, I have to say that it was more than a little bit eerie to put my hand up to the screen to compare the size of my hand to the size of the LHO print. It brought home the fact that he was human better than all the information I have read and the photos that I have seen.

Are these life-size? Both mages at 75% reduction.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/high_res/)

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)

(Check in Windows 10 Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout- 100%)

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 17, 2021, 04:26:54 PM
Nice work there Jerry, thanks! If I am looking at this correctly, the 2” tape appears to be the closest in relative scale. If that is true, what does that say about the size of the card?

Note, I have to say that it was more than a little bit eerie to put my hand up to the screen to compare the size of my hand to the size of the LHO print. It brought home the fact that he was human better than all the information I have read and the photos that I have seen.

If the tape is 2" then the "palm print" would have wrapped completely around the barrel, which has a circumference of 2.03 inches.....

Doe you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube?   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 17, 2021, 04:53:49 PM
If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8. I think it may be time to rule out Walt's decades-long fabrication that the tape is one-inch and the card 3 X 5. All that time, he didn't do any empirical investigative work; it was all Weisbergian wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposition and overblown preachy innuendo. He seems to think a no-nonsense approach short-changes things.

Are these life-size? Both mages at 75% reduction.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/high_res/)

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)

(Check in Windows 10 Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout- 100%)

I used a touch screen and zoomed it to match my palm. The action of putting my palm close to the image of his palm print gave me the eerie feeling.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2021, 05:50:16 PM
If the tape is 2" then the "palm print" would have wrapped completely around the barrel, which has a circumference of 2.03 inches.....

Doe you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube?

Not all at once. Just did an experiment. Grasped a 5/8" tube as if it were holding a heavy metal barrel. Then eased the grip by lifting the thumb and allowing the palm to relax. All of the fingers still held onto the tube but the tube had rolled on the palm. This added more palm imprinting than the initial grasping.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 17, 2021, 06:24:29 PM
Not all at once. Just did an experiment. Grasped a 5/8" tube as if it were holding a heavy metal barrel. Then eased the grip by lifting the thumb and allowing the palm to relax. All of the fingers still held onto the tube but the tube had rolled on the palm. This added more palm imprinting than the initial grasping.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.

Although there are print impressions across 3/4 of the tape width (at 2", it would 1 1/2"), the actual print from the palm may only be a portion of that.

Using the 2" as base.....you have indicated that the print spans about 1 1/2 inches.....   Since the circumference of the metal barrel is 2.2 inches and just a small fraction larger than 2 inches..... Ten the so called "palm print" would have wrapped 3/4 of the way around the metal barrel...But Day said that he saw a small portion of the print on the side of the barrel and that prompted him to remove the wooden foregrip. Then he saw the print on the bottom of the barrel.....  Day's description covers about 1/3 of the barrel or .....about 5/8".....     

5/8" is no where near the 1 1/2 inch that you are proffering.....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 17, 2021, 06:53:12 PM
If the tape is 2" then the "palm print" would have wrapped completely around the barrel, which has a circumference of 2.03 inches.....

Doe you believe it's possible to wrap your palm ( heel portion ) completely around a 5/8 " tube?

If you look at the shape of the palm print relative to the length of the tape (or the lift if you prefer) it appears to me that LHO was holding the barrel of the rifle at an angle similar to the natural way that I would pick it up. Here is a photo of a 5/8” diameter wooden dowel in my hand for an illustration:

(https://i.vgy.me/drCvCK.jpg)

As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the way around the barrel to span the width of the tape. We are just eyeballing the images to get a rough idea of the width of the tape. I am sure there is a more scientific way to measure these things. The tape might be closer to 1-1/2” wide than 2” wide. But I don’t believe that the reason for your theory of 1” wide is accurate.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 17, 2021, 07:09:06 PM
If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8. I think it may be time to rule out Walt's decades-long fabrication that the tape is one-inch and the card 3 X 5. All that time, he didn't do any empirical investigative work; it was all Weisbergian wink-wink, nudge-nudge supposition and overblown preachy innuendo. He seems to think a no-nonsense approach short-changes things.

Are these life-size? Both mages at 75% reduction.

(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/high_res/)

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)

(Check in Windows 10 Settings > System > Display > Scale & Layout- 100%)

You need to put a new battery in your calculator.....

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8.......Wrong!

If the tape is 2 inches wide.......Then the card is 6.7 inches wide and 10 inches long.... Is there any manufacturer who produces paper this size?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 17, 2021, 08:18:24 PM
If you look at the shape of the palm print relative to the length of the tape (or the lift if you prefer) it appears to me that LHO was holding the barrel of the rifle at an angle similar to the natural way that I would pick it up. Here is a photo of a 5/8” diameter wooden dowel in my hand for an illustration:

(https://i.vgy.me/rAtgNN.jpg)

As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the way around the barrel to span the width of the tape. We are just eyeballing the images to get a rough idea of the width of the tape. I am sure there is a more scientific way to measure these things. The tape might be closer to 1-1/2” wide than 2” wide. But I don’t believe that the reason for your theory of 1” wide is accurate.

As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the


Looking at the photo that you've posted, I'd say the heel of your hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the 5/8 " dowel.....

1/3 of 2 =  .66 "   or about 5/8 of an inch......   Which means the tape is about 1" wide......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2021, 08:32:45 PM
You need to but a new battery in your calculator.....

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8.......Wrong!

If the tape is 2 inches wide.......Then the card is 6.7 inches wide and 10 inches long....

(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/67/DDHMN74m_o.jpg)

Is there any manufacturer who produces paper this size?

Evidence mounts are just as likely to be custom sized. I don't see where you're getting that evidence has to be on "index cards" and standard-sized paper/card-stock.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 17, 2021, 09:09:52 PM
As can be seen in my photo, the relevant meaty part of the hand wraps about half-way around the dowel. Half of the circumference of a 5/8” dowel is about 1”. However when the tape was applied to the barrel of the rifle, I would assume that the length of the tape was parallel to the length of the barrel. Therefore relative to the palm print, the lift was at that same angle as the barrel was when the latent print was left on the barrel. And because of that angle, the palm doesn’t need to wrap all the


Looking at the photo that you've posted, I'd say the heel of your hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the 5/8 " dowel.....

1/3 of 2 =  .66 "   or about 5/8 of an inch......   Which means the tape is about 1" wide......

Here's a photo that is more on axis with the rod. It is close to 1/2 the circumference.

(https://i.vgy.me/Bvmp7H.jpg)

However, what you still are not taking into account is the angle of the tape and barrel relative to this wrap. Think of a candy cane or barber pole and their stripes as the go halfway around the circumference at an angle. Measure the stripe at two locations that are opposite from each other (but one will be further along the length). Because of the additional distance along the length, the stripe will measure longer than a stripe that is perpendicular to the length of the barrel.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2021, 10:17:28 PM
Awesome to watch the Nutters twist and turn.

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

But Day claimed there were still VISIBLE TRACES of the print:

Must have faded away, or Latona thought they were "fragmentary". The print was second-hand (ahem) by time the FBI received the rifle.

Quote
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

Mr. LATONA: This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 17, 2021, 10:43:43 PM
Awesome to watch the Nutters twist and turn.

Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

But Day claimed there were still VISIBLE TRACES of the print:

Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.

Sorry Otto, but there is irrefutable proof that the random pitting and imperfections that Day took from Oswald's rifle on the 22nd is a perfect match to a later imprint taken by the FBI and thus conclusively proves that Day's print taken on the 22nd  shows beyond all doubt that Oswald touched C2766's barrel! See Otto, when you rely on Science and advanced forensic techniques you can't go wrong!

When we have 1 dot we can't really say that the dot is unique, now when we have 2 dots in 2 random locations we have a stronger connection and the chances that 2 random flaws are in the same place becomes a lot less probable, then as you go up the number of connections between these random points increases, for example point 1's position is directly proportional to points 2, 3 4 and 5 and point 2 is directly proportional to 1, 3, 4 and 5, and so on. And another match is the relative sizes of each of the imperfections which independently dramatically increases the odds.
Btw I only used the FBI points, if you look closely there is more matching points, it's a slam dunk.

(https://i.postimg.cc/NjcsHZvq/fbi-rifle-1.gif)

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

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 17, 2021, 10:50:34 PM
Must have faded away, or Latona thought they were "fragmentary". The print was second-hand (ahem) by time the FBI received the rifle.

Mr. LATONA: This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. DULLES. Do I understand then that if there is a lifting of this kind, that it may obliterate----
Mr. LATONA. Completely.

(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/med_res/)

The circled area is the place from Lee's hand where the speculators imagined had been in contact with the 5/8 inch metal barrel....

That circled area is about 1.5 inches in diameter.......

Charles Collins photos show that the heel of his hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the circumference ( 2. 02 in) of the barrel . IOW is hand is in contact with on area  of about 5/8 of an inch.  And since the print did not completely span the lifting tape we can know that the tape was NOT 2 inches wide.....It was probably ONE inch wide.....

If the tape was 1 inch wide then the two parallel lines at the right hand side of the photo are 3/16 of in inch apart....  And 3/16" just happens to be the width of the bayonet slot that was cut into the wooden foregrip....


Mr. LATONA: This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Latona stated clearly that there was no print on the metal barrel....And what's more.....Latona said there was no evidence that a lift had been made from that metal barrel.....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 18, 2021, 12:02:48 AM
You need to put a new battery in your calculator.....

If the tape is 2", the card would be 6" x 9 5/8.......Wrong!

If the tape is 2 inches wide.......Then the card is 6.7 inches wide and 10 inches long.... Is there any manufacturer who produces paper this size?

Mr. BELIN. I am also going to introduce 735 and 736. These are the Xerox copies of those cards, of those palmprint cards, that I believe you had, sir. Am I correct in that, and according to my records, the next number for introduction of exhibits is 737.

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce735.jpg)

(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce736.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2021, 12:03:51 AM
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lee-harvey-oswald-palm-print-taken-on-november-22-the-day-president-picture-id576877626?)  (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49515/m1/1/med_res/)

The circled area is the place from Lee's hand where the speculators imagined had been in contact with the 5/8 inch metal barrel....

That circled area is about 1.5 inches in diameter.......

Charles Collins photos show that the heel of his hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the circumference ( 2. 02 in) of the barrel .

Charles just demonstrated the heel can encompass half of the circumference, and more if the print on the barrel ran along the length of contact. When are you going to start demonstrating things.

And since your print is on the fore stock, shouldn't the print be complete, that is, run edge-to-edge on one-inch tape?

Quote
IOW is hand is in contact with on area  of about 5/8 of an inch.  And since the print did not completely span the lifting tape we can know that the tape was NOT 2 inches wide.....It was probably ONE inch wide.....

If the tape was 1 inch wide then the two parallel lines at the right hand side of the photo are 3/16 of in inch apart....  And 3/16" just happens to be the width of the bayonet slot that was cut into the wooden foregrip....


Mr. LATONA: This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.

Latona stated clearly that there was no print on the metal barrel....And what's more.....Latona said there was no evidence that a lift had been made from that metal barrel.....

Mr. LATONA. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that----
Representative BOGGS. Is what?
Mr. LATONA. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.

Sounds like Latona assumed there would be no prints of any value, and that the trigger-guard housing (that had been wrapped by Day) was his best bet. I think Latona might have figured that if it wasn't a large-area print visible to the naked eye, it wasn't worth attempting a lift.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2021, 01:06:44 AM
Charles just demonstrated the heel can encompass half of the circumference, and more if the print on the barrel ran along the length of contact. When are you going to start demonstrating things.

And since your print is on the fore stock, shouldn't the print be complete, that is, run edge-to-edge on one-inch tape?

Mr. LATONA. No. First of all the weapon itself is a cheap one as you can see. It is one that----
Representative BOGGS. Is what?
Mr. LATONA. A cheap old weapon. The wood is to the point where it won't take a good print to begin with hardly. The metal isn't of the best, and not readily susceptible to a latent print.

Sounds like Latona assumed there would be no prints of any value, and that the trigger-guard housing (that had been wrapped by Day) was his best bet. I think Latona might have figured that if it wasn't a large-area print visible to the naked eye, it wasn't worth attempting a lift.

Charles just demonstrated the heel can encompass half of the circumference, and more if the print on the barrel ran along the length of contact. When are you going to start demonstrating things.

Here's a photo that is more on axis with the rod. It is close to 1/2 the circumference.

(https://i.vgy.me/Bvmp7H.jpg)

Are you kidding?.... The heel of his hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the 5/8" dowel....  The dowel has a circumference of a fraction more that 2 inches....1/3 (.333) of 2 is .666..... Or about 5/8 "   It's nowhere close to 1/2 the circumference ....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2021, 01:46:53 AM
Charles just demonstrated the heel can encompass half of the circumference, and more if the print on the barrel ran along the length of contact. When are you going to start demonstrating things.

Here's a photo that is more on axis with the rod. It is close to 1/2 the circumference.

Are you kidding?.... The heel of his hand is in contact with about 1/3 of the 5/8" dowel....  The dowel has a circumference of a fraction more that 2 inches....1/3 (.333) of 2 is .666..... Or about 5/8 "   It's nowhere close to 1/2 the circumference ....

Going by your 1" tape theory, what I want to know is how someone can grip the fore-stock and leave only a 3/4" X 3/4" print.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 18, 2021, 01:00:16 PM
How strange that Day didn't want to show off his "slam dunk" on the 22nd -- LOL

Coming from Day, the print has ZERO provenance and didn't surface until November 26, according to Day, and was not seen by Latona until November 29 -- ROFL

BTW, you shouldn't try to talk science when we already know you can't even add two numbers.

Hilarious, I can read you like a book, each and every time you are out of your depth your responses always follow the same format, when you have no answers your increasing usage LOL's and ROFL's are inversely proportional to your decreasing lack of comprehension. Thanks for being so predictable. DOH!

Anyway, for the members who have more than a single brain cell, Oswald's print on the barrel beyond all doubt came from Oswald's rifle because the multiple random marks and imperfections on Days lift which also contain Oswald's palm print are a perfect match to a later lift by the FBI from the actual rifle. Case Closed!

(https://i.postimg.cc/NjcsHZvq/fbi-rifle-1.gif)

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

 :D :D :D

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 18, 2021, 01:22:21 PM
I used my center finder device to draw a line through the center of the dowel (the diameter). This line divides the dowel in half. When holding the dowel as in the previous photos this line clearly shows that about half of the dowel's circumference is touching the relevant meaty part of the palm.

(https://i.vgy.me/sQOHAq.jpg)

I also noticed that Jerry's description of what happens when the hand is opened (rolling action of the dowel across more of the palm's area) is accurate. Probably the best way to gauge the width of the tape is to measure the area of the palm print (on the card) that is depicted by the lift. My palm measures about 4" across. So that might be a good place to start placing a scale on the palm print. It is only to get a rough idea of the width of the tape, not for exact accuracy.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 18, 2021, 01:50:06 PM
"Oswald's rifle" - - LOL

Speaking of predictability....you wanna get destroyed again trying to back up that claim?

BTW, Day didn"t even know where and when he marked the shells from the 6th floor, another ROFL.

Your desperate attempts to change the subject are pathetic, but I'm sorry I'm not going to let you run this time. Your goose is cooked! Muhahaha.

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2021, 04:15:10 PM
I used my center finder device to draw a line through the center of the dowel (the diameter). This line divides the dowel in half. When holding the dowel as in the previous photos this line clearly shows that about half of the dowel's circumference is touching the relevant meaty part of the palm.

(https://i.vgy.me/sQOHAq.jpg)

I also noticed that Jerry's description of what happens when the hand is opened (rolling action of the dowel across more of the palm's area) is accurate. Probably the best way to gauge the width of the tape is to measure the area of the palm print (on the card) that is depicted by the lift. My palm measures about 4" across. So that might be a good place to start placing a scale on the palm print. It is only to get a rough idea of the width of the tape, not for exact accuracy.

(https://i.vgy.me/sQOHAq.jpg)

You have a problem Charles....If the print had been liftd from the metal barrel at the location Jerry indicates....the palm could NOT have tightly contacted the metal barrel because there is an extension of the bayonet lug that extends back into that area and it is about 3/8 inch square,     IOW.....  that steel rectangle  protruding down from the round barrel would have prevented a palm from making solid contact with the round barrel.   And that bayonet extension would also have prevented detective Day from placing the cellophane tape against the round barrel.    On the other hand, the bayonet slot is clearly visible  on CE 639 , which means the "print" was lifted from the WOODEN foregrip.....

P.S.   Before you get in deeper.....  take a piece of paper cut into whatever width you believe the tape in the photo ( CE 639) is...   ( If you have some 2 inch wide scotch tape that's even better....) but a strip of paper  will serve as a substitute....

Now I'm sure you will realize that the strip of tape ( paper) must be curled to match the curvature of the metal barrel ( the dowel)     Now tape a wooden lead pencil to your wooden dowel and we'll pretend that the pencil is the bayonet lug attached to the bottom of the barrel ( although a pencil is not 3/8 " like the bayonet lug) .

Now try to place you strip of curled paper onto the barrel ( dowel) as though you were detective Day lifting a print from the barrel...      What happened??   You say you couldn't get the tape down onto the barrel because the curvature of curled tape sat on top of the 3/8" bayonet lug ( the pencil) and  wouldn't allow you to press the tape against the barrel...... 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2021, 04:35:44 PM
Sounds more like you haven't got a clue what you're talking about and is now fabricating a story about what Latona migh have figured...

Those are verbatim quotes. Latona's photographs of the trigger-guard-housing prints weren't up to par with Day's.

Quote
He testified "...there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle. "

STOP IT, Jerry!

Now if you can get Latona's testimony that, in your words, " the print has ZERO provenance", then you might have something.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2021, 04:58:30 PM
(https://i.vgy.me/sQOHAq.jpg)

You have a problem Charles....If the print had been liftd from the metal barrel at the location Jerry indicates....the palm could NOT have tightly contacted the metal barrel because there is an extension of the bayonet lug that extends back into that area and it is about 3/8 inch square,     IOW.....  that steel rectangle  protruding down from the round barrel would have prevented a palm from making solid contact with the round barrel.   And that bayonet extension would also have prevented detective Day from placing the cellophane tape against the round barrel.    On the other hand, the bayonet slot is clearly visible  on CE 639 , which means the "print" was lifted from the WOODEN foregrip.....

P.S.   Before you get in deeper.....  take a piece of paper cut into whatever width you believe the tape in the photo ( CE 639) is...   ( If you have some 2 inch wide scotch tape that's even better....) but a strip of paper  will serve as a substitute....

Now I'm sure you will realize that the strip of tape ( paper) must be curled to match the curvature of the metal barrel ( the dowel)     Now tape a wooden lead pencil to your wooden dowel and we'll pretend that the pencil is the bayonet lug attached to the bottom of the barrel ( although a pencil is not 3/8 " like the bayonet lug) .

Now try to place you strip of curled paper onto the barrel ( dowel) as though you were detective Day lifting a print from the barrel...      What happened??   You say you couldn't get the tape down onto the barrel because the curvature of curled tape sat on top of the 3/8" bayonet lug ( the pencil) and  wouldn't allow you to press the tape against the barrel......

Oh brother. Day would have cut out a slot for the bayonet lug.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)

Now, your one-inch tape theory has a tape that didn't pick up the metal band one inch from the print nor explains how gripping the fore-stock would leave a mere 3/4" X 3/4" print.

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 18, 2021, 05:03:29 PM
(https://i.vgy.me/sQOHAq.jpg)

You have a problem Charles....If the print had been liftd from the metal barrel at the location Jerry indicates....the palm could NOT have tightly contacted the metal barrel because there is an extension of the bayonet lug that extends back into that area and it is about 3/8 inch square,     IOW.....  that steel rectangle  protruding down from the round barrel would have prevented a palm from making solid contact with the round barrel.   And that bayonet extension would also have prevented detective Day from placing the cellophane tape against the round barrel.    On the other hand, the bayonet slot is clearly visible  on CE 639 , which means the "print" was lifted from the WOODEN foregrip.....

P.S.   Before you get in deeper.....  take a piece of paper cut into whatever width you believe the tape in the photo ( CE 639) is...   ( If you have some 2 inch wide scotch tape that's even better....) but a strip of paper  will serve as a substitute....

Now I'm sure you will realize that the strip of tape ( paper) must be curled to match the curvature of the metal barrel ( the dowel)     Now tape a wooden lead pencil to your wooden dowel and we'll pretend that the pencil is the bayonet lug attached to the bottom of the barrel ( although a pencil is not 3/8 " like the bayonet lug) .

Now try to place you strip of curled paper onto the barrel ( dowel) as though you were detective Day lifting a print from the barrel...      What happened??   You say you couldn't get the tape down onto the barrel because the curvature of curled tape sat on top of the 3/8" bayonet lug ( the pencil) and  wouldn't allow you to press the tape against the barrel......

Please direct me to a photo that shows what you are talking about. You don’t have to post it here. Just tell me where to find it.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2021, 05:14:39 PM
Oh brother. Day would have cut out a slot for the bayonet lug.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)

Now, your one-inch tape theory has a tape that didn't pick up the metal band one inch from the print nor explains how gripping the fore-stock would leave a mere 3/4" X 3/4" print.

Day would have cut out a slot for the bayonet lug.

Clearly you understand the problem, Jerry.....   The curled tape wouldn't have made contact with the barrel because the bayonet lug protruding from the barrel would have prevent the tape from making contact.

You have invented a solution ......."Day would have cut out a slot for the bayonet lug."   Unfortunately for you....there isn't one iota of evidence that Day "cut a slot" in the tape , and there isn't an iota of evidence that Day even encountered the problem...   (Which he didn't )
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2021, 06:06:17 PM
So dumb-ass Day ships the best he's got and keeps the "slam dunk" -- ROFL

I don't need Latona, it's a fact there's no evidence of the palm print being lifted on 11.22.

Priceless to watch a couple of Nutters play with a stick to "prove" a palm print was lifted from a Carcano.

Day cutting a slot as your latest desperate on-the-fly fabrication -- WOW

Dumb-ass Day......  An apt moniker.... His fist scrawled entry concerning the carcano, Day called it a 6.5 "lever action rifle"

Even an elementary school boy in Texas would have known that the carcano was a bolt action rifle......

However ... The FBI was able to work with Day and invent a plausible tale about that "palm print".   "Plausible", only if the tale isn't closely scrutinized....   Day actually sent that so called "palm print lift" on the index card  to the FBI at midnight 11-22-63 along with the other evidence.    ( It's listed as item #14 on the evidence inventory list )  The FBI examined it on Saturday 1-23-63 and reported that it was useless for identification purposes.   But in the mean time Henry Wade had told reporters that they had found Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on the rifle....  Unfortunately for the conspirators there was NO prints found on that rifle that could be identified as Lee Oswald's.   So the investigators ( conspirators) needed to invent a tale whereby detective Day had found a palm print on the rifle but failed to pass that information along to the FBI.   They failed to see that Day had in fact sent the palm print "off underside of barrel near end of foregrip on rifle C 2766"  on 11-22-63.   

Day had spotted what he imagined to be a palm print on the wooden fore grip while examining the rifle for finger prints while in the TSBD just minutes after the rifle was lifted FROM THE FLOOR where it had been hidden beneath the boxes of books.

Since the smudge that day imagined to be a palm print was in an area where it could easily be accidentally rubbed off, he decide to lift that print ......Which he did, as Tom Alyea watched.  Alyea saw him use the cellophane tape to lift the smudge and place the tape on the index card....and he saw Day scrawl the pertinent information on that card....  The card was sent to the FBI at midnight and the FBI examined it and reported that it was worthless for ID purposes.....It later became CE 639.   

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2021, 07:56:14 PM
Oh brother. Day would have cut out a slot for the bayonet lug.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/e5/e4/hODuLIEx_o.jpg)

Now, your one-inch tape theory has a tape that didn't pick up the metal band one inch from the print nor explains how gripping the fore-stock would leave a mere 3/4" X 3/4" print.

nor explains how gripping the fore-stock would leave a mere 3/4" X 3/4" print.

When day was examining the rifle in the TSBD he knew that a shooter rested he foregrip of a rifle on his left palm as he aimed and fired the rifle....Thus the natural place to look for a palm print was on the foregrip. The shooter didn't "grip the fore stock"
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 18, 2021, 09:35:16 PM
Here is a photo of a ~3//8" square dowel glued onto the 5/8" dowel to simulate the part of the barrel in the vicinity of where the palm print was lifted. The muzzle end is on the camera left.

(https://i.vgy.me/DkHKNe.jpg)

I have considered the orientation of the contour lines of the palm print lift and found it on the palm print card and considered the orientation of those contour lines on the hand that made that print. And I currently believe that these items show that the barrel was picked up as shown in my demonstration photos below. As you can see the pertinent area of the palm is in contact with the barrel.

(https://i.vgy.me/O75FWy.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/uYyoaO.jpg)



Here are some photos of some 2" wide clear shipping tape applied to the barrel and wrapped at least half-way around it. I had scribbled a little bit with a pencil in the area where I believe that the palm print would have been lifted from. The scribbling does not go half-way around the barrel. In hindsight I think I would have scribbled about half-way around if I were to do it again.

(https://i.vgy.me/1FMjuU.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/SMTkkV.jpg)


I then removed the 2" tape from the barrel (dowel). The graphite scribbles were "lifted" by the tape. Then the "lift" was applied to an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of printing paper.

(https://i.vgy.me/FKI3AK.jpg)


Thanks for the challenge Walt. This was fun. And it help confirm to me that there is nothing "impossible" about the lift that Day did on 11/22/63.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2021, 10:33:48 PM
Here is a photo of a ~3//8" square dowel glued onto the 5/8" dowel to simulate the part of the barrel in the vicinity of where the palm print was lifted. The muzzle end is on the camera left.

(https://i.vgy.me/DkHKNe.jpg)

I have considered the orientation of the contour lines of the palm print lift and found it on the palm print card and considered the orientation of those contour lines on the hand that made that print. And I currently believe that these items show that the barrel was picked up as shown in my demonstration photos below. As you can see the pertinent area of the palm is in contact with the barrel.

(https://i.vgy.me/O75FWy.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/uYyoaO.jpg)



Here are some photos of some 2" wide clear shipping tape applied to the barrel and wrapped at least half-way around it. I had scribbled a little bit with a pencil in the area where I believe that the palm print would have been lifted from. The scribbling does not go half-way around the barrel. In hindsight I think I would have scribbled about half-way around if I were to do it again.

(https://i.vgy.me/1FMjuU.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/SMTkkV.jpg)


I then removed the 2" tape from the barrel (dowel). The graphite scribbles were "lifted" by the tape. Then the "lift" was applied to an 8-1/2" x 11" sheet of printing paper.

(https://i.vgy.me/FKI3AK.jpg)


Thanks for the challenge Walt. This was fun. And it help confirm to me that there is nothing "impossible" about the lift that Day did on 11/22/63.


Here are some photos of some 2" wide clear shipping tape applied to the barrel and wrapped at least half-way around it. I had scribbled a little bit with a pencil in the area where I believe that the palm print would have been lifted from. The scribbling does not go half-way around the barrel. In hindsight I think I would have scribbled about half-way around if I were to do it again.

(https://i.vgy.me/1FMjuU.jpg)


Charles .... You're altering the "evidence".    Jerry claims that the two parallel lines that are clearly visible on the right hand side of the photo were made by the 3/8" bayonet lug that protruded from the bottom of the barrel ....therefore the tape must extend past the bayonet lug.... And your photo clearly shows that if you had placed the tape on top of the lug ( represented by the 3/8  wooden block that you've glued to the "barrel ) the tape would not have made contact with the pencil scribbling.....
  PS  Jerry understood the problem and his solution was " Detective Day cut a slot in the tape" to allow the rectangular bayonet lug to lie flat against the barrel....  Of course there isn't an iota evidence that Day "cut a slot in the tape", but desperation creates weird solutions....
You're wasting your time if you're not going to stick with the evidence presented....    l
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 12:20:03 AM

Charles .... You're altering the "evidence".    Jerry claims that the two parallel lines that are clearly visible on the right hand side of the photo were made by the 3/8" bayonet lug that protruded from the bottom of the barrel ....therefore the tape must extend past the bayonet lug.... And your photo clearly shows that if you had placed the tape on top of the lug ( represented by the 3/8  wooden block that you've glued to the "barrel ) the tape would not have made contact with the pencil scribbling.....
  PS  Jerry understood the problem and his solution was " Detective Day cut a slot in the tape" to allow the rectangular bayonet lug to lie flat against the barrel....  Of course there isn't an iota evidence that Day "cut a slot in the tape", but desperation creates weird solutions....
You're wasting your time if you're not going to stick with the evidence presented....    l

While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.

I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 12:57:32 AM
While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.

I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel.

The lines that are clearly visible on the right of the index card most certainly are parallel.....I'm looking at a carcano foregrip as I type this.....

The bayonet blade slot that was cut into the wood was apparently made by a tool similar to a small circular saw blade about 3/16 of an inch thick, with a diameter of about 1/2 inch ( the depth of the slot ) ....

The distance between the parallel lines in the photo is 3/16 "  ( the same as the bayonet slot in the wooden foregrip.)

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 19, 2021, 12:59:39 AM
You're wasting your time if you're not going to stick with the evidence presented....    l

It's easy sitting on the sidelines and playing Monday morning quarterback, but don't you have half a dozen Carcano's laying around, why don't you demonstrate your ability to be a neutral witness and do the above demonstration yourself, and finally you may gain some credibility?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 01:28:02 AM
The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel.

The lines that are clearly visible on the right of the index card most certainly are parallel.....I'm looking at a carcano foregrip as I type this.....

The bayonet blade slot that was cut into the wood was apparently made by a tool similar to a small circular saw blade about 3/16 of an inch thick, with a diameter of about 1/2 inch ( the depth of the slot ) ....

The distance between the parallel lines in the photo is 3/16 "  ( the same as the bayonet slot in the wooden foregrip.)

The lines on the image of the lift appear slightly tapered to me. The lines are not distinct enough or straight enough to get a good measurement. My caliper says that they are closer to parallel than they appear to my eye. Perhaps that is due to the astigmatism that I have. Since you have an actual example, I will concede the point. It makes no difference anyway. I have seen another photo of the slot in the wood. And if I remember correctly the slot in the wood extends further than the end of the metal that slides into it. Therefore I believe that the edges of the slot could have left the ragged lines on the bottom of the barrel as I previously stated. If the metal had left those lines, I believe that they would have been more distinct and less ragged (straighter).
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 19, 2021, 03:55:42 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7b/de/ySyRpz9o_o.jpg)

Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 01:11:02 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7b/de/ySyRpz9o_o.jpg)

Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation.

Thanks Jerry, that diagram, if I understand it correctly, indicates that the palm print begins approximately 2” from the end of the tape. That would mean that instead of the lug being partially inside the palm (as in my demonstration) the lug would be just above the palm. And the grip was probably pretty much all on the barrel below the lug. This appears to clarify that aspect for me.

And I agree about the residue. The photo I saw showed the slot in the wooden fore-stock extending past the lug. If Walt is correct about a circular saw blade cutting the slot, it would need to be over cut like that to account for the curvature of the blade at the end of the slot. Hopefully Walt can let us know one way or another if this is true on his rifle.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 04:26:07 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/7b/de/ySyRpz9o_o.jpg)

Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation.

Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation.

You're right, the two parallel lines seen at the right hand side of the "palm print" photo ( CE 639) were not created by the bayonet lug.  That lug is 3/8 " wide ....  and the two parallel lines are 3/16" apart....   Which just happens to be the width of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip ( The slot allows the bayonet blade to be folded back when the bayonet wasn't required )

 cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation.   

So the 3/8" wide bayonet lug allowed "cleaning oil" to seep in and form two straight lines that are 3/16"apart??  Wow!!  What a wild and ridiculous idea!     BTW .... What's cleaning oil?

Can you explain how "gun powder residue" would accumulate under the wooden foregrip about 9 inches to the rear of the muzzle??     
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 04:53:23 PM
It's easy sitting on the sidelines and playing Monday morning quarterback, but don't you have half a dozen Carcano's laying around, why don't you demonstrate your ability to be a neutral witness and do the above demonstration yourself, and finally you may gain some credibility?

JohnM

do the above demonstration yourself,

What demonstration?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 05:09:05 PM
While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.

I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

 You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

Be specific.....  In reference to the current subject ( the palm print card )  WHAT do you believe is a "nutty conclusion".....

The size of the card?....    Yes, my original statement that the card's dimensions were 3" X 5"  was incorrect.   This discussion has opened my eyes to the fact that the card could not have been 3 X 5.....So I'm indebted to you for enlightening to that fact.

What is your conclusion about the dimensions of that card, and the width of the tape?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 05:47:01 PM
While I have high regard for Jerry’s research, and we are usually in general agreement with our opinions, I have to respectfully disagree with that one. The lines are not parallel, they are tapered like the slot in the wood that mates with the bottom of the barrel. It is my opinion that after many years of contact of the two dissimilar materials and who knows what kind of conditions and treatment, that the edges of the slot caused the bottom of the barrel to oxidize, etc. right along the edges. And that roughness on the bottom of the metal barrel was what caused the lines in the lift.

I didn’t waste any time, I didn’t alter any evidence. (What the heck makes you think Jerry’s opinion is evidence?) I didn’t expect you to change your tune either. You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

"You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.".... Charles Collins

"Whatever that linear feature is, it's probably not the bayonet lug. It might be that gunpowder residue, dirt and/or cleaning oil seeped in around the bayonet lug and left two lines of accumulation."   Jerry Organ

Charles,... Is Jerry's statement a " nutty conclusion", ....Or do you believe Jerry's statement is an example of solid and rational reasoning?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 06:05:22 PM
You tend to jump to nutty conclusions without any basis except your opinions. I think you are so confused that you must think your opinions are evidence.

Be specific.....  In reference to the current subject ( the palm print card )  WHAT do you believe is a "nutty conclusion".....

The size of the card?....    Yes, my original statement that the card's dimensions were 3" X 5"  was incorrect.   This discussion has opened my eyes to the fact that the card could not have been 3 X 5.....So I'm indebted to you for enlightening to that fact.

What is your conclusion about the dimensions of that card, and the width of the tape?

I haven’t concluded anything yet. I try to base any conclusions on as much evidence as possible without relying on assumptions if possible. But my educated guess so far is that the tape is around 1-1/2” to 2”. If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut or not, that would be more information we could use to try to better form a conclusion regarding the sizes that you are asking about.



Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 06:41:37 PM
I haven’t concluded anything yet. I try to base any conclusions on as much evidence as possible without relying on assumptions if possible. But my educated guess so far is that the tape is around 1-1/2” to 2”. If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut or not, that would be more information we could use to try to better form a conclusion regarding the sizes that you are asking about.

If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut

I don't understand what you mean by " over cut"......   I have several carcano's and one rough stock that was manufactured for the model 91/38 short rifle but it never was assembled into a complete rifle.  it is cut and drilled and ready to accept the metal pieces to make up a complete rifle.

The bayonet slot is cut into the wooden foregrip.   It is 3/16 of an inch wide by 3/8" deep.....it extends 3 1/2 inches to the rear of the front end of the foregrip,  The sides of the slot are parallel  over nearly the entire length of the slot......but they gradually narrow to a width of 1/8 inch at the rear of the slot about 1/2 inch from the rear or end of the slot.   At about the same place the slot starts to narrow the 1/2 inch depth of the slot starts to decrease .    ( Probably matching the tip of the bayonet blade that it was designed to accept )....

I hope this answers your question......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 07:02:26 PM
If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut

I don't understand what you mean by " over cut"......   I have several carcano's and one rough stock that was manufactured for the model 91/38 short rifle but it never was assembled into a complete rifle.  it is cut and drilled and ready to accept the metal pieces to make up a complete rifle.

The bayonet slot is cut into the wooden foregrip.   It is 3/16 of an inch wide by 3/8" deep.....it extends 3 1/2 inches to the rear of the front end of the foregrip,  The sides of the slot are parallel  over nearly the entire length of the slot......but they gradually narrow to a width of 1/8 inch at the rear of the slot about 1/2 inch from the rear or end of the slot.   At about the same place the slot starts to narrow the 1/2 inch depth of the slot starts to decrease .    ( Probably matching the tip of the bayonet blade that it was designed to accept )....

I hope this answers your question......

That description helps. Thanks.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 07:24:05 PM
If you could inform us about whether or not the slot in the wood fore-stock is over-cut

I don't understand what you mean by " over cut"......   I have several carcano's and one rough stock that was manufactured for the model 91/38 short rifle but it never was assembled into a complete rifle.  it is cut and drilled and ready to accept the metal pieces to make up a complete rifle.

The bayonet slot is cut into the wooden foregrip.   It is 3/16 of an inch wide by 3/8" deep.....it extends 3 1/2 inches to the rear of the front end of the foregrip,  The sides of the slot are parallel  over nearly the entire length of the slot......but they gradually narrow to a width of 1/8 inch at the rear of the slot about 1/2 inch from the rear or end of the slot.   At about the same place the slot starts to narrow the 1/2 inch depth of the slot starts to decrease .    ( Probably matching the tip of the bayonet blade that it was designed to accept )....

I hope this answers your question......

Walt, here is an image showing the components of that area of the rifle. Is this an accurate depiction? If so, can you describe how it all fits together please? Thanks.

(https://i.vgy.me/9kaoW6.png)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 19, 2021, 07:48:49 PM
You're right, the two parallel lines seen at the right hand side of the "palm print" photo ( CE 639) were not created by the bayonet lug.  That lug is 3/8 " wide ....  and the two parallel lines are 3/16" apart....   Which just happens to be the width of the bayonet slot that is cut into the wooden foregrip ( The slot allows the bayonet blade to be folded back when the bayonet wasn't required )

You're preaching to NO ONE who believes the lifting tape was one-inch ("the two parallel lines are 3/16" apart"). Get with the program, Sad Sack. On two-inch tape, the linear (possibly residue) feature is the same width as the bayonet slot.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 08:05:37 PM
You're preaching to NO ONE who believes the lifting tape was one-inch ("the two parallel lines are 3/16" apart"). Get with the program, Sad Sack. On two-inch tape, the linear (possibly residue) feature is the same width as the bayonet slot.

On two-inch tape, the linear (possibly residue) feature is the same width as the bayonet slot.

No, that's not correct..... you need a new battery for your calculator.....

If the tape is two inches wide....then the two parallel lines are 5/16 " inches apart...... 
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 08:30:38 PM
Walt, here is an image showing the components of that area of the rifle. Is this an accurate depiction? If so, can you describe how it all fits together please? Thanks.

(https://i.vgy.me/9kaoW6.png)

(https://i.vgy.me/9kaoW6.png)

The pictures accurately depict the muzzle end of a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.....   The picture of the assembled portion of the rifle covers about  a one foot section of the forward end of the rifle.  The picture of "the one piece wood stock" looks exactly like the stock I have.   Unfortunately I don't know the nomenclature name of the metal piece that fits around the metal barrel and the front of the wooden stock

I'd call it "the front band/cap"..... but I'd be interested to learn the proper nomenclature.....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 08:37:16 PM
(https://i.vgy.me/9kaoW6.png)

The pictures accurately depict the muzzle end of a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.....   The picture of the assembled portion of the rifle covers about  a one foot section of the forward end of the rifle.  The picture of "the one piece wood stock" looks exactly like the stock I have.   Unfortunately I don't know the nomenclature name of the metal piece that fits around the metal barrel and the front of the wooden stock

I'd call it "the front band/cap"..... but I'd be interested to learn the proper nomenclature.....

Thanks, I was confused at first regarding the piece named Top Cap/Upper Forearm because of its position below the assembled rifle. But finally figured it out (it goes on top, hence “top cap”). So, does the bayonet in it’s stored position slide into the slot as you described earlier? And the top of the slot is open to the bottom of the barrel? Is that assumption correct?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 09:02:19 PM
Thanks, I was confused at first regarding the piece named Top Cap/Upper Forearm because of its position below the assembled rifle. But finally figured it out (it goes on top, hence “top cap”). So, does the bayonet in it’s stored position slide into the slot as you described earlier? And the top of the slot is open to the bottom of the barrel? Is that assumption correct?

Top cap/upper forearm =  hand guard......   the hand guard prevents the shooter's left thumb from coming in contact with the hot barrel when the rifle is being fired.     But you've figured it out.....

So, does the bayonet in it’s stored position slide into the slot as you described earlier? And the top of the slot is open to the bottom of the barrel? Is that assumption correct?

The bayonet blade does not "slide into" the slot provided for it at the front of the stock....  The the bayonet stays attached to the barrel and the blade folds back like a pocket knife. The bayonet blade folds back into the slot , like a pocket knife blade.

The slot is not open ( at the bottom ) to the barrel..... The slot is about 1/2 inch deep....so there is about 3/8 of an inch of the wood stock between the bottom of the slot and the metal barrel
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 19, 2021, 09:13:58 PM
Top cap/upper forearm =  hand guard......   the hand guard prevents the shooter's left thumb from coming in contact with the hot barrel when the rifle is being fired.     But you've figured it out.....

So, does the bayonet in it’s stored position slide into the slot as you described earlier? And the top of the slot is open to the bottom of the barrel? Is that assumption correct?

The bayonet blade does not "slide into" the slot provided for it at the front of the stock....  The the bayonet stays attached to the barrel and the blade folds back like a pocket knife. The bayonet blade folds back into the slot , like a pocket knife blade.

The slot is not open ( at the bottom ) to the barrel..... The slot is about 1/2 inch deep....so there is about 3/8 of an inch of the wood stock between the bottom of the slot and the metal barrel

Okay, thank you very much. That description is quite different from my earlier assumption. I have learned the hard way (many different times and ways) not to rely to heavily on assumptions. Now hopefully our discussion can move along in the correct direction.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Christer Jacobsson on August 19, 2021, 10:02:40 PM

The true facts concerning "Oswald's rifle"

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CbHeZjHZ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CbHeZjHZ8)   Thumb1:

2: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor)   Thumb1:

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 10:33:27 PM
The true facts concerning "Oswald's rifle"

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CbHeZjHZ8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CbHeZjHZ8)   Thumb1:

2: https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-evidence-is-the-conspiracy-the-carbine-on-the-6th-floor)   Thumb1:

Hi Christer .... I sincerely hope that you posted those links as Joke.....  Because they are ridiculously absurd....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 19, 2021, 10:55:00 PM
Hi Christer .... I sincerely hope that you posted those links as Joke.....  Because they are ridiculously absurd....

Seems to be an attempt to derail the focused discussion about the palm-print on the barrel. :(
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 19, 2021, 11:00:04 PM
Okay, thank you very much. That description is quite different from my earlier assumption. I have learned the hard way (many different times and ways) not to rely to heavily on assumptions. Now hopefully our discussion can move along in the correct direction.

I love it when information can be presented and discussed and debated in an attempt to determine the FACTS.  I had hoped that Mr Organ would be less dogmatic and more honest..... but for whatever reason refuses to engage in candid discussion.    He and I have been spitting at each other about the exact location at which the carcano was found.   Not much progress has been made, and he still believes that the official DPD in situ photo is the authentic photo of the rifle as it was found by Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman.    This in spite of the fact that their descriptions given in their affidavits,  of the rifle's position and location, does not fit with the official DPD in situ photo.   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 20, 2021, 01:07:58 AM
I love it when information can be presented and discussed and debated in an attempt to determine the FACTS.  I had hoped that Mr Organ would be less dogmatic and more honest..... but for whatever reason refuses to engage in candid discussion.    He and I have been spitting at each other about the exact location at which the carcano was found.   Not much progress has been made, and he still believes that the official DPD in situ photo is the authentic photo of the rifle as it was found by Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman.    This in spite of the fact that their descriptions given in their affidavits,  of the rifle's position and location, does not fit with the official DPD in situ photo.   

You think "correct direction" means someone is about to agree with you?   :D

Not if you keep serving up "facts" like ...
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a6/67/DDHMN74m_o.jpg)

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 20, 2021, 02:40:24 AM
I love it when information can be presented and discussed and debated in an attempt to determine the FACTS.  I had hoped that Mr Organ would be less dogmatic and more honest..... but for whatever reason refuses to engage in candid discussion.    He and I have been spitting at each other about the exact location at which the carcano was found.   Not much progress has been made, and he still believes that the official DPD in situ photo is the authentic photo of the rifle as it was found by Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman.    This in spite of the fact that their descriptions given in their affidavits,  of the rifle's position and location, does not fit with the official DPD in situ photo.   


I love it when information can be presented and discussed and debated in an attempt to determine the FACTS.

Yes, now that we know enough information about the relevant details we can confidently say that the groove for the bayonet wasn't in a location to affect a lift off the bottom of the barrel. I have thought about the possible reasons for the two parallel lines and currently believe the following theory. The channel in the wooden stock for the barrel is rounded on the bottom in every rifle I have ever seen. So I assume that the Carcano is the same (please correct me if this is not accurate). This groove is very slightly larger than the barrel, for clearance, and typically it's depth is about half the diameter of the barrel (again, please correct me if this is inaccurate).

For illustration purposes I drilled a 5/8" diameter hole in a piece of 1" square dowel. Then I split the square dowel in half with a band saw to form a similar channel in the square dowel (representing the rifle stock) for use with the 5/8" round wooden dowel (that represents the rifle barrel). I needed to sand the inside of the channel just enough for clearance for the round dowel to sit all the way to the bottom of the channel. Here are some photos of what I just described above:

(https://i.vgy.me/XKuF6w.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/Eax7dW.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/PrnuoZ.jpg)


As can be seen, there is a very slight gap on both sides of the round dowel between the round dowel and the channel in the square dowel. Dust and dirt, etc can and will enter this gap and fall towards the bottom of the channel. However, the round dowel (barrel) is resting on the bottom of the channel causing the gap to get narrower towards the bottom of the channel. Therefore the size of the dust and dirt will limit how far down the gap it can travel before it gets trapped. And two lines of this debris, similar to what can be seen on the lift from the rifle, will be the result. A less than 100% thorough cleaning of the underside of the barrel might leave a small portion of these lines (the portion very close to the bayonet lug) on the barrel. I believe that this theory is a likely one that could explain why the debris formed the two lines.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 20, 2021, 03:59:48 AM

I love it when information can be presented and discussed and debated in an attempt to determine the FACTS.

Yes, now that we know enough information about the relevant details we can confidently say that the groove for the bayonet wasn't in a location to affect a lift off the bottom of the barrel. I have thought about the possible reasons for the two parallel lines and currently believe the following theory. The channel in the wooden stock for the barrel is rounded on the bottom in every rifle I have ever seen. So I assume that the Carcano is the same (please correct me if this is not accurate). This groove is very slightly larger than the barrel, for clearance, and typically it's depth is about half the diameter of the barrel (again, please correct me if this is inaccurate).

Charles you're are thinking....and you're right ...the 5/8"metal barrel is in fact supported by the wooden stock...However in the case of the carcano the barrel is not supported by the wooden stock along the entire length...... There are two "cut outs" the  in the bottom of the barrel channel groove.  The cut outs are routered out elongated holes in the bottom of the barrel grove.  The larger of the two router holes is about four inches long and the other router hole is about 2 1/4 inches long. this shorter router hole is located direct beneath the barrel in the exact place where the 'palm print" is shown in the palm print photo.

 

For illustration purposes I drilled a 5/8" diameter hole in a piece of 1" square dowel. Then I split the square dowel in half with a band saw to form a similar channel in the square dowel (representing the rifle stock) for use with the 5/8" round wooden dowel (that represents the rifle barrel). I needed to sand the inside of the channel just enough for clearance for the round dowel to sit all the way to the bottom of the channel. Here are some photos of what I just described above:

(https://i.vgy.me/XKuF6w.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/Eax7dW.jpg)


(https://i.vgy.me/PrnuoZ.jpg)


As can be seen, there is a very slight gap on both sides of the round dowel between the round dowel and the channel in the square dowel. Dust and dirt, etc can and will enter this gap and fall towards the bottom of the channel. However, the round dowel (barrel) is resting on the bottom of the channel causing the gap to get narrower towards the bottom of the channel. Therefore the size of the dust and dirt will limit how far down the gap it can travel before it gets trapped. And two lines of this debris, similar to what can be seen on the lift from the rifle, will be the result. A less than 100% thorough cleaning of the underside of the barrel might leave a small portion of these lines (the portion very close to the bayonet lug) on the barrel. I believe that this theory is a likely one that could explain why the debris formed the two lines.

Your theory is not possible because the 2 1/4 inch long routered out cavity directly below the area where the palm print is shown to be in the palm print photo ( CE 639)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 20, 2021, 12:47:52 PM
Your theory is not possible because the 2 1/4 inch long routered out cavity directly below the area where the palm print is shown to be in the palm print photo ( CE 639)

What are you talking about, a notch for the bayonet lug to slide into? Please explain this routered out cavity in detail. You already told us that there is about 3/8” of wood between the groove for the bayonet itself (when stored) and the bottom of the barrel. So your descriptions are confusing and seem to be conflicting..
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 20, 2021, 04:32:13 PM
What are you talking about, a notch for the bayonet lug to slide into? Please explain this routered out cavity in detail. You already told us that there is about 3/8” of wood between the groove for the bayonet itself (when stored) and the bottom of the barrel. So your descriptions are confusing and seem to be conflicting..

I'm sorry Charles, I posted this ( below) in your text..... I thought I was responding AFTER your text....


Charles you're are thinking....and you're right ...the 5/8"metal barrel is in fact supported by the wooden stock...However in the case of the carcano the barrel is not supported by the wooden stock along the entire length...... There are two "cut outs" the  in the bottom of the barrel channel groove.  The cut outs are routered out elongated holes in the bottom of the barrel grove.  The larger of the two router holes is about four inches long and the other router hole is about 2 1/4 inches long. this shorter router hole is located direct beneath the barrel in the exact place where the 'palm print" is shown in the palm print photo.

Your theory is not possible because the 2 1/4 inch long routered out cavity directly below the area where the palm print is shown to be in the palm print photo ( CE 639)

P.S. The router "cavities" at the bottom of the rifle barrel channel are 3/8" deep....  ie;  the cavities in the bottom of the barrel channel are 3/8" below the barrel when the barrel is in the stock.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 20, 2021, 05:10:17 PM
I'm sorry Charles, I posted this ( below) in your text..... I thought I was responding AFTER your text....


Charles you're are thinking....and you're right ...the 5/8"metal barrel is in fact supported by the wooden stock...However in the case of the carcano the barrel is not supported by the wooden stock along the entire length...... There are two "cut outs" the  in the bottom of the barrel channel groove.  The cut outs are routered out elongated holes in the bottom of the barrel grove.  The larger of the two router holes is about four inches long and the other router hole is about 2 1/4 inches long. this shorter router hole is located direct beneath the barrel in the exact place where the 'palm print" is shown in the palm print photo.

Your theory is not possible because the 2 1/4 inch long routered out cavity directly below the area where the palm print is shown to be in the palm print photo ( CE 639)

P.S. The router "cavities" at the bottom of the rifle barrel channel are 3/8" deep....  ie;  the cavities in the bottom of the barrel channel are 3/8" below the barrel when the barrel is in the stock.

Thanks, how wide are these routered channels, also 3/8”? And how accurate is the 3/8” measurement? I am thinking that Italy manufacturing would have been on the metric system back then. Can you measure them in millimeters? Also what purpose do these routered cavities serve is the one near the muzzle end of the stock for the bayonet lug to slide into?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 20, 2021, 07:14:38 PM
Thanks, how wide are these routered channels, also 3/8”? And how accurate is the 3/8” measurement? I am thinking that Italy manufacturing would have been on the metric system back then. Can you measure them in millimeters? Also what purpose do these routered cavities serve is the one near the muzzle end of the stock for the bayonet lug to slide into?

Thanks for the questions Charles. I was concerned that I hadn't been very clear about the routered "cavities" in the bottom of the barrel channel, but you apparently have been able to understand......

The two cavities are both 3/8 inches wide and 3/8 inches deep.  Using my digital caliper to measure, they are precisely 10.3mm wide and 10.45mm deep.  The 4 inch long cavity midpoint lies 8 inches back from the front of the wood stock.   And the midpoint of the 2 1/8" long cavity lies 4 1/4 inches to the rear of the front of the stock. 


what purpose do these routered cavities serve--- is the one near the muzzle end of the stock for the bayonet lug to slide into?

I'd guess that the cavities serve to allow the wood to expand and contract ( heat from the barrel, and changes in humidity and weather conditions) By allowing the stock to expand and contract the pressure on the barrel is minimized...thus the accuracy
 of the rifle isn't effected as it would be if the barrel were in contact with the stock over the entire length of the barrel.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 20, 2021, 07:55:41 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 20, 2021, 08:01:53 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)

(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)

A picture is worth a thousand words...  Thanks for posting the pics....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 20, 2021, 08:05:01 PM
Thanks for the questions Charles. I was concerned that I hadn't been very clear about the routered "cavities" in the bottom of the barrel channel, but you apparently have been able to understand......

The two cavities are both 3/8 inches wide and 3/8 inches deep.  Using my digital caliper to measure, they are precisely 10.3mm wide and 10.45mm deep.  The 4 inch long cavity midpoint lies 8 inches back from the front of the wood stock.   And the midpoint of the 2 1/8" long cavity lies 4 1/4 inches to the rear of the front of the stock. 


what purpose do these routered cavities serve--- is the one near the muzzle end of the stock for the bayonet lug to slide into?

I'd guess that the cavities serve to allow the wood to expand and contract ( heat from the barrel, and changes in humidity and weather conditions) By allowing the stock to expand and contract the pressure on the barrel is minimized...thus the accuracy
 of the rifle isn't effected as it would be if the barrel were in contact with the stock over the entire length of the barrel.

Thanks Walt, that information is helpful.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 20, 2021, 08:07:25 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)

Thanks Jerry, Walt already said exactly what I was going to say. Your diagrams and photos are always well done!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 20, 2021, 08:51:10 PM
You are welcome.

When I came across those pictures this morning, I knew Walt hadn't lost his mind.

I will apply those measurements and router grooves to my model. Also note that the slot in the stock for the bayonet lug goes right up to the barrel chamber.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 20, 2021, 09:47:04 PM
You are welcome.

When I came across those pictures this morning, I knew Walt hadn't lost his mind.

I will apply those measurements and router grooves to my model. Also note that the slot in the stock for the bayonet lug goes right up to the barrel chamber.

When I came across those pictures this morning, I knew Walt hadn't lost his mind.

Thanks.... for the left handed compliment.   So now you've acknowledged that " I hadn't lost my mind"...  Another way of saying that you know i am not a Loon...

In the past you have not been so candid.....frequently diagnosing me as "crazy'...

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 20, 2021, 10:07:24 PM
You are welcome.

When I came across those pictures this morning, I knew Walt hadn't lost his mind.

I will apply those measurements and router grooves to my model. Also note that the slot in the stock for the bayonet lug goes right up to the barrel chamber.

Yes, that is the slot that I was asking about way earlier in this thread. I attempted to ask whether it extended past the end of the bayonet lug when the barrel is installed properly in it’s slot. But things got confused and I believe that we ended up discussing the slot for the actual bayonet on the under side of the stock. When you apply that slot to your diagram, we should have an answer I believe. Walt could possibly confirm this on an actual rifle also I believe.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 20, 2021, 10:30:10 PM
When I came across those pictures this morning, I knew Walt hadn't lost his mind.

Thanks.... for the left handed compliment.   So now you've acknowledged that " I hadn't lost my mind"...  Another way of saying that you know i am not a Loon...

When you wrote: "Your theory is not possible because the 2 1/4 inch long routered out cavity directly below the area where the palm print is shown to be in the palm print photo ( CE 639)", I didn't picture this ...

(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)

You might have mentioned about it being in the barrel chamber.  ::)

Why don't you take pictures if you have a Carcano sitting in front of you disassembled?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 20, 2021, 10:31:39 PM
A common rhetorical device of conspiracy theorists ... is to advance speculations and then criticize the authorities for not definitively refuting them. They also rely on an inherently implausible claim of a coverup by government agencies that don't really have a very good record of covering things up.

A common rhetorical device of the "Oswald did it" evangelists is to assume that if a government agent says something it must be true.  Unless of course it doesn't fit the narrative.  Then he's a liar.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 20, 2021, 10:36:41 PM
A common rhetorical device of the "Oswald did it" evangelists is to assume that if a government agent says something it must be true.  Unless of course it doesn't fit the narrative.  Then he's a liar.

Mr. "I am not a Conspiracy Theorist". Here's some "LOL"s for your use.

LOL LOL LOL

Evangelists? You got a beef with religion, sonny?  ::)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 20, 2021, 10:37:50 PM
Must have faded away, or Latona thought they were "fragmentary". The print was second-hand (ahem) by time the FBI received the rifle.

Must have!   :D
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 20, 2021, 10:50:15 PM
Mr. "I am not a Conspiracy Theorist". Here's some "LOL"s for your use.

LOL LOL LOL

Evangelists? You got a beef with religion, sonny?  ::)

No, it's just that religions (including the Warren Report religion) based their beliefs on faith rather than evidence.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 20, 2021, 10:52:05 PM
The problem with "Mytton"'s cartoon is that some of those dots appear on one but not on the other.  Game over.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 20, 2021, 11:31:19 PM
Yes, that is the slot that I was asking about way earlier in this thread. I attempted to ask whether it extended past the end of the bayonet lug when the barrel is installed properly in it’s slot. But things got confused and I believe that we ended up discussing the slot for the actual bayonet on the under side of the stock. When you apply that slot to your diagram, we should have an answer I believe. Walt could possibly confirm this on an actual rifle also I believe.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)

The large slot at the forward end of the stock extends back from the front of the wooden stock, about 1 inch.... That slot is 5/16 " wide (the width of the bayonet lug that fits into that slot.)

Does this information answer the question?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 01:43:47 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/26/1c/6rZmvdAd_o.jpg)

The large slot at the forward end of the stock extends back from the front of the wooden stock, about 1 inch.... That slot is 5/16 " wide (the width of the bayonet lug that fits into that slot.)

Does this information answer the question?

Thanks, the other part of the question is: how much of the ~1” length of that slot does the metal bayonet lug fill up when the barrel is properly positioned onto the stock? In other words, is there much clearance between the rounded end of that slot and the bayonet lug?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 21, 2021, 01:59:35 AM
Thanks, the other part of the question is: how much of the ~1” length of that slot does the metal bayonet lug fill up when the barrel is properly positioned onto the stock? In other words, is there much clearance between the rounded end of that slot and the bayonet lug?

Charles, On page 132 of the WR there is a photo of a disassembled carcano. ( CE 1304) The barrel is floating directly above the stock and it's obvious where the bayonet lug fits into the stock.    I believe this photo will help you far better than I can.   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 02:07:06 AM
I did an experiment on my previous wooden dowel demonstration posted earlier in this thread. I routed a 3/8” cavity in the bottom of the channel to see how the revised geometry works out regarding the theory of the dust and dirt being trapped in between the barrel and the stock. The revised geometry still works well for the theory, probably better. I will post a photo when I get a chance. I also have another theory regarding the purpose of the routed grooves in the bottom of the barrel channel. The top edges of the routed grooves contact the barrel and I believe that they hold the barrel firmly in position. Much better than the barrel could be held in place if the routed grooves were not there.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 02:08:20 AM
Charles, On page 132 of the WR there is a photo of a disassembled carcano. ( CE 1304) The barrel is floating directly above the stock and it's obvious where the bayonet lug fits into the stock.    I believe this photo will help you far better than I can.

Thanks
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 21, 2021, 02:25:29 AM
Thanks, the other part of the question is: how much of the ~1” length of that slot does the metal bayonet lug fill up when the barrel is properly positioned onto the stock? In other words, is there much clearance between the rounded end of that slot and the bayonet lug?

I have about a 1/8" gap on my model. The gap between the back end of the bayonet lug and the front end of the slot that receives it. However, the end of my wood slot is flat and needs to be rounded (tomorrow). The back end of the lug isn't round (it has slightly rounded corners) and can't "seal" against the actual rounded opening. You've already figured that one out.

(https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/bradfordsauction/42/688942/H22021-L233452995.jpg)

I think I can see a similar gap in the picture above. For scale, my model tells me the dark metal band (it has a two rounded projections --one being the bolt head and other where the bolt attaches on the other side -- and has a gap on the underside through which we see the back-third of the bayonet lug) is about 1" long as shown from this angle.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 21, 2021, 03:03:25 AM
I have about a 1/8" gap on my model. The gap between the back end of the bayonet lug and the front end of the slot that receives it. However, the end of my wood slot is flat and needs to be rounded (tomorrow). The back end of the lug isn't round (it has slightly rounded corners) and can't "seal" against the actual rounded opening. You've already figured that one out.

(https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/bradfordsauction/42/688942/H22021-L233452995.jpg)

I think I can see a similar gap in the picture above. For scale, my model tells me the dark metal band (it has a two rounded projections --one being the bolt head and other where the bolt attaches on the other side -- and has a gap on the underside through which we see the back-third of the bayonet lug) is about 1" long as shown from this angle.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce637.jpg)
(https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/bradfordsauction/42/688942/H22021-L233452995.jpg)
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce637.jpg)

Does the bayonet slot on the carcano look exactly like the image in the palm print photo?

Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 03:48:26 AM
I have about a 1/8" gap on my model. The gap between the back end of the bayonet lug and the front end of the slot that receives it. However, the end of my wood slot is flat and needs to be rounded (tomorrow). The back end of the lug isn't round (it has slightly rounded corners) and can't "seal" against the actual rounded opening. You've already figured that one out.

(https://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/bradfordsauction/42/688942/H22021-L233452995.jpg)

I think I can see a similar gap in the picture above. For scale, my model tells me the dark metal band (it has a two rounded projections --one being the bolt head and other where the bolt attaches on the other side -- and has a gap on the underside through which we see the back-third of the bayonet lug) is about 1" long as shown from this angle.

Thanks a lot Jerry, I think that I am beginning to see that the theory that I have been pursuing isn’t likely to solve the mystery of the two lines. The details of the construction of the rifle do not seem to be what I imagined. But I have another idea that will be explored tomorrow.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 21, 2021, 03:57:50 AM
Thanks a lot Jerry, I think that I am beginning to see that the theory that I have been pursuing isn’t likely to solve the mystery of the two lines. The details of the construction of the rifle do not seem to be what I imagined. But I have another idea that will be explored tomorrow.

OK, Charles.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 02:09:37 PM
I should have accepted Walt's challenge straight up instead of adding my twist in pursuit of my theory, which was based on assumptions that turned out to be false. Another lesson learned the hard way. So here I applied 2" wide shipping tape just as Walt's challenge suggested. This time I scribbled about half-way around the circumference to simulate the meaty part of the palm doing that as demonstrated earlier. Also I applied graphite from the pencil to the edges of the square dowel. I can believe that the machining process for making the actual bayonet lug could leave some roughness on those edges and that dirt and debris could cling to those edges more so than the smoother flat surfaces. It is not difficult to apply the tape such that it follows the contours of the bayonet lug. Here are a couple of photos:

(https://i.vgy.me/CnTrkC.jpg)

(https://i.vgy.me/UojHil.jpg)


And here is a photo of the tape applied to a sheet of printer paper:

(https://i.vgy.me/66o5E1.jpg)


A few comments about this experiment:

It is a crude experiment only done as a proof of concept.

The square wooden dowel was made when Walt stated it needed to be 3/8". I assumed both the width and the height were the same. I made it out of a scrap piece of MDF which was a little thicker than 3/8" (7/16") thinking for the experiment I would rather have it a little oversized than undersized. We later learned that the slot for the bayonet lug is only 5/16" wide. And I would think that the actual lug is slightly under that size. Therefore the square wooden dowel is significantly wider than the actual bayonet lug. And so the lines on the tape are a little further apart than what we see on images of the actual lift.

As can be seen in the photos, I manipulated the tape to stick to the vertical surface of the lug. After looking at the resulting lift, I believe that Day probably didn't do that and left that part of the tape a little loose and unstuck.

The shipping tape that I used is probably a bit different than the tape used back in 1963. But it is relatively thin for today's shipping tape (some of the tape available today is thicker and less pliable).

When I zoom an image of the actual 1963 lift such that the lines are about 5/16" apart, the width of the tape is about 2". And the rough experiment I did this morning indicates to me that the palm print (scribbling), the distance (if corrected as stated above) between the lines, and the width of the tape are reasonably proportional to each other when compared to the same proportions in the image of the actual lift.

Based on the distance between the lines and the palm print as seen in the images of the lift, it appears to me that the bayonet must have been partially in the palm, when the latent print was left on the bottom of the barrel, as depicted in the first of the photos I posted earlier suggesting how the barrel was held.

Based on this experiment, I believe that Day lifted some dirt/debris from the edges of the bayonet lug that form the previously mysterious lines.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 21, 2021, 05:05:32 PM
I should have accepted Walt's challenge straight up instead of adding my twist in pursuit of my theory, which was based on assumptions that turned out to be false. Another lesson learned the hard way. So here I applied 2" wide shipping tape just as Walt's challenge suggested. This time I scribbled about half-way around the circumference to simulate the meaty part of the palm doing that as demonstrated earlier. Also I applied graphite from the pencil to the edges of the square dowel. I can believe that the machining process for making the actual bayonet lug could leave some roughness on those edges and that dirt and debris could cling to those edges more so than the smoother flat surfaces. It is not difficult to apply the tape such that it follows the contours of the bayonet lug. Here are a couple of photos:

(https://i.vgy.me/CnTrkC.jpg)

(https://i.vgy.me/UojHil.jpg)


And here is a photo of the tape applied to a sheet of printer paper:

(https://i.vgy.me/66o5E1.jpg)


A few comments about this experiment:

It is a crude experiment only done as a proof of concept.

The square wooden dowel was made when Walt stated it needed to be 3/8". I assumed both the width and the height were the same. I made it out of a scrap piece of MDF which was a little thicker than 3/8" (7/16") thinking for the experiment I would rather have it a little oversized than undersized. We later learned that the slot for the bayonet lug is only 5/16" wide. And I would think that the actual lug is slightly under that size. Therefore the square wooden dowel is significantly wider than the actual bayonet lug. And so the lines on the tape are a little further apart than what we see on images of the actual lift.

As can be seen in the photos, I manipulated the tape to stick to the vertical surface of the lug. After looking at the resulting lift, I believe that Day probably didn't do that and left that part of the tape a little loose and unstuck.

The shipping tape that I used is probably a bit different than the tape used back in 1963. But it is relatively thin for today's shipping tape (some of the tape available today is thicker and less pliable).

When I zoom an image of the actual 1963 lift such that the lines are about 5/16" apart, the width of the tape is about 2". And the rough experiment I did this morning indicates to me that the palm print (scribbling), the distance (if corrected as stated above) between the lines, and the width of the tape are reasonably proportional to each other when compared to the same proportions in the image of the actual lift.

Based on the distance between the lines and the palm print as seen in the images of the lift, it appears to me that the bayonet must have been partially in the palm, when the latent print was left on the bottom of the barrel, as depicted in the first of the photos I posted earlier suggesting how the barrel was held.

Based on this experiment, I believe that Day lifted some dirt/debris from the edges of the bayonet lug that form the previously mysterious lines.

I admire your efforts Charles....  I applaud your efforts....In a way I had hoped that you'd be brutally honest and acknowledge that no matter how you tried, in your experiments, you  could not reduce the distance between the two parallel lines to 3/16 of an inch.   The width of the bayonet lug is precisely .340" ( 8.61mm)  I originally stated that it was 5/16" which is close enough for this discussion....Because 3/16 =.312"     The difference between .312" and .340" =.28 ....or about the  thickness of a plastic credit card.   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 05:14:00 PM
I admire your efforts Charles....  I applaud your efforts....In a way I had hoped that you'd be brutally honest and acknowledge that no matter how you tried, in your experiments, you  could not reduce the distance between the two parallel lines to 3/16 of an inch.   The width of the bayonet lug is precisely .340" ( 8.61mm)  I originally stated that it was 5/16" which is close enough for this discussion....Because 3/16 =.312"     The difference between .312" and .340" =.28 ....or about the  thickness of a plastic credit card.

Honestly and frankly, if I had known the exact dimension when I made mock-up and cut the piece that represents the bayonet lug to that size, the lines on the lift would be the correct distance apart. No doubt about it.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 21, 2021, 05:27:42 PM
Honestly and frankly, if I had known the exact dimension when I made mock-up and cut the piece that represents the bayonet lug to that size, the lines on the lift would be the correct distance apart. No doubt about it.

Ok Charles.... we will never agree about what created the two parallel lines.  That's a shame because  IMO you cannot advance your understanding of the murder of JFK if you refuse to accept mathematically proven facts.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 21, 2021, 05:43:30 PM
I should have accepted Walt's challenge straight up instead of adding my twist in pursuit of my theory, which was based on assumptions that turned out to be false. Another lesson learned the hard way. So here I applied 2" wide shipping tape just as Walt's challenge suggested. This time I scribbled about half-way around the circumference to simulate the meaty part of the palm doing that as demonstrated earlier. Also I applied graphite from the pencil to the edges of the square dowel. I can believe that the machining process for making the actual bayonet lug could leave some roughness on those edges and that dirt and debris could cling to those edges more so than the smoother flat surfaces. It is not difficult to apply the tape such that it follows the contours of the bayonet lug. Here are a couple of photos:

(https://i.vgy.me/CnTrkC.jpg)

(https://i.vgy.me/UojHil.jpg)


And here is a photo of the tape applied to a sheet of printer paper:

(https://i.vgy.me/66o5E1.jpg)


A few comments about this experiment:

It is a crude experiment only done as a proof of concept.

The square wooden dowel was made when Walt stated it needed to be 3/8". I assumed both the width and the height were the same. I made it out of a scrap piece of MDF which was a little thicker than 3/8" (7/16") thinking for the experiment I would rather have it a little oversized than undersized. We later learned that the slot for the bayonet lug is only 5/16" wide. And I would think that the actual lug is slightly under that size. Therefore the square wooden dowel is significantly wider than the actual bayonet lug. And so the lines on the tape are a little further apart than what we see on images of the actual lift.

As can be seen in the photos, I manipulated the tape to stick to the vertical surface of the lug. After looking at the resulting lift, I believe that Day probably didn't do that and left that part of the tape a little loose and unstuck.

The shipping tape that I used is probably a bit different than the tape used back in 1963. But it is relatively thin for today's shipping tape (some of the tape available today is thicker and less pliable).

When I zoom an image of the actual 1963 lift such that the lines are about 5/16" apart, the width of the tape is about 2". And the rough experiment I did this morning indicates to me that the palm print (scribbling), the distance (if corrected as stated above) between the lines, and the width of the tape are reasonably proportional to each other when compared to the same proportions in the image of the actual lift.

Based on the distance between the lines and the palm print as seen in the images of the lift, it appears to me that the bayonet must have been partially in the palm, when the latent print was left on the bottom of the barrel, as depicted in the first of the photos I posted earlier suggesting how the barrel was held.

Based on this experiment, I believe that Day lifted some dirt/debris from the edges of the bayonet lug that form the previously mysterious lines.

Charles, I'm not askin you to reply to my question..... But I would like you to ask yourself.... 

Does your photo of the tape from your experiment resemble the palm print photo?    Is there even small resemblance ?

And here is a photo of the tape applied to a sheet of printer paper:
(https://i.vgy.me/66o5E1.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 21, 2021, 07:40:02 PM
Charles, I'm not askin you to reply to my question..... But I would like you to ask yourself.... 

Does your photo of the tape from your experiment resemble the palm print photo?    Is there even small resemblance ?

And here is a photo of the tape applied to a sheet of printer paper:
(https://i.vgy.me/66o5E1.jpg)

Walt, I have stated that it is a crude experiment and that the dimensions of the mock-up are not correct. Your earlier challenge essentially stated that it is impossible to lift a palm print from the area of the barrel where the print was reportedly found. And the reason that you stated was that bayonet lug would prevent the tape from being applied to that area. I have shown how the tape is able to be applied so that both the palm print and the lines can be lifted. That is all that I intended to show. I could make a more accurate mock-up, or use an actual barrel from the correct rifle (if I could find one) and perform the lift. It would then resemble the one that Day lifted, of that I have no doubt.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 21, 2021, 07:58:56 PM
Walt, I have stated that it is a crude experiment and that the dimensions of the mock-up are not correct. Your earlier challenge essentially stated that it is impossible to lift a palm print from the area of the barrel where the print was reportedly found. And the reason that you stated was that bayonet lug would prevent the tape from being applied to that area. I have shown how the tape is able to be applied so that both the palm print and the lines can be lifted. That is all that I intended to show. I could make a more accurate mock-up, or use an actual barrel from the correct rifle (if I could find one) and perform the lift. It would then resemble the one that Day lifted, of that I have no doubt.

To thine self be true......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 22, 2021, 12:33:48 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/91/dd/dAjy86Ii_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 22, 2021, 01:54:57 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/91/dd/dAjy86Ii_o.jpg)

That’s interesting! Very interesting!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 22, 2021, 02:48:40 PM
Looking closer at the photo provided by Jerry, I see that the surfaces of the moveable bayonet lug that would contact the underside of the barrel form two parallel lines (see arrows in the photo below. This is due to that smaller radius curved surface of the lug. These parallel line surfaces appear to be somewhat rough to me, although the photo is not really clear enough to show this very well.

(https://i.vgy.me/Ou1UdG.jpg)

It appears to me that the contact between the moveable bayonet lug and the underside of the barrel could create some rough spots on the underside of the barrel (which would be in the form of two parallel lines). When Day needed to apply the tape to the underside of the barrel, all he needed to do was slide the bayonet lug away from the print (towards the muzzle end of the barrel. The rough spots (in the form of two parallel lines) could retain some of the fingerprint powder. And those rough spots would show up on the lift as two parallel lines.

Thank you Jerry, that was some very good detective work and research.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 22, 2021, 06:02:00 PM
Looking closer at the photo provided by Jerry, I see that the surfaces of the moveable bayonet lug that would contact the underside of the barrel form two parallel lines (see arrows in the photo below. This is due to that smaller radius curved surface of the lug. These parallel line surfaces appear to be somewhat rough to me, although the photo is not really clear enough to show this very well.

It appears to me that the contact between the moveable bayonet lug and the underside of the barrel could create some rough spots on the underside of the barrel (which would be in the form of two parallel lines). When Day needed to apply the tape to the underside of the barrel, all he needed to do was slide the bayonet lug away from the print (towards the muzzle end of the barrel. The rough spots (in the form of two parallel lines) could retain some of the fingerprint powder. And those rough spots would show up on the lift as two parallel lines.

Thank you Jerry, that was some very good detective work and research.

You may be on to something, Charles. Funny we weren't told about the lug being moveable.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/88/DaeHb42r_o.jpg)

This shows the loop feature would have been seen on the barrel of the rifle prior to disassembly.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 22, 2021, 07:22:33 PM
You may be on to something, Charles. Funny we weren't told about the lug being moveable.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/88/DaeHb42r_o.jpg)

This shows the loop feature would have been seen on the barrel of the rifle prior to disassembly.

Nice diagrams Jerry. Yes, I think the mystery of the lines has been solved. Thanks again!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 22, 2021, 07:54:33 PM
To thine self be true......

To thine self be true

 ::)

Another high school drop-out
> Try 'to thine own self be true' next time

Lazy buggers. Did any of you lot make it through high school?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 22, 2021, 08:15:12 PM
Nice diagrams Jerry. Yes, I think the mystery of the lines has been solved. Thanks again!

3D is a nice tool, if done accurately. I knew about the wrap-around feature, but this is the first time I tried it myself. I drew a cylinder and "painted" it using the high-definition palmprint as a texture. I can now zoom in on the model ans see most of the print detail as if it were on the barrel.

The Sixth Floor should consider having as an exhibit several M91/38 Short Rifles in various stages of disassembly, or at least one disassembled.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 22, 2021, 09:44:19 PM
Nice diagrams Jerry. Yes, I think the mystery of the lines has been solved. Thanks again!

 Day was a complete ignoramus about the carcano.....  He initially referred to it as a "lever action" when any elementary school boy could have informed him that the rifle was a bolt action type rifle.    I seriously doubt that he knew that the bayonet lug was removable.....Just as neither you nor Jerry knew the lug was removable.

So you believe that detective Day tapped the bayonet lug off the barrel when there was no need to do so.   He allegedly  saw the print on the barrel, so what reason would he have to remove the bayonet lug?     

This nonsense just keeps getting sillier and sillier......
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 22, 2021, 10:21:54 PM
Day was a complete ignoramus about the carcano.....  He initially referred to it as a "lever action" when any elementary school boy could have informed him that the rifle was a bolt action type rifle.    I seriously doubt that he knew that the bayonet lug was removable.....Just as neither you nor Jerry knew the lug was removable.

So you believe that detective Day tapped the bayonet lug off the barrel when there was no need to do so.   He allegedly  saw the print on the barrel, so what reason would he have to remove the bayonet lug?     

This nonsense just keeps getting sillier and sillier......

The barrel is tapered and the outside diameter is smaller on the muzzle end. Chances are that Day didn’t need to tap it to move it towards the muzzle end to move it.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 22, 2021, 10:29:21 PM
Day was a complete ignoramus about the carcano..... 

I think we know the ignoramus when it comes to the Carcano and the discovery location.

Quote
He initially referred to it as a "lever action" when any elementary school boy could have informed him that the rifle was a bolt action type rifle.

Gee. You'll think a search for Carl Day and "lever action" would turn up something.

Quote
I seriously doubt that he knew that the bayonet lug was removable.....Just as neither you nor Jerry knew the lug was removable.

I think if we had a Carcano M91/38 Short Rifle in front of us, Charles or I would have noticed the bayonet lug moved a bit when the bolt retaining it was pulled through it. It's something else entirely when someone knows the lug is moveable, are in a "discussion" about the lug and keeps that tidbit to himself.

Quote
So you believe that detective Day tapped the bayonet lug off the barrel when there was no need to do so.   He allegedly  saw the print on the barrel, so what reason would he have to remove the bayonet lug?     

This nonsense just keeps getting sillier and sillier......

What's silly is you turning our slid the lug along the barrel a little way into... "tapped the bayonet lug off".
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 22, 2021, 10:54:33 PM
 Walk:I
I think we know the ignoramus when it comes to the Carcano and the discovery location.

Gee. You'll think a search for Carl Day and "lever action" would turn up something.

I think if we had a Carcano M91/38 Short Rifle in front of us, Charles or I would have noticed the bayonet lug moved a bit when the bolt retaining it was pulled through it. It's something else entirely when someone knows the lug is moveable, are in a "discussion" about the lug and keeps that tidbit to himself.

What's silly is you turning our slid the lug along the barrel a little way into... "tapped the bayonet lug off".

(https://i.postimg.cc/C14tFxG0/bolt-handle.jpg)

The handle that opens the bolt action is used as a lever of sorts. Leave it to a high school drop-out like OddWalt to engage in the veritable minutiae-madness CTers/JAQers/OAKers are so dependant upon.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 23, 2021, 01:04:48 AM

I think if we had a Carcano M91/38 Short Rifle in front of us, Charles or I would have noticed the bayonet lug moved a bit when the bolt retaining it was pulled through it. It's something else entirely when someone knows the lug is moveable, are in a "discussion" about the lug and keeps that tidbit to himself.


You hit the nail on the head and this highlights the main different between a LNer and a CT, a LNer wants all the facts so as to create a coherent whole and will go where ever the evidence leads, whereas CT's will hide or manipulate the facts and basically will sink to any depth to erroneously win an argument, but at what cost?

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 23, 2021, 03:19:42 AM
I ran across this photo which shows more clearly that the two edges which contact the underside of the barrel are rough. It appears to me that there are teeth intentionally made into the edges. These teeth are slanted such that they would grip the underside of the barrel when the lug is pushed back towards the bolt, and would release very easily when it is pushed toward the muzzle end of the barrel. Also, take another look at the two lines on the lift done by Day. They look to me like impressions left on the underside of the barrel by similar teeth could have formed them. (Where's a forensic dentist when we need one?   ;))

(https://i.vgy.me/QGok9N.jpg)


At any rate, this seals the deal for me. There is no mystery of the two lines anymore for me.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 23, 2021, 06:35:09 PM
I ran across this photo which shows more clearly that the two edges which contact the underside of the barrel are rough. It appears to me that there are teeth intentionally made into the edges. These teeth are slanted such that they would grip the underside of the barrel when the lug is pushed back towards the bolt, and would release very easily when it is pushed toward the muzzle end of the barrel. Also, take another look at the two lines on the lift done by Day. They look to me like impressions left on the underside of the barrel by similar teeth could have formed them. (Where's a forensic dentist when we need one?   ;))

(https://i.vgy.me/QGok9N.jpg)


At any rate, this seals the deal for me. There is no mystery of the two lines anymore for me.

What is the distance between the forward edge ( toward the muzzle)  of the  "palm print" and the rear ( toward the trigger housing ) of the two parallel lines?   
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 23, 2021, 07:06:24 PM
What is the distance between the forward edge ( toward the muzzle)  of the  "palm print" and the rear ( toward the trigger housing ) of the two parallel lines?

That is difficult to say with any precision. A rough estimate, based on how my eyes see it, would be in the neighborhood of 1”. Why do you ask?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 23, 2021, 07:14:23 PM
That is difficult to say with any precision. A rough estimate, based on how my eyes see it, would be in the neighborhood of 1”. Why do you ask?

I would like a specific distance.....From the forward edge of the "palm print to the rear of the bayonet lug..... The distance doesn't need to be precise. Plus or minus 1/8 inch will do........

In your above estimate the distance would be 7/8 " ---- 1 1/8 "
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 23, 2021, 07:26:26 PM
I would like a specific distance.....From the forward edge of the "palm print to the rear of the bayonet lug..... The distance doesn't need to be precise. Plus or minus 1/8 inch will do........

In your above estimate the distance would be 7/8 " ---- 1 1/8 "

I couldn’t say for sure that my estimate is even that precise. It’s just a rough estimate. That is the best I can do at this time.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 23, 2021, 09:34:14 PM
I couldn’t say for sure that my estimate is even that precise. It’s just a rough estimate. That is the best I can do at this time.

Jerry posted.......

The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159a.jpg)


You've said that detective Day spotted a print on the side of the barrel about 3 inches to the rear of the front of the wooden stock.   Of course we can assume that this three inches would be the middle of the 3/4 inch print. ( IOW the front of the print would be about 3/8 of an inch forward of that mid point , Or about 2 5/8 inches from the front of the wooden stock .

So now we have the front of the print about 2 5/8" from the front of the wooden stock.   And we have the rear of the bayonet lug about 3/4 inch to the rear of the front of the wooden stock ----which means that there was a gap between the front of the "palm "print and the rear of the bayonet lug of---- 1 3/4  inches. 
 Since you believe that the tape used to lift the print was 1 1/2 inches wide ......the distance from the back of the lug to the print should be roughly the same as the width of the tape in the palm print photo.    Is that distance  the same as the width of the tape?? 

In your above estimate the distance would be 7/8 " ---- 1 1/8 "
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 23, 2021, 10:05:36 PM
Jerry posted.......

The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

The reference to the print being 3/4" was in regards to your theory that the lifting tape was 1".

Quote
You've said that detective Day spotted a print on the side of the barrel about 3 inches to the rear of the front of the wooden stock.   Of course we can assume that this three inches would be the middle of the 3/4 inch print. ( IOW the front of the print would be about 3/8 of an inch forward of that mid point , Or about 2 5/8 inches from the front of the wooden stock .

So now we have the front of the print about 2 5/8" from the front of the wooden stock.   And we have the rear of the bayonet lug about 3/4 inch to the rear of the front of the wooden stock ----which means that there was a gap between the front of the "palm "print and the rear of the bayonet lug of---- 1 3/4  inches. 
 Since you believe that the tape used to lift the print was 1 1/2 inches wide ......the distance from the back of the lug to the print should be roughly the same as the width of the tape in the palm print photo.    Is that distance  the same as the width of the tape?? 

In your above estimate the distance would be 7/8 " ---- 1 1/8 "

Because Walt got a basic fact wrong, he's gone off on a wild tangent. The man doesn't understand ...
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 23, 2021, 10:16:04 PM
The reference to the print being 3/4" was in regards to your theory that the lifting tape was 1".

Because Walt got a basic fact wrong, he's gone off on a wild tangent. The man doesn't understand ...
  • Reading comprehension
  • Rudimentary mathematics
  • The M81/38 Carcano Short Rifle
  • Perspective and parallax
  • Proportion and scale


Atta boy Mr O..... When mathematical facts prove something....  Then attack the messenger.

It's not very effective but when you've been proven wrong with math....there's little else you can do.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 23, 2021, 10:33:55 PM
Jerry posted.......

The print would be about 3/4" in dimension, whereas Latonia in CE 638 circled an area that's two inches.

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0159a.jpg)


You've said that detective Day spotted a print on the side of the barrel about 3 inches to the rear of the front of the wooden stock.   Of course we can assume that this three inches would be the middle of the 3/4 inch print. ( IOW the front of the print would be about 3/8 of an inch forward of that mid point , Or about 2 5/8 inches from the front of the wooden stock .

So now we have the front of the print about 2 5/8" from the front of the wooden stock.   And we have the rear of the bayonet lug about 3/4 inch to the rear of the front of the wooden stock ----which means that there was a gap between the front of the "palm "print and the rear of the bayonet lug of---- 1 3/4  inches. 
 Since you believe that the tape used to lift the print was 1 1/2 inches wide ......the distance from the back of the lug to the print should be roughly the same as the width of the tape in the palm print photo.    Is that distance  the same as the width of the tape?? 

In your above estimate the distance would be 7/8 " ---- 1 1/8 "

I have stated that I believe the tape to be about 1-1/2” to 2” wide. Your assumption about Day’s “about 3” being to the center of the print could be incorrect. And Day’s estimate is just that, an inexact estimate. Is your estimate of about 3/4” from the end of the wooden stock to the rear of the bayonet lug based on your measurement of your rifle?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 23, 2021, 11:26:11 PM
I have stated that I believe the tape to be about 1-1/2” to 2” wide. Your assumption about Day’s “about 3” being to the center of the print could be incorrect. And Day’s estimate is just that, an inexact estimate. Is your estimate of about 3/4” from the end of the wooden stock to the rear of the bayonet lug based on your measurement of your rifle?

Is your estimate of about 3/4” from the end of the wooden stock to the rear of the bayonet lug based on your measurement of your rifle?

Yes

The point is...... NONE of you estimates or measurements make sense.....If the distance between the two parallel lines was made by the lug then they should be at least 5/16 " apart...... and if that distance is 5/16" then the tape is slightly more than two inches wide. And the distance between the end of the parallel  lines and the print should be about half the width of the tape ........

The tape is about seven times as wide as the gap between the parallel lines.... So if the parallel  lines are 5/16" apart...Then
the tape is 2.187 " wide.......   Since the circumference of the 5/8 inch metal barrel is 2".   The tape would have completely surrounded the barrel....

The bayonet lug is 5/16" (8.3mm) thick (wide)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 23, 2021, 11:57:15 PM
Is your estimate of about 3/4” from the end of the wooden stock to the rear of the bayonet lug based on your measurement of your rifle?

Yes

Thanks, that might be a good place to start. However, the lines appear to run all the way to the end of the tape if I remember correctly. So even that correlation might be inaccurate. If I remember correctly you said that the thickness of the lug at that point is 5/16”. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 24, 2021, 12:03:43 AM
Thanks, that might be a good place to start. However, the lines appear to run all the way to the end of the tape if I remember correctly. So even that correlation might be inaccurate. If I remember correctly you said that the thickness of the lug at that point is 5/16”. Is that correct?

The bayonet lug is 5/16" (8.3mm) thick (wide)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 24, 2021, 01:22:18 AM
The bayonet lug is 5/16" (8.3mm) thick (wide)

Looking at post #804 which has a quote showing Mytton’s images from an earlier post, the flashing GIF shows me that when zoomed so that the thickness of the bayonet lug is 5/16”, we can see, by my estimate, about 1.5” (running the length of the tape) of the palm print on that graphic. It appears to run off the image to the left, so I assume that there is more that we do not see. And going by the same 5/16” thickness, I estimate the distance between the palm print and the lines to be about 7/8”. It appears to me that the tape itself is about 2” wide, and the lift takes up about 1-1/4” of the tape width.

I think that the 5/16” thickness of the bayonet lug is the most accurate measurement that we can use to estimate the other distances.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 24, 2021, 01:33:51 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/52/12/JjzrSFa6_o.jpg)

If the lifting tape is 2", the linear lines are 5/16" apart, the same width as the bayonet lug.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 24, 2021, 01:48:07 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/52/12/JjzrSFa6_o.jpg)

If the lifting tape is 2", the linear lines are 5/16" apart, the same width as the bayonet lug.


If the tape is 2 inches wide then the card is 6 inches wide....and 10 inches long....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 24, 2021, 02:01:37 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/52/12/JjzrSFa6_o.jpg)

If the lifting tape is 2", the linear lines are 5/16" apart, the same width as the bayonet lug.

Agreed, and for me, the actually measured 5/16” thickness is the most reliable dimension that we currently have in this discussion to gauge the other distances.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 24, 2021, 06:18:48 PM
Agreed, and for me, the actually measured 5/16” thickness is the most reliable dimension that we currently have in this discussion to gauge the other distances.

Let's review.....  The so called "palm print" was allegedly lifted from the bottom ( and right hand side) of the 5/8" metal barrel. The mid point of the print was about 3 inches to the rear of the forward end of the wooden stock.   The print was about 3/4 inch in diameter.  The forward end of the print would have been about 2 3/8 inches to the rear of the front end of the wooden stock.
The bayonet lug cannot slide back on the barrel beyond 3/4 inch from the front end of the stock.  ( the lug is precision machined to fit the tapered barrel ) Since the lug cannot slide back beyond 3/4 inch ( from the front of the stock there cannot be any marks that could have been created by the bayonet lug beyond that 3/4 inch limit.  And the gap between the front of the print and the lug would be 1 5/8 inches.   However CE 138 shows the print circled in red ink ....and the distance from the front of the print to the rear of the two parallel lines is about 1/4 the width of the tape ( so if the tape is 2 inches wide then the distance from the front of the print to the two lines is about 1/2 inch

Bottom line:...  the two lines could NOT have been made by the bayonet lug.     
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 24, 2021, 07:49:53 PM
Let's review.....  The so called "palm print" was allegedly lifted from the bottom ( and right hand side) of the 5/8" metal barrel. The mid point of the print was about 3 inches to the rear of the forward end of the wooden stock.   The print was about 3/4 inch in diameter.  The forward end of the print would have been about 2 3/8 inches to the rear of the front end of the wooden stock.
The bayonet lug cannot slide back on the barrel beyond 3/4 inch from the front end of the stock.  ( the lug is precision machined to fit the tapered barrel ) Since the lug cannot slide back beyond 3/4 inch ( from the front of the stock there cannot be any marks that could have been created by the bayonet lug beyond that 3/4 inch limit.  And the gap between the front of the print and the lug would be 1 5/8 inches.   However CE 138 shows the print circled in red ink ....and the distance from the front of the print to the rear of the two parallel lines is about 1/4 the width of the tape ( so if the tape is 2 inches wide then the distance from the front of the print to the two lines is about 1/2 inch

Bottom line:...  the two lines could NOT have been made by the bayonet lug.   

I disagree with everything you just “reviewed. Dream on Walt.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 24, 2021, 07:54:06 PM
I disagree with everything you just “reviewed. Dream on Walt.

I understand that you don't agree.... But we're using math to determine facts.   Unless you can show a mathematical error, then you are simple lying to yourself....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 24, 2021, 09:07:54 PM
I understand that you don't agree.... But we're using math to determine facts.   Unless you can show a mathematical error, then you are simple lying to yourself....

Wrong again!
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 25, 2021, 01:26:44 AM
About two weeks ago, the Dutch 3D Wizard Paul Ernst -- who used to post here -- made light of an image I posted on the 9nd.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)

    "Do you want some fun.

     ENJOY THIS Jerry eh.. trash posted on a other forum.
     Never heard about anatomy!"

Now I had been concentrating on the face when I did that model. the arms were in a neural position and I simply hid them, figuring the viewer could imagine the rest. I can now articulate all the limbs and even make the facets around the joints connect back up (in SketchUp, it has to be done manually and is time consuming). I didn't post a graphic of the SN-in-3D until I had reasonably accurate models of the figure, the Carcano, the cartons, and the building environment.

Now here's Ernst's current progress ...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51389573516_bac263b3e4_z.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Ernst Model
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338712/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Picture taken of boxes unmoved
 
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o18jHHOIyHcGLWEGcRoKBfOXC0AC372r)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Based on Nov. 22  newsfilm capture
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339152/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Nov. 25th Reconstruction
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
You don't have to be a Wiz to compare the Ernst Model and see that the height of the brickwork under the window is wrong, that the window isn't raised to the correct height and that the small cartons are closer to the floor than shown by Ernst. That's quite the set of swollen legs on the figure (apparently he sees nothing wrong with leaving the arms being down).

The cartons on top are about 1/2 the height of the large carton supporting them; Ernst had this proportion out of kilter. And does that rifle look anything like a Carcano?

Remember the old days when Ernst used to post a cube as a motorcycle and would make us laugh?  :D
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: John Mytton on August 25, 2021, 01:42:21 AM
About two weeks ago, the Dutch 3D Wizard Paul Ernst -- who used to post here -- made light of an image I posted on the 9nd.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)

    "Do you want some fun.

     ENJOY THIS Jerry eh.. trash posted on a other forum.
     Never heard about anatomy!"

Now I had been concentrating on the face when I did that model. the arms were in a neural position and I simply hid them, figuring the viewer could imagine the rest. I can now articulate all the limbs and even make the facets around the joints connect back up (in SketchUp, it has to be done manually and is time consuming). I didn't post a graphic of the SN-in-3D until I had reasonably accurate models of the figure, the Carcano, the cartons, and the building environment.

Now here's Ernst's current progress ...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51389573516_bac263b3e4_z.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Ernst Model
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338712/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Picture taken of boxes unmoved
 
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o18jHHOIyHcGLWEGcRoKBfOXC0AC372r)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Based on Nov. 22  newsfilm capture
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339152/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Nov. 25th Reconstruction
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
You don't have to be a Wiz to compare the Ernst Model and see that the height of the brickwork under the window is wrong, that the window isn't raised to the correct height and that the small cartons are closer to the floor than shown by Ernst. That's quite the set of swollen legs on the figure (apparently he sees nothing wrong with leaving the arms being down).

The cartons on top are about 1/2 the height of the large carton supporting them; Ernst had this proportion out of kilter. And does that rifle look anything like a Carcano?

Remember the old days when Ernst used to post a cube as a motorcycle and would make us laugh?  :D

I do miss old Ernie and it's a shame that he's still as clueless today as he was when he left here. The massive list of errors in his "observations" and 3D graphics were an absolute scream because he literally got nothing right and watching him attempt to defend himself was always good for a laugh.

JohnM
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 25, 2021, 01:50:42 AM
About two weeks ago, the Dutch 3D Wizard Paul Ernst -- who used to post here -- made light of an image I posted on the 9nd.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)

    "Do you want some fun.

     ENJOY THIS Jerry eh.. trash posted on a other forum.
     Never heard about anatomy!"

Now I had been concentrating on the face when I did that model. the arms were in a neural position and I simply hid them, figuring the viewer could imagine the rest. I can now articulate all the limbs and even make the facets around the joints connect back up (in SketchUp, it has to be done manually and is time consuming). I didn't post a graphic of the SN-in-3D until I had reasonably accurate models of the figure, the Carcano, the cartons, and the building environment.

Now here's Ernst's current progress ...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51389573516_bac263b3e4_z.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Ernst Model
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338712/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Picture taken of boxes unmoved
 
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o18jHHOIyHcGLWEGcRoKBfOXC0AC372r)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Based on Nov. 22  newsfilm capture
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339152/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Nov. 25th Reconstruction
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
You don't have to be a Wiz to compare the Ernst Model and see that the height of the brickwork under the window is wrong, that the window isn't raised to the correct height and that the small cartons are closer to the floor than shown by Ernst. That's quite the set of swollen legs on the figure (apparently he sees nothing wrong with leaving the arms being down).

The cartons on top are about 1/2 the height of the large carton supporting them; Ernst had this proportion out of kilter. And does that rifle look anything like a Carcano?

Remember the old days when Ernst used to post a cube as a motorcycle and would make us laugh?  :D

Anyone who seriously attempts to make a 3-D model of the sniper’s nest and the surrounding area will most likely learn a great deal about the ergonomics. Accuracy of the details is important. And if you have the software, hardware, knowledge, and skills required to make a reasonably accurate model, you have my admiration and appreciation. Thanks for your efforts and willingness to share Jerry. I have learned quite a bit from you.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 25, 2021, 03:28:12 AM
About two weeks ago, the Dutch 3D Wizard Paul Ernst -- who used to post here -- made light of an image I posted on the 9nd.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/07/5d/QnkTchgu_o.jpg)

    "Do you want some fun.

     ENJOY THIS Jerry eh.. trash posted on a other forum.
     Never heard about anatomy!"

Now I had been concentrating on the face when I did that model. the arms were in a neural position and I simply hid them, figuring the viewer could imagine the rest. I can now articulate all the limbs and even make the facets around the joints connect back up (in SketchUp, it has to be done manually and is time consuming). I didn't post a graphic of the SN-in-3D until I had reasonably accurate models of the figure, the Carcano, the cartons, and the building environment.

Now here's Ernst's current progress ...

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51389573516_bac263b3e4_z.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Ernst Model
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338712/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Picture taken of boxes unmoved
 
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1o18jHHOIyHcGLWEGcRoKBfOXC0AC372r)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Based on Nov. 22  newsfilm capture
 
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339152/m1/3/med_res/)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Nov. 25th Reconstruction
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
You don't have to be a Wiz to compare the Ernst Model and see that the height of the brickwork under the window is wrong, that the window isn't raised to the correct height and that the small cartons are closer to the floor than shown by Ernst. That's quite the set of swollen legs on the figure (apparently he sees nothing wrong with leaving the arms being down).

The cartons on top are about 1/2 the height of the large carton supporting them; Ernst had this proportion out of kilter. And does that rifle look anything like a Carcano?

Remember the old days when Ernst used to post a cube as a motorcycle and would make us laugh?  :D

Why are you trying to derail the topic Mr O?       Are you afraid of the absolute of mathematics.....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 25, 2021, 03:47:30 AM
Why are you trying to derail the topic Mr O?       Are you afraid of the absolute of mathematics.....

This happens to be my current Topic for things 3D.

No derail. Charles assessed your mathematics:

"I disagree with everything you just “reviewed. Dream on Walt."

Cartoon Ernie thinks his SN is just right. You think you're right. But you know what Thought thought.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 25, 2021, 05:29:06 PM
This happens to be my current Topic for things 3D.

No derail. Charles assessed your mathematics:

"I disagree with everything you just “reviewed. Dream on Walt."

Cartoon Ernie thinks his SN is just right. You think you're right. But you know what Thought thought.

You think you're right.

Unless you can show an error in the math....Then you have no choice but accept that I am right...
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 25, 2021, 06:06:57 PM
You think you're right.

Unless you can show an error in the math....Then you have no choice but accept that I am right...

(https://nebusresearch.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/disney-donald_duck-10-october-2015.jpg)

Sure thing, Professor. You're some numbers savant, alright.  :D

"However CE 138 shows the print circled in red ink "
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 25, 2021, 09:07:00 PM
(https://nebusresearch.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/disney-donald_duck-10-october-2015.jpg)

Sure thing, Professor. You're some numbers savant, alright.  :D

"However CE 138 shows the print circled in red ink "


It's just simple math....  Not difficult.    But that math proves that the two lines on CE 638 were NOT created by the bayonet lug.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 25, 2021, 10:21:57 PM

It's just simple math....  Not difficult.    But that math proves that the two lines on CE 638 were NOT created by the bayonet lug.

Only in your mind. Like I said earlier, you are so confused that you believe that your opinions are evidence.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 25, 2021, 11:37:42 PM
Only in your mind. Like I said earlier, you are so confused that you believe that your opinions are evidence.

I'm sorry Charles.....  The Tape that was used to lift the palm print was not 2 inches wide.   That much should be obvious to you because the print was allegedly lifted from a carcano barrel that is 5/8 (.625) inches in diameter....Which means the circumference is 1.963 inches ( 2 inches).   The print was reported to be approximately 3/4 inch ( .750 ) in diameter. .A print that was 750 inches in diameter  on a barrel with a circumference of 2 inches would cover 38% of the barrels circumference.  IOW the print would have wrapped over 1/3 of the way around the barrel...   

If detective Day had placed a piece of 2 inchwide tape on that it would have surrounded the barrel.   The official tale says that the print was on the bottom of the barrel  The bottom of the barrel cannot be more than 1/2 inch ( each side would also be 1/2 inche anthe top section would also be 1/2 inch for a total of 2 inches)  So why the hell would Day place a piece of tape around the barrel when the print was on the BOTTOM of the barrel?
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 25, 2021, 11:54:26 PM
I'm sorry Charles.....  The Tape that was used to lift the palm print was not 2 inches wide.   That much should be obvious to you because the print was allegedly lifted from a carcano barrel that is 5/8 (.625) inches in diameter....Which means the circumference is 1.963 inches ( 2 inches).   The print was reported to be approximately 3/4 inch ( .750 ) in diameter. .A print that was 750 inches in diameter  on a barrel with a circumference of 2 inches would cover 38% of the barrels circumference.  IOW the print would have wrapped over 1/3 of the way around the barrel...   

If detective Day had placed a piece of 2 inchwide tape on that it would have surrounded the barrel.   The official tale says that the print was on the bottom of the barrel  The bottom of the barrel cannot be more than 1/2 inch ( each side would also be 1/2 inche anthe top section would also be 1/2 inch for a total of 2 inches)  So why the hell would Day place a piece of tape around the barrel when the print was on the BOTTOM of the barrel?

Professor, the print cannot be "750 inches in diameter". Geeeze. The print takes up about 3/4 of the tape width, which is 3/4" for your 1" tape theory and 1 1/2" for my 2" tape theory. Have you even looked at the amount of print on the lift?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/9e/76/Z94qgLtp_o.jpg)

So lots of the palmprint showing on the barrel before disassembly. Now look below. See, I wrapped a two-inch-scale tape clear around the barrel, align the two linear features with the bayonet lug marks (the theory is that the lug marks stay on the barrel after the lug is moved out of the way) and showed the amount of the print visible on the assembled rifle.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/88/DaeHb42r_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 26, 2021, 12:02:31 AM
I'm sorry Charles.....  The Tape that was used to lift the palm print was not 2 inches wide.   That much should be obvious to you because the print was allegedly lifted from a carcano barrel that is 5/8 (.625) inches in diameter....Which means the circumference is 1.963 inches ( 2 inches).   The print was reported to be approximately 3/4 inch ( .750 ) in diameter. .A print that was 750 inches in diameter  on a barrel with a circumference of 2 inches would cover 38% of the barrels circumference.  IOW the print would have wrapped over 1/3 of the way around the barrel...   

If detective Day had placed a piece of 2 inchwide tape on that it would have surrounded the barrel.   The official tale says that the print was on the bottom of the barrel  The bottom of the barrel cannot be more than 1/2 inch ( each side would also be 1/2 inche anthe top section would also be 1/2 inch for a total of 2 inches)  So why the hell would Day place a piece of tape around the barrel when the print was on the BOTTOM of the barrel?

The barrel tapers. Get out your digital calipers and measure it on each end, the center, and about 3” from the end of the wooden stock (going towards the bolt). Post the measurements so that we can all get an accurate idea of what the barrel actually measures.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 26, 2021, 12:12:54 AM
Professor, the print cannot be "750 inches in diameter". Geeeze. The print takes up about 3/4 of the tape width, which is 3/4" for your 1" tape theory and 1 1/2" for my 2" tape theory. Have you even looked at the amount of print on the lift?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/9e/76/Z94qgLtp_o.jpg)

So lots of the palmprint showing on the barrel before disassembly. Now look below. See, I wrapped a two-inch-scale tape clear around the barrel, align the two linear features with the bayonet lug marks (the theory is that the lug marks stay on the barrel after the lug is moved out of the way) and showed the amount of the print visible on the assembled rifle.

(https://images2.imgbox.com/be/88/DaeHb42r_o.jpg)

Professor, the print cannot be "750 inches in diameter". Geeeze.

I'm so happy that you so blatantly display your petty ignorance....Just prior to this entry where I omitted the decimal point I specified that the distance was .750 "  ....but thank you for making a damned fool of yourself.   


Bayonet lug can be slid along barrel to be out of the way of lifting tape....

Not so fast , quick draw.....  Yer blowing smoke again.

Once again you display your ignorance..... The bayonet lug cannot be easily slid along the barrel....The lug is machined and it is a precision interference fit. ( It fits very tightly around the barrel.) the lug can be driven forward along the tapered barrel but it cannot be drive to the rear because of the tapered barrel.


Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 26, 2021, 12:42:27 AM
The barrel tapers. Get out your digital calipers and measure it on each end, the center, and about 3” from the end of the wooden stock (going towards the bolt). Post the measurements so that we can all get an accurate idea of what the barrel actually measures.

Barrel diameter near rear sight = 19.67mm----diameter at front of hand guard 17.95 mm----diameter at bayonet lug 16.68mm    diameter at front sight = 15.6mm
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 26, 2021, 12:53:23 AM
Barrel diameter near rea sight = 19.67mm----diameter at front of hand guard 17.95 mm----diameter at bayonet lug 16.68mm    diameter at front sight = 15.6mm

Thanks please measure the distance between the points where you measured near the rear and front sights. Thanks
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 26, 2021, 03:29:16 AM
Thanks please measure the distance between the points where you measured near the rear and front sights. Thanks

Never mind Walt, we will just go with the measurement that you gave as at the bayonet lug: 16.68 mm, which is equal to 0.66". Using the formula for circumference of a circle, 2 pi R, we can calculate the circumference of the barrel at that point to be 2.07". Therefore 2" tape will not quite span the entire circumference of the barrel at that point. Jerry's diagrams are very useful for an experiment that I did to satisfy myself that the tape is about 2" wide and therefore the lines are about 5/16" apart. I printed the entire palm print on a piece of paper so that it closely matches the size of my actual palm. I have short fingers and LHO did not, but the size of the palm itself is what I used to compare my palm with my paper print of the palm print. The bottom row of Jerry's diagram contains two other partial prints. One is the area of the palm in which the lift from the rifle is found. I printed this on paper such that it's size matched the drawn square on the full palm print (which I had already printed scaled to my palm). This allowed me to test a scaled image of the print for fit. The creases matched well with the scaled LHO palm print, therefore it also is to the same scale as my palm. All of this gives me assurances that these images that I printed on paper are to a reasonably realistic full scale. This better image also shows the contours of the ridges (which are used for ID purposes) that form the palm print. Then I printed the other image in the bottom row of Jerry's diagram. This image shows the lift on the tape. I scaled it the same way that I did the partial palm print and compared the ridges on the lift to the ones on the palm print. They are to the same scale. Therefore, I am assured that the print I made of the image of the lift is to the proper scale. Measuring the width of the tape, it is very close to 2". Measuring the lift that is on that 2" tape I measure it taking up about 1-1/4" of the 2" width. And it measures about 2-1/4" going lengthwise on the tape. Jerry is probably correct about the rolling of the barrel in relation to the palm when gripping and/or releasing the grip. I believe that this would account for the print spanning more than half the circumference of the barrel.

Your hanging on to your beliefs in the face of ample evidence against them is typical of the nay sayers in general. As I said before, I don't expect you to change your tune. But I have proven to myself that the tape is ~2" and the teeth in the bayonet lug made the impressions (two lines) in the bottom of the barrel which showed up on the lift.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 26, 2021, 03:40:02 AM
Never mind Walt, we will just go with the measurement that you gave as at the bayonet lug: 16.68 mm, which is equal to 0.66". Using the formula for circumference of a circle, 2 pi R, we can calculate the circumference of the barrel at that point to be 2.07". Therefore 2" tape will not quite span the entire circumference of the barrel at that point. Jerry's diagrams are very useful for an experiment that I did to satisfy myself that the tape is about 2" wide and therefore the lines are about 5/16" apart. I printed the entire palm print on a piece of paper so that it closely matches the size of my actual palm. I have short fingers and LHO did not, but the size of the palm itself is what I used to compare my palm with my paper print of the palm print. The bottom row of Jerry's diagram contains two other partial prints. One is the area of the palm in which the lift from the rifle is found. I printed this on paper such that it's size matched the drawn square on the full palm print (which I had already printed scaled to my palm). This allowed me to test a scaled image of the print for fit. The creases matched well with the scaled LHO palm print, therefore it also is to the same scale as my palm. All of this gives me assurances that these images that I printed on paper are to a reasonably realistic full scale. This better image also shows the contours of the ridges (which are used for ID purposes) that form the palm print. Then I printed the other image in the bottom row of Jerry's diagram. This image shows the lift on the tape. I scaled it the same way that I did the partial palm print and compared the ridges on the lift to the ones on the palm print. They are to the same scale. Therefore, I am assured that the print I made of the image of the lift is to the proper scale. Measuring the width of the tape, it is very close to 2". Measuring the lift that is on that 2" tape I measure it taking up about 1-1/4" of the 2" width. And it measures about 2-1/4" going lengthwise on the tape. Jerry is probably correct about the rolling of the barrel in relation to the palm when gripping and/or releasing the grip. I believe that this would account for the print spanning more than half the circumference of the barrel.

Your hanging on to your beliefs in the face of ample evidence against them is typical of the nay sayers in general. As I said before, I don't expect you to change your tune. But I have proven to myself that the tape is ~2" and the teeth in the bayonet lug made the impressions (two lines) in the bottom of the barrel which showed up on the lift.

hanging on to your beliefs in the face of ample evidence against them is typical of the nay sayers in general.

Yes, that's why I've been presenting mathematical proof that you're wrong....
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 26, 2021, 04:03:06 AM
hanging on to your beliefs in the face of ample evidence against them is typical of the nay sayers in general.

Yes, that's why I've been presenting mathematical proof that you're wrong....

Math that is based on bad assumptions and wrong information doesn’t prove anything.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 26, 2021, 05:09:06 PM
Math that is based on bad assumptions and wrong information doesn’t prove anything.

The math that was used was based on the information that YOU provided.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 26, 2021, 06:36:47 PM
The math that was used was based on the information that YOU provided.

B.S.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 27, 2021, 03:26:22 AM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/61/48/QlQLZvO7_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 27, 2021, 12:49:14 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/61/48/QlQLZvO7_o.jpg)

And it puts a “little muscle” into his communist salute!

Good observation Jerry.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 27, 2021, 04:42:25 PM
(https://images2.imgbox.com/61/48/QlQLZvO7_o.jpg)

EXCELLENT PHOTO ....Dufus!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/61/48/QlQLZvO7_o.jpg)

The photo shows that if Lee had a 5/8 inch carcano barrel in his hand he barrel would not have been in contact with the palm of his hand.    OPEN your eyes and LOOK!    His little finger is pushed into the very spot that you yokels have said was in contact with the barrel.    :D


Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 27, 2021, 05:48:19 PM
EXCELLENT PHOTO ....Dufus!

It's Mister Doofus to you!

Quote
The photo shows that if Lee had a 5/8 inch carcano barrel in his hand he barrel would not have been in contact with the palm of his hand.    OPEN your eyes and LOOK!    His little finger is pushed into the very spot that you yokels have said was in contact with the barrel.    :D

(https://i.stack.imgur.com/fjXsw.jpg)

That's what palmists call the "Mount of Mercury". You remember the palmist ... who predicted your life quest would amount to nothing?

(https://images2.imgbox.com/9e/76/Z94qgLtp_o.jpg)

(https://sites.rutgers.edu/fingerprinting/wp-content/uploads/sites/223/2019/08/palm.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The loop feature on the ulnar side is almost at the base of the palm. None of the print on the barrel came from the Mount of Mercury.
Title: Re: Ct's firstly ask yourself, where does my theory go?
Post by: Charles Collins on August 27, 2021, 05:49:38 PM
EXCELLENT PHOTO ....Dufus!

(https://images2.imgbox.com/61/48/QlQLZvO7_o.jpg)

The photo shows that if Lee had a 5/8 inch carcano barrel in his hand he barrel would not have been in contact with the palm of his hand.    OPEN your eyes and LOOK!    His little finger is pushed into the very spot that you yokels have said was in contact with the barrel.    :D

Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that it’s because the barrel isn’t in his hand?   :-\