Any thoughts about why LHO hid the rifle instead of leaving it in the sniper’s nest are speculative. But I agree with Richard regarding taking the rifle to near the stairwell in case someone tried to stop him on the sixth floor. It appears to me that LHO must have hid the rifle somewhere when he first arrived at the TSBD that morning. And seems possible that he could have used the same hiding place both times. If so, it could have been pre-planned to hide it there. Or, it might have just been a last second instinctive action. At any rate he must have known that he would have been shot on site if he had tried to leave the building with the rifle. I believe that he might have thought that it would take the police more time to find a hidden rifle (than one left in plain sight). And that therefore, if he did manage to escape the building, this might give him more time to get further away before he became a suspect.
Any thoughts about why LHO hid the rifle instead of leaving it in the sniper’s nest are speculative. But I agree with Richard regarding taking the rifle to near the stairwell in case someone tried to stop him on the sixth floor. It appears to me that LHO must have hid the rifle somewhere when he first arrived at the TSBD that morning. And seems possible that he could have used the same hiding place both times. If so, it could have been pre-planned to hide it there. Or, it might have just been a last second instinctive action. At any rate he must have known that he would have been shot on site if he had tried to leave the building with the rifle. I believe that he might have thought that it would take the police more time to find a hidden rifle (than one left in plain sight). And that therefore, if he did manage to escape the building, this might give him more time to get further away before he became a suspect.
As a patsy, CT man-crush Dirty Harvey was only supposed to fire near Kennedy but the rifle was so crappy and he was such a bad shot that he hit him instead. Same thing @Tippit: He was only trying to fire warning shots (he attempted 5 times to not hit him, so you cannot say he didn't try.). Moving along, he ducked out of sight to look at tennis shoes for his newborn, then went to the movies to hand in his revolver because he didn't want to be seen doing what boys do.
As a patsy, CT man-crush Dirty Harvey was only supposed to fire near Kennedy
No..... you've got it wrong, but you're close. The ruse that Lee believed he was playing was supposed to APPEAR as though Lee had fired at JFK. The three spent shells and the carcano rifle that was well hidden BENEATH the pallet of books were intended to be mute evidence that he had fired AT JFK before he fled the country. Lee knew that the carcano (linked to him by the BY photo) was well hidden, and he thought the rifle wouldn't be found until he was well on his way to Cuba.
Not that I expect LN's to admit how nonsensical that really is, but for those of us with common sense, does that even make sense?
What would even be the point of hiding your rifle if you're just gonna leave it, and the shells, on the same floor you shot from? As if the police would never find it. LOL
It just doesn't make sense. "Oh yeah... I'll just leave my shells on the floor but take the time to hide my gun..." If that isn't ridiculous, I don't know what is. Surely if Oswald was in such hurry he wouldn't have taken the time to hide his rifle but not the shells. Especially if he was gonna leave it anyway. Why not just leave the rifle at the window with the shells, because you know damn well the police are gonna find it anyway?
Maybe some of the LN';s can explain it in a way that makes sense, rather than their usual gibberish? I'm sure they can provide some type of explanatory excuse to justify such nonsensical idiocy, which nobody else could possibly think of.
Even though the only real logical reason for a hidden gun would be to frame somebody. But I can't say I don't enjoy hearing their special perspectives. 8)
For Oswald to have been in such a hurry that he was able to shoot a rifle deemed UNUSABLE by the military experts that tested it in just 8 seconds, run across 100 feet of obstacles in a mere 30 seconds, run down 5 fights of an old world stair case so fast that nobody else was even able to see him, then the extra 15 feet just to make it to the break room in time to meet officer Baker, and all without being out of breath... well that's pretty damn impressive when you think about it.
So why would someone in that much of a hurry take the time to hide his rifle where he knows police are gonna find it anyway, and still make it in just 1 minute and 20 seconds to meet officer Baker (the other super power speed demon)?
You figure 8 seconds to shoot 3 shots from an unusable rifle that army marksmen ,had trouble with, accurately. Then 2 seconds to stand up. That's already 10 seconds gone, leaving Oswald with just 30 seconds to run through 100 feet of obstacles in the form of stacked books and boxes.
That's 40 seconds.
At least another 10 seconds to neatly hide the rifle (for no reason whatsoever).
That's 50 seconds.
Which would leave Oswald with a mere 30 seconds to run down 5 flights (125 ft) of an old world stair case (invisibly), with another 15 feet to the break room.
Wow... When you put in perspective it really shows just how desperate the LN's are to pretend Oswald was the killer. I say pretend because obviously you would have to be pretty dense to believe that nonsense. And I just don't think any grown ass adult could be that damn dense.
But if there is anyone brave enough to actually admit they do believe that nonsense, I say bravo ... and they should have no problems proving it. Just pull out your phone and show us all how it's done instead of just arguing about it. That way we can at least put that ridiculous nonsense to rest once for all. I say ridiculous because an LN really tried to pretend not believing it is what's ridiculous. Yeah...of course it is! :-\
"Well hidden BENEATH the pallet of books". :D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/CE514.jpg)
Here's the rifle in situ photographed by the Dallas Police Crime Lab. The boxes to the north (camera-top) are resting on the floor. Book stacks on pallets are to camera-right and camera-bottom.
Mr. BALL. That is a picture taken by you of the location of the gun -
that was before anyone moved it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Do you have another shot of that other picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, we took two from the same location when
we was up on top of the stack of boxes shooting down at it, before
they picked it up. Actually, there was four negatives of them of the
gun, but they are all in the same location, shooting straight down
and they were taken on different exposures.
This photo is a FAKE!!.... It was created by the DPD after they discovered that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for the victim they wee framing ( Lee Oswald) to have hidden the rifle in the manner it had been hidden when Boone and Weitzman discovered the rifle hidden beneath the pallet of books, in the beams of their flashlights. Do you actually believe that Boone and Weitzman would have needed powerful flashlights to see the rifle if it had been in the place it is seen in the DPD photo.????
The reason why the crevasse is so brightly illuminated is because of Studebaker's camera flash.
That all makes sense. What Oswald was thinking entails speculation but we know from the Walker incident that he was meticulous in his planning. Once Oswald learned of JFK's motorcade route he likely scouted out locations in the building that provided him with the best combination of shooting location and seclusion. He may have had more than one location given that he could not control the movements of people within the building. He also would have decided where to hid to the rifle in advance. As near as possible to the desired location. He doesn't want to be seen carrying a long package in the moments before the assassination. So he takes the rifle to the 6th floor that morning when he arrives. His clipboard is later found in the same vicinity as the rifle. That tells us he probably is carrying around his clipboard in his hand in the minutes before retrieving the rifle to give him the appearance of working on the floor if he encounters anyone up there in the minutes before the assassination. Just Old Lee going about his work if anyone see him. The last thing he does before retrieving his rifle is to lay down the clipboard thereby providing some indication of where he hid the rifle.
Until you consider when it was found.
That's utter rubbish, Jerry...and you know it because you've posted many photos that show the bright sunshine in that area.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1P7wRA6tHwXDBvxW2bE1NXz2KY-PpF2Eu) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Angle of Sun at 12:30 Local Time | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1rzjBc8KlhIxNr2WPGUf747tUb8LVKhSU) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Angle of Sun at 2:30 Local Time |
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Angle of Sun at 12:30 Local Time
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Angle of Sun at 2:30 Local Time
Boone said he saw the Carcano about 1:22. You would need the sun to be almost shining straight out from the West side to directly illuminate the crevasse where the rifle was found. About 1:22, the sun was shining on both the West and South sides equally. At 2:30, the sun is still not shining from fully onto the West side.
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/e7/be7e1197-b18b-518f-80ca-a58976364eed/528f56953ee8a.preview-500.jpg)
Day had to examine the rifle beside the window to better see it. You just said flashlights were needed. I think the light-bulbs in the ceiling were pretty-low wattage. I would guess they weren't just looking for the rifle; could have been small things as well, anything suspicious.
That's utter rubbish, Jerry...and you know it because you've posted many photos that show the bright sunshine in that area.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Angle of Sun at 12:30 Local Time
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Angle of Sun at 2:30 Local Time
Boone said he saw the Carcano about 1:22. You would need the sun to be almost shining straight out from the West side to directly illuminate the crevasse where the rifle was found. About 1:22, the sun was shining on both the West and South sides equally. At 2:30, the sun is still not shining from fully onto the West side.
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/e7/be7e1197-b18b-518f-80ca-a58976364eed/528f56953ee8a.preview-500.jpg)
Day had to examine the rifle beside the window to better see it. You just said flashlights were needed. I think the light-bulbs in the ceiling were pretty-low wattage. I would guess they weren't just looking for the rifle; could have been small things as well, anything suspicious.
Look at the shadows in these two photos, and ask yourself..."were they taken at about the same time?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/CE514.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Shadows and lightsource: Camera flash | (https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/tulsaworld.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/e7/be7e1197-b18b-518f-80ca-a58976364eed/528f56953ee8a.preview-500.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Sun only; no camera flash |
Who knows, it was hidden in plain sight.
Actually, that little commie rat stole it:
Mr. BALL. Did you give it to him to use?
Mr. KAISER. No, he just picked it up and started using it and I just went and made me another one.
Oh, your boy Frankie also found Oswald's jacket in the domino room, coincidence?
Who knows, it was hidden in plain sight.
Actually, that little commie rat stole it:
Mr. BALL. Did you give it to him to use?
Mr. KAISER. No, he just picked it up and started using it and I just went and made me another one.
Oh, your boy Frankie also found Oswald's jacket in the domino room, coincidence?
Just my observations spiced up with a bit of sarcasm.
Did you know there are different accounts of how the clipboard was recovered?
Sorry, I know, that would require you to actually know the evidence.
Never mind the shadows, these two photos show the stacks where the rifle was found:
Note orientation of pallets (What Weitzman call a 'flat'), he could not have looked under (or rather through) and seen the rifle the way they sit under the stacks:
I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said, "There it is" and he started hollering,
Good grief. If Oswald had not hidden the rifle, CTers would be here clamoring for an explanation for why he left his rifle in plain sight. Hiding the rifle takes him a few seconds. He has a bullet left if anyone tries to stop him on that floor before he reaches the stairs. He hides it just before exiting the floor. Isn't the more obvious question why Oswald's rifle was on that floor hidden or otherwise? And the answer is because he used it to assassinate JFK.
That all makes sense. What Oswald was thinking entails speculation but we know from the Walker incident that he was meticulous in his planning. Once Oswald learned of JFK's motorcade route he likely scouted out locations in the building that provided him with the best combination of shooting location and seclusion. He may have had more than one location given that he could not control the movements of people within the building. He also would have decided where to hid to the rifle in advance. As near as possible to the desired location. He doesn't want to be seen carrying a long package in the moments before the assassination. So he takes the rifle to the 6th floor that morning when he arrives. His clipboard is later found in the same vicinity as the rifle. That tells us he probably is carrying around his clipboard in his hand in the minutes before retrieving the rifle to give him the appearance of working on the floor if he encounters anyone up there in the minutes before the assassination. Just Old Lee going about his work if anyone see him. The last thing he does before retrieving his rifle is to lay down the clipboard thereby providing some indication of where he hid the rifle.
Until you consider when it was found.
OTOH, conspirators who wanted to frame Oswald would have left it right by the window.
It's anyone's guess,
BALL made sure to confuse the record as to exactly which 'flat' Weitzman was looking under.
Not the first time BALL screwed up.
Weitzman's LOS had to be east-west or vise versa.
Regardless of where they put the arrow, If I'm correct, the rifle could not have been found in the position indicated.
"Crime Lab in situ photos" -- LOL
Sure.
Never mind the shadows, these two photos show the stacks where the rifle was found:
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338849/?q=school%20depository
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338298/?q=school%20depository
Note orientation of pallets (What Weitzman call a 'flat'), he could not have looked under (or rather through) and seen the rifle the way they sit under the stacks:
Not a "guess" if there are in situ photographs attested to by Weitzman, Boone and Studebaker.
I think we know who's confused and who screwed up. :D
(https://images2.imgbox.com/03/7f/cR4zFLL3_o.jpg)
It's pretty hard to imagine Weitzman contorting himself to look through openings in the wooden pallets.
Weitzman later says "I was behind this section of books" which probably means he was merely squatting and looking as far as he comfortably could into the wooden pallets and the gaps between the cartons. Maybe he was to the south of the pallets and looked between the gap between Groups "B" and "C" and saw the rifle, where the Crime Lab photographs show it to be.
Why would we disregard where they put the arrow? Because it confirms the rifle location was as it was in the Crime Lab photos?
BTW, what is "looking under the flat"? I can't find any definition of "flat" that says it's a wooden pallet.
referring to the "LOOKING WEST " photo .......The south edge ( left side in photo) of the vertical support post is 13 feet from the interior side of the north wall .
Robert Studebaker and other DPD detectives measured the distance from the north wall to the place where Weitzman saw the rifle on the floor beneath the wooden pallet. Stubaker recorded that distance as 15 ' 4" ( 2 foot 4 inches south of that vertical post).....
The official in situ photo presented by the DPD show the rifle is NOT beneath the pallet and it is jammed between boxes of books... and it is about 14 feet from the north wall.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338942/m1/1/high_res/)
One post--the one in question, between the west wall and west service elevator--has its south side13 feet from the north wall. All the rest of the posts to the east of this one post shows the posts centered on 13 feet. So are we going to take your word for one post being out of alignment with all the other posts? Maybe somebody should contact the Museum to measure the distance?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
The interior column on the west wall is centered on 13 feet. So a few feet for the row of boxes that were to the north of the rifle in the Crime Lab photos. The north side of Pallet Group "A" must be some five feet south of the pillar, or about 18-19 feet from the north wall.
I can't believe that Uh-ho Beck and you believe the rifle was beneath the pallet and that Weitzman was literally lying on the floor with his face on that dirty oily floor. Do you both also believe that Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker lied that the rifle location was undisturbed before the taking of the in situ photos?
I can't believe that Uh-ho Beck and you believe the rifle was beneath the pallet
Please stop misrepresenting what I said.
But nice to see you finally worked out that the pallets were made from wooden flats.
and that Weitzman was literally lying on the floor with his face on that dirty oily floor.
So now the story is that Weitzman is lying about what he did when in fact he did EXACTLY what he was told to do:
Mr. WEITZMAN - After that, we entered the building and started to search floor to floor and we started on the first floor, second floor, third floor and on up, when we got up to the fifth or sixth floor, I forget, I believe it was the sixth floor, the chief deputy or whoever was in charge of the floor, I forget the officer's name, from the sheriff's office, said he wanted that floor torn apart. He wanted that gun and it was there somewhere, so myself and another officer from the sheriff's department, I can't remember his name, he and I proceeded until we----
BTW, most interesting the sheriff's office guy knew "it was there somewhere".
Do you both also believe that Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker lied that the rifle location was undisturbed before the taking of the in situ photos?
Only a complete fool would believe it was undisturbed:
Mr. WEITZMAN - That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said, "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.
Do YOU have difficulty spotting the rifle in the photo?
BTW, Day/Studebaker was notorious for not taking actual crime scene photos:
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
The pallets were made from wood. Wooden flats are a type of sandal or seedling bed. I think Weitzman was referring to a collection of the same item when he said "flat", so it would be one of the three separate pallet groups.
What Weitzman said is not clearcut, and he later said "I was behind this section of books", not laying face to the floor. Meanwhile, you have Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker lying under oath when they said the Crime Lab photographs show the Carcano in situ.
Are you claiming the Sheriff's Office planted the rifle? No, so far you lack the courage of your convictions. The police had found the shells and there was no report of a man found in or near-to the building with a rifle. Just standard police investigative procedure.
I think he means all the officers on that floor had walked by the location when they arrived. The rifle was fully hidden from anyone at the stairway entrance who arrived from below.
Sure, easy to see if I'm elevated and south of the row of boxes.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/1/med_res/)
Can you see the rifle as you leave the stairwell and walk by the row of boxes?
Cherry-pick.
Mr. BALL. Do you have any pictures of the boxes before they were moved other than those you have showed me?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Just these two.
Mr. BALL. Just the two that show the cartons, and those are Exhibits A and B?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. We have probably got one down there I can get you that is a lot better print than that. If you want a better print, I can get it for you.
Mr. BALL. Then, you don't have any pictures taken of the boxes before they were moved?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.
And it doesn't apply to the NW corner cartons.
Where did I say there was?
Are you claiming the Sheriff's Office planted the rifle?
I believe if you'll do a little research, you'll find that it was DPD Captain Fritz who was in charge.....And it was Capt Fritz who said " Keep looking, I want that rifle and it has to be here somewhere".... Fritz KNEW the rifle was there.....He knew the plot to murder JFK and frame the little commie rat who had defected to Russia a few years prior to Nov 63. Fritz knew the rifle was behind the box with the huge asterisk scrawled on it at the top of the stairs.....
Indeed.
What you now claim was responded was not what you actually said originally.
Rookie mistake.
Are you claiming the Sheriff's Office planted the rifle?
I believe if you'll do a little research, you'll find that it was DPD Captain Fritz who was in charge.....And it was Capt Fritz who said " Keep looking, I want that rifle and it has to be here somewhere".... Fritz KNEW the rifle was there.....He knew the plot to murder JFK and frame the little commie rat who had defected to Russia a few years prior to Nov 63. Fritz knew the rifle was behind the box with the huge asterisk scrawled on it at the top of the stairs.....
Indeed.
Nice little swap you have going there, "found" - > "recovered".
Who do you think you're fooling?
Makes perfect sense. The longer it takes the authorities to find your rifle and trace it back to you, the more time you have to escape.
Except it wasn't actually hidden according to the crime scene photos.
His story is definitely fake, no doubt about that.
But Let's brake this down:
If the clipboard is evidence where in evidence are the orders that came with it when found?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49643/m1/1/med_res/)
I don't suppose that other book cartons on the sixth floor having ink marker scrawls would sway you in the least.
BTW, teachers were allowed to "shop" in person and the asterisk might signify a popular item.
Coming up the stairs, bending over the first row....BOOM. Right under your nose, plenty of light from the west wall window.
Um, why would they not be moveable?
Nice graphics, BTW, too bad you're on the Nutter team.
He stashed it between boxes instead of leaving it in plain sight. That's "hidden" by any conventional definition of the word.
I'm fine with "stashed".
Or "dumped", as the scope was busted.
How did he even have time to zero it in?
the scope was busted.
The scope was not broken....It had been hastily mounted (for sales appeal) and it had never been bore sighted. As I recall it had only three screws attaching it to the rifle. There were four mounting holes in the scope base.....
Of course Klein's didn't advertise the Carcano-with-scope as ready for competition precision shooting. The purchaser could adjust the scope mounting screws to suit, or compensate his aim with hold over/hold off.
For the short distances in Dealey Plaza, the iron sights could have been used. A 4X rifle scope was all that was used by WWII snipers and they didn't "zero" before taking kill shots.
Of course Klein's didn't advertise the Carcano-with-scope as ready for competition precision shooting. The purchaser could adjust the scope mounting screws to suit, or compensate his aim with hold over/hold off.
For the short distances in Dealey Plaza, the iron sights could have been used. A 4X rifle scope was all that was used by WWII snipers and they didn't "zero" before taking kill shots.
What do you mean they didn't zero the scope in in WW2. All scopes would have to be zeroed in.
They may have zeroed in the scope when not in action. But did they "zero" in their scope while in the field and making kill shots?
First they had to contact the enemy: Imagine John Cleese in a Monty Python skit: "I say, old chap, would you mind holding your position will I zero in on you? You will? There's a good fellow... and awfully sporting of you, I must say!"
First they had to contact the enemy: Imagine John Cleese in a Monty Python skit: "I say, old chap, would you mind holding your position while I zero in on you? You will? There's a good fellow... and awfully sporting of you, I must say!"True, but I don't believe most combat troops in the field had scopes on their rifles? Right?
My question went unanswered.
I can wait.
Used the clipboard when?
True, but I don't believe most combat troops in the field had scopes on their rifles? Right?
If we're talking about rifles with scopes I would guess that that was for snipers? Or in stationary situations where the shooter had time to set up? As you point out, a scope is utterly useless for a firefight/combat situation. So why have one on your rifle?
If you do have a rifle with a scope I would think they'd zero in first? They're shooting at stationary targets and not engaged in a firefight type situation.
They may have zeroed in the scope when not in action. But did they "zero" in their scope while in the field and making kill shots?
Oswald would have had to zero in his rifle as he brought it in in pieces. The main thing about zeroing a rifle is to make sure it doesn't fire left or right of the intended target. The shooter has to compensate up and down with his (or her) aiming to allow for shooting at a target that might be close or far away. This is why lho prob used the iron sights. He had no way to know if the rifle would fire left or right of where he positioned the crosshairs of the scope as he obviously could not zero in the rifle once inside the TSBD.
"Noted" -- LOL
Evidence number?
FBI Report?
Oswald would have had to zero in his rifle as he brought it in in pieces. The main thing about zeroing a rifle is to make sure it doesn't fire left or right of the intended target. The shooter has to compensate up and down with his (or her) aiming to allow for shooting at a target that might be close or far away. This is why lho prob used the iron sights. He had no way to know if the rifle would fire left or right of where he positioned the crosshairs of the scope as he obviously could not zero in the rifle once inside the TSBD.
Oswald would have had to zero in his rifle as he brought it in in pieces.
The main thing about zeroing a rifle is to make sure it doesn't fire left or right of the intended target. The shooter has to compensate up and down with his (or her) aiming to allow for shooting at a target that might be close or far away. This is why lho prob used the iron sights. He had no way to know if the rifle would fire left or right of where he positioned the crosshairs of the scope as he obviously could not zero in the rifle once inside the TSBD.
Now is the time to realize you're out of your depth...
You mean the alleged orders were not in evidence?
Huh? Evidence of what?
Ask Richard, he's the one who highlighted the date.
Round and round we go down the rabbit hole. You asked for evidence of when Oswald used the clipboard. The clipboard contains a notation for 11.22 according to the FBI. Put on your deerstalker hat and make like Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. BTW: you are the one who is suggesting doubt regarding clipboard. If it was planted, then presumably that was done to implicate Oswald. Otherwise that would be entirely pointless. So it is incumbent on you to explain what the clipboard is evidence of. I have simply suggested that Oswald may have placed the clipboard down when he retrieved his rifle. Thus, it provides some insight on where his rifle was hidden.
So it is incumbent on you to explain what the clipboard is evidence of.
Round and round we go down the rabbit hole. You asked for evidence of when Oswald used the clipboard. The clipboard contains a notation for 11.22 according to the FBI. Put on your deerstalker hat and make like Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. BTW: you are the one who is suggesting doubt regarding clipboard. If it was planted, then presumably that was done to implicate Oswald. Otherwise that would be entirely pointless. So it is incumbent on you to explain what the clipboard is evidence of. I have simply suggested that Oswald may have placed the clipboard down when he retrieved his rifle. Thus, it provides some insight on where his rifle was hidden.
I've noticed how you're diggin' yourself in, nice!
So far you've failed.
The clipboard does not contain a "notation" for 11.22 according to the FBI.
Not my problem you can't support your wet dream with actual evidence.
Wrong, there are conflicting statements regarding how the clipboard was handled and who were involved.
Genius, did you work that out yourself?
How do I become responsible for your kooked-up fantasy involving a clipboard given a WC evidence number?
"his rifle" -- LOL
There's no supporting evidence for any of your claims, your "insight" is pure speculation. Classic.
Let's see. Kaiser made the clipboard. His name is on it. He works there and knows that Oswald uses it. But there is no evidence that it belongs to Oswald? HA HA HA.
There is no doubt that he was on the 6th floor during points that day.
I have simply suggested that Oswald may have placed the clipboard down when he retrieved his rifle.
And you have so far provided no evidence said clipboard belonged to Oswald.
I didn't say it was planted, you fail again.
Lack of "probative vaule" (been reading much Bugliosi lateley?) does not necessarily mean it's planted, you fail again.
WTF are you talking about?
Be specific.
I don't necessarily answer loaded questions, what question do you need answered?
WCR is not a primary source and thus entirely irrelevant, you fail again.
If an MC rifle with offset scope and bolt handle sticking out was wedged down a 1”gap between 2 parallel rows of cardboard boxes , then should not there have been some scoring, dents, etc on the sides of those boxes?
What about that loose sling with the 2” wide pad? Does that require more than a “few seconds” to be able to get that sling pad into the 1”gap before the rifle is then pushed into the gap on top of it?
Excellent points, Zeon..... The video that the WC created that allegedly depicted Lee Oswald's movements from the SE corner widow to the second floor lunchroom showed John Howlett "duplicate" Lee's alleged flight from the window to the lunchroom, and Howlett was carrying a three foot piece of 1X 4 as a substitute for a carcano with a scope......so naturally it was a piece o cake for him to insert that "rifle" into the place where the official DPD in situ photos show the rifle to have been found.
WHAT A CROCK!!.... As you've pointed out, If Howlett had been using a duplicate carcano like C2766 he wouldn't have been able to insert it in that narrow space.
The struggle of CTers against facts,
So far you haven't presented a single fact, so who's the one struggling?
common sense,
Doesn't make up for lack of facts.
and evidence is astounding.
evidence of what?
Kaiser tells us that he made the clipboard.
So what?
He recognizes it.
FACT: Nowhere in his testimony was he presented with any exhibits to recognize or identify.
His name is even all over it.
Clarify "all over it."
He also knows that Oswald has been using it because they are coworkers at the TSBD.
As in "once used it", so what?
He explains all of this.
His explaining does not line up with what SA Pinkston explained.
I was expecting 'how does Oswald taking Kaiser's clipboard prove he shot anybody?' from these researcher-wannabes. Ah, the good ol' days..
The struggle of CTers against facts, common sense, and evidence is astounding. Kaiser tells us that he made the clipboard. He recognizes it. His name is even all over it. He also knows that Oswald has been using it because they are coworkers at the TSBD. He explains all of this. There is no ambiguity about it. At yet the contrarians struggle like boats against the tide...
Mr. BALL. Now, Frankie, that clipboard you found describe it--what was it?
Mr. KAISER. It was made out of paper and tape and a little piece of pasteboard.
Mr. BALL. Who made it?
Mr. KAISER. I did.
Mr. BALL. And how was it you weren't using it on this day?
Mr. KAISER. You see, when he first started there
Mr. BALL. Who is "he"?
Mr. KAISER. Lee---when he first started to work there he got my clipboard and started using it.
Mr. BALL. Did you give it to him to use?
Mr. KAISER. No, he just picked it up and started using it and I just went and made me another one.
Mr. BALL. You recognized that clipboard when you saw it?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, because my name was all over it.
Mr. BALL. Your name was on it, too?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir.
All we got was yet another demonstration of the critics not willing to accept anything that might point to Oswald being on the sixth floor.
"It's déjà vu all over again." — Yogi Berra
"Harold Weisberg, a Maryland poultry farmer who apparently dis-
believes everything in the Warren Report but the page numbers".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"But, far from hurting his book, Lane's shrill flamboyance, his willing-
ness to startle TV audiences with new and dubious charges, boosted
his sales".
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
— Charles Roberts, The Truth About the Assassination (1967)
"They seek to discredit the Commission's conclusions on valid points ...
simply by calling attention to differences of opinion among the obser-
vers ... treat blunders on the part of officials as proofs of dishonesty ...
And they point to improbabilities ... as invalidating explanations given
in the Report, when their own explanations of the same facts are, not
merely on grounds of actuarial improbability, far more difficult to believe."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"If one cannot attack conclusions that Mr. Lane refuses to state, one
can at least criticize the methods he employs in establishing a basis
for his innuendos."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
— John Sparrow, After the Assassination (1967)
The old impossible standard of proof trick. More rabbit hole nonsense. Kaiser made the clipboard. His name is on it. He knew Oswald - his own coworker was using it. He found it on the 6th floor after the assassination. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to put this together.
And by "put this together", "Richard" means making up a story and calling it a fact.
Would someone please present solid PROOF that Lee Oswald was using that clipboard on 11-22- 63.......
Again, Oswald's coworker confirmed that he made a specific clipboard. He could identify this clipboard to the exclusion of any other clipboard because he made it and it had his name "all over it." Kaiser also confirmed that this was the clipboard that Oswald was using when he worked at the TSBD. This clipboard was found on the 6th floor. It included invoices dated 11.22. Kaiser was not at work on 11.22 but guess who was? I'm not sure how there could be any more evidence than exists. What do you believe is missing that would constitute "solid PROOF"? A seance with Oswald?
Obviously you recognize that the statement above is nothing but here say ...... And you have clearly avoided the the biggest flaw in the tale....The fact that the clip board wasn't found until days after the assassination. No..... On the second thought the biggest flaw is the fact that the clip board means absolutely NOTHING!.. It merely means that Frankie Kaiser's clip board was discovered on the sixth floor ...... Beyond that, it an indication of NOTHING.
How is it hearsay when the witness had direct knowledge of the facts that he described? LOL. Kaiser confirmed he made this clipboard.
He could identify it as the one he made, in part, because his name was on it. He knew that Oswald used this clipboard. Why does it matter when it was found? But if it does for some reason, maybe note that access to the building was restricted for some period of time after the assassination. Kaiser was the only person in a position to link Oswald to the clipboard because he had direct knowledge of Oswald having used it.
Kaiser's testimony does a lot more than confirm that "his" clipboard was on the 6th floor. Kaiser confirms that Oswald was using this specific clipboard. That clipboard contained invoices for 11.22. Kaiser was not even at work on that day. A simple matter to connect the dots. This does not require a Ouija board.
Question for you Smart guy...... Has it been established that nobody other than Lee Oswald could have placed that clipboard where it was found. IOW..... Do you have solid PROOF that Lee Oswald was the only person who could have placed that clip board there??
What more do you want from Kaiser? Film of Oswald using the clipboard or time-travel so you can see yourself?
It's reasonable proof for reasonable people to evaluate. You're not reasonable.
Do you have proof for an alternative explanation that's on the same level as Kaiser?
That is, did someone else testify that they made the board, wrote Kaiser's name on it and used it, or saw it being used by someone else?
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338942/m1/1/high_res/)
One post--the one in question, between the west wall and west service elevator--has its south side13 feet from the north wall. All the rest of the posts to the east of this one post shows the posts centered on 13 feet. So are we going to take your word for one post being out of alignment with all the other posts? Maybe somebody should contact the Museum to measure the distance?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
The interior column on the west wall is centered on 13 feet. So a few feet for the row of boxes that were to the north of the rifle in the Crime Lab photos. The north side of Pallet Group "A" must be some five feet south of the pillar, or about 18-19 feet from the north wall.
I can't believe that Uh-ho Beck and you believe the rifle was beneath the pallet and that Weitzman was literally lying on the floor with his face on that dirty oily floor. Do you both also believe that Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker lied that the rifle location was undisturbed before the taking of the in situ photos?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
On page 142 of the WR there is a WC exhibit no. 2707, which shows a "scale model view" of the sixth floor and a view of the support columns for the 6th floor ceiling and the 7th floor......
Since Studebaker's map reveals that the support columns are spaced 13 feet apart, and we can see that the first column to the south of the north wall is three feet south of the stairs going down to the 5th floor. ( see page 142) so the next E/W row of support columns are 26 feet from the north wall...... The tip of the arrow that indicates where the rifle was found is at 19 feet from the north wall, or about 6 feet south of the column that was 13 feet from the north wall. Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle and recorded that distance as 15' 4 " .....That's 2 feet 4 inches south of the first column.
The WC exhibit 2707 apparently isn't as accurate as Studebaker's map, but it serves very well to show that the rifle was not at the location indicated in the fake DPD in situ photo......
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338668/m1/3/med_res/) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Looking west | (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Exhibit marked by officer pointing to rifle location | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/3/med_res/) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Looking east (Rifle discovery opening out of frame to camera-right) |
(https://www.paperlessarchives.com/Warren_Commission_Report_Hearings_Exhibits_Sample_Page_3.jpg)
The way the arrows were placed on that exhibit, I would have to describe as generalized and approximate.
I have the Studebaker Map showing the down-stairway beginning 10' 8" from the north wall. The row of columns being centered on 13' means the south face of the column is 13' 4.75" from the north wall (assuming the notation of "9 1/2" square" is correct). This is slightly less than two feet north of where the rifle was found.Now we simply have to see if any boxes were to the south of the south side of the column (the column displays a "No Smoking" sign). The Crime Lab photos show a row of boxes between the rifle location and the back-stairs; this is the same row of boxes that go east-to-west, a portion of which abuts the south face of the column.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Looking west
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Exhibit marked by officer pointing to rifle location
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Looking east
(Rifle discovery opening out of frame to camera-right)
If that box abutting the south side of the column (the box has a horizontal piece of tape running along its length) is, say, 18 1/4" long, then the south-facing end of that box is 14' 11" (now we're down to five inches north of where the rifle was found). But see the south ends of the boxes between the box abutting the column and the boxes against the west wall? Some jut towards the south a bit and the row of boxes overall progressively goes a bit southward. Enough such that where the boxes that were to the north of the Carcano would be about 15' 4".
The row of columns being centered on 13'
Jerry, open your eyes and LOOK at Studebaker' map..... The Vertical support columns are NOT centered on 13 feet....The south side of the columns are 13 feet from the north wall... ( the north side of the column is 12 foot 2 inches from the wall)
There are TWO feet from the south side of the support column and the rifle is depicted as being just a few inches south of the 15 foot line ( 15' 4" )
The DPD in situ photo depicts the rifle as being inches south of the south edge of the column.....
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338668/m1/3/med_res/) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Looking west | (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Exhibit marked by officer pointing to rifle location | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/3/med_res/) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Looking east (Rifle discovery opening out of frame to camera-right) |
Question for you Smart guy...... Has it been established that nobody other than Lee Oswald could have placed that clipboard where it was found. IOW..... Do you have solid PROOF that Lee Oswald was the only person who could have placed that clip board there??
The old impossible standard of proof. Absent a time machine, we couldn't prove any fact in human history if the standard is that we must somehow exclude EVERY other alternative possibility. No matter how baseless or unsupported by facts and common sense. You couldn't prove that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if someone could raise doubt just by suggesting that it was possible that someone dressed up like Lincoln and delivered the speech. It's possible after all. No one can disprove it with absolute 100% certainty. There is zero evidence that this happened and lots of evidence and common sense that lends itself to it not happening, but it still could have. That is the standard you are applying here. It's very silly but explains a great deal about why you are a CTer.
You need to look at all the northernmost line of columns on the Studebaker Map. Except for one slightly misplaced, they are all centered on 13'. So do we go with the only one that's slightly misplaced?
Funny. There's a whole row of boxes whose north end is south of the south face of the column. As explained, a few boxes jut to the south and the row overall progressively goes southward as it extends to the west.The Crime Lab in situ photo shows the Carcano on the floor against the south face of that row of book cartons. It's perfectly in agreement with the measurement on Studebaker's map, and the other Crime Lab photos showing the row of boxes at the south face of the column (from there, the photo shows the row going southward even more). The only thing wrong is what you latched on to, the slightly-misplaced column that's on the map.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Looking west
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Exhibit marked by officer pointing to rifle location
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Looking east
(Rifle discovery opening out of frame to camera-right)
You need to look at all the northernmost line of columns on the Studebaker Map. Except for one slightly misplaced, they are all centered on 13'. So do we go with the only one that's slightly misplaced?
Are you serious???...... Are you placing you faith on the fact that the map is more accurate than the actual construction??
Have you ever built any structure? Can yo place the vertical studs in a wall any place you want? Buidling code require that the studs be placed on 16 inch centers.....Do you believe that you can place them anywhere from 14 to 18 inches??
If you believe that column is out of place ....wouldn't it be only half supporting the horizontal ceiling beam??
Impossible standard?? Simply because some person swears that he's been to the moon and has a rock from the surface of the moon to prove it .... Does not make his tale true. Simply because Mr Kaiser said that the clip board was his, and Lee Oswald had used it does not constitute proof that Lee had been using it on 11/22/63....
It does, however, provide a very good basis for reaching that conclusion. Also factor in that no one else who had access to the floor (co-workers) ever came forward and said that they had used that clipboard and placed it there. You can believe anything that you want, but the totality of facts, common sense, and evidence lends itself to Oswald using this clipboard on 11.22 and leaving in that location. Also keep in mind that it had invoices dated 11.22 on it. Kaiser was not at work that day. So someone used that clipboard on 11.22 to fill book orders. That narrows the list down considerably. And Oswald was in the building and known to use that clipboard. It allows us to make a reasonable inference.
It ( Kaiser's tale) does, however, provide a very good basis for reaching that conclusion.
That's true, only if you're very gullible. Because there isn't one iota of solid provable FACT in Kaiser's story.
But even if Kaiser is totally candid and honest his tale doesn't in any way implicate Lee Oswald in the murder of JFK.
Kaiser was not at work on 11.22 but guess who was?
Prove that claim.
Not according to TSBD time records (CE 1949).
Not according to TSBD time records (CE 1949).
It could mean Oswald was not all that busy filling orders that morning. Maybe dry-practicing with his rifle.
It could mean Oswald was not all that busy filling orders that morning. Maybe dry-practicing with his rifle.That would be in the lunchroom or out on the front steps?
HA HA HA.
Translation: I can't deal with conflicting evidence.
So Kaiser was at work that day and lied about being at the dentist?
Possibly, the WC chose not to resolve the conflict in evidence.
Which of his coworkers saw him that day? Do tell!
Which of his coworkers were asked if they saw him that day? Do tell!
You are really losing it.
Two weeks of clipboard rants and you still have zero supporting evidence of "Oswald's clipboard" being found on the 6th floor so who's losing?
Looking forward to another week of of your "insights" and inside-Oswald's-head-psycho-babble!
Again, Oswald's coworker confirmed that he made a specific clipboard. He could identify this clipboard to the exclusion of any other clipboard
Why does it matter when it was found?
It's reasonable proof for reasonable people to evaluate. You're not reasonable.
The old impossible standard of proof. Absent a time machine, we couldn't prove any fact in human history if the standard is that we must somehow exclude EVERY other alternative possibility. No matter how baseless or unsupported by facts and common sense. You couldn't prove that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if someone could raise doubt just by suggesting that it was possible that someone dressed up like Lincoln and delivered the speech. It's possible after all. No one can disprove it with absolute 100% certainty.
There is no ambiguity about the clipboard being discussed. Kaiser confirms that Oswald was using the one he found on the 6th floor. He knows it is the same one because he recognized it.
HA HA HA.
Translation: I can't deal with conflicting evidence.
So Kaiser was at work that day and lied about being at the dentist?
Possibly, the WC chose not to resolve the conflict in evidence.
Which of his coworkers saw him that day? Do tell!
Which of his coworkers were asked if they saw him that day? Do tell!
You are really losing it.
Two weeks of clipboard rants and you still have zero supporting evidence of "Oswald's clipboard" being found on the 6th floor so who's losing?
Looking forward to another week of of your "insights" and inside-Oswald's-head-psycho-babble!
Is it just coincidental that the only boxes in the wall of boxes that are open with flaps up and much of the contents of the boxes removed, are the 3 boxes exactly where the rifle is laying on the floor?
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338844/m1/1/med_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340054/m1/1/med_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337413/m1/3/med_res/) | ||
| (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338777/m1/1/med_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340137/m1/1/med_res/) | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339290/m1/1/med_res/) |
Is it just coincidental that the only boxes in the wall of boxes that are open with flaps up and much of the contents of the boxes removed, are the 3 boxes exactly where the rifle is laying on the floor?
are the 3 boxes exactly where the rifle is laying on the floor?
First Off you're right the rifle was lying on the floor it was NOT jammed between boxes of books as the DPD in situ photo depicts it....
And secondly.... the south side three boxes were about a foot north of the place where Boone and Weitzman spotted the rifle beneath the wooden pallet...
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49518/m1/1/med_res) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Looking east: Row of boxes were completely to south of pillar. | (https://i1.ytimg.com/vi/SsnIeaAWFfo/hqdefault.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Day was to the south of the row of boxes (facing north having just picked up the rifle) |
Did anyone at Baylor Dental College corroborate his story?
Let us ponder the bizarre claim that there is somehow doubt as to whether Kaiser was working at the TSBD on 11.22. Kaiser was asked by the WC whether he was at work on 11.22. He confirmed that he was not there on 11.21 or 22. He indicates that he was at another location the "Baylor Dental College" where he was undergoing treatment for a dental issue. He volunteers that he watched JFK coverage with others in the lobby of the college. So first we have to believe that Kaiser is lying about this point for some inexplicable reason and that he is not concerned that those who were present at the dental college would contradict his story. Why he would lie about this is left to our imagination. Now we also have to believe that he was lucky enough not to be seen in any pictures from that day at the TSBD, or that any of his coworkers would contradict his public testimony of not being there, and his name would not show up on any of the police reports or interviews of TSBD employees that were there that day. Remarkable luck! And all this risk and lying just to confirm that he found a clipboard! HA HA HA. You can't make that up. But we are told that the issue is somehow in doubt. It's possible. If Kaiser is playing some nefarious role to frame Oswald and was present on 11.22, why doesn't provide something more incriminating than he found his clipboard some days later? I'm sure an answer is forthcoming. Right?
I'm sure an answer is forthcoming. Right?
Looking east; Carcano found on floor camera-left of box on floor that centered in frame.Zeon Mason asked:...."Is it just coincidental that the only boxes in the wall of boxes that are open with flaps up and much of the contents of the boxes removed, are the 3 boxes exactly where the rifle is laying on the floor?"
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/med_res/)
One foot south (south is camera-right) of the south side of the three open boxes (camera-left) happens to be about one foot north of the pallet.
It's actually the open area where Day and Fritz were able to stand while they looked at the rifle.
td](https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49518/m1/1/med_res)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Looking east: Row of boxes were completely to south of pillar.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Day was to the south of the row of boxes
(facing north having just picked up the rifle)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Looking east: Row of boxes were completely to south of pillar.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Day was to the south of the row of boxes
(facing north having just picked up the rifle)
(https://c.tenor.com/QDw7krk9R2AAAAAM/popcorn-stephen.gif)
Stephen Colbert is funny. Although Liberals aren't supposed to have a sense of humor. :D
IMO, it seems we are left to theorize about what the original configuration of the 2 rows of boxes at the moment that Oswald allegedly was able to simply“drop” the rifle between. And to ponder why the 3 boxes at that part of the front row just where that rifle was discovered by Boone& Weitzman, had been opened , flaps up and contents partially removed. And IF they were overhanging the gap or not.
What’s particularly confusing a more recent interview by Boone before his death, where Boone seems to have altered and or added new details to his original WC testimony.
From that l interview :
1. Boone tells the interviewer that Oswald was encountered by Baker In the stairwell on the 4th floor? HUH??
2. Boone is asked about how many shots he heard and the spacing of the shots. Boone replicates the spacing in about 4 seconds just like Harold Norman did. Then Boone curiously immediately negates this boom... boom boom spread by stating the shots were 8.3 seconds apart? HUH???
3. Boone states that he talked to Lee Bowers, the tower operator just minutes after the shooting, and that Bowers stated he did not see anything nor heard any shots. HUH???
4. Finally, Boone tells the interviewer about the boxes where the rifle was found, that the overhanging boxes were NOT originally overhanging but were moved after the discovery of the rifle.
HUH???
Zeon Mason asked:...."Is it just coincidental that the only boxes in the wall of boxes that are open with flaps up and much of the contents of the boxes removed, are the 3 boxes exactly where the rifle is laying on the floor?"
Zeon, This is like those games where are viewer is asked to find the differences in the pictures....Organ would like you to believe that all the photos are authentic photos of the scene where the rifle was found ...... Some of the photos are of the reconstructed scene and they are very much alike ....BUT NOT IDENTICAL. Which means the DPD introduced the fakes to trick the unware ....For example...Look at the photo that has the number 91-001/ 072. and compare the "BOOKS"stamping on the boxes . Mr Organ has placed a photo of detective Day holding the rifle next to that 91-001/072 photo for easy comparison.....Notice that the stamping are neatly aligned vertically in the photo of Day holding the carcano, but in the photo 91-001/072 the stampings are not aligned.... Photo 91-001 /072 is of the reconstructed scene....and the boxes were misaligned... Minor detail?? Sure but it proves that Organs claim ( "looking south row of boxes were completely to the south of the pillar") is BS......Organ's statement appears to be true ...BUT ....It's a photo of the reconstructed scene.....
Looking at the photos:... try reconciling the statements of Boone and Weitzman with the scenes in the photos. Would Boone and Weitzman have needed powerful flashlights if the rifle had bee jammed between the boxes as depicted in the DPD in situ photo? And would Weitzman have been able to see the rifle as depicted in the DPD in situ photo with his cheek on the floor while looking under the wooden pallet?
And THAT is where Weitzman swore that he spotted the rifle...ON THE FLOOR BENEATH THE WOODEN PALLET.
I was looking at old stereo images I’ve made in the past. Here is a stereo pair with the corresponding red-cyan anaglyph, if you don’t free-view the stereo pair. The stereo pair was, I think, from video in year 2000. Or crime scene photos maybe? I suspect there is better quality video nowadays.
(https://i.imgur.com/HeLkS4m.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BlPSmUW.jpg)
James
I take it you're not acquainted with the concept of parallax.
The top box in Photo 91-001 /072 is forward AND out from the box below it. Move to the south (as in the Day holding Carcano photo) and the line-of-sight to the boxes changes to the viewer.
But nice try.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/03/7f/cR4zFLL3_o.jpg)
I can't imagine Weitzman with his face pressed to that dirty oily floor PLUS there being enough room for one of those bulky flashlights they were using.
"I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time
he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun"
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under the flat. We
were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books."
Where does Weitzman say he was looking "beneath the wooden pallet"?
And isn't a "flat" just a collection of the same goods piled up? Do you think Weitzman meant the height of a wooden board when he referenced "the opposite side"?
BTW, Weitzman's comments were just before he authenticated the DPD in-situ photos and drew on an exhibit an arrow pointing to the in situ area.
Where does Weitzman say he was looking "beneath the wooden pallet"?
"I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun"
I was on the floor looking under the pallet.....
Let's explain this for you.... Weitzman was ON THE FLOOR ....
| Weitzman | "I went on the road as district supervisor and manager for Holly's Dress Shops in New York, 115 Fifth Avenue, and I supervised 26 stores for them for approximately 15 years." (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) | ||
| Ball | "Then what did you do?" (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) | ||
| Weitzman | "I took over as general manager of the Lamont Corp. which is a discount operation and the headquarters, which was Galveston, Tex. We had stores in Dallas, Fort Worth, Loui- siana, Phoenix and Tucson, Ariz. At the end of 1960, I closed up all the stores, retired from the discount operation and went to work for Robie Love in Dallas County, precinct 1." |
The fact that Weitzman was ON THE FLOOR and looking west
under the pallet ( flat)
means that his field of vision was limited to the area under the pallet.....because the boxes of books stacked all around would have blocked his view of the area where the DPD in situ photo depicts the rifle ...In other words If that rifle had been jammed between those boxes Weitzman could not have seen it with his face on the floor..
However Boone could easily have seen the rifle under the pallet after he ha removed a couple of boxes of books that acted as a "roof" over the crevasse in which the rifle lay....
And this is a point that is always swept aside by the Lner's....Boone had to remove a couple of boxes from the top of the crevice and shine his light down into the dark hole before he was able to see a small portion of the rifle's stock. The fact that Boone had to remove those boxes means that the boxes were placed over the top of the hole after the rifle was placed at the bottom of the hole.
The liars pretend that Lee simply dropped the rifle into the hiding place as he dashed by on his way to the second floor lunch room. But the boxes were over the top of the crevasse ..... How did they get there??
Thanks James, I pulled out my 3D glasses and didn't get much of a 3D effect so I made a quickly alternating "wiggle" 3D Gif and I think the problem is there isn't enough horizontal separation, but if you have any others I'd sure like to see them.
(https://i.postimg.cc/T1S6f5kb/rifle-box1.gif)
The following image has more horizontal separation so shows more depth.
(https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/disp/3f0bcf25852047.5604d1bc7e833.gif)
JohnM
The Mytton Hypnotic Imaging doesn’t work on Mr. Cakebread or myself because of many years of experience watching The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone episodes.
Unbelievable, here we go, down, down, down, deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole and then next you will claim that the people at the Dental College lied then you will want Kaiser's dental records then you will demand photos to prove that he was there, then you will want his fingerprints proving he was there, then you will claim the photos were faked and the prints are not reliable and on and on it goes. Yawn!
You mean like the rectal exam the WC gave to Arnold Rowland? Whatever a witness said can be taken at face value.
As long as it fits the narrative.
You mean like the rectal exam the WC gave to Arnold Rowland? Whatever a witness said can be taken at face value.
As long as it fits the narrative.
Were any of them verified?
Kaiser wasn't captured on Hollywood-quality film when he found the clipboard nor have CTs managed to time-travel so they could personally witness it.
Other than that, we have his statements made under oath.
You forgot the so-called clip board in evidence that was not shown to him to identify under oath.
Not that you would care, of course.
It's Nutter time, again!
Why would he need to be shown the "clip board in evidence"?
How about checking, under oath, if he could identify the clip board as the one he allegedly found?
He saw the clip board on the 6th floor when he found it!
What clip board are you referring to?
He identified that clip board as the one Oswald used.
He made several, used when?
Even if you want to baselessly believe that somehow a different clipboard was placed into "evidence" for some inexplicable reason it would make no difference as to his testimony.
I don't need to believe in anything but if he was shown a different clip board only a fool would claim "it would make no difference as to his testimony." Maybe that's why he wasn't shown the clip board in evidence.
He confirmed that the clipboard that he discovered on the 6th floor was the same one that Oswald was using.
Wrong, he claimed "that the clipboard that he discovered on the 6th floor was the same one that Oswald was using.", nowhere did the WC present any supporting evidence for that claim.
Canned LN reply when cornered.
No need to "interject" anything: Unsupported claim with FBI reports and other testimony contradicting Kaiser's story stands.
He made several, all the time.
Wasn't it "all over it"?
Employees snatched clipboards all day long -- LOL
Mr. BALL. You put your name "Frankie Kaiser" on it?
Mr. KAISER. You see, it don't do no good to get a clipboard around here everybody is always running off with it.
So what did the other clipboards look like?
Used when?
There is zero evidence that the clipboard is the one in "evidence"
So how do you know it isn't?
There's nothing to "confirm" as he's the only one to come forward with that claim.
The claim remains unsupported by any evidence no matter how many times you repeat it.
So after five weeks of use Oswald's fingerprints were all over it, right?
How does "all over it" look like?
Sure is.
With no supporting evidence to back it up, and when it was in use by Oswald.....keep dreaming.
When did I say "ambiguous"?
When did I say "ambiguous"?
Who is "we"?
Define "reasonable position".
A claim without supporting evidence is not fact.
No need for the quotes, he made them all the time according to Bill Shelley.
With zero corroboration for his claim there's no reason to presume he did.
Any unsupported claim will be in doubt, you can drop the "interjects" BS.
It wouldn't if it was demonstrated that he actually could, which it wasn't despite 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits.
What would put him in a position to know who snatched it most recently?
You can leave out the time machine BS.
You can also drop the "confirm this" spin BS as there's nothing to confirm: it's a claim by Kaiser not supported by evidence.
Already covered, unless he stalked the clipboard snatchers there's no reason to believe he kept track of who used his old clipboards and when they changed hands.
Ffs, Richard is smashing you from pillar to post and you're still bumbling and fumbling trying to mount a credible defence, just give it up and maybe focus on something else where you have actual evidence to support your endless accusations.
JohnM
Richard is smashing you from pillar to post ......
I most certainly disagree with this assessment Mr Mytoe..... I'd say the Otto has parried every thrust made by mr "Smith". Smith has only established that Frank Kaiser made clipboards which TSBD warehouse workers used..... Beyond that, Smith hasn't established anything....
LOL. And by "TSBD warehouse workers" you mean Oswald since he is the only person that Kaiser links to THE clipboard found on the 6th floor. You must believe this clipboard is highly incriminating to Oswald given all the efforts to distort Kaiser's straightforward testimony.
Mr. BALL. Now, Frankie, that clipboard you found describe it--what was it?
Mr. KAISER. It was made out of paper and tape and a little piece of pasteboard.
Mr. BALL. Who made it?
Mr. KAISER. I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. KAISER. Well, right after I started there it had been a long time ago.
Mr. BALL. And how was it you weren't using it on this day?
Mr. KAISER. You see, when he first started there
Mr. BALL. Who is "he"?
Mr. KAISER. Lee---when he first started to work there he got my clipboard and started using it.
"defence"
LOL
"accusations"
LOL
LOL. And by "TSBD warehouse workers" you mean Oswald since he is the only person that Kaiser links to THE clipboard found on the 6th floor. You must believe this clipboard is highly incriminating to Oswald given all the efforts to distort Kaiser's straightforward testimony.
Mr. BALL. Now, Frankie, that clipboard you found describe it--what was it?
Mr. KAISER. It was made out of paper and tape and a little piece of pasteboard.
Mr. BALL. Who made it?
Mr. KAISER. I did.
Mr. BALL. When?
Mr. KAISER. Well, right after I started there it had been a long time ago.
Mr. BALL. And how was it you weren't using it on this day?
Mr. KAISER. You see, when he first started there
Mr. BALL. Who is "he"?
Mr. KAISER. Lee---when he first started to work there he got my clipboard and started using it.
You must believe this clipboard is highly incriminating to Oswald given all the efforts to distort Kaiser's straightforward testimony.
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYgvb1mv/crowd-laughing-at-Otto.gif)
Nothing shows a CT's desperation any better than when you are reduced to the juvenile "LOL" defence. Hilarious!
Keep it up Otto because we are all laughing at YOU!
JohnM
When someone posts this silly stuff, you know they are desperate and you've got em on the ropes. They are trying desperately to discredit Mr Beck, because he's destroying the lies....
When Mytton arrives with Chapman grade material to "assist" you can say 'job done!'.
Still struggling with the Whaley timeline?
ROFL
Still struggling with the Whaley timeline?
ROFL
Or whether a CTer just repeating nonsensically over and over that he made "other" clipboards and presumably did not know the difference (again contrary to Kaiser's direct testimony) interjects doubt.
One of these days, maybe some new info will emerge that makes it plausible that the MC rifle was post event planted or switched for another rifle found.
The best I’ve been able to speculate is possible window of opportunity of an MC rifle found at Oswalds boarding room at 1:30 pm and it being immediately transported to the TSBD and up to 6th floor and placed or swapped at the boxes closest to staircase by 1:40pm.
This based on Tom Aleya statements referring to Lt. Day not arriving on the 6th floor until 18 minutes AFTER the “Mauser” rifle was discovered by Boone and Wietzman at 1:22 pm.
Otherwise it would have to be pre planted and that’s a problem also as to why would a rifle be planted with unusable scope and corrosion.
Besides Walt Cakebreads theory of an elaborate hoax to fool Oswald, the only other theory offered Is that Oswald did have an MC rifle and had recently moved it from Paines garage ( leaving behind in the garage a flat blanket roiled up with strings still tied around it) in Oct. 63.
Someone knew of that and the set up of Oswald begins by luring him away from the boarding house to visit his wife on Thursday , with a false message phone call that Marina wished to reconcile their marriage.
So the reason for a rifle to have misaligned and malfunction scope and corrosion in barrel, was possibly because conspirator thief was unaware of the scope problem nor of the corrosion in the barrel,
I’ve also considered Walts theory could be partly correct in that the rifle WAS preplanted but for another reason such as the conspirators are fellow ex CIA of which Oswald may have at one time been involved with ( Sylvia Odeo and Loran Hall etc?).
Walt, since you mention “stage prop”, what’s your explanation for a brass clip supposedly having been highlighted in frames of Alyea film to “prove” a clip was in the MC rifle, yet in the famous photo of Lt. Day carrying the MC rifle outside of TSBD, the clip that’s pointed out as partly slipping out has become SOLID BLACK!?
The brass clip can be seen in the Alyea footage of Detective Day dusting the rifle looking for prints, in front of the SUNLIT window That same brass clip can be seen protruding from the magazine as detective Day carries the carcano out of the TSBD.
FYI....The brass clips work well in the carcano and rarely do they stick in the magazine , because the brass is heavier and less "sticky" than the steel clips. I don't know what you're looking at, but the clip in the rifle that Day is carrying is NOT black.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides04050.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Clip in shade. | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/pojfkwhiteslides04049.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Clip not in shade. |
Those guy are lazy when it comes to posting what images they're referring to.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Clip in shade.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Clip not in shade.
The "Clip not in shade" photo clearly shows the BRASS clip protruding from the magazine. It was in the rifle when Day picked the rifle up from the floor and it gradually was slipping out of the rifle as Day handled the rifle. The FACT that the various photos show the clip sliding out of the magazine is solid prof that the clip was NOT jammed or stuck in the rifle. The rifle was never in the proper orientation ( Magazine toward the floor) to allow the clip to fall out. This simple FACT tells us that the rifle was not fired that day. Because the clip is free to fall out of the rifle when the LAST cartridge is stripped from the clip by the forward motion of the bolt. Day and Fritz said that Fritz puled the bolt to the rear and a live round dropped out of the rifle....He did NOT push the bolt forward which is necessary to strip the last round from the clip. This means that the clip was free to fall out at the time Day picked the rifle up from the floor. The clip was simply "floating" in the magazine in a manner it would have been if a person had placed the clip in the magazine through the ejection port on the bottom of the magazine.
If the live round had been in the clip and the forward motion of the bolt had stripped the live round from that clip the clip would have dropped out of the magazine through the ejection port. The fact that the clip was in the magazine is a very strong indication that someone stuck that clip in the port and twisted it so that it wouldn't drop out easily..
What's more All of the witnesses who watched as Fritz pulled the bolt BACKWARD said that the live round fell out onto the floor at his feet. This is a clear indication that the live cartridge had not been tripped from the clip and the cartridge was not married to the face of the bolt. If that live round had been married to the face of the bolt the live cartridge would have been FLUNG out of the rifle by the ejector, when Fritz retracted the bolt. This means that the live round was simply placed into the barrel and the bolt closed ( but not latched with the bolt knob down)
All of the above indicates that the carcano was merely a "throw down" gun and it had not been fired that day.
The "Clip not in shade" photo clearly shows the BRASS clip protruding from the magazine. It was in the rifle when Day picked the rifle up from the floor and it gradually was slipping out of the rifle as Day handled the rifle. The FACT that the various photos show the clip sliding out of the magazine is solid prof that the clip was NOT jammed or stuck in the rifle. The rifle was never in the proper orientation ( Magazine toward the floor) to allow the clip to fall out. This simple FACT tells us that the rifle was not fired that day. Because the clip is free to fall out of the rifle when the LAST cartridge is stripped from the clip by the forward motion of the bolt. Day and Fritz said that Fritz puled the bolt to the rear and a live round dropped out of the rifle....He did NOT push the bolt forward which is necessary to strip the last round from the clip. This means that the clip was free to fall out at the time Day picked the rifle up from the floor. The clip was simply "floating" in the magazine in a manner it would have been if a person had placed the clip in the magazine through the ejection port on the bottom of the magazine.1.) Grease, dirt and grime adhering to the sides of the magazine well can prevent the clip from falling out properly after the last cartridge is chambered. It's This has been known for quite some whilw. Lattimer brought it to the attention of the JFKA community in Kennedy and Lincoln back in 1980.
If the live round had been in the clip and the forward motion of the bolt had stripped the live round from that clip the clip would have dropped out of the magazine through the ejection port. The fact that the clip was in the magazine is a very strong indication that someone stuck that clip in the port and twisted it so that it wouldn't drop out easily..
What's more All of the witnesses who watched as Fritz pulled the bolt BACKWARD said that the live round fell out onto the floor at his feet. This is a clear indication that the live cartridge had not been tripped from the clip and the cartridge was not married to the face of the bolt. If that live round had been married to the face of the bolt the live cartridge would have been FLUNG out of the rifle by the ejector, when Fritz retracted the bolt. This means that the live round was simply placed into the barrel and the bolt closed ( but not latched with the bolt knob down)
All of the above indicates that the carcano was merely a "throw down" gun and it had not been fired that day.
1.) Grease, dirt and grime adhering to the sides of the magazine well can prevent the clip from falling out properly after the last cartridge is chambered. It's This has been known for quite some whilw. Lattimer brought it to the attention of the JFKA community in Kennedy and Lincoln back in 1980.
2.) In the Carcano, ejection is powered by the cycling of the action. Because of that, the force applied by the ejector against the cartridge rim is directly proportional to the force being used to pull the bolt backwards. If you pull softly, you wont get much ejection out of your ejection.
Grease, dirt and grime adhering to the sides of the magazine well can prevent the clip from falling out properly after the last cartridge is chambered. It's This has been known for quite some whilw. Lattimer brought it to the attention of the JFKA community in Kennedy and Lincoln back in 1980.
But it is a fact that the clip was slowly falling out as detective Day handled the rifle...That means the clip was NOT hung up in the magazine.
2.) In the Carcano, ejection is powered by the cycling of the action. Because of that, the force applied by the ejector against the cartridge rim is directly proportional to the force being used to pull the bolt backwards. If you pull softly, you wont get much ejection out of your ejection.
Yes it's true the spent shell ( or live round) can be prevented from being ejected by refraining from pulling the bolt back all the way or pulling the bolt slowly to the rear.... But that's not what Capt Fritz did....He pulled the bolt back in a rapid motion and the live round merely fell out of the rifle....I
It was NOT ejected by the ejector. Which means the cartridge was not married to the face of the bolt....That live round had simply been dropped into the barrel ..... It had not been stripped from the clip. The elevator lever scratches the last round in the clip but there was no elevator mark on the live round. The reason.... That Live round was not fed to the bolt by the elevator lever.....
Grease, dirt and grime adhering to the sides of the magazine well can prevent the clip from falling out properly after the last cartridge is chambered. It's This has been known for quite some while. Lattimer brought it to the attention of the JFKA community in Kennedy and Lincoln back in 1980.I said that the grime keeps the clip from falling out properly. I didn't say that it kept the clip frozen in place. The clip is still able to work it's way out as the rifle is moved and manipulated.
But it is a fact that the clip was slowly falling out as detective Day handled the rifle...That means the clip was NOT hung up in the magazine.
2.) In the Carcano, ejection is powered by the cycling of the action. Because of that, the force applied by the ejector against the cartridge rim is directly proportional to the force being used to pull the bolt backwards. If you pull softly, you wont get much ejection out of your ejection.Oh? And where did you get this idea form? Doesn't seem to have come from Day, Fritz, Weitzman, or Boone -- I checked their affidavits and testimony.
Yes it's true the spent shell ( or live round) can be prevented from being ejected by refraining from pulling the bolt back all the way or pulling the bolt slowly to the rear.... But that's not what Capt Fritz did....He pulled the bolt back in a rapid motion and the live round merely fell out of the rifle....It was NOT ejected by the ejector. Which means the cartridge was not married to the face of the bolt....That live round had simply been dropped into the barrel ..... It had not been stripped from the clip. The elevator lever scratches the last round in the clip but there was no elevator mark on the live round. The reason.... That Live round was not fed to the bolt by the elevator lever.....
I said that the grime keeps the clip from falling out properly. I didn't say that it kept the clip frozen in place. The clip is still able to work it's way out as the rifle is moved and manipulated.
Oh? And where did you get this idea form? Doesn't seem to have come from Day, Fritz, Weitzman, or Boone -- I checked their affidavits and testimony.
You'll have to make allowances for our Walt. His reading comprehension and knowledge retention is below even that of the average JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theorist. On the "plus side", Walt lies and misrepresents about 25% more than the average JFK-ACT.
Jerry, Mitch said " that the grime keeps the clip from falling out properly. I didn't say that it kept the clip frozen in place. The clip is still able to work it's way out as the rifle is moved and manipulated".Walt apparently doesn't know how to read.
He said that in spite of the numerous photos that show that the clip was sliding out of the rifle in spite of the fact that the rifle was not positioned so that gravity could take effect and pull the clip out of the rifle.
IOW.... His theory is simply BS!
Walt apparently doesn't know how to read.
Nothing I said precludes the clip working its way out as it was handled and walked down the stairs and taken out of the building.
Ok, I must apologize for asking my question about the black clip, as honestly, I didn’t remember there ever being such photo of the brass clip version of Lt. Day carrying the rifle by the strap.
But then since it’s an obvious contrast of brass clip vs black magazine well and it’s quite obviously sticking out far enough that it could be easily seen and yet it’s still not removed, even being carried by Lt. Day for some time and distance, photographed?
In the Aleya film, the brass clip is apparently visible, yet no one there is aware this rifle has a clip in it?
Again, I guess It’s a question of sloppy evidence examination and proper clearing of a loaded weapon or it’s CYA and the last round loaded NOT by clip feed.
This brings to mind Harold Norman again as he heard only THREE boom clack clack sounds
One might suggest that a shooter who i in rapid mode trying to operate bolt action rifle is going to go thru all 4 shells loaded and only manages to stop himself from FIRING his last clip fed round as he sees the effect of his 3rd round.
But if this last 4th round was loaded and shooter stopped short of pulling trigger, then should not Harold Norman have heard a 4th “Clack clack sounds of the bolt operated just once more after 3rd shot fired?
So now I do wonder about if the boom-clack-clack noise Norman is describing is actually that of a semi auto rifle and it’s Boom clink clink, the clink clink being the shells hitting the floor.
This would be therefore a more probable 4 sec spacing of 3 shots as Norman replicates ( video time spacing).
Yes, And the point is:.... If the rifle had been fired the ejection port would have been down toward the floor. So if the clip was working it's way out of the magazine even though the E port wasn't down then that clip would have definitely have dropped out when the rifle was being fired.I have found over the years that tapping more/faster gets better results than hitting harder. Especially with things like roll pins, which are of course held in place by friction. And the direction of the applied force is often critically important. In short, the physical reality is far less predictable than you'd like us to believe.
[...]If Norman described it as "BOOM-clack-clack, BOOM-clack-clack, BOOM-clack-clack", then it only means the first round had already been chambered before Norman was aware of that there was a rifle above his head, or before he was in a position to hear it.
This brings to mind Harold Norman again as he heard only THREE boom clack clack sounds
One might suggest that a shooter who i in rapid mode trying to operate bolt action rifle is going to go thru all 4 shells loaded and only manages to stop himself from FIRING his last clip fed round as he sees the effect of his 3rd round.
But if this last 4th round was loaded and shooter stopped short of pulling trigger, then should not Harold Norman have heard a 4th “Clack clack sounds of the bolt operated just once more after 3rd shot fired?
So now I do wonder about if the boom-clack-clack noise Norman is describing is actually that of a semi auto rifle and it’s Boom clink clink, the clink clink being the shells hitting the floor.
This would be therefore a more probable 4 sec spacing of 3 shots as Norman replicates ( video time spacing).
If Norman described it as "BOOM-clack-clack, BOOM-clack-clack, BOOM-clack-clack", then it only means the first round had already been chambered before Norman was aware of that there was a rifle above his head, or before he was in a position to hear it.
I have found over the years that tapping more/faster gets better results than hitting harder. Especially with things like roll pins, which are of course held in place by friction. And the direction of the applied force is often critically important. In short, the physical reality is far less predictable than you'd like us to believe.
If Norman hadn't been fantasizing about what he claimed that he had heard.....He should have heardThe shells probably hit the boxes along the sniper's nest before they hit the floor, and that's going to make a more of a "thwack." Anyway, based on my not-inconsiderable experience at gun ranges, empty shells don't really make a "ping" sound when they land on a hard surface. It's more of a skittering sound, for lack of a better term. That's because they tumble and roll when they hit the floor.
BOOM---CLACK--- ( bolt opening)--- PING--- ( shell hitting the floor)--- CLACK ( bolt closing )---BOOM
FIVE separate and distinct sounds......
That would have been the sounds of the first two shots.......However , all of the witnesses said that the third shot followed the second without delay....
Mr Norman was lying....He never heard any such noises.....
The shells probably hit the boxes along the sniper's nest before they hit the floor, and that's going to make a more of a "thwack." Anyway, based on my not-inconsiderable experience at gun ranges, empty shells don't really make a "ping" sound when they land on a hard surface. It's more of a skittering sound, for lack of a better term. That's because they tumble and roll when they hit the floor.
I simple selected the word "ping" to demonstrate that the shells would have made a noise when they dropped onto the floor, You can use any word you like .... ( aside from a loud crash)Yeah, you selected a very specific term to describe the sound to describe some generic noise that the shell would make. Because you're the resident forum firearms expert. ;)
I had hoped that an alert and astute researcher would have rebutted me, by saying that Norman testified that he had heard the shells hitting the floor above his head.... If that was the truth....Then why didn't he include the sound of the shells hitting the floor when he spouted the BOOM Clack ....clack....BOOM Bull stuff?