JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Mike Orr on April 30, 2018, 02:14:40 AM

Title: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Mike Orr on April 30, 2018, 02:14:40 AM
    Test 1:  Spectrographic Analysis
                 Oswald's paraffin casts were subjected to two analyses. Spectrographic analysis , the method normally used by the police, showed evidence of barium and antimony on Oswald's hands , but not on his cheek .

    Test 2:   Neutron Activation Analysis on Oswald
                 Spectrographic analysis was considered sufficiently reliable for criminal investigations, but in this case a more incisive test was also used. Neutron activation analysis, which is capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities much to small to be captured by spectrographic analysis, also showed no incriminating quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek. The result was reported in an internal Warren Commission memo: " At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. ... There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle."

    Test 3:   Controlled Neutron Activation Analysis

                  In order to check the validity of the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts, a controlled test was made. Seven marksmen fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor. The standard paraffin test was administered, and the paraffin casts were subjected to neutron activation analysis. All seven subjects showed substantial amounts of barium and antimony on their hands and more impotantly , on their cheeks.

The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on April 30, 2018, 03:01:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
    Test 1:  Spectrographic Analysis
                 Oswald's paraffin casts were subjected to two analyses. Spectrographic analysis , the method normally used by the police, showed evidence of barium and antimony on Oswald's hands , but not on his cheek .

    Test 2:   Neutron Activation Analysis on Oswald
                 Spectrographic analysis was considered sufficiently reliable for criminal investigations, but in this case a more incisive test was also used. Neutron activation analysis, which is capable of identifying the presence of substances in quantities much to small to be captured by spectrographic analysis, also showed no incriminating quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek. The result was reported in an internal Warren Commission memo: " At best, the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. ... There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle."

    Test 3:   Controlled Neutron Activation Analysis

                  In order to check the validity of the neutron activation analysis of Oswald's paraffin casts, a controlled test was made. Seven marksmen fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor. The standard paraffin test was administered, and the paraffin casts were subjected to neutron activation analysis. All seven subjects showed substantial amounts of barium and antimony on their hands and more impotantly , on their cheeks.

The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.

In 1963: The Paraffin test was known to be essentially worthless. It was prone to false positives and false negatives. It was used to trick naive suspects into giving a confession.

However, you seem to believe in the effectiveness of the paraffin test. Does that mean that you accept that Lee Harvey Oswald fired "a gun" on Friday 22 November 1963? You know... the Smith & Wesson revolver with which he shot Office JD Tippit. The discarded bullet hulls from the gun being found near the crime scene were matched to the weapon to the exclusion of all others.

If not: How do you think Oswald got "nitrates" on his hands on Friday 22 November 1963?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Tony Fratini on April 30, 2018, 03:11:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In 1963: The Paraffin test was known to be essentially worthless. It was prone to false positives and false negatives. It was used to trick naive suspects into giving a confession.

However, you seem to believe in the effectiveness of the paraffin test. Does that mean that you accept that Lee Harvey Oswald fired "a gun" on Friday 22 November 1963? In other words: his Smith & Wesson revolver. You know: the one with which he tried to shoot Officer N.M. McDonald in the Texas Theater.

If not: How do you think Oswald got "nitrates" on his hands on Friday 22 November 1963?

http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2849&context=mulr

"Because oxidizing agents in common use by the public may produce
positive reactions we may say that the Dermal Nitrate Test is specific
for nitrates but non-specific for gunpowder or gunpowder residues"


"Another weakness of the test is that any oxidizing agent, such as
any nitrate, will produce a positive reaction
".

The following non-incriminating
nitrates may be found on the hands of the following persons:
Substance Handled Persons in Contact with Substance
Bleaching agents Launderers and housewives
Chemicals and pharmaceuticals Chemists, engravers, matchworkers,
pharmacists, photographers etc.

Cosmetics Women
Explosives Miners, construction workers
Fertilizers Farmers, gardeners
Firecrackers Boys in particular and people in general
Foodstuffs, certain types Public in general
Tobacco Smokers (potential cancer victims)
Urine People in general
Leguminous plants Farmers and gardeners

As you said - the paraffin test was worthless.

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on April 30, 2018, 08:59:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The absence of significant quantities of residues on Oswald's cheek meant that he almost certainly had not fired a rifle that day.

The lame LN excuse for this is that he scrubbed his face when he was at the rooming house.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 30, 2018, 09:02:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The lame LN excuse for this is that he scrubbed his face when he was at the rooming house.

 But not his hands apparently
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 30, 2018, 09:08:19 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But not his hands apparently

You are pointing at/to the tests afterwards Matt??

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 30, 2018, 10:25:37 PM
 Yes
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Paul Ernst on April 30, 2018, 10:35:30 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes

Matt, The test of his hands proof that he not fired a rifle within 24 hours.

Paul
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on April 30, 2018, 10:47:21 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Matt, The test of his hands proof that he not fried a rifle within 24 hours.

Paul

The Carcano rifle was hot immediately after Lee Harvey Oswald "fired" the three shots that killed President Kennedy. However the rifle was not "fried".
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on April 30, 2018, 10:49:36 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But not his hands apparently
His (Oswald's) hands got nitrates on them when he used his Smith & Wesson revolver to murder Office JD Tippit.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 30, 2018, 10:59:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
His (Oswald's) hands got nitrates on them when he used his Smith & Wesson revolver to murder Office JD Tippit.

 Just barium and antimony which you apparently could get from handling books
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on April 30, 2018, 11:05:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just barium and antimony which you apparently could get from handling books

As I said: In 1963 paraffin tests were essentially worthless.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald do any work on the morning of Friday 22 November 1963? If he didn't, your theory is worthless.

Incidentally, can you prove the books/barium & antimony assertion?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on April 30, 2018, 11:33:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As I said: In 1963 paraffin tests were essentially worthless.

Did Lee Harvey Oswald do any work on the morning of Friday 22 November 1963? If he didn't, your theory is worthless.

Incidentally, can you prove the books/barium & antimony assertion?
Nope It looks like the quote came from the idea that they are relatively ubiquitous Can't find anything to establish what a baseline amount would be for the average non shooter 
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 01, 2018, 12:15:37 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Did Lee Harvey Oswald do any work on the morning of Friday 22 November 1963?

Yes.

Mr. BALL - On the 22d of November 1963, did you see him come to work that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, he was at work when I got there already filling orders.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see Lee Harvey Oswald at any time during that day?
Mr. TRULY. I am almost certain that I saw him early that morning as I came in, and spoke to him.
Mr. BELIN. And where was he when you saw him?
Mr. TRULY. I think he was around the front part of the Scott, Foresman bins.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. TRULY. On the first floor.
Mr. BELIN. Was he filling orders?
Mr. TRULY. Apparently; yes, sir. I don't recall too close. But I am almost certain that I talked to him that morning.

Mr. BALL - Did you talk to Oswald that morning?
Mr. JARMAN - I did.
Mr. BALL - When?
Mr. JARMAN - I had him to correct an order. I don't know exactly what time it was.
Mr. BALL - Oh, approximately. Nine, ten?
Mr. JARMAN - It was around, it was between eight and nine, I would say.

Mr. BALL. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see him?
Mr. NORMAN. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. NORMAN. The first.
Mr. BALL. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right?
Mr. NORMAN. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 02, 2018, 03:05:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
In 1963: The Paraffin test was known to be essentially worthless. It was prone to false positives and false negatives. It was used to trick naive suspects into giving a confession.

However, you seem to believe in the effectiveness of the paraffin test. Does that mean that you accept that Lee Harvey Oswald fired "a gun" on Friday 22 November 1963? You know... the Smith & Wesson revolver with which he shot Office JD Tippit. The discarded bullet hulls from the gun being found near the crime scene were matched to the weapon to the exclusion of all others.

If not: How do you think Oswald got "nitrates" on his hands on Friday 22 November 1963?

So why did they bother to administer it then?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 02, 2018, 03:08:24 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
But not his hands apparently

He scrubbed his face without using his hands I guess. 🤣
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 02, 2018, 03:10:42 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Carcano rifle was hot immediately after Lee Harvey Oswald "fired" the three shots that killed President Kennedy. However the rifle was not "fried".

There isn't evidence showing that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963, let alone LHO fired it.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Mike Orr on May 02, 2018, 03:56:40 AM
In an April 3 [2000] telephone interview with Regh Templin, an expert in firearms and tool mark analysis at the Wisconsin State Crime Lab for over 17 years, Templin stated that there is not now and never was a test to administer on a firearm to give an approximate time period as to when a firearm has been fired.


    mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid1.htm
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 02, 2018, 10:06:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There isn't evidence showing that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963, let alone LHO fired it.
It was just one of my jests. I drew attention to "fried" instead of "fired"... in the original post before a spelling correction. For something to be "fried" it has to be hot.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 03, 2018, 12:37:54 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It was just one of my jests. I drew attention to "fried" instead of "fired"... in the original post before a spelling correction. For something to be "fried" it has to be hot.

Okay...So does it bother you at all that it was never shown that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 03, 2018, 05:01:40 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Okay...So does it bother you at all that it was never shown that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963?

No Rob... it does not bother me (that it was never shown that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963).

In 1963 there was no test available to prove that a rifle was fired recently. There is no test available today that can prove a rifle was fired recently.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Mytton on May 03, 2018, 05:26:09 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
He scrubbed his face without using his hands I guess. 🤣



Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.

1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.



JohnM
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Colin Crow on May 03, 2018, 12:47:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.

1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.



JohnM

His room had washing facilities?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 03, 2018, 06:18:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No Rob... it does not bother me (that it was never shown that CE 139 was fired on November 22, 1963).

In 1963 there was no test available to prove that a rifle was fired recently. There is no test available today that can prove a rifle was fired recently.

Oh please Ross. In movies from the 1930s and 1940s the police smell a gun to see if it has recently been fired. Furthermore, the barrel of a gun shows different residue from one that has not been fired for some time.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Rob Caprio on May 03, 2018, 06:23:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.

1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.



JohnM

Nice yarn. Keep ♼ the same unsupported nonsense. 🙊🙉🙈
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 03, 2018, 11:45:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


Huh? Instead of being wrong all your life try thinking as appropriate to the timeline.

1. Oswald shoots Kennedy.
2. Oswald goes to his room and spends between 3 and 4 minutes getting spruced i.e. washing his face and ready to go to the movies. No nitrates at this point in time.
3. Oswald like a crazed maniac shoots and kills Tippit. Nitrates on hands, the DP said the Nitrate deposits were consistent with firing a revolver.

Isn't story time fun?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 04, 2018, 05:23:58 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh please Ross. In movies from the 1930s and 1940s the police smell a gun to see if it has recently been fired. Furthermore, the barrel of a gun shows different residue from one that has not been fired for some time.

Oh please Rob: You are referring to a movie script. That's not a scientific test. The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?

The expended cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the TSBD were matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD during the assassination. Do we really need an inconclusive test to support that reality?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Gary Craig on May 04, 2018, 04:46:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh please Rob: You are referring to a movie script. That's not a scientific test. The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?

The expended cartridge cases found on the 6th floor of the TSBD were matched to Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD during the assassination. Do we really need an inconclusive test to support that reality?

"The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano"

Actually a 7.65 Mauser was found by Sheriff Department Deputy Boone. The crime scene

was turned over to the (DPD) Dallas Police Department almost immediately. The rifle later became Ozzie's

Carcano.


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

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765m001.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 04, 2018, 10:12:08 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Oh please Rob: You are referring to a movie script. That's not a scientific test. The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?

Just saying "Oswald's Carcano rifle" over and over again doesn't actually make it true.

Quote
Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD during the assassination.

Oh really?  Name them.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 04, 2018, 10:19:41 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano"

Actually a 7.65 Mauser was found by Sheriff Department Deputy Boone. The crime scene

was turned over to the (DPD) Dallas Police Department almost immediately. The rifle later became Ozzie's

Carcano.


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

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765m001.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)

You are quoting an error caused by Deputy Sheriff Boone's cursory "look" at the rifle before it was examined. Boone later admitted his error: he assumed the rifle was a "Mauser" based on the bolt-action.

Like every other amateur attorney: you have no interest in explaining the whys and wherefores of the Mauser theory. Even the most obvious, rudimentary questions are never asked.

-- Was the German Mauser used to make the assassination shots?

-- Where is the ballistics evidence that links a German Mauser to the assassination shots?

-- Why was  Oswald's Carcano unavailable to make the assassination shots?

-- How did Oswald's Italian Carcano appear very soon after the Boone "find" for Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day to examine the rifle?

-- Were Fritz and day part of a conspiracy to murder JFK? Before the fact? After the fact?

Well Mister defense attorney?????


Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 04, 2018, 10:22:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Just saying "Oswald's Carcano rifle" over and over again doesn't actually make it true.

Oh really?  Name them.

-- Howard Brennan (the rifle and the shooter)
-- Amos Euins (the rifle)
-- Bob Jackson (the rifle)
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 04, 2018, 10:24:16 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?

 Why did it take 45 minutes to find it?

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 04, 2018, 10:45:12 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
-- Howard Brennan (the rifle and the shooter)
-- Amos Euins (the rifle)
-- Bob Jackson (the rifle)

Hang on.  Didn't you just say that "Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 04, 2018, 11:12:27 PM
The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD 45 minutes after the assassination. Would the smell test have been of any use?

 Why did it take 45 minutes to find it


The police sealed the building about 15 minutes after the assassination. The police proceeded to conduct a floor by floor search. I assume they went up to the 6th floor in the freight elevator. The rifle was hidden between some boxes near the entry to the 6th floor stairs.

Law enforcement found the rifle when they found it. Do you consider it suspicious that they did not find the rifle sooner?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 04, 2018, 11:16:06 PM
 Yes if we are to believe all the reports identifying the snipers nest
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 04, 2018, 11:49:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hang on.  Didn't you just say that "Several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"

Splitting hairs John. Rifles don't fire themselves.

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Paul Ernst on May 04, 2018, 11:51:43 PM
Normally if you do a (police) search you start not at the end but at the beginning of the entrance of the floor!!!

And there was a rifle!!!!


 8)
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 04, 2018, 11:55:22 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Splitting hairs John. Rifles don't fire themselves.

Seeing a rifle or some kind of pipe-like projection is not the same as seeing that projection being fired.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 05, 2018, 05:33:35 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Seeing a rifle or some kind of pipe-like projection is not the same as seeing that projection being fired.

Splitting hairs John... and then splitting them again!!!

So what do you think Amos Euins saw... a pipe or a rifle?

So what do you think Bob Jackson saw... a pipe or a rifle?




Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 05, 2018, 05:35:23 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes if we are to believe all the reports identifying the snipers nest

What reports?

What is it about these reports that concern you... specifically?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 05, 2018, 05:36:28 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yes if we are to believe all the reports identifying the snipers nest

The Carcano rifle was not found in the sniper's nest.

The Carcano rifle was not left in the sniper's nest.

Neither was a Mauser!!!
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 05, 2018, 03:46:09 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Carcano rifle was not found in the sniper's nest.

The Carcano rifle was not left in the sniper's nest.

Neither was a Mauser!!!

 I did not said it was left in the snipers nest How far away was it?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 05, 2018, 03:55:05 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"The Dallas Police found Oswald's Carcano"

Actually a 7.65 Mauser was found by Sheriff Department Deputy Boone. The crime scene

was turned over to the (DPD) Dallas Police Department almost immediately. The rifle later became Ozzie's

Carcano.


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

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/boone765m001.jpg)

(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/0433-001.jpg)

There was no 7.65 Mauser found on the sixth floor at about 1:22 that afternoon.....The rifle that Boone saw a small portion of the butt of ...was a Mannlicher Carcano.

Any serious student who is searching for the truth is handcuffing himself by believing the mauser nonsense.....

This tale has become interwoven with the facts of the case and there's probably no way to remove the idea from the legend.....  A pity.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 05, 2018, 04:55:44 PM
 If I understand you Walt you feel that Mauser was never found first? I have no opinion though I now there was a picture of the original gun that was being called a Mauser. I assume that photograph can be shown to be off the MC?

The second part is not really addressed to you, but if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 05, 2018, 05:19:07 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If I understand you Walt you feel that Mauser was never found first? I have no opinion though I now there was a picture of the original gun that was being called a Mauser. I assume that photograph can be shown to be off the MC?

The second part is not really addressed to you, but if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?

if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?

You're exactly right in your choice of words describing the way the carcano was found ....the rifle was found neatly tucked beneath boxes of books stacked on the pallet.  It was NOT hastily discarded by any fleeing person....

"if the rifle was found neatly tucked in the opposite corner of the sixth floor from the SN doesn't that increase the time it would have taken Oswald to get to the lunchroom?"

Absolutely right!!    IF? IF ? Lee had been on the sixth floor ( he wasn't)  at the SE corner window with that carcano at the time of the shooting...He could not have hidden the rifle in the manner it was hidden and reached the lunchroom in 75 seconds.....
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 05, 2018, 05:43:34 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are quoting an error caused by Deputy Sheriff Boone's cursory "look" at the rifle before it was examined. Boone later admitted his error: he assumed the rifle was a "Mauser" based on the bolt-action.

Like every other amateur attorney: you have no interest in explaining the whys and wherefores of the Mauser theory. Even the most obvious, rudimentary questions are never asked.

-- Was the German Mauser used to make the assassination shots?

-- Where is the ballistics evidence that links a German Mauser to the assassination shots?

-- Why was  Oswald's Carcano unavailable to make the assassination shots?

-- How did Oswald's Italian Carcano appear very soon after the Boone "find" for Captain Fritz and Lieutenant Day to examine the rifle?

-- Were Fritz and day part of a conspiracy to murder JFK? Before the fact? After the fact?

Well Mister defense attorney?????

You are quoting an error caused by Deputy Sheriff Boone's cursory "look" at the rifle before it was examined. Boone later admitted his error: he assumed the rifle was a "Mauser" based on the bolt-action.

This is a fact!.......


Were Fritz and day part of a conspiracy to murder JFK? Before the fact? After the fact?

I believe that Fritz was a key component in the coup d e'tat......   Day was his hand puppet.....
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Mike Orr on May 05, 2018, 08:52:41 PM
      Boone says on his supplementary Investigation report on Nov. 22nd that the rifle appears to be a 7.65mm  Mauser.

       Seymour Weitzman says this rifle was a 7.65 bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope.

        We know that Roger Craig said that stamped on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser which , Fritz and Weitzman and Craig all saw the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel and Weitzman says it is a Mauser as he pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.
         What happened to the bullet that was ejected out of the Mauser when the rifle was found?
         As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher  Carcano . The shell casings found in the shooters nest were for a 6.5 rifle and as Craig said the two don't match . That is the 6.5 shell casings and the 7.65 Mauser don't relate to each other . If Craig had made a mistake , he would have owned up to it , but Craig , Weitzman and Fritz all looked at the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel at to which point , Weitzman said as he pointed to the writing on the barrel , "it is a Mauser" !  When you look at it having two things that don't add up , like the 7.65 Mauser and the 6.5 shells at the nest , then you can put together 2 shooters in one area . That's a conspiracy within itself.  You tube--JFK murder cop & hero Roger Craig tells it all
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 05, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      Boone says on his supplementary Investigation report on Nov. 22nd that the rifle appears to be a 7.65mm  Mauser.

       Seymour Weitzman says this rifle was a 7.65 bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope.

        We know that Roger Craig said that stamped on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser which , Fritz and Weitzman and Craig all saw the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel and Weitzman says it is a Mauser as he pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.
         What happened to the bullet that was ejected out of the Mauser when the rifle was found?
         As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher  Carcano . The shell casings found in the shooters nest were for a 6.5 rifle and as Craig said the two don't match . That is the 6.5 shell casings and the 7.65 Mauser don't relate to each other . If Craig had made a mistake , he would have owned up to it , but Craig , Weitzman and Fritz all looked at the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel at to which point , Weitzman said as he pointed to the writing on the barrel , "it is a Mauser" !  When you look at it having two things that don't add up , like the 7.65 Mauser and the 6.5 shells at the nest , then you can put together 2 shooters in one area . That's a conspiracy within itself.  You tube--JFK murder cop & hero Roger Craig tells it all

 Mike do you know off hand if there was corroboration that Craig was there
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 05, 2018, 10:13:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mike do you know off hand if there was corroboration that Craig was there
Roger Craig was there on the sixth floor at the time the Carcano was found where it had been carefully hidden beneath boxes of books.  And the site where it had been carefully hidden was out of reach from the aisle at the top of the stairs.

The conspirators in the DPD didn't have to move the site very far to the north to make it feasible for a fleeing person to deposit the rifle as they fled .....but the fact is they DID move the site about two feet closer to the aisle where they claimed the arch villain Lee Harrrrvey Ossssswald ( BOOOOO HISSS )ran by and tossed the rifle as he fled.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Gary Craig on May 06, 2018, 02:51:45 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There was no 7.65 Mauser found on the sixth floor at about 1:22 that afternoon.....The rifle that Boone saw a small portion of the butt of ...was a Mannlicher Carcano.

Any serious student who is searching for the truth is handcuffing himself by believing the mauser nonsense.....

This tale has become interwoven with the facts of the case and there's probably no way to remove the idea from the legend.....  A pity.

Regardless of what one believes was found there is a first day record of affidavits and LE reports clearly

stating a 7.65 Mauser was found. The farther away from an event you get the less accurate are the

accounts and recollections of what happened.

Pulling the "any serious researcher" BS out of your arse to defend your point is a tactic usually reserved

for bottom feeding LNers.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 06, 2018, 04:14:48 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
      Boone says on his supplementary Investigation report on Nov. 22nd that the rifle appears to be a 7.65mm  Mauser.

       Seymour Weitzman says this rifle was a 7.65 bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope.

        We know that Roger Craig said that stamped on the barrel was 7.65 Mauser which , Fritz and Weitzman and Craig all saw the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel and Weitzman says it is a Mauser as he pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.
         What happened to the bullet that was ejected out of the Mauser when the rifle was found?
         As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher  Carcano . The shell casings found in the shooters nest were for a 6.5 rifle and as Craig said the two don't match . That is the 6.5 shell casings and the 7.65 Mauser don't relate to each other . If Craig had made a mistake , he would have owned up to it , but Craig , Weitzman and Fritz all looked at the 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel at to which point , Weitzman said as he pointed to the writing on the barrel , "it is a Mauser" !  When you look at it having two things that don't add up , like the 7.65 Mauser and the 6.5 shells at the nest , then you can put together 2 shooters in one area . That's a conspiracy within itself.  You tube--JFK murder cop & hero Roger Craig tells it all

As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano .

Anybody with at least one good eye can see for themselves that the rifle that was found by deputy Boone where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano.   There are dozens of photos that prove the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Caqrcano 

Unfortunately Roger Craig had a mental problem....   He could never admit that he was wrong....  So rather than admit he was in error he would embellish his stance in an effort to make his tale more convincing.

It is a fact that Roger Craig was never close enough to the carcano on the sixth floor to allow him to see "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 mauser"...   That's simply a damned lie.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 06, 2018, 06:44:06 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
As we know Roger Craig was ostracized by the police dept. and was kept from getting jobs and it was said that he took his own life , all because he stuck to his story that there was a 7.65 Mauser found and not a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano .

Anybody with at least one good eye can see for themselves that the rifle that was found by deputy Boone where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN was in fact a Mannlicher Carcano.   There are dozens of photos that prove the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Caqrcano 

Unfortunately Roger Craig had a mental problem....   He could never admit that he was wrong....  So rather than admit he was in error he would embellish his stance in an effort to make his tale more convincing.

It is a fact that Roger Craig was never close enough to the carcano on the sixth floor to allow him to see "stamped right there on the barrel was 7.65 mauser"...   That's simply a damned lie.

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle? Who would have known that a Mauser was 7.65mm caliber? You sound like a LNer who claims Roger Craig's mental problems caused him to pull 7.65 out of his keister. Why is that more likely than the DPD screwing up and finding the Mauser by accident? Because if any shots came from the TSBD it would have come from a rifle that was sighted in, unlike the MC, which wasn't even shot.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 06, 2018, 11:32:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle? Who would have known that a Mauser was 7.65mm caliber? You sound like a LNer who claims Roger Craig's mental problems caused him to pull 7.65 out of his keister. Why is that more likely than the DPD screwing up and finding the Mauser by accident? Because if any shots came from the TSBD it would have come from a rifle that was sighted in, unlike the MC, which wasn't even shot.

The Argentine Mauser was designed to fire the 7.65 cartridge ......Thus the Argentine mauser is commonly referred to as a 7.65 mauser....  The Argentine mauser and the model 91/38 mannlicher carcano look similar.

Seymour weitzman simply made the mistake of misidentifying the carcano as a 7.65 mauser......It's as simply as that.

Weitzman realized that he had made a mistake and admitted it......  Roger Craig couldn't bear the embarrassment of being wrong....so he lied and embellished the tale.....
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 06, 2018, 11:53:31 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Argentine Mauser was designed to fire the 7.65 cartridge ......Thus the Argentine mauser is commonly referred to as a 7.65 mauser....  The Argentine mauser and the model 91/38 mannlicher carcano look similar.

Seymour weitzman simply made the mistake of misidentifying the carcano as a 7.65 mauser......It's as simply as that.

Weitzman realized that he had made a mistake and admitted it......  Roger Craig couldn't bear the embarrassment of being wrong....so he lied and embellished the tale.....

 Walt I am open to this question, but it did not seem like you answered this

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle?

 
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 07, 2018, 12:26:08 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Walt I am open to this question, but it did not seem like you answered this

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle?


The Argentine mauser resembles a model 91/38 carcano... At first glance it's easy to mistake the Argentine mauser ( also known as a 7.65 mauser)...because the carcano and the 7.65 ( Argentine) mauser do look similar.      Just as a deer hunting rifle is often called a "high powered rifle".... the Argentine is often called a 7.65 mauser.....

Nobody read 7.65 stamped on the Carcano....Weitzman simply referred to the rifle that he could only see a mall portion of as a 7.65 mauser ( meaning an Argentine mauser ...same thing just different way to identify the gun) 

Later Weitzman recognized that he was in error and admitted it.....But Roger Craig wouldn't back off....Craig didn't know the 7.65 ( Argentine) mauser from a 03 Springfield ....but he respected Weitzman's first erroneous identification and believed that was what they had found... Craig was wrong....and a pathetic mental case.         
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Denis Pointing on May 07, 2018, 01:16:14 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Unfortunately Roger Craig had a mental problem....   He could never admit that he was wrong....  So rather than admit he was in error he would embellish his stance in an effort to make his tale more convincing.

Hmn, kinda reminds me of someone else..not sure who. lol

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 07, 2018, 01:30:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Hmn, kinda reminds me of someone else..not sure who. lol

An intelligent and wise man readily admits that he is wrong when in fact he is in error.   Admitting to being being wrong is the mark of a wise man, for no human is ever always right.   

A man who cannot admit an error is a fool.....
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 07, 2018, 01:24:55 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Walt I am open to this question, but it did not seem like you answered this

Then where did the witnesses get the "7.65" part if they didn't read it off the rifle?

Do you now understand ?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 10, 2018, 10:00:11 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Splitting hairs John... and then splitting them again!!!

So what do you think Amos Euins saw... a pipe or a rifle?

So what do you think Bob Jackson saw... a pipe or a rifle?

It's not splitting hairs.  You claimed that "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  That's just flat out false.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 10, 2018, 10:04:51 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An intelligent and wise man readily admits that he is wrong when in fact he is in error.   Admitting to being being wrong is the mark of a wise man, for no human is ever always right.   

A man who cannot admit an error is a fool.....

You mean like admitting your error about "red signal rings"?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 10, 2018, 10:15:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Do you now understand ?

 Walt Yes thank you I assume close comparisons were done on the original police photo of what they called a Mauser and no expert has been able to prove it was such a Mauser?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 10, 2018, 11:56:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not splitting hairs.  You claimed that "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  That's just flat out false.

John,

Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.

-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial... in this debate.

-- Amos Euins saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

-- Bob Jackson saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.

You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?

Note: I addressed the matter of "man or woman" because I anticipated more hair-splitting from you. Something like: "It could have been a woman shooter... you lied!!!".
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 11, 2018, 12:13:41 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John,

Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.

-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial--in this debate)

-- Amos Euins saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

-- Bob Jackson saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.

You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?

Note: I addressed the matter of "man or woman" because I anticipated more hair-splitting from you. Something like: "It could have been a woman shooter... you lied!!!".

 Maybe it is just me but if I see a gun in a window I don't take my eyes off of him
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 01:04:34 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John,

Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.

Please, Ross.  These people either saw a man firing a rifle or they did not.  Why do you need to embellish the evidence to make your arguments?

Quote
-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial... in this debate)

Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.

Quote
Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.

That's lying with vague statistics.  Two words:  Squeaky Fromme.

Quote
You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?

No, you're making claims that aren't true and trying to rationalize it with rhetoric -- which is pretty much par for the entire case against Oswald.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 01:05:56 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Maybe it is just me but if I see a gun in a window I don't take my eyes off of him

Brennan somehow managed to see the shooter fire the rifle and see JFK's head explode nearly simultaneously.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Tony Fratini on May 11, 2018, 03:08:53 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brennan somehow managed to see the shooter fire the rifle and see JFK's head explode nearly simultaneously.

Brennan didn't see the Presidential Limousine down Elm street from where he was sitting when the firing took place.

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:

"I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion."

WC testimony

Mr. DULLES. Could you see who or what he was aiming at? You testified as to the declination of the rifle, the angle of the rifle. But could you see what he was firing at?
Mr. BRENNAN. Subconsciously I knew what he was firing at. But immediately I looked towards where President Kennedy's car should be, and there was something obstructing my view. I could not see the President or his car at that time.
And I still don't know what was obstructing my view, because I was high enough that I should have been able to see it. I could not see it.


Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Gary Craig on May 11, 2018, 03:47:00 PM
The Warren Commission’s Case Against Oswald
By Leo Sauvage
The New Leader, 22 November 1965, pages 16–21

"...Howard L. Brennan—one of the Commission’s star witnesses, along with Marina Oswald and Helen
 Markham—was presented as an apparent discovery of the Commission.

Yet Brennan’s statements had appeared in the press from the start of the investigation in Dallas.

Nobody at that time took him seriously, and it was necessary to await the Warren Report to learn
that “Howard L. Brennan made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.”

Leafing back in the Report to the chapter on “The Assassin,” and its section titled “Eyewitness
Identification of Assassin,” we learn that “Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots,” while the Report is obliged to recognize that “the half-open window, the
arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position.”

The conclusion of the Commission is that Brennan was mistaken in saying that the man was standing,
but not mistaken in identifying (from the sidewalk opposite the building) the man sitting behind a
half-open sixth-floor window..."

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Matt Grantham on May 11, 2018, 04:08:17 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The Warren Commission’s Case Against Oswald
By Leo Sauvage
The New Leader, 22 November 1965, pages 16–21

"...Howard L. Brennan—one of the Commission’s star witnesses, along with Marina Oswald and Helen
 Markham—was presented as an apparent discovery of the Commission.

Yet Brennan’s statements had appeared in the press from the start of the investigation in Dallas.

Nobody at that time took him seriously, and it was necessary to await the Warren Report to learn
that “Howard L. Brennan made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.”

Leafing back in the Report to the chapter on “The Assassin,” and its section titled “Eyewitness
Identification of Assassin,” we learn that “Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots,” while the Report is obliged to recognize that “the half-open window, the
arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position.”

The conclusion of the Commission is that Brennan was mistaken in saying that the man was standing,
but not mistaken in identifying (from the sidewalk opposite the building) the man sitting behind a
half-open sixth-floor window..."



 I am a little unclear on the last paragraph The WC is just asserting that the man was half sitting and ignoring the discrepancy while still ascribing the complete significance of a reliable ID of Oswald? Sounds about right
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 06:49:47 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Mr. BRENNAN. Subconsciously I knew what he was firing at. But immediately I looked towards where President Kennedy's car should be, and there was something obstructing my view. I could not see the President or his car at that time.

By the time the serial embellisher wrote his book, that changed.

Simultaneous with the third shot, I swung my eyes back to the Presidential car which had moved on down to my left on Elm, and I saw a sight that made my whole being sink in despair. A spray of red came from around the President’s head. I knew the bullet had struck its intended target.

Another strange coincidence:  Brennan just happened to think the exact same words that John Connally said.

I saw Governor John Connally reacting to being wounded and the instinctive response of his wife to try and help him. I remember thinking, “Oh my God! He’s going to kill them, he’s going to kill them all!” The immensity and horror of what I was witnessing almost overwhelmed me. I wanted to cry, I wanted to scream, but I couldn’t utter a sound. I could only watch the whole monstrous drama unfold.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Tony Fratini on May 11, 2018, 10:16:18 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
By the time the serial embellisher wrote his book, that changed.

Simultaneous with the third shot, I swung my eyes back to the Presidential car which had moved on down to my left on Elm, and I saw a sight that made my whole being sink in despair. A spray of red came from around the President’s head. I knew the bullet had struck its intended target.

Another strange coincidence:  Brennan just happened to think the exact same words that John Connally said.

I saw Governor John Connally reacting to being wounded and the instinctive response of his wife to try and help him. I remember thinking, “Oh my God! He’s going to kill them, he’s going to kill them all!” The immensity and horror of what I was witnessing almost overwhelmed me. I wanted to cry, I wanted to scream, but I couldn’t utter a sound. I could only watch the whole monstrous drama unfold.

Simply disgraceful. I believe his book was published after he passed away so it is difficult to determine if he actually wrote that or a ghost writer.

Just have a read of DVP's review of his book

https://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-History-Kennedy-Assassination-Brennan/dp/0872440761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526072429&sr=8-1&keywords=Howard+Brennan

Keep in mind the difference in the way the WC treated Brennan in comparison to Rowland.

If Rowland was able to ID the gunman as LHO he would have been THE star witness for the WC. We all know how it ended up.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 11, 2018, 10:25:04 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 I am a little unclear on the last paragraph The WC is just asserting that the man was half sitting and ignoring the discrepancy while still ascribing the complete significance of a reliable ID of Oswald? Sounds about right

LBJ's Special Select Cover Up committee (aka The Warren Commission) knew full well that Howard Brennan was a key witness who had to be discredited...and those of you who sneer at Howard Brennan are playing right into the WC hands, just as they planned.

Howard Brennan had gave a a sworn affidavit about an hour after the coup d e'tat and in that affidavit he reported that the man he had seen with a "HIGH POWERED RIFLE"  ( aka hunting rifle) not an old military rifle, and the man was dressed in light colored khaki clothing.   Lee Oswald didn't even own any light colored khaki clothing.....and he certainly didn't own a big game hunting rifle.   

On that basis alone LBJ's cover up committe needed to discredut Howard Brennan....but in addition to Brennan describing a man who clearly was NOT Lee Oswald ...He also described the man as STANDING and aiming the hunting rifle ( He thought it could have been a 30-30 Winchester) out of a window that could NOT have been the SE corner window.....because that SE window was not open far enought tp allow a man to stand behind it and aim a rifle down onto Elm street.   
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Tony Fratini on May 11, 2018, 10:36:14 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 I am a little unclear on the last paragraph The WC is just asserting that the man was half sitting and ignoring the discrepancy while still ascribing the complete significance of a reliable ID of Oswald? Sounds about right

The WC NEEDED someone, anyone, to ID the gunman as LHO. Hence the critical importance of Brennan. So, if he was EVENTUALLY able to make a positive ID, when Lee was stone cold dead, it meant the WC was able to bypass every issue of the found evidence. In their thinking, Lee was the assassin, and hence he brought in CE 139 in CE 142, fired the weapon, then ran down the NW stairwell and ended up in the second floor lunch room. What was the problem? No one saw Lee do any of those things.
Brennan saw somone stick a rifle out the window. He didn't even see the rifle discharge.
His description of the gunman would of fitted half the men in Dallas. At least he told the truth at the line up. Then, the back peddling commenced.

Shameful.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 11, 2018, 10:51:28 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Simply disgraceful. I believe his book was published after he passed away so it is difficult to determine if he actually wrote that or a ghost writer.

Just have a read of DVP's review of his book

https://www.amazon.com/Eyewitness-History-Kennedy-Assassination-Brennan/dp/0872440761/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526072429&sr=8-1&keywords=Howard+Brennan

Keep in mind the difference in the way the WC treated Brennan in comparison to Rowland.

If Rowland was able to ID the gunman as LHO he would have been THE star witness for the WC. We all know how it ended up.

LOL, DVP exaggerates almost as much as Brennan!
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 11, 2018, 11:47:25 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WC NEEDED someone, anyone, to ID the gunman as LHO. Hence the critical importance of Brennan. So, if he was EVENTUALLY able to make a positive ID, when Lee was stone cold dead, it meant the WC was able to bypass every issue of the found evidence. In their thinking, Lee was the assassin, and hence he brought in CE 139 in CE 142, fired the weapon, then ran down the NW stairwell and ended up in the second floor lunch room. What was the problem? No one saw Lee do any of those things.
Brennan saw somone stick a rifle out the window. He didn't even see the rifle discharge.
His description of the gunman would of fitted half the men in Dallas. At least he told the truth at the line up. Then, the back peddling commenced.

Shameful.

The WC NEEDED someone, anyone, to ID the gunman as LHO. Hence the critical importance of Brennan. So, if he was EVENTUALLY able to make a positive ID, when Lee was stone cold dead,

Initially Brennan REFUSED to cooperate with the DPD when they insisted that it was Lee Oswald that he saw with a rifle behind a TSBD window.  But after the DPD warned him ( threatened)  that he had been seen on TV and his name and address given and therefore the commies who were part of Lee Oswald's band of commies might harm his family if he didn't keep his mouth shut....and it would be prudent for him to ID Lee Oswald and keep him in jail.  Then Brennan saw Lee oswald shot to death while being escorted by the very cops who he had informed that the man with the rifle that he saw was NOT present in the line up....that's when Brennan came to realize that he and his family  were in serious danger....
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Tony Fratini on May 11, 2018, 11:51:42 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
LOL, DVP exaggerates almost as much as Brennan!

When a CTer does the same - it is called "cherry picking", when a LNer does it, it is called "enhancement"  ;D
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Tony Fratini on May 12, 2018, 12:05:43 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
The WC NEEDED someone, anyone, to ID the gunman as LHO. Hence the critical importance of Brennan. So, if he was EVENTUALLY able to make a positive ID, when Lee was stone cold dead,

Initially Brennan REFUSED to cooperate with the DPD when they insisted that it was Lee Oswald that he saw with a rifle behind a TSBD window.  But after the DPD warned him ( threatened)  that he had been seen on TV and his name and address given and therefore the commies who were part of Lee Oswald's band of commies might harm his family if he didn't keep his mouth shut....and it would be prudent for him to ID Lee Oswald and keep him in jail.  Then Brennan saw Lee oswald shot to death while being escorted by the very cops who he had informed that the man with the rifle that he saw was NOT present in the line up....that's when Brennan came to realize that he and his family  were in serious danger....

Walt,

Howard was in a terrible position - damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

However, once committed, he had to carry the consequences. Did he seriously think a "Commie Conspiracy" was suddenly going to disappear once Lee was murdered in front of ~70 Law enforcement Officers on National TV?

I actually feel very sorry for him.

"Brennan, however, turned out to be unreliable and unhelpful. He claimed that the gunman had been standing up when firing, although the half– open window required any gunman to have crouched or kneeled. He claimed to have seen the gunman’s trousers, which would not have been visible from Brennan’s viewpoint on the street 60 feet or 18 metres below. When asked whether he had actually seen the firing of the rifle, he replied, “No.” He claimed that on hearing the first shot, “I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.” Brennan’s reaction to the first shot is visible on the Zapruder film: standing directly opposite the sixth– floor window, he watches Kennedy’s car go past him to his left, then from about frame 204 he in fact turns his head sharply to his right, away from the TSBD, rather than up toward the sixth floor. He attended a line– up on the day of the assassination, but “said he was unable to make a positive identification,” despite already having seen Oswald’s picture on television. A few weeks later, his memory improved and he informed the FBI that he could identify Oswald. The next month, he changed his mind again and “appeared to revert to his earlier inability to make a positive identification.” In the absence of any other plausible candidates, the Commission nominated Brennan as the source of the Dallas police radio despatcher’s description of the gunman, but his limited credibility as a witness raises uncomfortable questions about the actual source. The House Select Committee on Assassinations declined to use Howard Brennan’s testimony. 18

Bojczuk, Jeremy. 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination (Kindle Locations 422-435). Boxgrove Publishing. Kindle Edition.

What did the WR say?

Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive identification of Oswald when he first saw him in the police lineup. 286 The Commission, therefore, does not base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire the rifle. Immediately after the assassination, however, Brennan described to the police the man he saw in the window and then identified Oswald as the person who most nearly resembled the man he saw. The Commission is satisfied that, at the least, Brennan saw a man in the window who closely resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, and that Brennan believes the man he saw was in fact Lee Harvey Oswald.

Commission, Warren; House Select Committee on Assassinations; Assassination Records Review Board; U.S. Government. Complete Guide to the 1963 JFK Assassination: The Full Text of Three Major Reports - Warren Commission, House Select Committee, and the Assassination Records Review Board - President John F. Kennedy (Kindle Locations 2690-2695). Progressive Management. Kindle Edition.

Maybe Brennan saw Michael Paine?  ;D

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e0jwh2.jpg)

or this guy?

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Walt Cakebread on May 12, 2018, 12:57:20 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Walt,

Howard was in a terrible position - damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

However, once committed, he had to carry the consequences. Did he seriously think a "Commie Conspiracy" was suddenly going to disappear once Lee was murdered in front of ~70 Law enforcement Officers on National TV?

I actually feel very sorry for him.

"Brennan, however, turned out to be unreliable and unhelpful. He claimed that the gunman had been standing up when firing, although the half– open window required any gunman to have crouched or kneeled. He claimed to have seen the gunman’s trousers, which would not have been visible from Brennan’s viewpoint on the street 60 feet or 18 metres below. When asked whether he had actually seen the firing of the rifle, he replied, “No.” He claimed that on hearing the first shot, “I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.” Brennan’s reaction to the first shot is visible on the Zapruder film: standing directly opposite the sixth– floor window, he watches Kennedy’s car go past him to his left, then from about frame 204 he in fact turns his head sharply to his right, away from the TSBD, rather than up toward the sixth floor. He attended a line– up on the day of the assassination, but “said he was unable to make a positive identification,” despite already having seen Oswald’s picture on television. A few weeks later, his memory improved and he informed the FBI that he could identify Oswald. The next month, he changed his mind again and “appeared to revert to his earlier inability to make a positive identification.” In the absence of any other plausible candidates, the Commission nominated Brennan as the source of the Dallas police radio despatcher’s description of the gunman, but his limited credibility as a witness raises uncomfortable questions about the actual source. The House Select Committee on Assassinations declined to use Howard Brennan’s testimony. 18

Bojczuk, Jeremy. 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination (Kindle Locations 422-435). Boxgrove Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Thank you for taking the time to write and present your views.....It makes it a bit easier to debate and discuss your views.

I actually feel very sorry for him.

At one time I too felt sorry for Brennan...... But I no longer pity him because he capitulated to the authorities and decided to fatten his banlkaccount by allowing his name as the author for a book that is a pack of lies.

"Brennan, however, turned out to be unreliable and unhelpful.

Not if you adhere to his sworn affidavit for 11/22/63...... That affidavit is the truth.......

 He claimed that the gunman had been standing up when firing, although the half– open window required any gunman to have crouched or kneeled.

Brennan was NOT referring to the half open window at the SE corner....  and he clarified that he saw the man behind that SE window BEFORE the motorcade arrived.

He claimed to have seen the gunman’s trousers, which would not have been visible from Brennan’s viewpoint on the street 60 feet or 18 metres below.

Brennan saw the man in the light colored khaki clothing on several occasions BEFORE the motorcade arrived....and he saw him STANDING behind a window during the shooting  So who knows at what pint he saw the mans trousers.  However He DID see them and reported that the trousers were nearly white....Lee's trousers were dark gray.

When asked whether he had actually seen the firing of the rifle, he replied, “No.” He claimed that on hearing the first shot, “I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.”

I believe that trying to pinpoint things like the actual firing of the rifle are beyond debating....Who could remember exactly what happened at a precise moment during the event??  It not reasonable.   Brennan simply didn't know if he saw the rifle being fired...he said that he saw the man "aiming"   It's very common for a rifleman to use the rifle scope as a aid for observing something in the distance....  and I suspect that is what Brennan witnessed.


Brennan’s reaction to the first shot is visible on the Zapruder film: standing directly opposite the sixth– floor window, he watches Kennedy’s car go past him to his left, then from about frame 204 he in fact turns his head sharply to his right, away from the TSBD, rather than up toward the sixth floor.

Tony we're talking about mere seconds .......I doubt that anybody could pinpoint the exact second that something happened..... incidentally .....I doubt the Z film is accurate.   It's tainted....

He attended a line– up on the day of the assassination, but “said he was unable to make a positive identification,” despite already having seen Oswald’s picture on television.

That's correct as far as it goes.....   But the confrontation with the DPD was far more than a simple inability to be able to identify Lee Oswald as the man in the window....  Brennan told them that Lee Oswald WAS NOT the man.....(Brennan knew that before he went to the line up because he'd seen Lee on TV and knew that lee was not the man that he'd seen.)   The police tried to twist his arm and threaten him into putting the finger on Lee but he refused....The police became frustrated and wanted to know how he could be so certain that Lee wasn't the man and Brennan told them he knew that Lee was not the man because the man was dressed differently than Lee Oswald.   He said the man that he saw was wearing light colored khaki clothing but definitely not a suit.  The cops then told Brennan that Lee had gone home and changed his clothes...which was true ...but what the cops didn' ell Brennan was the fact that the clothes they had recovered wer NOT ligh colored khaki clothes.

A few weeks later, his memory improved and he informed the FBI that he could identify Oswald.

Yes that's true.....Funny how something like seeing the man that Brennan knew was being railroaded being shot down in cold blood while being escorted by the very men who he had argued with about the identity of the TSBD gunman....can cause an honest man to change his mind.


The next month, he changed his mind again and “appeared to revert to his earlier inability to make a positive identification.” In the absence of any other plausible candidates, the Commission nominated Brennan as the source of the Dallas police radio despatcher’s description of the gunman, but his limited credibility as a witness raises uncomfortable questions about the actual source. The House Select Committee on Assassinations declined to use Howard Brennan’s testimony. 18
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 13, 2018, 11:43:53 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Please, Ross.  These people either saw a man firing a rifle or they did not.  Why do you need to embellish the evidence to make your arguments?

Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.

That's lying with vague statistics.  Two words:  Squeaky Fromme.

No, you're making claims that aren't true and trying to rationalize it with rhetoric -- which is pretty much par for the entire case against Oswald.

Still with the hair-splitting John!!!

You reveal a lack of "an honest search for the truth" in your absurd ripostes. There is a difference between a description that does not fit your idea of accuracy and intentionally making a deceitful statement.

Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.

Brennan saw a man shooting. He provided a description to law enforcement in Dealey Plaza.

That's lying with vague statistics.  Two words:  Squeaky Fromme.


My statement about people assuming that an assassin would most likely be a man mentioned women circa 1963. The evil Ms Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975--more than a decade later than '63. Really John: you must be more accurate in your statements or people will accuse you of lying.

The fact is: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins and Bob Jackson saw "someone" shooting a rifle from an upper floor of the TSBD.

-- Brennan described a man.
-- Euins thought it was man.
-- Jackson would have assumed it was man*.

* All previous assassins (and those whom attempted assassinations) of US Presidents were men. Assassinating US President's was a "man" thing.

Man-up John and admit you are wrong.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 14, 2018, 11:28:37 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brennan told them that Lee Oswald WAS NOT the man.....(Brennan knew that before he went to the line up because he'd seen Lee on TV and knew that lee was not the man that he'd seen.)   The police tried to twist his arm and threaten him into putting the finger on Lee but he refused....The police became frustrated and wanted to know how he could be so certain that Lee wasn't the man and Brennan told them he knew that Lee was not the man because the man was dressed differently than Lee Oswald.   He said the man that he saw was wearing light colored khaki clothing but definitely not a suit.  The cops then told Brennan that Lee had gone home and changed his clothes...which was true ...but what the cops didn' ell Brennan was the fact that the clothes they had recovered wer NOT ligh colored khaki clothes.

Cool story, bro.

Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 14, 2018, 11:36:57 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Still with the hair-splitting John!!!

You reveal a lack of "an honest search for the truth" in your absurd ripostes. There is a difference between a description that does not fit your idea of accuracy and intentionally making a deceitful statement.

Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.

Brennan saw a man shooting. He provided a description to law enforcement in Dealey Plaza.

No he didn't.  He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle.  Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.

Quote
My statement about people assuming that an assassin would most likely be a man mentioned women circa 1963.
The evil Ms Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975--more than a decade later than '63. Really John: you must be more accurate in your statements or people will accuse you of lying.

Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz?  It doesn't matter anyway.  Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.

And he did not.

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.

You're wrong, Ross. Admit it.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 16, 2018, 03:29:05 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No he didn't.  He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle.  Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.

Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz?  It doesn't matter anyway.  Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.

And he did not.

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.

You're wrong, Ross. Admit it.

No he didn't.  He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle.  Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.

Silly... actually ultra-silly hairsplitting John. How often do shooters "take aim" and not "pull the trigger"... which means shoot.

Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz?  It doesn't matter anyway.  Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.

I don't need data John... just knowledge and understanding "the way it was back then".

So Euins and Jackson saw "a person" firing a rifle from the TSBD. A rifle does not fire itself John.

In 1963, the notion that the shooter would have been a woman was incredibly unlikely. The average witness would have assumed it was a man. It turned out to be a man.

You have not responded to my noting your error positing Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin before 1963.... though her attempted crime occurred in 1975.

I'm keen to know John: were you honestly mistaken or lying?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 16, 2018, 08:54:10 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silly... actually ultra-silly hairsplitting John. How often do shooters "take aim" and not "pull the trigger"... which means shoot.

You're equating assuming something happened" with seeing something happen which is highly dishonest.

And yes, people take aim without taking the shot all the time.  Are you serious?  Go talk to some hunters.

Quote
I don't need data John... just knowledge and understanding "the way it was back then".

In other words you completely made it up.

Quote
You have not responded to my noting your error positing Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin before 1963.... though her attempted crime occurred in 1975.

I never said that Squeaky Fromme was an example of a female assassin before 1963.  But I'm curious to know exactly how your made up "the way is was back then" was so radically altered between 1963 and 1975.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 16, 2018, 09:44:35 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're equating assuming something happened" with seeing something happen which is highly dishonest.

And yes, people take aim without taking the shot all the time.  Are you serious?  Go talk to some hunters.

In other words you completely made it up.

I never said that Squeaky Fromme was an example of a female assassin before 1963.  But I'm curious to know exactly how your made up "the way is was back then" was so radically altered between 1963 and 1975.

I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).

Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.

You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 16, 2018, 10:47:32 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).

And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not?  Really?

Quote
Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.

That's not my argument -- that's your strawman.  You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing.  No, Ross, you're wrong.  Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle.  Jackson did not see a man at all.  He said so.

It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume.  Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle.  And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window".  And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.

Quote
You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?

I'm not responsible for what you think I implied.  You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful.  If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 16, 2018, 10:57:30 PM
For debaters who play fast and loose with logic buzzwords

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Proof: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Judgment: the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Supposition: an uncertain belief.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound.
Soundness: the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment.
Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing.
Lucidity: clarity of expression.
Intelligible: ability to comprehend.
Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.
Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 16, 2018, 11:42:44 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not?  Really?

That's not my argument -- that's your strawman.  You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing.  No, Ross, you're wrong.  Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle.  Jackson did not see a man at all.  He said so.

It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume.  Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle.  And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window".  And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.

I'm not responsible for what you think I implied.  You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful.  If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?

John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.

Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 16, 2018, 11:50:02 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.

Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?

Sigh....

Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"?  Or is that a false statement?
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Ross Lidell on May 17, 2018, 12:45:03 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sigh....

Did "several witnesses see a man firing a rifle from the TSBD"?  Or is that a false statement?

John... You're one of the most prolific contributors to the JFK Assassination Forum. It's inconceivable that you don't have an opinion on the most fundamental aspect of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I ask again: Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963? 
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: John Iacoletti on May 17, 2018, 07:21:59 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
John... You're one of the most prolific contributors to the JFK Assassination Forum. It's inconceivable that you don't have an opinion on the most fundamental aspect of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

I ask again: Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?

So you're going to change the subject, rather than admit that you made a false claim about the witnesses?  Noted.

I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was.  There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Howard Gee on May 19, 2018, 12:23:12 AM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I have no idea who was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963, or even if anybody was.  There is insufficient evidence to make a determination.

That's because at least one witness reported what he thought was a gun barrel being withdrawn into the window, Euins and Brennan reporting they saw a man shooting from there, witnesses on the fifth floor reporting they could hear the rifle being worked directly above them and particles from the rifle concussion falling on them -- in addition to 3 expended cartridges being found in the SE corner exactly where they said the shots came from is 'insufficient evidence' to conclude shots were fired from there.
Title: Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
Post by: Jack Trojan on May 19, 2018, 09:21:15 PM
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's because at least one witness reported what he thought was a gun barrel being withdrawn into the window, Euins and Brennan reporting they saw a man shooting from there, witnesses on the fifth floor reporting they could hear the rifle being worked directly above them and particles from the rifle concussion falling on them -- in addition to 3 expended cartridges being found in the SE corner exactly where they said the shots came from is 'insufficient evidence' to conclude shots were fired from there.

But if Oswald was the patsy then the odds he was actually doing the shooting was nearly zero, right?