Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
Actually, the LN beliefs to a large degree are held by all LN’s. Oswald did the dirty deed. No conspiracy.

I know. That doesn’t make it any more likely to be true. They have a holy book to point to.

Quote

Put 10 CT’s into a room and you’ll have 10 people who disagree entirely on what happened that day. No solidarity at all after 56 years.

I know that too. But that doesn’t make any one of them more likely to be wrong. Marching in lock-step on faith is not a virtue if it’s the truth you are seeking. You have to evaluate each claim on its merits.
22
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Trump supporters and conspiracy theory
« Last post by Rick Plant on March 29, 2020, 11:01:48 PM »
Want to know what happened to our medical supplies and equipment? Benedict Donald gave them all to China.

We have doctors and nurses who are using diapers and garbage bags as masks and gowns when they could have been using protective gear. Sick people could have been using all these medical supplies and equipment. Benedict Donald sent 17.8 tons to China instead. Read what "The Albino" Mike Pence said below. He said the "threat from the virus remained low". That is a blatant lie because our National Security and health experts said we would be facing a serious health crisis if we didn't get this under control. This is the worst failure in American History.  We are facing the devastating consequences because of the failures, ineptness, and corruption of Benedict Donald and "The Albino" Mike Pence. Benedict Donald and "The Albino" Mike Pence thought more of China than to protect our own country instead.

This quote is what should infuriate all Americans. "The loss of life, the coronavirus that is impacting people of China, and fortunately, a small number of people in the United States to date is heartbreaking. But we stand ready to work with China to provide them any and all support,” Pence said. Basically he is saying they don't care about the loss of lives in the U.S. but care more about China. Thanks to these idiots it isn't a "small number" anymore. This is why Trump gets the name Benedict Donald. 


U.S. announces aid for China, other countries impacted by coronavirus

FEBRUARY 7, 2020 / 11:03 AM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States stands ready to spend up to $100 million to assist China and other countries impacted by coronavirus, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced on Friday.

“This commitment – along with the hundreds of millions generously donated by the American private sector – demonstrates strong U.S. leadership in response to the outbreak,” Pompeo said in a statement.

He said the U.S. government’s commitment would be met through existing funds “both directly and through multilateral organizations.”

Stephen Biegun, deputy secretary of state, told a media briefing that the funding would help support response efforts by the World Health Organization.

Biegun said the United States has also sent nearly 17.8 tons of medical supplies to China, including masks, gowns and other protective gear.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar said the United States has submitted names of U.S. experts to the WHO for inclusion in a WHO delegation of experts to assist China with the outbreak response.

“This is a matter for Chinese leadership to make the final decision. We feel very optimistic that will happen,” he said.

Azar said so far the response in the United States is being covered through $105 million in funding through the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

HHS last week sent Congress notice that it might transfer an additional $136 million from other HHS programs. In the briefing, Azar said no decision had yet been made to authorize any additional funds and said it was “premature” to ask Congress for additional funds to support the outbreak response.

Earlier on Friday, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence told Fox Business Network that the threat to the United States from the virus remained low and praised China for demonstrating “an unprecedented level of transparency” over the outbreak.

“President Trump took decisive and unprecedented action cancelling air flights, limiting access to this country from people coming from China now a week ago, and we continue to believe that the threat to the American public is low,” he said.

Pence said Trump had told Chinese President Xi Jinping in a telephone call on Thursday evening that the United States was ready to help via the WHO.

"The loss of life, the coronavirus that is impacting people of China, and fortunately, a small number of people in the United States to date is heartbreaking. But we stand ready to work with China to provide them any and all support,” Pence said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-usa/u-s-announces-aid-for-china-other-countries-impacted-by-coronavirus-idUSKBN2012FH
23
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Last post by John Iacoletti on March 29, 2020, 10:58:20 PM »
Now, on the to the five-round vs six round thing. Is it a Mauser because Weitzman saw five rounds in the magazine, or did Weitzman first decide that the rifle was a Mauser, therefore it had a five-round capacity? The first possibility leads to something of a problem: if the magazine held five rounds, and Fritz ejected on from the chamber, then that rifle couldn't have fired a shot. And where did anyone say Weitzman or anyone else emptied the magazine? Or, in an alternative silliness, Did Weitzman just happen to have a fistful of ammunition of the proper caliber, and decided to top the rifle off to determine it's capacity? Neither of those "five rounds first" scenarios are satisfying. Nor is there any evidence to support them: who claimed that anyone did anything to check the magazine capacity on the rifle? The only explanation still standing is the Mauser-first one: Once Weitzman decided the rifle was a Mauser, then it held five rounds because Mausers hold five rounds. And that means the number of rounds described simply isn't probative.

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

And who says that Weitzman’s Mauser fired a shot?
24
I’m not any more “in your face” than you are. I’m just pointing out that everything you say about the beliefs of conspiracy theorists applies equally to your beliefs as well.

Good day.

Actually, the LN beliefs to a large degree are held by all LN’s. Oswald did the dirty deed. No conspiracy. I, as previously stated hold open the possibility of a conspiracy although it has never been proven and likely never will be. Put 10 CT’s into a room and you’ll have 10 people who disagree entirely on what happened that day. No solidarity at all after 56 years. Remarkable.
26
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Last post by Walt Cakebread on March 29, 2020, 10:54:10 PM »
Like I said, it comes down to what Hosty actually told Revill, and by extension how Revill related that to Gannaway. The point of contention in Revills memo is pretty non-specific: "they [FBI] had information that this subject was capable of committing the assassination of President Kennedy." Exactly what that means is anyone's guess. In one sense, anyone this side of Stephen Hawking would be "capable of committing the assassination." Only Hosty and Revill really know. The original point is that the subject that Curry backed down on wasn't what he'd said in the press conference, which was that the FBI hadn't told the DPD that Oswald was in town.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another JS-limited page is here Getty:

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

Another couple, that I can link directly to:



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

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

      4 x 18 COATED
ORDNANCE OPTICS INC
HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA

      010  JAPAN

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

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

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

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

A bandoleer type sling is a sling that will hold a few cartridge in loops on the sling ....Just a a bandoleer cartridge pistol belt is one that has loops to hold extra cartridges.
27
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Last post by John Iacoletti on March 29, 2020, 10:48:18 PM »
Roger Craig said that he was right there at the time and he saw "stamped right there on the barrel....7.65 Mauser"....

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

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

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

You mean like “red signal rings”, Stetson hats, and airplane signaling electric razors?
28
John, you and I will never agree on the elements of this case. We have no reason to interact. I no longer will be drawn into 50+ year old debates. I believe the WC came to the right conclusion. You do not. Our big difference? I’ve mellowed over the years. You John, are still “in your face”. That’s so unpleasant. Good luck to you.

I’m not any more “in your face” than you are. I’m just pointing out that everything you say about the beliefs of conspiracy theorists applies equally to your beliefs as well.

Good day.
29
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Last post by Mitch Todd on March 29, 2020, 10:00:28 PM »
Wow!...an excellent post Mitch.....You've raised many debatable points and I think that's great! 

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

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

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


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

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

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

Let's parse Weitzman's description.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

apparently having been used or damaged a considerable extent.

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

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

Another JS-limited page is here Getty:

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

Another couple, that I can link directly to:



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


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

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

      4 x 18 COATED
ORDNANCE OPTICS INC
HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA

      010  JAPAN

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


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

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

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

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

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

I hope you will accept my post in the vein intended....I'm certainly not attacking you....I'm merely pointing out that it looks to me like Weitzman was describing a 7.65 Mauser.
Well, honestly, it's nice to be appreciated.
30

Paul:   Get back to me when you can answer the point...

Whether you believe O'Connor or not they weighed the brain and it was above average for a human brain (intact in other words)...

The amount of material you see blasting out of Kennedy's head in Zapruder and the mascerated tissue in his hair above the avulsive wound is associated with film-documented forces that would scientifically disallow the intact brain seen in evidence...

I think there was even another photo of that brain that disappeared...

All of the above backs O'Connor and tells you he was telling the truth...

History is debated, not argued. You cannot support your position with fact. You revel in speculation and bias. That’s a fact. As stated previously I will no longer be drawn into this nonsense. Your reputation with this type of garbage is legendary. Good bye.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Mobile View