Author Topic: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge  (Read 5958 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22501
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #49 on: March 20, 2017, 05:48:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is the most complex aspect of solving the mystery of the JFK assassination.  Briefly, the Hoover FBI needed to squash belief in a conspiracy and at the same time protect the Secret Service’s non-reaction to what they knew was a very early first shot.  They knew the bullet gouge was caused by Oswald zeroing his scope with that early first shot but to admit it would irreparably tarnish the reputation of the Secret Service.  Yet to declare that the gouge was from another type of bullet would be to admit a conspiracy.  Both could lead to a spike in assassination attempts and a de-stabilization of the government.
What would you do?
 
The FBI at first denied any curb gouge or even a mark existed.  When confronted with photos in the media, Hoover insisted that it was only a “smear” and not caused by a bullet.  Yet Dallas Sherriff’s Deputies Walthers and Sweatt as well as eyewitness James Tague stated that it was “a bullet mark, and freshly made.”  Other than that single un-sworn letter from Hoover to Rankin, there is no hard evidence that a spectrographic analysis was ever conducted.

Hoover did what he honestly believed was best for the country.  You might have done the same thing.  I would have.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


"Oswald zeroing his scope"?  Where's the evidence for LHO firing a shot?

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4726
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #50 on: March 20, 2017, 07:31:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
"Oswald zeroing his scope"?  Where's the evidence for LHO firing a shot?

Next he'll be saying the "Warren Report" and Hearings weren't really published, and that the House Select Committee on Assassinations were a media hoax. Don't worry, Edward. Rob is a cashier at a Florida Publix who whittles away his breaks reading the tabloids for free.

Offline Michael Capasse

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3658
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #51 on: March 20, 2017, 07:58:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
BFD

So they couldn't find out where he practiced... and?

I know...Is that another one of the grand possibilities you're building in this case ..

:thumbs1xx: meanwhile you can't even prove the rifle was in the garage
much less taken out for any practice
« Last Edit: March 20, 2017, 08:17:00 PM
by Michael Capasse
»

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9064
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #52 on: March 20, 2017, 11:02:12 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
BFD

So they couldn't find out where he practiced... and?

And yet you believe that he did practice, because . . . ?

Offline Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22501
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2017, 01:09:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Next he'll be saying the "Warren Report" and Hearings weren't really published, and that the House Select Committee on Assassinations were a media hoax. Don't worry, Edward. Rob is a cashier at a Florida Publix who whittles away his breaks reading the tabloids for free.

Again instead of evidence we get personal insults. It has been that way since 1964 for the WC defenders since they have NO  supporting evidence for their claims.

Thanks for confirming that you have NO evidence for the claim of LHO firing a rifle on November 22, 1963.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 04:16:58 PM
by Rob Caprio
»

Offline Bob Prudhomme

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 867
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2017, 03:40:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Again instesd of evidence we get personal insults. It has been that way since 1964 for the WC defenders since they have NO  supporting evidence for their claims.

Thanks for confirming that you have NO evidence for the claim of LHO firing a rifle on November 22, 1963.

It's all they have, Rob. Bill is a know-nothing when it comes to rifles and ballistics and the only thing he can do is get petulant and throw tantrums like a little girl.

That toy scope, designed for a pellet air rifle, would NEVER stay sighted in on a high powered rifle such as the 6.5mm Carcano, IF you could get the scope sighted in in the first place. Every time you fired a shot, the internal mechanisms of the scope get rattled and throw the adjustment off. You would go out of your mind trying to sight the scope on C2766 in.

Here is the modern day equivalent of the 4x18 Ordnance Optics Inc. scope found on C2766, available on Ebay for US $4.66 and free shipping from China.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 05:15:36 AM
by Bob Prudhomme
»
"Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car." WC testimony of SA Clint Hill

Offline Micah Mileto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Why Hoover lied about copper residue on the curb gouge
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2017, 08:43:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, it's like this, Organ. Ol' Eddie operates on about the same level of logic you do, which is to say the man is quite warped. He writes so many absurd things regading the shooting in the assassination, thee simply aren't enough hours in the day to shoot them all down.

However, my favorite theory of Eddie's is that the black caps for the elevation and windage adjustment screws on the 4x18 Ordnance Optics scope mounted on C2766 were actually adjustment knobs. According to him, Oswald fired the first shot, determined how far off it was, and quickly adjusted for windage and elevation prior to firing the next shots. He got quite annoyed with me when I tried to prove to him they were merely caps, and the adjustment screws were underneath them. In typical LN fashion, he denied the truth, even when it was staring him in the face. Eddie has obviously never been anywhere near rifles.

So, you find Eddie sensible, do you? I'll bet Trumpf makes a lot of sense to you, too.

Is there a place where I can read about exactly what the scope in evidence is and how it works?