Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 111739 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #184 on: February 27, 2018, 11:06:45 PM »
Advertisement
Prime example: You just said that Buell saw a 2 foot bag, and conveniently ignored the other factors that I mention.

What other factors?  Just that he didn't pay much attention?  I didn't ignore that, that's just an excuse to disregard multiple pieces of converging evidence.  Both Frazier and Randle said the bag was about 2 feet long.  Both said that CE142 was not the same bag.  Dougherty said Oswald was empty handed when he entered the shipping room door.  CE142 was not photographed in situ and the accounts of where, when, how it was found and what it looked like differ.  There's no evidence of a rifle ever having been in it, and even CE 142 was too short to contain the rifle -- hence another excuse with absolutely no evidence to support it:  the rifle must have been disassembled and reassembled.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #184 on: February 27, 2018, 11:06:45 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: A straight line
« Reply #185 on: February 27, 2018, 11:24:08 PM »
The rifle must have been disassembled and reassembled.

Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
    • SPMLaw
Re: A straight line
« Reply #186 on: February 28, 2018, 04:42:26 PM »
Without getting a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, scope, clip and ammo.
There was a palm print that was identified as Oswald's on the underside of the gun barrel:



There were also indications of fingerprints on the trigger but they were not sufficient for identification. 
« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 04:46:38 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #186 on: February 28, 2018, 04:42:26 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #187 on: February 28, 2018, 06:57:52 PM »
There was a palm print that was identified as Oswald's on the underside of the gun barrel:

Actually it was a print that just turned up in Washington a week later on an index card purporting to have been lifted from the gun barrel.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #188 on: February 28, 2018, 07:00:21 PM »
I am not sure about preventing fingerprints, but Oswald was wearing some of tools that can be used to remove them.

??  You mean his shirt?

Quote
Or do you think Oswald was too stupid to know that he might leave fingerprints on the rifle and that these could be used to identify him?

He apparently was too stupid to think about removing the Hidell ID from one of his 5 wallets.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #188 on: February 28, 2018, 07:00:21 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: A straight line
« Reply #189 on: February 28, 2018, 07:51:58 PM »
I am not sure about preventing fingerprints, but Oswald was wearing some of tools that can be used to remove them. Or do you think Oswald was too stupid to know that he might leave fingerprints on the rifle and that these could be used to identify him?

Do you realize how difficult it is to remove all your prints from a MC after you have disassembled/reassembled and fired, then ditched it? Impossible! And Shirley, Oswald realized that a printless  rifle would still lead back to him, regardless of whether they snuck a post-mortem palm print on the stock.

Which leads us to why would military marksman Oswald, who knew a thing or 2 about rifles, keep a useless scope on the MC when he knew he would have to use the iron sights? Especially, if he smuggled it disassembled into the TSBD in a too short paper bag? If you counter with, Oswald didn't know the scope was useless because he hadn't shot the rifle before, then you have to explain how phenomenal it was that a rusty marksman pulled off 2 for 3 hits in 10 secs on a moving target with a wonky scope?

Oswald must have looked thru the scope, lined up JFK's head and hit Tague with a ricochet off the pavement. He must have noticed the small dust cloud from the 1st shot and re-calibrated his aim thru the scope for the MB shot, and what a shot it was. 7 wounds and very close to a head shot, all after bolting in the next round and re-aiming thru the wonky scope.

It took 3 shims to realign the scope on the MC before the FBI could even hit the target. The scope was useless and the big question is whether Oswald knew this and used the iron sights instead. And if Oswald knew the scope was useless, then why did he keep it on the gun when he smuggled its parts into the TSBD?

Answer: The scope was left on the gun (which was never disassembled/reassembled BTW) because the MC that was planted on the 6th floor needed to match the backyard photos of Oswald holding it. Sheep dipping 101. Otherwise, there is no way in hell that Oswald could have not left a single print on the stock, barrel, bolt, trigger, clip and ammo. Impossible.

« Last Edit: February 28, 2018, 08:11:14 PM by Jack Trojan »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: A straight line
« Reply #190 on: February 28, 2018, 07:56:56 PM »
And if Oswald knew the scope was useless, then why did he keep it on the gun when he smuggled it's parts into the TSBD?

One of the lamer excuses I've heard postulated here is that he just wanted to look like a sniper.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #190 on: February 28, 2018, 07:56:56 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: A straight line
« Reply #191 on: February 28, 2018, 08:34:23 PM »
One of the lamer excuses I've heard postulated here is that he just wanted to look like a sniper.

I admit that the MC does look cooler with the scope, way better than a stinking scopeless Mauser.