Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?  (Read 42241 times)

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #344 on: April 10, 2020, 01:11:25 AM »
Advertisement
Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?  He was telling Sayers what he saw, not giving him a lesson on Mauser design.

Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.....  I don't know who else is using commonsense.....But It obvious to me that Weitznan was familiar with the 7.65 mauser....  Afterall he caught a glimpse of the magazine on the carcano and assumed that the carcano was a mauser. 

 And when he was given a mauser to examine and describe LATER that afternoon at the police department he started by reciting what he knew about the mauser....Thus  Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Why can't you see this John?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 01:32:14 AM by Walt Cakebread »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #344 on: April 10, 2020, 01:11:25 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #345 on: April 10, 2020, 01:18:49 AM »
I don't know about that.  I've never heard of James Young.


Interesting. That was a new one for me. This is from Young's account to Herman and Sobocinski:

"[Young reading from a manuscript that he'd written about the events of 11/22:] 'I thought on the way home I would stop and offer my assistance to Doctor Burkley at Bethesda and see if I could get him to get some rest. This was obviously to no avail. Upon meeting him we were joined by Chief Hendrix [a corpsman who'd accompanied Burkley on the Texas trip] who had just happened to go to the hospital as well. We shortly were joined by Chiefs Mills and Martinell [corpsmen on the White house detail] who had brought an envelope to Bethesda which contained material removed from the convertible which they had been requested to obtain' This I'm going to put in parenthetically. This is not written. Doctor Burkley and I had requested them, at the request of Doctor Humes, to go down to the White House after three or four hours at the autopsy room. And Humes had said that he was missing some bones from the President's skull. And he wondered whether there might be some pieces left in the back of the Queen Mary and that he would like to get those pieces and bring them back to Bethesda so he could reconstruct the head"

As an addendum, if Mills identified that the C2 fragment as the one he recovered, then there isn't a problem with chain of possession.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 01:22:59 AM by Mitch Todd »

Offline Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #346 on: April 10, 2020, 02:38:41 AM »
Oh, fer cryin' out loud.  You too?

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.....  I don't know who else is using commonsense.....But It obvious to me that Weitznan was familiar with the 7.65 mauser....  Afterall he caught a glimpse of the magazine on the carcano and assumed that the carcano was a mauser. 

 And when he was given a mauser to examine and describe LATER that afternoon at the police department he started by reciting what he knew about the mauser....Thus  Sayer wrote...."Mr Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber mauser, bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is located on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard."

Why can't you see this John?

Why can't you just admit that you can't be 100% certain of anything? Your stubbornness and bias is no different than the LNers. If you had not committed yourself to this scenario and calling everyone a moron that doesn't buy into it, you'd be all over the LNers for denying there was a Mauser. You even admitted that Fritz handed Weitzman a Mauser for cripe sakes!  :D But you just can't admit to being wrong, and to hell with logic and critical thinking. Pride falleth before the man.

Answer the question, was Weitzman interviewed before or after he submitted his affidavit? If you can't answer then you're done. If it was after then he was recanting his story because he got alerted to the conspiracy. If it was before, then Houston we have a problem. It wouldn't be a matter of being mistaken, it would be insanity to go on record undermining your own testimony and blow the whistle. This meant the interview had to come after the affidavit for your flimsy "mistaken" excuse to apply. Then Weitzman had to confuse the MC with the Mauser that Fritz showed him, which is BS.

And lastly, if you actually believe that Fritz might have showed Weitzman a Mauser at the police station, then why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor, then recanted his testimony once he realized he was caught up in a coup d'etat? The fact that there WAS a Mauser at all should give you pause. Use some common sense for a change and stop accusing others of not having any. It makes you look even more foolish.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #346 on: April 10, 2020, 02:38:41 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #347 on: April 10, 2020, 04:33:52 AM »
He knows what he saw better than you do, too.

Yep and he described a rifle in detail that didn’t match a Carcano, despite your attempts to spin his statement into a Mauser owner’s manual.

Quote
And he said he was wrong about the "Mauser."

Yes he did. His detailed description didn’t match the narrative.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #348 on: April 10, 2020, 04:40:56 AM »
Interesting. That was a new one for me. This is from Young's account to Herman and Sobocinski:

That’s interesting to me as well because it conflicts with Frazier’s version of how those fragments got from the limo to him.

Quote
As an addendum, if Mills identified that the C2 fragment as the one he recovered, then there isn't a problem with chain of possession.

It doesn’t say what the identification was based on though. And I don’t recall Bartlett identifying them.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #348 on: April 10, 2020, 04:40:56 AM »


Online Mitch Todd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #349 on: April 10, 2020, 07:13:36 AM »
Yep and he described a rifle in detail that didn’t match a Carcano, despite your attempts to spin his statement into a Mauser owner’s manual.

Yes he did. His detailed description didn’t match the narrative.
What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

So lets go back to the description of the rifle as it appears in Sayers' report:

a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,
All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.
As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano. Weitzman says he didn't touch the rifle or look into it's workings, and his other statements about its discovery either imply that he didn't or at least do not contradict that idea. Therefore, it's safe to say that he didn't see an en block clip, which would require handling the rifle, or at least getting a very close look at the open end of the magazine. This leaves the interpretation of "clip" as "magazine." Both the Model 91 Mauser and the Carcano had magazines that fit Weitzman's description. In fact, the magazines on both rifles are very conspicuously located under the receiver forward of the trigger in a way that later Mauser rifles lack as do their derivatives and evolutions (Springfield M1906, Enfield P13/P14/M1917, Winchester models 54 and 70, Ruger M77, Remington Model 30, et al)   

As for the five shot part, we just went thought that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in. The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic. The box-magazine Mausers generally hold 5 rounds. At least, I can't think of an exception among them off the top of my head.

The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue and
A gun who metal parts are gun metal colored, you say? Imagine that!

the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.
Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.
Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.
As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling
And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser. The "five shot" doesn't do it for you, because you can't show that he knew that the rifle's magazine held five rounds directly from observing it.

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #350 on: April 10, 2020, 02:39:04 PM »
Why can't you just admit that you can't be 100% certain of anything? Your stubbornness and bias is no different than the LNers. If you had not committed yourself to this scenario and calling everyone a moron that doesn't buy into it, you'd be all over the LNers for denying there was a Mauser. You even admitted that Fritz handed Weitzman a Mauser for cripe sakes!  :D But you just can't admit to being wrong, and to hell with logic and critical thinking. Pride falleth before the man.

Answer the question, was Weitzman interviewed before or after he submitted his affidavit? If you can't answer then you're done. If it was after then he was recanting his story because he got alerted to the conspiracy. If it was before, then Houston we have a problem. It wouldn't be a matter of being mistaken, it would be insanity to go on record undermining your own testimony and blow the whistle. This meant the interview had to come after the affidavit for your flimsy "mistaken" excuse to apply. Then Weitzman had to confuse the MC with the Mauser that Fritz showed him, which is BS.

And lastly, if you actually believe that Fritz might have showed Weitzman a Mauser at the police station, then why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor, then recanted his testimony once he realized he was caught up in a coup d'etat? The fact that there WAS a Mauser at all should give you pause. Use some common sense for a change and stop accusing others of not having any. It makes you look even more foolish.

 was Weitzman interviewed before or after he submitted his affidavit?

Commonsense would dictate that Weitzman and Boone would have been told to submit an affidavit as soon as they got back to the office after leaving the TSBD.  And I suspect that FBI Agent A1bert Sayer had a copy of Weitzman's affidavit when he interviewed Weitzman late Friday afternoon.  ( Police use affidavits all the time when interviewing a person, because an affidavit provides a basis that they can work from.



if you actually believe that Fritz might have showed Weitzman a Mauser at the police station, then why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor,


Of course I believe that Weitzman was given a 7.65 Mauser and asked to describe it for the record.....I would not say it if I didn't believe it, what kind of nonsense would that be?..... Is that something that you would do?

why the hell can't you concede that it was possible he also might have seen it on the 6th floor,

So you think I shouldn't believe my eyes??......  I've seen Tom Alyea's film.......

If it was after then he was recanting his story because he got alerted to the conspiracy

Weitzman is on record as saying he was mistaken ....He said that he only caught a quick glance at the rifle when Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR and he thought the rifle appeared to be a 7.65 mauser.      Do you really believe that there was any talk of a conspiracy just a couple of hours after the coup d e'tat?

Weitzman said that he caught a glance at the rifle when Detective Day picked it up FROM THE FLOOR and thought it was a mauser.  The very detailed description of the mauser in Sayers report is NOT something that anybody could give with only a quick glimpse of the rifle.   I'm convinced that Weitzman had a 7.65 mauser in his hands, and provided Sayers with the very detailed description for his report. 

 It's very clear that you have an agenda that requires the rifle that Weitzman and Boone discovered to be a mauser......  Unfortunately, for you,  Tom Alyea's film reveals quite clearly that the rifle was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 02:45:39 PM by Walt Cakebread »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #350 on: April 10, 2020, 02:39:04 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Shells, rifle, SN... Who?
« Reply #351 on: April 10, 2020, 05:16:46 PM »
What do you mean by "detailed?" I say because you've incandescently proven that you know very little, if anything, about the underlying subject matter here. What you deride as a "Mauser owner's manual" is the underlying knowledge required to understand what would differentiate a Mauser from another rifle. You simply don't have that knowledge. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the comment about the Mauser "clip" having a window.

What I know is completely irrelevant.  Weitzman said he saw a Mauser with a 5 shot clip.  It's not my job to explain how he determined that, just as it's not your job to decide that he didn't really see what he claimed to see.

Quote
a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt-action rifle,
All you need to know to figure out the caliber is to see the single stack magazine hanging down in front of the trigger guard and assume the rifle is a Mauser to expect it to be a 7.65

Bull.  You can't determine the caliber of a rifle by glancing at its trigger guard.

Quote
which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.
As I've said before, "locked on the underside of the receiver" either refers to and en block clip or to the magazine itself. An en block clip would eliminate any Mauser, but not the Carcano.

That also doesn't matter.  You don't know what Weitzman knew or didn't know about the design of the Mauser.  He's describing what he saw, not what he knows about how Mausers are built.

What's the point of mentioning a 5-shot clip that he never really saw?

Quote
As for the five shot part, we just went thought that, and you didn't come out of that too well. There's no simple way to directly determine the magazine capacity on those old bolt action rifles other than to load them until you can't while counting the rounds you put in.

Then take it up with Weitzman.  He's the one who said the rifle he examined had a 5-shot clip.

Quote
The universal shortcut is simply to know how many rounds a particular model rifle will hold beforehand and work backwards via syllogistic logic.

They didn't ask him how many rounds a Mauser holds.  They asked him to describe what he saw.

Quote
the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn.
Would be true for either a Carcano or a Mauser

Show me the visible wear on the CE139 bolt.

Quote
The wooden portions of this rifle were a dark brown in color and of rough wood apparently having been used or damaged to a considerable extent.
Dark brown wood of rough and well-used appearance wouldn't be exactly unexpected on a surplus rifle, no matter the make or origin.

Show me the dark brown rough damaged wood on CE139.

Quote
The rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture.
As I've already pointed out, this information appears conspicuously on CE139's scope in nice, white letters on a black background for easy reading. Unlike the metal-on-metal stamped and etched text on the rifle itself. Anyway, this is the scope rather than the rifle itself.

The fact remains that CE139 is stamped "Made in Italy" and "6.5".  You don't just get to decide what Weitzman could see easily and what he could not.

Quote
It was also equipped with a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling
And I have yet to see how you would use the sling to tell what make a rifle is. Maybe you can elucidate us on that.

Does CE139 have a thick brown-black leather bandolier type sling?

Quote
In the end, there's nothing in Weitzman's "detailed" description that would prove that he saw a Mauser.

There's nothing in Weitzman's detailed description that would prove that he saw CE139.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2020, 05:21:11 PM by John Iacoletti »