Progress... Have we made any ?.....

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Progress... Have we made any ?.....  (Read 2749 times)

Offline Rick Plant

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7043
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2022, 07:17:23 PM »
Question:....   Mauser or Carcano?    At this late date we should have reached a firm unanimous  conclusion about what kind of rifle was found buried beneath the pallet of books in the NW corner of the sixth floor.  I believe that we will never have 100% in agreement.... but at this late date and the solid photographic evidence available ( Alyea film and many others) we should be near 100% in agreement about that rifle. 

If we can't agree on the answer to this simple question ....then there is no hope of ever finding answers to the more important questions.  Like:....  How did Lee Oswald know that Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walked by the first floor lunchroom at 12:26??

Well, we know that Roger Craig stated that he witnessed a Mauser.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #20 on: July 13, 2022, 07:17:23 PM »

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2022, 07:36:28 PM »
We also know Tom Alyea filmed the rifle being removed from it's hiding place and it wasn't a Mauser.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2022, 07:36:28 PM »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2022, 08:15:39 PM »
"The facts and evidence place LHO in the SN at 12:30"

This is incorrect and is the key weakness at the heart of the LN narrative.
Almost every piece of evidence pertaining to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:

Three of the five witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor at this time describe him wearing a white/very light coloured, open neck shirt. Oswald didn't wear such a shirt to work that day and didn't have one in his possessions.

Euins describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the shooter's head - something Oswald didn't have.

Dorothy Garner followed her work colleagues out to the back stairs in time to hear them rush down and was still there when Truly and Baker came up. There was no sign of Oswald supposedly heading down the stairs.

Oswald is reported seeing Jarman and Norman together. The only time during the lunch break that this could have occurred is when the two men came back into the building by the rear door. Oswald must have been on the first floor to witness this. According to their testimonies this can be placed around 12:25pm. The importance of this is that at least ten minutes earlier Arnold Rowland witnessed a white male carrying a rifle on the 6th floor.

Even Brennan, whose dubious and belated identification of Oswald is the single piece of evidence that places Oswald at the scene, describes the shooter as a much older man than Oswald. He also describes the shooter standing at the window, admiring his handiwork, as the presidential limo enters the underpass - in stark contrast with the WC narrative, which has Oswald rushing away from the SN in time for his rendezvous with Baker and Truly. In an indirect way this is supported by Hank Norman, who can hear the shells hitting the floor just above him, but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.

The facts and the evidence most certainly do not place Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.

In the recent Illinois shooting, the sniper left his rifle at the scene.  It had a serial number.  It was traced to the shooter.  He was arrested.  There is no doubt of his guilt.  A rifle was left at the scene of the JFK assassination.  It had a serial number that was traced to LHO.  No other known person had access to that rifle.  Witnesses confirm a rifle was pointed out the 6th floor window.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints were on that rifle. Oswald had no alibi.  In fact, he fled the scene within minutes and was involved in the murder of a police officer (several witnesses ID him as the shooter).  He lied about the ownership of any rifle. When approached by the DPD at the Texas Theatre, he didn't ask what they wanted.  He pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.   It's a slam dunk.  Pedantic nitpicking of minor witness descriptions is weak sauce considering they were describing a person on the 6th floor of a building.  Why is Brennan's ID dubious?  He explained that his initial hesitation to ID Oswald as the shooter was not based on any doubt of the issue.  It was based on fear for his safety.  There is nothing dubious about his identification.  He said the shooter was Oswald.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2022, 08:15:39 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9790
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2022, 08:38:57 PM »
…aaaaand “Richard” regurgitates his litany of lies once again.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2022, 08:38:57 PM »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6397
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2022, 08:42:13 PM »
"The facts and evidence place LHO in the SN at 12:30"

This is incorrect and is the key weakness at the heart of the LN narrative.
Almost every piece of evidence pertaining to who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:

Three of the five witnesses who saw a man on the 6th floor at this time describe him wearing a white/very light coloured, open neck shirt. Oswald didn't wear such a shirt to work that day and didn't have one in his possessions.

Euins describes a distinctive bald spot on top of the shooter's head - something Oswald didn't have.

Dorothy Garner followed her work colleagues out to the back stairs in time to hear them rush down and was still there when Truly and Baker came up. There was no sign of Oswald supposedly heading down the stairs.

Oswald is reported seeing Jarman and Norman together. The only time during the lunch break that this could have occurred is when the two men came back into the building by the rear door. Oswald must have been on the first floor to witness this. According to their testimonies this can be placed around 12:25pm. The importance of this is that at least ten minutes earlier Arnold Rowland witnessed a white male carrying a rifle on the 6th floor.

Even Brennan, whose dubious and belated identification of Oswald is the single piece of evidence that places Oswald at the scene, describes the shooter as a much older man than Oswald. He also describes the shooter standing at the window, admiring his handiwork, as the presidential limo enters the underpass - in stark contrast with the WC narrative, which has Oswald rushing away from the SN in time for his rendezvous with Baker and Truly. In an indirect way this is supported by Hank Norman, who can hear the shells hitting the floor just above him, but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.

The facts and the evidence most certainly do not place Oswald in the SN at 12:30pm.

'but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.'
Others didn't hear him rushing away either

The stairs, for instance


billchapman


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2022, 08:42:13 PM »

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2022, 09:04:39 PM »
In the recent Illinois shooting, the sniper left his rifle at the scene.  It had a serial number.  It was traced to the shooter.  He was arrested.  There is no doubt of his guilt.  A rifle was left at the scene of the JFK assassination.  It had a serial number that was traced to LHO.  No other known person had access to that rifle.  Witnesses confirm a rifle was pointed out the 6th floor window.  Fired bullet casings from Oswald's rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints were on that rifle. Oswald had no alibi.  In fact, he fled the scene within minutes and was involved in the murder of a police officer (several witnesses ID him as the shooter).  He lied about the ownership of any rifle. When approached by the DPD at the Texas Theatre, he didn't ask what they wanted.  He pulled his gun and engaged in a struggle.   It's a slam dunk.

Slam dunk?
There's not a single thing you list that says anything about Oswald taking the shots. Not one.
"It was Oswald's rifle therefore Oswald took the shots" - that's your argument? This kind of mentality is wide open to be fooled by a planted rifle. What better way to frame Oswald for the shooting of the President?
The fact of the matter is that any credible evidence that exists for who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. It's a real problem for the LN narrative.

Quote
Pedantic nitpicking of minor witness descriptions is weak sauce considering they were describing a person on the 6th floor of a building.

Three eye-witnesses describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/light coloured, open neck shirt. Three!
They are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is not pedantic nit-picking.

Euins is emphatic about the shooter having a bald spot, something Oswald did not have. this is not pedantic nit-picking.

Dorothy Garner was perfectly placed to see Oswald hurrying down the stairs but she didn't see him. if she had she would have been a star witness but she wasn't even called to testify. this is not pedantic nit-picking.

Oswald's account of seeing Jarman and Norman places him exactly where he said he was at the time of the shooting - on the first floor. This takes place around 12:25pm and Arnold Rowland sees the man with the rifle on the 6th floor tens minutes earlier, around 12:15pm.
How this can be called "pedantic nit-picking" is baffling.

Quote
Why is Brennan's ID dubious?  He explained that his initial hesitation to ID Oswald as the shooter was not based on any doubt of the issue.  It was based on fear for his safety.  There is nothing dubious about his identification.  He said the shooter was Oswald.

Brennan's ID is dubious because he doesn't even make the ID at the time.
It's dubious because he describes the man on the 6th floor as appearing much older than Oswald.
It's dubious because it flatly contradicts the WC's own version of events, which has Oswald hurrying down to the 2nd floor whereas Brennan has the shooter standing around, admiring his handiwork, as the limo passes under the triple overpass.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #25 on: July 13, 2022, 09:04:39 PM »

Online Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7179
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2022, 09:05:05 PM »
Did I miss something or is this thread about the gun found? Thanks and I'll take your answer off the air.

is this thread about the gun found?

This thread is NOT about the gun that was recovered....   It is an attempt to determine how many readers can clearly see that Lee Oswald had a rock solid alibi.  He said he saw an event that occurred near the 1st floor lunchroom at about 12:26  / 12:27.
He had to have been there in that 1st floor lunchroom to have witnessed Junior Jarman and Harold Norman walk by that lunchroom.   Since he was in that 1st floor lunchroom he couldn't have been on the sixth floor at the time that JFK was murdered.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #26 on: July 13, 2022, 09:05:05 PM »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2022, 09:13:52 PM »
'but doesn't hear anyone rushing away.'
Others didn't hear him rushing away either

The stairs, for instance

billchapman

From an account by Roy Lewis, one of the "order fillers" for the TSBD ("No More Silence", pg. 84):

"We were all good friends on the job, but after work we hardly associated. But we did have quite a bit of fun on the job racing up and down the elevators to the floors filling orders. Sometimes if you were on one of the floors by yourself somebody would sneak up and you'd never know they were there. They might go up on the floor above you...But they could walk down the stairway, and a lot of times they'd be on you before you'd know it."

"They could walk down the stairway" and "they'd be on you before you'd know it."

Just one account but it seems the wooden stairs were quieter or less "creaky"? then you'd think.

Also: Williams et al. said they ran to the west side of the floor right after the shooting to get a better look. Seems to me they wouldn't be able to hear anyone "rushing" down from there? Apparently they didn't hear Baker and Truly? Or did they go down before then?

« Last Edit: July 13, 2022, 10:08:23 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #27 on: July 13, 2022, 09:13:52 PM »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2022, 11:33:01 PM »
Slam dunk?
There's not a single thing you list that says anything about Oswald taking the shots. Not one.
"It was Oswald's rifle therefore Oswald took the shots" - that's your argument? This kind of mentality is wide open to be fooled by a planted rifle. What better way to frame Oswald for the shooting of the President?
The fact of the matter is that any credible evidence that exists for who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. It's a real problem for the LN narrative.

Three eye-witnesses describe the man on the 6th floor wearing a white/light coloured, open neck shirt. Three!
They are describing clothing Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. This is not pedantic nit-picking.

Euins is emphatic about the shooter having a bald spot, something Oswald did not have. this is not pedantic nit-picking.

Dorothy Garner was perfectly placed to see Oswald hurrying down the stairs but she didn't see him. if she had she would have been a star witness but she wasn't even called to testify. this is not pedantic nit-picking.

Oswald's account of seeing Jarman and Norman places him exactly where he said he was at the time of the shooting - on the first floor. This takes place around 12:25pm and Arnold Rowland sees the man with the rifle on the 6th floor tens minutes earlier, around 12:15pm.
How this can be called "pedantic nit-picking" is baffling.

Brennan's ID is dubious because he doesn't even make the ID at the time.
It's dubious because he describes the man on the 6th floor as appearing much older than Oswald.
It's dubious because it flatly contradicts the WC's own version of events, which has Oswald hurrying down to the 2nd floor whereas Brennan has the shooter standing around, admiring his handiwork, as the limo passes under the triple overpass.

You don't believe that the presence of Oswald's rifle at the crime scene is highly incriminatory absent some explanation of its presence from Oswald!  Particularly given Oswald's actions in fleeing the scene and murdering a police officerless than an hour later.  Your rebuttal to this is that some witnesses who claimed to see the person in the TSBD from the street charactered his shirt color or hair inaccurately.  And that Oswald's rifle COULD have been planted even though there is not a scintilla of evidence of such.  Wow.  Brennan explained his initial reasons for not identifying Oswald.  It had nothing to do with any ambiguity about who he saw.  He testified under oath that the shooter was Oswald.  Does every witness have to be like a circus performer and estimate someone's age with exact precision to be credible?  He didn't claim the shooter was 75 years old.  But if you think this kind of pedantic nonsense rebuts the implications of Oswald's rifle being left at the crime scene, then take this argument to Illinois and defend the maniac who shot up that parade.  Maybe his rifle was planted as well.  I'm sure some citizen under sniper attack might have described his age or shirt color imprecisely. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #28 on: July 13, 2022, 11:33:01 PM »

Online Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2282
Re: Progress... Have we made any ?.....
« Reply #29 on: July 14, 2022, 12:31:23 AM »
You don't believe that the presence of Oswald's rifle at the crime scene is highly incriminatory absent some explanation of its presence from Oswald!

The presence of the rifle is massively incriminating. It's the most incriminating piece of evidence there is. As far as I'm concerned, that's the point of the rifle - to be incriminating!

Quote
Particularly given Oswald's actions in fleeing the scene and murdering a police officerless than an hour later.  Your rebuttal to this is that some witnesses who claimed to see the person in the TSBD from the street charactered his shirt color or hair inaccurately.

My rebuttal is that almost all the available evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald:
Rowland, Roberts and Fischer all appear to describe the same man and that he was wearing clothes Oswald wasn't wearing and didn't own. Three independent eye-witness testimonies.
Euins is emphatic about the bald spot on the shooters head.
Garner never saw Oswald supposedly hurrying down the stairs - because he didn't hurry down the stairs, because he wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.
He was in the Domino Room as he claims he was and this is confirmed by his observation of Jarman and Norman after they entered the rear door and were making their way to the west elevator. If they'd used the east elevator he wouldn't have seen them but it is because they had to walk around to the west one they came into view.

You can try and brush this all off all you want but it won't go away.

Quote
And that Oswald's rifle COULD have been planted even though there is not a scintilla of evidence of such.  Wow.

If Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting, and the available evidence dictates he wasn't, then the rifle was planted there to frame him. What possible evidence could there be for someone placing the rifle in it's hiding place? Film footage?

Quote
Brennan explained his initial reasons for not identifying Oswald.  It had nothing to do with any ambiguity about who he saw.  He testified under oath that the shooter was Oswald.

Nevertheless, he refused to identify Oswald and his reasons for not doing so are weak sauce indeed.

Quote
Does every witness have to be like a circus performer and estimate someone's age with exact precision to be credible?  He didn't claim the shooter was 75 years old.  But if you think this kind of pedantic nonsense rebuts the implications of Oswald's rifle being left at the crime scene, then take this argument to Illinois and defend the maniac who shot up that parade.  Maybe his rifle was planted as well.  I'm sure some citizen under sniper attack might have described his age or shirt color imprecisely.

Wow. ???
I'll ignore the more outlandish parts of this section of your post.
Brennan states that the man he saw on the 6th floor appeared much older than Oswald. That's that.
His description of the shooter's movements after the assassination contradicts the WC's account, which left barely three seconds for Oswald to get in position on the 2nd floor looking calm and not out of breath. That's that.

« Last Edit: July 14, 2022, 12:32:26 AM by Dan O'meara »

 

Mobile View