Roger Craig

[Dan O'meara]

I don't agree with "easily identified" or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building, nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken" or that you can know that Craig "was lying".

You didn't seem to be aware that the MC had been filmed in situ before the overhanging boxes were removed, or that Alyea's footage captured the MC while it was still in it's original position. I thought this new information might inform your opinion, but apparently not.

I don't agree with "easily identified"

John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC and Walt would appear to know a thing or two about this particular rifle and he has no trouble identifying it. The footage isn't the best quality but there are moments when the rifle is clearly on display and recognisable.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day took from the TSBD or the rifle Day held aloft in the DPD, or the rifle in the National Archive or the rifle (bar the strap) in the back yard photos.
That it is indistinguishable from a Mannlicher Carcano means, by default, it is not a Mauser. The rifle filmed by Alyea is 100% not a Mauser. That is a fact.

...or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building

Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
It's a meaningless point you're making.
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found. This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?

nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken"

You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea. And that they didn't find one anywhere else. And that they didn't find two rifles.
The remaining options are that they were mistaken, they were lying or that every person on the 6th floor, including Alyea, was involved in some kind of staged event.
I favour that they were simply mistaken, Alyea's footage demonstrates this.
I think I can guess what scenario you favour.

that you can know that Craig "was lying".

I assume he was lying as he states emphatically that "Mauser" was stamped on the barrel but the rifle filmed by Alyea was an MC. That is a fact. He did not see "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle filmed by Alyea, so I don't know what else to think.

[John Mytton]

You didn't seem to be aware that the MC had been filmed in situ before the overhanging boxes were removed, or that Alyea's footage captured the MC while it was still in it's original position. I thought this new information might inform your opinion, but apparently not.

I don't agree with "easily identified"

John Mytton has "easily identified" the rifle in the footage as an MC and Walt would appear to know a thing or two about this particular rifle and he has no trouble identifying it. The footage isn't the best quality but there are moments when the rifle is clearly on display and recognisable.
It is indistinguishable from the rifle Day took from the TSBD or the rifle Day held aloft in the DPD, or the rifle in the National Archive or the rifle (bar the strap) in the back yard photos.
That it is indistinguishable from a Mannlicher Carcano means, by default, it is not a Mauser. The rifle filmed by Alyea is 100% not a Mauser. That is a fact.

...or that this somehow precludes a Mauser being found in the building

Of course it doesn't preclude a Mauser being found in the building. Nobody said it did. Finding the MC doesn't preclude a Howitzer being found in the building or a unicorn.
It's a meaningless point you're making.
But what it does preclude is a Mauser being found in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea.
Boone never mentioned seeing two rifles and neither did Weitzman. As far as I'm aware, nobody reported two rifles being found. This appears to be some fantasy that you are peddling. What evidence do you have that more than one rifle was found? If you don't have any, why do you keep bringing it up?

nor do I agree with "clear that Boone and Weitzman were simply mistaken"

You must surely agree that they didn't find a Mauser in the same location as the MC filmed by Alyea. And that they didn't find one anywhere else. And that they didn't find two rifles.
The remaining options are that they were mistaken, they were lying or that every person on the 6th floor, including Alyea, was involved in some kind of staged event.
I favour that they were simply mistaken, Alyea's footage demonstrates this.
I think I can guess what scenario you favour.

that you can know that Craig "was lying".

I assume he was lying as he states emphatically that "Mauser" was stamped on the barrel but the rifle filmed by Alyea was an MC. That is a fact. He did not see "Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle filmed by Alyea, so I don't know what else to think.

Iacoletti doesn't have the best deductive reason skills or even at the very least, the ability to provide a reasonable alternate narrative.
Planting 1 rifle is risky enough but why plant two?
Why on Earth would anybody plant two rifles unless the Mauser was the murder weapon but if that was the case, just set-up Oswald with the Mauser, DUH!
And a Mauser the weapon of the Nazi's with all it's evil connotations would be the ideal weapon to set up Oswald, but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.

Edit: Oswald's rifle was the cheapest ad on the Kliens ad page and the next most expensive with a telescope option was 40% more expensive than the Carcano with telescope.



JohnM

[John Mytton]

but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.

 

Not even the Warren Commission could support that claim with verified evidence.

They even failed to enter the original ad into evidence.

Learn the evidence, The original coupon is in fact in evidence and as Waldman tells us, the coupon specifically came from "American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963."

Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.





Btw what happened to your side kick Mongo? He's been wiped off the entire Planet!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

I already know the evidence, you fail again.

I wasn't referring to the coupon, at least try to pay attention before replying.

Yet the WC entered non-evidence into evidence from Harry Holmes showing up with a November ad from Field and Stream magazine.

ROFL

I'm not aware that anything happened to him but it apperar we're mostly on the same page concerning the evidence in the case.

I already know the evidence,

You wish.

I wasn't referring to the coupon, at least try to pay attention before replying.

I don't care what you think you posted, I directly refuted your allegation. In the original post; you claimed that the Warren Commission couldn't support my claim that Oswald bought the cheapest rifle from the original Kleins ad but Waldman tells us that the Kleins ad I posted from February 1963 contained a coupon with the specific Dept No. 358, the dept number is how they tracked which orders came from which magazine, a simple method to calculate the cost effectiveness of ads in different magazines.

but cheap ass Oswald bought what was iirc the cheapest rifle available on the Original Kleins ad.
 
Not even the Warren Commission could support that claim with verified evidence.

I'm not aware that anything happened to him but it apperar we're mostly on the same page concerning the evidence in the case.

Really? Almost half the threads on the first page were by Mongo and they all disappeared overnight, and you didn't even notice, with such weak observation skills it's no wonder you are so hopeless at solving this case.
Btw Mongo either quit or he was expelled for being a Troll, you'd better watch out, because you could be next!

JohnM

[Walt Cakebread]

How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?

I've seen Tom Alyea's video that was filmed just minutes after Day pulled the rifle from beneath the boxes of books.  Day is dusting the rifle behind the brightly sunlit window and there is not an iota of doubt that the rifle is a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.

How do you know the rifle being carried outside is the same one Alyea filmed? Or the only one found?

C'mon John....You're much too smart to actually propose that the rifle isn't the same rifle that Day pulled from beneath the boxes of books.     I believe you're simply being an antagonist.... But that's not good because there are some simple minds that will accept the idea as valid.

[John Mytton]

I don't intent(sic) to solve the case so once again you've failed royally!

What has your intent to solve this case possibly have to do with my success or failure?

JohnM

[Dan O'meara]

Lack of something can not make me "so hopeless at solving this case" unless I intend to solve the case.

That's how you failed again.

Get it now?

 

I've just noticed the "tell" proving Weidmann is, indeed, Beck.

It's been bugging me for a while that Weidmann doesn't realise it's "cannot" and not "can not".
It's hardly a coincidence that Otto displays the same basic illiteracy.

#busted

[Vincent Baxter]

Only a total loser would be wasting time trolling random forum members to check if their posts disappear.

Whereas creating multiple accounts and aliases on the forum to gang up on people and give the illusion that more members support your argument is the behaviour of a sure fire winner?