Firearms experts who say; ?I can't do it so it can't be done?, cannot be trusted

[Bill Chapman]

What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

C'mon .... Somebody who argues that the rifle ( carcano) was actually a Mauser  must have some idea why they believe that the Mauser was switched, and all of the photos and films that clearly show the Carcano are all fakes.....   

If Lee was set up as the Patsy, as I believe the evidence indicates....then what was the purpose of a mauser ...A rifle that was never associated with lee Oswald.   

You and Oswald have a commonality.

To wit: You both were/are deranged possessors of a Carcano with an unhinged need to be a somebody.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

Lighten up Mr. Sensitive

A personal (mild though it is) attack! Your interpretation is not justified based on my bland unemotional comments. If you can: Identify my words that indicate "sensitive"?

You brought up "the Mauser"... which is somewhat "off-topic".

Help me understand the difference between finding a Mauser and finding a Mannilicher Carcano.

I was obliged to address the issue of "another gun" which meant referencing Seymour Weitzman who discovered the assassination weapon.

Fact is: You're cornered. You raised the alleged existence of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSB on 22 November 1963. Consequently, you are obliged to explain why it would be there. Otherwise: You're just "trollin" (sic).

A G A I N

If you believe there was a Mauser rifle in the TSBD on 22 November 1963:

-- Who brought the Mauser to the TSBD?

-- At what time was the Mauser brought to the TSBD?

-- Who removed the Mauser from the TSBD?

-- At what time was the Mauser removed from the TSBD?

Additionally the most important question of all:

-- What was the purpose of a Mauser being on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Well?

Ya (sic) can't tell us cos (sic) ya (sic) got nuthin (sic).

Alternately, you can admit that you don't believe there was a Mauser on the 6th floor of the TSBD on 22 November 1963.

Play games all you want. Change the subject all you want.
Off topic? Change the subject
Troll?  Change the subject
What will be Ross's next straw man? It started with Jesse V

[Walt Cakebread]

You and Oswald have a commonality.

To wit: You both were/are deranged possessors of a Carcano with an unhinged need to be a somebody.

I'm merely an American who still clings to the old fashioned, hackneyed ....  "With liberty and JUSTICE for all"

I cling to the hope that we can bring justice to JFK and Lee Oswald.....   ( probably futile in our corrupt and immoral America....)

[John Iacoletti]

That's correct John.
Do you believe that alone proves it's impossible for Oswald to make the "kill" shots attributed to him by the Warren Commission and the HSCA?

If it's YES, explain why?

No, I don?t think it?s impossible. I?m saying that the fact that he barely qualified as a sharpshooter 7 years earlier is mostly irrelevant. What?s the evidence that he actually fired the shots attributed to him?

[John Iacoletti]

Fact is: You're cornered. You raised the alleged existence of a Mauser on the 6th floor TSB on 22 November 1963. Consequently, you are obliged to explain why it would be there. Otherwise: You're just "trollin" (sic).

That?s BS. You can acknowledge that evidence exists without having an ?explanation? for it. You think Oswald killed JFK, but can?t explain his motive for doing so.

[Ross Lidell]

That?s BS. You can acknowledge that evidence exists without having an ?explanation? for it. You think Oswald killed JFK, but can?t explain his motive for doing so.

Yes John; but I thought you were "a researcher"... desperately seeking to find the truth and solve the mystery of who really killed JFK at the behest of evil conspirators?

Not being a dodger; there are two things I will say about motive:

1. It is not necessary to prove a motive to convict an accused murderer. It can be "probative" in some cases. Like when the husband is suspected of killing his wife and he recently took out at a large insurance policy on her life.

2. When the victim of an assassination is the President of the United States (most would receive death threats every week): The motive is an aggrieved little "nobody" wanting to "bring down" a "somebody".

Even in the London mock trial of LHO: The defense attorney Gerry Spence did not push the "my client had no motive" ploy in his summation to the jury.

You want to know Oswald's motive for killing JFK? Ask Lee when you get to hell.  Not being nasty to you John: You're dressed for it already. 

[Ross Lidell]

Play games all you want. Change the subject all you want.
Off topic? Change the subject
Troll?  Change the subject
What will be Ross's next straw man? It started with Jesse V

No games... just attempting to get you to "fess up to what you think about the Mauser's existence, if that's what you believe":

-- Some nefarious purpose?

-- A red herring?

-- An innocent coincidence?

There is no "straw man". This topic, quite rightly explores the "no expert shooter could replicate Oswald's alleged feat" argument.

It exposes the flaws in this theory.

Even if it was possible to be 100% certain of the time available for Oswald to fire the shots: A biased [does not think Oswald did it] expert shooter could intentionally perform way below his best to prove his belief that he has either declared in advance or kept secret.

There are two ways such a shooter could intentionally under-perform:

1. Slowly and clumsily operate the bolt-action of a Carcano (like Oswald's) to exceed the time limit.

2. Aim off-target and miss one, two or all the shots.

See!!!!!!!!!! It cannot be done because I could not do it. 

It can reasonably be suggested that Governor Jesse Ventura did at least #1.

Keep in mind: If Governor/Navy Seal/Pro Wrestler Jesse Ventura equals or beats Oswald's estimated shooting time... his (Ventura's) theory is destroyed and there is no point in completing the episode of "Conspiracy Theories" and broadcasting it.

In other words: Jesse Ventura had a motive to fail.

[Jerry Freeman]

The motive is an aggrieved little "nobody" wanting to "bring down" a "somebody".

Doesn't hold water. The so called aggrieved-- denied everything...claiming no 'place in history'.
Besides --what does this really have to do with the topic?

It [This topic] exposes the flaws in this theory.

The theory that Oswald was pronounced guilty- therefor he is.