Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: A straight line  (Read 177142 times)

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11148
Re: A straight line
« Reply #160 on: February 28, 2018, 07:00:21 PM »
Advertisement
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 #160 on: February 28, 2018, 07:00:21 PM »


Online Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 845
Re: A straight line
« Reply #161 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 »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11148
Re: A straight line
« Reply #162 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 #162 on: February 28, 2018, 07:56:56 PM »


Online Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 845
Re: A straight line
« Reply #163 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.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: A straight line
« Reply #164 on: February 28, 2018, 09:53:01 PM »
One of the lamer excuses I've heard postulated here is that he just wanted to look like a sniper.

How do you know what Oswald was thinking... oh, wait... that's what you're here to explain to us, including what each witness really meant in testimony. Got it.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #164 on: February 28, 2018, 09:53:01 PM »


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7752
Re: A straight line
« Reply #165 on: February 28, 2018, 10:02:29 PM »
How do you know what Oswald was thinking... oh, wait... that's what you're here to explain to us, including what each witness really meant in testimony. Got it.

No, you haven't got it at all.

In fact, you are really struggling with this stuff, aren't you?

John did not claim to know what Oswald was thinking.

He merely gave his opinion about something that was claimed by somebody else. It is the guy who came up with that lame excuse you need to talk to.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11148
Re: A straight line
« Reply #166 on: February 28, 2018, 10:26:07 PM »
How do you know what Oswald was thinking... oh, wait... that's what you're here to explain to us, including what each witness really meant in testimony. Got it.

Uhh, Chapman, the guy who came up with this lame excuse is the one claiming to know what Oswald was thinking, not me.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6506
Re: A straight line
« Reply #167 on: March 01, 2018, 03:18:42 AM »
Uhh, Chapman, the guy who came up with this lame excuse is the one claiming to know what Oswald was thinking, not me.

Uhh, Iacoletti... The fact that you called it a 'lame excuse' suggests you must know Oswald would not want to 'look like a sniper'

However, brandishing a rifle, with pistol on his hip, decked out in all-black getup, clutching commie literature* and posing for the camera might suggest that which you dismiss so easily may be not so far off the mark after all.


*All of which Marina found quite amusing, purportedly
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 03:25:34 AM by Bill Chapman »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A straight line
« Reply #167 on: March 01, 2018, 03:18:42 AM »