Shells, rifle, SN... Who?

[Mitch Todd]

"The second requires that you have someone who not only knows the difference between the two rifles, and is in a position to be able to clearly see said markings"

If the markings on the rifle are observable why do they need to know the difference? They brought their own lights to do the search so visibility wouldn't have been a problem.

Who said they would have been observable under the circumstances? More importantly, who said they observed said markings? No one.

"Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like?"

You tell me. It's only an issue if you're a WC apologist and need Boone and Weitzman to misidentify the TSBD Carcano as a Mauser to explain the affidavit and investigation reports they filed saying they found a mauser.
The model '91 comes up because it looks the most like the Carcano and they would have to have some knowledge of it to mistake one for the other.

You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things. Good luck with that.

[Gary Craig]

Who said they would have been observable under the circumstances? More importantly, who said they observed said markings? No one.

quote author=Gary Craig link=topic=2433.msg81878#msg81878 date=1586358163]
"Anyway, in order to tell the difference between a Mauser '91 and a Carcano, you have to know what they look like. Where did Boone say that he knew what they look like?"

You tell me. It's only an issue if you're a WC apologist and need Boone and Weitzman to misidentify the TSBD Carcano as a Mauser to explain the affidavit and investigation reports they filed saying they found a mauser.
The model '91 comes up because it looks the most like the Carcano and they would have to have some knowledge of it to mistake one for the other.

You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things. Good luck with that.

"You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things."

You got it wrong. I'm not claiming they found/saw a Argentine Mauser. The Argentine Mauser is only interjected into the conversation because it's the 7.65 Mauser that looks the most like the Carcano. Legitimizes the concept of misidentification.

My point is if, as WC apologists contend, Boone and Weitzman mistook the Carcano for a Argentine Mauser they would need to have been familiar enough with it to mistake one for the other. If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.

IMO The '91 Argentine 7.65 Mauser is a smoke screen. Part of the cover-up. A sleight of hand trick. Make one Mauser appear and
another disappear.

[Walt Cakebread]

"You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things."

You got it wrong. I'm not claiming they found/saw a Argentine Mauser. The Argentine Mauser is only interjected into the conversation because it's the 7.65 Mauser that looks the most like the Carcano. Legitimizes the concept of misidentification.

My point is if, as WC apologists contend, Boone and Weitzman mistook the Carcano for a Argentine Mauser they would need to have been familiar enough with it to mistake one for the other. If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.

IMO The '91 Argentine 7.65 Mauser is a smoke screen. Part of the cover-up. A sleight of hand trick. Make one Mauser appear and
another disappear.

 If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.


The ONE prominent characteristic that is common to both the carcano and the mauser is the unusual magazine , which is located beneathe the receiver and forward of the trigger guard.     THAT"s what Seymour Weitzman saw ai a glance and THAT's what caused him to think the rifle was a mauser.....

[John Iacoletti]

The ONE prominent characteristic that is common to both the carcano and the mauser is the unusual magazine , which is located beneathe the receiver and forward of the trigger guard.     THAT"s what Seymour Weitzman saw ai a glance and THAT's what caused him to think the rifle was a mauser.....

What about the 5-shot clip?

[Mitch Todd]

What about the 5-shot clip?

How did Weitzman know how many rounds it held? Was it:
a) Once he decided it was a Mauser, said it was 5 because Mausers hold 5 rounds?
b) happened to be carrying several rounds of Mauser ammo, and started loading them into the weapon just to see how many fit?
c) picked up the rifle and unloaded five rounds from the magazine?

If you want to argue b) or c), you'd better have a damn good reason to claim either.

[Mitch Todd]

You "covered" it before with an invented "here's what could have happened" scenario.  Here's what also could have happened:  Boone Weitzman, and Craig described a 7.65 Mauser in detail because what they saw was a 7.65 Mauser.

James Young only said that the bullet was delivered to Bethesda by a corpsman in an envelope. He didn't say that it was recovered or discovered by the corpsman. 

[Mitch Todd]

"You have it backwards. If you want to say that Boone and Fritz saw the receiver inscription and the bare metal where the crest was ground off, then you need to show that they saw such things."
You got it wrong. I'm not claiming they found/saw a Argentine Mauser. The Argentine Mauser is only interjected into the conversation because it's the 7.65 Mauser that looks the most like the Carcano. Legitimizes the concept of misidentification.

My point is if, as WC apologists contend, Boone and Weitzman mistook the Carcano for a Argentine Mauser they would need to have been familiar enough with it to mistake one for the other. If they were the 2 prominent identifying characteristics, the ground off Argentine National Crest and the receiver inscriptions would have been mentioned in their affidavits and investigation reports.

IMO The '91 Argentine 7.65 Mauser is a smoke screen. Part of the cover-up. A sleight of hand trick. Make one Mauser appear and
another disappear.

1.) The prominent identifying characteristic on a model 89/90/91 is the magazine. If you've studied enough, you can pick out one on these rifles from 50 feet away based solely on magazine.
2.) Accurate identification using the magazine requires a certain level of knowledge of the model 89/90/91, as well as a certain level of knowledge of the design of other single-stack magazine rifles.
3.) If you have some knowledge, but not enough, you're prone to making mistakes.
4.) The rifle that most resembles the Carcano isn't a Mauser '91, it's a Gew88, which isn't a coincidence, BTW. OK, maybe a Mannlicher M1893.


 

[Jack Trojan]

1.) The prominent identifying characteristic on a model 89/90/91 is the magazine. If you've studied enough, you can pick out one on these rifles from 50 feet away based solely on magazine.
2.) Accurate identification using the magazine requires a certain level of knowledge of the model 89/90/91, as well as a certain level of knowledge of the design of other single-stack magazine rifles.
3.) If you have some knowledge, but not enough, you're prone to making mistakes.
4.) The rifle that most resembles the Carcano isn't a Mauser '91, it's a Gew88, which isn't a coincidence, BTW. OK, maybe a Mannlicher M1893.

Sure, but who would take a "glance" at a rifle and make up all that crap, even if he did know the caliber of a Mauser and how many bullets the clip held?  Especially for a sworn affidavit pertaining to the assassination of the POTUS! No one would do that. Weitzman was obviously pressured into recanting his sworn testimony and concede that he only glanced at the rifle and guessed it was a Mauser. Sure, his affidavit was a guesstimate. Only a LNer believes that.