Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[John Iacoletti]

The conspiracy believers think the conspirators could do anything. But they couldn't get Oswald's co-workers to implicate him directly in the assassination. Or get Marina to say he hated JFK. Or get Ruth Paine to say she saw him with a package that morning. Or get Michael to say he saw the rifle. Or get DeMohrenschildt  to say.....on and and on.

We've raised these matters repeatedly with the conspiracy believers. And they can never answer them.

No, "these matters" are ridiculous strawman arguments to deflect from your own inability to prove your case.  I have never come across a single person ever who tried to claim that "the conspirators could do anything".

[John Iacoletti]

Yes, it is amazing.  So many logical inconsistencies.  They must live in an interesting fantasy world.  They often dispute, for example, that Oswald's prints were on the rifle because the authorities had control of the evidence and could make up any findings they wanted.

Who are you trying to fool?  There were some prints in the trigger guard area that were insufficient for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

[Walt Cakebread]

Who are you trying to fool?  There were some prints in the trigger guard area that were insufficient for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

This is not correct.....The so called "palm print was spotted by Lt Day when he was dusting the carcano for prints in the TSBD at about 1:45 that afternoon.   Day spotted what he thought was a palm print in the wooden foregrip of the carcano.  He knew that the wood would absorb the print rather quickly so he used cellophane tape and lifted the print and placed the lift on a 3 X 5 index card . He the jotted down the info that was pertinent to the lift ...11/22/63  "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle c2766",  as Tom Alyea watched. Later that night when the DPD was ordered to release all of the evidence to the FBI ...The index card with the cellophane tape "palm print" was released.   It is item number 14 on the evidence list.

[John Iacoletti]

This is not correct.....The so called "palm print was spotted by Lt Day when he was dusting the carcano for prints in the TSBD at about 1:45 that afternoon.   Day spotted what he thought was a palm print in the wooden foregrip of the carcano.  He knew that the wood would absorb the print rather quickly so he used cellophane tape and lifted the print and placed the lift on a 3 X 5 index card . He the jotted down the info that was pertinent to the lift ...11/22/63  "off underside gun barrel near end of foregrip on rifle c2766",  as Tom Alyea watched. Later that night when the DPD was ordered to release all of the evidence to the FBI ...The index card with the cellophane tape "palm print" was released.   It is item number 14 on the evidence list.

Yes, I'm very familiar with Lt. Day's claim.  The lift still appeared a week later on an index card, there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location.  And no, your undated evidence list tells you nothing about what was released to the FBI on 11/22.  Latona got the lift on the 29th.

[Walt Cakebread]

Yes, I'm very familiar with Lt. Day's claim.  The lift still appeared a week later on an index card, there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location.  And no, your undated evidence list tells you nothing about what was released to the FBI on 11/22.  Latona got the lift on the 29th.

The lift still appeared a week later on an index card, there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location.

Thank you, John.... "there was no remaining trace of it on the rifle, and no powder or any other indication Latona could see that the rifle had even been processed for prints in that location."

You're referring to the METAL BARREL about 6 inches back from the muzzle of the rifle....and not only did Latona swear that there was NO INDICATION that there had ever been a print at that site, but he also swore that there wasn't any trace that the area had ever been checked for finger prints.   AND Let me point out that there is a bayonet lug that surrounds the metal barrel at the site and that bayonet lug would have prevented anybody from depositing a print on the metal barrel "that extended back beneath the wood of the foregrip" ( as Lt. Day testified)   

[Mitch Todd]

The Carcano is a stock military bolt-action rifle, and it looks the part.

You're right Mitch....Except you forgot that the rifle that was found in the TSBD had a scope mounted.   That scope was NOT standard as issued part of the rifle.  As a matter of fact, The cheap scope was hastily and sloppily attached to the Carcano's that Klein's sold  to enhance  the sales appeal.  In reality that POS scope was a hindrance to the firing of the rifle ...It DID NOT enhance the accuracy or the utility of the rifle in any way.  However that scope was great for duping the gullible public.  The police investigators boldly  proclaimed that the rifle was a deadly accurate weapon with a telescopic sight.

Didn't forget anything. I'm sure that that everyone knows the Carcano has a scope mounted, enough that I shouldn't have to remind everyone.

I'm also sure that whether the rifle had a scope on it is immaterial to Mr O'Meara's question as to whether  the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized.

I'm also sure that someone else here has recently said:

Sporterized does not mean the converted military rifle would have a scope mounted...

That person agrees that the scope is immaterial as to whether the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized, and not really worth mentioning in this context.

[Dan O'meara]

Didn't forget anything. I'm sure that that everyone knows the Carcano has a scope mounted, enough that I shouldn't have to remind everyone.

I'm also sure that whether the rifle had a scope on it is immaterial to Mr O'Meara's question as to whether  the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized.

I'm also sure that someone else here has recently said:
That person agrees that the scope is immaterial as to whether the Carcano would be considered to be sporterized, and not really worth mentioning in this context.

Arnold Rowland is quite specific about the rifle he sees being held by a man on the sixth floor at around 12:15. It's a type of rifle he seems familiar with having used one before:

"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."

Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?

[Walt Cakebread]

Arnold Rowland is quite specific about the rifle he sees being held by a man on the sixth floor at around 12:15. It's a type of rifle he seems familiar with having used one before:

"In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size 6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope."

Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?

Is he describing a Carcano or something more like a sporterized Mauser?

Rowland was definitely describing a sporting rifle ( ie; a hunting rifle) with a LARGE scope ..He was not describing a MILITARY rifle.

There would be no way of knowing if the sporting rifle that Rowland saw was manufactured as a sporting rifle. or if the rifle had been manufactured as a military rifle and then converted by sporterizing, to a hunting rifle.