Did Captain Fritz show Mr Oswald a Mauser?

[Richard Smith]

You, of course, already know that bullet fragments were recovered from the limo that came from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle.  Attempting to draw some distinction about who found them is just rabbit hole nonsense.

No, I don't already know that. What I do know is that Frazier and his team were confronted by a contaminated crime scene when they arrived at the Secret Service garage to examine the limo and I do know that Frazier was handed some bullet fragments which he was told came from the limo. In other words, a contaminated crime scene and no solid chain of custody!

Quoting the WC report as evidence (of what exactly?) is pathetic!

If a contaminated crime scene and no solid chain of custody isn't grounds for reasonable doubt then nothing is!

There is no credible evidence that these fragments or the bullet found at Parkland (which also came from Oswald's rifle) was planted by anyone. 

There doesn't have to be. What you need is credible and conclusive evidence that the fragments were indeed found in the limo and that the bullet now in evidence as CE399 is in fact the same one Tomlinson found at Parkland Hospital. Regarding the latter, O.V. Wright, in Six seconds in Dallas, denied it was.

The WC failed to provide such proof and simply ignored all the evidentiary problems with both the fragments and the Parkland bullet.

Same old song and dance.  There is a mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the assassination.  Your rebuttal is that maybe the evidence was "planted" or "contaminated" (whatever that is supposed to mean).  Therefore nothing can ever proven because it is "possible" to dream up an explanation.  It's an impossible standard of proof argument since it is always "possible" that evidence could be planted in any crime if you are not required to offer any evidence of such fakery.  No fact in human history could ever be proven using this silly standard.  The facts are that Oswald's rifle was found at the crime scene.  Fired bullet casings from his rifle were found by the window from which witnesses confirm that they saw a rifle at the moment of the assassination.  Bullet fragments from that rifle were found in the car.  And a bullet from his rifle was found at hospital where his victims were taken.  There couldn't be any more evidence absent a time machine.

[Bill Chapman]

Iacoletti:
No evidence exists whatsoever that the bullet in evidence was ever in Dealey Plaza (or ever at Parkland Hospital for that matter) or ever went through Kennedy or Connally.

No evidence whatsoever exists that some other rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza that day. No evidence whatsoever exists that the bullets that struck the victims came from some other rifle. No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a frameup. No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. No evidence exists that anyone but the shooter knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

[Walt Cakebread]

Wow.  That is incredibly stupid even from you.  But let's use your idiotic analogy.  If your kid ate a jar of chocolate chip cookies would he leave a ginger bread cookie to frame his brother?  Of course not because it would not fulfill his purpose.  He would leave a chocolate chip cookie.   You are not following the obvious problem with leaving a rifle that was not involved in the crime to frame someone for that crime.

explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald?

Duh.... The conspirators knew that they would need to plant a rifle like the one seen in Lee's hands in the BY photo.   And naturally the spent shells they had would need to be the type that fit the rifle.   It didn't make a damn bit of difference if the shells were freshly fired, or the rifle had been fired recently ....They were the conspirators and the investigators.   They could tell the trusting pissants anything and nobody would argue with them.   

The fact that you believe that the Carcano was the murder weapon in spite of the evidence that's been presented that indicates it could not have been the murder weapon is an excellent example of how simple, trusting and naive fools, can be tricked.

Now then try to use your little pea brain and explain how a rifle that allegedly had been fired just hours before it was examined and found to have rust and dirt in the barrel , could have that dirty and rusty bore?    Do you believe the tightly fitting, high velocity  bullets, wouldn't have scoured that bore.

And explain why not a single trained police officer detected any trace of he smell of burned gunpowder when the rifle was found?
If that rifle had been fired less than an hour earlier the smell of gunpowder down in that enclosure of boxes of books would have been very noticeable.

Please explain how a 5 ' 9", 135 pound, man could reach out and place the rifle at the bottom of a five foot deep well from five feet away.....??  And then stack a couple of boxes over the top of the "well" opening?

If you can answer the questions.... Then you MIGHT have a plausible case that the carcano was the murder weapon.   

 

[John Iacoletti]

Same old song and dance.  There is a mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the rifle and the rifle to the assassination.

Same old song and dance, indeed.  Your "mountain of evidence" is a mountain of conjecture, assumption, and false claims about the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

No evidence whatsoever exists that some other rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza that day.

Or that rifle.

No evidence whatsoever exists that the bullets that struck the victims came from some other rifle.

Or that rifile.

No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a frameup.

You need evidence for a need?     You can either prove that Oswald did it or you cannot.  And you cannot.

No evidence whatsoever exists that would point to a need for a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. No evidence exists that anyone but the shooter knew that there was about to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day.

Completely irrelevant, like everything you try to regale us with.

[Bill Chapman]

Or that rifle.

Or that rifile.

You need evidence for a need?     You can either prove that Oswald did it or you cannot.  And you cannot.

Completely irrelevant, like everything you try to regale us with.

I've never said I could prove any of this, Neil. But then I don't need to anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, Slick.

[John Iacoletti]

I've never said I could prove any of this, Neil. But then I don't need to anyway, since this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, Slick.

Sure, Mortimer, but a discussion is more that just telling us who you believe did it over and over again.  Oh yeah, and all of your "clever, cut-to-the-quick insights".

[Martin Weidmann]

I explain it as largely a figment of your imagination along with a false understanding of the evidence.  Now explain to me why your fantasy conspirators would leave a rifle that wasn't used in the crime to frame Oswald?  That is inexplicable.  Why not use the same rifle to commit the crime as they are going to leave at the scene and avoid the obvious complications involved in using a different rifle/ammo and having to somehow fake all that evidence.  It is absurd.  And there is no credible evidence that any other rifle was used or that Oswald's rifle was planted.  That is just a baseless "possibility" posed to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion from the actual evidence.

Earlier in this thread I wrote;

Can you also tell us what would constitute "evidence" that Oswald's rifle was fired on 11.22.63 that is lacking from the record?

Again, there is no evidence in the record that the MC rifle found at the TSBD was fired on 11/22/63. There is, however, in the record the fact that the barrel of the MC was not cleared of rust, which is what it should have been had a shot been fired. For some reason you seem to ignore that fact. One can only wonder why...

A day later Walt asked the same question, I asked previously;

So that's they only time the cartridges could have been fired from the carcano??   How do you explain the dirt and rust in the barrel, when three rounds would definitely have scoured any rust from the barrel.....

And your "answer" is;

I explain it as largely a figment of your imagination along with a false understanding of the evidence.

Which is not only complete BS but also shows how you deal with inconvenient facts in the record. You simply ignore them and dismiss them as a figment of imagination.....

Weak... very weak! But thanks for proving me right.