Next to Oswald's Rifle

[Martin Weidmann]

If you want to discuss another topic, we can do that.

It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.

What made you change your mind so quickly?

Was it this;

After this disappointing reply, I have to say I've lost interest. Against my better judgement, I accepted your invitation to debate this topic here, because in my mind there is always a possibility that my opinion is wrong and, just maybe, you would present something that would make me change my opinion. From our discussion in this thread it has, sadly, become obvious that you never even considered the possibility that you could be wrong, when in fact, as is painfully clear, you are.

It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with an LN who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that LN.

I noticed you stopped short of using my entire text, but then, perhaps that's understandable, because it also said;

because in my mind there is always a possibility that my opinion is wrong and, just maybe, you would present something that would make me change my opinion.

And that's something that doesn't even cross your mind, right?

[Walt Cakebread]

McCloy asks two questions and Frazier answers the second Question first.

Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn

"and"

Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?

JohnM

"
"Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?"

Duh!....  Do you actually believe that the spent shells had to have been fired at the time of the coup d'etat?  In reality there is good reason to doubt that the spent shells were fired that day......

[Bill Brown]

Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.

So, you keep saying, but you can not show where Frazier said he found pitting, so it's a pretty meaningless comment.

This also matters!

Now you're changing your argument.

The rifle was not found to be rusty.

The rifle showed signs of corrosion.

Pitting is an example of corrosion.

This is not word games at all.  A rusty rifle barrel would be huge.  Rust present in the barrel when it was found up on the sixth floor would pretty much prove that that C-2766 didn't fire shots that day.  This is important.

Zeon Mason should have said the rifle showed signs of corrosion.  He should not have said the barrel was rusty.  I like Zeon and hate beating this dead horse, but you're so hell-bent on anything Bill Brown-related, that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

You're like a jilted lover.

[Martin Weidmann]

Now you're changing your argument.

The rifle was not found to be rusty.

The rifle showed signs of corrosion.

Pitting is an example of corrosion.

This is not word games at all.  A rusty rifle barrel would be huge.  Rust present in the barrel when it was found up on the sixth floor would pretty much prove that that C-2766 didn't fire shots that day.  This is important.

Zeon Mason should have said the rifle showed signs of corrosion.  He should not have said the barrel was rusty.  I like Zeon and hate beating this dead horse, but you're so hell-bent on anything Bill Brown-related, that you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

You're like a jilted lover.

Why mention that pitting is an example of corrosion if you didn't want to introduce it into the discussion as the corrosion Frazier found?

Or is it just your habit to make purposeless comments in a conversation?

Btw, insinuating something by making a statement in such a way that the meaning is clear without actually saying the words is a perfect example of a word game.

You're like a jilted lover.

Project much? All people have to do is read my previous post and they will know who is the one feeling jilted....

But thanks for the laugh...

Do yourself a favor, Bill. Take a deep breath and count to ten.... you might feel better then.

[Bill Brown]

Now Weidmann is once again acting like a child.  This is typical when he becomes frustrated.

The bottom line... The barrel was not found to be rusty and the claim that it was rusty should not have been made.  Pitting is a perfect example of "wear and corrosion" that would NOT be removed from the barrel when the rifle was fired.

However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion". -- Bill Brown

Cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion. -- Martin Wedimann

Frazier said that the interior of the surface of the barrel was roughened from corrosion or wear.  Pitting is an example of the effects of corrosion; holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel.  Holes in the metal would obviously not be removed when the rifle fires off a shot. -- Bill Brown


Question:  Why has any of this turned into such a big deal?

Answer:  Because Weidmann, who clearly cannot correctly decipher testimony, wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill and has the free time required to bog down the thread with nonsense.

I've made my point and stand by everything I have said here.

The barrel was not found to be rusty and pitting is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired.  Interesting that this, in a nutshell, is all that I am really saying (both are correct) but has somehow been turned into much more.  That's what happens when the kook-spin is added.

Nothing more to say on this subject.  I'm moving on.  Weidmann can have the last word (watch and see).

[Martin Weidmann]

Now Weidmann is once again acting like a child.  This is typical when he becomes frustrated.

The bottom line... The barrel was not found to be rusty and the claim that it was rusty should not have been made.  Pitting is a perfect example of "wear and corrosion" that would NOT be removed from the barrel when the rifle was fired.

However, this shot would not have removed "signs of the effect of wear and corrosion". -- Bill Brown

Cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion. -- Martin Wedimann

Frazier said that the interior of the surface of the barrel was roughened from corrosion or wear.  Pitting is an example of the effects of corrosion; holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel.  Holes in the metal would obviously not be removed when the rifle fires off a shot. -- Bill Brown


Question:  Why has any of this turned into such a big deal?

Answer:  Because Weidmann, who clearly cannot correctly decipher testimony, wants to make a mountain out of a mole hill and has the free time required to bog down the thread with nonsense.

I've made my point and stand by everything I have said here.

The barrel was not found to be rusty and pitting is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired.  Interesting that this, in a nutshell, is all that I am really saying (both are correct) but has somehow been turned into much more.  That's what happens when the kook-spin is added.

Nothing more to say on this subject.  I'm moving on.  Weidmann can have the last word (watch and see).

Now Weidmann is once again acting like a child.  This is typical when he becomes frustrated.

So, falling of my chair, from laughter is an expression of frustration?    Keep 'm coming, Bill... This is hilarious.

I understand that trying to save face is difficult for somebody who suffers from the delusion that he is always right, but you surely can come up with some better material than this, can't you?

I've made my point and stand by everything I have said here.

As it turns out, that's what Bill says when he gets stuck and has nothing left to counter .. It's the precursor to him bailing out!

Nothing more to say on this subject.  I'm moving on.

And there it is.....   

Weidmann can have the last word

Thank you, very kind of you.... says the "dumb ass"   

[Michael Walton]

Jake, you posted the incorrect photo of Dick Nixon and Jack Ruby in '47. Here is the correct, undoctored photo of them smiling and laughing as Prescott Bush initiates Nixon into the world of the Deep State. Dick and Jack were already planning JFK's assassination at this point. Hence, the smiles and laughs. The man on the left is Frank Sturgis with aging makeup on to disguise himself.

[John Mytton]

Jake, you posted the incorrect photo of Dick Nixon and Jack Ruby in '47. Here is the correct, undoctored photo of them smiling and laughing as Prescott Bush initiates Nixon into the world of the Deep State. Dick and Jack were already planning JFK's assassination at this point. Hence, the smiles and laughs. The man on the left is Frank Sturgis with aging makeup on to disguise himself.

undoctored photo

 

I know you're only joking but that is a very poor composite, Ruby's head is lit wrong, with a different film grain and his face been cut and pasted from a magazine or book. What this fake photo does show is that finding photos of someone's face and pasting it over a different body needs many different variables absolutely spot on to achieve an undetectable photo realistic result.



JohnM