Roger Craig

[John Mytton]

Hi John, Very good! I think the mount underneath would have been a big deal! Thank you for everything! Sincerely yours, Michael

 



Btw to me, the sling in the backyard photo looks like a piece of rope?

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

And HSCA expert eyewitness Cecil Kirk determined that the same rifle was photographed with Oswald at Neely street.

 

Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.

That's not to the exclusion of all other rifles.  That's not even beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shaneyfelt:  "I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification."

[Dan O'meara]

whether one asserts the rifle was a carcano or mauser or that both types were found i feel that weitzmans testimony in relation to the rifle is contradictory . and i am not the only one who feels this .he starts by telling that he MERELY GLANCED at the rifle . this is the rifle that that has just killed the president , and he a man familiar with weapons and who i believe ran a sporting goods store has barely a passing interest in the rifle ? barely glancing at it ? . my own opinion for what it may be worth is NO . later in his testimony he described the rifle even down to the texture of the wood in a manner in which i say contradicts his original glance testimony . and we know for several days he maintained that it was a mauser . didnt this guy look at the news , listen to the radio , read a paper that tragic weekend ? .

the following is an excerpt from an online article .

"Seymour Weitzman testified before the WC on April 1, 1964. Far from clearing up doubts over the true identity of the rifle he found his testimony served only to raise suspicions:

    Mr. Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?

    Mr. Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like.

    Mr. Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?

    Mr. Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one.

    Mr. Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?

    Mr. Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.

On the surface Weitzman's claim that he had only glanced at the rifle seems a fair enough explanation of how the misidentification occurred but later in his testimony he was able to describe that rifle in far greater detail than he could possibly have done if he had only seen it "at a glance".

    Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.

    Mr. Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?

    Mr. Ball: Mauser bolt action.

    Mr. Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.

    Mr. Ball: You also said it was a gunmetal color?

    Mr. Weitzman: Yes.

    Mr. Ball: Gray or blue?

    Mr. Weitzman: Blue metal.

    Mr. Ball: And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?

    Mr. Weitzman: That's right.

    Mr. Ball: And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?

    Mr. Weitzman: It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.

    Mr. Ball: Rough wood, was it?

    Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; rough wood.

    Mr. Ball: And it was equipped with a scope?

    Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir.

    Mr. Ball: Was it of Japanese manufacture?

    Mr. Weitzman: I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

This segment of testimony seriously compromises Seymour Weitzman. I have had the benefit of inspecting a Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 carbine fitted with the same model of Ordinance Optics scope as C2766. This scope bears the following information in highly readable white print against the black cylinder of the scope:

4 x 18 coated

Ordinance Optics Inc

Hollywood, California

010 Japan. OSC

I do not believe for one minute that Seymour Weitzman could have gleaned the information he did about the colour, texture and degree of wear and tear on specific components of C2766 "at a glance" or that he could remember these in such detail 5 months later. Nor do I believe that having been able to glean so much detail about the appearance and condition of C2766 he could have failed to read the information on the scope and confuse this Japanese instrument with a Weaver. " 

the article has no name for the author that i can see , but according to the site was published online by bill mcdowal with permission of the author .

if he could see the wood was rough , that part of the bolt was worn in my mind he could see MADE IN ITALY stamped right on it quite near the bolt .and even a novice (which weitzman was not ) seeing made in italy stamped on a weapon could never mistake it for a mauser .

all that said as it stands i know of no proof that a mauser was found in the depository . but in this case it is extremely difficult to trust evidence . we have two different times given for a bullet (supposedly ce399) being handed to frazier . we have two witnesses to the bullet found at parkland  wright and pool saying the bullet they saw was POINTED TIPPED . ce399 is anything but pointed . wright was ex DPD and both he and pool were familiar with weapons and ammo . how do we explain such things ? . could they both have made a mistake ? the same mistake ? . to be human is to err , humans make mistakes but not all the time . so its not impossible they both made the SAME mistake and thought the bullet was POINTED . but if they made no error then that can only mean the pointed bullet was disappeared and replaced with the bullet in evidence .can i prove that ? no but something smells . if they can make a pointed bullet disappear why not a mauser ? . and we must add in the information for what it may be worth that a 7.65 shell was found in or around dealey . placed in an evidence envelope . later in the archives that envelope was found but empty . it read 7.65 shell found in dealey plaza , destroyed .

It doesn't matter that a couple of people mistakenly referred to the rifle as a Mauser.
What matters is that the rifle was photographed in situ and was filmed before it was removed by Day.
The rifle that Alyea filmed being removed from the boxed enclosure is a Mannlicher Carcano. It is not a Mauser.
I'm completely baffled why some "researchers" prefer to give weight to this mis-identification rather than actual film footage of the rifle being removed from it's place of discovery.
What am I missing?
The rifle is filmed in situ, Day is filmed picking it up and inspecting it, Fritz is filmed holding it by the strap.
It's all filmed.
It's all on film.
Look:

Weitzman or Boone or both mis-identified the rifle.
So what?
What's the big deal?

[John Iacoletti]

Note the deceptive shift in emphasis.
Originally the problem was the quality of the film - "those who are squinting at poor quality film footage".
So, I posted clear images from the Alyea film and all of a sudden the problem is with "closeups".

There's no shift.  It's still poor quality film footage despite your cries of "clarity".

Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.

Why not stop shifting the burden of proof?

I shouldn't have to point out that Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser "in a glance" but we get to examine clear pictures, from various angles, of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor.

Well, I got my answer.  This is just a dressed up way of saying that that you think it looks like one.

Yeah, it was such a "glance" that Weitzman went on to describe it and the scope in detail. 

"This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."

That's some "glance".

You're a very slippery customer, John, but you forget how many times I've already dealt with you.

And I've dealt with you enough to know that your subjective opinions are always "clear", "obvious", "proven", "no doubt".

[Bill Brown]

In 1968, during an interview (along with Penn Jones) with the L.A. Free Press, Roger Craig was asked about the Tippit shooting.  Craig told the interviewer that the shooting occurred at 1:45.

Jones immediately corrected Craig, informing him that the shooting occurred around 1:15.  Craig responded with "Oh?  Is that right? Okay." (or words to that effect, I'm going by memory)

The bottom line is, in 1968, Craig obviously had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.

Then, in the early 70's when writing his manuscript, Craig tells the story of being in Dealey Plaza and hearing of the shooting of the police officer in Oak Cliff.  In the scenario, Craig supposedly looks at his watch and notes that it said the time was 1:06.

Does anyone really believe that Craig heard of the shooting over in Oak Cliff, looked down at his watch and noted that the time was 1:06.... And then less than five years later, he is being interviewed and easily accepts the correction that the time of the shooting occurred at 1:15, only to then tell the story a few years later (early '70s) that his watch said it was 1:06 when he heard of the shooting?

In the 1968 interview with the LA Free Press, it is painfully obvious that Craig had no idea what time the Tippit shooting occurred.  So then why would he say the shooting happened at 1:06 when he was writing his "manuscript" in the early '70s?  Answer?  Because he was trying to sell the manuscript.

[Bill Brown]

Note the deceptive shift in emphasis.
Originally the problem was the quality of the film - "those who are squinting at poor quality film footage".
So, I posted clear images from the Alyea film and all of a sudden the problem is with "closeups".
That constant slipping and sliding I know so well.

Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.
Why don't you actually demonstrate that the quality of the film isn't good enough to make such a comparison.
{I Love doing this to you because I know you will do f^ck all about it other than try a sneak out of it}

I mean, Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser.

How sneaky you are.
I shouldn't have to point out that Weitzman thought it looked like a Mauser "in a glance" but we get to examine clear pictures, from various angles, of the rifle discovered on the sixth floor. We get to examine it for as long as we wish and in as much detail as we wish.
I know you know the difference but you just can't help yourself, can you?

Below is a picture of a 7.65 Mauser. It's the closest version to the Carcano I can find. If anyone can dig out a closer match please do.
The differences between the two rifles are too many to get into. They are clearly not the same rifle and any claims that the Alyea footage is not clear enough to make such a comparison are bogus.



You're a very slippery customer, John, but you forget how many times I've already dealt with you.

Rather than your constant snide and baseless comments that never really go anywhere why not post a picture of a rifle that isn't a Carcano but which is indistinguishable from the rifle in the Alyea footage.
Why don't you actually demonstrate that the quality of the film isn't good enough to make such a comparison.

[Dan O'meara]

There's no shift.  It's still poor quality film footage despite your cries of "clarity".

Why not stop shifting the burden of proof?

Well, I got my answer.  This is just a dressed up way of saying that that you think it looks like one.

Yeah, it was such a "glance" that Weitzman went on to describe it and the scope in detail. 

"This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it."

That's some "glance".

And I've dealt with you enough to know that your subjective opinions are always "clear", "obvious", "proven", "no doubt".

Lies, misrepresentation and deceit.
I won't bother alerting the media.

There's no shift. - This is a falsehood. An untruth. How typical of you.

Why not stop shifting the burden of proof? - ?? What "burden of proof" am I shifting? The quality of the closeups are more than enough to make a comparison between various rifles. I did exactly that in the part of the post you 'forgot' to reproduce. I am adamant the quality of the images I posted are more than enough to establish the make of the rifle [and what rifle it is not]. It is you who seems to believe it can't be done but rather than demonstrate your point you hide behind snide comments. It's really cowardly.

This is just a dressed up way of saying that that you think it looks like one. - D'uuuh. It looks exactly like a Mannlicher Carcano for a reason.

That's some "glance". - Wow! He managed to see it was a rifle with a scope and it had a sling! All in one glance!! Who is this guy? Rain Man? How could he pick up so much information with a single glance?
Okay, so he got the make and model of the rifle wrong but come on. It's like something out of the Matrix how he could just look at something, for hardly any amount of time, and almost correctly describe what he saw.
A truly staggering achievement.
It really is one for books.
I'm almost as impressed as you are by this guy's uncanny ability to look at something and just, like, y'know - see it

It is a fact that the images of rifle I posted in this thread are good enough to establish, for a fact, that the rifle seen in the Alyea footage is not a Mauser of any description. 

[John Iacoletti]

It is a fact that the images of rifle I posted in this thread are good enough to establish, for a fact, that the rifle seen in the Alyea footage is not a Mauser of any description. 

It's a fact, because you say it's a fact.

QED

 

By the way, I'm not the one here making snide remarks.  You seem to think that sarcasm somehow turns opinion into fact.