Roger Craig

[Fergus O'Brien]

I didn't say you said that. My point was, and is, Weitzman wasn't any sort of firearms expert, and never claimed to be one. So there's no reason to hang on what he said about the rifle that day.

well with the greatest respect mitch if you had been there at the time , and had looked at the rifle and saw made in italy on it i would be only too happy to accept your word for it . but therein lay the problem , neither you nor i  were there , mr weitzman was right there , so like them or not we are stuck with those who were there at the various scenes that tragic day . he was not an expert , perhaps considered something of an expert by his colleagues , based on having ran a sporting goods store . does that make him an expert in fact ? no of course not . one does not have to be EXPERT . it would help for sure . i mean im no EXPERT when it comes to the jfk assassination , there are many who know far far more than me , but that does not mean i am a novice . i have been looking at this case a great many years and i know a lot about this case . but YES i am not an expert . would i have to be considered an weapons expert in order to be able to read the words made in italy and mauser and determine that mauser is german , also argentinian of course , but traditionally german ?  .very simply it does not take a weapons expert to understand that mauser and MADE IN ITALY dont match . i am just trying to make a point that one does not necessarily have to be an expert in a particular field . as an example i have been told that neurosurgeons , doctors , nurses at parkland were not pathologists and thus could not / did not determine cause of death . now i never claimed they did determine cause of death / perform an autopsy . but given their respective medical training and medical fields with which they were qualified it is then not unreasonable to state that they should be able to determine if they are looking at the front or rear or side of a human head . indeed even you or i could make such a determination .

[Fergus O'Brien]

You were being asked a question, that's all. There was no leap, just a request for clarification which I hoped could happen without any hysterics.
Just so I understand this correctly, you are insinuating that the Alyea footage involving the discovery of the rifle was staged?
Where are you getting this silly idea from?
Is it something you've heard about or is it a product of your own imagination?
Do you have any evidence that could support this insinuation?
Is it just a load of bollocks?

there was no hysterics what so ever on my part . i neither insinuated nor even mentioned fakery of any kind . and with the greatest of respect here do you know everything about this case ? i mean it was you who asked me for a cite i  believe regarding statements made on film by brehm on another thread was it not ? , because you were unaware of these statements , correct me if i am wrong . i and another poster (i believe mr organ but i apologize if i am mistaken ) pointed out that he (brehm) made the statements in question in an interview on film with mark lane . my point simply is that neither you nor i know everything about this case , we can both educate some people and also learn a lot from others . and we can do so im certain without any need for insult or profanity , or via putting words in each others mouths .

[Mitch Todd]

well with the greatest respect mitch if you had been there at the time , and had looked at the rifle and saw made in italy on it i would be only too happy to accept your word for it . but therein lay the problem , neither you nor i  were there , mr weitzman was right there , so like them or not we are stuck with those who were there at the various scenes that tragic day . he was not an expert , perhaps considered something of an expert by his colleagues , based on having ran a sporting goods store . does that make him an expert in fact ? no of course not . one does not have to be EXPERT . it would help for sure . i mean im no EXPERT when it comes to the jfk assassination , there are many who know far far more than me , but that does not mean i am a novice . i have been looking at this case a great many years and i know a lot about this case . but YES i am not an expert . would i have to be considered an weapons expert in order to be able to read the words made in italy and mauser and determine that mauser is german , also argentinian of course , but traditionally german ?  .very simply it does not take a weapons expert to understand that mauser and MADE IN ITALY dont match . i am just trying to make a point that one does not necessarily have to be an expert in a particular field . as an example i have been told that neurosurgeons , doctors , nurses at parkland were not pathologists and thus could not / did not determine cause of death . now i never claimed they did determine cause of death / perform an autopsy . but given their respective medical training and medical fields with which they were qualified it is then not unreasonable to state that they should be able to determine if they are looking at the front or rear or side of a human head . indeed even you or i could make such a determination .

Where do I start with this mess?

OK

Weitzman never quite claimed to "run a sporting goods store. He did say that he "was in the sporting goods business awhile." This was during his tenure at a "discount operation" chain of half a dozen stores named the "Lamont Corp." I've never been able to find out exactly whether the Lamont was specifically a sporting goods outfit, or a department store that sold sporting goods among other things. In either case, Weitzman's tenure was short. Less than a year, and Weitzman concluded his general managership when he "closed up all the stores, [and] retired from the discount operation." When you add up what Weitzman said about his own experience, there is very little reason to see him as the sort of guy who could immediately identify some random rifle at first sight.
 
It's "MADE ITALY" rather than "MADE IN ITALY." And these words are in tiny blued-metal-on-blued-metal letters. They aren't the exactly the easiest things to read, even in good light. I'm not sure why you think Weitzman would have been able to read them. At least he got the text on the scope, but those words are white on a back background, and easy to read.

[Dan O'meara]

there was no hysterics what so ever on my part . i neither insinuated nor even mentioned fakery of any kind . and with the greatest of respect here do you know everything about this case ? i mean it was you who asked me for a cite i  believe regarding statements made on film by brehm on another thread was it not ? , because you were unaware of these statements , correct me if i am wrong . i and another poster (i believe mr organ but i apologize if i am mistaken ) pointed out that he (brehm) made the statements in question in an interview on film with mark lane . my point simply is that neither you nor i know everything about this case , we can both educate some people and also learn a lot from others . and we can do so im certain without any need for insult or profanity , or via putting words in each others mouths .

i neither insinuated nor even mentioned fakery of any kind

When you posted the following, what "actual footage " were you referring to?

"i also know that what a lot of people think is actual footage or actual stills are in fact recreations..."

correct me if i am wrong

You're wrong and you're being corrected.
I asked you to cite the Brehm quote and it was me who asked whether you were referring to the Lane interview, not you or anyone else.
You attributed these words to Brehm:

"...a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD"

The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected.
Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind.

[Richard Smith]

Did the witnesses who initially referred to the rifle as a Mauser continue to stand by that claim or did they acknowledge that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor was the rifle discovered and they were mistaken?  I know Boone said over and over that he was mistaken to refer to the rifle as a Mauser and that the MC rifle was the rifle found.   And think of the absurdity of the narrative behind this scenario.   Oswald is linked to a specific rifle via real or faked evidence by the conspirators for the purpose of framing him for the crime. This rifle is linked to the crime by, for example, the shell casings left at the scene.  But the conspirators are going to use an entirely different rifle to commit the crime?  Leave it at the scene where it will be discovered and taken by the police, Likely photographed and filmed. They must then somehow switch the rifle in evidence for the one linked to Oswald including recovery of the bullets and shells to match Oswald's rifle.  They do all of this instead of just linking Oswald to the Mauser in the first place or using the MC to commit the assassination.  It's laughable.

[Dan O'meara]

Did the witnesses who initially referred to the rifle as a Mauser continue to stand by that claim or did they acknowledge that the MC rifle found on the 6th floor was the rifle discovered and they were mistaken?  I know Boone said over and over that he was mistaken to refer to the rifle as a Mauser and that the MC rifle was the rifle found.   And think of the absurdity of the narrative behind this scenario.   Oswald is linked to a specific rifle via real or faked evidence by the conspirators for the purpose of framing him for the crime. This rifle is linked to the crime by, for example, the shell casings left at the scene.  But the conspirators are going to use an entirely different rifle to commit the crime?  Leave it at the scene where it will be discovered and taken by the police, Likely photographed and filmed. They must then somehow switch the rifle in evidence for the one linked to Oswald including recovery of the bullets and shells to match Oswald's rifle.  They do all of this instead of just linking Oswald to the Mauser in the first place or using the MC to commit the assassination.  It's laughable.

On top of this there are about a dozen officers milling about the area where the rifle was discovered and we are supposed to believe they all held their positions until Ayea shouted "Action".
 

[Fergus O'Brien]

the brehm stuff is all on the brehm thread , i made my self crystal clear there . i accurately quoted brehm , what he said IS ON FILM . and another posted accurately quoted mark lane who DID NOT QUOTE BREHM VERBATIM , he lane added in his opinion as to what he felt what brehm saw meant . as i said the brehm comments are on the brehm thread , this is a different thread . and no you did not correct me re brehm  , i quoted him accurately . you can feel free to correct me if i am wrong and i will be only too happy to correct my self after that . any opinion that i am wrong is not the same as proof that i am wrong . you are entitled to disagree with me , that is your right , and i wont attack or insult you for doing so .

but as you decided too drag another thread into this one , here is the relevant exchange

"As a ww2 veteran and a man / witness who lone nut advocates say was well experienced in terms of the sounds of gun fire (and i am sure that he was ) if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood . and then asked him if he could explain that via a shot or shots ONLY from the rear . " fergus obrien

at no point in the above did i quote brehm verbatim , had i done so i would have done so within quotes .

here is your reply

a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD

Hi Fergus, where/when did Brehm make this statement?

mr organ then replied and posted information and telling you the statement was made in lanes rush to judgement .

i had not seen mr organs above reply before i had posted mine , here it is

"you are seriously asking me this ? , he is on film stating this .for the record i have no problem helping a person IE if they genuinely dont know something and need directing to where they can see or find info .but if i could say one thing dan you are no novice , so i cant understand why you would not know about what brehm said on film ." fergus obrien

here is your reply

"Just checking whether this was the Lane interview where Brehm says "whatever it was", meaning he didn't actually know what it was.
So, was it the Lane interview you were referencing.
BTW, it is customary to cite your sources as a matter of practice, You shouldn't have to be asked at all."

yes brehm did mention during the interview WHAT EVER IT WAS , i will grant you that and i would not deny that . but then i posted the relevant segment of the lane / brehm interview verbatim , it is important to have context .here it is again  .

LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below  ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

that was my last post there on that thread , indeed it is the final post on that thread . so NO you did not correct me , i was not wrong , i never originally quoted brehm verbatim .

"The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected." dan

the above VERBATIM quote of the lane / brehm interview proves otherwise .

"LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING ."

"Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind." dan

i think you should concern yourself with what you post and the accuracy of that . and please dont clutter topics by talking about stuff that does not belong here . when i mentioned the other thread i did so only because you asked a question that would lead one (whether right or wrong ) to infer you did not know about what was said . and given your previous posts that i read i gave you the respect of believing you to be knowledgeable , so i was surprised to think you were unaware of this .

in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite .

[Dan O'meara]

the brehm stuff is all on the brehm thread , i made my self crystal clear there . i accurately quoted brehm , what he said IS ON FILM . and another posted accurately quoted mark lane who DID NOT QUOTE BREHM VERBATIM , he lane added in his opinion as to what he felt what brehm saw meant . as i said the brehm comments are on the brehm thread , this is a different thread . and no you did not correct me re brehm  , i quoted him accurately . you can feel free to correct me if i am wrong and i will be only too happy to correct my self after that . any opinion that i am wrong is not the same as proof that i am wrong . you are entitled to disagree with me , that is your right , and i wont attack or insult you for doing so .

but as you decided too drag another thread into this one , here is the relevant exchange

"As a ww2 veteran and a man / witness who lone nut advocates say was well experienced in terms of the sounds of gun fire (and i am sure that he was ) if i spoke to him i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood . and then asked him if he could explain that via a shot or shots ONLY from the rear . " fergus obrien

at no point in the above did i quote brehm verbatim , had i done so i would have done so within quotes .

here is your reply

a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD

Hi Fergus, where/when did Brehm make this statement?

mr organ then replied and posted information and telling you the statement was made in lanes rush to judgement .

i had not seen mr organs above reply before i had posted mine , here it is

"you are seriously asking me this ? , he is on film stating this .for the record i have no problem helping a person IE if they genuinely dont know something and need directing to where they can see or find info .but if i could say one thing dan you are no novice , so i cant understand why you would not know about what brehm said on film ." fergus obrien

here is your reply

"Just checking whether this was the Lane interview where Brehm says "whatever it was", meaning he didn't actually know what it was.
So, was it the Lane interview you were referencing.
BTW, it is customary to cite your sources as a matter of practice, You shouldn't have to be asked at all."

yes brehm did mention during the interview WHAT EVER IT WAS , i will grant you that and i would not deny that . but then i posted the relevant segment of the lane / brehm interview verbatim , it is important to have context .here it is again  .

LANE : DID YOU SEE THE EFFECTS OF THE BULLET ON THE PRESIDENT ?
BREHM :WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT , THERE WAS , THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING (brehm indicated the hair on the rear and right of the head , see video below  ) .IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET .AND UH YES , I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET .
LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING .
LANE : IN WHICH DIRECTION DID THAT FLY ? .
BREHM :IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK .
LANE :IN OTHER WORDS THE SKULL PARTICLES FLEW TO THE LEFT AND TO THE REAR OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMOUSINE ? .
BREHM :UH SIR WHAT EVER IT WAS THAT I SAW DID FALL BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND OVER IN THE CURB THERE .

that was my last post there on that thread , indeed it is the final post on that thread . so NO you did not correct me , i was not wrong , i never originally quoted brehm verbatim .

"The fact of the matter is, Brehm never mentions a piece of JFK's head flying anywhere.
You were wrong to attribute these words to Brehm and you are now being corrected." dan

the above VERBATIM quote of the lane / brehm interview proves otherwise .

"LANE : DID YOU SEE ANY PARTICLES OF THE PRESIDENTS SKULL FLY WHEN THE BULLET STRUCK HIM IN THE HEAD ? .
BREHM :I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER , OH , OVER IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING ."

"Be more careful about what you post. When you are wrong you will be corrected.
And we'll have less of the hysterics if you don't mind." dan

i think you should concern yourself with what you post and the accuracy of that . and please dont clutter topics by talking about stuff that does not belong here . when i mentioned the other thread i did so only because you asked a question that would lead one (whether right or wrong ) to infer you did not know about what was said . and given your previous posts that i read i gave you the respect of believing you to be knowledgeable , so i was surprised to think you were unaware of this .

in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite .

but as you decided too drag another thread into this one

It was YOU who dragged the other thread into this, not me.
What do you think you're playing at?
Is this deliberate deception or don't you know what you're saying?

And let me just clear this bullsh^t up once and for all.
You were wrong to post this:

"if i spoke to him [Brehm] i would have asked him about his undeniable statement about watching a piece of jfks head fly through the air both REARWARD and leftward and land at the curb where he stood"

YOU claimed that Brehm had made an "undeniable statement" about watching a piece of JFK's head fly through the air.
But it IS a deniable statement because Brehm never made any such statement.
You were wrong to attribute this to Brehm as an undeniable statement and trying to sneak out of it now by claiming you didn't use quotation marks isn't going to cut it.
You attributed this statement to Brehm quotation marks or not.

So I asked you a civil question about where you were getting this quote from because it's not in any of Brehm's recorded testimony.
Instead of receiving a civil answer I got a rant beginning with - "you are seriously asking me this ?" - as if I have no right to even ask the question.

in fact i posted in reply to you in another thread to day re rowland , i posted very politely in agreement with you . because people can have differing view points but still agree . but some times one wastes their time being polite

And I have replied with similar politeness.
When I ask a civil question I expect a civil answer.
You were wrong to attribute those words to Brehm and label it an "undeniable statement".