The LHO Escape -- Panic and Shock

[John Mytton]

If that MC had been fired at 12:30 Nov 23/63,  why wasn’t there any gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle when they examined it within one hour after it had been fired?

How is that 7 people whom were given a paraffin test on their cheek after firing an MC rifle were ALL positive, while Oswald’s cheek test was negative?

If that MC had been fired at 12:30 Nov 23/63,  why wasn’t there any gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle when they examined it within one hour after it had been fired?

We know for a fact that Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor was fired because the shells on the floor of the snipers nest were an exclusive match. Now you may claim that at an earlier time that someone fired Oswald's rifle and dropped the shells on the floor of the sniper's nest, Which leads to some interesting questions?

How long after a rifle is fired can you expect to detect "gunpowder residue in the rifle grooves or the breech or chamber of the rifle"? Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years?
Who did this investigation?
What qualifications did he/she have?
What kind of test did this investigator employ, was it by eyeball, smell or what exactly?
Was the investigator familiar with military weapons, the Carcano specifically?
Can you forensically state that this test is valid?
Is there any forensic evidence of Oswald's rifle being later tested that supports your claim?

How is that 7 people whom were given a paraffin test on their cheek after firing an MC rifle were ALL positive, while Oswald’s cheek test was negative?

Who did the test and did they use the actual rifle that Oswald used because if not your results are null and void!

Testing with the actual weapon that Oswald owned and used!



Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make a test with the exhibit, with the rifle, 139, to determine whether that left a powder residue on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Will you describe that test?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

And again!

Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you insane? How do you derive that conclusion?

The Carcano rifles were assigned the item number of C20-T750 and Waldman had no trouble on the night following the assassination of searching Kleins business records and managed to locate Oswald's transaction from their microfilm records.





You keep trying to make a case for conspiracy but like always you keep failing miserably.

JohnM

Only a delusional fool would argue that if a 36" MC rifle is ordered (as it was) and Klein's ships a 40" MC rifle that the client has received what he has ordered!

[Fergus O'Brien]

"by the way, my name is Mytton with a capital "M", not mytton, please be more vigilant in the future! " John Mytton

I am aware of the shall we say protocol of duncans forum , the preferred manner in which duncan would like members to post and act .And duncan mentioned this to me in a very courteous and respectful manner which i really do appreciate . And i will attempt my very best to adhere to that and to all forum rules . To that end i have been attempting to post as i was asked , i see that even tho i thought i had done as i was asked i can see i misunderstood slightly what Duncan asked and i erred , in that regard Duncan has my apology  . However (and it is no way any criticism of Duncan or his forum at all , i respect Duncan and his forum greatly and i have happily visited here for many years )  i do take exception to what i feel is a rather juvenile complaint by you , and a rather hypocritical demand for respect when you go around attacking people on this forum in the manner that you do and have done . I have always believed and asserted that respect is a two way street , and ones respect is earned , it is not an automatic right , especially if that individual seemingly demanding some level of respect does not always  care to afford others the same level of respect they them selves now seemingly demand .

For the record you can spell or misspell my name in any manner that you deem appropriate , you will receive no complaint from me what so ever . I would not lower myself to your level , that is the level to which many LN of my previous acquaintance have lowered them selves .that is in attacking ones grammar or lack there of often while using that as a method of ignoring facts that had been provided . For my self it is of no import what so ever how a person types (or writes ) , whether they have grammatical error or not . And after all not every person will speak or even write in fluent english , so in that sense i personally dont care about grammatical issues .  What is most important to me is what one says when they do write  is honest , reliable and credible , accurate , unbiased and as truthful as is humanly possible . but i will endeavor to always try to ensure to type your name correctly going forward , so as not to insult your delicate sensibilities by failing to use a  capital letter .

[Richard Smith]

So many rabbit holes.  If logic and facts had any impact on the CTers, they wouldn't reach the conclusions that they come to in the first place.  We all know it is futile.  They have been presented with the evidence countless times.  They discount it as fakery or refuse to accept any fact by implication.  For example, if Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box with a specific serial number and that rifle shows up in Oswald's place of employment with his print found on it, that means he received this particular rifle.   Throw in a picture of him holding it, confirmation from his own wife that he possessed a rifle in this same timeframe, the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor on the very same day that Oswald made an unusual visit to the Paine home where he stored the rifle and carried a long package to work the next morning and then lied about doing so to police indicating it was his lunch sack.  No reasonable person could dispute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence and circumstances.  Reasonable is the key word.

[Martin Weidmann]

So many rabbit holes.  If logic and facts had any impact on the CTers, they wouldn't reach the conclusions that they come to in the first place.  We all know it is futile.  They have been presented with the evidence countless times.  They discount it as fakery or refuse to accept any fact by implication.  For example, if Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box with a specific serial number and that rifle shows up in Oswald's place of employment with his print found on it, that means he received this particular rifle.   Throw in a picture of him holding it, confirmation from his own wife that he possessed a rifle in this same timeframe, the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor on the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor on the very same day that Oswald made an unusual visit to the Paine home where he stored the rifle and carried a long package to work the next morning and then lied about doing so to police indicating it was his lunch sack.  No reasonable person could dispute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence and circumstances.  Reasonable is the key word.

if Klein's sent a rifle to Oswald's PO Box with a specific serial number - assumption for which there is no evidence

that rifle shows up in Oswald's place of employment with his print found on it, - assumption that it is the rifle which you can't even prove was sent by Klein's and utter lie that a print was found on the rifle. The FBI found no print.

that means he received this particular rifle. - speculative conclusion based on a questionable premise

Throw in a picture of him holding it, - assumption that the rifle Oswald is holding in the BY photos is the same as the one allegedly sent by Klein's and/or found at the TSBD

confirmation from his own wife that he possessed a rifle in this same timeframe,  - utter lie. Marina Oswald never confirmed anything of the kind

the fact that his rifle is missing on 11.22 - assumption. There is no evidence that was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage after late September that could have gone missing

and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the one found on the 6th floor - untrue. Marina said she saw the wooden stock of a rifle in a blanket in the last week of september. If you accept that Marina did see a rifle, anything could have happened to that rifle during the two months between the last sighting and the assassination

on the very same day that Oswald made an unusual visit to the Paine home - untrue. There is nothing unusual about the visit. In total, Oswald only visited Irving about six times between early october and 11/21/63. In that time he skipped one weekend and once went on a Thursday instead of Friday. Marina and Ruth Paine both stated that Oswald had come on Thursday to try and save his marriage.

where he stored the rifle - assumption. There is not a shred of evidence that Oswald ever stored a rifle at Ruth Paine's garage.

carried a long package to work the next morning and then lied about doing so to police indicating it was his lunch sack. - assumption. There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald lied to the police

No reasonable person could dispute the obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this evidence and circumstances.  Reasonable is the key word.

No reasonable person would jump to any conclusion based on assumptions and claims for which no evidence exists.   

[John Mytton]

"by the way, my name is Mytton with a capital "M", not mytton, please be more vigilant in the future! " John Mytton

I am aware of the shall we say protocol of duncans forum , the preferred manner in which duncan would like members to post and act .And duncan mentioned this to me in a very courteous and respectful manner which i really do appreciate . And i will attempt my very best to adhere to that and to all forum rules . To that end i have been attempting to post as i was asked , i see that even tho i thought i had done as i was asked i can see i misunderstood slightly what Duncan asked and i erred , in that regard Duncan has my apology  . However (and it is no way any criticism of Duncan or his forum at all , i respect Duncan and his forum greatly and i have happily visited here for many years )  i do take exception to what i feel is a rather juvenile complaint by you , and a rather hypocritical demand for respect when you go around attacking people on this forum in the manner that you do and have done . I have always believed and asserted that respect is a two way street , and ones respect is earned , it is not an automatic right , especially if that individual seemingly demanding some level of respect does not always  care to afford others the same level of respect they them selves now seemingly demand .

For the record you can spell or misspell my name in any manner that you deem appropriate , you will receive no complaint from me what so ever . I would not lower myself to your level , that is the level to which many LN of my previous acquaintance have lowered them selves .that is in attacking ones grammar or lack there of often while using that as a method of ignoring facts that had been provided . For my self it is of no import what so ever how a person types (or writes ) , whether they have grammatical error or not . And after all not every person will speak or even write in fluent english , so in that sense i personally dont care about grammatical issues .  What is most important to me is what one says when they do write  is honest , reliable and credible , accurate , unbiased and as truthful as is humanly possible . but i will endeavor to always try to ensure to type your name correctly going forward , so as not to insult your delicate sensibilities by failing to use a  capital letter .

So many words Fergus, I didn't ask for your life story, I just want you to show the same respect that I show you and address me properly.

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

Wikipedia still has a long way to go before it becomes a credible and reliable source,

Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.

but even if the April issue appeared on news stands at the beginning of March, it still does not alter the fact that he Hidell order form clearly refers to the February issue.v

You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.

The most remarkable part of this discussion is how LNs are trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

This was supposed to be a simple, normal, transaction. A guy orders a mail order rifle from the February issue of some magazine and either receives that rifle or gets notified it's out of stock.

Here we have, as so often in this case, as massive spin story on how a 36" rifle ordered from the February issue of a magazine somehow turns into an alleged delivery of a 40" rifle that wasn't advertised until the April issue of the same magazine.

We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40".  Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place. And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected.

Even worse, there isn't even a shred of evidence that any rifle was actually sent to a P.O. box in Dallas and/or was received by anybody.

And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.

[Martin Weidmann]

Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.

You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.

We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40".  Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place. And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected.

And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.

Whatever flaws you think it has, Wikipedia is still universally regarded as a more reliable source than Martin Weidman.

Who said so? Was there research on this topic, or are you simply making it up?

You are operating under the delusion that the difference would matter, or that the fulfillment staff would even notice.

Of course it matters. Only a fool would say that if you order a 36" rifle and they sent you a 40" rifle. you recieved what you've ordered.

We have an order code that in the February issue refers to a 36" long rifle and in the April issue refers to a 40" version of the same model rifle. At some point between the February issue and the April issue c20-t250 went from being 36" to 40".  Even if we ignore any post-dating of the issues, that leaves March open as the month in which this change occurred. In short, there's no actual evidence of a discrepancy in the first place..

Bla bla bla.... The Hidell order was for a 36" rifle, as advertised in the February issue. The order should have been filled with a 36" rifle or cancelled it they had run out of stock.

And if the post-dating is taken into account, Oswald got exactly what he actually ordered, if not exactly quite what he might have expected

Just how idiotic can you be? If Oswald ordered anything at all, he ordered a 36" rifle. If he then receives a 40" than he didn't get exactly what he ordered, !

And now you want to try and change the subject to something else.

Utter BS... you just don't want to go there