Buell Wesley Frazier

[Tom Sorensen]

How long is a piece of string, it's an impossible question to answer.

BTW I didn't see your response.

JohnM

No problem. The strings don't matter; only two possible scenarios: mounted or not mounted when Oswald picked it up. Given Oswald's training, he would know the scope was useless unless zeroed in; your proposed scenario doesn't work:

What proof have you got that the scope was attached or even in the Blanket, because at Neely street, Oswald's rifle didn't have the scope attached, Oops, so it's not a given that it was permanently attached. And considering the rifle was war surplus, you know designed to be used in a war, I don't think Oswald was too concerned about a few toddlers rummaging about around his blanket wrapped rifle. Hahahaha!

It had to be mounted, in which case he would also have no confidence in a scope after likely being kicked around on the floor, even if it had once been aligned, of which there is no evidence. Only two slotted screws held the bracket/scope; out they went, and he could use the sights unobstructed. For this reason, the scoped rifle found on the 6th floor makes no sense if Oswald brought it in. When FBI Robert Frazier later received the rifle, the scope was in such bad shape that he couldn't align it; essentially at prop.

[Michael Capasse]

Using the iron sight has been a LN excuse for a number of years. First time I heard it was on these boards
But why even mount the scope if he has to break down the rifle anyway? The scope sucks.
FBI had to mount 5 shims to stabilize it because, it wobbled when the bolt was worked.

These excuses for inconsistencies in the evidence are its failure to corroborate proof.
It is everywhere.

Also - where and when does find the time to rebuild the rifle?
Why would he not pack the tool he used to break it down?
One screw in particular seems very difficult if not impossible with a dime.
More importantly, how, where and when does he SIGHT the rifle? (that is, fire 10 rounds)

[Richard Smith]

Using the iron sight has been a LN excuse for a number of years. First time I heard it was on these boards
But why even mount the scope if he has to break down the rifle anyway? The scope sucks.
FBI had to mount 5 shims to stabilize it because, it wobbled when the bolt was worked.

These excuses for inconsistencies in the evidence are its failure to corroborate proof.
It is everywhere.

Also - where and when does find the time to rebuild the rifle?
Why would he not pack the tool he used to break it down?
One screw in particular seems very difficult if not impossible with a dime.
More importantly, how, where and when does he SIGHT the rifle? (that is, fire 10 rounds)

I'm not exactly sure I'm following.  How do you know the condition of the scope at the moment Oswald fired it?  The rifle had been dropped on the floor and put between some boxes.  The scope was removed to check the rifle for prints.  Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.  And, of course, Oswald only hit two out of three times.  How do you know what tools he had to "rebuild" the rifle?  Why would it even be necessary to remove the scope to disassemble the rifle to fit the bag?  The scope doesn't add to the rifle's length.  Couldn't the rifle be put in the bag partially disassembled but with the scope still attached?

[Michael Capasse]

The rifle had been dropped on the floor and put between some boxes.

Dropped? - look at the picture - how do you drop a rifle landing "on end" underneath a box?


I don't believe that rifle was dropped.

The scope was removed to check the rifle for prints.

So what? - FBI knows how to put to back - and had to add 5 shims to stabilize it.

Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.

Incredible that the "gun nut", would own only one PoS rifle for 8 months and NEVER did anything to better it.

And, of course, Oswald only hit two out of three times. 

?

How do you know what tools he had to "rebuild" the rifle?

I know I would pack the same tool I used to break it down. Do you have any evidence of that?

Why would it even be necessary to remove the scope to disassemble the rifle to fit the bag? 

I never said that  Look at the picture - it's attached to barrel housing.
My point is if the scope is wobbling and he uses iron sight anyway - why pack it?
Other LNs have claimed he used the iron sights because the FBI found the scope was crap.
What do you say?

In the end - it's just a lot of he "must of done it"'s - Forget about proof because most of what you see here has no evidence.
It all comes back to the strength of the evidence that he carried a rifle in the building in the first place.
Put 2 solid things together that proves he "owns" that bag and you have something to move forward on.

Otherwise it's just broken and inconsistent throughout this case. Looks like a frame up.

[Richard Smith]

Dropped? - look at the picture - how do you drop a rifle landing "on end" underneath a box?


I don't believe that rifle was not dropped.

So what? - FBI knows how to put to back - and had to add 5 shims to stabilize it.

Incredible that the "gun nut", would own only one PoS rifle for 8 months and NEVER did anything to better it.

?

I know I would pack the same tool I used to break it down. Do you have any evidence of that?

I never said that  Look at the picture - it's attached to barrel housing.
My point is if the scope is wobbling and he uses iron sight anyway - why pack it?
Other LNs have claimed he used the iron sights because the FBI found the scope was crap.
What do you say?

In the end - it's just a lot of he "must of done it"'s - Forget about proof because most of what you see here has no evidence.
It all comes back to the strength of the evidence that he carried a rifle in the building in the first place.
Put 2 solid things together that proves he "owns" that bag and you have something to move forward on.

Otherwise is is just broken and inconsistent throughout this case.

Some details can only be known to Oswald. You made some assertions, however, like he didn't bring any tools to assemble the rifle.  How could you know what he brought or didn't bring?  I don't know and neither do you.  How do you know the condition of the scope at the moment it was used to assassinate JFK?  You only know its condition after it was hastily dropped, slid or whatever behind some boxes while Oswald was fleeing for the door and after it had been removed to check for prints.   That is all rabbit hole nonsense, however.  The elephant in the room is that a rifle belonging to LHO was left at the scene of a murder committed with a rifle.  Oswald provided no explanation for its presence at that location.  Instead, he lied.  That alone would be a slam dunk of guilt in any other case. 

[Michael Capasse]

Some details can only be known to Oswald. You made some assertions, however, like he didn't bring any tools to assemble the rifle.  How could you know what he brought or didn't bring?  I don't know and neither do you.  How do you know the condition of the scope at the moment it was used to assassinate JFK?  You only know its condition after it was hastily dropped, slid or whatever behind some boxes while Oswald was fleeing for the door and after it had been removed to check for prints.   That is all rabbit hole nonsense, however.  The elephant in the room is that a rifle belonging to LHO was left at the scene of a murder committed with a rifle.  Oswald provided no explanation for its presence at that location.  Instead, he lied.  That alone would be a slam dunk of guilt in any other case.

Put 2 solid things together that proves he "owns" that bag or was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that day, and you have something to move forward on.
Two solid things that he owned the rifle would also help.

[Richard Smith]

Put 2 solid things together that proves he "owns" that bag or was on the 6th floor at 12:30 that day, and you have something to move forward on.
Two solid things that he owned the rifle would also help.

We are moving on to something else?  You know all that evidence and so do I.  Do you really want to go over that again?   John M. has a laundry list of evidence that link Oswald to rifle that he can post for the thousandth time.  And you can spend dozens of posts claiming it aint' so.  How about this?  What evidence that is lacking would convince you of the fact that Oswald owned the rifle found on the 6th floor?  We have pictures, serial numbers, documents that link him to that rifle and you are unconvinced.  A time machine perhaps?  You can sit in Oswald's lap while he fires the shots.  Would that do the trick or would you close your eyes and deny it was Oswald while the shots were still ringing in your ears?

[Tom Sorensen]

We are moving on to something else?  You know all that evidence and so do I.  Do you really want to go over that again?   John M. has a laundry list of evidence that link Oswald to rifle that he can post for the thousandth time.  And you can spend dozens of posts claiming it aint' so.  How about this?  What evidence that is lacking would convince you of the fact that Oswald owned the rifle found on the 6th floor?  We have pictures, serial numbers, documents that link him to that rifle and you are unconvinced.  A time machine perhaps?  You can sit in Oswald's lap while he fires the shots.  Would that do the trick or would you close your eyes and deny it was Oswald while the shots were still ringing in your ears?

As per Richard's suggestion earlier;

Even if there was some misalignment with the scope, an experienced shooter who had used the rifle could make adjustments to compensate.

You mean on the fly or otherwise?