Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?
(http://jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/day1.jpg)
JohnM
How many people knew Oswald had a rifle?
What, don't you know?
Anyway back on topic, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor of the building that Oswald worked in?
JohnM
Either Oswald or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".
Either Oswald
or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".
Who and why?
JohnM
If not Oswald, the true assassin(s). Oswald's rifle served would be tied to the owner.
Just awaiting for the 'Prove it was Oswald's rifle' shenanigans.
Are you hoping for a thread derail?
Let's wait and see?
JohnM
Not at all - I am just aware how these threads end up heading towards the same back-and-forth over ownership (or proof thereof, of said rifle).
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?
I'm open to any conspiracy but you're gonna have to come up with some sort of alternate narrative otherwise the WC conclusion is the only logical conclusion that fits the evidence, and let's be honest there are few if any murders in history that have accumulated a literal mountain of evidence with thousands of exhibits and hundreds of eyewitnesses which can only lead to one man, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Not at all - I am just aware how these threads end up heading towards the same back-and-forth over ownership (or proof thereof, of said rifle).
"Oswald's rifle". LOL.
Yawn!
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
Oswald's rifle was missing from the blanket in the Paine garage.
C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
C2766 contained fresh fibers which matched Oswald's shirt fibers.
C2766 had Oswald's palm print.
Because "Oswald's rifle" is something that has to actually be demonstrated, not just assumed.
What kind of evidence do you require, Iacoletti?
Evidence that he ever had that specific rifle in his possession? I mean beyond the magic reappearing partial palmprint on an index card and Cecil Kirk's moon craters.
Evidence that he ever had that specific rifle in his possession? I mean beyond the magic reappearing partial palmprint on an index card and Cecil Kirk's moon craters.
Iacoletti's non-scientific knee jerk defence.
:D
I didn't say anybody lied. Try again. You can either prove your claims are true or you cannot.
:D
I didn't say anybody lied. Try again. You can either prove your claims are true or you cannot.
P.S. you still haven't said what "fresh fibers" means.
1) Did Day prove that the print known as CE639 came from the rifle known as CE 139? No, he just claimed it.
- Day didn't follow the procedure
- Hoover's memo claimed matching "irregularities" on the rifle barrel, but there exists no report or details what matched, or who matched them or how, or when.
What bizarre juvenile game are you playing?
Was Day telling the truth when he testified to the following?
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
JohnM
Like Inspector Clouseau, John I's motto is: "I believe everything and I believe nothing. I suspect everyone and I suspect no one." The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason but then he denies he is claiming it is the product of lies and fakery. It just is. Take his word for it.
"The evidence against Oswald is always deemed suspect for some unspecified reason"
:D
The defendant was denied legal representation, was murdered (lynched) while in police custody and the charges against
him (a prosecutor's pre-trial brief) were rubber stamped by the WC as the facts of the case.
It was the equivalent of a Soviet 'show trial' except Ozzie was killed before hand rather than immediately after.
Take it up with Jack Ruby.
The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him
Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not. If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying. To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.
Take it up with Jack Ruby. The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him or how it can all be dismissed as suspect without someone lying or faking the evidence. If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery? Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not. If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying. To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.
I hope you're not thinking a trial would have turned out like the fantasy put forth by Walt Brown in "The People vs. Lee Harvey Oswald." Where the prosecutor seems to offer up nothing while the defense attorney scores point after uncontested point as if by magic. Or the 2013 two-day mock trial, largely an exercise for law students.
A trial would probably be more like the 1986 Bugliosi-Spence professional effort where a legitimate experienced prosecutor went toe-to-toe with a legitimate experienced defense attorney in a courtroom setting presided over by a real-life judge.
Just that Oswald--in the hundreds of books and now thousands of websites--has received the greatest criminal defense of an individual in history. It even led to an House Select Committee in the late-70s, the most famous dramatic blockbuster movie ("JFK") concerning the subject and the Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.
Either Oswald or someone knew Oswald owned a rifle and that he worked "in that building".
Take it up with Jack Ruby. The fact that Oswald was killed has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence against him or how it can all be dismissed as suspect without someone lying or faking the evidence. If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery? Either his prints are on the rifle or they are not. If they are not, then the person who says they found them is lying. To suggest otherwise is to defy logic and simply be a dishonest contrarian.
Harry Holmes told J.Edgar Hoover... You figger it out.
Opinion polls reflect how persuasive the Oswald defenders/conspiracy kooks (assisted by Stone's overwhelming Hollywood version) are.
Spence tried the sentimental-humanizing appeal in 1986 to little avail. CTs similarly argue that Oswald was a simple family man innocently manipulated and set-up. Having to "prove" things through time-travel doesn't sit well with judges.
Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)
Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.
Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)
Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.
~snip~
Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.
All that says is the Warren Report doesn't hold up when scrutinized.
Here on the 22nd at about 6:15, Lt. Day can be seen holding CE 139 and the gouge can be clearly made out on the Forestock. Are you claiming that he could have taken Oswald's prints from another rifle?
(https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/j/streams/2013/November/131122/2D9755880-131121-assassination-jfk-weapon-940p.fit-760w.jpg)
Boo hoo, how does that change Day's testimony or the physical evidence or anything?
Sorry John, Hoover provided a memo and matching evidence which shows the precise location of a number of corresponding anomalies. The rifle still exists and the Palmprint still exists so your reasoning that this powerful evidence is somehow just a claim is nonsensical. If you or the CT community feels this strongly re this deception then why don't you do something about it and provide an expert scientific refutation or would you rather just flap your gums and rely on voodoo?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq8Kbygr/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
And this is the best you got, you're not very good at this, are you John.
JohnM
"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."
I have no idea what you're trying to convey with the above.
Here are the pertinent poll findings from the article.
"62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought
Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that
there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time"
Here on the 22nd at about 6:15, Lt. Day can be seen holding CE 139 and the gouge can be clearly made out on the Forestock. Are you claiming that he could have taken Oswald's prints from another rifle?
Boo hoo, how does that change Day's testimony or the physical evidence or anything?
Sorry John, Hoover provided a memo and matching evidence which shows the precise location of a number of corresponding anomalies.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Xq8Kbygr/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
Oswald ordered the rifle.
Oswald possessed the rifle.
Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work with Oswald's prints.
If someone says they found Oswald's prints on the rifle, how can that not be the case without some lie or fakery?
Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald, not on the influence of conspiracy theorists.
(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/dolzvblqn0wqheivhj1k7q.png)
Polls tightened in the wake of the Warren Report but widen with the first conspiracy books and debates.
Nobody said they found Oswald's prints on the rifle. Latona found a partial palmprint he identified as Oswald's on an index card.
Nobody said they found Oswald's prints on the rifle. Latona found a partial palmprint he identified as Oswald's on an index card.
What did Carl Day say, John? Aren't you forgetting something?
What are you implying, if anything?
The prosecution provides rock hard scientific evidence.
1) Lt. Day testified that he took the print on the day the print was dated.
2) The FBI provided evidence that the print on Days card was taken from Oswald's rifle, meaning Oswald touched the rifle.
3) The HSCA photography panel(PP) came to the conclusion that the same rifle in the backyard photos were from Oswald.
4) Scalice using new photos proved that the prints on the guard were found to be Oswald's.
5) The fresh fibers that were stuck in a crevice on Oswald's rifle came from Oswald's arrest shirt.
Iacoletti's non-scientific knee jerk defence.
1) Day lied.
2) The FBI lied.
3) The HSCA PP lied.
4) Scalice lied
5) Proves nothing
And there you have it, it's no wonder nobody takes the conspiracy side seriously.
JohnM
I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.
Presuming it was Oswald rifle, so as to answer the original poster, and with no evidence per se....
Guns were shown at the TSBD in the week prior.
Dougherty and Oswald get talking, and Dougherty offers to buy the gun.
Oswald thinks he can a great price out of Dougherty, given Dougherty is not the sharpest knife in the draw.
Thinking he will be getting some money from Dougherty for the gun, he leaves Marina most of his cash for the kids (whom he adores)
Oswald brings the gun in and leaves it with Dougherty to check out.
Oswald goes to lunch, Dougherty shots Kennedy with Oswald gun.
So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn’t?
Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?
Absolutely. Did you read my post at #25 in this thread?
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us what evidence you recall?
Mr. WADE. I have made no notes but roughly he gave the story about him bringing the gun to work, saying it was window rods from the neighbor, someone who had brought him to work. He also said there were three employees of the company that left him on the sixth floor. He told about, the part about, the young officer running in there right after the assassination and Oswald leaving after the manager said that he was employed there. Told about his arrest and said that there was a scuffle there, and that he tried to shoot the officer.
I don't know--I think I am giving you all this because I think a little of it may vary from the facts but all I know is what Fritz told me.
He said the Dallas police had found a palmprint on the underside of the gun of Oswald. At that time, the FBI was standing by to fly the gun to the laboratory here in Washington which incidentally, they didn't find, but I assume the Commission has interviewed Senator--not Senator--Day, the fingerprint man of the Dallas police but I have learned since that he probably can't identify the palmprint under there but at that time they told me they had one on it.
Also note that Wade is testifying on June 8, 1964, over 6 months later. There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.
Absolutely. Did you read my post at #25 in this thread?
I have now. And I also read John Myton's reply. And your lame response to it.
Also note that Wade is testifying on June 8, 1964, over 6 months later.
When he testified is irrelevant. What he testified, under oath, is relevant.
There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.
This is irrelevant also. However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator. Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death. Public disclosure might not have been until after LHO's death. However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.
This is irrelevant also.
No it isn't
However, Henry Wade was a prosecutor, not an investigator.
Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name
Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death.
Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?
Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.
Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense
However, criminal investigators typically do not disclose all the evidence to the public, while an investigation is ongoing, for good reasons.
Sure they don't, but that didn't stop DPD officers talking to the media from day 1
You are all over the place on this one, Charles.... now, why does that not surprise me?
Hmm. So let's apply what I said to what you say is pertinent ...
"Those are opinion polls on Jack Ruby's having just shot Oswald,"...
(ie: the "week" included November 25 to 29, 1963)
..."not on the influence of conspiracy theorists."
How many people who participate in these polls have "scrutinized" the WC? I bet half or more haven't even heard of it and less than ten percent have read a single page. Most people don't know the basic facts fifty plus years later or give a fig. Their uninformed opinions are worthless. They are more likely to have seen Stone's wacky, paranoid fueled film and believe "something" may have happened. What they have no idea. Or that "one guy" couldn't pull it off for some unspecified reason. The kind of baseless nonsense that is peddled by many CTers despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
No it isn't
Why do you think it is relevant?
Correction; History has exposed Henry Wade as an overzealous prosecutor with a massive amount of proven unsafe convinctions to his name
Yeah right.... from memory? And neither considered it useful to create a written record of it, really?
Relevance?
Really? If Wade was "outside the investigation" why was he told in the first place? You are not making any sense
He was the prosecutor. Not the public. He had a legitimate reason to ask.
Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.
A prosecutor with countless unsafe convictions making a claim from memory after a suspect's death is of no relevance to you?
Hang on one minute... You earlier claimed that;
"Fritz "mentioned" it to Wade before Oswald's death. Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death."
But Wade was in fact involved in the investigation from day 1. He was already giving interviews during the time that Oswald was in custody, so your claim that someone outside the investigation was told is simply bogus.
Read Wade’s testimony. He explained how his office is separate from the police. And who was responsible for what.
Of course he had a seperate office, but his comments about the case to the media from day 1 clearly show that he was actively involved in the investigation.....
If he wasn't he wouldn't have been able to make those comments and Fritz would have had no reason to tell Wade anything.
The prosecution provides rock hard scientific evidence.
1) Lt. Day testified that he took the print on the day the print was dated.
2) The FBI provided evidence that the print on Days card was taken from Oswald's rifle, meaning Oswald touched the rifle.
3) The HSCA photography panel(PP) came to the conclusion that the same rifle in the backyard photos were from Oswald.
4) Scalice using new photos proved that the prints on the guard were found to be Oswald's.
5) The fresh fibers that were stuck in a crevice on Oswald's rifle came from Oswald's arrest shirt.
Have you read his testimony where he explained why he even went to the DPD?
You don't get any of this, do you?
Wade's statements are after the fact and more importantly after Oswald was dead. Wade can "explain" anything he wants at that point and nobody is going to challenge it. That doesn't automatically make it true! I don't trust the words of a prosecutor who, as it recently has turned out, has a terrible record of unsafe convictions due to prosecturial misconduct and manipulation of evidence. You really don't have a clue who you are defending here, do you? It's either that or you just don't care....
You can't have it both ways, Charles.... Wade was either involved in the investigation from day 1 (as proven by his statements to the media) or he wasn't involved in the investigation in which case Fritz had no reason to tell him anything and he exceeded his authority by telling the media about things he shouldn't have known at that time.
Wade was the prosecutor. He didn’t investigate.
After a radio report that the Dallas police, in a court filing, had somehow implicated the Soviets in Oswald’s crimes. And a related call from LBJ aide Cliff Carter in Washington. The DA headed to for police headquarters “to make sure they were filling just a straight murder case.”
Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment. So he had a legitimate need to know what evidence the investigators had.
As I said, you clearly don't get (or want to get) any of it.
Wade would have had to prove anything alleged in an indictment. So he had a legitimate need to know what evidence the investigators had.
Which means that even if he didn't investigate himself, he was still part of the investigation.
This is what I said:
“Therefore, it was told to someone outside the investigation team before LHO's death.”
An investigation team investigates. A prosecution team prosecutes. Wade was not investigating. The investigation team was cooperating with him. My point is that the palm print was disclosed to him before the death of LHO.
2. The FBI's "match" of the lift to the rifle is equally dubious. A. This "match" was described in a letter, and not sworn testimony. B. This "match" of five points fell far below the number of matching points required to say two prints were a match, and was of questionable scientific value. C. No FBI crime lab report on this match has ever surfaced, and it's quite possible there were a number of marks on the lift or the rifle that were not shared by the other, which would in effect make this "match" a "non-match." D. There is no record the FBI contacted Day and had him specify exactly where the print was on the rifle. As a consequence, the FBI's report is basically that we found five blemishes on the lift that roughly aligned with five blemishes on the rifle, which may or may not be where the print was supposedly found. Worthless.
BS... Wade was actively involved from day 1. The idea that the two work completely independently is an illussion. Your remark only shows that you don't know what you are talking about.
You just don't want to accept that.
I honestly have no dog in this hunt, as I would be perfectly willing to believe Oswald, acting alone, killed Kennedy...should that be what the evidence suggests. Unfortunately, however, my attempt to separate fact from fiction in this case led me to conclude BOTH "sides" are full of it.
As to John's list...
1. Day told numerous falsehoods in his testimony, and his claims about the print were dubious, as best. It appears, moreover, that the WC came to believe as much. Day claimed, after all, that he told Curry and Fritz about the print on the evening of the assassination, and neither the FBI or WC made any effort to verify this with Curry or Fritz. While some claim, moreover, that Wade knew about the print and discussed it in his press conference, it's incredibly clear, once one looks at all the evidence, that Wade was speaking about the trigger guard print, which was listed as a possible palm print in memos written days after the press conference.
2. The FBI's "match" of the lift to the rifle is equally dubious. A. This "match" was described in a letter, and not sworn testimony. B. This "match" of five points fell far below the number of matching points required to say two prints were a match, and was of questionable scientific value. C. No FBI crime lab report on this match has ever surfaced, and it's quite possible there were a number of marks on the lift or the rifle that were not shared by the other, which would in effect make this "match" a "non-match." D. There is no record the FBI contacted Day and had him specify exactly where the print was on the rifle. As a consequence, the FBI's report is basically that we found five blemishes on the lift that roughly aligned with five blemishes on the rifle, which may or may not be where the print was supposedly found. Worthless.
3. No argument here. It may very well have been Oswald's rifle in the photos.
4. The FBI dismissed Scalice's use of five photos to match up one print as junk science, and refused to sign off on it. I believe this remains their position. Even worse, fingerprint charts are the cornerstone of ALL print identifications. It's basically showing your work. Scalice's charts--if they ever existed--have never been published or shared. As a result, his identification of the trigger guard prints as Oswald's prints is near worthless, scientifically speaking. Even worse, he claims he used five photos from Savage to come to his conclusion. Well, this is mighty curious seeing as there were only three photos, and that the NEGATIVES to these photos were provided the FBI, as well as the prints themselves, and the FBI's own photos of the prints.
5. The fibers on the rifle butt were, per Stombaugh, found on top the fingerprint powder. This led Stombaugh to offer that the fibers were wrapped around the butt plate while someone (Day) was dusting the rifle. Well, this is ludicrous. If there was a clump of fibers adhering to the butt plate while Day was dusting the area, he would have noticed them and removed them, that is, assuming he was remotely competent. Making matters worse is that when asked about it on the 23rd Oswald claimed he'd changed a dirty reddish shirt after work, and that this dirty "reddish"shirt was found among his possessions. The historical record, then, is this. The DPD and FBI had nothing to show Oswald touched the rifle on the 22nd. They then claimed they'd found fibers from his shirt on the rifle. They then found out that--oops--he hadn't been wearing that shirt that day. He was then murdered while in police custody, which essentially saved Fritz and the DPD from a trial in which his defense team would have argued the fibers were planted on the rifle--and would probably have won that argument (seeing as no one at work could identify the dark brown shirt in which he was arrested as a shirt he'd worn to work, and seeing as this shirt was not nearly as dirty as the shirt he claimed he'd been wearing).
The above is why I asked you to read Wade's testimony. It clearly shows exactly what I have been saying and you refuse to accept.
You quoting your "bible" doesn't change anything I have said on the subject.
I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.
Well the Dallas Morning news appears to have given an 11/24/63 front page article quote by "an investigator" some credence. Maybe they felt that there was a "good reason to believe" it.
Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass. We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.
Here is a link to the front page: http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156 (http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/ref/collection/po-jfk-np/id/156)
So it would appear that someone did say something to The Dallas Morning News (before Oswald's death).
We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.
A print? How do you know this is the print on the index card that was allegedly taken from the rifle?
It could have been a print from one of the boxes at the TSBD or from the paper bag, or couldn't it.
Besides, you can't place much value on what investigators told the media in those earlier days. As you can read in the article they also claimed that a parrafin test showed that Oswald had fired a weapen recently, when in fact it didn't show that at all.
Btw it's quite comical to read that, in a article full of information about the evidence, Wade says he refuses to discuss the evidence because it would make it harder to find a jury.... Go figure
...There is no known mention of this palmprint by Wade or anyone else until after Oswald's death.
Because the claim was made only after Oswald's death, like John said.
You are taking one sentence out of context. They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.
The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:
And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:
You are taking one sentence out of context.
No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."
They are clearly talking about the rifle, not the boxes or bag.
Nothing clearly about it. You are jumping to a conclusion not justified by the evidence. All the investigator said was that they had a print that matches Oswald.
There is no mention of where the print came from or the rifle for that matter.
The point is that this claim by John appears to be in error:
Wrong again. It would only "appear to be in error" is one first accepts that your flawed jump to a conclusion is correct. Since it isn't, John's claim isn't in error.
And your "explanation" of why you think John's above claim is even relevant, which didn't make any sense to begin with, appears to be in error also:
And wrong again. All you've got is Wade claiming "from memory", months after Oswald's death, that Fritz told him about the print prior to Oswald's death. The mere fact that Wade claims it doesn't make it so. There is no contemporary record of such a conversation. It's just one more instance where law enforcement (i.e. investigators and prosecutors) is making claims about non existent vital evidence.
What is funny though is that the article clearly shows that Wade was involved in the case from day 1. He may not have been an investigator, but he was there and discussing with the media the evidence he, in the same article, said he wouldn't discuss for fear of contaminating the jury pool.
No, I don't. There is nothing to be taken out of context in this sentence; "We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said."
You are taking that sentence out of context of the rest of the article. The preceding sentence is:
Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.
Put the sentences in context with each other and the meaning is clear.
So you have on one hand "informed sources" who have an opinion about Oswald's guilt and and on the other hand you have an investigator claiming they have Oswald's print. Nowhere is there any kind of link between the rifle and the print.
Now, without speculating or conjecture, you show me where I am wrong by explaining how these statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card.
Read them again. You are leaving out the word evidence.
I don't have to read them again. It's a newspaper article, for crying out, written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"
You need to show me, without speculating or conjecture, that I am wrong by explaining how those statements "in context" mean they are talking about Oswald's print on an idex card. Can you do that or can't you?
...written by a third party who is throwing together all sorts of quotes from unnamed sources. And still there is no connection between the "quotes"
You’re the one speculating.
So you can't show me I am wrong. Got it! Thumb1:
I already have. Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.
Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else. I have shown you this also.
No. I am merely asking you how the two quotes show any kind of connection with the print on the index card, as you claim they do. That's not speculating.
I already have.
No you haven't. Saying that you have already shown it is a typical LN cop out used when they can not support their claims with actual evidence. But I'll play along; just tell me where you have done it, so I and others can look it up.
Just read the article as written. An unbiased scientific survey would certainly show that.
Yeah right. In this case "an unbiased scientific survey" = Jumping to conclusions you can't support with the available evidence.
Any description of anyone’s interpretation could be called speculation by someone else.
So now it's just your interpretation that tells you that the quoted investigator was actually talking about the print on an index card?
Why should I or anybody else accept your interpretation as being the correct one, when we know for a fact that Day didn't turn over the index card to the FBI until two days after the publication of the newspaper article. So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me. Even more so as the FBI did not match the print on the index card to Oswald until after November 29th
So, how the investigator could have been talking about the print on the index card is totally beyond me.
The words were written by reporters who were there. They need no explanation from me. You elected to try to twist them into something that fits what you believe. I have shown you your mistake of not keeping the context. Apparently a lot of things are beyond you.
The words were written by reporters who were there.
Indeed, they wrote down what the investigators told them. And an investigator said they had Oswald's print. That was all he said.
You then turned it so that the investigator somehow was talking about the print on the index card, but you have no evidence for that, which is why you keep going on about the context when there actually is no context, since you can't even know for sure if the "informed sources" include the investigator who mentioned a print matching Oswald.
The first part;
Informed sources said the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle which fired the lethal bullet as President Kennedy's motorcade neared the triple underpass.
just expresses the opinion of "informed sources". They used the words "held the rifle" but they could just as easily have said "we are pretty sure Oswald did it"
The second part;
We've got a print that matches Oswald, one investigator said.
is just a comment made by an investigator being reproduced.
A reader, ignorant of the facts, might combine the two remarks and conclude they are linked, and it could well be that the writer of the article intended just that, but such a conclusion, and thus your position, is complete BS, because it ignores that the FBI did not match Oswald to the print on the index card until 5 days after the article was published.
Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!
This is not rocket science so why don't you get it?
Unless he was psychic, there is no way the investigator who made the remark about the print could have known on the 24th that it was Oswald's print on the index card as that wasn't determined until the 29th. QED he couldn't have been talking about the print on the index card!
No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63 that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's. The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.
Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death. This isn't rocket science. Why don't you get it?
Wade said he was told on 11/22/63 that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's
Now you are changing the subject back to Wade.....
Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?
Thry had no print match on 11-22-63 to Oswald or anybody else!
The informed sources were apparently basing their statement on a tentative expert analysis (which was only tentative because it was interrupted before being finalized) that was confirmed by independent experts days later.
BS there was no such thing as a tentative expert analysis.
Again my point is to show that the palm print was mentioned to others before Oswald's death.
Sure it is, yet you have no evidence to support such a claim so you are making stuff up as you go along....
Where did Wade say that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's?
Direct quote of Wade in “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth page 77. - “They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s].”
Please stop seeing things that aren't there. Your claim was that Wade was told about the palmprint and a tentative match by an expert on 11/22/63.
Your quote from Aynesworth's book doesn't show that at all. All it shows that Wade remembered that (at some point in time) they had a palm print on the gun which an expert tentatively identified as Oswald, but he doesn't say this was on 11/22/63 as you claimed.
Now you can continue using scraps of vague statements and quotes to make up your own version as much as you want, but the actual evidence makes it simply impossible for Wade or anybody else having been informed about the print on the index card on 11/22/63.
Day kept the print to himself until he was ordered to release all the evidence to the FBI on 11/26/63. Had he already made a match of the print with Oswald, he would have had no reason at all to keep it to himself. It would more likely have been all over the media as the proverbial smoking gun. Instead, Day mentions nothing about a match to the FBI. Latona of the FBI lab received the print on 11/29/63 and it was he who made the tentative match.
Bottom line; your story simply does not compute with the timeline of known events.
You are dead wrong. Aynesworth is describing Wade’s activities on 11/22/63. The complete Wade quote reads “The investigators told me that night they had evidence against Oswald that was stronger than it turned out to be. They had a palm print on the gun, for example, and an expert who tentatively identified it [as Oswald’s]. But I don’t think the FBI ever did identify that palm print.”
Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.
So where did the "quote" come from?
Aynesworth is still around, ask him. The quote is inside quotation marks. So it appears to be a direct quote of Wade.
"Appears to be" is good enough for you?
There are quite a few other quotes of Wade in this section of the book. They are all accompanied with a comment like: Wade later said to me, or Wade recollected, etc. The quote that we have been discussing is preceded by: He recalled that the evidence....
Yes, Aynesworth is a well respected journalist. I am satisfied.
That explains why you are a LNr…. no desire to ask the hard questions
You are dead wrong (again). Long before you posted your remark I contacted Hugh Aynesworth today on the telephone. And yes he confirmed that those are direct quotes of Henry Wade in his book. He also told me that James Ewell was the top police reporter for the Dallas Morning News and Carl Freund was a top notch reporter. And that he believed they reported what they were told. He also told me that he saw Henry Wade not long before he passed away and that Wade was still of sound mind.
And we just have to take your word for all this, right?
Let me just repeat what I posted earlier. It shows you perfectly that on 11/22/63 Wade could not have been told about a palmprint from the rifle matching with Oswald, simply because there wasn't one! No matter how many times Wade remembered it incorrectly.
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63
And we just have to take your word for all this, right?
Feel free to verify it with Hugh Aynesworth. I spoke with him for seven minutes beginning at 9:58 am this morning Dallas time. He is very friendly and you should have no problem looking him up.
Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63
Day
Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63
Day
So Day lied in his WC testimony?
No
You claim, rather silly, that Day was the expert who made a tentative match of the print on an index card with Oswald and did so on 11/22/63
Day, in his WC testimony, said that he had only lifted the palmprint of the rifle when he was ordered by the chief's office to go no further with the processing.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Your claim and Day's testimony contradict eachother...
No they don’t.
Care to explain?
Your claim that they do. Your explanation is needed.
Yeah, that's what I thought....
You already have the explanation in Day's WC testimony. You can read, can't you?
Now tell me how Day can match the palmprint to Oswald when his chief ordered him to stop processing after he had just lifted the print from the rifle...
Yeah, that's what I thought....
You already have the explanation in Day's WC testimony. You can read, can't you?
Now tell me how Day can match the palmprint to Oswald when his chief ordered him to stop processing after he had just lifted the print from the rifle...
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.
What do you claim is to stop him?
I don't claim anything. Day said in his testimony that he was ordered to stop processing the print just after he had lifted it from the rifle.
Charles Collins claims incorrectly that on 11/22/63 Henry Wade was told about the palmprint on an index card allegedly taken from the rifle, having been tentatively identified as belonging to Oswald.
So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn’t? Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?
No he didn’t.
Obviously you can't read…..
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
It's either that or you are just a contrarian with no arguments…….
This is my claim:
I have backed it up 100%. Nothing incorrect about it. Stop lying.
I'm implying that there is no good reason to believe that the index card with the partial palmprint on it was lifted from CE139 or even existed on 11/22/63.
So is there a good reason to believe that it wasn’t? Do you know that Henry Wade reportedly said that he was informed of it on 11/22/63, just before they charged LHO with the JFK assassination?
No need for psychic abilities. Wade said he was told on 11/22/63 that an expert with DPD had tentatively identified the palm print on the rifle as Oswald's.
I can read. You apparently still don't understand what context means.
No you haven't backed it up at all.
I'm not lying. The one misrepresenting the facts is you;
John Iacoletti wrote;
and you replied;
and later in the conversation you added;
So, your claim is exactly what I said it is.
And it's incorrect because the testimony of Day and Latona quoted earlier prove beyond doubt that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63
You preference to go with years old memory and conjecture as well as your unwillingness to look at the actual facts is simply amazing.
It might be better if you never sit on a jury. Since I can't fix stupid, I'm done.
I'm open to any conspiracy .......(http://www.pincaption.com/media/gallery/original/oh-really-1390986990700189419.jpg)
That explains why you are a LNr…. no desire to ask the hard questions
Brilliant... Chapman jumps in with information about the wrong print. :D
Charles Collins claims incorrectly that on 11/22/63 Henry Wade was told about the palmprint on an index card allegedly taken from the rifle, having been tentatively identified as belonging to Oswald.
And we just have to take your word for all this, right?
Feel free to verify it with Hugh Aynesworth. I spoke with him for seven minutes beginning at 9:58 am this morning Dallas time. He is very friendly and you should have no problem looking him up.
Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63
Day
Chapman is pretty sure the trigger guard is on the same Carcano as the print being discussed.
No CT will call him... after all, he was part of the coverup
;)
Could this be the same Hugh Aynesworth who said ""I'm not saying there wasn't a conspiracy. I know most people in this country believe there was a conspiracy. I just refuse to accept it and that's my life's work." ?
We are very fortunate to have Hugh Aynesworth to share his experiences with us. I thanked him for doing that. In sharp contrast, Howard Brennan just wanted to be left alone. The stress of the unwanted attention contributed to his early demise due to heart problems.
Sure it is, but the trigger guard wasn't being discussed making your post a complete waste of time
Interesting since it's well known that most people simply don't want to get involved in things that might invade their privacy. I wonder if some person might have actually seen, for instance, Oswald walking or trotting down the street during the time leading up to the Tippit incident. Then, upon hearing about the murder, seeing and recognizing Oswald in the media as the man they saw on the street, might have decided that since the man had already been arrested, why get involved? Not everybody craves attention.
I've, fleetingly, thought about calling one or two of the involved people... but why exactly should I rely on the memory of people all these decades later?
Note: I'm not criticizing your exchanges with Hugh in any way, Charles. A writer is more likely to have taken notes, etc than the average citizen.
Bill, you’re exactly right. And something you’ve probably thought of but didn’t mention that applies particularly in this case is fear. (There has been a lot of speculation about conspiracy and mysterious deaths surrounding the assassination.) Many witnesses were never contacted. And some were deeply traumatized by the events.Hugh Aynesworth, the Dallas reporter who was one of if not the first on the scene at the TSBD after the shooting, gives this account of him trying to interview people (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History"):
I wouldn’t even try to contact anyone who has indicated a preference for privacy. The same for anyone who I think was traumatized.
Edit: Howard Brennan is a hero for his decision to get involved. His description of Oswald was crucial. And there is a reasonable chance that he could have recognized Oswald as he walked out of the TSBD and pointed him out if he hadn’t been distracted by unwanted reporters.
Hugh Aynesworth, the Dallas reporter who was one of if not the first on the scene at the TSBD after the shooting, gives this account of him trying to interview people (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History"):
"Some witnesses hurriedly shared a few comments with me. Some feared being quoted by name. One woman said she worked in the depository building, "and I'll be damned if I am going to tell you what I believe..."
And this: "I saw [Howard] Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into the conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper's nest. "No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he answered, "I saw him real good."
Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him--a request they were glad to fulfil. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press else he endganger himself or his family.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/brennen2-1.jpg)
Hugh Aynesworth, the Dallas reporter who was one of if not the first on the scene at the TSBD after the shooting, gives this account of him trying to interview people (this is from his book "Eyewitness to History"):
"Some witnesses hurriedly shared a few comments with me. Some feared being quoted by name. One woman said she worked in the depository building, "and I'll be damned if I am going to tell you what I believe..."
And this: "I saw [Howard] Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into the conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as he pointed toward Oswald's sniper's nest. "No doubt he was the one. He wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he answered, "I saw him real good."
Then Brennan noticed me and moved away, asking the officers as he did so to keep me and the other reporters away from him--a request they were glad to fulfil. Brennan, I later learned, feared talking to the press else he endganger himself or his family.
Yes, Aynesworth was one of the reporters Brennan was trying to avoid. In Brennan’s book he specifically talked about a television crew. And Aynesworth hitched a ride with a television crew to the Tippit murder scene. So it all fits.
Cool.
Now, shall I post his 1964 affidavit, or will you be a good lad and do that for us?
The thing about Brennan's gho$twritten book (that was published some time after his death, and therefore wide open to 'enhancements' at the whim of the writer, despite Brennan, apparently, signing-off on the original manuscript), is that in said book 'Brennan' wafts poetically about his or soul (or something) in describing the red plume (or something) around Kennedy's head.
The trouble is that in testimony, IMS, Brennan said he was unable to see Kennedy during the head shot, that an obstruction of some sort blocked his view.
The book was written with the help of the reverend J. Edward Cherryholmes. It is mostly about how the assassination and its aftermath affected Howard Brennan for the rest of his life. I would definitely say the earlier testimony and affidavits of Brennan should carry more weight than this book.
Two things about the description of the three shots in the book don't ring true. First, Howard Brennan testified to the WC he didn't remember hearing the second shot. Secondly, In a quick scan, I didn't find anything in his WC testimony about whether or not he saw JFK when the head shot hit. However, it does appear to me that the tall concrete structure and a tree would have blocked his view of JFK at that instant.
In his first day ffidavit, he said this." I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion." So he could have hardly have seen the President hit.
In the book he said he immediately glanced back at the President and saw the results. But like I said earlier, the structure was directly in between his position and the President at that point in time.That's not what he said in his WC testimony.
That's not what he said in his WC testimony.
Quote
"As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared. "
So he didn't immediately glance back at the President.
I think you might be right. Like I said earlier, the book should carry less weight than the testimony and affidavits if there is a conflicting account.
the book should carry less weight than the testimony and affidavits if there is a conflicting account.
Unless it is a newspaper report and Hugh Aynesworth book vs the WC testimony of Latona and Day..... right?
...I'm done.
Unless you’re not, right?
Indeed.... I'll be back every time you prove you're a hypocrite
Let’s see, you’re done but then you’re not done?
Nothing hypocritical about that, is there?
No. People can change their mind. But I understand why you want to change the subject.....
I said I was done because I couldn't fix stupid.
You provoked my return to the topic by showing it was also hypocrisy. Did you really think I would let you get away with that?
Your opinion doesn’t interest me.
Of course it doesn't… but that doesn't diminish the validity of the opinion. It just shows how closed your mind really is.
Most of your opinions are only attacks on the people who disagree with you. Or you trying to spin statements around to attempt to make it appear someone said something that they didn’t say. Or you trying to generalize a statement about something that is specific. Or you trying to take something out of context and make it into something that fits your fantasy. I have shown you these things to no avail. Why do you think I should be interested in nonsense?
Most of your opinions are only attacks on the people who disagree with you.
No. You have that the wrong way around. I ask hard questions you can't answer, so you hide behind "the bad man attacked me" nonsense.
Try having an honest debate for once, instead of just being defense all the time. You may find it refreshing.
Or you trying to spin statements around to attempt to make it appear someone said something that they didn’t say.
Nope again. That's what you are doing You are trying to put words in Henry Wade's mouth, which the real evidence conclusively shows he could never have said at the time when you claimed he said it, and all you have to back up your opinion is a vague newspaper article and some quotes from a book.
Or you trying to generalize a statement about something that is specific.
I don't even know what you are rambling on about here....
Or you trying to take something out of context and make it into something that fits your fantasy
Nothing is being taken out of context. At least not by me. A newspaper article and quotes from memory long after the fact don't offer the so-called context you keep going on about
I have shown you these things to no avail.
All you have shown me is that you are more than happy to take a newspaper article and some quotes from memory (that fit with your theory) as gospel while at the same time ignoring under oath testimony from Latona and Day which combined demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that what you claim simply could not have happened. And then you say I'm living in a fantasy world..... really?
Btw, in this one post alone you falsely claim that I (1) attack people who disagree with me (2) trying to spin statements around (3) trying to generalize statements and (4) trying to take something out of context..... and I'm the one attacking you? Are you for real?
Why do you think I should be interested in nonsense?
Indeed, so why are you desperately clinging to your absurd claim and ignoring actual evidence?
If someone here has something to say that pertains to the JFK assassination and is reasonable and I agree with them, no matter which side of the fence they are on, I have no problem saying so. I don't recall ever seeing anything like that from you.
Martin is absolutely right, Charles, you're being hypocritical. You seem to think that Wade's 6-months-later "recollection" of Fritz telling him about a palmprint is somehow an unassailable truth even though Wade himself admits in the same testimony that it varies from the facts and that no palmprint was actually identified by the Dallas PD that night or at any other time.
Can you point to any contemporary mention or report of such a print before Oswald's death?
Martin was trying to compare two different books written by two different authors about different persons in two different situations.
As for your question, the newspaper article was published before Oswald's death. You can believe whatever you want to believe as to whether or not it is referring to the palm print. I really don't care.
And your reason for trusting one and rejecting the other seems completely arbitrary and based solely on your preconceptions.
The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint, partial or otherwise. The fact remains that the magic palmprint wasn't positively IDed until Latona examined the index card it was taped to on November 29th. All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.
All the newspaper article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.
Iacoletti,
What makes you assume it was misinformation?
And what stated reason of mine are you referring to?
I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.
Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.
You can believe whatever you want to believe as to whether or not it is referring to the palm print. I really don't care.
I have presented the words of several people who were there. Your opinion of them makes no difference to me.
All the article shows is that an unnamed "investigator" was feeding misinformation to the press before Oswald's death.
Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong
Translation: No matter what you or anybody else says, I don't have an open mind and will never be convinced that I am wrong
PS Yet, regarding your doubt that Aynesworth remembered correctly many years later what Wade had said that Fritz had said, iirc YOU rely on a 54 year-old recollection (and from behind), in your ... gasp ... belief ... that Gloria Holt was really Gloria Calvery, and that Sharon Simmons was really ... uhh ... Karen Westbrook!
Already discussed in the preceding posts, which you apparently didn't bother to read.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
If somebody told a reporter prior to Oswald's death that "We've got a print that matches Oswald's" on the rifle then it was misinformation.
Since to make your point, you're relying on Day's testimony to be truthful, here's another Lt. Day tidbit.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
I'm not relying on Day's testimony to be truthful.
Then why bother posting his testimony?
Already answered in the part you trimmed off.
I'm not relying on Day's testimony to be truthful. I'm pointing out that there is no contemporary corroboration for Aynesworth's 50-year-old double hearsay. Even from the guy who claimed to have lifted the magic palmprint.
You're accepting a 50-year-old recollection of Aynesworth as being a precise word-for-word quote of Henry Wade on a particular day (with no corroborating evidence) and rejecting (rightly so) Howard Brennan's 20-year-old recollection of seeing the president's head explode.
What "several people"? You're ignoring what Wade himself said in 1964 (along with Day and Latona) in favor of something Aynesworth claimed 50 years later that Wade said that Fritz said on November 22, 1963. There's no record of Fritz ever mentioning this alleged print directly.
Aynesworth confirmed with me on the phone that those quotes in his book which are in parentheses are from his notes he took at the time the comments were made.
The description of the assassination appears to be written by Cherryholmes (the words and phrases are more like what you would expect from him as a clergyman that what you might expect from a construction worker.
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him. Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever. What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade. There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.
No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.
Here we are 19 pages in and not one CT has provided any evidence or at least supplied a plausible narrative of how C2766 ended up on the 6th floor?
Surely after half a Century at least somebody or someone who knows somebody would come forward and say that the rifle was planted?
But the fact is that after half a Century nobody has ever come forward and said that anything and that means absolutely anything was planted or manufactured.
So what are we left with after all this time?, no Police Officers, document alterers, handwriting forgers, collectors for the handwriting originals for reference, photo alterers, Postal workers, film sfx experts, Kleins employees, Crescent Firearms employees, FBI agents, CIA agents, KGB agents etc, etc, has ever come forward and admitted that they planted/manufactured evidence or knows someone who planted/manufactured evidence.
JohnM
Your "translations" are your typical nonsensical attacks on a person.
You have shown us time and time again that one cannot reason with someone who is unreasonable. That is why I don't care to engage in an argument. And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.
And it makes no difference to me what your opinions are.
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him. Even though there is no contemporary corroboration whatsoever. What's worse is that even if Anyesworth is 100% accurate, that still doesn't mean that Fritz actually ever said that to Wade. There's a reason that hearsay isn't admissible.
No only is this pure assumption, but it's a classist assumption.
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.
Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.
To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63
So what it boils down to is that you believe Aynesworth just because you believe him.
Exactly right, but I doubt Charles will ever be prepared to see it that way.
To him, Anyesworth must seem to be a person who can't possibly get anything wrong, no matter how much time has passed. His belief in this man is apparantly so strong that he is willing to ignore the testimony of Laytona and Day which, combined, show there is no way anybody could have told Wade about a matching palmprint on the rifle on 11/22/63
Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.
Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I believe it isn't.
That is your opinion. It’s unreasonable.
I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.” The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.
Your denials of everything that doesn’t support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous. To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd. Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?
Hi Denis,
Fair points.
As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?
My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.
But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.
Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.
So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.
To you anything I say is "unreasonable" simply because it doesn't agree with your opinion.
I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.” The top police officials were aware of it, the district attorney was told of it, and someone leaked it to the newspaper reporters who put it on the front page.
This is not what that article shows. You have concocted this narrative all by yourself.
Your denials of everything that doesn’t support your theories are unreasonable and makes you look ridiculous.
Again, you have it backwards. It's you who denies the WC testimony of Latona and Day because it does not support your theory.
To think that the WC got everything wrong is absurd.
What makes you think I think that?
Yet you lamely attempt to shoot down every aspect with your unreasonable opinions. I asked and was told that there is no common ground on which both sides agree. What is the point of arguing with that nonsense?
So, the WC testimony of Latona and Day showing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was no match of the palmprint with Oswald on 11/22/63 is nonsense but a vague quote from an anonymous soucre in a newspaper article isn't?
Hi Denis,
Fair points.
As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided?
My argument is not that Aynsworth lacks credibility, because he certainly doesn't.
But Charles's trust in him is in this particular case indeed misguided because, regardless of what Aynsworth remembers or has written in his notes, the combined sworn WC testimony of Latona and Day shows conclusively that Wade could not have been told on 11/22/63 about a palmprint found on the rifle matching to Oswald because an index card with that palmprint on it did not surfice until 11/26/63 and was not examined (by Latona) until 11/29/63. I believe Aynsworth would be the first to see and accept this conflict with his memory.
Even the WC lawyer Eisenberg, who took Latona's testimony, was aware there had been "inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?". Aynsworth simply wrote down what Henry Wade told him from memory and used that in his book. But that doesn't automatically mean the information he obtained from Wade was completely correct and the Latona and Day testimony shows conclusively it couldn't have been.
So my argument is not with Aynsworth. My argument is with Charles who is using Aynsworth's book and notes as somehow proof that what Wade claimed is true, despite the fact that hard evidence shows it couldn't have been.
How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?
-- MWT ;)
How does the index card's not surfacing until 11/26 preclude Wade's being told the results before that by somebody?
Because there were no results prior to 11/29.
Day testified that he after he lifted the palmprint from the rifle he was told not to proceed any further. Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Day, who was the only one who knew and had access to the card, never examined the palmprint, so (and this is what Charles refuses to accept) there couldn't have been a match of any kind with Oswald on 11/22.
Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match. You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.
Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match.
That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were giving information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!
You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.
First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.
Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
Day briefly examined the palm print on 11/22/63 and felt sure it was Oswald's. He had put it aside and was setting up to do a timed photograph of the palm print on the rifle when he was interrupted. And he told both Curry and Fritz that he had a tentative match.
That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!
You can purchase and examine the oral history interview of Day in 1996 (page 19) if you choose not to believe me. Due to copyright agreement I cannot post the interview here. Sixth Floor Museum - Oral History Collection - Law Enforcement https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement (https://www.jfk.org/the-collections/oral-history/oral-history-topics/?topic=law-enforcement). Look for J.C. Day, cost for the transcription via email is $5.
First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.
Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
Hi Martin. Actually, that is not what Jesse Curry said. I have Curry's book, just read every word of it (it's a short book, only 133 pages and many of the pages are pictures). There is nothing close to that quote in Curry's book. Can you give me the page # of Curry's book with this quote, in case I missed it (which I certainly could have)?
I believe the quote you refer to is Curry's statement at a press conference announcing the release of his book, as reported by Tom Johnson of the Dallas Morning News. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm not going to express my opinion," Curry said at a press conference. "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."
Tom Johnson, Dallas Morning News
Thursday, Nov 6, 1969
The "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did"---that does not appear in the DMN article and I can't find it in Curry's book
Thanks John. How did you like the book?
That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were giving information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!
It was front page news.
First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.
They present the facts and don't take one side or the other. They perform a valuable service that most people are willing to pay for. (And you call me closed-minded?)
Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it? Why did he not say any of this in his WC testimony?
Typical nonsense that you love to spout. Why would he want to or even think he could "rewrite history?"
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
I haven't read that book. So I will reserve comment on what is in it until after I have read all of it. It does seem a strange thing for him to say. He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.
First of all, I have no intention of buying anything from people who not only promote a one sided version of events but also want to make money with it.
>>> So you've never purchased conspiracy books.
Secondly, an interview 33 years after the fact? How convenient.... and it never occurrs to you that someboy like Day could use the oral history interview to actually rewrite history and his part in it?
>>> He did that?
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand."? Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
>>> People say/don't say a lot of things when trying to sell their book$
That's not what he said in his WC testimony and frankly I don't believe a word of it, for one simple reason; tentative or not, it would have been a smoking gun and given the fact that all sorts of people were providing information to the media it would have been all over the news, but it never was!
>>> So Day was one of these 'all sorts of people'?
Hi Martin. Actually, that is not what Jesse Curry said. I have Curry's book, just read every word of it (it's a short book, only 133 pages and many of the pages are pictures). There is nothing close to that quote in Curry's book. Can you give me the page # of Curry's book with this quote, in case I missed it (which I certainly could have)?
I believe the quote you refer to is Curry's statement at a press conference announcing the release of his book, as reported by Tom Johnson of the Dallas Morning News. Here is the exact quote:
"I'm not going to express my opinion," Curry said at a press conference. "I'm not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand."
Tom Johnson, Dallas Morning News
Thursday, Nov 6, 1969
The "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did"---that does not appear in the DMN article and I can't find it in Curry's book
No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.
Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"
Why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?
He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.
Why do you comment when you cay you will reserve comment?
No it wasn't. There was one mention of a print match in a newspaper article which does not even mention the palmprint.
You are conveniently leaving out: "...the evidence "leaves little doubt" that the 24 year-old Communist sympathizer held the rifle...".
Nope.. they present the WC version of the "facts"
They would disagree with your opinion. Gary Mack was a CT.
Why did he say he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?
No he didn't lie. You conveniently left out the rest of the sentence. The complete sentence is: "I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete." [The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle.]
The next sentence is: "I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun." [He is still talking about processing the rifle, not the print. The palm print was found on the bottom of the barrel further towards the muzzle. He had already partially processed it and was setting up to take a photograph when he was told to stop.
This is a typical example of you taking something out of context and trying to spin it into something that it is not. It is no wonder that I say that I am not interested in you nonsensical opinions. You are wasting my time.
Do you remember that Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book, did not mention it at all and in fact said: "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building with a gun in his hand." Kind of a strange thing to say if in fact - as you claim - Day told him about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
I haven't read that book. So I will reserve comment on what is in it until after I have read all of it. It does seem a strange thing for him to say. He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.
It's not really so strange Charles. The clue is in the sentence "Jesse Curry, in his 1969 book" I know it sounds cynical but remember; Conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Yet another vulture out to make a few $?
Is this one considered to be a CT book?
Oh yeah, definitely, 100%. And to be precise, as John Agee pointed out, Curry doesn't actually say that in his book. Curry's said at a press conference announcing the release of his book.
So, what exactly is the problem?
Is it that he was trying to sell a book?
Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?
Here is some pages from Curry's book and Curry "as the man on the inside" tells us that they were satisfied that they had enough evidence to charge Oswald with the murder of Tippit.
JohnM
But we are not discussing the murder of Tippit….
So, what exactly is the problem?
Is it that he was trying to sell a book?
Or is the problem that he, as an inside man, publicly expressed doubts about the findings of the investigation?
It's my thread and I'll talk about what I want. So FO!
JohnM
Absolutely no problem, if Curry truly believed what he wrote in his book, basically that the assassination was a conspiracy. As Charles points out, that's a huge volt face on his early comments.
Was Curry genuine or trying to make money out of the assassination?
Everyone can make their own mind up on that one.
But, as I said previous, conspiracy books sell better than non-conspiracy books. Had Curry wrote a book that repeated his early comments/statements ie no conspiracy, would anyone have even printed the book? I think that's a fair observation.
This is a good thread, lots of intelligent debate and discussion. Can't we all keep it cool...it would be a real shame to have it deleted. 8)
I have no idea. It could be either, but is there something that justifies the conclusion that he was just trying to make some money?
Sure it is, but it's nothing more than an assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry.
So, you don't really know why decided that "they" had enough evidence against Oswald for the Tippit murder?
Martin, I never stated a conclusion. Nor did I state an "assumption that nobody would have printed a pro-LN book by Curry". Sure, I have an opinion on both, which along with 5p will buy a box of matches, but I've intentionally kept those opinions to myself. What I tried to do is raise certain points and observations which I believe are relevant. I'm also questioning the reasons for Curry's volte-face. I do think it very relevant that this volte-face coincided with the release of a book. You don't?
You can't be Fk'n serious?
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald kill Tippit.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald with a weapon at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald emptying shells at the crime scene.
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald acting suspiciously leading up to the theater.
They had the box office girl tell them that Oswald didn't buy a ticket.
They had a Police officer who was struck by Oswald.
They had more Police Officers confirm Oswald resisted being questioned.
They had Oswald's revolver, which Oswald used to try and kill more Police officers.
JohnM
Who are "they"?
Who decided to bring charges against Oswald in the Tippit murder?
Very relevant? I don't know. What I do wonder about is why somebody involved in the investigation would suddenly change his mind just to sell a book. I just don't see that. Could it be that Curry held his doubts to himself from the beginning and then decided to come forward with them? He wouldn't be the first employee or government official who disagreed with what was going on but did not want to rock the boat…. Could that explain his change of opinion?
I answered your original post and now I see you have gone back and changed your original post, pathetic!
JohnM
I know by now that you call hard questions you can't answer "typical nonsense" but why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? By the time Day testified the information about the palmprint on an index card and Latona's match with Oswald were known. So, why did Day not testify that he made a similar match? Why did he say instead that he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?
He made some decisions during that weekend that a lot of people have second guessed and criticized.
Why do you comment when you cay you will reserve comment?
Was Curry appointed to his position as police chief? What were his qualifications for the position? A little investigating on Curry is going to be on my list of things to do.
Charles, Curry up to the assassination had a brilliant career. From WIKIPEDIA: Curry joined the Dallas Police Department as a traffic officer on May 1, 1936, and worked his way up the ranks to become the chief of police on January 20, 1960. As Curry explained it to the Warren Commission, he worked his way up in "practically every assignment the police department has", and graduated from the Northwestern University Traffic Institute in 1945/6 and the FBI National Academy in 1951.
After the assassination of Oswald, Curry's career was pretty much ruined, he was held responsible and heavily criticised for Oswald getting shot during the transfer. Three years later he retired, ostensibly on health grounds but this may well have been a crock as he actually carried on working, in the private sector, for another twelve years. I've read, can't confirm, that he was very bitter towards the DPD and very short of money due to his early (forced?) retirement. He retired in 1966, the same year he released his book, died in his sleep 1978.
Hope that helps.
I know by now that you call hard questions you can't answer "typical nonsense" but why did Day not mention the "tentative match of the palmprint to Oswald" in his WC testimony? By the time Day testified the information about the palmprint on an index card and Latona's match with Oswald were known. So, why did Day not testify that he made a similar match? Why did he say instead that he stopped processing after having lifted the print from the rifle? Did day lie in his WC testimony?
On the day of his WC testimony Day still wouldn't say it: Page 263 - Day: Maybe I shouldn't absolutely make a positive statement without further checking that. I think it is his, but I would have to sit down and take two glasses to make an additional comparison before I would say absolutely, excluding all possibility it is. I think it is, but I would have to do some more work on that.
That appears to be the same thing he told Fritz and Curry on 11/22/63. Also, Day states he told Vince Drain when he picked it up that there was a palm print on the barrel and pointed out the location to him. Add Drain to the list of people who were told.
Thanks, yes it does. A friend once told me that he learned during his study towards a degree in industrial management that in the corporate world (and bureaucratic world) people usually climb the ladder to the level of their incompetence. I don’t know if that’s what happened to Curry or not. Just something that came to mind when I read your post.
Yeah, I know what you mean, but Curry was told by his superiors to allow plenty of press coverage, release maximum info and to 'show off' Oswald as much as possible. I can't help thinking the guy got a bum deal, was made a bit of a scapegoat.
I distinctly recall Day saying that the prints looked llked, tentatively, Oswald's.. and saying he wishes he had gone ahead and photographed them despite being told to stop. It seems he was confident in that tentative assassessment. Being told to stop should immediately raise an investigator's suspicions as to why, so why not take a chance and finish.
I think that you’re probably right about the scapegoat. He didn’t make all those decisions without some consultation. However, several of his detectives and Sheriff Decker said that they had tried to convince him not to try to transport Oswald in front of the press.
Perhaps I should have rephrased my comment better, because I never wanted to give the impression it was a quote in the book, but thanks for the exact quote. I was paraphrasing from memory. I am sure in my mind Curry did say the other part as well, but I can't instantly recall where or when he said it.
Yeah, I know what you mean, but Curry was told by his superiors to allow plenty of press coverage, release maximum info and to 'show off' Oswald as much as possible. I can't help thinking the guy got a bum deal, was made a bit of a scapegoat.
Denis, I think the public parading (and associated press questioning) of Oswald was confined to day one. I believe after that there was some deal struck between the DPD and press that allowed them to see him being moved but no questions were to be asked.
He said it, on film, to a reporter in a hallway, iirc.
(Excuse me if someone has already posted this -- I haven't read through the whole thread yet.)
-- MWT ;)
Yes, you're right Thomas, whilst he was on his way to the first lineup. It wasn't actually caught on film though, was it?
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?
(http://jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/day1.jpg)
JohnM
What "evidence"... they had collected hardly anything when the article was published and they most certainly had not examined any of it.
I am willing (and have said so before) to consider the possibility that Oswald was a lone gunman and I even feel that some evidence indeed points in that direction.
Does that make me a LN?
Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.
If, as you claim "The word "it' is referring to the rifle. Day is talking about no further processing of the rifle." then why didn't Day continue with processing the palmprint on the index card? Why did he do nothing with it and held it back for four days?
Here's a bit of interesting testimony;
Mr. BELIN. What about the lift which has previously been marked as Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. About what?
Mr. BELIN. When did you turn that over to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. I released that to them on November 26, 1963. I did not release this----
Mr. BELIN. You are referring to Commission Exhibit 637?
Mr. DAY. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any particular reason why this was not released on the 22d?
Mr. DAY. The gun was being sent in to them for process of prints. Actually I thought the print on the gun was their best bet, still remained on there, and, too, there was another print, I thought possibly under the wood part up near the trigger housing.
Mr. BELIN. You mean the remaining traces of the powder you had when you got the lift, Exhibit 637, is that what you mean by the lift of the remaining print on the gun?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Actually it was dried ridges on there. There were traces of ridges still on the gun barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Can you tell the circumstances under which you sent Commission Exhibit No. 637to the FBI?
Mr. DAY. We released certain evidence to the FBI, including the gun, on November 22. It was returned to us on November 24. Then on November 26 we received instructions to send back to the FBI everything that we had.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do that?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; and at that time I sent the lift marked----
Mr. BELIN. 637.
Mr. DAY. Yes. The gun was sent back again, and all of the other evidence that I had, including cartons from Texas Bookstore, and various other items, a rather lengthy list.
and some more;
Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63
Actually, Day's own testimony proves that it is you who is taking things out of context and trying to spin it.
Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.
You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.
It seems it is you who is wasting everybody's time
Now that's a strange interpretation. Yes, Day was indeed working on the rifle when he was told to stop processing, but they did not tell him only to stop working on the rifle. He was told to stop processing the evidence (which the rifle was part of) because it (the evidence) had to be turned over to the FBI, which is exactly what happened.
No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it. He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."
And about the palm print: "...I looked at it and was pretty sure it was his. But I wanted to look at it some more before I said definitely was his palm.
He says the same things in his 1996 oral history interview.
Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63
Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.
You, based on a vague newspaper article which does not even mention the palm print as such and the dubious memory of Henry Wade make claims that contradict Day's testimony and you prefer an interview of 33 years after the fact to maintain that Day made a tentative match, when the man clearly states that for him there is no such thing as a tentative match.
No it doesn't, I think you are confusing a tentative match vs a positive match. And trying to make it look like he said something he didn't. I am not an expert on fingerprinting but here is an article that includes this statement:
Aug 31, 1990 - Here, a fingerprint examiner verifies a tentative match between the thumbprints of a purchaser with those of a prior offender, in order to establish positive identification
https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF (https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9141/914104.PDF)
As I understand it, in fingerprint comparisons the examiner looks for points of similarity. As each point is identified and documented, the likelihood of the prints being of two different persons becomes smaller and smaller. After enough points (varies) are identified, so that the examiner is satisfied they are the same, it is declared a positive match. As the process takes place the examiner essentially goes from: "they could be the same," to: "they probably are the same," to: "they are almost certainly the same," to: "they are definitely the same, to the exclusion of all others". It is a tedious and time consuming process, and it is preferred to go back and take a second look with fresh eyes and mind to make sure there are no errors before making the positive match statement.
I believe that Day was around the almost certainly stage but needed more time to complete the work. Whether you want to call that a tentative match or not I really don't care. But that is what the evidence shows. And then we are only arguing semantics.
Wow... and then you say I am spinning things. No, he was not ordered to stop processing the rifle. That's what you make of it, based on what he said decades later, but it is not what he said in his WC testimony.
In fact he was simply told "to stop processing" and it is beyond obvious (to me) that applies to all the evidence and not just one particular item.
As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it.
Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?
How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?
Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
No it is not what the evidence shows. It's - as you say - what you believe!
Please be as precise as possible and give me an example of where I have done this?
I already did. (And Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm this.) You excluding the remainder of the sentence after the word "processing". The word it refers to the rifle, the sentences before and after that one are about the rifle. They had just asked him about how he had processed the rifle and he was telling them. Yet somehow you try to twist it and believe they were somehow talking about the evidence.
How precisely am I trying to make it look like he said something he didn't, when I am quoting verbatim what he said in his WC testimony?
Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
Here is your claim: Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.
First: Day's 1996 and 2006 oral history interviews confirm he was ordered to stop processing the rifle, not the evidence.
Second: Your "any prints" is incorrect. Fingerprints yes, but the palmprint was tentatively matched on 11/22/63. We are discussing the palm print, not the fingerprints. Because everything above McCloy's question [How about the palmprint?] is about the fingerprints, it is not relevant to our discussion of the palmprint. Day's answer to that question is: The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there. The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match. The words "fully satisfy myself" are indicative of a positive match.
Kinda destroys your claim that Day matched (tentatively or not) the palmprint to Oswald on 11/22/63
When you remove the irrelevant part, as I indicated above, you are left with this relevant statement:
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
Nothing there destroys my claim. In fact that is what it is saying.
The words "appeared to be" are indicative of a tentative match.
No they are not. You are trying to make something out of nothing. Day never matched the palmprint he allegedly took from the rifle with Oswald. In order to make a match you need to compare the prints and Day never did that. He never got around to it.
In this instance "appeared to be" was at best indicative of a guess about which palm print it was.
As to your original claim that Henry Wade was told on 11/22/63 about a tentative match with a palmprint you seem to ignore that Day clearly said;
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints.
So, even if he had made a "tentative" match (quod non) Day would not have said it until he knew for sure. Just one more reason why Wade could not have been told about a matching palmprint on 11/22/63
Day would not have said it appeared to be Oswald’s palm print unless he had made a brief comparison. If he only had determined that it was a right palm print, that is what he would have said.
In the quote you included, he is talking about a positive match, to the exclusion of all others.
Wade was told that they had a tentative match. Those words were from Fritz and Curry. Day probably told them in similar words to the ones he used in his testimony.
Wade was told that they had a tentative match. Those words were from Fritz and Curry. Day probably told them in similar words to the ones he used in his testimony.
And so we are back to square one and getting nowhere…
In my opinion, you are trying to construct a highly speculative narrative based on a vague newspaper article, some decades old memories and a highly questionable interpretation of Day's testimony, whilst at the same time ignoring actual evidence that shows Wade could not have been told about a print matching to Oswald on 11/22/63 as there was none.
The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders.
the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders.
Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!
(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
JohnM
And so we are back to square one and getting nowhere…
No we are not. I can imagine that Day would be cautious when the word match comes up. It appears he only uses that word when he has a positive match that he has properly documented. He might not want to use the term tentative match due to potential misunderstandings. If someone (WC) asks him about a match he responds as if they are asking about a positive match. And when he had a tentative match that he needs further work, he apparently used language that didn't include the word match. What it boils down to is semantics. Wade, and probably Fritz and Curry, apparently preferred the term tentative match. It is a term used in the profession, I showed that in the article earlier in this thread.
In my opinion, you are trying to construct a highly speculative narrative based on a vague newspaper article, some decades old memories and a highly questionable interpretation of Day's testimony, whilst at the same time ignoring actual evidence that shows Wade could not have been told about a print matching to Oswald on 11/22/63 as there was none.
Thank you for saying that all of that is your opinion.
The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders
DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card. And later testified to that effect. If that isn't a documented official record, then what the heck is it? Just because it was in the hands of the DPD (who had jurisdiction at the time) instead of the FBI doesn't mean it didn't exist. He turned the rifle over to the FBI when instructed to do so (even though he was in the middle of processing the palmprint). He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so. Once Oswald had been declared dead, Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63. How the heck did he know about it if it "didn't exist'? He later told Aynesworth he learned about it the evening of 11/22/63.
Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!
(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
JohnM
the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766
Really? When did he touch it?
Yawn, it doesn't matter if it was a minute or a year, the only relevant fact is that Oswald touched the barrel of C2766, you know the rifle he bought through mail order, the rifle he was photographed with, the rifle which was discovered with fibers which matched his arrest shirt, yeah that rifle!
(https://i.postimg.cc/651NDdLm/palm-rifle-print-match.jpg)
JohnM
Focus Martin, we are discussing if Day lifted Oswald's palmprint from C2766 and the following exhibit shows that Oswald's palmprint came from Oswald's rifle.
JohnM
DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card.
And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?
It doesn't add up!
Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63.
In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.
Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.
And this is exactly where your special "logic" breaks down and falls apart. If DPD had jurisdiction and Day still having the lifted print wasn't a problem and if Day was "tentatively" sure there would be a match, why in the world did he not use the four days until 11/26 when the FBI collected the evidence to closely examine the print on the index card with the prints taken from Oswald? Why did he leave it up to the FBI to make the match?
It doesn't add up!
According to Day in his 1996 oral history, he didn't come in the next day (SaPersonay). The rifle was returned (in a big box) on Sunday, but Day wasn't there when it was returned. Day was directed not to do anything else with it and didn't open the box. And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t. He felt sure it was Oswald's print when he briefly examined it…that palm print that he got off the barrel.
In his press conference on 11/24/63, which I just listened to again, I only heard Wade talk about a palmprint found on one of the TSBD boxes that matched to Oswald. I have not heard him say a word about the palmprint that was allegedly taken from the rifle.
Btw I also did hear him say several things that we now know were not true, like for instance that, at that time, ballastics had already linked the MC rifle to the bullets recovered from the car.
Wade was going by his memory because the DPD had been advised by the FBI not to release information on the evidence to the media. Here is an abbreviated list that I noted when I watched the video: witnesses, boxes with palmprints, three shells, gun (hidden) purchased via mail, ID card, pictures of LHO with the rifle, neighbor gave ride - package (supposedly curtain rods), breakroom encounter, bus (@Lamar Street), Taxi to Oakcliff, changed clothes, Tippit encounter with shells, Texas Theater - fight & arrest, brought to city jail, fingerprints on rifle on metal underside, parafin test.
One could argue that Wade was referring to the fingerprints near the trigger. However, Day has said those fingerprints were not clear enough to determine if they were a match or not. And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's. It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID. Wade later told Aynesworth he was told about the palmprint on 11/22/63. I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.
The record shows that the palmprint on the index card was not documented or added to the evidence until 11/26/63 when the FBI collected it all from the DPD. Day and Wade may have tried to spin it later on but that does not alter the basic fact that there is no official record about the palmprint on the index card until 4 days after the murders
DPD had jurisdiction at the time. Their official fingerprint expert (Day) lifted the print off the rifle on 11/22/63. He placed it on the index card and identified what it was and where it came from. Signed and dated the card. And later testified to that effect. If that isn't a documented official record, then what the heck is it? Just because it was in the hands of the DPD (who had jurisdiction at the time) instead of the FBI doesn't mean it didn't exist. He turned the rifle over to the FBI when instructed to do so (even though he was in the middle of processing the palmprint). He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so. Once Oswald had been declared dead, Wade apparently realized that there would be no trial and listed the palmprint as part of the evidence against Oswald in the television news statement on Sunday 11/24/63. How the heck did he know about it if it "didn't exist'? He later told Aynesworth he learned about it the evening of 11/22/63.
And he never did get back to checking the print, they told him not to do anything else with it, and he didn‟t.
Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint! Thumb1:
Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process the palmprint on Friday evening.
IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print for four days. He places the index card in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further. The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does...….. absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?
And he said he "felt sure" the palmprint was Oswald's.
Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.
It stands to reason that Wade would not have said Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was the fingerprints that Day said were not clear enough for ID.
No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!
I contend he was referring to that palmprint at the news conference on 11/24. He was going from memory only, didn't have the cooperation of the police to verify everything, and he made a few misstatements. The use of fingerprints in lieu of palmprint is one of those and understandable under those conditions.
So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.
Actually, no the exhibit doesn't show that. It's a print on an index card which Day said he lifted from the rifle.
Exactly, on the evening on 11/22/63 he was indeed told to stop processing, which clearly included the palmprint! Thumb1:
Or would you be arguing that they first told him to stop processing the rifle and only later told him to not examine the palmprint as well? If that is what you are claiming, you need of course also explain why Day did not continue to process the palmprint on Friday evening.
That is what Day said. Your contention is your conjecture.
IMO, Day's actions are beyond belief. If he really thought the palmprint belonged to Oswald, it would have been a smoking gun! He would have had every reason to want to examine the palmprint as soon as possible. Yet, he shows no interest or curiosity in the print for four days. He places the index card in his desk and ignores it completely for four days. He doesn't complain about or question the order not to process the print further. The biggest crime of the century, Day believes he has conclusive evidence to show Oswald did it and he does...….. absolutely nothing! How can that be deembed credible in any way, shape or form?
Thank you for stating all of that is your opinion.
Again you are trying to make something out of nothing. The only palmprint Wade talked about was the print on the boxes! Not the rifle, as you incorrectly claimed in your post #250.
Not in my (already stated) reasoned opinion.
No it doesn't stand to reason at all. After Oswald was killed Wade was free to say what he wanted in the knowledge that there wouldn't be a trial. In the press conference on 11/24/63 he said several things that we now know simply were not true. He could have added the palmprint allegedly found on the rifle but didn't!
Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him. (He did feel a need to outline the evidence to the media to counter the views by some in the media that they might have arrested the wrong man.) Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense. Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's. The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.
So Wade said one thing but really meant something else.... Nice try to rewrite history! You can contend it all you want, but there is just not a shred of evidence for it.
From wikipedia:
Fingerprint identification, known as dactyloscopy,[8] or hand print identification, is the process of comparing two instances of friction ridge skin impressions (see Minutiae), from human fingers or toes, or even the palm of the hand or sole of the foot, to determine whether these impressions could have come from the same individual.
Palmprints and fingerprints and other prints are all part of fingerprint identification. It is understandable that he would just say fingerprint and it would cover both. Another possibility is: when Wade was told on 11/22/63 they might have just said Oswald's print was found on the rifle and not specified that it was a palmprint.
I have already stated the other reasons to believe he was referring to the palmprint. Those reasons are evidence based on the real circumstances and the words of the people who were there and in a position to know. Not made up out of thin air as you imply.
No, the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766, the same rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box number.
JohnM
the exhibit shows that the same 5 marks on Day's Index card correspond perfectly with the marks on the actual rifle, proving that at some point Oswald put his palmprint on the barrel of a dismantled C2766
No, the 5 marks match at best only proves that Day's index card touched the rifle at some point.
No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!
So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?
Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!
Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.
Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.
He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true.
Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.
BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.
The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.
So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?
Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.
It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.
No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the palmprint further. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!
So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?
Yes, it is what Day said. IIRC I already provided you what he said in his 2006 oral history interview. He said this similar statement in his 1996 oral history interview: "About that time, I got orders from my captain, Captain Dowdy…don‟t do anything else to the gun." Your interpretation of the partial sentence from the WC testimony is only your wishful thinking. And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further. If you choose not to believe what Day says that is your choice. I will choose to believe what Carl Day says. It makes no sense for me to continue to argue about the same thing over and over again with you. Lets just let an "impartial jury" decide who they choose to believe.
Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!
No, I told you a long time ago that I am not interested in your opinions.
Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.
Just another one of your nonsensical opinions.
So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?
It turns out Day's assessment was correct. They were confident that he wouldn't tell them he thought it was Oswald's palmprint if he wasn't sure. And they had plenty of other evidence, it wasn't just the palmprint.
Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's. The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.
Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.
It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.
Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.
No. That's not what Day said. He said in his WC testimony that he was told to stop processing. You were the one who claimed it was only about the rifle, but you can not explain why Day did not process the crucial palmprint further and actually kept it in his desk for four days. That's why you just say it's my conjecture. You always do something like that when you get stuck and have no answers. It's a desperate sign of weakness!
So, again… why did Day not process the palmprint further when - as you incorrectly claim - he was only told to stop processing the rifle?
Of course it is my opinion.... and you have nothing to counter it!
Your opinions are not reasoned. They only serve the purpose of defending a predetermined conclusion.
Anybody who listens to the Wade press conference of 11/24/63 will note that Wade only talks about the palmprint found on a box at the TSBD.
Wade knew that the case would continue to be investigated and the facts would come out. He wasn't free to say what he wanted. If he intentionally lied it would come back to bite him.
BS all he would have to say is that he was given erroneous information. It was only a press conference, for crying out loud.
Why would he say Oswald's prints were on the rifle if all they had was fingerprints that were not clear enough for ID? You make no sense.
He made all sorts of claims that later turned out not to be true, and none of them came back "to bite him"
Wade was in my (already stated) reasoned opinion referring to the palmprint that Day felt sure was Oswald's.
BS. If Day felt so sure that the palmprint belonged to Oswald, why did he not make sure by processing it further, rather than doing absolutely nothing with it for four days.
The palmprint was also a big part of the reasons they decided that night, 11/22/63, to charge Oswald with the assassination.
So, they charged Oswald with murder of the President based upon Day's "feeling" and made no effort at all to make sure? Are you for real?
Your "reasons" are nothing more than conjecture based upon a vague newspaper article and comments made by Wade and Day decades after the events. There is clear and obvious evidence that shows the palmprint on the indexcard did not surface until 11/26/63 and was not processed (by Latona) until 11/29/63.
It is completely hilarious that you argue that Day was not told to stop processing the palmprint on Friday evening, when we know he did in fact not process it at all prior to surrendering it to the FBI on 11/26. It is just as comical that you suggest that Day was in fact also told to stop processing the print, but that he nevertheless somehow made a "tentative match" and it's completely pathetic to claim that Oswald would have been charged with the murder of Kennedy based on that alleged "tentative match" when the DPD had the means and possibility to make absolutely sure there was in fact a match.
And again I provided what he said about why he didn't process the palmprint further.
This is getting tiresome…. You simply can not give a plausible explanation for the obvious descrepancy between your claims. You claim Day (1) didn't process the rifle further because he was told to stop processing and (2) didn't continue processing the palmprint because he was told not to do so, but - despite the fact that he never processed the palmprint any further - you claim he just wasn't told both things at the same time. Don't you understand just how idiotic this sounds?
Yes, that's the next defense, when you are losing the debate and have no arguments left
Your desperation is becoming more apparent every time you call my opinions nonsensical without being able to explain what is nonsensical about it.
Your opinion that if you feel Day's assessment was correct tells me nothing. Nobody gets ever charged with murder based upon a "feeling". And you are making a complete fool of yourself by arguing that they were confident that Day wouldn't tell them if he wasn't sure it was Oswald's print. That is exactly what Day said in his WC testimony;
Mr. McCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive---you couldn't make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn't say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. McCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn't get to work enough on that to fully satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.
So, Day himself says he wouldn't say a certain print belonged to a certain person unless he was absolutely sure. You nevertheless present the baseless claim that he told Fritz and Curry (who told Wade) that he had a "tentative" match and than you claim that they charged Oswald with murder because they were sure Day would not have told them if he wasn't sure…..
I'm beginning to wonder what must be going on in your head because this is utter madness!
Some more of your nonsensical opinions. When I stop laughing we can let an "impartial jury" decide who they believe. The people who were there, or your nonsense.
What "impartial jury" would that be? Is this an example of what goes on in your confused head? Or is it just another example of your trying to get out of a discussion for lack of sound arguments?
Btw you are not providing a verbatim record of what the people who were there said! You are giving us your opinions about the meaning (according to you) of what they said.
Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...
...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant?
geniuses(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif)
Don't eat the cheese...why can't you geniuses see this was a plant? Oswald said he was a "patsy." I agree and it's extremely unlikely he was on the sixth floor anyway...
Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?
There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.
But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...
But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...
Well, you can expect to be attacked when you say something silly like;
"Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson?"
because Robinson never testified anywhere.
Btw, Tomlinson did make some public comments and I consider him a credible witness. He just never testified and Tim, of course, knows this…..
Hi Martin,
You have Darrell Tomlinson on your mind. That's understandable, since you and I have had numerous discussions on him. Are you familiar with Tom Robinson's HSCA interview (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=327#relPageId=7&tab=page)?
Hi Tim.
Actually, I had forgotten all about that. Thanks Thumb1:
As to the confusion about the name, that's a mystery for me. I have no idea how I confused Tomlinson with Robinson.... must be old age or something
There's absolutely no point trying to reason with the nutters. I have never seen any indication of a willingness to study all the evidence which makes discussions extremely one-sided and endlessly frustrating. It's much like trying to reason with a cult member. But I would debate anyone at any time in any forum that was open-minded and reasonable. There are so many reasons to exonerate Oswald, where would I start? First, ask yourself a few basic questions: Why would Oswald purchase a gun by mail order when he could have acquired a much better gun without any paper trail? What competent assassin would select the "humanitarian rifle"? What happened to the Mauser found in the Depository? Wouldn't that be a much more accurate weapon for an assassination?
What about the bone-headed SBT? Does anyone with three active brain cells believe that nonsense? Let me help you: count the witnesses at the autopsy who reported that the back wound went in "less than a finger's length" and did not exit the president's body. If their testimony is correct, the SBT is annihilated. Why should I believe Sibert and O'Neil? Why should we believe the exact same testimony from mortician Tom Robinson? I'm sure someone will try to discredit these witnesses, but what they reported was very important. Hoover, one of the most evil individuals in American history, was too ignorant to know what his own agents really reported concerning the autopsy.
But I will be attacked by the trolls who are unable to answer even the most basic question without prevaricating...
Yes, I'm sorry for my intolerance concerning the SBT. I should be more kind in my public posts. I'm just really bugged that the history books are loaded with misinformation about one the most important events of the 20th century. Mr. Pointing is correct that I have a very low opinion of anyone who has studied most of the evidence and concludes the SBT is even remotely possible. But I did not see one word of challenge to my assertions, just a rather self-pitying reply. How about dealing with the issues?
It's my thread and I'll talk about what I want. So FO!Reminds me of the kid who yelled ''It's my football and if you make me mad again I'll just take it with me and go home".(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Threads which descend into chaos, where the thread creator participates in the gradual development of the chaos, will be deleted.
Individual posts considered to be overly aggressive and/or disrespectful in tone towards a fellow member will be deleted.
Yes, I'm sorry for my intolerance concerning the SBT. I should be more kind in my public posts. I'm just really bugged that the history books are loaded with misinformation about one the most important events of the 20th century. Mr. Pointing is correct that I have a very low opinion of anyone who has studied most of the evidence and concludes the SBT is even remotely possible. But I did not see one word of challenge to my assertions, just a rather self-pitying reply. How about dealing with the issues?
I have presented many facts in response to comments made on this forum. But it really is pointless and it is not a productive use of my time. I should have kept my opinions to myself.
No, Hugh Aynesworth is a well respected journalist and the quotes are inside quotation marks. I have said these things before.
Here we are 19 pages in and not one CT has provided any evidence or at least supplied a plausible narrative of how C2766 ended up on the 6th floor?
Hi Martin, this isn't a courtroom, all members are trying to do, need to do, is provide credible reasons why he/she does or does not accept certain evidence and witness statements. Surely, in making such an assessment a witnesses reputation must go a long way in evaluating that credibility. I can understand why many don't accept the statements of certain police officers for example, it's because they believe their reputation or credibility is lacking. But, there are some, both for and against Oswald, whose reputation only strengthens their creds. I would certainly place Aynsworth withing this category, the mans a very highly respected journalist whose inside knowledge of the case far exceeds most others, to my knowledge, in his long career he's never been shown to have lied or deliberately misled. I don't believe Charles believes Aynesworth "just because he believes him" as you put it. I think Charles has evaluated Aynesworth's reputation, determined his credibility to be strong and has posted accordingly. As I said, this isn't a courtroom, so is Charles' trust in Aynsworth really so totally misguided? Personally, I don't believe it is.
That is your opinion. It’s unreasonable.
I brought the newspaper article up to counter the claim that “no one mentioned the palm print until after Oswald was dead,” and “there’s no good reason to believe that it existed before Oswald’s death.”
Everybody thinks that his own opinion is the "reasonable" one.
The newspaper article says nothing about a palmprint.
He turned the palmprint over to the FBI when he was instructed to do so.
Since I have no idea what you are babbling about, could you please explain how your theory works?
Here is a high quality photo of Day's index card showing Oswald's print while simultaneously displaying the 5 random marks found on Oswald's rifle.
No, this high quality photo doesn't show any particular marks on any rifle.
This isn't rocket science..... Just open your eyes and LOOK......The so call "palm print is item # 14 ( 14th item from the top of the list) on the evidence inventory list that was typed up to accompany the photos of the evidence.....
No he didn't. That's one of the issues. He was instructed to turn everything over to the FBI that night. Somehow he "forgot" about the palmprint.
That's one of the issues.
I have provided Day's words. They conflict with your assumption that the WC testimony indicates he was told to stop processing everything. It does not say that. Day's words in his oral history interviews clarifies that he was told to stop processing the rifle on 11/22/63. In the oral history interview he doesn't say anything about not getting back to checking the palmprint until he is talking about coming back to work and the rifle had already been returned. (And I think his choice of the words (that I underlined) is another indication that he had already started checking the palmprint and was interrupted before he could finish.) It appears to me that he did his brief examination of the palmprint after he lifted it and before the rifle was turned over to the FBI. Fritz, Bill Alexander, Jim Allen, and Forrest Sorrels leave city hall to discuss the evidence and eat at Majestic Steak House around 9:00 PM. Fritz said he wanted to wait until they developed the firearm and fingerprint evidence before they file the charges in the assassination. They decide to wait an hour or so. The assassination charges are filed against Oswald at 11:26 PM. The rifle is released to the FBI about 11:45 PM.
Prove it.
No strange interpretation necessary. As I said earlier it is you taking a partial sentence out of context and trying to spin it. He was told to stop processing the rifle. Here are his words from the 2006 oral history from the sixth floor museum: "...a few minutes later I get another order, don't do anything else to the gun. And Vince Drain will be there around 11:30 to pick it up... I definitely remember telling Drain there is a palm print on the underside of the barrel... I didn't turn the palm print in. They said give them the rifle, I gave them the rifle..."
Duh. Because it's a photograph of the index card, not a rifle.
You can't be Fk'n serious?
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald kill Tippit.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald with a weapon at the crime scene.
They had eyewitnesses who saw Oswald emptying shells at the crime scene.
They had an eyewitness who saw Oswald acting suspiciously leading up to the theater.
They had the box office girl tell them that Oswald didn't buy a ticket.
They had a Police officer who was struck by Oswald.
They had more Police Officers confirm Oswald resisted being questioned.
They had Oswald's revolver, which Oswald used to try and kill more Police officers.
You do know that Drain disputes this, right?
Day testifies that he was ordered to stop processing the evidence, that he did not match Oswald to any prints and that he held back the index card for four days.
No, they had witnesses who picked Oswald out of a biased, unfair lineup or from a mugshot of Oswald.
None of these claims even have anything to do with Tippit.
No, they had a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later at the station. And there's no evidence whatsoever that Oswald "tried to kill more police officers".
JohnM
No, they had witnesses who picked Oswald out of a biased, unfair lineup or from a mugshot of Oswald.
No, they had a revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later at the station.
And there's no evidence whatsoever that Oswald "tried to kill more police officers".
Huh? The index card shows 5 marks that were transferred from the rifle, the same card that shows Oswald's authenticated palm print.
.....arrived separately from all of the other print evidence and two days later. Why?
Do you have the sworn Drain testimony?
How do you know these marks were "transferred from the rifle"? Because of a smudge with numbers on it?
Yes, that had a serial number of the same revolver that Oswald ordered. Try again!
Do you have the sworn Day testimony that he told Drain about the magic partial palmprint?
No, because we have the head of the FBI presenting the actual evidence that obviously in it's pristine condition must have been legible.
"revolver that Oswald ordered". LOLOLOL!
"must have been legible". LOLOLOL!
I have the sworn Day Testimony that he removed the Palm Print on the 22nd. Game Over!
The rifle still exists, go and prove the marks are not there. Waiting......
Yep! -giggle-
Your claim, your burden.
Denis, the point is that even if Aynesworth is as pure as the driven snow, and his memory is completely infallible, this is still hearsay. It's not necessarily true.
Is that supposed to somehow make it true?
Yeah, that proves Oswald ordered a revolver with a particular serial number. -giggle-
So another liar, how how many liars were there John?
My burden of proof was met when I presented the head of the FBI's seal of approval.
You tell me. Your list is way longer than mine.
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0 (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=100.0)
John, you're right, in a court of law Aynesworth's statements wouldn't be accepted, which is exactly why I began my post with "this isn't a courtroom". If we attempt to hold this discussion forum to the same stringent levels of a courtroom, then the next obvious phase is to limit the membership only to those holding a doctorate or degree in law. See where I'm going here? Charles, after due examination and evaluation, has put forward good reasons, at least IMO, as to why he accepts Aynesworth's statements as accurate and true. To automatically dismiss those statements because in a courtroom they would be considered "hearsay" is ridiculous. As a side note, I would be more inclined to believe statements from some people which wouldn't be accepted in court, than some witnesses whose statements would be accepted in court and no, not just the ones that support my POV.
Yep, Oswald's revolver was sent to Oswald's PO Box number, the same revolver that was exclusively connected to the shells that were seen being discarded by Oswald at the Tippit crime scene and the same revolver that Oswald was arrested with.
You mean the guy who said that we need to convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin?
After the fact many Americans want to insert themselves into history but that doesn't change the actual evidence.
What did Hoover have to work with?
Oswald ordered a Carcano rifle.
Oswald holding a Carcano rifle.
Oswald's carcano rifle on the 6th floor.
Oswald's shirt fibers on Carcano rifle.
Oswald has no alibi.
Oswald's killing a Police Officer.
Oswald's trying to kill more Police Officers.
And you reckon there was a reason to doubt that Oswald was the real assassin?
After the fact, many police officers want to insert themselves into history -- one even selling photos of himself labeled "captor of Oswald". But that doesn't change the actual evidence.
No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.
There's nothing uniquely identifying this as a Carcano, much less a particular Carcano.
Based on a previously flawed assumptiom
No. Similar fibers that can't be uniquely connected to any particular shirt.
As do at least 6 other people in the TSBD alone.
Both claims assume facts not in evidence.
Yes. When you have to misrepresent the evidence to make your argument then you have no argument. Even if you could prove that Oswald ever possessed this particular rifle (and you can't), that doesn't prove that he shot JFK with it.
What point are you trying to make?, McDonald was actually there when Oswald was captured, other Police Officers testified that McDonald was the one who approached Oswald.
What are you babbling about, we're not talking about what you perceive to be evidence but we're talking about the evidence that Hoover had access to and as every investigation about the JFK Assassination since has since shown us, Hoover's initial statement was spot on.
Approach equals capture?
Huh? McDonald was part of the Officers who captured Oswald therefore McDonald can rightly claim to be a captor of Oswald, why is this even being debated?
John you used to be good at this, what happened?
He didn't capture anybody. He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.
But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.
He didn't capture anybody.
He even lied about being the one to put cuffs on Oswald.
But the point is, you have to have way more "liars" and "mistaken" people to support the Oswald did it alone narrative than to question it.
No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.
Yes he did, he even took the first punch in the face from Oswald and luckily the skin between his thumb and forefinger got between the hammer on Oswald's revolver and saved his life.
I wasn't there, I don't know?
Sure, you have the right to question certain aspects that's the defense's job but nothing you have presented can even remotely refute the mountain of evidence that Oswald took his rifle to work and shot the President.
The entire exhibit includes the envelope.
There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together. Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.
I'm not hiding anything. The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon. This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind. Sorry.
There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.
Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.
I'm not hiding anything.
The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon. This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind. Sorry.
This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?
It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.
1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on Dept 358.
The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-aDCohXESehY/Txt4Cc6X7aI/AAAAAAAADys/yLNy5kl5WRU/s527/CE788.jpg)
We have a Kleins record that was "photographed together" and without a piece of supporting evidence, you think that you have the right to seperate them. LOL!
You can be sorry all you like but Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Kleins sent Oswald C20-T750.
(https://i.postimg.cc/76Q1PPyj/Riflead1.jpg)
If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?
JohnM
If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?
When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?
Are you making stuff up again?
When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?
Are you making stuff up again?
The answer you seek is readily available out there. Why start a thread on it? :'(
What a stupid question how can I answer a negative? A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?
There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer, that's because he's lives and breathes Oswald, he even had his photo taken alongside Oswald's grave, now that's someone that's dedicated to his client!
I don't have to make up anything, you Kooks here do enough of that to last a lifetime.
JohnM
This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?
It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.
1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on Dept 358.
The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.
Semantics suck
What a stupid question how can I answer a negative?
A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?
If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?
When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?
Are you making stuff up again?
That's not a negative. You claimed that I implied Oswald was innocent. When?
So if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent. Is that how your brain works? You can either prove he's guilty or not.
So if I don't claim to know he's guilty, then I'm "implying" he's innocent.
Is that how your brain works?
You can either prove he's guilty or not.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Carcano_M1891.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/_/rsrc/1444489591052/carcano/rifleman-banner.jpg)
The Carcano shown in the Klein's Feb. 1963 advertisement is an illustration of a Carcano M91 (the original 50" Long Rifle) whose barrel was cut down to better appeal to the recreation market. The illustration was made for Klein's ads for ""Custom Sporterized Model" that ran from about 1960-62. About early 1962, I believe, they began selling unaltered Carcano M91/38 TS rifles (this particular model was introduced 1938 and was about 36.5") in ads with the description "6.5 Italian Carbine". They simply continued to use the same illustration as they always used, the cut-down M91 Long Rifle which has the bottom sling swivels.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/backyardphoto/slingmount.jpg)
If that's a bottom swivel mount in the backyard photo, then it's broken with the loop open. My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.
See how little of the rope is hanging down is in 133A compared to the others.
The rope sling is gripped in the hand holding the rifle in 133A. We only see the rope strands hanging down from where the end of the rope is tied into the side swivel, which is on the side of the rifle not photographed.
If everything photographed perfectly, Elizabeth Warren would look like Disney's Pocahontas.
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-1065x1084.jpg)
Here's a lightened version of 133B that happens to show up the rope sling and its ties into the side-swivels. The rope span varies in width because it may be flattened or doubled.
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133a-2004x2069.jpg)
133A shows the loose strands at the fore-stock, darkened because of shade. One end of the span of rope hangs down from the hand that holds it to the rifle. This was the last of the photographs and Oswald was switching the rifle over and advancing the film, so some opportunity to accidentally get the sling between his hand and the rifle.
C'mnon Jerry....Don't change the subject!..... We were discussing CE 133A PERIOD!
its the misaligned scope that really bugs me.
If its a rifle ordered by conspirators, mimicking Oswalds handwriting, and sent to his P.0.Box, and they picked it up, they would have had plenty time to practice with rifle, make sure scope IS aligned, if its a defective or cheap scope, they could have replaced it with better quality scope.
Better yet, why not just order a better quality rifle all together, maybe even a semi auto, and make THAT rifle seem like it was Oswalds rifle? It would have been a LOT easier than having use a 2nd gunman cause the MC rifle bolt tends to stick and the scope doesn't hold its zero, thus requiring using iron sights instead.
So this seems to lead to the following alternatives:
1. Oswald actually ordered the cheap MC rifle and the scope WAS poor quality and very well may have been misaligned severely if Oswald purposely left out a shim required to adjust the mount. If the conspirators stole the rifle the night before, either from Paines garage, or Oswalds boarding house, they would not likely know how bad the scope drifted or how it could not be adjusted without the shim. They didn't have time to practice with the rifle either. This would probably have required having at least a 2nd shooter with better rifle to make sure get the kill shot, should the conspirator using the MC rifle be unable to do so.
2. Some other MC rifle was quickly found within about 50 minutes after the shooting, and was placed in the boxes because NO rifle was found on the 6th floor. Where the conspirators could get an MC rifle so quickly is the question. Possibly General Walker had a surplus supply of MC rifles or CIA had some in storage. The rifle was planted after the fact, once it became known that Oswald was a missing employee and this particular employee was none other than the notorious defector Marine the FBI had already been keeping surveillance on. Hoover Memo directive then guides the further focus on selecting Oswald as the lone nut and no other conspirators involved.
3. Oswald is one of the shooters if not the only shooter, and purposely left the scope misaligned, having practiced using irons sights zeroed at 200 meters, knowing how to adjust for closer targets at 50 to 100 meters distant.
\ He left the rifle on the 6th floor, figuring once its found, because of the poor quality scope misalinged, it would be easy to argue it was a setup if they did trace rifle to himself. (which he may have thought they could not).
4. Oswald is a partial involved dupe, and brought his MC rifle into TSBD on Friday Nov 22/63 to give or sell to someone else, who then went up to 6th floor to use it to shoot JFK, and left it there to frame Oswald.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=388&search=ryder%20and%20scope(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDialRyderBossGreener.jpg)
Wesley Liebeler vs. the Warren Commission
by: Griffith, Michael T.
JFK Assassination Web Page: jfk.miketgriffith.com
The Repair Tag
b. I think the degree of doubt about the authenticity of the repair tag is overstated. (11 HSCA 235; 9/14/64 memo)
To go back for a moment to the second rifle section: In the third full paragraph it states, "On November 24, Ryder and Greener discussed at length the possibility" that Oswald had been there, but "Ryder did not mention the tag to his employer." I know of no evidence that Ryder and Greener talked on the 24th.
If they did not, the next sentence must be changed or cut.
The next sentence is a good example of what happens in the "rewrite" process. It says incorrectly, that on November 25 Ryder told the FBI that Greener did not remember the tag, although he had not called the tag to Greener's attention. The original sentence said, correctly, that Greener "did not remember the transaction represented by the repair tag..."
The next sentence says the FBI was directed to Ryder by anonymous phone calls. Not so. They were directed to the Irving Sports Shop and would very likely have talked to Greener, but he could not be found by the agent on November 25, 1963, when he went to the shop. (11 HSCA 236; 9/14/64 memo)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Eatherly#Later_life
Claude Robert Eatherly (October 2, 1918 – July 1, 1978) was an officer in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II, and the pilot of a weather reconnaissance aircraft Straight Flush that supported the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945.....
....Later Life
...Eatherly claimed to have become horrified by his participation in the Hiroshima bombing, and hopeless at the possibility of repenting for or earning forgiveness for willfully extinguishing so many lives and causing so much pain. He tried speaking out with pacifist groups, sending parts of his paycheck to Hiroshima, writing letters of apology, and once or twice may have attempted suicide. At one point "he set out to try to discredit the popular myth of the war hero [by] committing petty crimes from which he derived no benefit: he was tried for various forgeries and forged a check for a small amount and contributed the money to a fund for the children of Hiroshima. He held up banks and broke into post offices without ever taking anything."[2][page needed] He was convicted of forgery in New Orleans, Louisiana and served one year between 1954 and 1955 for the crime. He was also convicted of breaking and entering in West Texas. He then became a salesman in a garage and might have attempted suicide again by drug. In 1959 he avoided prosecution for robbery by entering the Veterans Administration Hospital in Waco, Texas for many months.[3] Some think he committed antisocial acts because of schizophrenia or anxiety disorder.[citation needed]..
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29053767/fleta-l_-mantooth
14 Aug 2008 (aged 85)
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
BURIAL Restland Cemetery
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
Fleta was the daughter of Homer Richard and Magdalena Jeanetta (Baehr) Ryder and raised with one brother and six sisters. She married Roy Lee Mantooth December 13, 1963, in Albany, Texas. He preceded her in death on March 10, 1979.
......
At time of death she was survived by one son, Glenn Lewis Mantooth and wife, Nicole of Abilene, Texas; two daughters, Dixie Kirby and husband DeWayne of Olney, Texas and Gypsie Fomby and husband Dale of Clyde, Texas; one brother, Dial Ryder of Irving, Texas; four sisters, Magdelene Beanblossom of Decatur, Illinois, Iseaphene Kutz of Olney, Illinois, Marcella Farrar of Poteau, Oklahoma and Velma Douglas of Killeen, Texas.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?givenname=glenn&surname=bowen&birth_place=texas&birth_year_from=1954&birth_year_to=1956&mother_surname=ryder&count=20
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibrarCardSonBirth.jpg)Quotehttps://www.findagrave.com/memorial/63051718/roy-lee-mantooth
Roy Lee Mantooth
BIRTH 14 Feb 1922
DEATH 10 Mar 1979 (aged 57)
BURIAL Abilene Municipal Cemetery
Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, USA....
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137390&relPageId=16&search=mantooth_and grossi
2. No Title, pg 16
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi
ROY LEE MANTOOTH, and lives at 307 East Casom, but is out of town. Attempts were made to locate and contact FLEDA MANTOOTH, with negative results.
ROSE GROSSI, is supposed to be confined at a state mental hospital located in New Jersey, city unknown to her. Mrs.
RYDER and FLEDA MANTOOTH. AT BORGER, TEXAS The following investigation was conducted by SA GARY S.
3. No Title, pg 6
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=69900&relPageId=6&search=mantooth_and grossi
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi
.: 88.40913 JOHN CESAR GROSSI Charader".
FLEDA MANTOOTH with negative results. On December 16, 1964, Mrs.
MANTOOTH again promised complete cooperation with the FBI and the provisions of the Harboring Statute were explained again to her.
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133b-1065x1084.jpg)
Here's a lightened version of 133B that happens to show up the rope sling and its ties into the side-swivels. The rope span varies in width because it may be flattened or doubled.
(https://sites.google.com/site/shotonelmclassicsiteview/backyard/ce133a-2004x2069.jpg)
133A shows the loose strands at the fore-stock, darkened because of shade. One end of the span of rope hangs down from the hand that holds it to the rifle. This was the last of the photographs and Oswald was switching the rifle over and advancing the film, so some opportunity to accidentally get the sling between his hand and the rifle.
There is no way to know when he made the switch from the rope to the shoulder holster sling. I am sure they tried, but If they could have figured out where he bought the Air Force Shoulder Holster maybe they could have figured out where he bought the ammo. Definitely unique to use the shoulder holster as a sling.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Carcano_M1891.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/_/rsrc/1444489591052/carcano/rifleman-banner.jpg)
The Carcano shown in the Klein's Feb. 1963 advertisement is an illustration of a Carcano M91 (the original 50" Long Rifle) whose barrel was cut down to better appeal to the recreation market. The illustration was made for Klein's ads for ""Custom Sporterized Model" that ran from about 1960-62. About early 1962, I believe, they began selling unaltered Carcano M91/38 TS rifles (this particular model was introduced 1938 and was about 36.5") in ads with the description "6.5 Italian Carbine". They simply continued to use the same illustration as they always used, the cut-down M91 Long Rifle which has the bottom sling swivels.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/backyardphoto/slingmount.jpg)
If that's a bottom swivel mount in the backyard photo, then it's broken with the loop open. My belief if that was is seen are loose strands from a rope sling that was attached to the rifle's side sling mount on the fore-stock.
Yeah I was wrong, your posts don't imply Oswald was innocent they scream from the top of their lungs that Oswald was innocent.
Of course, when you go to the lengths of separating evidence into two parts just so you can present what you perceive to be less incriminating evidence to the court is a stunt only a naive Defence Attorney would try and pull off.
Both the Warren Commission and a decade and a half later the HSCA studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald was guilty, whereas you and the rest of the CT's haven't concluded squat.
Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless, it was far too short to use as an aid in steadying the rifle by looping it around the arm. About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...which is exactly what Marina claims he did. Very spooky guy.
"Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless,"
Actually the sling on the TSBD Carcano is similar to a "cuff sling". Cuff slings are used by expert riflemen in competitive shooting.
If it was used as a cuff sling it was set up for a left handed shooter, which makes sense if firing from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD
with the Carcano.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/westra1.jpg)
It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough. When adapting a rifle sling into a cuff sling, the sling doesn't just loop around the cuff as you seem to believe. Before it loops around the wrist (cuff) it needs to first loop around the upper arm. Oswald's shoulder holster sling was far too short for that.
"How To Use The Sling
Begin by moving the sling high on your arm. The triceps will support the sling and keep it in place. The sling should run from the centre of the arm and then around the back of the wrist and hand—without cutting into the wrist—picking up a pulse and becoming too tight. A half-inch clockwise twist in the sling end before attachment of the swivel will allow it to pass around the side of the wrist and back."
~snip~
"It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough."
Looks adjustable and long enough to me.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling.jpg)
"It may be 'similar' but it's still not long enough."
Looks adjustable and long enough to me.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling2.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/cuff%20sling.jpg)
When the rifle was found there was not much slack on the strap.
(https://i.postimg.cc/pLz1pkFN/ozzy-rifle.jpg)
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif)
JohnM
Just a quick question.... was it "Oswald's rifle" that was found at the TSBD ?
How do we know this for sure, or do we just assume it?
Just a quick question.... was it "Oswald's rifle" that was found at the TSBD ?
How do we know this for sure, or do we just assume it?
You know all the evidence but dismiss it as the product of fakery, lies, or reject any logical inference that can be drawn from it (i.e. the impossible standard of proof). But for fun Oswald's prints are on it.
It has the same serial number as a rifle sent to his PO Box.
That rifle was ordered under an alias linked to Oswald.
He is pictured holding a rifle.
There are experts who confirm that the rifle in those photos has the same identifying marks as the one in the TSBD.
There is no accounting for any other rifle belonging to Oswald except as the one found in the TSBD.
Marina, for example, confirmed that Oswald kept his rifle in a blanket in the Paine's garage.
That rifle is not in the blanket on 11.22.
Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.
Something that only makes sense if he doesn't want to be connected to it.
The contrarian has repeatedly suggested that there is doubt that Marina's testimony confirms Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he kept the rifle in the blanket because in a single instance in response to a question about the rifle Marina characterized what she saw as "a wooden part of it" ("it" meaning the rifle in the context of the question being asked). From this John has implied that she was not talking about a rifle but some other object made of wood and therefore Oswald may not have lied when he denied ownership of a rifle. How about we look to the totality of Marina's testimony to see if there is ambiguity regarding whether she is referencing a rifle or some other wooden object?
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any discussion with your husband about the rifle when you first saw it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I asked him, "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?"
He said that it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.
Mr. RANKIN. Is this rifle at Neely Street the only rifle that you know of that your husband had after you were married to him?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you help us by giving some estimate of the times as you remember it?
Mrs. OSWALD. About four times---about four or five times, I think.
Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.
Mr. RANKIN. When he promised you that he would not do anything like that again, did you then believe him?
Mrs. OSWALD. I did not quite believe him inasmuch as the rifle remained in the house.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you first notice the rifle at New Orleans?
Mrs. OSWALD. As soon as I arrived in New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you notice him take it away from your home there in New Orleans at any time?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I know for sure that he didn't. But I know that we had a kind of a porch with a---screened-in porch, and I know that sometimes evenings after dark he would sit there with his rifle. I don't know what he did with it. I came there by chance once and saw him just sitting there with his rifle. I thought he is merely sitting there and resting. Of course I didn't like these kind of little jokes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When you found the rifle wrapped in the blanket, upon your return to Mrs. Paine's, where was it located?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the garage, where all the rest of the things were.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle lying down or was it standing up on the butt end?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was lying down on the floor.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
The contrarian has repeatedly suggested that there is doubt that Marina's testimony confirms Oswald's ownership of the rifle or that he kept the rifle in the blanket because in a single instance in response to a question about the rifle Marina characterized what she saw as "a wooden part of it" ("it" meaning the rifle in the context of the question being asked). From this John has implied that she was not talking about a rifle but some other object made of wood and therefore Oswald may not have lied when he denied ownership of a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.
False claim. Some prints were found near the trigger guard which were useless for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint turned up a week later on an index card.
False claim. There is no evidence of any rifle being shipped through the postal service, delivered to any particular PO box, or picked up there by Oswald or anyone else.
False claim. There is no evidence of "A. Hidell" ever having been used as an alias for Oswald.
Irrelevant.
False claim. One HSCA panel member thought he saw one mark on the rifle in an enlargement of a backyard photo (for which no negative exists) which he thought "has to tilt the scales in the direction" of it being the same rifle.
There is no accounting for THAT rifle belonging to Oswald either.
Six weeks earlier, Marina peeked in the end of a rolled up and tied blanket and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
Irrelevant if you don't know what rifle if any was ever in that blanket.
Your only evidence that he "lied about not owning a rifle" is your unsubstantiated belief that he owned this rifle. It's a circular argument.
Or he wasn't lying and didn't actually own a rifle.
So, why did Marina not mention a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage in her first day affidavit and only talked about Oswald owning a rifle in Russia?
Maybe the sociopathic little snot separated himself from his Hidell (rhymes with Fidel) personality and truly believed that he, Lee Harvey Oswald (AKA Dirty Harvey), had indeed never bought a rifle ;)
By first-day affidavit, Marin's stated that 'two weeks ago', she opened the blanket and saw a rifle. She couldn't say for sure if it was the same rifle she had been shown. BFD. So she wasn't exactly an aficionado on boys' toys.
Whatever the rifle she had seen in the blanket was gone two weeks later.
Wrong
Or maybe Armchair Psychologist Chapman is just making assumptions again.
Exactly. Which is why you have to take any statement from her about a rifle with a grain of salt.
Mr. RANKIN. In Russia did you have a rifle or a shotgun?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the difference. One and the other shoots. You men. That is you
But she says something about a wooden stock and the entire LN community goes apesh*t.
The two weeks was an error. Marina's testified that this happened about a week after she came from New Orleans.
'Armchair Psychologist'
>>> Nice to see you recognize the possibility of Oswald being rather deranged
Why are you repeating what I've already recognized re Marina's lack or knowledge about firearms?
Be a sport and confirm that she opened the blanket and saw a rifle just after arriving from New Orleans. Are you sure she didn't just 'peek' in the tied corner of the blanket at that time, John?
Meanwhile, I'll go with her same-day affidavit declaring that she opened the blanket 'two weeks ago' and that the blanket was empty 'today'
Actually Marina said something in Russian. Those words are those of Ilya Mamantov, recruited for the task by an Army Intelligence operative.
The affidavit does say something about a rifle in a garage, but not a rifle belonging to Lee.
As with you.
Damn, you're even snarky when someone agrees with you!
She saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
Of course you will. Even though she only did this one time. That's called cherry-picking.
So, why did Marina not mention a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage in her first day affidavit...
So you can't back your claim that Marina's first-day affidavit statement 'opened the blanket two weeks ago' statement was in error. Cool.
So what if she 'only did this one time'. Was Oswald saying he was a patsy, only one time, good enough for you?
Agreeing with me, my arse
Huh?
JohnM
"I told them he used to have a rifle to hunt with in Russia"
And indeed Oswald did have a weapon(Marina couldn't tell the difference) back in Russia, so what?
More importantly she says there was a rifle in the Paine garage and it was in her blanket, ouch!
JohnM
Great, now make the leap of faith that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD.... Go on then...
The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen, the kids were playing with it, Oswald took it another time or whatever but who are you trying to convince, yourself?
JohnM
Testimony Of Michael R. Paine
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m1.htm
[EXCERPTS]
Mr. PAINE - The first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment. I said to myself they don't make camping equipment of iron pipes any more.
Mr. LIEBELER - Why did you say that to yourself when you picked up the package?
Mr. PAINE - I had, my experience had been, my earliest camping equipment had been a tent of iron pipes. This somehow reminded me of that. I felt a pipe with my right hand and it was iron, that is to say it was not aluminum.
Mr. LIEBELER - How did you make that distinction?
Mr. PAINE - By the weight of it, and by the, I suppose the moment of inertia, you could have an aluminum tube with a total weight massed in the center somehow but that would not have had the inertia this way.
Mr. DULLES - You were just feeling this through the blanket though?
Mr. PAINE - I was also aware as I was moving his goods around, of his rights to privacy. So I did not feel--I had to move this object, I wasn't thinking very much about it but it happens that I did think a little bit about it or before I get on to the working with my tools I thought, an image came to mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you think there was more than one tent pole in the package or just one tent pole?
Mr. PAINE - As I say, I moved it several times, and I think I thought progressively each time. I moved it twice. It had three occasions. And the first one was an iron, thought of an iron pipe and then I have drawn, I drew yesterday, a picture of the thing I had in mind. Then in order to fill out the package I had to add another object to it and there I added again I was thinking of camping equipment, and I added a folding shovel such as I had seen in the Army, a little spade where the blade folds back over the handle. This has the trouble that this blade was too symmetrical I disposed to the handle and to fit the package the blade had to be off center, eccentric to the handle. Also, I had my vision of the pipe. It had an iron pipe about 30 inches long with a short section of pipe going off 45 degrees. No words here, it just happened that I did have this image in my mind of trying to fill up that package in the back burner of my mind.
Mr. LIEBELER - The witness yesterday did draw a picture of what he visualized as being in the blanket, and I will offer it in evidence later on in the hearing.
How long was this package in your estimation?
Mr. PAINE - Well, yesterday we measured the distance that I indicated with my hand, I think it came to 37 inches.
Mr. LIEBELER - Approximately how thick would you say it was?
Mr. PAINE - I picked it up each time and I put it in a position and then I would recover it from that position, so each time I moved it with the same position with my hands in the same position. My right hand, the thumb and forefinger could go around the pipe, and my left hand grabbed something which was an inch and a half inside the blanket or something thick.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did it occur to you at that time that there was a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That did not occur to me.
Mr. LIEBELER - You never at any time looked inside the package?
Mr. PAINE - That is correct. I could easily have felt the package but I was aware that of respecting his privacy of his possessions.
Mr. LIEBELER - Were you subsequently advised of the probability or the possibility that there had been a rifle wrapped in that package?
Mr. PAINE - When I arrived on Friday afternoon we went into the garage, I think Ruth, Marina and the policeman, and I am not sure it was the first time, but there we saw this blanket was on the floor below the bandsaw--
Mr. PAINE - And a rifle was mentioned and then it rang a bell, the rifle answered, fitted the package that I had been trying to fit these unsuccessfully. It had never resolved itself, this shovel and pipe didn't fit in there.
Mr. LIEBELER - And it seemed to you likely that there had in fact been a rifle in the package?
Mr. PAINE - That answered it.
You still haven't understood that supposition is not the same as evidence?
Great, now make the leap of faith that it was the MC rifle found at the TSBD.... Go on then...
The evidence is that the blanket was empty on the afternoon of the assassination.
Sure you can argue that the rifle was stolen, the kids were playing with it, Oswald took it another time or whatever but who are you trying to convince, yourself?
>>> She was knowledgeable enough to testify that the rifle/shotgun Oswald had in Russia he also sold in Russia. Which pretty much eliminates it as being in the blanket.
So, is your argument that she was so unfamilar with rifles that it must have been a rifle that she saw?
>>> Where do you get that impression?
Progress. So Marina confirms multiple times in her testimony that Oswald owned a rifle. There is no ambiguity about this point as dishonestly suggested by the claim that she only saw something made of wood.
At a minimum, that means Oswald lied about not owning a rifle.
The implication of that should be obvious. Once you agree that Oswald owned a rifle per Marina's testimony and that of Mrs. DeM the issue becomes was it the THE rifle. There are two possibilities- it was or was not. We know the serial number of the rifle found at the TSBD matches that of the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box.
Oswald's prints are on that rifle.
It is found at his place of employment.
It can't be linked by one iota of evidence to any other person in that building or the world.
Oswald carried a long package to work that morning that can't otherwise be accounted for except as containing the rifle.
In fifty plus years and counting there is not one iota of evidence that Oswald owned any other rifle during the relevant time period.
And by implication, if he had then it should have been found in the blanket on 11.22 where Marian confirms he kept "it" (the rifle).
It's almost impossible to conceive how there could be any more evidence that the rifle found in the TSBD was the same one ordered and possessed by Oswald. He is even pictured holding it.
It is a slam dunk. Zero doubt.
So your claim that Paine thought the blanket contained camping equipment falls under the 'supposition' category? If so, why did you bring up Paine's 'supposition' in the first place, and furthermore, why did you ignore the statement that Paine was immediately doubtful about his first impression as to the blanket's contents?
Whew. Brutal dishonesty. As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period. There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle. Oswald denied owning any rifle. That means he lied. There is no ambiguity about that.
Next issue. Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket. Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket.
Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle.
If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there.
It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket? (Here Marina is asked about "the rifle" in the blanket!)
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle. (So Marina clarifies that although she was not "checking" for a rifle when she looked in the blanket the object she saw "was a rifle." A "rifle" for F's sake! Inexplicable how anyone can argue that there is ambiguity about her seeing "the rifle" when she confirms that she "saw that it was a rifle." How much clearer could it be?
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? (Again Marina is specifically being asked about "the rifle")
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. (Marina responds "yes" to the question about finding the rifle in the blanket. In context Marina is not suggesting that she saw some unknown object made of "wood" she is confirming that she saw the "wooden part of it."
"It" can only mean a rifle since that is subject of the question. If there was any doubt she goes on to say "the wooden stock." Of course the rifle has a "wooden stock."
To suggest there is any reasonable ambiguity about whether she is confirming the presence of a rifle in the blanket here or just some unknown object made of wood is mere kookery when you read the totality of her testimony.
Hopeless. A classic example of the contrarian mindset. Marina mentions "wood" one time and suddenly the dozens of confirmations that she makes regarding the rifle become "assumptions." And, of course, a rifle is partially made of wood and has a wooden stock. So even by that dishonest characterization of her testimony, this description is still entirely consistent with seeing a rifle in the blanket. What else would this object have been that was made of wood, had a wooden stock, and Marina mistook for a rifle? Where did this wooden object go that it is no longer there on 11.22?
And we are told that confirmation of the rifle's presence was the result of a "mistranslation" by Ruth Paine.
This despite the fact that Marina confirms the events in her WC testimony and has never recanted her confirmation about Oswald owning and storing a rifle in the Paine's garage to this day.
Also the claim is made that X didn't happen (i.e. Oswald didn't store his rifle in the blanket).
By implication that means that Z must have happened (something made of wood that was not the rifle was kept in the blanket and that is what Marina saw). But time and again there is no proof of Z.
Where is this wooden object, what happened to it? Marina and the Paines never touched it. Contrarians stick their heads in the sand and dismiss the implications of their own theories having any validity.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Whew. Brutal dishonesty. As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period. There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle. Oswald denied owning any rifle. That means he lied. There is no ambiguity about that. Next issue. Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket. Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket. Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle. If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there. Why would she do that unless she knew a rifle was kept in the blanket? It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object. In the one instance that our dishonest contrarians grasp at straws to desperately suggest that she merely saw some object made of wood (like a rifle) they take her comment out of context and without reference to the question being asked or her previous confirmation that the object in the blanket was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket? (Here Marina is asked about "the rifle" in the blanket!)
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle. (So Marina clarifies that although she was not "checking" for a rifle when she looked in the blanket the object she saw "was a rifle." A "rifle" for F's sake! Inexplicable how anyone can argue that there is ambiguity about her seeing "the rifle" when she confirms that she "saw that it was a rifle." How much clearer could it be?
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? (Again Marina is specifically being asked about "the rifle")
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. (Marina responds "yes" to the question about finding the rifle in the blanket. In context Marina is not suggesting that she saw some unknown object made of "wood" she is confirming that she saw the "wooden part of it." "It" can only mean a rifle since that is subject of the question. If there was any doubt she goes on to say "the wooden stock." Of course the rifle has a "wooden stock."
To suggest there is any reasonable ambiguity about whether she is confirming the presence of a rifle in the blanket here or just some unknown object made of wood is mere kookery when you read the totality of her testimony. She confirms multiple times that 1) Oswald owned a rifle; 2) he kept it in the blanket in the Paine's garage; 3) she expected the DPD to find it there on 11.22 because that is where she had seen it with her own eyes.
https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=webster&docid=209185
1. MISC_BELARUS.02, pg 16
Found in: ARRB Electronic Files of Team A
Robert Edward Webster #. Does a chronology exist of the activities of American defector Robert Edward Webster in the USSR? #.
What were Webster s activities in Sept. and Oct. 1959? #.
How many times did Webster visit the US Embassy in Moscow in 1959? #. What were the dates and times? DRAFT
2. MISC_BELARUS.02, pg 17
Found in: ARRB Electronic Files of Team A
Do photographs exist of Webster entering or leaving the American Embassy? #.
Do any official photographs exist that were taken of Webster by any government agencies following his defection? #.
Do any audio tape recordings ( or transcripts of tape recordings ) exist of Webster or of third party conversations about Webster in the American Embassy
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=209185&relPageId=11&search=leningrad_webster%20marina%20cia
3. MISC_BELARUS.02, pg 11
Found in: ARRB Electronic Files of Team A
Was Soviet Intelligence aware of any attempt by Marina Nikolaevna to establish a relationship or contact with American defector Robert Edward Webster in the autumn of 1960 when they resided in the same apartment building in Leningrad.
Marina Nikolaevna directed by any facet of Soviet Intelligence to attempt to establish a relationship or contact with American defector Robert Edward Webster
https://consortiumnews.com/2006/102906.htmlhttps://archive.is/o/SA6W1/newspaperarchive.com/us/illinois/sterling/sterling-daily-gazette/1951/05-01/page-9
Original October Surprise (Part 3)
By Robert Parry October 29, 2006
...The Shaheen connection led Cyrus Hashemi to William Casey even before Casey took over Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign, according to Jamshid Hashemi and a 1984 CIA memo that surfaced later.....
https://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=leningrad%20webster%20marina%20rand&types=D
26. No Title, pg 3
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: Robert Edward Webster
WEBSTER said they never received the subject's letter of February 5, 1960.
WEBSTER, Kondratievsky Prospect, House 63 Apt. 18, Leningrad K-32, U.S.S.R. Informant stated that it is his understanding that Mr.
RAND is currently in Florida and will return to Cleveland on March 24, 1960.
27. MARINA OSWALD'S NOTEBOOK, pg 10
Found in: CIA documents released on November 9, 2017
. - 6 - Further identified by Marina OSWALD as Galina ( Gal. ya ) PRINTSEVA a , resident resident at Leningrad with whaa she shared a rocn at the rest
According to Marina OSWALD, she. met PRIZENTSEV who , is a resident at Leningrad ., at the rest home near Leningrad.
WEBSTER, who renounced his U. S. citizenship in 1959 when he defected to the USSR and who returned to the U.
28. Commission Document 911 - CIA Helms Memorandum of 8 May 1964 re: Marina Oswald's Notebook, pg 8
Found in: Warren Commission Documents
s 'fs 6- Printseva Oalya Further identified by Marina OSWALD Ulitsa Grazhdanskays as Oalina (Gaya) PRINTSEVA, a real..
Prizentsev Lev According to Marina OSWALD, she Kondrat'yevskiy met PRIZENtSEV, who is a resident House 7, Apt. 63 or of Leningrad, at the rest home House
WEBSTER, who renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1959 when he defected to the USSR and who returned to the U.S. as an alien under the Soviet quota in May
29. MARINA OSWALD'S NOTEBOOK, pg 11
Found in: Oswald 201 File, Vol 54B
. , ;ati;a Printseva Galya Further identified by Marina OSWALD Ulitsa Grazhdanskaya as Galina (Galya) PRINTSEVA, a-resi- House 7 ?
Prizentsev Lev According to Marina OSWALD, she Kondrat'yevskiy met PRIZENTSEV, who is a resident House 7, Apt. 63 or of Leningrad, at the rest home House
WEBSTER, who renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1959 when he defected to the USSR and who returned to the U.S. as an alien under the Soviet quota in May
.......
https://web.archive.org/web/20161103035644/http://tomscully.com/node/10
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lw1nqROOy_s/U0dmjJaTXcI/AAAAAAAABt0/z01EWpszo2g/s512/ShaheenBruceMcCaw2003.jpg)
Shaheen and Reagan were born a couple of years apart in Tampico, IL, pop. 600 Shaheen’s best man was the employer
of defector Robert E. Webster. Both Casey and Shaheen died suddenly and left Gates holding “the bag” (Roy Furman)>
This is a classic argument from ignorance. "I don't know what else it could possibly be other than a rifle, therefore it was a rifle".
No, you're mischaracterizing what I said. Ruth Paine mistranslated what Marina said to the cops when they were searching the garage. She said so in her testimony. Marina told Ruth Paine in Russian that she saw a part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
What she "confirmed" is that she saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
No, the claim is made that you don't know whether there was a rifle tied up in the blanket or not. And neither did Marina. She saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.
This is classic shifting the burden of proof. I admit to not knowing what was in the blanket. Your evidence for your claim that there was definitely a rifle in the blanket is that Marina thought so. Great. Michael Paine thought it was camping equipment.
Another argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine what could have happened to this object in the intervening 6 weeks, therefore Oswald brought it to work on November 22nd".
Proof by repetition? I can do that too.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle.
someone suggested that the sling/strap appears to have been "not slack" when the MC rifle was found on the 6th floor.
if so, then there is some doubt that the shooter used the strap for purpose of stabilizing the rifle.
More likely, the tightened strap purpose was to carry the rifle without leaving prints on it and/or for general carrying purpose while moving from assembly point to window of choice, 1st the SW window, and then the SE window, the shooter having apparently changed plan after 12:15pm.
Or a conspirator shooter did NOT use the MC rifle actually found between the boxes, but was using some other rifle, which he managed to get out of the building, or hide so well, that it was never found.
This would require that the MC rifle was planted after the fact, and hastily so, not even having time to check to see if the scope was out of alignment, or not thinking about the corrosion inside the barrel, that might indicate the rifle had not even been fired recently.
Hi Zeon, the following is from a related post I made back in June; "Not only was the sling "unique" it was pretty near useless, it was also far too short to use as an aid in steadying the rifle by looping it around the arm. About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...which is exactly what Marina claims he did. Very spooky guy." https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1979.msg56104.html#msg56104
About the only thing it was good for was holding the rifle akimbo to the body, under a long trench coat whilst walking around the streets at night...
Would you believe that the strap was designed for Mussolini' s elite black garbed, body guards ( The Guardie Del Duce) .....The wide patch was attached to the strap to relieve the pressure on the shoulder that a narrow strap inflicted, while the guards stood long hours of guard duty.
No, I wouldn't believe it..because it's not true. How do I know? Because it was never designed as a sling, Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
it was never designed as a sling,
it ( the strap) was never designed as a sling,
You're right....The strap with the wide leather patch was designed as a way to carry the carcano on the shoulder during parades and guard duty.
The STRAP was never intended to be an aid for steadying the rifle when firing the weapon, like the SLINGS an American rifles.
I've shown you proof that the strap has absolutely nothing to do with "parades and guard duty" nor was it "designed as a way to carry the Carcano". I'll repeat one last time; Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
I've shown you proof that the strap has absolutely nothing to do with "parades and guard duty" nor was it "designed as a way to carry the Carcano". I'll repeat one last time; Oswald converted it from a USAF officers pistol shoulder holster strap. http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
"Oswald converted it"Walt..You didn't see? Oswald got it from eBay. No, actually he kept his leather crafting supplies with his ammo and gun cleaning kit. The cops just never did find them.
Please provide solid proof that Lee made the carrying strap....
Whew. Brutal dishonesty. As I have pointed out, Marina confirmed in response to dozens or more questions that Oswald owned a rifle during the relevant time period. There is no ambiguity in her testimony regarding this point as dishonestly implied. Mrs. DeM also saw the rifle. Oswald denied owning any rifle. That means he lied. There is no ambiguity about that. Next issue. Did Marina confirm that Oswald kept a rifle in the blanket. Again, she answers multiple questions about a "rifle" being in the blanket. Never once does she express any doubt about the object under discussion being anything other than a rifle. If there were any doubt about this, when the police came on 11.22 and asked her about Oswald's ownership of a "rifle" she directs them to the blanket and is surprised when the rifle is not found there. Why would she do that unless she knew a rifle was kept in the blanket? It makes no sense whatsoever to argue that Marina didn't see the rifle in that blanket or was talking about some other object. In the one instance that our dishonest contrarians grasp at straws to desperately suggest that she merely saw some object made of wood (like a rifle) they take her comment out of context and without reference to the question being asked or her previous confirmation that the object in the blanket was a rifle.I would call all of that a bunch of crap...but that would be insulting to crap.
Walt..You didn't see? Oswald got it from eBay. No, actually he kept his leather crafting supplies with his ammo and gun cleaning kit. The cops just never did find them.
Hey Jerry....Us CT's are supposed to be the irrational side. And Yet the LNer contingent accept and regurgitate the most absurd ideas.....
They'll spew any ol nonsense to avoid the bitter truth.....
No Walt, you're just simply wrong, that's all.
http://leathergunsling.com/tag/oswald/
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/c2766.html
http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/detailfs?
It's not difficult to find photos of Musslini's Guardie Del Duce and see the carrying straps on their carcanos.
Walt..You didn't see? Oswald got it from eBay.
It's not difficult to find photos of Musslini's Guardie Del Duce and see the carrying straps on their carcanos.
.... Oswald didn't have a computer or the internet and eBay didn't exist till decades later.Gee really?
Denis 1
Walt 0
The straps and support of the USAF M13 Leather Sling and Oswald's sling are the same length, shape and size, the buckles are the same, the connecting hoops are in the same place, the type of leather appears the same, the studs are the same, the rivets are the same, the amount of studs/rivets is the same and the placement of the studs/rivets is in the same place.
(https://i.postimg.cc/htBpPpm5/Oswalds-sling.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yY1cxtdt/sling.gif)
Btw post some photos of an alternate sling and let's see how similar they are?
JohnM
There are photos of Mussolini surrounded by his elite black garbed body guards.....Their model 91/38 carcanos are equipped with black leather carrying straps that are very similar to the strap on the TSBD carcano. Whoever created the strap on the carcano wanted the rifle to look like a Guardie del Duce rifle. (Perhaps that person wanted to display it as a war souvenir and brag that he'd retrieved it from the body of one of Mussolini's body guards.) Since General Walker had led troops in Italy during WWII, such a war trophy would have been fitting with his character...... And yes, I'm suggesting that the TSBD rifle could have been provided by Walker.
So the conspirators stole his rifle from the garage (without being seen) and used it to murder JFK and frame Oswald (without being seen). Occam's razor is taking a beating in this forum.
So the conspirators stole his rifle from the garage (without being seen) and used it to murder JFK and frame Oswald (without being seen). Occam's razor is taking a beating in this forum.
Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?
Marina did John: http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0019b.htm
You're obviously not aware but Oswald didn't have a computer or the internet and eBay didn't exist till decades later.
JohnM
Who says that Carcano rifle was ever in that garage to begin with?Um, Marina. BTW, what happened to the rifle he was photographed with?
You're seriously refusing to accept that testimony because Marina didn't use the word "Carcano"!! You know full well Marina didn't even know what a Carcano was.
I haven't met a sane man who knows ALL the important evidence and doesn't find Oswald guilty,
Btw while discussing the Lincoln assassination Richard really ripped Iacoletti a new one and exposed the contrarian for what he is, it was hilarious!
Exactly. So what makes you think she saw CE 139?
It's not a game, Denis, it's holding you to the actual evidence and not what you want the evidence to be.
This is all about making reasonable inferences based on the evidence and seeing where it goes and then creating a plausible narrative.
Oswald defects to the enemy.
Oswald tries to cancel his US citizenship.
Oswald tries to get to Cuba
Oswald's alias is Hidell, a bit like Fidel.
Oswald orders a rifle.
Oswald is photographed with this rifle.
Oswald's camera takes photos of Walkers house.
Oswald has Walkers address marked on a map.
Oswald tries to kill Walker.
Oswald's rifle is wrapped in a blanket in the Paine garage.
Oswald makes an untypical Thursday night stopover.
Oswald takes a long package to work.
Oswald lies about where he puts the package.
Oswald lies about the contents of the package.
Oswald's fresh prints are on one of the rifle rest boxes and also on the box on the floor.
Oswald's rifle exclusively matches the 3 shells in the sniper's nest.
Oswald's rifle is on the same floor.
Oswald's prints are on the rifle.
Oswald's shirt fibers matched the fibers on the rifle.
Oswald leaves immediately.
Oswald catches a bus.
Oswald gets off a bus.
Oswald gets a cab
Oswald gets out of his cab way past his rooming house.
Oswald gets a jacket and revolver.
Oswald kills a cop.
Oswald leaves shells at the scene.
Oswald's revolver exclusively matches shells at the scene.
Oswald leaves his jacket under a car.
Oswald appears to hide from the cops at Brennan's shop.
Oswald sneaks into the Texas theater.
Oswald punches a cop.
Oswald uses his revolver on the cop.
Oswald resists arrest.
Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
Oswald lies about living at Neely street, the location of the Backyard photos.
Oswald lies about having lunch with the black guys.
I still notice that absolutely nobody has even remotely answered the question posed by this thread, just how did that rifle get there, magic?
JohnM
I still notice that absolutely nobody has even remotely answered the question posed by this thread, just how did that rifle get there, magic?
The WC said LHO carried the broken down 34 inch Carcano into work in 27 inch homemade paper gun case.
27 inch was based on a guess
27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?
The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)
JohnM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)
27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?
The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)
JohnM
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)
27 inch was based on a guess and Frazier said "I didn't pay attention to it" and why should he? Btw Frazier at the Shaw trial said his M14 was 30 some odd inches and the actual M14 is over 44 inches, do you still want Frazier as your expert eyewitness?
The bag found with Oswald's prints were a pretty close size match to a broken down Carcano, Oops!
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0AvdN1r1G0E/TelVpZr4NDI/AAAAAAAAAE4/eZjRsBaiDeo/s400/blanket+rifle+lee+framed+junie+june.jpg)
JohnM
:D
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/MASO_nary-wcdocs-37_0017_0043.jpg)
"27 inch was based on a guess"
Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.
Frazier naver paid attention and his sister saw the bag for a few seconds and they both came to the EXACT same answer, geez what are the chances?
Mr. BELIN. Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?
Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag.
Mr. BELIN. Where was this found?
Mr. JOHNSON. Right in the corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. On what floor?
Mr. JOHNSON. Sixth floor.
Mr. BELIN. Which corner?
Mr. JOHNSON. Southeast corner.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who found it?
Mr. JOHNSON. I know that the first I saw of it, L. D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it.
--------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Where was the paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was.
Mr. BALL. I don't have a picture of the paper sack.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. You don't? Well, it was there--I can't recall for sure if it was on one of the boxes or on the floor there.
Mr. BALL. It was over in what corner?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.
Mr. BALL. Did you turn the sack over to anybody or did you pick it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes---let's see Lieutenant Day and Detective Studebaker came up and took pictures and everything, and then we took a Dr. Pepper bottle and that sack that we found that looked like the rifle was wrapped up in.
................
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.
Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.
Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?
Mr. BALL. The paper sack?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?
Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You picked it up?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner?
Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there.
Mr. BELIN. Where was that?
Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BELIN. What other kind of a sack was found?
Mr. DAY. A homemade sack, brown paper with 3-inch tape found right in the corner, the southeast corner of the building near where the slugs were found.
Mr. McCLOY. Near where the hulls were found?
Mr. DAY. Near where the hulls. What did I say?
Mr. McCLOY. Slugs.
Mr. DAY. Hulls.
......
Mr. BELIN. Where was the sack found with relation to the pipes and that box?
Mr. DAY. Between the sack and the south wall, which would be the wall at the top of the picture as shown here.
Mr. BELIN. You mean between--you said the sack.
Mr. DAY. I mean the pipe. The sack was between the pipe and the wall at the top of the picture.
Mr. BELIN. That wall at the top of the picture would be the east wall, would it not?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; laying parallel to the south wall.
Mr. BELIN. Did the sack--was it folded over in any way or just lying flat, if you remember?
Mr. DAY. It was folded over with the fold next to the pipe, to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.
Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper bag?
Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see it?
Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls.
Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls?
Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was.
JohnM
Frazier naver paid attention and his sister saw the bag for a few seconds and they both came to the EXACT same answer, geez what are the chances?
JohnM
But don't you understand? Bill Chapman did his own experiment and got 35 inches. Probably.
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven3.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/twentyseven2.jpg)
"27 inch was based on a guess"
Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?
He realized that those curtain rods were the wrong length, after all, and in his haste to get home and change his shirt and grab his revolver and get to the theater in time, he plum forgot all about them ...
-- MWT ;)
And they dissolved in the dusty air of the 6th floor of the TSBD that morning meaning nobody found them?
So what did he bring into the TSBD?
Tell us how a 27" package could be 'almost touching the ground' when carried by a 5'9' individual
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?
His lunch... a 3 -foot long (+ -) Submarine sandwich
“3 foot long”. LOL.
Clearly curtain rods can be ruled out - unless they magically disappear / someone 'smuggled them back out'. Lunch is 'unlikely' (Unless a treble-footlong is a common sandwich over in the States?) It doesn't therefore mean the rifle was certainly in the bag, but it certainly lends a lot more credence to the fact it most likely was.
So what did he bring into the TSBD? And how come he didn't bring it out with him, on the bus, in the cab etc?
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence to you? Ruling curtain rods out simply because none were found or reported having been found is weak.
And now you've lost the plot again....wishful thinking isn't evidence nor does it lend credence to anything.
So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.
How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.
So where did the curtain rods go? He told the Frazier he brought in curtain rods, Frazier told the cops, they looked and found nothing. He had no curtain rods on the bus or in the cab.
How is that losing the plot? He had his rifle at the Paines. He stayed there the night before. It wasn't there in the afternoon when they checked. It was found in the TSBD.
Martin/Roger doesn't believe it is necessary to answer logical questions like that. They apply an impossible standard of proof to the evidence to create false doubt that X didn't happen. Like a sleazy defense attorney who knows his client is stone cold guilty grasping at any straw. The rest of us know that if X didn't happen then something like Y or Z must have happened instead but there is absolutely no evidence of Y or Z. Certainly no evidence that would satisfy the impossible standard Martin/Roger applies to proving X. But that is dismissed out of hand by Martin/Roger as not important because he has no answer. Nothing to see there. And on and on it goes down the rabbit hole. No event in human history could ever be proven using Martin/Roger's nutty standard of proof. It's just a game to avoid checkmate. Martin/Roger knows Oswald is stone cold guilty. He is probably more convinced of it than anyone. Playing the contrarian brings attention.
Is there any significance to your ramblings?
Not to you Roger. It involves the application of logic to the facts.
More delusional BS.
The irony is that one first needs to establish what the facts are before any logic can be applied to them. In your world, so-called "logic" creates the "facts" you need to support your predetermined conclusion. Just keep on placing the cart before the horse......
No one can establish facts in your fantasy world. That is the entire point. You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt. Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario. The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative. It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.
No one can establish facts in your fantasy world. That is the entire point. You apply an impossible standard of proof and then proclaim there is false doubt. Then dismiss whether the implications of your doubts have any validity because there is zero evidence to support any alternative scenario. The sole goal is to create doubt regarding any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ludicrous and unsupported the alternative. It is lazy, absurd, and pointless.
It's only "impossible" to you, because you want your "logic" (read: conjecture) to be sufficient. Marina saw a part of a wooden stock wrapped up in a rolled up and tied blanket in late September / early October that she took to be a rifle, therefore it was a Mannlicher Carcano rifle with serial number C2766 and it was picked up by Oswald on November 21 and brought to the TSBD in a brown paper package.
Not because of evidence, but because of "logic".
Is there any significance to your ramblings?It happened to a guy named Mc Creary....The Kennedy case drove him...well- 'over the edge'.
It happened to a guy named Mc Creary....The Kennedy case drove him...well- 'over the edge'.
It appears that Mr Smith not only drank the Kool-Aid but regularly takes showers in the stuff (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Where is this poster Smith named 'Roger'?
Where is this poster Smith named 'Roger'?
A figment of his imagination which I am sure he will call fact
I recall this Roger Collins fellow used to bold every sentence he was responding too. Have you ever seen anyone else do that here? He wasn't too bright either. I wonder what happened to him?
Bill Chapman did his own experiment and got 35 inches
>>>... it fell into my lap.. Ain't mathematics beautiful?
Probably.
>>> No... mathematically
"27 inch was based on a guess"
Frazier was corroborated by his sister. They both came up with 27 inches.
it was never designed as a sling,
it ( the strap) was never designed as a sling,
You're right....The strap with the wide leather patch was designed as a way to carry the carcano on the shoulder during parades and guard duty.
The STRAP was never intended to be an aid for steadying the rifle when firing the weapon, like the SLINGS an American rifles.
I recall this Roger Collins fellow used to bold every sentence he was responding too. Have you ever seen anyone else do that here? He wasn't too bright either. I wonder what happened to him?
Well, let's see;
Care to try again "Richard"?
Yes, let's try again. It's very simple to clear up. Did you post here as Roger Collins? Yes or no?
We've been down this road before. There is nothing to clear up.
I am not going to fight against nor feed your obsession.
If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFU
If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFUOuch! (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/rulez.gif)
Posts where members are antagonistically addressed by a name other than their Forum username, will be deleted.
We've been down this road before. There is nothing to clear up.
I am not going to fight against nor feed your obsession.
If you claim that, in the past, I posted as Roger Collins, then you either prove it or STFU
Thanks again Roger. You just proved it. You obviously know whether you posted as RC. If you didn't, all you would have to say is "no." LOL. Don't take my word though. Ask Bill Brown or John M.
Keep in mind that in "Richard"'s world an accusation is the same as evidence.
For the record:
(http://www.readclip.com/JFK/LHO_sack.jpg)
Never mind that a disassembled MC was 34" and included a useless scope. If LHO was a Patsy then he was instructed to bring "curtain rods" to work in a long paper bag. This was all part of the sheep-dipping. But there is no way in hell that there was a disassembled MC in that bag, otherwise, Oswald's prints would have been all over the bag and the MC, which they weren't. Instead LHO left 1 post-mortem palm print on the MC and 1 palm print and 1 fingerprint on the "paper sack". Was it possible for LHO to have handled so much and left so few prints? You do the math.
What gets me is that the cops said they found 3 spent shells in the supposed "Sniper's Nest". The photo can easily show that there was 2 spent and 1 live round circled A....... https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
Just ask Fritz how many hulls he tossed onto the floor.
The hulls were there before Fritz was at the scene.... Mooney said that he spotted the spent shells and then notified the officers on the street below by calling down to them....
According to Deputy Sheriff Faulkner, Deputy Sheriff Mooney, & Tom Alyea, Fritz walked over to the 3 hulls in a tight grouping near the window in the SN and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. He later returned to the SN with a rookie cop to photograph the crime scene, then tossed the hulls onto the floor in the staged (more favorable) arrangement you see in the photo. What crime scene detective leading an investigation of the crime of the century would do that?
From Luke Mooney Oral History with Sixth Floor Museum
Gary: Fritz was there? You saw Fritz down there?
Luke: (0:19:58) (nodding) Yeah, Will Fritz was there. So, here they came with all
that bunch of men behind him (chuckling)… that worked for him in vice and there was
four or five of them. And so, here they come, and he was the first man… I told him how
to come in. I was standing over there and sealed it off to let nobody in there, and he came
on over there. And he was the first man who reached down and picked up one of the
spent shells to see what caliber it was and then laid it back down in the exact spot, and so,
I left him then and Gene Boone… we had sent for some searchlights because we didn’t
have no lights. It wasn’t real dark up there because of the window light… daylight, but
anyway, we needed some searchlights to shine between them pallets. So, when we got
the searchlights, them little ‘ole hand lights—they sent them across the street from the
sheriff’s office—we was standing there, and Boone had the light in his hand. And he
shined it up in there, and so, that’s when we seen the butt of the rifle. So, one of Will
Fritz’s men was the one that pulled the gun out.
According to Deputy Sheriff Faulkner, Deputy Sheriff Mooney, & Tom Alyea, Fritz walked over to the 3 hulls in a tight grouping near the window in the SN and picked them up WITH HIS BARE HANDS and put them in his pocket. He later returned to the SN with a rookie cop to photograph the crime scene, then tossed the hulls onto the floor in the staged (more favorable) arrangement you see in the photo. What crime scene detective leading an investigation of the crime of the century would do that?
I believe that Mooney spotted only TWO spent shells....Three spent shells in all were [reportedly] found at the 'Sniper's Nest' therefore only three shots were fired at the President. With remarkably incredible logic like that..it's a wonder more crimes aren't solved.
Three spent shells in all were [reportedly] found at the 'Sniper's Nest' therefore only three shots were fired at the President. With remarkably incredible logic like that..it's a wonder more crimes aren't solved.
Aynesworth's book was published in 2013. 50 years after the actual event and 12 years after Wade died at age 86.
So where did the "quote" come from?
Btw;
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. I now hand you a small white card marked with certain initials and with a date, "11-22-63." There is a cellophane wrapping, cellophane tape across this card with what appears to be a fingerprint underneath it, and the handwriting underneath that tape is "off underside of gun barrel near end of foregrip C 2766," which I might remark parenthetically is the serial number of Exhibit 139. I ask you whether you are familiar with this item which I hand you, this card?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I am familiar with this particular exhibit.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe to us what that exhibit consists of, that item rather?
Mr. LATONA. This exhibit Or this item is a lift of a latent palmprint which was evidently developed with black powder.
Mr. EISENBERG. And when did you receive this item?
Mr. LATONA. I received this item November 29, 1963.
<>
Mr. EISENBERG. Who did you get this exhibit, this lift from?
Mr. LATONA. This lift was referred to us by the FBI Dallas office.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were you told anything about its origin?
Mr. LATONA. We were advised that this print had been developed by the Dallas Police Department, and, as the lift itself indicates, from the underside of the gun barrel near the end of the foregrip.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, may I say for the record that at a subsequent point we will have the testimony of the police officer of the Dallas police who developed this print, and made the lift; and I believe that the print was taken from underneath the portion of the barrel which is covered by the stock. Now, did you attempt to identify this print which shows on the lift Exhibit 637?
Mr. LATONA. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you succeed in making identification?
Mr. LATONA. On the basis of my comparison, I did effect an identification.
Mr. EISENBERG. And whose print was that, Mr. Latona?
Mr. LATONA. The palmprint which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Latona, as I understand it, on November 23, therefore, the FBI had not succeeded in making an identification of a fingerprint or palmprint on the rifle, but several days later by virtue of the receipt of this lift, which did not come with the weapon originally, the FBI did succeed in identifying a print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which may explain any inconsistent or apparently inconsistent statements, which I believe appeared in the press, as to an identification?
Mr. LATONA. We had no personal knowledge of any palmprint having been developed on the rifle. The only prints that we knew of were the fragmentary prints which I previously pointed out had been indicated by the cellophane on the trigger guard. There was no indication on this rifle as to the existence of any other prints. This print which indicates it came from the underside of the gun barrel, evidently the lifting had been so complete that there was nothing left to show any marking on the gun itself as to the existence of such even an attempt on the part of anyone else to process the rifle.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Now tell me, who was the expert that made the tentative match with Oswald on 11/22/63
Just wanted to point out here,that even IF it is true that Day lifted a print as he said, that by his own opinion here, the print was NOT a fresh print, because some of the print he could still see on the barrel after having lifted it with tape.
So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
On the 22nd many photos were taken of Oswald's rifle's trigger guard and later Scalise used all of the photos of varying contrast to conclusively prove that the print were Oswald's.
Just wanted to point out here,that even IF it is true that Day lifted a print as he said, that by his own opinion here, the print was NOT a fresh print, because some of the print he could still see on the barrel after having lifted it with tape.
So even if it IS Oswalds MC rifle, that print on the barrel if it ever existed at all, could be weeks, or months old and thus NO proof that Oswald had assembled the rifle THAT DAY of Nov 22/63
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
(https://i.postimg.cc/26F2kcf6/brownshirtfibers-zpsrgyy13mq.jpg)
On the 22nd many photos were taken of Oswald's rifle's trigger guard and later Scalise used all of the photos of varying contrast to conclusively prove that the print were Oswald's. I can't insert the youtube video but is easily found "Vincent Scalise Identifies Lee Oswald Prints on Trigger Guard".
(https://i.postimg.cc/J47BMZ2w/scalice-print-oswald-trigger-guard.jpg)
JohnM
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?
Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?
Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/UserImages/4120/970360846/wm_5656848.jpg)
Yes, I see the carved-out channel at the end of the wooden fore-stock that accommodates the blade of the folded-down bayonet. You are claiming that it caused the rectangular shape seen in the print lift (circled on right, below).
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
If the print came off the wooden stock, wouldn't there be some impression from the the stock's indentation for the forward sling-mount?
Maybe he meant the print was some three inches from the front end of the wooden stock if the barrel was placed back on the stock.
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.Nonsense. Oswald had changed from his work shirt to the arrest shirt at his room. That was demonstrated months ago so back up 5 yards and punt on that one.
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.
Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.
(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)
Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)
The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.
I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.
(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)
It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.
I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.
Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.
(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)
Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)
The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.
I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.
(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)
It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.
I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.
The 3 colours of fibers that made up Oswald's brown shirt, (the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63), were matched to fibers found on Oswald's rifle. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
JohnM
the same shirt Oswald wore THAT DAY of Nov 22/63
Hang on,
You can actually show that in the morning of 11/22/63 Oswald wore the same shirt he was arrested in at the Texas Theater?
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.
Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.
(http://thisoldrifle.com/files/includes/images/carcano9138-rifledisassembly-graphics-l-42.jpg)
Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/34/45/YklT284m_o.png)
The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.
I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/carcano/prints/palm-print-barrel-locate.jpg)
The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.
(https://images.guntrader.uk/GunImages/Thumbnails/180214163456005-5-680x410-c.jpg)
It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.
I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.
Mrs Bledsoe said that the shirt that Lee was wearing when she saw him on Mc Watter's bus had a large hole at the elbow. This sighting was BEFORE he went to the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley, where he changed his clothes. Photos taken of Lee in the police station show that the arrest shirt had no hole in the elbow.
She saw the hole in the elbow of the shirt THRU the Jacket over top of it ? :D
Could you post those so we can see how much validity the claim has?
I think the area where the hole would have been seen is not in view in these photos: Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:11908); Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3818/image-of-lee-harvey-oswald-at-dallas-police-headquarters-on) .
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/51586/preview) (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/15807/preview)
The right sleeve seems to be twisted near the elbow.
There's more to CE 637 than its right hand side. Seems the little indent on the wooden fore-stock (where the fore sling bracket was fitted to) would have made some sort of impression. It's a pretty significant change in how the surface runs.
Since such an impression is missing, it may be that the print was taken from the metal barrel and not the wooden stock.
Above: How wooden fore-stock looks without the metal forward sling mount.
The print was centered on the bottom of the barrel. Day saw an edge of it before he disassembled the rifle.
I just posted something on the barrel that could account for the rectangular shape. The shape might have shifted a bit as the metal part was elevated relative to the rest of the barrel. Day was concentrating on where the print was.
The area circled on the right shows what I believe to be some pitting characteristic of the Carcano's barrel.
It doesn't seem characteristic of wood grain.
I don't know about that. Day references "end of foregrip" in CE 637, which is a reference to the wooden fore-stock. Probably--as it was found assembled--the rifle would be entered as an exhibit fully-assembled. In most of the local cases he was called to testify about, that may have been a standard method of presenting the evidence. I see that in the modern age, guns are sometimes presented in court assembled but with a gun lock for safety. Probably to prevent a Trump supporter playing with it and blowing his foot off.
(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)
I think you're confused....Mrs Bledsoe was a passenger on Mc Watter's bus.... She said that Lee was wearing a shirt with a hole in the elbow . She said nothing about a jacket.
Well Oswald left the TSBD wearing his jacket or had to have been at least carrying it with him. McWatters described Oswald wearing a jacket. William Whaley described Oswald wearing a jacket. Unless the Oswald Bledsoe saw was one Oswald, while the one McWatters saw was some other person resembling Oswald
(http://www.kevinsworkbench.com/benelli_nova/images/02.jpg)
Walt: "Why, I own umpteen Carcanos, and, by gum, never once
has a hand of mine touched the barrel like that."
"Another thing, that hand you showed has three fingers.
Fake news!"
Mrs Bledsoe said that the shirt that Lee was wearing when she saw him on Mc Watter's bus had a large hole at the elbow. This sighting was BEFORE he went to the rooming house at 1026 N Beckley, where he changed his clothes. Photos taken of Lee in the police station show that the arrest shirt had no hole in the elbow.
Apparently you've never worn a shirt that had a hole worn at the elbow..... I can tell you. ( and I'm sure there are others) that when there is a hole in the sleeve at the elbow when the arm is bent as Lee's is in the photo, the elbow usually pops out of the hole.
Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/view/objects/asitem/items@:11908); Link (https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/3818/image-of-lee-harvey-oswald-at-dallas-police-headquarters-on) .
You know, if we had access to the formal forensic fingerprint analysis that matched the palm print to Oswald, at the very least it would tell us if there was a rush to judgement.
If it showed a legit match then we can move on and debate how it got there, etc., but until such time, there is much wheel spinning to be had regarding the palm print.
As far as how the rifle ended up on the 6th floor goes...it was planted, of course, without any of Oswald's prints on it. That tells us that Oswald was a patsy that didn't handle the rifle, just like he claimed. Then everything fits and we can move on from the untenable lone nut narrative, which is the fringe opinion these days.
And your support for this claim is a photo which doesn't actually show most of Oswald's elbow? Good grief.
Oswald told his interrogators that he went to his room and changed his clothes before going to the movies.
Officer Marion Baker testified to the WC that Ozzie was wearing different clothes when he saw him at the police station, after his arrest, then when he observed him in the TSBD.
LE said fibers recovered from the rifle tied it to the shirt he was wearing when arrested.
If LE had legible prints on the rifle from LHO they wouldn't have found fibers on it from a shirt he wasn't wearing at 12:30 on 11/22/63. JMHO
Some of us just aren't seeing how the two photos by themselves automatically "prove" there was no hole at the elbow.
(https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/51586/preview) (https://emuseum.jfk.org/internal/media/dispatcher/15807/preview)
The right shirt sleeve may be twisted such that the area of wear at the elbow is at the inner bent of the elbow rather than the outer bend, or at some other area of the shirt not in camera view.
It may very well be there is no hole in the elbow and that Oswald changed his shirt at the boarding house. It may be otherwise. I suppose it's important as "no hole" means the authorities created one. I wouldn't rule that out for a Southern police force.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/1096F/production/_108215976_06xp-galveston1-superjumbo.jpg)
Apparently you've never worn a shirt that had a hole worn at the elbow..... I can tell you. ( and I'm sure there are others) that when there is a hole in the sleeve at the elbow when the arm is bent as Lee's is in the photo, the elbow usually pops out of the hole.
No, you're not comparing apples with apples, a hole in a shirt elbow is created when there is friction at the elbow which is usually when your elbows are resting on something, not when your arms are in the air. Doh!Mr Mytton, I will not debate you.... You are totally dishonest, and there is no point in debating a person who is totally dishonest.
In this arrest pic Oswald's arm is up and in addition the cuffs are restricting movement and dragging the shirt further down.
The red outline simulates the amount of shirt which would be seen when hanging naturally. Also note the amount of bunching in the area between the elbow and shoulder.
(https://i.postimg.cc/QMBX9zy7/osw-ald-shirt-fist.jpg)
Here we see how a generic long sleeve shirt hangs at the wrist and as can be easily seen the above image shows the cuff way down Oswald's forearm.
(https://i.postimg.cc/N0WQ1x3z/long-sleave-shirt.jpg)
JohnM
https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-OSWCLOTHES
That looks like a hole in the right arm of the shirt. (inside the red circle)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/shirt3.jpg)
That looks like a hole in the right arm of the shirt.
Bledsoe did not mention the hole in her DPD affidavit.
She did however mention it in her testimony, but that was after they had shown her the actual shirt at her home.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/de/78/aPtdz1E1_o.jpg)
That is NOT Lee Oswald......These photos were created after Lee was lynched.....
Hahahahaha! What an idiot!
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jn8QwgkK/oswald-shirt-comparison.jpg)
JohnM
The recreation on the right shows no twisting of the right shirt sleeve at the elbow. So the cuff button and slit are on the lower outer side of the forearm. In the hallway, it seems both of Oswald's shirt sleeves were twisted such that the cuff was not where it normally was. Maybe from was being handled by police who put their hands on his arms just above the elbows.
Now watch Walt claim the fuzz worked in "Indian burns" between phone book poundings.
The recreation on the right shows ....That the photo is a fake....That is NOT Lee Oswald....
Walt stop digging a deeper hole, no one claimed that the recreated photo was Oswald, I simply posted the image so you could see your error.
Jerry's original post showed Lee Harvey Oswald and you were mistaken, no big deal.
Walt, maybe a pair of these will be an advantage in the future?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71SlBD9491L._UX522_.jpg)
Because with "rose coloured glasses" you're only fooling yourself.
(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.604151423.4632/ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u3.png)
JohnM
The recreation on the right shows no twisting of the right shirt sleeve at the elbow. So the cuff button and slit are on the lower outer side of the forearm. In the hallway, it seems both of Oswald's shirt sleeves were twisted such that the cuff was not where it normally was. Maybe from was being handled by police who put their hands on his arms just above the elbows.
Now watch Walt claim the fuzz worked in "Indian burns" between phone book poundings.
My dear Mr Mytoon...You're an idiot..... The FBI created fake photos to fool fools.... You have proved that they could fool fools....
The reason for their deception.....The FBI was on record as saying that the tuft of fibers that had been found on the butt of the rifle came from the shirt the Lee was wearing when he was arrested at the theater. They didn't know ( because of the ineptness of the DPD) that Lee had changed his shirt at 1:00 pm before going to the Theater. But once they were on record as saying the fibers matched the arrest shirt...they had hooked themselves on their own hook......
For some strange reason, “Mytton” keeps forgetting to include this part:
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
That’s not even a valid link. But it’s you who needs to try again. We’re talking about only 3 fibers here.
And if there’s any doubt that the FBI was only looking for things that could be connected to Oswald :
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I can think of nothing else.
Mr. DULLES. And you found no other pieces of fabric or other foreign material on the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Nothing that I could associate with either the blanket or the shirt. I found----
Mr. DULLES. Or the paper bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Or the paper bag; no, sir.
And what was he going to say he found before Dulles cut him off?
only 3 fibers
Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?
You have literally thrown everybody in this case who provides evidence against Oswald under a bus and when the physical evidence disagrees you allude to that being faked or not reliable or something equally stupid.
Btw Iacoletti when are you going to solve this case because devoting your life to proving Oswald's innocence is meaningless in a Forum which doesn't have Oswald's name in the title. Doh!
JohnM
Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?
You have literally thrown everybody in this case who provides evidence against Oswald under a bus and when the physical evidence disagrees you allude to that being faked or not reliable or something equally stupid.
Btw Iacoletti when are you going to solve this case because devoting your life to proving Oswald's innocence is meaningless in a Forum which doesn't have Oswald's name in the title. Doh!
JohnM
:D
Once again, Mr Iacoletti gets under Mr Mytton's skin. Fun to watch!
I see Weidmann responded to me but too bad I don't read his crap.Spanks you pretty hard does he? :D
Spanks you pretty hard does he? :D
Spanks you pretty hard does he? :D
No, I said his words are crap, can't you read?
JohnM
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on and even then you are reduced to worthless ad-homs.
JohnM
Hardly, I have been giving everyone the same treatment since day 1, but since making ludicrous accusations is your trademark don't let me stop you.
Btw I see Weidmann responded to me but too bad I don't read his crap.
JohnM
Wow this is absolutely unbelievable, why are you so obsessed to free a double murderer?
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on and even then you are reduced to worthless ad-homs.
JohnM
I love it when you Fools have to gang up to take me on....John Mytton--- Voted by his class... 'Most likely to become an internet troll.'
It’s the defective scope on this rifle which suggests a hasty post event plant of the rifle
Wietzman may have had suspicion the rifle was planted between the boxes as he was looking underneath
a palette of boxes. Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life and it’s doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser
Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life
Can this be verified?.... I've heard that Seymour Weitzman's life changed after he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor, 25 feet 4 inches from the north wall, and beneath a pallet that had boxes of books stacked on it. Afterward he was depressed and under the care (watchful eye)of a psychiatrist.
it’s doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser
Yes, I agree.... I believe that Weitzman like several other witnesses KNEW beyond a shadow of doubt that Lee Oswald was not the assassin, and he knew that there was a giant cover up being perpetrated at the highest levels of the US government.... And this knowledge would be very depressing for anybody with any sense of right and wrong.
Walter,
Do you agree with Donald Trump that we live in an evil, evil, evil CIA, FBI and Ukraine-controlled "Deep State"?
-- MWT ;)
Pssst Tommy...This forum is not about Donald Trump..... It's called... JFK Assassination Forum..... Now stop smoking that stuff, and try to focus on the subject.
It’s the defective scope on this rifle which suggests a hasty post event plant of the rifle
Wietzman may have had suspicion the rifle was planted between the boxes as he was looking underneath
a palette of boxes. Something caused Weitzman to have severe depression for the rest of his life and it’s doubtful it was just the simple mistaken ID of a rifle as a Mauser
Walter, Walter Walter.
Don't you think the assassination of JFK by self-avowed Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald (either by him widdle self or with help from Khruschev and/or Castro) gave rise to oodles and gobs of tinfoil hat conspiracy theories over the years that dumbed-down our body politic and paved the way for KGB-boy Vladimir Putin's installing his number one "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
If you're mind isn't messed up from drugs.....and you may start thinking clear if you stop using, ...then I'd suggest that you seek professional psychiatric help.
*your
** clearly
-- MWT ;)
Yes, I made a mistake....I should have written "your" ..... Thank you, Mr Perfect.
"Walt",
You're so "high," you made two mistakes (spelling and then grammar) and don't even realize it.
Must be some pretty strong stuff!
-- MWT ;)
PS Perhaps you should start seeing a psychiatrist, but remember to take off your tinfoil hat before you go.
Even if my spelling and grammar aren't perfect, I know the facts of this case and I don't need to try to derail the issue, as you often do.
"Walt",
Fine.
But can you explain to me why the Warren Commission Report said nothing about Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City, and why Yuri Nosenko claimed, a few weeks after the assassination, that not only had he personally handled Oswald's KGB file four times before and after the assassination, but that he "therefore" knew for a fact that the KGB hadn't even interviewed the former Marine Corps radar operator during the two and one-half years he lived in the USSR, and, last but not least, why John L. Hart lied his head off about Nosenko to the HSCA?
-- MWT ;)
can you explain to me why the Warren Commission Report said nothing about Oswald's alleged visit to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City
In a nut shell.... The answer is :.... Because Godfather Hoover did not want the Mexico City fiasco to surface.
"Walt",
Bingo!
And why was that?
Answer: Because the Ruskies, with the help of probable triple-agents Guenther Schulz in Oklahoma and Ivan Obyedkov at the Mexico City Soviet embassy (and Duran's and Azcue's "Blond Oswald" -- KGB colonel Nikolai Leonov), et al., had planted a WW III "virus" in Olwald's CIA file.
-- MWT ;)
PS It's not "Godfather" Hoover, but "overly territorial, vindictive, gullible, wishful-thinking, in-denial of at least two ("Fedora" and "Top Hat") KGB penetrations of his very own FBI" Hoover, comrade.
D'oh
Hoover was insane.... Power corrupts..... Absolute power, corrupts absolutely. Hoover was mad with power....He had his own small band of loyal agents who answered only to Hoover, and they would jump like puppets on a string at anything Hoover suggested. They had sent Lee to MC to try to obtain a visa to Cuba. They wanted to tie Lee Oswald to Castro so that after they murdered JFK they could blame Castro and attack Cuba.
They had sent Lee to MC to try to obtain a visa to Cuba. They wanted to tie Lee Oswald to Castro so that after they murdered JFK they could blame Castro and attack Cuba.Back to Mexico past...
The blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of conspirators stealing rifle as quickly as possible after entering the Paines garage in the early 2 am hour on Nov 22/63
And why the blanket was left instead of being taken with the rifle
The rifle was found fully assembled with the scope attached so the conspirator shooter decided not to remove it after test firing at some targets and finding the scope unreliable with a tendency to drift and being misaligned
It was decided not to replace the defective scope with some other scope since this rifle was a mail ordered rifle with possible record of the serial no.
there were only a few hours available to practice with the rifle just using iron sights and probably only at ground level
The 2 conspirator gunman probably stealth entered TSBD not later than 4am
They hid themselves on the 7th floor possibly in attic space until approx 12:15 pm when one of them was seen at.the SW window 6th floor by Arnold Rowland
The gunman using the MC rifle probably used latex gloves of flesh color that were not discernible from any of the eyewitness who may have seen this gunman briefly
It’s possible this gunman had also some kind of special mask just in case some photograph might capture that window at time of shots
They decided it was too risky to attempt using an Oswald mask which if captured by photo might not fool expert examiners later
Gunman no. 2 used a 30.06 rifle and got the 3rd shot “one shot kill” this no shell ejected at the SW window
This gunman escaped by running to the west elevator in 10 secs and 30 sec later arrived to ground floor where he exited and then thru the west side door from loading dock roofed annex bldg as early as 50 sec post shots
Gunman no. 2 could have dropped his rifle out a west side window on 6th floor as early as 5 sec post shots where it fell 72 ft in approx 3 sec. That rifle then pickec up by accomplice waiting below with car who drove away with it as early as 15 sec post shots
Gunman no.1 shot 2 shots with Oswalds MC rifle the 1st got hitting JFK and then Gov Connally at Z223
The 2nd shot fired approx 3.5 seconds later went high and struck curb near James Teague
3rd shot was then fired by Gunman no 2 about 1 sec later at Z313 which why majority of earwitness heard last 2 shots close together , “back to back”
Gunman no 1. returned the elevator by push button used by Gunman 2 to the 5th floor by 70 sec post shots or it was sent back up by no.2 after he exited it on the ground floor
Gunman no 1 then used elevator (not Dougherty) after putting Oswalds rifle near staircase to suggest flight by stairs and Gunman no. 1 was also able to escape via west side door thru the annexed roofed part of loading dock bldg
"The blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of conspirators stealing rifle as quickly as possible after entering the Paines garage in the early 2 am hour on Nov 22/63"
I think the blanket being found still rolled up with all the strings still tied around it is indicative of the thief conspirator stealing rifle very carefully so that the it would appear to the casual glance that the rifle was still in that blanket. Now WHO could have known the rifle was there in that blanket....Lee Oswald, Marina, Oswald, Ruth Paine,and Mike Paine .....we can eliminate Lee Oswald...because if he had taken the rifle, he wouldn't have taken care to make it look like the rifle was still there, he would have simply taken the rifle and tossed the blanket with the rest of his belongings there in the garage..... We can also eliminate Marina Oswald... she also wouldn't have carefully removed the rifle, and she had no way of transporting the rifle anywhere..... Ruth Paine is also not likely....because she would probably have been afraid to touch the evil rifle.....But she's not totally eliminated..... That leaves... Mike Paine....He is highly suspect.... He helped unload the station wagon when Ruth and Marina arrived from New Orleans....He probably is the one who removed the rifle from the car..... so he would have known what was in the blanket. He wouldn't have wanted Lee to know the rifle was not in the blanket so he would carefully have removed it and left it looking as though the rifle was still there.
Well if the rifle had been removed as early as Oct /63 as per Mrs Paine possibly remembering seen the blanket as flatter in appearance than the rifle in blanket presented to her during her WC testimony
Then it could be the rifle was already in the custody of the FBI or the CIA courtesy of MrPaine
Purpose?
A contingency plan in case the unthinkable plot might occur by some of their own CIA element? Blame the defector nut as well as Communist ideology
Yet since The “nut might actually have been an asset for them for their defector scheme to infiltrate USSR
They preplant this MC rifle with misaligned scope at least give their soldier a possible chance to be acquiited by reasonable doubt
The shooting of the patsy later was therefore an unexpected event by mafia Jack Ruby for reason the patsy also was liability having been used them as well as a “mule” hence the package being cocaine or heroin
Well if the rifle had been removed as early as Oct /63 as per Mrs Paine possibly remembering seen the blanket as flatter in appearance than the rifle in blanket presented to her during her WC testimony
Mr. JENNER - Is it fair to say it is your best recollection at the moment that the zipper bag you have described earlier, you described yesterday, was not placed in the station wagon, and did not return with you to Irving?Sargent Ruthie
Mrs. PAINE - I do not recall it being in the station wagon.
Mr. JENNER - Now, was there a separate long package of any kind?
Mrs. PAINE - I do not recall such a package.
Mr. JENNER - Was there a separate package of any character wrapped in a blanket?
Mrs. PAINE - No. There was a basket such as you use for hanging your clothes. It carried exactly that, clothes and diapers, and they weren't as neat as being in suitcases and duffels would imply. There was leftovers stuffed in the corner, clothes and things, but rather open.
Mr. JENNER - So you saw no long rectangular package of any kind or character loaded in or placed in your station wagon?
Mrs. PAINE - No, it doesn't mean it wasn't there, but I saw nothing of that nature.
Mr. JENNER - You saw nothing?
Mrs. PAINE - I saw nothing.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any kind of a package wrapped in the blanket?"I don't recall it specifically" Can anyone else see what went on there?
Mrs. PAINE - Not to my recollection.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any package
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall seeing the blanket either.
Mr. JENNER - On that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - On that occasion, not until later.
Mr. JENNER - Not until later.
Representative FORD - Did you see the blanket in New Orleans?
Mrs. PAINE - On the bed or something. I am asking myself. I don't recall it specifically.
Someone [a Commissioner maybe] just might have nudged Ruth... "I don't recall it specifically" Can anyone else see what went on there?
No. But I'm sure you do.You need to find some safe & effective relief for your constipation.
If this MC rifle was planted before the fact then the conspirators must not have realized that west side of the floor was being laid with new plywood necessitating having to move boxes
Seems like a risky place to pre hide the rifle near the stairs
However, if rifle was hastily planted after the fact , near the stairwell would be quickest place sliding under the pallettes
Maybe Weitzman observed or at least realized the rifle was moved from UNDER a palette to its new position In a gap between 2 parallel rows of boxes
Perhaps Weitzman even witnessed a hand sliding a rifle thru the space of the pallet In coincidence with Boone shining a light
At the very least, Weitzman may have witnessed the destacking of the wall of boxes in order to photograph a rifle no longer laying “flat” and within the frame of a wooden palette
Instead, now the rifle was in vertical position up against a wall of boxes with NO wooden palette underneath the boxes
January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.Notice the remarkable 'coincidence' that the pistol [supposedly ordered two months before the rifle was] was shipped and then claimed on respectively the very same day as the rifle.
Should be [if it indeed happened] 1963
March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right wing activist.
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons
A glitch in the timeline....Notice the remarkable 'coincidence' that the pistol [supposedly ordered two months before the rifle was] was shipped and then claimed on respectively the very same day as the rifle.
What are the chances of this?
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?
A glitch in the timeline....Notice the remarkable 'coincidence' that the pistol [supposedly ordered two months before the rifle was] was shipped and then claimed on respectively the very same day as the rifle.
What are the chances of this?
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?
Ok Walt, you got a point there depending what kind of wooden palette
I was envisioning a palette that’s got about 4” space made from 2x4 s thru witch a rifle could be placed regardless how many boxes stacked on the upper platform
Do you have a photo of what type wooden palette was there on the 6th floor TBDS?
if it’s just 1x4 overlapping board type then. I’m in agreement that it would be difficult to quickly wedge rifle all the way underneath and probably would require removing boxes to lighten the load to do so
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Map showing steps started about 10' 6" from North wall. First row of boxes begin about 14' 3" from steps.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Note first row of boxes southward from steps. South is towards viewer.
Boxes in foreground at greater height were on a wood pallet.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Rifle located immediately south of first row of boxes southward from steps.
Simple matter to reach over that row of boxes to place rifle on floor.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Map showing steps started about 10' 6" from North wall. First row of boxes begin about 14' 3" from steps.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Note first row of boxes southward from steps. South is towards viewer.
Boxes in foreground at greater height were on a wood pallet.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Rifle located immediately south of first row of boxes southward from steps.
Simple matter to reach over that row of boxes to place rifle on floor.
Walt just went from "down four feet" to "over two feet". Some of this is stuff in his mind that he can picture but can't effectively communicate.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184777/m1/1/med_res/)
This policeman shows how someone could lean over the row of low-height boxes and place the rifle. Might have put an elbow on top of a box so as to reach the floor.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from North to South. Rifle had to be lifted over row of boxes in foreground to be lowered
to floor. The boxes there (three at camera-left foreground) were only stacked two-high.
I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did.
The revolver was not ordered two months before the rifle was. Jan 27, 1963 was the date that Oswald filled out the coupon, not the date that he mailed it.
How do you know what date it was mailed?
Walt just went from "down four feet" to "over two feet". Some of this is stuff in his mind that he can picture but can't effectively communicate.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184777/m1/1/med_res/)
This policeman shows how someone could lean over the row of low-height boxes and place the rifle. Might have put an elbow on top of a box so as to reach the floor.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from North to South. Rifle had to be lifted over row of boxes in foreground to be lowered
to floor. The boxes there (three at camera-left foreground) were only stacked two-high.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left. Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right. The aisle that Lee Oswald allegedly dashed through can be seen at camera left....And the rifle was found on the floor beneath the pallet that is visible at camera right. Reviiew Seymour Weitzman's affidavit and testimony about shining his flash light beneath that pallet ( which was buried beneath boxes of books at the time that he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor) Now how the hell could the skinny 5' 9" Lee Oswald reach across the boxes from the aisle and place the 8 pound rifle down beneath the pallet with the boxes of books stacked in it and then covered the top of the crevasse between the boxes by staking boxes on top of the boxes. I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did. |
You mean the way he disassembled then reassembled the rifle then took 3 hurried shots and managed 2 hits, including a head shot using a wonky scope, then ditched it neatly between some boxes without getting a single print on the rifle? Maybe you should address how Oswald managed that first. Was he a ghost?
Hi Jack, what ya drinking? Could you break down each of those claims please? He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage.
Was that a difficult thing to do?
Hi Jack, what ya drinking? Could you break down each of those claims please? He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage. Was that a difficult thing to do? He reassembled it somewhere in the TSBD. Is reassembling a Carcano a difficult task? Have you done it before? Elaborate on what you mean by 'hurried shots". How hurried were they? Was the scope wonky when Oswald used the rifle to shoot Kennedy? How do you know? Is it uncommon for identifiable prints to not be found on weapons suspected to have been used in a crime?
You mean the way he disassembled then reassembled the rifle then took 3 hurried shots and managed 2 hits, including a head shot using a wonky scope, then ditched it neatly between some boxes without getting a single print on the rifle? Maybe you should address how Oswald managed that first. Was he a ghost?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking from West to East. Row nearest to stairway at camera-left.
Rifle removed. Tall stacks of pallleted book cartons at camera-right.
The aisle that Lee Oswald allegedly dashed through can be seen at camera left....And the rifle was found on the floor beneath the pallet that is visible at camera right. Reviiew Seymour Weitzman's affidavit and testimony about shining his flash light beneath that pallet ( which was buried beneath boxes of books at the time that he and Boone discovered the rifle lying on the floor)
Now how the hell could the skinny 5' 9" Lee Oswald reach across the boxes from the aisle and place the 8 pound rifle down beneath the pallet with the boxes of books stacked in it and then covered the top of the crevasse between the boxes by staking boxes on top of the boxes.
I'm sure that I've seen those two bottom photos before but I never realized that they were of the location of where the rifle was found. Looking at the one on the left, it's plain to see how foolish Walt's claim is. Of course , it's possible that he's been a frail weakling himself all of his life and can't imagine how a 24 year old guy could have managed to handle an 8 lb rifle the way that Oswald did.
Without a screwdriver, yes.
disassembled then reassembled the rifle
Life can turn on a dime ;)
How do you know?
He disassembled the rifle in the Paine's garage.Prove that this happened....unless you were peeking in the window at the time?
Here's where the rifle was found:
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)
That's a fair question. I don't actually know the date it was mailed. How does Jerry Freeman know what date it was mailed? Have you asked him?Sorry ...
January 28, 1962: LHO orders a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver by mail.
Should be [if it indeed happened] 1963
March 9-10, 1963: LHO takes photographs of the home of General Edwin Walker, a right wing activist.
March 12, 1963: Ruth Paine visits Marina at the new apartment. Also that day, LHO orders a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
March 20, 1963: The rifle and the revolver are shipped
March 25, 1963: LHO picks up the weapons
The revolver was not ordered two months before the rifle was. Jan 27, 1963 was the date that Oswald filled out the coupon, not the date that he mailed it.So...he filled out the coupon and let it [apparently] sit around for the 2 months you stated to earlier.
Also note that presumably...Lee goes over to take pictures at General Walker's before any rifle to shoot him with ever arrives.
Why in hell take pictures anyway? What purpose would it serve?
How wide is the crack between the boxes that you have drawn the arrows to? Two or three inches?....Barely one inch. The blind could see that.
Because there are 5 screws that attach the stock to the action.
I get it. Did they find a dime on LHO and does it affect how he kept his prints off the rifle? Were his gloves found?
And a dime is too thick to fit into the screw slots.... ( a worn dime might fit)
Sorry ...
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Supposedly information based on and taken from the Report.So...he filled out the coupon and let it [apparently] sit around for the 2 months you stated to earlier.
Who does this?
Not responded to...
Barely one inch. The blind could see that.
Here's where the rifle was found:
Wrong!.... Are you stupid and illiterate? How wide is the crack between the boxes that you have drawn the arrows to? Two or three inches?.... How wide is the carcano with the bolt handle sticking out to the right and the scope sticking out to the left ? (answer: over 4 inches )
Because there are 5 screws that attach the stock to the action.
He had gloves? Do tell.
Oswald had 3 dimes on him. A dead giveaway in some quarters.
Others will disagree with 'kept his prints off'
Prints are dead easy to at least smear. The term 'unusable' comes to mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)
Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.
Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)
Pictures not showing the rifle were taken much later, and the position of the box on the floor may have changed, though I agree with Tim that there is enough gap there. The rifle as it rested in the original gap was captured in two in-situ photographs taken just after the rifle's discovery.
Geeze. Weitzman saw the rifle (I don't think he could see the middle position from his angle) looking through the pallet platform openings and beyond. You're misconstrued this to mean the rifle was underneath the pallet.
Is there a single case where an identifiable print was lifted off a trigger and used in court to convict?
He didn't count them but Day saw several unusable prints on the rifle. The wooden stock itself was absorbent and not good at retaining prints.
I doubt the validity of Tom Alyea's Fritz story.
"More believable ejection pattern"? Did Fritz have a book with him on "Hull Ejection Patterns"?
There was no Mauser.
The BY photos have been authenticated. You're gullible.
Maybe that's your problem. You're blind.You apparently have more than one.
Sure there wasn't. Where did Craig get the 7.65 number from? His ass?Probably Weitzman. But Craig's testimony on the matter doesn't inspire confidence.
Six minutes on his first try using a dime. You call that difficult?
If there were any smeared prints, especially on the trigger, then Oswald did not wear gloves.
Are those the same 'others' that Drumpf 'hears' things from?
How many smeared 'unusable' prints were found on the rifle and how could they tell them apart from the many bumbling Keystone Kops that manhandled ALL the evidence with their bare hands? Fritz actually saw the 3 hulls in a tight group near the window in the sniper's nest and picked them up with his bare hands, placed them in his pocket then later tossed them back onto the floor for a staged in situ photo of the crime scene in a more believable ejection pattern.
The DPD handled all the evidence this way for the Crime of the Century, no less. Do you think they were ever this incompetent even for a common burglary? Were they nervous because this was the most important case of their lives? Or was it because they were worried about screwing up their roles in the Big Event, like finding the Mauser or mishandling the evidence or a rush to judgement or with inexplicable backyard photo re-enactments or letting Ruby gut shoot Oswald, etc.?
The wooden stock was absorbent. Prints on the metal trigger-guard housing were noticed and professionally photographed by Day.
Is that a term for when he claims something he wasn't told and didn't read on the rifle?
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.
CE 399c?
The so-called crack is certainly south of the center of the brick column, which is centered on 13'.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/10/b2/jdssxeZt_o.jpg)
"Not every contact of a. finger or palm leaves a latent print. For example,
if the surface is not susceptible to a latent print, if the finger or palm had
no perspiration, or if the perspiration was mostly water and had evaporated,
no print will be found.
...
The wood and metal of the rifle was absorbent, and not conducive to
recording a good print. However, the Dallas police developed by powder
some faint ridge formations on the metal magazine housing in front of
the trigger ..."
-- Warren Report, p565
I think metal is generally less absorbent that wood; why prints were found on the trigger-guard housing.
(https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/man-holding-the-rifle-used-by-lee-harvey-oswald-in-his-assassination-picture-id2674266) (https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/21/article-2236046-1623D6BB000005DC-612_634x679.jpg)
What evidence is there that the Carcano's wood stock was "oil finished"?
See: "Firearm Factoids: Does a Lack of Fingerprints Exonerate Oswald?" ( Link (https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid4.htm) )
The trigger-guard housing is not recessed. So by your reasoning, that means the rifle wasn't wiped down.
You would think someone planting evidence like that would be wearing gloves in the first place.
(https://i.imgur.com/QD4X5vy.jpg)
Do you seriously believe that you can measure distances on a photograph?
You have shown that the rifle was 2' 4" south of the row of boxes that formed the south wall of the aisle at the top of the stairs. However this does not take into account that there were boxes stacked up about three or four feet high......( Boone had to squeeze between the west wall and the stacked up boxes ) So anybody who would attempt to place a rifle on the floor at 15' 4" would not only have had to reach across a 28 inch span, he would have had to have lowered the rifle about three feet down to the floor. ...and slide it beneath the wooden pallet. ( This would have been a feat for Plasticman) No human could have placed that rifle beneath the pallet while standing in the aisle at the top of the stairs.... THIS IS A FACT!
The fact that the rifle had been carefully hidden beneath that pallet is proof that the rifle was placed the BEFORE the shooting.....
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/med_res)
The wooden pallet at lower-right seems to have its closed-in side running West-East. Would make it difficult for Weitzman to see a rifle underneath it.
(https://images.uline.com/is/image/content/dam/images/H/H3500/H-3445.jpg)
The other two pallets with the projections are "wing-type" pallets.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)
I'm wondering if Weitzman saw the rifle while looking between the large gap of the stacked cartons on the pallets (upper-center of background).
Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?
"I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
"There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
-- Weitzman
Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?
"Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
I believe there were more books in here."
-- Weitzman
Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").
"at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
-- Weitzman
Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)
"I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
...
Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"
I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"
-- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)
"Looked between the cartons".
Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
"O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)
Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.
"I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
"There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
-- Weitzman
Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?
"Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
I believe there were more books in here."
-- Weitzman
Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").
"at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
-- Weitzman
Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)
"I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
...
Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"
I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"
-- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)
"Looked between the cartons".
Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
"O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)
Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.
(https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg)
I would guess about 15', maybe more. The rifle was actually found to the West of that high stack that reaches to the "Stair Way" sign.
Boone's arrow is on the East side (towards the viewer) of the high stack. Maybe he didn't realize it. He certainly didnt point to a stack of cartons on a pallet, which are visible in the photo.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)
In this view, looking South, the tall stack mentioned previously is to camera-left. The window on the West wall is to camera-right. Sunlight from it falls on the tall stack. The rifle was found on the floor on the opposite side of the six boxes in the foreground that are stacked two-high.
"I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he [Boone] was looking
on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said,
"There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it."
-- Weitzman
Interesting. If the rifle is beneath the pallet, how can Boone (on top of the pallet) see through the stacked books to the floor?
"Well, I would be looking over--Boone was looking the top side; I was looking under
the flat. We were looking over everything. I was behind this section of books.
I believe there were more books in here."
-- Weitzman
Hmm. "I was behind this section of books"? He's probably crouched down near the floor ("I was looking under the flat") when he saw the rifle trough the gap between the stacked cartons ("I was behind this section of books").
"at the time we found the gun there were no boxes protruding over the gun"
-- Weitzman
Doesn't sound like there's a pallet and a huge stack of cartons over the rifle.Mr. BALL - Now, 515 contains the arrow which shows the space between boxes
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
CE 515 (marked by Boone)
where you found the rifle, is that right?
Mr. BOONE - Yes.
Boone's arrow point to the line of boxes where the rifle appears in the Crime Lab pictures.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/books/snead/no-more-silence-p227.png)
"I left Fritz in charge while Deputy Boone and I began looking for the weapon.
...
Boone was about six to eight feet from me when he said, "I see it!"
I stepped over and looked between the cartons and said, "Sure, that's the weapon!"
-- Luke Mooney, in "No More Silence" (Snead, 1998)
"Looked between the cartons".
Mr. BELIN - How far were you from Officer Boone when he hollered?
Mr. CRAIG - About 8-foot.
Mr. BELIN - What did you do then?
Mr. CRAIG - I went over to the--uh--luster of boxes where he was standing and
looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor.
Mr. BELIN - When you say "between the cluster of boxes," could you describe
which way the boxes were?
Mr. CRAIG - There was a row going east to west on the north side of the weapon,
and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and--uh--if I
remember, uh--as you'd look down, you had to look kinda back under the
north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under---uh---or up
tight against 'em---you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course,
both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn't see through 'em.
You had to get up and look in 'em.
Mr. BELIN - You are gesturing with your hand there---would you say that the boxes,
then, as you gestured, were in the shape of what I would call a rectangular
"O", so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes, yes, uh-huh.
Mr. BELIN - And about how high were the walls of this enclosure, so to speak?
Mr. CRAIG - Well, it-it was different heights. Now, the part where I looked in
particularly was about---uh---oh, was about 5-foot.
"Looked down between the boxes and saw the rifle lying on the floor". Sounds like they're standing South of the pallets of stacked cartons and looking northward through that gap:
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338551/m1/3/med_res)
Gap between stacked cartons on pallets is upper center in background.
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) CE 515 (marked by Boone) |
I have nothing more. Multiple Forum members have lent support for the DPD Crime Lab in-situ location. No one on the Forum, after pages and years of consideration of what you've presented, supports your alternative location.
That said, evidence validity isn't something determined by popularity.
You said the rifle was under the pallet. The pallets in that area are stacked five-feet high with cartons.
Unfortunately, the Alyea clip begins at the moment of pick-up; it can't say anything about how the rifle was originally positioned in the crack. Day acknowledged the in-situ photos and therefore he must have prepared the rifle for pickup. If he had not manipulated the rifle in order to safety pick it it up and instead just picked the rifle up by the sight, you would have faulted him for that.
Yawn!
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO box.
Oswald was photographed with C2766.
Oswald's rifle was missing from the blanket in the Paine garage.
C2766 was found on the 6th floor of Oswald's workplace.
C2766 contained fresh fibers which matched Oswald's shirt fibers.
C2766 had Oswald's palm print.
Btw I will end this here, if you want to discuss the rifle ownership then create your own thread.
JohnM
If Weizmann was on the south side of stacked up boxes on the pallet and trying to look north underneath of them then he only had a 1/4 inch gap to see thru due to the 2x4s that run east/west
Then in addition to that is the wall of boxes that form the south side wall that completely hide the rifle and were stacked originally side by side with probably no more than a 1/8th inch gap along the east west direction
Therefore,IMO, Weitzman is “embellishing” this supposed sighting of the rifle UNLESS the rifle originally really was basically resting in the 4” gap available between upper and lower 1x4s and the rifle being parallel with the 2x4s structural frame
Since for some reason no photograph was taken of the ORIGINAL configuration of the 2 parallel rows of boxes BEFORE moving some of them out of the way to photo part of the rifle
Then all that can be proposed is that the gap was probably the same as what gap can be seen in the rest of the unmoved portion of walls
Which gap appears (as Walt already pointed out )is NOT 4” wide which is about what would be needed for width of the wooden stock plus off set scope plus bolt handle
IF that gap was only about 1” as it appears in the other section of unmoved boxes forming the 2 walls Then there should have been some scoring/dents etc on inner vertical sides of the boxes due to force of friction reaction to rifle stock and protruding elements of offset scope and the bolt handle
Weitzman did move from the east side of the building to the west side to search, but he has never described walking westward between the pallets and the northmost row of boxes.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/)
You said the rifle was under the pallet; now it's beneath the northern edge. It keeps creeping northward. The "northern edge" of the pallet in question (lower-right in photo above) is solid wood.
(https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/001/1138/images/img_1138_747_100.jpg)
Mr. BALL - I have three pictures here which I have marked, respectively, D, E, F. I show
you D first. Does that look anything like the location where you found the gun?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; this is taken the opposite side the flat I was looking under.
The only confusion is from your interpretations.
I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches. Going by a slight gouge on the floorboards, the boxes that form the crevice seem to have sited a few inches to the North in the "blue arrow" photo. This might be due to the boxes being examined for prints or being moved to extract the rifle.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_10.jpg)
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, we took two from the same location when we was up on
top of the stack of boxes shooting down at it, before they picked it up.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
The box you're referring to is sealed in both the photo you referred to ("blue arrows") and the Crime Lab's in-situ photo. It's a box stacked three-high.
I figure the part of the floor where the two blue arrows point to is roughly the 15' mark, give or take a few inches. Going by a slight gouge on the floorboards, the boxes that form the crevice seem to have sited a few inches to the North in the "blue arrow" photo. This might be due to the boxes being examined for prints or being moved to extract the rifle.
Yawn! Btw I will end this here, if you want to discuss the rifle ownership then create your own thread.Do you promise...with all your heart?
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_10.jpg)
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No, we took two from the same location when we was up on
top of the stack of boxes shooting down at it, before they picked it up.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/1/med_res/) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/)
The box you're referring to is sealed in both the photo you referred to ("blue arrows") and the Crime Lab's in-situ photo. It's a box stacked three-high.
If the wood column is centered on 13' from the North wall, the south face of the wood column is 13' 4 3/4" from the North wall. That leaves about 23 1/4" to get to 15' 4". I estimate the box to the immediate south of the column is 2" from the pillar and 18" long. Now we need 3 1/4" inches to get to 15' 4".
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking West: Showing small gap between wood pillar and 18"-long box
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking East: Tall stack of cartons (right-foreground)
is about 3" south of box by the column
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Looking North: Gap where rifle is runs along front
of the tall stack
The front of the tall stack of cartons near the rifle location is a further 3"-or-so to the South of the front of the box by the column. That gets you to 15' 4".
(http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce515.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) CE 515 (marked by Boone) |
10" south of that box would leave you 20" short of the north edge of the pallet.
Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)
Mr. BALL. Let's see the shots you took of the place where the gun was located?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I know it's mine because my knees are in the picture.
The primary boxes north of the rifle are a row that's three-wide by two-high. They're all open in all the photos. What you pointing to is sealed box that on top of two others; it's sealed in all the photos.
No. The three open boxes don't move and the sealed box remains sealed.
Sunlight didn't get enough to the west side of the building for light to reach the tall stack until, I guess, 2:30 or later.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/maps/suncalc/dealey-plaza-suncalc-1430.png)
Studebaker took his in-situ photos about 1:25. The Alyea film shows no sunlight on the tall stack of boxes; Day had to take the rifle over to the window to see it better.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_9.jpg) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth184774/m1/1/med_res/)
The sun also had to reach around the tall stack of carton on the pallet by the window. The post-discovery photos that have sunlight were taken much later than the in-situ photos.
Studebaker is not aiming at the north edge of the pallet (where you just shifted your own location of the rifle). He's pointing here:
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)
Mr. BALL. Let's see the shots you took of the place where the gun was located?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I know it's mine because my knees are in the picture.
Now all three boxes are not open. And you can't orientate the one box that is sealed. You're gettin' to be a Ralph Cinque.
The amount of light reflected back is conditioned on the how much surface is perpendicular to the flash.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337354/m1/1/med_res/)
Dark areas in a flash picture doesn't mean it was taken at night. Was this picture taken at night?
Just ask Fritz how many hulls he tossed onto the floor.He died in 1984 you can try to ask him
The sealed box is the one stacked three-high.Let's get this straight. You think Oswald shot that rifle from the 6th floor SE corner window very slowly because that is what Steve Austin's(Brennan) bionic eye-witnessed. And then you think Oswald ran as fast as Steve Austin across the 6th floor slowing down to calmly placed the rifle in that awful awkward spot and then raced down the stairs undetected like the invisible man, reappearing for Baker and all like it was a walk in the park. That is crazy. So he must have been the invisible man when leaving the building too, right?
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sealed box stacked three-high at upper-left; three open boxes visible between sealed box and tall stack
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Sealed box stacked three-high at near-lower-left; three open boxes visible between sealed box and tall stack
Boone and Weitzman guarded the site until it was photographed by Studebaker. Both Day and Studebaker said the rifle hadn't been touched prior to being picked up. Boone and Weitzman arrowed exhibits that point to the same row of boxes shown in the photos with the rifle on the floor.
I don't think that trumps Boone, Weitzman and Studebaker.
What's "crazy" is that a Nazi is still allowed to post here.
John Myton,
What a silly question!
Don't you know that it's been proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the evil, evil, evil CIA and/or the evil, evil, evil FBI and/or the evil, evil, evil Dallas Police Department and or the Dallas Sheriff's Department, etc, etc, etc, put it there?
D'oh
-- MWT ;)
You like Myton, that is a problem
He died in 1984 you can try to ask him
Let's get this straight. You think Oswald shot that rifle from the 6th floor SE corner window very slowly because that is what Steve Austin's(Brennan) bionic eye-witnessed. And then you think Oswald ran as fast as Steve Austin across the 6th floor slowing down to calmly placed the rifle in that awful awkward spot and then raced down the stairs undetected like the invisible man, reappearing for Baker and all like it was a walk in the park. That is crazy. So he must have been the invisible man when leaving the building too, right?
slowing down to calmly place the rifle in that awful awkward spot
Of course you're referring to the 1 inch wide crack in which he placed the 4 inch wide rifle .... and left no finger prints on the rifle while wrestling that rifle into the crack.....
I am surprised they remembered to leave a rifle.
With the spent shells, the rifle, and Lee's corpse all right there as mute evidence that the Castro lovin commie had shot JFK, and he'd been shot and killed by an alert law enforcement officer ( The 175 pound man who was dressed like a deputy sheriff in a khaki uniform and who was armed with a hunting rifle with a scope)
Wouldn't the alert law enforcement officer have had a difficult time explaining what he was doing on the 6th floor of the Depository building?
Wouldn’t it have been kinda conspicuous that no other building had “security for the president” on the roof?
What do you think??
I think that if Oswald had been shot and killed in the TSBD by an “alert law enforcement officer”, that officer would have had a lot of ‘splaining to do.
Oh they wouldn't have forgotten the rifle ....It was THE instrumental piece of evidence in the framing of Lee Oswald. Lee really tossed a monkey wrench into their plot when he wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the murder. If he had been there then it would have been a snap open and shut case....With the spent shells, the rifle, and Lee's corpse all right there as mute evidence that the Castro lovin commie had shot JFK, and he'd been shot and killed by an alert law enforcement officer ( The 175 pound man who was dressed like a deputy sheriff in a khaki uniform and who was armed with a hunting rifle with a scope)How many fingerprints were found on the 6th floor? Was it a palm print and a fingerprint?
The carcano had been hidden beside the logical escape route, beneath the boxes of books before the murder, but nobody would have asked any questions about when the dead commie had hid the rifle..... As the events unfolded ...they had to wait about 48 hours before they could silence that no good Castro lovin commie.
Are you kidding??..... Were you alive on 11/22/63..... With the DPD and the FBI controlling.... The officer would have been hailed as a hero.
The officer would have been hailed as a hero
I heard that was Ruby's gig
For once you're right...... Initially Ruby was puzzled that he wasn't being hailed as a hero..... ( In fact he received hundreds of telegrams and letters that congratulated him, and applauded him for murdering Lee Oswald.) Just curious.....Were you one of those who sent a letter with money enclosed to Jack Ruby?
I would rather have had Oswald stand trial. He would plead out and get life.
I would be more likely to send Marina money for her kid's shoes.
Your hero should be Little Prick#2 Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid.
I would rather have had Oswald stand trial. He would plead out and get life.Bil, having trouble expressing yourself? You need to stop the shock treatment altogether and hit the bottle
I would be more likely to send Marina money for her kid's shoes.
Your hero should be Little Prick#2 Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid.
They didn't immediately realize the paper bag was evidence.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337263/m1/1/med_res/) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339962/m1/1/med_res/)
Near as I can determine, Boone, Weitzman, Studebaker and Day all testified or said nothing was moved prior to taking the in-situ photos, of which there were two.
They didn't immediately realize the paper bag was evidence.
Not sure if Walts preplant rifle theory is correct or not but something is amiss with the failure to photograph the original configuration wall of boxes BEFORE they were moved
It’s the same as the failure to photograph the Paper bag claimed to be right there on the floor in the SN and suggesting a dotted line outline in the
“Reconstruction photo” is proof it was there
Wow... That's got to be a record.... An idiot contradicting himself in in the same breath....
"I would rather have had Oswald stand trial"..... "Jack Ruby who did you lot a solid."
Bil, having trouble expressing yourself? You need to stop the shock treatment altogether and hit the bottle
My point I was trying to make was that Weizmann must have seen the rifle INSIDE the 4” space gap of the pallet and this was where the rifle was originally before it was moved to the “set up” position as photographed
I have no doubt now that it WAS possible for a rifle to have been placed inside the 4” thru the open space under a pallet if the rifle is inserted thru either East or west end of a pallet
Therefore Walt’s theory of pre planting rifle is possible and is as simple as someone on ground floor wedging the rifle in the pallet using probably those wades pieces of paper seen in photo
The rifle is then transported to the 6th floor by the unwitting fork lift operator
It’s also possible that the rifle could have been placed inside the pallet after the shooting but IMO this would preclude Oswald having done so since travel time around to one of those available East or west end open part of a pallet and sliding rifle inside would add at least another 15 secs to the timeline which = Oswald cannot have made it to 2nd floor landing by 75 sec post shots fired.
My calculation of time required for Oswald on the 6th floor is as follows
5 secs to slowly withdraw rifle window allowing Malcolm Couch to spot it after hearing Bob Jackson shouting about seeing it
5 sec to get up from kneeling and get out of the tight space of the SN
25 secs to double time approx 8ft/ sec As Oswald travels 180 ft to get the boxes near staircase
(Note here added 3 sec for acceleration and deceleration to avg speed of 8ft/sec over 180ft= 22 sec
15 sec added to travel around stacked boxes, find the nearest pallet of boxes to hide the rifle underneath
10 sec to wipe rifle of prints and kneel down and insert rifle thru west end of the pallet while holding it with rag so as not to leave any prints
5 sec to get up from kneeling down at the pallet and travel to the staircase
Total time required = 65 secs of time used on the 6th floor before Oswald could have started a descent down the staircase at about a 10sec per floor pace.
Conclusions:
1. Oswald cannot even barely make it to the 5th floor landing by 75 sec post shots
2. Oswald would not have passed by the 4th floor landing until 85 sec post shots therefore even higher probability Dorothy Garner should have seen him
before she saw Baker/Truly coming up the staircase
3.Oswald does not reach 2nd floor lunchroom until 105 sec post shots well beyond the 75 sec timeline required to have been seen by Baker as Baker looked thru the 2x2 window approx 80-83 sec post shots
(https://images.uline.com/is/image/content/dam/images/H/H3500/H-3445.jpg) (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340363/m1/3/small_res/) (https://image1.masterfile.com/getImage/653-06534951em-a-boy-reaching-under-a-sofa-to-retrieve-something.jpg)
Then along comes Weitzman with his face to the floor so he see through the 3/4" gap between the side-board of the pallet and the floor.
Wedging the rifle inside the space in the pallet would be a simple way the conspirators could get rifle to 6th floor with the minimal exposure of one of them being inside the TSBD
If there are pallets fully stacked with boxes that the conspirator KNOWS will be moved by forklift operator to the 6th floor BEFORE the JFK motorcade arrives in Dealey Plaza
Someone enters the TSBD by annex dock building early Friday via west side door and wedges rifle inside one the pallet on the ground floor with the wads of paper and then exits via same west side door
Exposure time is probably only about
30 secs if one of pallets is inside the annex bldg part of ground floor and not in LOS of employees on the ground floor. Inside the TSBD proper
Olay Walt, then if it were placed under the pallet the reason must be that in that location would be least probable place that rifle would be accidentally discovered before the shooting takes place
As opposed to having placed rifle between two vertical walls of boxes resting directly on the floor which might get moved individually as the workers were laying new sections of plywood floor prior to JFK motorcade arriving
Still don’t quite follow The reason for conspirators to place a rifle that would appear to be unfired due to corrosion Inside the barrel and a misaligned scope
If you are trying to set up a patsy to be suspected of having fired a rifle on that floor, placing a rifle with corroded barrel and misaligned scope seems a bit of a mistake imo
"Corrosion inside the barrel" doesn't mean it was from rust and non-use.
"They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly
corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they
result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the
firing of cartridges, bullets through it."
-- Warren Report, USGPO, p550
"Corrosion inside the barrel" doesn't mean it was from rust and non-use.Whoever wrote that must have had corrosion of the brain. Rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139 can only indicate that it had not been fired that day. Some other rifle must have been used to shoot from that building.
"They result from corrosion in the barrel due to the hot gases and possibly
corrosive primer mixtures in the cartridges used, and primarily again they
result from wear, that is, an eroding of the barrel through friction due to the
firing of cartridges, bullets through it."
-- Warren Report, USGPO, p550
Whoever wrote that must have had corrosion of the brain. Rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139 can only indicate that it had not been fired that day. Some other rifle must have been used to shoot from that building.
Who said there was "rust and debris in the barrel of CE 139"?
The FBI stated all this somewhere? Right?Yeah...somewhere. (http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/popcorn_eating.gif)
Mr. JENNER - I don't wish to be persistent, but was there anything that you saw about the duffelbags that lead you at that time to even think for an instant that there was anything long, slim and hard like a pole?Jenner didn't wish to be persistent? But did he ever persist ...
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Or a gun, a rifle?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - No? Nothing?
Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?All right Ruth--Let's try it a different way...Let's play hide the rifle in the blanket :-\
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.
Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?
Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.
Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - For the record, I am placing the rifle in the folded blanket as Mrs. Paine folded it. This is being done without the rifle being dismantled. May the record show, Mr. Chairman, that the rifle fits well in the package from end to end, and it does not--
Mrs. PAINE - Can you make it flatter?
Mr. JENNER - No; because the rifle is now in there.
Mrs. PAINE - I just mean that--
Mr. JENNER - Was that about the appearance of the blanket wrapped package that you saw on your garage floor?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; although I recall it as quite flat.
Mr. JENNER - Flatter than it now appears to be?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes....
Mr. JENNER - Now directing your attention to the rifle itself, which is Commission Exhibit 189, when did you first see that rifle, if you have ever seen--The prosecution asks the witness to identify a weapon that they have already shown her as being in evidence...what was up with that?
Mrs. PAINE - I saw a rifle I judge to have been the same one at the police station on the afternoon of November 22
Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.
Yeah I was wrong, your posts don't imply Oswald was innocent they scream from the top of their lungs that Oswald was innocent.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZqGnJZSq/Iacoletti-at-osw-ald-grave.jpg)
A man is the sum of his actions, of what he has done, of what he can do, Nothing else.
John Galsworthy
Of course, when you go to the lengths of separating evidence into two parts just so you can present what you perceive to be less incriminating evidence to the court is a stunt only a naive Defence Attorney would try and pull off.
My brain works!
Both the Warren Commission and a decade and a half later the HSCA studied the evidence and concluded that Oswald was guilty, whereas you and the rest of the CT's haven't concluded squat. A jury can only decide a case with evidence and the Magic Unknown Boogeyman who was everywhere but nowhere is simply laughable.
JohnM
The FBI said the inside of the barrel had rust and debris?
Probably a good precaution for anyone considering firing a rifle not their own for the first time.
The FBI stated all this somewhere? Right?
Too bad that doesn't prove anything except that its impossible. When did you decide to switch sides? Oh, it doesn't matter, I knew you would. I accept your apology in advance
>>> Somebody said that? Psst... lose that cringeworthy 'Hmmmm'.. it's gay, like 'easy-peasy'
the little prick was so bad that he missed his assigned targets and Kennedy twice.
Homophobe.
:D
Like you know what the shooter was aiming at.
The Blue Ribbon Boys Lonely Hearts Club Band
WC concluded 'probably'
HSCA concluded 'likely'
Stumbling block overall was Stemmons sign (blocked Zapruder from MOI) which, in turn, prevented a precise firing location. The Cuckoo's Nest location showed up in all cone trajectories IIRC. WC found this 'compelling'
Any claims of knoll hits would reveal them as the magic ones
Hmmm... Which part of that say's Oswald was guilty?
>>> Somebody said that? Psst... lose that cringeworthy 'Hmmmm'.. it's 'girly-man' like 'easy-peasy'
The rifle discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository could not have caused any of the wounds to Kennedy, Connally or Tague, except by accident.
>>> BINGO! It was accident. The conspirators (somebody said there were conspirators so there must have been been) coaxed PatsyGuy (who apparently had a talent for making people swallow things) to fire downrange but not hit anything. But to the delight of Oswald Rabbit-Hole Apologists everywhere, he was far worse than even they expected: The little prick was so bad that he missed his assigned targets and Kennedy twice.
Later @Tippit, in an attempt to fire warning shots, he managed hit the poor dumb cop instead. Not satisfied, and determined to get something right in his life, took a closer shot but only confirmed his loser status.The above sarcasm is just a spoof because I said so.... The above sarcasm is just a spoof because I said so... The above sarcasm is just a spoof because I said so...
EDIT to Girly-Man
(Somebody's feathers got ruffled)
Thumb1: It's one of your best, keep it up.
Somebody is even more cringeworthy
Ruffled your feathers, did I, big fella? Oh, wait... Perhaps 'girly-man'? Somebody said that before...
No, you’re just showing yourself to be the bigot you are.
Now you can join Kleinschmidt in his little “woman is an insult” club.
Homophobe.
:D
Like you know what the shooter was aiming at.
Like you don't know what a spoof is..
Don’t give up your day job.
The village idiot wrote: "At day's end it comes down to the ability of the shooter to adapt and make the weapon useable if only for the time period required to accomplish a given task."
Even an expert sharpshooter would be a total dud in attempting to score any hits on a 9" paper plate at 50 yards with a full clip (6 rounds) in the TSBD carcano.
And thank you Chappie, for proving once again that you have a prominent place in the village.
Exactly! If it really was the murder weapon there wouldn't have been a need to change the serial number on 1 of the 2 rifles used as evidence with the same serial numbers. And for anyone who doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or still can't fathom the fact there's 2 different rifles, both claimed as the one murder weapon, let's make it easy.
In typography there are two different typesets for fonts. One is called "Serif" and the other is called "San-serif." Serif fonts have extra lines attached to the ends, like Times Roman for example. San-serif do not.
One rifle claimed to be the murder weapon uses Serif for the letter "C". The other does not. How can the "C" be different if there's only one murder weapon? It can't. Which is 100% proof of a manufactured murder weapon. But why would they need to manufacture a murder weapon? Because one of the rifles was serial number C-2763, and the FBI turned the last "3" into a "6".
But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9)
Here's a link in case the photo doesn't show. https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9
And if that still isn't enough to convince some of the harder head people who don't care about the truth and just wanna be right... here's more evidence that the 6th floor rifle wasn't the same as the one from the backyard photo.
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6)
And link just in case... https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6
Backyard Rifle: Nylon sling with no pad - sling clips on bottom of furniture vs TBD Rifle: Leather sling with pad - sling clips on side of furniture
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9
Do the math, because it isn't rocket science. Evidence of two different rifles = 100% frame up.
That's checkmate for anyone silly enough to continue arguing a moot fact.
And just for spombleprofglidnoctobunss & giggles, here's more proof Oswald was framed.
Nov 20, 1963 (Wed), Ralph Yates picked up a hitch-hiker who was carrying a 4-1/2 ft long package that he said contained “curtain rods”. This man asked Yates if he though a man could be shot from a window in a tall building. The young man then showed Yates a photograph of a man holding a rifle and asked Yates if he thought the President could be killed with an identical rifle. The man then asked Yates if he knew the President's parade route, and then asked Yates to drop him off at Elm and Houston (TSBD). (LEE HARVEY OSWALD was working at the TSBD that entire day).
Explain that!
Just awaiting for the 'Prove it was Oswald's rifle' shenanigans.
I proved that it wasn't, without shenanigans. But if you'd like to try pulling your own shenanigans, I'll gladly wait. Just don't forget to provide photo evidence that can debunk mine. And good luck with that.
In the mean time, what else might Oswald swallower try to say...? "But Oswald's finger prints were found on the boxes."
Ah yes, you mean his finger prints were found where he worked... handling boxes? Well then... that certainly spells out his guilt. Just what kind of dumb ass cops & FBI agents were on the case? How stupid obvious was the frame up in this situation... let's just have a look at real shenanigans.
So the police search for finger prints to id an assassin. Why was Oswald, an employee, the only possible suspect? Isn't there something wrong with that picture?
One obvious problem is that finger prints couldn't be identified in 1 day, because they didn't have computer systems capable of that. And yet Oswald was identified as the suspect in less than hour. How could the cops in 1963 have done enough police work to positively ID Oswald, AN EMPLOYEE, as the only suspect? Does that make sense to anyone?
How many other possible suspects were there? How about everyone who worked there for starters. And yet they only zeroed in on Oswald. Why is that?
Page 249 of the WCR claims:
In addition to Oswald's print, a total of 25 identifiable prints were found on 4 boxes near the window of the 6th floor.
The Commission determined that none of the warehouse employees who might have customarily handled the boxes left prints which could be identified.
SAY WHAT?? READ THAT AGAIN! NONE OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WHO HANDLED THE BOXES LEFT PRINTS THAT COULD BE IDENTIFIED!
So even though Oswald was an employee too, who also handled boxes, none of the other employees left finger prints that could be identified, except him. And no one thought to question that? You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to buy that. But for the cops and FBI to buy it too? Let's continue. Same page.
All but 1 of the 25 definitely identifiable prints were the prints of 2 persons--an FBI employee and a member of the Dallas Police Department.
HOLY spombleprofglidnoctobuns!! LET'S READ THAT AGAIN! BECAUSE 24 OF THE 25 PRINTS ALL BELONGED TO 1 FBI AGENT & 1 COP.
One identifiable palmprint was not identified. Say what? READ IT AGAIN! ONE IDENTIFIABLE PRINT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED. Well... why not?
Why would the police & FBI fail to pursue the identify of an unknown print at a crime scene? Which part of that isn't stupid as all hell? That shouldn't make sense to anyone with the slightest bit of common sense? Because that means there was a possible suspect, besides Oswald. How do they know he wasn't working with anyone? Wasn't important enough to find out? How the hell could the FBI & Police not care about that?
Unless they were the ones framing Oswald. Is that a possibility? Look at my evidence for the 2 rifles. Not only was it possible, it's exactly what happened. And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. You just have to stop swallowing all the nonsensical bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns that doesn't make any sense at all.
That must be true because you just said so
Bill, John does not really believe Oswald was innocent, he actually is upset that the WC= all men
Exactly! If it really was the murder weapon there wouldn't have been a need to change the serial number on 1 of the 2 rifles used as evidence with the same serial numbers. And for anyone who doesn't seem to understand what I'm talking about, or still can't fathom the fact there's 2 different rifles, both claimed as the one murder weapon, let's make it easy.
In typography there are two different typesets for fonts. One is called "Serif" and the other is called "San-serif." Serif fonts have extra lines attached to the ends, like Times Roman for example. San-serif do not.
One rifle claimed to be the murder weapon uses Serif for the letter "C". The other does not. How can the "C" be different if there's only one murder weapon? It can't. Which is 100% proof of a manufactured murder weapon. But why would they need to manufacture a murder weapon? Because one of the rifles was serial number C-2763, and the FBI turned the last "3" into a "6".
But don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9)
Here's a link in case the photo doesn't show. https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUs7vcsw5nE7m7PB9
And if that still isn't enough to convince some of the harder head people who don't care about the truth and just wanna be right... here's more evidence that the 6th floor rifle wasn't the same as the one from the backyard photo.
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6)
And link just in case... https://photos.app.goo.gl/TDJV9V4x91uVZSho6
Backyard Rifle: Nylon sling with no pad - sling clips on bottom of furniture vs TBD Rifle: Leather sling with pad - sling clips on side of furniture
(https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/DouJkWUHsnZfdRBG9
Do the math, because it isn't rocket science. Evidence of two different rifles = 100% frame up.
That's checkmate for anyone silly enough to continue arguing a moot fact.
And just for spombleprofglidnoctobunss & giggles, here's more proof Oswald was framed.
Nov 20, 1963 (Wed), Ralph Yates picked up a hitch-hiker who was carrying a 4-1/2 ft long package that he said contained “curtain rods”. This man asked Yates if he though a man could be shot from a window in a tall building. The young man then showed Yates a photograph of a man holding a rifle and asked Yates if he thought the President could be killed with an identical rifle. The man then asked Yates if he knew the President's parade route, and then asked Yates to drop him off at Elm and Houston (TSBD). (LEE HARVEY OSWALD was working at the TSBD that entire day).
Explain that!
They numbers and letters look the same. The white highlighting is a little deceiving.
The other picture you can see the stamp on the receiver of the rifle in both pictures.
The bullet and bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found on the sixth floor. You believe the assassin still used a carcano but it was just a different carcano?
Bill, John does not really believe Oswald was innocent, he actually is upset that the WC= all men
The bullet and bullet fragments were matched to the rifle found on the sixth floor.
You mean the bullet allegedly found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland hospital that you cannot show was even involved in the assassination?
There will (not necessarily) be blood
https://www.quora.com/When-a-bullet-exits-the-body-will-some-blood-or-tissue-stick-to-it-or-does-the-bullet-exit-cleanly
I addition to being ignorant about many aspects of this case you are apparently also ignorant about the story of the magic bullet.....
The tale says that the bullet was lodged in Connally's leg and worked it's way out and fell onto the stretcher. If that were the truth, there would definitely be blood and tissue in the serrated cannelure of the bullet.
That's our Chapman. Big on mouth, small on any knowledge about the case.
I'm sure that if any women had been on the WC, you'd denigrate them. Black people too.
It seems it was just magic that no blood was found..
(Damn, there goes that mouth again)
'Knowledge'
Information is not necessarily knowledge, and knowledge is not necessarily wisdom.
That's our Chapman. Big on mouth, small on any knowledge about the case.Buy him for what he's worth... then sell him for what he thinks he's worth... and split the profit with me :D
Buy him for what he's worth... then sell him for what he thinks he's worth... and split the profit with me :D
IMO , Malcolm Wallace hid the rifle way before the JFK and his limo even got close to Dealy Plaza ! That put Wallace and the spotter and Loy Factor on the 6th floor !
Both 1930 and 1940 US Census records for Martin's family, parents Hebert John and Gertrude Martin, (brother Robert in 1940 census) inidicate James Herbert Martin's age as 3 and 13, (born no earlier than in 1926.) Yet his birthdate in the FBI's arrest report is 6 October, 1925:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=14
Martin's US Navy enlistment date was 1 Oct., 1943, he may have been 5 days shy of his 17th birthday on that date.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71119&relPageId=15
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71122&relPageId=8
Martin received a bad conduct discharge from the US Navy on 2 March, 1945, as a result of being A.W.O.L. and charged with crimes described below.:
June, 1945, James Herbert Martin sentenced to one year suspended and two years probation for interstate auto theft:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71123&relPageId=3
James Herbert Martin's probation was extended two years until 1950.:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=71128&relPageId=3
Legend: The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald - Part 2 - Page 316books.google.com › books
Edward Jay Epstein - 1978 - Snippet view
FOUND INSIDE - PAGE 316
The Secret World of Lee Harvey Oswald Edward Jay Epstein. Alexandra Taylor, George and ... The lack of security is corroborated by other former employees, including Dennis Ofstein and Jack Bowen. Robert Stovall, the president of the ...
its the misaligned scope that really bugs me.
If its a rifle ordered by conspirators, mimicking Oswalds handwriting, and sent to his P.0.Box, and they picked it up, they would have had plenty time to practice with rifle, make sure scope IS aligned, if its a defective or cheap scope, they could have replaced it with better quality scope.
Better yet, why not just order a better quality rifle all together, maybe even a semi auto, and make THAT rifle seem like it was Oswalds rifle? It would have been a LOT easier than having use a 2nd gunman cause the MC rifle bolt tends to stick and the scope doesn't hold its zero, thus requiring using iron sights instead.
So this seems to lead to the following alternatives:
1. Oswald actually ordered the cheap MC rifle and the scope WAS poor quality and very well may have been misaligned severely if Oswald purposely left out a shim required to adjust the mount. If the conspirators stole the rifle the night before, either from Paines garage, or Oswalds boarding house, they would not likely know how bad the scope drifted or how it could not be adjusted without the shim. They didn't have time to practice with the rifle either. This would probably have required having at least a 2nd shooter with better rifle to make sure get the kill shot, should the conspirator using the MC rifle be unable to do so.
2. Some other MC rifle was quickly found within about 50 minutes after the shooting, and was placed in the boxes because NO rifle was found on the 6th floor. Where the conspirators could get an MC rifle so quickly is the question. Possibly General Walker had a surplus supply of MC rifles or CIA had some in storage. The rifle was planted after the fact, once it became known that Oswald was a missing employee and this particular employee was none other than the notorious defector Marine the FBI had already been keeping surveillance on. Hoover Memo directive then guides the further focus on selecting Oswald as the lone nut and no other conspirators involved.
3. Oswald is one of the shooters if not the only shooter, and purposely left the scope misaligned, having practiced using irons sights zeroed at 200 meters, knowing how to adjust for closer targets at 50 to 100 meters distant.
\ He left the rifle on the 6th floor, figuring once its found, because of the poor quality scope misalinged, it would be easy to argue it was a setup if they did trace rifle to himself. (which he may have thought they could not).
4. Oswald is a partial involved dupe, and brought his MC rifle into TSBD on Friday Nov 22/63 to give or sell to someone else, who then went up to 6th floor to use it to shoot JFK, and left it there to frame Oswald.
Try embracing more of the details and maybe you'll understand and then agree the body of facts indicates the mystery was designed to
be confusing to the point of nonsensical or the pertinent facts are impossible to glean because they are shrouded in random coincidence, no matter how unlikely it seems to theorists familiar with the Warren Report details, HSCA, ARRB, and the half century of journalism,
independent research published or presented online. Those with little familiarity of the details beyond viewing JFK the movie may be even
more resistant to the irrelevance coincidence can make of over emphasized facts.
I cannot tell for sure what is or is not random coincidence or deliberate distraction planted by conspirators, which witnesses were honest
and accurate enough to have given relevant testimony of "you can take that to the bank" reliability, or which LEO were sincerely doing job related assassination investigation vs obstructing or participating by helping to position Ruby in the DPD garage basement.
This leaves the most reliable alternative, keep digging so at the least you'll gain awareness of what you don't yet know but might
learn the right questions to ask. Even coming up with influential proof a long accepted explanation for an early controversy is inaccurate cpuld
be considered further progress.
You began your post by mentioning the useless state of the scope found mounted on the alleged rifle assassination rifle. Researchers tend
to underemphasize what cannot be explained....why talk about it if it seems to make no sense or seems indecipherable.
In response to the Assassination of JFK, as in the aftermath of 9/11, responders expect to receive reports of claims by emotionally disturbed
individuals some sincere but delusional and others who lie related with behavorial disorder. The call from Ralph Yates reporting an encounter with a curtain rods wielding hitchhiker with an alleged focus on shooting a rifle from a tall building shortly before the assassination and in the vicinity of the TSBD seems likely an example of delusion of a crank caller. My research reveals Yates's birth mother, Bernice Gordon, and
Ralph's father Jimmie Yates experienced the sudden death of Ralph's two year old brother shortly after Bernice became pregnant with Ralph.
The maariage did not survive and Ralph ended up living with his father who soon remarried.
In addition, there was a series of adults of Ralph's family, according to testimony of family members, challenged by E.D. and or mental illness.
Ralph happened to deteriorate to the point he was referred through Parkland Hospital emergency department for immediate confinement in a
local mental hospital (Rusk State Hospital where he remained until his 1975 death, diagnosed with "schizophrenia, paranoid type".
Dial Ryder also made a call to assassination responders... his call connects him to a curio dominant in the investigation, seemingly useless
or easily determined to faked ID cards alleged found by LEO in Oswald's wallet(s).
Is this seeing the forest for the trees? Why instead, was a more thorough background check of Dial Ryder not conducted?Quotehttps://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=388&search=ryder%20and%20scope(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldDialRyderBossGreener.jpg)
Wesley Liebeler vs. the Warren Commission
by: Griffith, Michael T.
JFK Assassination Web Page: jfk.miketgriffith.com
The Repair Tag
b. I think the degree of doubt about the authenticity of the repair tag is overstated. (11 HSCA 235; 9/14/64 memo)
To go back for a moment to the second rifle section: In the third full paragraph it states, "On November 24, Ryder and Greener discussed at length the possibility" that Oswald had been there, but "Ryder did not mention the tag to his employer." I know of no evidence that Ryder and Greener talked on the 24th.
If they did not, the next sentence must be changed or cut.
The next sentence is a good example of what happens in the "rewrite" process. It says incorrectly, that on November 25 Ryder told the FBI that Greener did not remember the tag, although he had not called the tag to Greener's attention. The original sentence said, correctly, that Greener "did not remember the transaction represented by the repair tag..."
The next sentence says the FBI was directed to Ryder by anonymous phone calls. Not so. They were directed to the Irving Sports Shop and would very likely have talked to Greener, but he could not be found by the agent on November 25, 1963, when he went to the shop. (11 HSCA 236; 9/14/64 memo)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45&search=ryder_and+scope#relPageId=238&tab=page
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenRyderTestimony.jpg)
Remember this?
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibraryCard.jpg)
The FBI or even WC or HSCA had all of the details necessary to learn Bowen/Grossi's son, Glen was Dial Ryder's nephew...
Fleda Ryder married Bowen who was using an alias even on his son Glen's birth certificate. Fleda divorced Bowen and then
married Mantooth, an ex-con who had served time in federal prison for burglarizing post offices for cash, postal money order
blanks and the machines printing and key punching the amount of each money order.
In 1969, Bowen stole a travel trailer in Oregon and towed it to Texas where Roy Mantooth was investigated for possessing it.
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/BowenSonGlennAdoptedFatherMantooth2of2.jpg)Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Eatherly#Later_life
Claude Robert Eatherly (October 2, 1918 – July 1, 1978) was an officer in the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II, and the pilot of a weather reconnaissance aircraft Straight Flush that supported the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, August 6, 1945.....
....Later Life
...Eatherly claimed to have become horrified by his participation in the Hiroshima bombing, and hopeless at the possibility of repenting for or earning forgiveness for willfully extinguishing so many lives and causing so much pain. He tried speaking out with pacifist groups, sending parts of his paycheck to Hiroshima, writing letters of apology, and once or twice may have attempted suicide. At one point "he set out to try to discredit the popular myth of the war hero [by] committing petty crimes from which he derived no benefit: he was tried for various forgeries and forged a check for a small amount and contributed the money to a fund for the children of Hiroshima. He held up banks and broke into post offices without ever taking anything."[2][page needed] He was convicted of forgery in New Orleans, Louisiana and served one year between 1954 and 1955 for the crime. He was also convicted of breaking and entering in West Texas. He then became a salesman in a garage and might have attempted suicide again by drug. In 1959 he avoided prosecution for robbery by entering the Veterans Administration Hospital in Waco, Texas for many months.[3] Some think he committed antisocial acts because of schizophrenia or anxiety disorder.[citation needed]..
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137474&relPageId=58&search=bowen_and fleda
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldJackBowenFBIFledaMantooth.jpg)Quotehttps://www.findagrave.com/memorial/29053767/fleta-l_-mantooth
14 Aug 2008 (aged 85)
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
BURIAL Restland Cemetery
Olney, Young County, Texas, USA
Fleta was the daughter of Homer Richard and Magdalena Jeanetta (Baehr) Ryder and raised with one brother and six sisters. She married Roy Lee Mantooth December 13, 1963, in Albany, Texas. He preceded her in death on March 10, 1979.
......
At time of death she was survived by one son, Glenn Lewis Mantooth and wife, Nicole of Abilene, Texas; two daughters, Dixie Kirby and husband DeWayne of Olney, Texas and Gypsie Fomby and husband Dale of Clyde, Texas; one brother, Dial Ryder of Irving, Texas; four sisters, Magdelene Beanblossom of Decatur, Illinois, Iseaphene Kutz of Olney, Illinois, Marcella Farrar of Poteau, Oklahoma and Velma Douglas of Killeen, Texas.
https://www.familysearch.org/search/record/results?givenname=glenn&surname=bowen&birth_place=texas&birth_year_from=1954&birth_year_to=1956&mother_surname=ryder&count=20
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldBowenLibrarCardSonBirth.jpg)Quotehttps://www.findagrave.com/memorial/63051718/roy-lee-mantooth
Roy Lee Mantooth
BIRTH 14 Feb 1922
DEATH 10 Mar 1979 (aged 57)
BURIAL Abilene Municipal Cemetery
Abilene, Taylor County, Texas, USA....
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/BowenGrossi1949Oregon.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137474&search=grossi_and+mantooth#relPageId=39&tab=page
(http://www.jfkforum.com/images/OswaldGrossiMantooth.jpg)
More background:Quotehttps://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=137390&relPageId=16&search=mantooth_and grossi
2. No Title, pg 16
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi
ROY LEE MANTOOTH, and lives at 307 East Casom, but is out of town. Attempts were made to locate and contact FLEDA MANTOOTH, with negative results.
ROSE GROSSI, is supposed to be confined at a state mental hospital located in New Jersey, city unknown to her. Mrs.
RYDER and FLEDA MANTOOTH. AT BORGER, TEXAS The following investigation was conducted by SA GARY S.
3. No Title, pg 6
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=69900&relPageId=6&search=mantooth_and grossi
Found in: FBI - HSCA Subject File: John Caesar Grossi
.: 88.40913 JOHN CESAR GROSSI Charader".
FLEDA MANTOOTH with negative results. On December 16, 1964, Mrs.
MANTOOTH again promised complete cooperation with the FBI and the provisions of the Harboring Statute were explained again to her.
The assassination of President Kennedy continued to suck innocent people into its whirlwind. One was a man who was kind enough to pick up a hitchhiker in Dallas. He was then caught up in darkness for the rest of his life.Read the full story------
Ralph Leon Yates was a refrigeration mechanic for the Texas Butcher Supply Company in Dallas, making his rounds to meat outlets on Wednesday, November 20, 1963. At 10:30 A.M. Ralph Yates was driving on the R. L. Thornton Expressway. He noticed a man hitchhiking in Oak Cliff near the Beckley Avenue entrance to the expressway. Yates stopped to pick up the man.
When the hitchhiker got into Yates’s pickup truck, he was carrying what Yates described later, in a statement to the FBI, as “a package wrapped in brown wrapping paper about "4 feet to 4½ feet long.”
Yates told the man he could put the package in the back of the pickup. The man said the package had curtain rods in it, and he would rather carry it with him in the cab of the truck.
Ralph Yates is probably the best evidence that Frazier was right about the length of the package (that it was 27 inches) Oswald had on the morning of Nov 22nd 1963.
Yates is saying that Oswald brought the rifle in well before Nov 22nd.
Its not an entirely implausible scenario.
Its not an entirely implausible scenario.
Actually, it is an entirely implausible scenario because there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald kept a rifle at the roominghouse. Earlene Roberts, who cleaned his room, stated that she had not even seen a revolver there, let alone a rifle. With so many people living there and having only a tiny room, how in the world would he have been able to bring in and hide a rifle without anybody seeing it.
Also, Oswald could not have known Kennedy would come to Dallas until perhaps some two days prior to his arrival. He went to Irving on Thursday evening and didn't return to his roominghouse until Friday afternoon. This means that, in theory, Oswald could have brought in a rifle to the TSBD on Wednesday or Thursday, but that would bring with it the risk of early discovery regardless of where he would have hidden the weapon.
The Curtain Rod Story was not invented until the cops created it after the shots were fired.
Okay. So did you read the story provided here in full? I just did. And here's the facts. Ralph Yates told a co worker about the incident that day. And he told the FBI about it 3 days after assassination. THREE DAYS! Now you claim he was just some crazy man that made it up. Right?
So according to YOU, and YOUR research, Ralph Yates was just some crazy man who made up this wild story about picking up a guy that looked exactly like Oswald, right next to his boarding home. And his phony story was this fake person happened to be carrying a paper bag. And this fake man claimed the paper bag had curtain rods in it. And then he dropped the fake man in front of the depository.
I'm not claiming Yates was fake. I think he was being honest about what he thought he saw.
Yes, your right, ......I know a person who has alzheimers , and they make up stories and actually believe the story happened.
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?Ever notice that Mytton always asks a question that he already has his own pat answer for?
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether or not the rifle was carried in the station wagon?So Lee allegedly loaded the rifle wrapped in a blanket but had a devil might care but I don't concern about who would unload it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have anything to do with loading it in there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Lee was loading everything on because I was pregnant at the time. But I know that Lee loaded the rifle on.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle carried in some kind of a case when you went back with Mrs. Paine?
Mrs. OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember whether the pistol was carried back in Mrs. Paine's car too?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where the pistol was.
Mr. McDONALD. Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, he did.
Mr. McDONALD. And what did he do?
Mrs. PORTER. He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that. :D
Mr. McDONALD. This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?
Mrs. PORTER. It is several occasions, maybe more than once.
Mr. McDONALD. He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. And the rifle under the raincoat?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes. :D
How do you explain that the DPD/FBI found no oil or instruments to clean a rifle at either Oak Cliff or Irving?http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2020/
It proves nothing. That's nothing more than another one of the many, many very weak "chaff" arguments that have been dredged up by conspiracy theorists since 1963.From the Warren hearings......
There's no rule in the *"Assassin's Guidebook"* that demands Oswald have oil or cleaning implements at his home(s) to use on his weapons.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?Then from the HSCA hearings....a more diligent, virtuous swabbing---
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
Mr. GOPADZE. She says she was not sworn in before. But now inasmuch as she is sworn in, she is going to tell the truth. ::)
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you help us by giving some estimate of the times as you remember it?
Mrs. OSWALD. About four times---about four or five times, I think.
Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband ever tell you why he was cleaning the--that is, that he had been using it and needed to be cleaned after use?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not ask him, because I thought it was quite normal that when you have a rifle you must clean it from time to time.
Mr. McDONALD. Do you recall seeing him taking it out frequently from wherever he kept it, either to handle it or to clean it, to look at it, do whatever?*"The Assassin's Guidebook"* :D
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I did see him cleaning the rifle. That is true.
Mr. McDONALD. How often?
Mrs. PORTER. Maybe once a week.
If gun oil was found among Oswald's possessions, Skeptic-Tank would be saying it was a necessary "plant" to tie Lil'Lee to the Carcano.
You don't have to clean a weapon that's not used all the time, nor do you need specific "gun oil" products. The gun magazines and stores pushed such products because they knew gun nuts would spent whatever it took so they could use it to lovingly caress their loved one. They could especially fool American NRAers who had lots of money and weren't all that educated.
Predictable....always out to push his political agenda :-\
You're a weirdo, Mr Organ.
I'm open to any conspiracy but you're gonna have to come up with some sort of alternate narrative otherwise the WC conclusion is the only logical conclusion that fits the evidence, and let's be honest there are few if any murders in history that have accumulated a literal mountain of evidence with thousands of exhibits and hundreds of eyewitnesses which can only lead to one man, Lee Harvey Oswald.
JohnM
When taken at face value, any credible evidence regarding who was on the 6th floor just before, during and after the assassination, excludes Oswald - that's a fact.
The WC/LN narrative of Oswald hiding out in the SN and rushing downstairs after the assassination is blown out of the water by various witness statements, most damaging being Arnold Rowland's observation of a man with a rifle on the 6th floor 15 minutes before the motorcade arrived.
Once the evidence is accepted it becomes clear Oswald did not take the shots from the TSBD building.
Once this is accepted it becomes clear Oswald was framed for that crime.
By far and away, the most important piece of evidence that ties Oswald to the assassination is the rifle found on the 6th floor.
The best way to frame Oswald is to leave this rifle on the 6th floor. In this scenario, it was not Oswald who left the rifle on the 6th floor.
An alternative narrative would involve someone who had authority over Oswald, could get their hands on "Oswald's rifle" and who had access to the TSBD building at a time when no other employees were present. An alternate narrative would involve people on the ground doing the dirty work but there would be an "invisible thread" leading directly to those who might have a genuine motive for JFK's death.
An alternative narrative would explain the intensely suspicious fact that nearly every single man who worked on the 6th floor that day lied in their various statements to law enforcement officials.
Oswald's rifle was discovered on the 6th floor, how did it get there?
Griffith's an Alt-Right MAGA apologist who wanders in here after he gets tired of the beatings he suffers at the "other" Forum.
I don't know where they get this stuff. Do you? The heel-end of the strap is attached in different places on the rifle?
Answered over a year ago: ( Link (https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3527.msg136612.html#msg136612) )
There's "Do as I say" and "Do as I do". You voted wholeheartedly for Trump twice, and will a third time. And you express Far Right views all the time.
You're gaslighting, like a true Trump Republican.
"You really do ally yourself with the LeMay camp. You really wanted
an all out WW2 style war in Vietnam. In other words, if you have to
do a Dresden type bombing of Hanoi, fine. If you want to firebomb
Haiphong, fine. If you want to invade Laos and Cambodia fine."
-- James DiEugenio
"This is not new. Revise all you like, but it won't work. Quoting self-
interested parties decades after the fact blaming our debacle on the
"anti-war" crowd or Congressional Democrats is incredibly weak sauce."
-- Paul Jolliffe
"Don't you understand anything about Vietnam Mike?"
-- James DiEugenio
"This VW loss was due to left-wing media? Some newspaper headlines
and a CBS special? This does not hold water.
-- Benjamin Cole
"It's just something that a tiny percentage of pretend "conservatives"
cling to so they can delude themselves into thinking they are "real men"
and that only "pussy Democrats" lose wars. It's total garbage, and
indicative of the bubble some wish to hide in."
-- Pat Speer
"Michael's Operation Linebacker argument is straight out of Craig
Roberts' pro-conspiracy Kill Zone book from '94. I'm assuming you've
read that one, Michael, am I right? If so, would you say he's right about
everything right up to when he starts pushing Rothschild conspiracies in
chapter 19... or do you think he's onto something with that too?"
-- James Wilkinson
"You've lost the debate if you refuse to engage with our counterarguments
and instead simply continue defaulting to repeating summaries of Vietnam's
post-war human rights violations, like a chatbot with a limited script. You're also
ignoring direct questions about whether you've read Kill Zone and subscribe to
his Rothschild conspiracy theories."
-- James Wilkinson
"Michael either doesn’t understand basic critical thinking, or he does and uses
logical fallacies knowingly. Basically it’s straw man."
-- Paul Brancato
Is this one of those issues your CT "buddies" lap up and agree with you on?
The wedding ring on the right hand in 133-A doesn't cast a full shadow because of its angle to the sun. Notice how the right forearm in 133-A is sun-struck.
Compare with the same ring on the same hand in 133-B. Because the ring on the right hand is now more oblique toward the sun, the ring casts a full shadow onto the finger. Notice how the right forearm in 133-B is now no longer sun-struck because it is now angled oblique to the sun.
It's the same ring in 133-A and 133-B; just that the ring in 133-B projects a shadow that falls onto the width of the finger. This merely gives the ring a sense of depth lacking in 133-A.
Jack White presented this issue to the HSCA? Seems pretty easy to refute. Can you show us where White presented the issue to the Photographic Evidence Panel?
Here's another question: Why is the wedding ring of the figure in the backyard rifle photos on the left hand in one picture but on the right hand in another? Are we supposed to believe that some reason the figure decided to take off his wedding ring and put it on the other hand in between the photos?
Griffith's an Alt-Right MAGA apologist who wanders in here after he gets tired of the beatings he suffers at the "other" Forum.
I've corrected you on this before, but you just keep lying about it. I'm neither "Alt-Right" nor a Trump apologist. I've defended many of Trump's policies but have strongly criticized his conduct and have publicly declared many times that I hope he doesn't run again.
Clearly there is a ring visible, on the right hand, on the fourth finger, in both photos, CE-133-A and CE-133-B.
Speaking of the ring on the right hand:
One ring in both the photos
One ring that ties them
One ring is in brightest sunlight
The other has a shadow
I think Jerry is right. Come 2024, Michael will be arguing that Trump is the best option. I think Michael argues against Trump now to gain credibility. But when it counts, in 2024, he will be back to supporting Trump.
. . .
If you think Jerry Organ is right, then you're as dishonest as he is. What liars you people are. You can go to the USMB or the ISF forum and check my posts on Trum going back to 2016 and see he was my fourth pick among the GOP candidates. You will also see that I have severely criticized his conduct for years and that I have repeatedly said that I hope he does not run in 2024. I've gotten into some heated exchanges with ardent Trump supporters for saying these things. But, don't let facts or the truth stop you.
When you review those posts of mine, you can also readily verify that I am not "Far Right" or "Alt-Right." You will see that I have defended Obamacare, supported universal health insurance, supported red flag laws, supported a pathway to legal status for illegal immigrants, supported full legal status for Dreamers, supported the infrastructure bill that most Republicans voted against, supported most forms of affirmative action, supported restricting rifle ownership to 21 and above, etc., etc. People who are far right and alt-right view those positions as heresy, FYI.
Now, if it's a choice between Cognitive Decline Joe Biden and Donald Trump in 2024, yes, absolutely, I will hold my nose and reluctantly vote for Trump as the lesser of two bad choices, as will many other Independents and centrist Republicans, only because we feel that Biden has done a bad job in too many areas, such as inflation rates that we haven't seen in decades, sky-rocketing food and gas prices, trying to ram transgenderism down the throats of schools and businesses, undoing the very successful regulatory reforms of 2016-2020, etc., etc.
It doesn't matter about your support in 2016. Trump didn't show his true colors until 2017 ("There are good people on both sides").
It's easy to say in the 2020 and 2024 Republican primaries that you support someone else. Because Trump was a shoe in to win the primaries in 2020 and will be in 2024. The only thing that counts is the November election. And you supported him in 2020 and wlll support him in 2024. Just as I claimed.
If elected, Trump fixing elections in the future won't matter. He might get the 2024 election fixed next week, if enough of his "election deniers" win elections for governors and secretary of state. No, the only thing that matters is the current inflation rate. Having Trump in control of future elections, if he is running or his appointed successors running, doesn't matter.
Question:
What if Trump becomes President in 2025?
What if he gets control of elections in enough states to insure victories in future elections for President, the Senate and the House of Representatives?
What if 10 years down the road, you decide you don't like what Trump's successor is doing?
What are you going to do about it?
The opinions of the people of the United States won't matter.
The opinions of even the former MAGA crowd won't matter.
The entrenched authoritarian state will just keep a grip on power.
What would you do if that happens?
Of course, you will dodge the question.
I can't believe these are serious questions. What Kool-Aid are you drinking that makes you this paranoid? When did Trump ever try to "get control of elections" in any state? Whose vote tally had the most gigantic disparity between number of alleged votes and number of counties won? Not Trump's. His name starts with a "B" and ends with an "n."
And, FYI, the Deep State hated Trump and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign.
I can't believe these are serious questions. What Kool-Aid are you drinking that makes you this paranoid? When did Trump ever try to "get control of elections" in any state? Whose vote tally had the most gigantic disparity between number of alleged votes and number of counties won? Not Trump's. His name starts with a "B" and ends with an "n."
And, FYI, the Deep State hated Trump and did everything they could to sabotage his campaign.
By the way, I won't dodge my own question.
What if Biden tried to seize control of elections. Support candidates who declare that if they are elected, Democrats will never lose another election in their state? What would I do?
I will drop my support for the Democrats. The country would be doomed. Either the Republicans or Democrats will take over. In either case, I won't contribute to either side taking over. It wouldn't matter to me in Trump or Biden took over.
Now, what is your answer?
Biden has done that. Hillary and Stacy Abrams contended their elections were stolen. The Dems conspired with social media to suppress news stories before the election that might harm their chances. They used the justice department to stage armed tactical predawn raids on the homes of people accused of non-violent process crimes. Biden falsely claimed that changes in the election laws were "Jim Crow 2.0" etc. Trump was an amateur compared to those guys. You really think the sitting president and commander-in-chief would stage an "insurrection" by sending a random group of hillbillies to the Capitol? LOL. Trump had control of the US military and nuclear arsenal but "Jan. 6" was his plan? Let the voters sort it out. That is how a democracy works even though Biden and the Dems don't apparently like it.
No, the Capitol riot is not how Democracy works. A Communist mob or a MAGA mob can't just storm the Capitol, and overturn Democracy, and "That's just how Democracy works". Even if all the members of a Communist mob or a MAGA mob are U. S. citizens. Democracy works by having the votes of all the people counted following the rule of law, with states officials and the courts being the final arbitrayers of what votes are valid or not. Not some mob, even if all the members of the mob are U. S. citizens.
No. Trump did not have control of the US military. Not so far as getting them to overturn Democracy. If General Michael Flynn had been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and if the others in the military went along with him, yes, that would have been an option. And that would have been the option Trump would have chosen. Why use the Proud Boys when the military will do what ever you ask? But fortunately, General Mark Milley was in charge and using the military was never even remotely an option. He simply was not going to order troops to storm the Capitol. General Mark Milley sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, not to obey whatever order the President may give to him. And General Mark Milley did so.
I'm certain that if Trump becomes President again, he will do whatever it takes to get someone like General Michael Flynn as the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Maybe his brother. It will be a priority.
By the way, my question to Griffith is now being directed to you.
What do you intend to do if Trump is elected, establishes a permanent regime with himself or his chosen successor and charge of elections. And then you decide to change your mind. You want someone else in charge.
What do you think you and the current MAGA crowd would be able to do about it?
By the way, my question to Griffith is now being directed to you.
What do you intend to do if Trump is elected, establishes a permanent regime with himself or his chosen successor and charge of elections. And then you decide to change your mind. You want someone else in charge.
What do you think you and the current MAGA crowd would be able to do about it?
You really think the sitting president and commander-in-chief would stage an "insurrection" by sending a random group of hillbillies to the Capitol?
That is tin foil hat nonsense. Trump left office after the last election. He is almost as old as Joe Biden at this point but he is going to establish "a permanent regime." Wow. Not even sure what that means. That Trump is immortal? Maybe take a break from MSNBC and watch something more factual like "Ancient Aliens."
Interesting that the original thread about evidence and explaining the presence of the mannlicher carcano descended into off topic twaddle about the current deep state civil war. Hopefully this is not typical. If it is, it is highly suspicious given that many of the same families who participated in the JFK murder plot still hold power today.
To answer the original question, the rifle was brought to the building by the same team who included the shooter on the roof of the TSBD.
It isn't enough to simply scoff at alternate suggestions by the way. And in terms of the "mountains of evidence" all of it was tainted beyond usability in court when it was taken away by the FBI, breaking the chain of custody established in Dallas. Given the notoriety of FBI evidence falsification that has come to light in the decades since, it is easily understood as to why the break in the chain of evidence would make it unusable.
Interesting that the original thread about evidence and explaining the presence of the mannlicher carcano descended into off topic twaddle about the current deep state civil war. Hopefully this is not typical. If it is, it is highly suspicious given that many of the same families who participated in the JFK murder plot still hold power today.
"Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle
The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side. Yet the WC wants us to believe that this uncashed, never-deposited money order was used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed President Kennedy. All monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions (1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited, stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order (PMO) purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago, would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National Bank of Chicago). The PMO would have been stamped a second time after passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. Finally the PMO would have been stamped a third time when returned to Federal Postal Money Order Center (FPMOC) in Kansas City. But the money order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.
This never deposited money order first appeared in the hands of Robert Jackson, an employee of the Federal Records Center, who lived in Alexandria, VA. Neither Mr. Jackson nor any employee of the Federal Records Center was questioned about the money order by the FBI or Warren Commission or HSCA or the Secret Service. At 9:35 PM (11/23/63) Jackson hand delivered this money order to J. Harold Marks, a Finance Officer for the US Postal Service, at his home in Arlington, VA. The initials that appear on the back of this money order were made by Jackson, Marks, and other Federal officials who took possession of the money order. The Secret Service made 5 photostats of this money order and sent the photostats to Dallas. The following day (11/24/63), at 10:00 AM, Secret Service Agent Grimes gave the original PMO to the FBI, and the money order soon vanished. The Warren Commission accepted photostats of this money order as "proof" that Oswald purchased this mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Apparently, not a single member of the WC nor its attorneys nor staff questioned the authenticity of this money order nor questioned the absence of a single bank stamp/endorsement. To verify the authenticity and bank routing of this PMO, the Warren Commission only needed to ask the US Postal Department to conduct "payment research" on the money order. There is no cost for this service, but the results may have been a bit difficult for the WC to explain.
The Postal Money Order allegedly was purchased at the Dallas Post Office on March 12, 1963 at 10:30 A.M. According to Warren Commission documents, this money order was deposited into Klein's bank account in Chicago on February 15, 1963. The Warren Commission expected us to believe that the money order was deposited in the First National Bank of Chicago on February 15, 1963--a month BEFORE the money order was purchased in Dallas! The money order and bank deposit printed in the Warren volumes in 1964 are both good examples of how the WC manipulated "evidence" in an attempt to frame Oswald as the Lone Assassin. Oswald never purchased this money order nor was this money order ever deposited in Klein's bank account. If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
https://harveyandlee.net/
https://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html
Good enough for me.
Not good enough for me. I have my doubts about the veracity of the rifle transaction, but John Armstrong's opinion about the money order isn't the evidence I asked for.
If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
This is BS. You don't have to purchase a rifle to be photographed with one. Also, to bring a rifle into the TSBD, you don't have to own it. Having it in your possession is enough.
Having said that, for a number of reasons, I personally seriously doubt that, in November 1963, Oswald had possession of the rifle that was found at the TSBD, but Armstrong's conclusion that Oswald couldn't have brought the rifle into the TSBD simply because he did not purchase is just plain silly.
"Oswald Never Purchased a Mail Order Rifle
The Postal Money Order allegedly used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed JFK is perhaps the most unexplainable document published by the Warren Commission. A quick look at this money order (see DOCUMENT link below) shows that it was never deposited nor cashed at a bank. It does not have a single bank stamp on the front or reverse side. Yet the WC wants us to believe that this uncashed, never-deposited money order was used to purchase the rifle that supposedly killed President Kennedy. All monetary instruments deposited to banks or financial institutions (1962-63) were stamped by the bank into which the item was deposited, stamped by a correspondent bank, and stamped by the originating bank or institution when the item was returned. A US Postal Money Order (PMO) purchased in Dallas, TX, and sent to Kleins Sporting Goods in Chicago, would have been date-stamped when deposited to their bank (First National Bank of Chicago). The PMO would have been stamped a second time after passing through a correspondent bank and/or the Federal Reserve System. Finally the PMO would have been stamped a third time when returned to Federal Postal Money Order Center (FPMOC) in Kansas City. But the money order given to the Warren Commission did not have a single bank endorsement stamp and was not found at the FPMOC in Kansas City. The absence of date-stamped bank endorsements means this PMO was never deposited to a bank nor cashed by Kleins Sporting Goods. Yet we are supposed to believe that Klein's Sporting Goods shipped a rifle to Oswald in Dallas, TX and that he used this rifle to kill JFK.
This never deposited money order first appeared in the hands of Robert Jackson, an employee of the Federal Records Center, who lived in Alexandria, VA. Neither Mr. Jackson nor any employee of the Federal Records Center was questioned about the money order by the FBI or Warren Commission or HSCA or the Secret Service. At 9:35 PM (11/23/63) Jackson hand delivered this money order to J. Harold Marks, a Finance Officer for the US Postal Service, at his home in Arlington, VA. The initials that appear on the back of this money order were made by Jackson, Marks, and other Federal officials who took possession of the money order. The Secret Service made 5 photostats of this money order and sent the photostats to Dallas. The following day (11/24/63), at 10:00 AM, Secret Service Agent Grimes gave the original PMO to the FBI, and the money order soon vanished. The Warren Commission accepted photostats of this money order as "proof" that Oswald purchased this mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago. Apparently, not a single member of the WC nor its attorneys nor staff questioned the authenticity of this money order nor questioned the absence of a single bank stamp/endorsement. To verify the authenticity and bank routing of this PMO, the Warren Commission only needed to ask the US Postal Department to conduct "payment research" on the money order. There is no cost for this service, but the results may have been a bit difficult for the WC to explain.
The Postal Money Order allegedly was purchased at the Dallas Post Office on March 12, 1963 at 10:30 A.M. According to Warren Commission documents, this money order was deposited into Klein's bank account in Chicago on February 15, 1963. The Warren Commission expected us to believe that the money order was deposited in the First National Bank of Chicago on February 15, 1963--a month BEFORE the money order was purchased in Dallas! The money order and bank deposit printed in the Warren volumes in 1964 are both good examples of how the WC manipulated "evidence" in an attempt to frame Oswald as the Lone Assassin. Oswald never purchased this money order nor was this money order ever deposited in Klein's bank account. If Oswald never purchased nor received a rifle from Klein's, then he could not have posed for the Life magazine photo and he could not have carried the rifle to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository."
https://harveyandlee.net/
https://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html
Good enough for me.
In which Martin invokes his inner Inspector Clouseau once again. He suspects everyone, and he suspects no one. There are only "assumptions" and "opinions" in the contrarian wasteland that go round and round to no purpose. Even after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," we are forever left to ponder as to whether this is meant to suggest that Oswald wasn't the assassin. No answer is ever forthcoming. It's down the rabbit hole again and again. This is where Martin attempts to deflect by asking for "my" evidence as though I or anyone has discovered evidence like Sherlock Holmes not uncovered by the DPD and FBI, as documented by the WC, in the most extensive criminal investigation in history. His standard appearing to be to satisfy his own subjective impossible standard of proof.
Your obsession with me playing up again?
Even after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs," we are forever left to ponder as to whether this is meant to suggest that Oswald wasn't the assassin. No answer is ever forthcoming.
Stop lying for once. This was answered a long time ago.
LOL. So you are now refusing to answer by falsely claiming to have answered? How about just stating the answer here so there is no ambiguity on the matter? You concluded that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." Does that mean that you have concluded Oswald wasn't the assassin? If not, then how could Oswald still be the assassin if he "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination from the 6th floor? Clear it up for us. Let me help since you are struggling.
Option 1: confirm that your position is that Oswald wasn't the assassin because you have concluded "he didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor.
Option 2: explain how Oswald could still have been the assassin even if "he didn't come down the stairs" [here you fill in an explanation for how Oswald might have got from the 6th floor to the 2nd floor without using the stairs under the known circumstances].
Good luck.
Full ignorance on display, yet again.
Why not have the courage to state YOUR own position?
I have stated my position, over and over again. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.
If Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" as you concluded, then he wasn't the assassin. Right? Is that your position or not?
In the context of the official narrative, yes it is.
The problem is that “Richard” has official narrative blinders on. He is incapable of operating outside of it.
Indeed. That's his biggest problem. He actually lost the argument some two months ago and still doesn't realize it. It's kinda sad, really.
Like any other fanatical zealot, Richard, can not imagine that his bible (i.e. the official narrative) could possibly be wrong.
Oswald not coming down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot means that he wasn't on the 6th floor and thus that he could not have shot Kennedy from there. This would destroy a crucial part of the official narrative and justify the question what else there is in the official narrative that could also be wrong.
Obviously, Richard doesn't like or accept any of that, but he is not so dumb that he doesn't understand that he hasn't got a shred of evidence to put Oswald on the 6th floor when the shots were fired (as he claimed) so he falls back on his faith like belief and simply hopes he can BS his way out of the mess he has created from himself by deflection and making (in his mind) big issues out of non-issues.
"It's easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled” - Mark Twain
If anybody is struggling, it's you!
What part of "In the context of the official narrative, yes it is." do you still not understand?
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"? How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting. I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs." That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader. Just tell us what you are suggesting.
Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming. Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor? If that isn't what you are claiming, then what is it? Again, this is not a trick question since you presumably know and support your own position and have confidence to share it with us. Right?
So you leave open the possibility that Oswald could still be the assassin OUTSIDE the context of the "official narrative" (whatever that is supposed to mean) even if he "didn't come down the stairs"?
Boy, you rare really struggling. You asked me a question, which I have now answered a dozen times or more. Beyond that, if the official narrative is indeed wrong then any scenario is possible.
How about explaining for once what it is that you are suggesting.
Other than in your imagination, when did I make any suggestion?
I'm asking about YOUR position after concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."
That's easy. My position is that if Oswald didn't come down the stairs, the official narrative is wrong on a crucial element of the case against Oswald and loses all credibility.
Start with your conclusion that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" and explain how Oswald still might have been the assassin outside "the context of the official narrative" if that is what you are now claiming.
Oh boy... this is all way over your head, isn't it. But let me confuse you so more; No that's not what I am claiming. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't back up with evidence.
Where could Oswald have assassinated JFK from if he "didn't come the stairs" to reach the 2nd floor?
Who said that he did? You still have your official narrative blinders on and keep running in circles of your own making.
This is where Martin attempts to deflect by asking for "my" evidence as though I or anyone has discovered evidence like Sherlock Holmes not uncovered by the DPD and FBI, as documented by the WC, in the most extensive criminal investigation in history.
That shouldn't require a game of a thousand questions or a mind reader. Just tell us what you are suggesting.
Why is it that you get to endlessly ask questions (even ones that have been answered) yet steadfastly refuse to answer any questions put to you?
For the zillionth time: what is your evidence that Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle at 12:30 and traveled down to the 2nd floor in 75 seconds without being seen or heard by at least 12 people who were along the way?
Put up or shut up, “Richard”.
Bump for Richard
Again, that was done in the 1960s by law enforcement. They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt. That evidence is widely available. I have nothing to add to that evidence not being a law enforcement person with the responsibility to investigate the crime. The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Translation: I don't have an opinion of my own and just blindly believe whatever I am told, which in turn I of course can not explain or defend.
They conducted and compiled the evidence that links Oswald to the crime beyond any doubt.
2 comments;
1. No they didn't. The evidence was weak, dubious and highly circumstantial with only a tentative link to Oswald
2. Hang on....You have just expressed the opinion that the evidence compiled by law enforcement is linked to Oswald beyond any doubt. So, you do have an opinion after all. But you can not explain why that is your opinion and how you arrived at that conclusion? Is that right? Wow....
The evidence compiled by the investigation is the evidence that I rely upon to conclude that Oswald was the assassin on the 6th floor of the TSBD.
Again, relying on evidence to conclude that Oswald was on the 6th floor is an opinion. It's your opinion, so why can't you explain on exactly what evidence that opinion is based?
What actual evidence do you have that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired?
It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense. I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin. That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case. Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is merely an "opinion"? LOL. No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion. Prove to me that Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg address if I can dismiss all the evidence as merely your "opinion" based upon what you have been "told." It is laughable. You should be ashamed.
It's impossible to decipher this rambling nonsense.
Hilarious. You can't decipher something, yet call it rambling nonsense nevertheless. Don't you understand how stupid that sounds?
We already know that you have major problems in understanding what you are told. That's nothing new.
I have concluded that Oswald was the assassin. That conclusion is based on the evidence outlined by the law enforcement entities responsible for investigating the case. Relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion is merely an "opinion"? LOL.
Yes, your conclusion is "merely an opinion". I have looked at the same evidence and concluded that it is weak, speculative, non-conclusive and highly questionable. That's an opinion also.
I have explained many times why it is my opinion that the evidence against Oswald isn't persuasive, most likely manipulated, and certainly doesn't prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. You, on the other hand, have never explained why you feel the evidence against Oswald is conclusive.
No act in human history could ever be deemed a fact if relying upon the evidence to reach a conclusion was dismissed as an opinion because some contrarian disagreed with that conclusion.
Something isn't a fact just because you say it is. Only a fool would consider his own opinion to be a "fact". Different people can have different opinions about the evidence. It happens every day in just about every courtroom in the country. When there are different opinions about the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence, further examination is needed to determine what is factual and what isn't.
The WC report is nothing more than a prosecutor's brief. To predetermine it as factual is just plain cult-like stupidity.
The biggest irony is that an actual fact can indeed be proven. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to explain your own conclusion and can not provide a shred of evidence in support of your own claims!
But let's stay on topic. The WC and law enforcement have not presented a shred of evidence for their assumption that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired. Their "conclusion" most certainly isn't a fact. Assuming that he was there because "his rifle" was found there is utter BS. There is no evidence for you to rely on to reach your conclusion and call it a "fact". Yet, here you are claiming that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor. It's pathetic.
The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources. Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact. You are constantly mistaking your subjective contrarian view as rebuttal to actual evidence. Can you understand the difference? That is a rhetorical question since you cannot. It is actually laughable that you take yourself so seriously while providing these rambling long-winded explanations of your bizarre contrarian nonsense. Again, is it merely my "opinion" that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address because that is what I have been "told." How would you prove this as a fact using your contrarian impossible standard of proof if someone else can dismiss all your evidence as an "assumption"?
Wow. I knew you were living in another reality, but I didn't understand that it was so bad.
Staggering ignorance on display. You are so far gone that there is no way to have any kind of reasonable conversation with you, so I won't.
Translation: Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away. Nothing I posted was controversial. The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses. The most investigated criminal case in history. The fact that the WC, as did every investigation conducted, concluded that Oswald was the assassin doesn't mean it is biased as Martin stupidly suggests. Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Applying Martin's bizarre contrarian impossible standard of proof to any event in human history would preclude ever reaching any conclusion. For example, it is merely my "opinion" that someone named George Washington was the first president because I rely upon the historical evidence of such compiled by others to reach this conclusion. I have no time machine to confirm all this evidence for myself. There are no such things as facts because individuals can only express their "opinion" no matter how well documented by the underlying evidence. That is tin foil hat nonsense. Only worthy of note for amusement because Martin takes his own nonsense so seriously.
The WC compiled evidence from a variety of different sources. Your subjective opinion that it is a "prosecutor's brief" does not rebut any of that evidence or render it an "opinion" rather than a fact.
Translation: Martin realizes his contrarian nonsense has been exposed and he is running away. Nothing I posted was controversial.
Hilarious. So, you can't translate either.... Well, no surprise really....
The WC did obtain evidence from a variety of different sources including state and federal law enforcement entities, private citizens, and businesses. The most investigated criminal case in history.
Look up appeal to authority fallacy.
Rather, the WC simply reached the conclusion overwhelmingly supported by the evidence.
So, now you agree the WC reached conclusions?
And, what makes you say that those conclusions were supported by evidence, when, in most cases, that clearly and demonstrably wasn't the case? Let me guess; it is your opinion and thus - in your mind - a fact.... HAHAHAHAHAHA
The bottom line is that you keep coming back to the same old "it's true because the WC said so" idiocy. Your indoctrination has clearly been completed.
Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.
Prove to me that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address in a way that satisfies the same contrarian standard of proof that you apply to Oswald's guilt. Or is it merely my "opinion" that Lincoln delivered that speech and doubt exists about this conclusion based upon an "appeal to authority fallacy" because I was not actually there and instead rely upon the evidence complied by others to reach this conclusion? Demonstrate how a fact from human history can be proved to a contrarian's satisfaction or admit that, like Inspector Clouseau, you don't believe there are such things as facts. At least not when it comes to Oswald's guilt. Only "assumptions" and "opinions" because events that we did not witness come to us through investigations like the WC Report. The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report. Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.
The only difference here is the extensive nature of the WC Report. Perhaps no other event in human history, much less a criminal act, has been investigated to the extent of the JFK assassination.
Hilarious. Is it really your childisch naive "logic" to believe that just because a report is extensive, it's conclusions have to be true and correct?
And talking about the WC report being "extensive"; where in the report can I find the evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he ran down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? Let me guess; I just have to assume he was and did so, just because a rifle that allegedly belonged to him was found on the 6th floor, right?.... Seriously?
Come to think of it; where is the "extensive" investigation of the total lack of a chain of custody for pieces of evidence like CE399, the grey/white jacket and Oswald's alleged revolver? Also, where is the investigation into the missing approx two minutes in the DPD radio recordings at around the time Tippit was shot?
How in the world can you call an investigation "extensive" when crucial witnesses such as Buell Frazier, Victoria Adams, Dorothy Garner and so on are either ignored or "discredited" simply because their story doesn't fit the official narrative?
Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional. This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself. The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject. And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else. But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation. LOL.It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.
Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional. This event was not only investigated by the state and federal governments but generations of kooks such as yourself. The federal government had no legal obligation to conduct any investigation but did so twice. Millions of pages of investigation, thousands of books, documentaries, and films on the subject. And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else. But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation. LOL.
It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.
Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.
So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.
So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.
Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt".
Of all your weak contrarian CTer arguments, the claim that the JFK assassination has not been extensively investigated is among the most delusional.
And where exactly did I say that the investigation hasn't been extensive? I won't wait for the answer, because I never said that and you, as usual, made it up.
And here we are six decades later with no doubt of Oswald's guilt or the involvement of anyone else.
Are you for real? There has been doubt about Oswald's guilt from day one and you and your ilk have never been able to change that. Like it or not, the majority of the people has and probably will always have reasonable doubts about what happened on 11/22/63.
But you are crying a river about a lack of investigation. LOL.
Pathetic. It's pretty obvious that you can't show me where I can find the information I asked for in the WC report. The reason is of course that it isn't there. I suppose they were too busy to investigate Oswald's pubic hair. LOL
Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt. Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin. That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact. There is no credible evidence of the involvement of anyone else. Certainly none has been provided by you. You limit yourself to nitpicking the evidence against Oswald as though the void left by any claim that he wasn't the assassin is not relevant to the analysis. Just a great mystery never to be addressed because you have some dim realization that if any of your nonsense were valid the resulting counternarrative that explains the known facts and evidence would be absurd. You certainly don't want to address any of the implications of your looney claims for good reason.
Again, your subjective contrarian claim that there is "doubt" is not relevant because it is contrived by applying an impossible standard of proof to Oswald's guilt.
Sorry, but your biased opinion that there isn't doubt isn't relevant.
Btw that's one hell of an argument; it's like a prosecutor saying to a juror; "sorry but your standard of proof is too high for my weak evidence to meet", so your opinion is irrelevant. Take that one into any court and see what happens.
Multiple investigations have concluded that Oswald was the assassin.
Hilarious. There has been one main investigation where the evidence was selected. All other "investigations" worked with that same evidence. Over time sufficient additional information has been made public to conclude that all the investigations were flawed.
That conclusion is supported by the evidence making it a fact.
So, if that's true, why can't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots and came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot? If, as you foolishly claim, the conclusion that Oswald was the assassin is supported by evidence, it should be easy for you to provide that evidence. The fact that you haven't been able to do so, for some 4 months now, is all the confirmation required to expose your hollow claims as utter BS. The WC report is full with claims that are not supported by the evidence!
When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence. You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.
It's always 1964 for the conspiracists. Thus the mantra of "the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission, the Warren Commission..." All of the subsequent investigations - by the government or by the media and others - are dismissed or ignored.
Meanwhile, they ask for evidence, in fact they say they are here to discuss the evidence; but when the evidence of Oswald's guilt is provided they dismiss it as "corrupt". Why it is corrupt? Because they say the "chain of evidence" is insufficient or the DPD was "dirty" and they "possibly" could have manufactured/falsified it. This possibility *alone* is sufficient to dismiss it.
So, if the "chain of custody" is sufficient they wave away that evidence as "possibly" faked. But if the evidence is real, they then say the "chain of custody" for it was broken and its not reliable. In either case they dismiss it. Every time. Except, of course, for the conspiracy claims. Someone can say Ruth Paine was the mastermind behind the framing of Oswald and they are silent. Nowhere to be found.
So where can you go with this? It's an endless repetition of denial on their part.
If you feel that the case that Oswald alone killed JFK is conclusive beyond any reasonable doubt in spite of all the problems with the evidence, you're entitled to your own opinion.
What I don't understand is your expectation that others should overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations.
When the time machine is invented, we can all go back to 1963 to satisfy Martin's subjective, contrarian impossible standard of proof since all we have now is the evidence.
You mean the evidence that is so extremely weak it can't even meet any standard of proof?
You also appear very confused about whether you are having a discussion about the case on an Internet forum or defending a (guilty) client in a criminal trial subject to the rules and presumptions which govern such trials.
There is no confusion on my part. On your part, that's another matter. You seem to confuse asking questions and scrutinizing evidence on a public forum as "defending a (guilty) client". I'm not defending anybody. If and when you show me the evidence that Oswald is guilty, I will gladly accept that, but given the fact that you have proven to be unable to provide any conclusive evidence for your claims and can't defend or explain the conclusions of the WC either, I seriously doubt we will ever get to such a conclusion.
I am also not the one who is confused about "having a discussion about the case", as there is no such discussion. There is one person asking questions and asking for evidence and another person (that would be you) who runs away from any kind of discussion as fast as he can.
The bottom line is (and has been the same since 1963) a simple one; when you claim somebody committed two murders you will have to provide the evidence to prove it. It doesn't matter if that's in a court of law or the court of public opinion. You are making claims that you can not support with actual evidence and your "believe it because the WC said so" is just about the most pathetic part of it.
It also makes me wonder why you are active on this board. You clearly do not want to discuss the case against Oswald or answer questions and present evidence.
Your entire position on this board could have been dealt with in one single post, saying: "I believe the WC report and don't want to discuss it"
So the question needs to be asked again; what makes you return to the forum day after day writing meaningless posts about things you don't want to discuss?
You are not defending anyone? LOL. I've heard it all now. Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt. Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt, then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity. What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination. Just a grand mystery. Nothing to see there. You are not even suggesting a conspiracy. Just a great unknown in which everyone is supsect, and no one is a suspect.
You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client. Your protestations to avoid admitting that you are a CTer are simply an acknowledgement of the absurdity of your claims. A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything. They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means. Sound familiar? And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect. What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine? Even Bigfoot believers hold out hope of one day finding one, but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.
'overlook the glaring problems with the evidence and investigations'
_are you going to tell us soon? Can't wait... No, really
Are you new here?
There are several super long threads about the problems with the evidence.
Are you new here?
There are several super long threads about the problems with the evidence.
The best thing I have ever done on this forum is to put Chapman on ignore. Not having to read his pathetic posts by putting him on ignore is something I recommend to everybody.
So many words and nothing interesting.
Your every post here takes issue with some aspect of Oswald's guilt.
Because that's how it works, you fool! Unlike you, I'm not just going to assume Oswald is guilty. When you claim the evidence is conclusive there shouldn't be any problem with somebody like me taking issue with that evidence.
Typically, by applying a laughable impossible standard of proof to the evidence to suggest false doubt of his guilt,
I'm not applying an "impossible standard of proof". Just one that you and your precious evidence seems to be unable to meet. You are behaving like a litte child who can't throw a ball through a hoop and then complains that the hoop is too small. It's hilarious.
then refusing to acknowledge, much less address the absurdity of the direct implications of what you are suggesting having any validity.
What exactly am I suggesting?
What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.
More to your imagination and closed mind. First of all, and you will never accept it, there is very little physical evidence and most of it was handled poorly. Secondly, "the circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt" is nothing more than his presence at the TSBD and his alleged presence at 10th/Patton about 45 minutes later. That's it!
Having said that, if the official narrative tells us the correct story, one of the things that has always puzzled me is Oswald leaving the TSBD to go to his rooming house without showing any interest in the events at Dealey Plaza.
You are not even suggesting a conspiracy.
Don't have to. If Oswald was indeed set up and he didn't kill Kennedy, it automatically follows that there must have been a conspiracy. That's a given. Some people come up with theories about who was involved etc, but that's not something I'm interested in. In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it. I'm only looking into the case against Oswald by answering a simple question; does the evidence show he did it or not?
You act exactly like a pro bono defense attorney from a mail order law school defending a guilty client.
Hilarious. The "mail order law school" was particularly funny. But let me ask you this; do you have experience in dealing with pro bono defense attorneys from a mail order law school defending a guilty client?
A defense attorney doesn't have to explain anything. They just nitpick the evidence in a desperate attempt to create doubt by any means. Sound familiar?
Yes, that sounds familiar. So what? Your evidence can withstand scrutiny, can't it? Oh wait.... you don't present evidence.
And you are asking me why I spend time here when you suggest the case is unsolvable and the evidence uncovered by the investigation is incomplete or suspect.
What's with all the "you suggest" BS.
What more is there for you discuss if you believe the case is unsolvable absent a time machine?
Where exactly did I say that I believe the case is unsolvable?
but you lecture us that the evidence in the JFK assassination is effectively flawed to the point of being unable to reach a conclusion.
I don't lecture anything. I'll leave that to you. But I'm glad you finally start to understand just how flawed the evidence is. Thumb1:
One question; when will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?
Here's something novel, for once; why don't you provide the evidence that shows that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired? Let's start with that, shall we?
So many meaningless words. Do you have any other hobbies? I would assume there are things to do in "Europe" other than discuss the JFK assassination but perhaps not. You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof? Tell us how so. How would someone go about solving the case to your impossible standard of proof absent a time machine? For example, what would you use for evidence? Spin us a contrarian yarn for a good laugh.
This was my question;
When will you be discussing the case against Oswald instead of constantly talking about all sorts of other stuff? You do know this is not the "attack Martin Weidmann forum" nor is it the "whining about disbelievers forum"?
It seems this pathetic rant of yours provides the answer.
One more comment; you also seem unable to stop lying.
You said; You think this case is "solvable" under your impossible standard of proof?
What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it."
So, there are two possibilities; you either can't comprehend what you are reading or you are simply lying.
So this case is not solvable according to you exactly as I indicated. If so, why bother with these endless rants and insults?
What explanation there is for all the evidence and circumstances that lend themselves to Oswald's guilt if he was not the assassin are left to our imagination.
Exactly as expected, more contradictory gibberish from a guy with a reading comprehension problem.
As you are clearly here not to discuss the JFK case, what's next?
It's great when you can't keep your story straight. You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting: "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA. So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy. Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking. Taking us back to the case being unsolvable. You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults. A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.
It's great when you can't keep your story straight. You took issue with my characterizing of your looney contrarian position on the case as being unsolvable by posting: "What I actually said is; "In my opinion, if there was indeed a conspiracy, it's highly unlikely we will ever find out who were behind it." HA HA HA. So it's "unsolvable" according to you if there was a conspiracy. Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking. Taking us back to the case being unsolvable. You can't articulate any way to move forward but instead circle back to endless commentary and insults. A vicious rabbit hole circle of lunacy.
Of course, you also find the evidence against Oswald lacking.
What evidence would that be? You haven't produced any and as John already said “government said so” is not evidence.
Taking us back to the case being unsolvable.
Really? How do you figure? When you produce the evidence of Oswald's guilt, which you claim exists, that would solve the case, wouldn't it? Or could it be that such evidence simply doesn't exist, after all?
In any event, let's get back to discussing the case, shall we?
As the WC report doesn't contain the information, when will you be producing the evidence for your claims that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot?
Do you think you will be able to produce this evidence before the end of the year or shall we just conclude that you make foolish claims you can't support with evidence?
Try to follow along. You do not accept the evidence of Oswald's guilt. You also suggest that you do not believe it is possible to solve a conspiracy to figure out who was behind it if one existed. The only implication to be drawn from these claims is that you believe the case is effectively unsolvable. You have reached the end of the line absent a time machine. But then you take issue with that and bizarrely suggest that I must "produce" evidence that convinces you. Mistakenly conflating your fake contrarian doubt with having relevance to as to the issue of Oswald's guilt. No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact. It has been done. Whether you agree with that is not relevant. There are many kooks in the world who take issue with established facts. That is not grounds for doubt.
No one has to convince you or "produce" any additional evidence to accept Oswald's guilt as a proven fact. It has been done.
Have you just not read any of the scholarly research that refutes the case against Oswald? Are you not aware of the gaping holes in the so-called "evidence" that the Dallas police collected?
Are you aware that we have known for over a decade now, thanks mainly to ARRB disclosures, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors determined for an absolute, observable fact that JFK's back wound had no exit point, and that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat?
Are you just not aware of any of this evidence?
If you think the case against Oswald is solid, I invite you to read my article "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald":
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1CZaCZfLA5QFjTCHNINcKxTH4cBiPfw/view)
Might I suggest that you go back to the post you've quoted from and pay attention? You will find that the words in bold are a quote from the text I was replying to and thus not my own words.
My response was that it is silly to say that Oswald couldn't have posed for the BY photos holding a rifle if he had not purchased or received a rifle from Klein's. You don't have to buy or own a rifle to be photographed with one.
You may also find that I don't think the case against Oswald is solid.