When the SN was built

[Alan Ford]

The SW window gunman seems to have not been  familiar with where some employees were going at 12:00 and erroneously presumed the 6th floor would be clear. The gunman arrived perhaps dressed like one of the floor laying crew (light blue shirt w/collar?) that had been contracted by Truly, only this particular “contractor” had other mission to accomplish. Which he was planning to do as a quick 1shot kill from SW 6th floor window, then scoot, beginning his entrance into TSBD taking advantage possibly of the ambulance distraction.

Thus being thwarted by presence of BRW, [...]

Apologies for any confusion my last post may have caused, Mr. Mason----------------the Cuban-looking man I was referring to was the dark-complected, v. bald, middle-aged man in plaid shirt seen by Mr. Rowland hanging out at the SN window. Mr. Rowland's description is not (to put it mildly!) compatible with the appearance of Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams.

As for the SN preparation, Mr. Oswald may very well have helped prepare it. His (bogus) FPCC background almost certainly meant that the original (false-flag) plan included (with his consent) his being identified after the event as a member of the pro-Castro team ostensibly behind the (non-fatal) incident---------------though, obviously, he was at no point being set up for having fired any shots himself. He had other business downstairs @ 12:30pm.

'LHO as sixth-floor shooter' was no more than a wild and absurd fiction invented by the cover-up authorities after the assassination

 

[Zeon Mason]

It almost appears as though there was not a pre planned set up of Oswald because the SE window gunman apparently did not wear a mask or something to alter his face and complexion. And if he was the same person whom Rowland saw at 12:15 at the SW window, he’s taking some big risk of being photographed.

And allowing the patsy to be freely roaming and not prevent him from being on the steps seems unlikely imo.

Problem always comes back to that  MC rifle and when and how it was planted and why it was it planted with an obviously misaligned scope and without powder residue in the barrel, chamber and breech. A scope which it seems unlikely to have ever been in alignment because the mount itself seems to have been incorrectly aligned.

This suggests a rifle hastily taken from Oswalds boarding room or from Paines garage. A rifle which had been ordered  WITHOUT a scope mounted , because if the mount had been affixed by a competent gunsmith (alleged)then the mount would not have ever required any shims to align the scope. The scope may have been sent as separate item NOT mounted , in the same package and Oswald screwed the mount into the rifle stock himself using the Paines garage which happened to coincidentally have a drill press. He might have not gotten it quite right and resorted to using shims OR he PURPOSELY meant to use shims which he could also remove as an insurance policy should someone steal the rifle and use it trying to frame him.

Note: An LN argument presents itself here as well that if the above is possible then it’s possible Oswald could have removed the shims himself and left the rifle purposely to make it appear he was  being set up. ( in line with some vision that if he got caught he could argue the set up defense.) But since the MC rifle found  apparently had no signs of having been fired that day ( no odor , no residue in rifle grooves) then Oswald would have  had to bring TWO rifles to the TSBD 6th floor, leaving the unfired MC rifle as the set up rifle while using and escaping with , whatever rifle he actually fired.

Now Mr Buglio Mytton may be able to refute this idea with some information that I’ve forgotten about so I will wait to see if he does so  before continuing on with a post planted rifle theory.

Otherwise it’s a preplanted theory like Walt Cakebreads which seems a problem also why setting up the patsy this way, unless they stole  the rifle so late on the night of Nov 21/63 that they didn’t have time to shoot a few rounds , nor check the scope alignment and zero.

[Jack Nessan]

It almost appears as though there was not a pre planned set up of Oswald because the SE window gunman apparently did not wear a mask or something to alter his face and complexion. And if he was the same person whom Rowland saw at 12:15 at the SW window, he’s taking some big risk of being photographed.

And allowing the patsy to be freely roaming and not prevent him from being on the steps seems unlikely imo.

Problem always comes back to that  MC rifle and when and how it was planted and why it was it planted with an obviously misaligned scope and without powder residue in the barrel, chamber and breech. A scope which it seems unlikely to have ever been in alignment because the mount itself seems to have been incorrectly aligned.

This suggests a rifle hastily taken from Oswalds boarding room or from Paines garage. A rifle which had been ordered  WITHOUT a scope mounted , because if the mount had been affixed by a competent gunsmith (alleged)then the mount would not have ever required any shims to align the scope. The scope may have been sent as separate item NOT mounted , in the same package and Oswald screwed the mount into the rifle stock himself using the Paines garage which happened to coincidentally have a drill press. He might have not gotten it quite right and resorted to using shims OR he PURPOSELY meant to use shims which he could also remove as an insurance policy should someone steal the rifle and use it trying to frame him.

Note: An LN argument presents itself here as well that if the above is possible then it’s possible Oswald could have removed the shims himself and left the rifle purposely to make it appear he was  being set up. ( in line with some vision that if he got caught he could argue the set up defense.) But since the MC rifle found  apparently had no signs of having been fired that day ( no odor , no residue in rifle grooves) then Oswald would have  had to bring TWO rifles to the TSBD 6th floor, leaving the unfired MC rifle as the set up rifle while using and escaping with , whatever rifle he actually fired.

Now Mr Buglio Mytton may be able to refute this idea with some information that I’ve forgotten about so I will wait to see if he does so  before continuing on with a post planted rifle theory.

Otherwise it’s a preplanted theory like Walt Cakebreads which seems a problem also why setting up the patsy this way, unless they stole  the rifle so late on the night of Nov 21/63 that they didn’t have time to shoot a few rounds , nor check the scope alignment and zero.

Oswald screwed the mount into the rifle stock himself

You think the scope mount was screwed to the rifle's stock not the rifle's chamber and by LHO because of an available drill press?


if the mount had been affixed by a competent gunsmith (alleged)then the mount would not have ever required any shims to align the scope.

Huh? Seriously? Really, this is what you think?

[Zeon Mason]

That’s a good point  from Jack, and it was a leap of speculation on my part about Oswald possibly using a drill press to screw the mount onto the rifle .

If it was that sloppy a job, then it would have been evident when they examined the rifle that the mount had not been attached by a gunsmith.

The only question left then is how probable it is that the scope of the MC rifle could  be banged into something such that it causes the scope to be only partially out of alignment relative to the fixed mount, yet able to be aligned once  the angle of the mount was changed by using shims.

If that’s a plausible option ( verified perhaps by an actual experiment) then it narrows the reasons for  the misalignment of the scope to either Oswald doing it or the conspirator doing it or the conspirator not knowing the scope was out of alignment.

However it could also have been a scope that was PREVIOUSLY banged/ damaged by Oswald many months prior to Nov 22/63, which would leave 2 options:

1. Oswald intentionally used the rifle and assembled the rifle with scope knowing it was out of alignment.
2. Someone else fired the rifle and did not realize the scope was out of alignment until time of shooting.
3. Someone else  fired the rifle and DID know the scope was out of alignment.
4. Someone else preplanted the rifle not intending to fire it, and either the scope was already misaligned, or it was damaged as the conspirator hid it wedged into the gap of some pallets stacked with boxes.

It’s seems improbable that a conspirator shooter with intent on firing an MC rifle that he stole from Oswald would not have checked out the alignment and  test fired a few shots before he used the rifle to shoot at JFK.

Theoretically the rifle could have been stolen from the Paines garage ( or Oswald’s boarding room) at least 8 hours before the assassination, thus there should have been time to check the condition of the rifle)

Would the conspirator shooter have waited until the very last hour to steal the MC rifle with intent to fire it, thus no time to check it out? It’s highly doubtful imo.

If the intent was just to set up Oswald by leaving the MC rifle , unfired and with a previously misaligned scope, then the purpose of the conspirators is just to cause a diversionary investigation of Oswald, not necessarily to slam dunk getting him to be found guilty by jury.

[Charles Collins]

That’s a good point  from Jack, and it was a leap of speculation on my part about Oswald possibly using a drill press to screw the mount onto the rifle .

If it was that sloppy a job, then it would have been evident when they examined the rifle that the mount had not been attached by a gunsmith.

The only question left then is how probable it is that the scope of the MC rifle could  be banged into something such that it causes the scope to be only partially out of alignment relative to the fixed mount, yet able to be aligned once  the angle of the mount was changed by using shims.

If that’s a plausible option ( verified perhaps by an actual experiment) then it narrows the reasons for  the misalignment of the scope to either Oswald doing it or the conspirator doing it or the conspirator not knowing the scope was out of alignment.

However it could also have been a scope that was PREVIOUSLY banged/ damaged by Oswald many months prior to Nov 22/63, which would leave 2 options:

1. Oswald intentionally used the rifle and assembled the rifle with scope knowing it was out of alignment.
2. Someone else fired the rifle and did not realize the scope was out of alignment until time of shooting.
3. Someone else  fired the rifle and DID know the scope was out of alignment.
4. Someone else preplanted the rifle not intending to fire it, and either the scope was already misaligned, or it was damaged as the conspirator hid it wedged into the gap of some pallets stacked with boxes.

It’s seems improbable that a conspirator shooter with intent on firing an MC rifle that he stole from Oswald would not have checked out the alignment and  test fired a few shots before he used the rifle to shoot at JFK.

Theoretically the rifle could have been stolen from the Paines garage ( or Oswald’s boarding room) at least 8 hours before the assassination, thus there should have been time to check the condition of the rifle)

Would the conspirator shooter have waited until the very last hour to steal the MC rifle with intent to fire it, thus no time to check it out? It’s highly doubtful imo.

If the intent was just to set up Oswald by leaving the MC rifle , unfired and with a previously misaligned scope, then the purpose of the conspirators is just to cause a diversionary investigation of Oswald, not necessarily to slam dunk getting him to be found guilty by jury.

It appears to me that the FBI demonstrated that Kleins mounted the scope by ordering the same model rifle and scope and finding that it was mounted exactly the same way. I would be willing to bet that both rifles had similar issues with being able to zero the scope at 100-yards. The issue was related to how much adjustment was needed versus how much adjustment was available in the cheap scope. The fact that the mount was offset to the left and well above the bore of the rifle caused more adjustment (from center) than would have been needed for a more typical mount (right above and closer in elevation) to the bore. I also think that if a “banging” caused the scope to be out of alignment, that it would be evident.



Mr. EISENBERG - Now, I now hand you a rifle which is marked C-250. Are you familiar with this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe it briefly?
Mr. FRAZIER - It is an identical rifle physically to the rifle Commission's Exhibit 139, in that it is the same caliber, 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano Italian Military rifle Model 91/38.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you attempt to determine by use of this rifle whether the scope was mounted on Exhibit 139 by the firm which is thought to have sold Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Would you repeat that, please?
Mr. EISENBERG - Yes.
Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you describe how you made that attempt?
Mr. FRAZIER - We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG - Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.
Mr. EISENBERG - On the----
Mr. FRAZIER - On the C-250 rifle.
When we received the rifle C-250, we examined the mount and found that two of the holes had been enlarged, and that screws had been placed through them and threaded into the receiver of the C-250 rifle.
The third hole in the mount had not been used.
We also found that an identical scope to the one on the Commission's rifle 139 was present on the C-250 rifle.
Mr. EISENBERG - Were the screws used in mounting the C-250 rifle in mounting the scope on the C-250 rifle type of screws as those used in mounting the scope on Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the holes were the same dimensions?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, they are. And the threads in the holes are the same.
Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Chairman, I would like C-250 admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 542.
The CHAIRMAN - It may be admitted.



https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_542.pdf