Next to Oswald's Rifle

[Martin Weidmann]

McCloy asks two questions and Frazier answers the second Question first.

Mr. McCLOY - were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn

"and"

Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted?,
Mr FRAZIER - the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?

JohnM

Regardless if it were two questions or one, Frazier never confirmed that the barrel was pitted.

Btw didn't "they" need to fire C2766 to produce the three shells by the window, CE399 and the two fragments in the Limo?

Of course, the question is when

[Walt Cakebread]

Pitting might be an example of the effects of corrosion, but Frazier never said he found pitting. In fact, he did say;

Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Since Frazier said that he did not find pitting, for a member here to even suggest that the corrossion or wear in the barrel was or could have been pitting is irresponsible.

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Thank you for posting Frazier's statement...." the corners were worn,"

Now take a good photo of "The magic bullet" ( CE 399) to a gun repair shop and ask the gunsmith if the barrel through which the bullet CE 399 had been fired was worn with the corners of the lands worn .......

The photo of CE 399 is of a bullet that has been fired through a barrel that was in good condition. 

[Bill Brown]

Pitting might be an example of the effects of corrosion, but Frazier never said he found pitting. In fact, he did say;

Mr. McCLOY - When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY - Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Since Frazier said that he did not find pitting, for a member here to even suggest that the corrossion or wear in the barrel was or could have been pitting is irresponsible.

Nice try, but No.

Zeon Mason said the rifle was rusty.

I then posted that Frazier never said the rifle was rusty, only that it showed the effects of corrosion and wear; huge difference.

Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part.  If the rifle barrel was rusty when found, then it would mean that the rifle had not been fired (since firing the rifle would have removed the rust in the barrel).  Big difference between rust and corrosion.  Like I said, all rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust (a point still totally lost on Walt Cakebread's dumb ass).

Then I basically said that the signs of wear and corrosion (like pitting) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot.  Rust?  Yes.  Pitting?  No.

Then you said "cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion".

I then responded to that with by saying that pitting inside the barrel would obviously not be removed no matter how many times the rifle had been fired (I mean, how do you remove holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel?).

Then you couldn't resist making another dumb ass comparison to one's claim that the barrel was rusty (which I called an irresponsible comment, which it was) to my stance that small tiny holes on the metal on the inside of the barrel is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired.

You also had to go and raise the dumb ass meter by posting a portion of Frazier's testimony which you had no idea how to read correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.

But, did you admit you were wrong to Mytton?  Of course you didn't.  You skirted right around it.

It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.

[Martin Weidmann]

Nice try, but No.

Zeon Mason said the rifle was rusty.

I then posted that Frazier never said the rifle was rusty, only that it showed the effects of corrosion and wear; huge difference.

Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part.  If the rifle barrel was rusty when found, then it would mean that the rifle had not been fired (since firing the rifle would have removed the rust in the barrel).  Big difference between rust and corrosion.  Like I said, all rust on steel is corrosion but not all corrosion on steel is rust (a point still totally lost on Walt Cakebread's dumb ass).

Then I basically said that the signs of wear and corrosion (like pitting) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot.  Rust?  Yes.  Pitting?  No.

Then you said "cite please for the first shot not removing the effect of corrosion".

I then responded to that with by saying that pitting inside the barrel would obviously not be removed no matter how many times the rifle had been fired (I mean, how do you remove holes in the metal of the inside of the barrel?).

Then you couldn't resist making another dumb ass comparison to one's claim that the barrel was rusty (which I called an irresponsible comment, which it was) to my stance that small tiny holes on the metal on the inside of the barrel is an example of corrosion that would not be removed when the rifle was fired.

You also had to go and raise the dumb ass meter by posting a portion of Frazier's testimony which you had no idea how to read correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.

But, did you admit you were wrong to Mytton?  Of course you didn't.  You skirted right around it.

It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.

Only a dumb ass would write such a dumb ass post.

Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part.

But true nevertheless. It's not my problem that you can't handle the truth and need to resort to insults.

Then I basically said that the signs of wear and corrosion (like pitting) would not be affected when the rifle fires off a shot.  Rust?  Yes.  Pitting?  No.

Frazier specifically said he found no pitting. I'm sorry if you don't like it. But then, recent experience has shown that you are pretty good at hearing/interpreting things people have not said....

You also had to go and raise the dumb ass meter by posting a portion of Frazier's testimony which you had no idea how to read correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.

But, did you admit you were wrong to Mytton?  Of course you didn't.  You skirted right around it.

But I read it correctly nevertheless, despite your dumb ass biased opinion. And I didn't have to admit to Mytton I was wrong because I wasn't and that clown only tried and failed to misrepresent Frazier's testimony.

And as far as skirting around it, it clearly is a subject youi know much about (as you do it so often) but even projecting isn't going to help you this time, as Frazier clearly answered the question "Was it what you would call pitted" with "No sir" and then moved on to answer the question about the lands.

Nice try though....

It is my humble opinion that no matter how much I think I know about a certain topic, there's always a possibility that somebody else knows more. I would love to discuss all details of this case with a conspiracy advocate who actually has an open mind as that would be beneficial to further my, and perhaps his, knowledge. Unfortunately, you are not that conspiracy advocate.

Get over your embarrassing debate performance soon, Bill. It's clouding your judgement and your anger is making you look foolish and bitter.

[Bill Brown]

Frazier specifically said he found no pitting. I'm sorry if you don't like it.

Again, you have no idea how to read Frazier correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.

[Bill Brown]

Then your dumb ass basically said I was playing word games, which is a.... well.... dumb ass comment on your part.

But true nevertheless. It's not my problem that you can't handle the truth and need to resort to insults.

A member here said the rifle barrel was rusty.

The rifle barrel was not found to have been rusty.

However, the barrel did show signs of corrosion.

Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.

This is only "word games" to one who has nothing else to fall back on.  It's not word games.  The rifle showed the effects of corrosion.
 That doesn't mean the barrel was rusty.  This matters.

[Martin Weidmann]

Again, you have no idea how to read Frazier correctly, as John Mytton pointed out to you.

Just like I have no idea how to interpret the audio recording of the DPD radio, right?  LOL

You're a funny man, Bill...

[Martin Weidmann]

A member here said the rifle barrel was rusty.

The rifle barrel was not found to have been rusty.

However, the barrel did show signs of corrosion.

Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.

This is only "word games" to one who has nothing else to fall back on.  It's not word games.  The rifle showed the effects of corrosion.
 That doesn't mean the barrel was rusty.  This matters.

Pitting (holes in the metal caused by rust over time) is an example of corrosion.

So, you keep saying, but you can not show where Frazier said he found pitting, so it's a pretty meaningless comment.

This also matters!