Fact check: Was a Mauser found in the Texas School Book Depository?


In this installment of the often excellent “50 Reasons for 50 Years,” Len Osanic says yes. I think the evidence says no. Decide for yourself. 

The YouTube episode focuses on the so-called “sniper’s nest,” the area next to the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) from which Lee Oswald allegedly fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle wounding Governor John Connally and killing President Kennedy. The piece makes some good and indisputable points — this area was not controlled after the shooting; the photographs that appear in the Warren Commission do not depict the space as it was found after the assassination; the boxes and the bullet shells were rearranged for the purposes of photography.

The most debatable point concerns the alleged discovery of a Mauser rifle in the TSBD. One deputy sheriff, Seymour Weitzman, wrote in his report the next day that he found a 7.65 Mauser and another deputy, Roger Craig, said that is was a Mauser. News footage shows officers handling an Italian-made Mannlicher Carcano rifle and no German-made Mauser was ever introduced as evidence. So the implication is that Dallas law enforcement made the Mauser — and evidence of second gunman — disappear.

But as Osanic’s first day footage makes clear there were a wide variety of TV reports about the type of rifle found. Confusion was obviously the order of the day.

Deception?

Rifle discovered

Gary Mack of the 6th Floor Museum, an institution that does not engage the JFK conspiracy debate, says that the Manlicher-Carcano was simply misidentified.

In an email Mack wrote:

“The rifle was misidentified by Sheriff’s deputies as a Mauser while it was still on the floor partly hidden by boxes. One of the two reporters on the floor at the time – Tom Alyea/WFAA-TV and Kent Biffle/Dallas Morning News – and one of them got word out to the newsroom and that’s how the Mauser name first appeared.

“Later, once [another Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day and then [Dallas Police Captain Will] Fritz got a close look at it, they weren’t sure what it was due to the vague markings which did, however, include the phrase “Made in Italy.: That’s when “Italian weapon” started appearing on the wires.

“After Fritz took it back to the crime lab for further examination, he still wasn’t sure what it was. He was asked to take it to Fritz’ office so, to prevent reporters outside his office from touching it, he held it over his head. Many news people got pictures of that moment including a KRLD-TV camera man. The original video tape is in The Sixth Floor Museum’s collection and the wall clock behind him shows 6:18 as Day told reporters what he knew about the weapon: 6.5mm, made in Italy, 1940. That’s all he said.

“So there were hours of vague information. The important thing to remember is that none of the sheriff’s deputies saw the rifle again and they were not privy to what the Dallas Police were doing. It’s no surprise to me that Weitzman the next day reported it was a Mauser since that is all that he knew, for that is what they thought when he was there.

I asked Osanic, host of Black Op Radio, to respond to the argument that this was a simple case of misidentification. He replied:

“If it was the case of a simple misidentification overheard by a newsman, then one should expect the initial reports to be consistent, much as the erroneous information of discoveries being on the fifth floor was uniformly presented for several hours. Instead, multiple rifles (makes and models) were featured on the airwaves, with the report of a British rifle being just the first of many.

“The Sixth Floor [Musuem] has an agenda to promote the Warren Report. Weitzman was there, he swore an affidavit that it was not only a Mauser, but model 7.65.

David Lifton, author of “Best Evidence,” notes that Seymour Weitzman later said his identification was an honest mistake. You can watch a YouTube of Weitzman’s comments here.

Sorting out the issue

For me, I see no other indication that a Mauser played any other role in the JFK story. For example, the forensic evidence doesn’t indicate a Mauser was used to fire on the presidential motorcade. I know of no other allegation that a Mauser was used on November 22, 1963. Given Weitzman’s explanation, I am inclined to accept this was a case of misidentification, amplified in the chaos of the immediate aftermath of the killing of president.

Watch Osanic’s video here:

258 comments

  1. Photon says:

    The Carcano has a Mauser-type action.

    • Ron says:

      Weitzman clearly changed his story. His sworn affadavit that he saw a German Mauser *after* the rifle discovery was not a ‘loose’ misinterpretation of the facts. He had to dictate the affadavit and present the truth. And that document corroborates deputy Craig’s statement to Mark Lane that, “stamped right on the barrel” were the words “7.65 Mauser”. How could two officers – one, Weitzman, who formerly owner a sporting goods store, have conceivably made such a gross error? Let’s not call a square a round hole here.

      • Dr TCH says:

        Ron: AMEN!!! The first or second weapon found was a Mauser. Besides, the three shell casings had been two which morphed into three (and there are two photos and police reports which document this). And, no ammo clip was found, which meant that the supposed sniper would have had to manually load the weapon. And, a rifle or carbine does NOT toss the casings into a nicely aligned group, but tosses them out a good distance away. As you suggest, Weitzman had been the owner of sporting good supply shop, and swore as to the type of weapon within a day or two. The whole assassination episode was fishy “from the word go.”

      • Reagan Jones says:

        Very well said. Malcolm Wallace was the other guy, why do so many writers on the subject such as Bill O’Reilly and Vincent Bugliosi seemingly miss this? Without understanding the John Kinser and Frank Marshall murders, and the testimonies made against Ed Clark, you simply are missing the largest piece of evidence in what happened to Kennedy. It was an LBJ inspired hit. I can’t understand why at this point, we’re still acting like that’s not clear.

      • Mike says:

        Absolutely correct. The video of one of the two officers is available online- watch it and you tell me. One of the first two officers on the scene (within 1.5 to 2 minutes) CLEARLY stated that they weapon was found, and held up by the strap, and Weitzman read it right from the barrel. “7.65 Mauser”. He also states that all 3 cartridges were lined up absolutely perfectly, sitting side by side. Staged scene? Probably. My guess would be that TWO rifles were used from the TSBD windows, thus easily explaining the success of one hit- the back shot- from 2 weapons. As we all know, the odds of JFK getting hit with the Carcano 2 out of 3 times is utter bull@#$, but one hit with 2 rifles and say, 5 shots total is probable.

    • PangurBantheCat says:

      I recently saw film footage of the Dallas police on the 6th floor of the school depository. They are holding two rifles, a Mauser and a Manlicher. I am going to have to wade through the numerous film footage I have been watching on YouTube to find it. But in this film footage is a black and white still showing the Dallas police with both a Mauser AND a Manlicher. I know, because I owned two Mausers and spenttim e extensively illustrating the bolt and trigger assembly of the Mauser. Something I spent hours on.

      • 4hundred says:

        I too have seen this footage/clip, it does shows two rifles in the initial TSBD search. It shows a rifle in the foreground and yet clearly a shadow of another rifle behind.. if the footage is real it crushes the official story…2 rifles on the 6th floor for the one shooter …can someone shed light on this?

        • Ian says:

          Where did you see the footage?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Ian, I’m interested in 6th Floor footage as well; in fact I’ve been scouring the net and asking other people if they recall seeing film footage of what was a re-enactment of the initial search of the alleged crime scene. It is not the original Alyea film that remains on the internet in various locations; This was a film shot sometime afterward and captures Will Fritz in left profile with his hat on, handing a rifle about shoulder (or a little higher) high off to a man somewhat shorter than he, and I believe that is was Lt. Day – short sleeved shirt, tie (maybe bow?) dark rimmed glasses whom we see in the Alyea film as well. I am 99% certain I viewed this on youtube last year, but have yet to relocate it. Foolishly I didn’t download it and save it to my files. If you’re familiar with what I am describing, I would appreciate hearing any comments or information you might share. There is a possibility it is the same film being described as revealing two rifles although I don’t remember a second rifle in the forefront of the images, but it may well be there. Tks. LS

          • Zeadee says:

            5 Series documentary called Evidence of Revision. Original footage of weapon discovery and first rifle was clearly a Mauser

          • Mike says:

            I saw it last night. There’s a guy who has a bunch of typical conspiracy videos, etc, but he has a TON of good videos embedded in them. If you watch his JFK videos, you’ll see it.

            I’ll try to get his youtube handle for you tonight and post it.

        • Paul says:

          Maybe a little light to shed is that it’s been written by a few conspiracy authors that there was indeed more than one shooter up there. That’s whay witness Arnold Rowland said, too. The names Mac Wallace and Loy Factor need to be researched as the öthers”besides Oswald who were there, that is, if Oswald was there at all.

          • Mike says:

            Could easily have been. There’s also a pic of the guy hanging out of the 5th floor of the TSBD building pointing violently at the Dal-Tex building, at the head of Dealey Plaza. I firmly believe that at least 4 positions were used. Dal-Tex, TSBD, and 2 grassy knoll “wall” positions. Anybody that sees that horrific pic of JFK with half his head gone cannot conclude that the shot came from the rear. It MUST have come from the front.

        • lasse says:

          In this youtube time it should be very easy to direct to those clips ?

    • Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

      Anyway, the key here is that the weapon found by Dallas Police and attributed to LHO is not the one the FBI said LHO ordered. The WC said he ordered a 36″ Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, and the Dallas Police found a 40″ short rifle. Moreover, the good store in Chicago where LHO supposedly ordered the rifle from, did not put scopes on the 40″ model. Yet the one in evidence had a scope. See Jim DiEugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland, pp. 56 ff.

  2. Dan says:

    I have seen information that the Carcano is a Mauser-type weapon manufactured by the Italians. The one that became part of the assassination story is actually a carbine rather than a rifle, meaning it is shorter than the rifle version. I have seen also seen information that the Carcano was issued to the German Home Guard established by Hitler in 1944 as a last ditch defense against the Allied invasion. Apparently a supply of the Carcanos was readily available to the Germans for this purpose.

    • Jonathan says:

      The rifle in the National Archives is the longer, 40.2″ model.

      Klein’s records appear to show it shipped the 36″ model to A. Hidell.

      • Dan says:

        For what it is worth, the Wikipedia article on the Carcano shows a photo of Commission Exhibit 139, which is identified as an “1891/38 Carcano short rifle” with a 20.9 inch barrel.

      • Mike says:

        Lol, I worked the bolt on one at the range the other day and they are indeed pure garbage. I can say with certainty there is NO way you could cycle the bolt and maintain any kind of target picture. Re-acquisition of a moving head would be nearly impossible twice within 6 seconds. Impossible.

    • leslie sharp says:

      At some point, I traced the trajectory of the shipment that included said Carcano. The data is fairly accessible I think, but unfortunately not at my fingertips at the moment. If memory serves, Savage Arms was involved in the shipping through NY, and disbursed the rifles to their wholesale/retail outlets including S. Klein. (I may be wrong about Savage – but if I am correct, it has superficial implications.)

      On the subject of the weapon, some peripheral research uncovered the Remington Arms firm had their Dallas office in the Meadows Building complex where DH Byrd’s wife held her offices. A founding member of the 6th Floor Museum was Gary Weber, who had just left duPont – parent co. of Remington – to open his own investment firm. I worked with Gary’s mother when we were moving hoards of members of the American Society of Petroleum Engineers and the brother organization for geologists to destinations like the Canaries – where Sid Bass had built a magnificent retreat whose architect was the husband of Patsy Swank, stringer for Life magazine who made the call to Dick Stolley.

      • Dan says:

        Could I ask about the Meadows Building complex that you mention? I have not heard of it before and would be interested in knowing what it is. Is Meadows the name of a person?

        • leslie sharp says:

          Located on North Central Expwy. near the SMU exit I believe. Al Meadows founded General American Oil. (I’m working from stream of consciousness/memory and not referring closely to my files or I would elaborate further.) For me the significance was Remington Arms/duPont and Gary Weber who would have had influence over the 6th Fl. Museum in the earliest days.

          I find that disconcerting, primarily because Gary was very young then and only known to insiders. His mother and I also worked with the wife of Bruce Calder who was a very close friend of Sam Ballens who interviewed Oswald at the behest of George deM.

          I had an interview scheduled with Ballen but he died before our schedules meshed.

  3. John Kirsch says:

    This doesn’t bear directly on this post but I wanted to again raise the question of whether anyone ever told the authorities that they saw Oswald himself fire a Mannlicher-Carcano or Mauser or any other type of weapon at the motorcade. I believe the answer is no, which means, I believe, that not only were there no eyewitnesses to Oswald (supposedly) firing at the motorcade, there was also no clear motive on Oswald’s part.

    • Jonathan says:

      Amos Euins, who was 15 years old at the time, saw a man fire a rifle from the sniper’s nest window. He told this to the Warren Commission. From the W.C.:

      SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don’t know whether he was a white man or a Negro? All you can say is that you saw a white spot on his head?

      Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.

      • John Kirsch says:

        Jonathan, thanks for passing this on. amos’s apparent inability to say for sure whether the man he saw was caucasian or a negro (to use the vocabulary of that time) and the white spot on the man’s head just underscores my point. maybe oswald was balding or maybe the light made the man amos saw appear to have a white spot on his head but it seems pretty clear to me that no one has ever been able to definitively put oswald in the “sniper’s nest” with a rifle in his hands when the shooting occurred.

      • leslie sharp says:

        I’m trying to remember the name of the witness known as “four eyes?” He was a metal or steel worker on the construction of the Republic Bank building but his firm was based in Birmingham AL if memory serves. The point being that his eyewitness account was debated because he wore very thick glasses; however I believe that his testimony influenced the Warren Commission as credible.

        • jorge con cuidados says:

          4 eyes was Lee Bowers

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Lee Bowers certainly wore thick-rimmed glasses, but he wasn’t a sheet metal or steel worker (I checked the web for his past employment – it says he was once a self-employed builder but I doubt they mean steel worker).

            Wasn’t there another witness who was watching on the south side of DP from a tall building that was being built?

            Could it be him?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Gerry Simone, metal worker Howard Brennan had been working on the Republic National Bank building project; he had past ties to Birmingham, AL. He was dubbed “four eyes” because of the glasses he wore in Dealey Plaza at the time he claimed to have seen a man in the TSBD window. His subsequent testimony was plagued with confusion and controversy.

          • Photon says:

            Thick glasses imply farsightedness. If Brennan was farsighted it would confirm his ability to identify Oswald.

          • Stanley says:

            Dr. Photon, now that you have rendered your medical opinion regarding the veracity of Mr. Brennan’s visual perceptions, would you recommend testing the hearing of the witnesses who heard reports from the GN in order to ascertain the veracity of their auditory perceptions?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Photo,

            You’re right, he was farsighted, but he wasn’t wearing glasses that day.

            >>
            Mr. BELIN. By the way, Mr. Brennan, I note that you have glasses with you here today.
            Were you wearing glasses at the time of the incident that you related here?
            Mr. BRENNAN. No. I only use glasses to see fine print and more especially the Bible and blueprint.
            Mr. BELIN. And have you had your eyes checked within the past 2 or 3 years?
            Mr. BRENNAN. These here were prescriptioned, I believe, a possibility less than a year before the incident.
            Mr. DULLES. Does that mean you are farsighted?
            Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
            >>

          • leslie sharp says:

            This exchange was related to whether or not Howard Brennan or Lee Bowers was known as “four eyes.” I’m fascinated that both photon and Jean Davison have jumped into the fray here. Brennan was known as ‘four eyes’ … whether or not he had his glasses on or off was not the argument.

            The ‘four eyes’ denotes a concern, not that he was near or far sighted, but whether or not he should have been considered a highly reliable witness. The following is but a small portion of his interview before the Warren Commission. I note an incredible level of “leading the witness,” and an equally high level of uncertainty in Mr. Brennan’s responses. The transcription should speak for itself ….

          • leslie sharp says:

            This is but one portion of the testimony before the WC of eyewitness Howard Brennan. The word count is as follows: (including the transcriptionist’s identification of the person speaking)
            Mr. Belin – 578 words
Mr. Brennan – 231 words
            . . . Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, on one of your interviews with the FBI, they record a statement that you estimated your distance between the point you were seated and the window from which the shots were fired as approximately 90 yards.
At that time did you make that statement to the FBI–and this would be on 22 November. To the best of your recollection?
Mr. BRENNAN. There was a mistake in the FBI recording there. He had asked me the question of how far the shot was fired from too, and also he had asked me the question of how far I was from the shot that was fired. I calculated the distance at the angle his gun was resting that he must have been firing 80 to 90 yards. Now, I–
Mr. BELIN. You mean 80 or 90 yards from where?
Mr. BRENNAN. From Kennedy’s position.
Mr. BELIN. But could you see Kennedy’s position?
Mr. BRENNAN. No; I could not. But I could see before and after.
Mr. BELIN. In that same interview, you stated that you attended a lineup at the Dallas Police Department at which you picked Lee Harvey Oswald as the person most closely resembling the man you observed with the rifle in the
            154
            window of the Texas School Book Depository, but you stated you could not positively identify Oswald as the person you saw fire the rifle.
Now, is this an accurate recording of the statement you made to the FBI on or about November 227
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I believe–
Mr. BELIN. In other words, that part of the FBI statement is correct, as to what you told them?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What was the fact as to whether you could or could not identify the person, apart from what you told them?
Mr. BRENNAN. Why did I–
Mr. BELIN. No.
What was the fact. Could you or could you not actually identify this person as the man you saw firing the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believed I could with all fairness and sincerity. As you asked me the question before, had I saw those pictures of Oswald prior, which ï naturally I don’t know whether it confused me or made me feel as though I was taking unfair advantage or what. But with all fairness, I could have positively identified the man.


          • leslie sharp says:

            Mr. BELIN. Now, on December 17 there appears to be another interview that you had with an agent of the FBI in which you at that time, according to this report, stated that you could now say that you were sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person you saw in the window at the time of the assassination, but that when you first saw him in a lineup you felt positive identification was was not necessary, because it was your understanding that Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Officer Tippit, and you also said that another factor was that you had observed his picture on television prior to the time of identification, and that that tended to cloud any identification you made of Oswald at the police department.
Now, does this December 17 interview accurately record what you told the FBI with regard to that matter of identification?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe it does.
Mr. BELIN. Now, later we have an interview on January 7 with the FBI in which at that time the interview records that while you were at home and before you returned to view the lineup, which included the possible assassin of President Kennedy, you observed Lee Harvey Oswald’s picture on television, and that you said that this, of course, did not help you retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle, but that upon seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the police lineup, you felt that Oswald most resembled the man whom you had seen in the window.
Now, is that what you told the man on January 7–that Oswald most resembled the man that you had seen in the window?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Does that mean you could not give him a positive identification at that time, but could merely say he most resembled the man in the window?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I felt that I could. But for personal reasons I didn’t feel like that at that moment it was compulsory and I did not want to give a positive identification at that time.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this last interview was on January 7th. You still felt these personal reasons as recently as January 7th, then?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. I felt better about it. This is the first guy that
Mr. BELIN. No. I am referring now to the last interview you had on January 7th, in which it says that you felt that Oswald most resembled the man you had seen in the window.
Is that what you told them?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Gerry, you may be thinking of Richard Randolph Carr working on the building under construction on the South East corner of Houston and Commerce.
          Buried somewhere I have a picture of it at the time with scaffolding around it.
          http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm?menu=JFKindex
          There is a link to the picture here which I can’t access as I’m not a member, but the article is interesting.
          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13705
          Fuzzy but that’s it in the upper right hand corner.
          http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=dealey+plaza&qpvt=dealey+plaza&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=805CE118BDF0F30F27F6DED685F1431C4334B3EC&selectedIndex=631
          http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49688/m1/1/med_res/

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Yes, that’s who I’m thinking of, but do we have his picture and does he wear thick-rimmed eye glasses?

            (Incidentally, my friend was next door neighbor to Norman Similas, who was a DP witness in the general knoll area, while visiting Dallas from Toronto, Canada for a convention).

          • Photon says:

            Who exactly ever called Brennan “four eyes”?
            My comment merely stated that thick spectacles ( concave lenses) are characteristic of far-sighted individuals who tend to have their distant vision preserved. But what evidence is there that Brennan had anything but 20/20 vision on Nov. 22? His sandblasting accident occurred WEEKS after the assassination .

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            His (older) picture is on the first link I listed, with glasses at that time. The last link was a find for me. A clear picture showing the construction stairs or elevator on the West side of the scaffolding which may have enabled him to see what he said he saw.

          • witness2history says:

            Howard Brennan was far sighted, which most people do not understand does NOT mean he saw better [than others do] at a distance. This condition is known as presbyoptic, and is very rare. Far sighted people in fact see worse than others at all distances, have to wear glasses to relieve eye strain, and only see better at distance than they do up close, which is very bad. Often eyestrain causes headaches and they see double. Brennan’s eyes were so bad that he could not tell if there were 4 or 7 people in the lineups. [there were 4]. On TV he wore glasses so his story about the using glasses only for reading the bible etc is a bald faced and obvious lie. His story about the sand blasting accident is 95% sure concocted. It has the air of an Arlen Specter fabrication. It is invalid at any rate because there is no testimony from an optician or from an optometrist. I rate Brennan as about 25% credible. He uses embellishments that make one blanche. His self aggrandizing, over-dramatizing book on the assassination is egregious. His boss said he was sequestered in a hotel room for 3 weeks where they “worked him over” and he was a nervous wreck when he came back. He was supposedly never the same and his hair turned white a year later. BTW his boss was a marine combat veteran who was on Elm Street, Sandy Speaker and he said there were five shots and he would got to his grave saying that. Marines BTW are trained specifically to count shots they hear, so this is good information.

        • KenS says:

          I’m impressed that Photon will vouch for Brennan’s eyesight. Here’s how Brennan describes the shooters clothing:

          Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what kind of clothes he was wearing?
          Mr. BRENNAN. Light colored clothes, more of a khaki color.

          This is how Arnold Rowland describes the clothing of the man holding a rifle on the sixth floor he saw:

          Mr. SPECTER – What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing?
          Mr. ROWLAND – He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a color such as that.

          Both describe a light colored shirt, and both have excellent eyesight! Oswald, however, was wearing a dark colored shirt that day. What do you think that means? I’m encouraged that Photon can be flexible when it comes to eyewitness testimony.

          • jeffc says:

            Moreover, as Walt Brown points out, Brennan was allowed by the Warren Commission to misrepresent where he was seated – claiming he was directly facing the TSBD when he was in fact further to his right and facing Main Street. He is seen in the Zapruder film shortly before the first shot, following the motorcade with his head turned sharply over his left shoulder – which undermines his account of observing the sixth floor window.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Eunis may have seen Loy Factor, who later admitted from his hospital room that he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. Factor is described by James Tague in his book as a “full-blooded Oklahoma Indian”. (Tague, of course, was the 3rd man injured during the assasination, and wrote “LBJ And The Kennedy Killing”.)

    • Dan says:

      J. Edgar Hoover told President Johnson in a phone call on 11/23/63 that as to Oswald “The evidence they have at the present time is not very very strong.” This audio tape was erased at some point, but a typed transcript survived with the above quote. An account of this is in the item called “The 14 Minute Gap” on the History Matters website.

      • That is a critically important & intentional erasure from 11/23/63 and it is the equal of the missing 18 minutes on the Watergate tapes (which were probably explicit references to CIA participation in the JFK assassination).

        • Gerry Simone says:

          There are obviously hiding something from the public.

          If they were speculating for the sake of argument, they would have said so.

    • leslie sharp says:

      GM: To add to that, if Oswald brought the Carcano into the building with the intention of shooting the president, was he prepared to be arrested so that he could achieve fame? Isn’t that the hallmark of psychopathic killers? Or did he want to survive in freedom so that he would live to kill again (ie. Walker attempt)? In which case, we had a serial political killer in our midst? Implausible.

      No, Oswald slowly and deliberately left the building, passing through the crowds possibly, went toward home – possibly shooting Tippit en route, possibly not – Tippit HAD to be murdered in order for the police to get the call to pursue Oswald, otherwise he was not on the radar with the exception of Truly identifying his absence within minutes of the murder – a point worthy of consideration btw.

      As posted earlier, this conspiracy has been studied by highly credible professors who teach courses about it in the best of universities, hundreds of books have been written, dozens of movies, thousands of interviews, tens of thousands of articles and two commissions.

      If you think about it, had Chapman (acting alone and suffering from a pathology) been successful in killing Reagan would any of the the above have ensued? No, the murder would have been written off as having been committed by a lone nut/psychopathic individual. Can we attach the same description to Oswald and let the case rest?

      In an “Oswald acted alone, with the Carcano” scenario, the only aspect of his murder of Kennedy which separates him from Chapman’s attempt on Reagan is that Chapman was in close proximity to Reagan. That is the only difference. And that defies logic. Why a 6 story perch, risking interference by fellow employees or a jammed rifle? Why the machinations to establish himself in the depository in the first place? He had skills beyond stacking and unstacking boxes which qualified him for better positions (a study of his history with the Texas Employment is worthwhile, and a review of his various interviews including Sam Ballen, close friend of George deM). Why the mail order rifle when he could walk into any store or buy one from the Minutemen? Why the nonchalance after the fact? Why did he want Kennedy dead? Why indeed.

      • John Kirsch says:

        leslie, your point about chapman being physically close to reagan brings up an interesting aspect of the jfk assassination, even though, of course reagan survived and kennedy didn’t. jfk was the only president who was assassinated by a person firing a rifle. all the other assassinations, lincoln, garfield, mckinley, were carried out by men with handguns who got physically close to their targets before firing. i’ve always thought, as a non-expert, that the use of a rifle implied that being able to fire from a place of concealment was important for the person who actually did the shooting. and it follows logically that if you want to fire from a concealed place, it’s because you want to get away. and if you want to get away, it follows, again, that you would have some reasonably well-organized plan for escaping. but oswald’s actions after the shooting seem erratic and even panicked. Actually, the RFK assassination falls much more neatly into the historic pattern of presidential assassinations than the JFK ambush.

        • leslie sharp says:

          JK: I agree about the RFK comparison except for the forensic evidence that suggests more bullets were fired. A poignant fact: the video of his last speech shows that as he was leaving the stage, he turned to his right and took several steps before he was stopped, redirected to the left and to his death.

          I think that the comparison between Chapman and Oswald is significant in spite of the fact that Reagan survived when viewed in the context of how the two men were assessed after the act, both being labeled pathological, lone nut killers. Therefore I believe it is essential to drop the “lone nut” designation when referring to Oswald because clearly he was no such individual. To use it is to join the cover up.

        • Richard Alexander says:

          I think it is an important point that JFK was also the only president who was targeted for assassination while he was riding in a moving vehicle. If you wanted to kill someone who is a passenger in a slow-moving convertible, would you stand on the side of a crowded street with a pistol and hope you could hit your target as he passed by, or get up high with a rifle where you could track your target before firing? Also, Kennedy might not have been Oswald’s first assassination target; he might have been the mystery assassin who attempted to murder Edwin A. Walker on April 10, 1963, using a rifle. Apparently, Oswald did not want to get close to his targets; hence, the rifle.

          • Jonathan says:

            The best shot I’ve ever known was my cousin, who could reliably bag pheasants and rabbits in an open field with .410 shotgun. Thing about a shotgun is, you’ve got to be good but not perfect.

            Oswald, according to the official story, had to be perfect on two tries and miss wildly on a third try.

            Perfect is one thing with open sights, no time constraints, and a fixed, highly visible target. As Oswald practiced against in the Marines with an M-1 rifle, a superb 30.06 semi-automatic weapon. Oswald was rated a sharpshooter and then a marksman. His shooting ability was not great in the Marines and went downhill.

            If one believes the official story, Oswald used a cheap rifle with poor lands and grooves, a difficult bolt action, and a misaligned sight to make his two perfect shots.

            My comments are: (a) Maybe he was lucky. (b) Try selling this story to a jury in a trial of Oswald.

          • Paul says:

            Remember, Richard, the motorcade had slowed to a near stop as it approached the grassy knoll area. JFK was akin to target practice for the shooters there.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Tks. I don’t know about you, but I see things sliding down a slippery slope when individuals like Epstein – with decades of study under his belt – begin to falter. Regardless of anyone’s inside knowledge of the man, he is well-regarded by many uninformed Americans and will influence this debate much the same as he has in the past.

      • Jonathan says:

        Yes, and to your point that “Tippit HAD to be murdered in order for the police to get the call to pursue Oswald,” Tippit’s killer left a billfold with Oswald’s ID and a Hidell ID at the murder scene.

        Re Chapman: He shot John Lennon. John “I did it for Jodie Foster” Hinckley, Jr. shot Reagan. Chapman is a very, very odd duck, though.

        • leslie sharp says:

          How embarrassing. I’ve been walking around thinking ‘what is niggling at me?’ and that was it! Many thanks, and mea culpa!

          I missed the billfold as well; does his having killed Tippitt change the theory entirely for you? It has been suggested that Tippitt was there for a reason and that Oswald presumed it was to shoot him, so he preempted him. Do you find that credible?

          In either scenario, the police could not have legitimately been en route to find Oswald without that incident (unless they were headed to Oswald’s rented apt?) and yet they seem to have been poised en masse to attack the Texas Theatre within minutes. The whole scene appears staged in my view.

        • Jonathan says:

          Tippit’s murder is truly the Rosetta Stone of the assassination mystery.

          No, I don’t believe LHO killed Tippet. One of many reasons: Tippit’s killer discarded a light-colored, medium-sized jacket Marina says wasn’t Oswald’s and could never, ever be tied to Oswald.

          The billfold ploy was also ¨sed to set up James Earl Ray. Crude b¨t effective.

      • Paul May says:

        From the time Oswald returned from Russia in June, 1962 his life had spiraled out of control. He literally had nothing left in November, 1963. Firstly I don’t believe Oswald wanted JFK dead specifically. He wanted the POTUS dead regardless of who it happened to be. Oswald believed in chaos. As for admitting the crime, I spoke with Robert Oswald in 1999. He believed Lee would ultimately have confessed to the crime had he gone to trial. He wanted celebrity in front of the entire world.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Not one aspect of your observation answers the thousands of questions about Oswald and events leading to the assassination.

          Ask yourself why this same in depth analysis was not made about Hinckley (thanks Jonathan!)

          Personally, I believe that sibling prejudice should be considered when accepting Robert’s statements. This could not have been easy on his family, and we know that from the outset after the assassination, Marina and Marguerite were being controlled. It is not implausible to think that Robert may have been as well.

        • If Oswald wanted infamous celebrity from the world, why did he consistently deny the crime and say he was a mere patsy?

          It’s not like he wrote Jody Foster a love letter, or said “Allahu Akbar” I’m doing this for the Prophet Muhammad. Let’s see what Marguerite Oswald said about her son Lee:

          “We are a patriotic family. All my three children volunteered for service in the armed forces. Lee wanted to enlist in the Marines at sixteen years old – he was rejected as being too young. But he was a member of the Cadet Aviation Corps, and they wanted to make him a pilot – the American Air Force doesn’t normally recruit young people whose patriotism is in doubt. An officer often came by the house to talk to Lee. That’s how he came to read Das Kapital; but at the same time he learned by heart the big wordy manual, The Perfect Marine. At seventeen, he enlisted, and his letters said he was happy. He was decorated. He did not receive a medal for being a sharp-shooter; it was his battalion which received that distinction … but the police and the press lied, making the world believe that my son was a champion rifle-shot.

          “I am sure that the Marines trained Lee to be a secret agent. True, he did not tell me so, nor does anyone say so today. But since when did secret agents tell their mothers what they were doing? Or the secret services acknowledge their members?
          “Lee was never in contact with the Communists. If he became a Marxist, it was because the Marines made a Marxist of him …
          “Lee decided all in a minute to go to Russia … as if he’d received an order. He, always so truthful with me, told me that he was going to get on a cargo-boat for Europe. How could he, in the two days he stayed with me after leaving the military base, have arranged so quickly to get a passport, a Soviet visa and a passage to Russia?

          [Nerin Gun, “Red Roses From Texas” p. 206]

        • Jonathan says:

          Oswald’s life didn’t spiral out of control; that’s false. He did not earn much money, but he loved Marina and June and Rachel. That counts for a WHOLE lot. In my book.

          Marina was frustrated (read her W.C. testimony) by his game-playing. I don’t place much stock in what she said then, because she was being leaned upon by the FBI (again, read her W.C. testimony). But Marina admitted to the W.C. she was playing Lee.

          A fair reading of Oswald’s action’s in 1963 suggests he was being used and manipulated by an intelligence agency.

          He was kept hungry, not well fed; although on 11/22/63 he left $170 in cash for Marina.

          Paul, either you are not a serious student of the JFK assassination or you seek to spread untruths.

        • John Kirsch says:

          I’ve always been struck by how calm and in control Oswald appears in the footage from the Dallas police headquarters. As for the theory that he wanted fame — i’ve seen photos of the motorcade where people were almost close enough to the president to shake his hand. If what Oswald wanted was instant fame (or rather infamy) why didn’t he take his handgun and walk up to the president and shoot him point-blank? Then the whole world would have seen what he had done. The notion of Oswald as fame junkie doesn’t fly.

          • G W Young says:

            Fame junkies are far more gratified by months of publicity while going through a trial with nation wide coverage that lasts for months.

            An attempt to simply walk up to Kennedy and shoot him with a pistol was unlikely to be successful with the security Kennedy had in Dallas.
            Being shot dead on the spot by secret service agents without acheiving his objective would not have accomplished any of Oswald’s goals.
            Being tackled and disarmed by some alert deputy then spending the rest of his life in prison for a failed assasination attempt would have made him a laughing stock.

    • Dr TCH says:

      What’s more, John…Oswald’s ownership of the carbine was tenuous…and the cheek GSR test came back negative, establishing that he had fired no weapon on that day. This was categorically a frame-job.

      • Morley Upright says:

        The paraffin test was unreliable, and produced both false positives and false negatives. Its only real use was to intimidate naive suspects into confessing.

        Did the Paraffin Test Show Oswald Had Not Fired a Rifle?
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Could this possibly be the hijacking of an old thread to distract from current topics. To flood the site with disinformation and distract it from relevant subjects? Could dr thc and not jeff morley be photon-paul may mack adams?

        • mball says:

          For anyone interested in the science of the paraffin tests and its history in the JFK investigation, try http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/paraffin_test.htm.

          • Jonathan says:

            As the article to which you link makes clear, the problem with certain (not all) nitrate tests was that they produced FALSE POSITIVES.

            NOT FALSE NEGATIVES.

            The reason for the FALSE POSITIVES with certain nitrate tests was that a chemical used to detect nitrate would react (detect) the same way with a number of other oxidizers.

            Here’s the logic as to why the DPD paraffin tests are crucially important: Oswald’s cheek tested NEGATIVE. That’s a TRUE NEGATIVE, given the test would only produce FALSE POSITIVES, not FALSE NEGATIVES. Oswald’s hands tested POSITIVE. Given the particular test, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to say whether the POSITIVE indication for the hands was an indication for nitrate or for some other oxidizer.

            Basic chemistry: In 1963, gunpowder consisted of potassium nitrate, powdered charcoal, and sulfur. Potassium nitrate has three oxygen atoms per molecule and is a decent oxidizer. There are many, many other common oxidizers, however. Today, for example, a lot of swimming pool chemicals are dagerously powerful oxidizers if used the wrong way.

            BOTTOM LINE; The paraffin tests done on Oswald are CONCLUSIVE that he didn’t fire a rifle and INCONCLUSIVE as to whether he fired a pistol.

          • Photon says:

            simple question-if the paraffin test was so reliable, why was the first facial paraffin test done by the DPD done on L.H.Oswald?
            Really-a test that only has false positives, but never false negatives? Even forgetting the mountains of published data on how unreliable the test was, how rational is it to believe that any test is 100% conclusive when it is negative, but never conclusive when it is positive?

        • bogmann says:

          And from the DPD’s own notes, Oswald correctly predicted the paraffin test would be negative, saying:

          “What are you trying to prove with this paraffin test, that I fired a gun? . . . You are wasting your time.”

          http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

          Amazing prophecy, eh?

          And we all know that if the paraffin test had turned out positive, it would be considered Exhibit 1 proving Oswald’s guilt by lone nutters. Because all other evidence is circumstantial.

          • Pat Speer says:

            I spent some time looking into the paraffin test question some years back, and dug a lot deeper than anyone had up until that time.

            I discuss it at length, here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention

            I can summarize it as follows:

            1. The paraffin test was not particularly reliable. The negative test for Oswald’s cheek was not a reliable indicator of his innocence. This didn’t stop the FBI from pretending, early on, in the days after the shooting, that paraffin tests were reliable, of course. But that changed once Mark Lane found out the cheek test was negative. Then, all of a sudden, the FBI said paraffin tests were meaningless. (They were nevertheless used to convict suspects for years afterward. Go figure.)
            2. The paraffin test for Oswald’s cheek was, however, supportive that Oswald did not fire a rifle. As stated elsewhere, false negatives were less common than false positives.
            3. The neutron activation analysis of the paraffin casts is a different story. NAA for gsr is not performed as often as it was in the past, but that’s because cheaper tests have become popular. NAA tests are still legally admissible, both by the defense and by the prosecution.
            4. The NAA tests suggested Oswald did not fire a rifle. NAA tests for gsr are specific to two components of gsr, barium and antimony. Both components must be present in significant levels to achieve a positive result. Oswald’s cheek cast did not have enough antimony for a positive result. It did, however, have enough barium. The problem, however, is that the control side of the cast–the part of the cast which never touched Oswald’s face–had even more barium. The FBI used this to claim the test was tainted and inconclusive. They should have investigated how this came to be. The paraffin casts were taken home by a DPD employee as a souvenir. He returned them with the knowledge they were going to be tested for gsr. He was not told how this would be done, and if the back side of the cast would be used as a control. It seems quite possible, then, that the DPD tried to add barium to the cast and create a positive result, and that it backfired.
            5. But that’s not the only thing that smells about all this. The VERY LAST person to testify before the Warren Commission was John Gallagher, the FBI agent who’d supervised its tests on the paraffin casts. This was but days before the report of the commission was published. He was allowed to read from an FBI report written months earlier, and pretend it was his personal testimony. At no point in his testimony is it acknowledged he is reading from a report. When one follows the timeline of events described on my webpage, moreover, it’s clear Gallagher is only testifying because Dr. Vincent Guinn had spoken publicly about the tests, and the WC was trying to save face. They’d been told about the tests months before, but had apparently decided it was best if the public not know about them. To wit, they asked Gallagher about the tests, and he told them they were inconclusive. No data from these tests was provided.
            7. Many years later, however, as a result of a FOIA lawsuit, Harold Weisberg was provided some of the data from the AEC. They’d performed the tests for the FBI. They’d hired Dr. Vincent Guinn to fire M/C rifles and see if they leaked gsr onto cheeks, and if there should have been gsr on Oswald’s cheek, if he’d fired a rifle. Guinn concluded that gsr should have been present. He’d provided this info to the FBI.
            8. So here’s where things get a bit sticky, particularly for the FBI. When Cunningham testified to the WC about the paraffin tests months before Gallagher testified about the NAA tests, he not only said paraffin tests were not reliable, he said he wouldn’t expect to find gsr on the cheek of a man who’d fired a rifle anyhow. Well, he said this AFTER Gallagher had been told the results of Guinn’s tests, the results suggesting gsr should have been present. So he was almost certainly LYING. Now, why do I say that? One, he testified as to his personal expectation; those familiar with the FBI’S MO know that FBI agents are supposed to testify as to the results of tests etc and not answer questions about their personal expectation. There’s also this…the notes for the NAA tests handed over to Weisberg included the initials of the FBI agent firing Oswald’s rifle for the tests, including one designed to confirm that Oswald’s rifle leaked gsr. These initials were RF. This was undoubtedly Robert Frazier. the FBI’s ballistics expert, Cunningham’s partner.
            9. So, yeah, the historical record is highly suggestive that both the FBI and the WC’s staff knew tests had been conducted which suggested Oswald did not fire a rifle, and that they conspired to hide this from the public. It suggests further that they only decided to acknowledge these tests after Dr. Guinn opened his mouth about them, and that they then sought to spin the results to suggest the tests were meaningless. To wit, Gallagher claimed the tests showed that Oswald had more gsr on his cheek than a person would have if he’d recently washed his cheek. Well, no one said he’d washed his cheek. More importantly, however, they failed to put Gallagher’s test results into evidence, and ignored Dr. Guinn altogether.
            10. The irony, however, is that Oswald’s cheek cast was taken 8 hours after the shooting. The plentiful residue on his hands suggests that he didn’t lose much gsr in this time. But we can’t say for sure. And that, combined with the fact the casts were purportedly rinsed off and then taken home, should lead us to accept that the NAA tests on the casts are suggestive of Oswald’s innocence in killing Kennedy, but guilt of killing Tippit. And that the DPD, FBI, and WC sought to hide this from the public.

  4. Joe G. says:

    Weizmann and Fritz told the Warren Commission it was a Mauser. The rifle was clearly stamped 7.65mm while the Carcano was clearly stamped “Made in Italy.” Roger Craig said that it was pointed out at the time that the rifle had “7.65mm” stamped on it. A report was made indicating it was so; incidentally, no corresponding report coming from the Dallas police ever said it was a Carcano. There is also the interesting fact that the Mauser is a much more plausible weapon to be used in an assassination scenario and the AARB turned up an envelope from the Dallas FBI office indicating a 7.65mm shell had been found in Dealey Plaza. The rifle became a Carcano because that was the rifle Alex Hidell ordered.

  5. Harry says:

    From Micheal T. Griffith: Extra Bullets and Missed Shots in Dealey Plaza:

    “Among the files released by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was an FBI evidence envelope (FBI Field Office Dallas 89-43-1A-122). Although the envelope was empty, the cover indicated it had contained a 7.65 mm rifle shell that had been found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting. The envelope is dated 2 December 1963, so the shell was found sometime between 11/22/63 and 12/2/63. Nothing was known about the discovery of this shell until the FBI evidence envelope was released along with other assassination-related files.”

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Oh for crying out loud, if Craig says a Mauser was found on the roof, that would be the corresponding shell, unless there are records of a separate shooting incident from the TSBD.

      Thanks for the reminder.

      THIS REVELATION AROUND 1964 WOULD HAVE PUT A WRENCH IN THE WC!*

      *(No wonder the files were sealed).

  6. Jonathan says:

    Was a Mauser found at the TSBD?

    The facts are that the police reports filed said a Mauser was found.

    Four police officers initially said a Mauser was found: Boone, Craig, Fritz, and Weizmann. Boon, Fritz, and Weizmann changed their tune and went on to have good careers with the DPD. Roger Craig never changed his tune and wound up shooting himself to death in the chest with a rifle.

    • Paul May says:

      Your implication being? Roger Craig had deep personal as well as psychological issues. No surprise about his suicide.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Paul, surely you’re uncomfortable going down the suicide trail?

        • Paul May says:

          Are you referring to Craig? If so Leslie please post anything relevant showing something else.

          • leslie sharp says:

            No. I haven’t followed the Craig debate closely. My reference was to suicides relating to the assassination given that you broached the subject.

          • Paul May says:

            Leslie, no doubt you are familiar with Mary Ferrell. Mary had a relationship of sorts with Gary Craig. Here is what Mary had to say:

            I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief
            that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a
            very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with
            some of the “stories” he told following the events of that November
            weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and,
            possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of
            the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig. When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that “they” prevented him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger
            did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had
            “seen something or other.”
            I have made enemies because I have continued to say that I have never
            really believed him.
            Mary Ferrell

            I had the opportunity to chat with Mary several times before her untimely death. Craig came up several times in conversation. Mary sounded almost embarrassed by Craig’s activities.

          • Paul May says:

            Apologies Leslie. I mean Roger Craig, not Gary. Mea Culpa :-) .

          • mball says:

            I’m aware of Craig’s psychological problems that developed in the wake of the assasination, but there were other witnesses to his claim of seeing a man come down the grassy area between the TSBD and the street and get into a Nash Rambler wagon. I’ve always believed that part of his story.

          • Michael Hogan says:

            What evidence exists to confirm that Mary Ferrell actually said that about Roger Craig?

      • Jonathan says:

        All right, Paul.

        Whatever version of history you wish.

        Please tell: In your view how many shots were fired, and from where, so as to account for (a) JFK’s wounds, (b) Connally’s wounds, and (c) Tague’s wounds.

        • Paul may says:

          Three shots from above and behind because that is what the available evidence shows us.

          • George Simmons says:

            There is much evidence which suggests the head shot came from the front.
            Multiple witnessess at the scene stated they believed the shots came from the grassy knoll.
            The doctors at Parkland Hospital, describing a entrance wound to the neck, and an exit wound to the head.
            Governor Connollys insistence that the single bullett theory was incorrect, and that the bullett which hit him was not the bullett which hit the president.
            The Zapruder film.

          • Paul says:

            sadly, the Warren Commission, via the FBI, made sure that no “available” evidence of more than one shooter would be made official. They had to work hard to cut off the “available” evidence.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            A lot of the available evidence is either questionable OR can lead to a different conclusion or raise reasonable doubt.

      • Paul says:

        I’m not sure which way to go on Roger Craig’s involvement. He was highly honored for his police work prior to 11-22-63. I’m not ready to believe he committed suicide.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        That’s right. Everybody involved in the assassination, or who had something to say that was opposite the WCR, was either a lone nut, acting spontaneously, or mentally-disturbed.

        Roger Craig’s story has some corroboration or jives with others.

        Poor guy probably suffered anxiety and the like from feeling like an outcast.

    • John McAdams says:

      Fritz denied to the WC that he had said “Mauser,” although Boone said he thought Boone said that.

      Craig most certainly changed his story. This is an interview in the March 1968 Los Angeles Free Press. FP is “Free Press,” PJ is “Penn Jones,” and RC is “Roger Craig.”

      Craig Interview

    • Paul Turner says:

      I’m not sure Craig shot himself…I know many have said so, but Jamesd Tague reports in his bok LBJ AND THE KENNEDY KILLING(p. 146) that Craig’s nephew told him(Tague)of evidence Craig had been murdered, while Craig’s sister thought he was trying to kill himself.

    • Paul Turner says:

      I don’t think we’ll know what really happened to Craig. In James Tague’s book LBJ And The Kennedy Killing, he writes that Craig’s nephew had information pointing to his uncle being murdered, but Craig’s sister said it was suicide. Back to square 1.

  7. leslie sharp says:

    Didn’t the Dallas force immediately get in touch with the S, Klein’s manager who was able, very quickly, to trace the life of the gun? Or am I confusing that time line?

    If so – and with all that should have been done – to stop and trace the rifle (to establish a paper trail for a press release?) seems odd.

    I’m feeling the presence of Vince Salandria …. ‘they will wear you down!’

  8. Ian Griggs, who believes a conspiracy killed JFK, says it was a Mannlicher-Carcano that was found- which does not mean that it was used in the JFK assassination.

    For years I believed Roger Craig’s account of a Mauser, but I may be leaning more to a Mannlicher-Carcano being found (planted) on 6th floor TSBD:

    http://www.amazon.com/No-Case-Answer-Ian-Griggs/dp/0977465705/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1365540398&sr=8-1&keywords=ian+griggs+no+case+to+answer

  9. leslie sharp says:

    RM: Have you studied the period when Oswald was in NYC? Aside from the theory that there was both a Lee and a Harvey, that stage of Oswald’s life would have been crucial in his development.

  10. leslie sharp says:

    Jonathan: I now realize your point about the billfold. A very solid piece of evidence, and yet a very careless mistake by Oswald, the man who contrived to kill Kennedy, the man whose motive was to “create chaos.”

    • Paul May says:

      Leslie, Jonathan actually brought up the suicide issue regarding Craig. I simply responded to it. For myself, it’s not a matter of comfort in discussing various subjects. Craig has been endorsed over the years by various conspiracy theorists as a reliable source on the events of 11/22 concerning the Carcano versus Mauser issue.

    • Jonathan says:

      Leslie,

      When Oswald was taken at the Texas Theater, he was found to be carrying his own wallet, containing a library card for someone else.

      The Tippit crime scene holds the key to the ground-level events on 11-22-63.

      Imagine you’re a plotter. You have two basic objectives. Kill JFK. Frame a patsy. And maybe a third objective: make it look like the patsy was working for the soviets or for Castro.

      JFK has to be killed. Not because of Cuba. But because he is seeking to end the Cold War (a dangerous matter c. 1963).

      With JFK out of the way, the path is clear for the Georgetown crowd to plough into Viet Nam.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Jonathan: So we agree that Tippitt had to be murdered – that he was called to the location where someone was waiting, and that someone shot him, planted a billfold that would incriminate Oswald and fled – meanwhile, Oswald was en route to his boarding house to get … what? … change clothes or? and proceeded to the Texas Theatre where he had been instructed to rendezvous with someone who was going to get him out of the city (thinking of the idling plane at Red Bird if that has been validated)? If I were writing this movie, that’s how it would play.

        Now, I would like to hear a specific rebuttal to this theory, evidence that proves this did not happen.

        • Bill Pierce says:

          >>Now, I would like to hear a specific rebuttal to this theory, evidence that proves this did not happen.<<

          Obviously no one can disprove your theory. Unfortunately your theory requires clairvoyance and a lot of luck. And it doesn't make much sense.

          This all had to be preplanned, right? How could the conspirators know that Oswald would not be locked down at the TSBD? How could they know that he wouldn't get trapped in a traffic jam?

          Did they choose Tippit beforehand? How did they lure him to the scene? How could they be sure that Tippit would stop their guy? How did they know that Tippit's murder would be witnessed? Did the conspirators know that Oswald's revolver had been rechambered to fire .38 specials, and did they supply a similarly modified weapon to the guy who killed Tippit? What are the odds? How did they know that Oswald would arm himself at his rooming house? If he weren't carrying a gun, wouldn't that have been a problem?

          How did they know that a shoe store clerk would see someone who looked like Oswald sneaking into the theater? What if the clerk was busy with something else? What if it was raining? How would that affect their plans? (At one point I had a list of about fifty such questions.)

          Reality: The shoe store clerk identified Oswald at the theater. Under interrogation Oswald admitted that he was carrying a gun when arrested. (He never accused the police of planting it.) The gun matched the mail order weapon and it matched the type of worn and modified weapon used in Tippit's murder. There are better, simpler theories for Oswald's actions after 1:00 o'clock. There's no reason to make him innocent of Tippit's murder. (Hint: Don't get stuck on Martino's story. Conceivably he was just filling in some missing blanks to make sense of the plot as he knew it.)

        • Bumber says:

          On the flip side – Prove this did happen?

          But in answer to your post, the amount of room for error in everything happening the way you say is massive. If you were going to risk all this then it would have been easier to wait for Oswald to fire the last shot and throw him put the window to make it look like a murder suicide. He had previous suicidal tendencies. It doesn’t make sense to let your “patsy” walk around town catching buses and taxi’s.

      • Paul says:

        I really wonder if LBJ believed his own words when he said the attacks on the Maddox and Turner Joy ships was enough evidence to begin the escalation of our soldiers into Vietnam.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          The escalation of our soldiers in Vietnam had been going on since 1961 and by 1963 had increased from less than 1,000 to around 17,000. Like it or not, that is an escalation. Johnson continued this low level escalation for over a year before the communist forced him to fish or cut bait.

          The attack on the Maddox was in fact real. LBJ and McNamara had time to know that the Turner Joy attack was suspect. I suspect that they did know.

          • Jonathan says:

            You would have everyone here believe LBJ merely carried on JFK’s policies in Viet Nam until he shifted gears into full-blown war.

            This is a distorted view.

            Roughly until 1-1-64 (or the death of JFK in late 1963), U.S. military activity in Viet Nam was confined to advisory efforts in the South. Beginning in 1964, the Special Operations Group (SOG), consisting of American special operators attached to the Fifth Special Forces Group, began conducting cross-border operations into North Viet Nam (and Cambodia and Laos).

            These were anything but advisory in nature. They were in the case of North Viet Nam hostile incursions, involving American and indigenous forces. These incursions, which involved recon and prisoner snatching, were also not of a defensive nature. They were offensive in nature and highly secret.

            LBJ approved the secret SOG cross border offensive operations. JFK did not.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            When I read the following, it seems that the Maddox had it coming. It wasn’t an innocent bystander vessel.

            Responding to this escalation, President Johnson approves Operation Plan 34A, CIA-run covert operations using South Vietnamese commandos in speed boats to harass radar sites along the coastline of North Vietnam. The raids are supported by U.S. Navy warships in the Gulf of Tonkin including the destroyer U.S.S. Maddox which conducts electronic surveillance to pinpoint the radar locations.

            July 1, 1964 – General Maxwell D. Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is appointed by President Johnson as the new U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam. During his one year tenure, Taylor will have to deal with five successive governments in politically unstable South Vietnam.

            President Johnson also appoints Lt. Gen William C. Westmoreland to be the new U.S. military commander in Vietnam. Westmoreland is a West Point graduate and a highly decorated veteran of World War II and Korea.

            July 16-17 – Senator Barry Goldwater is chosen as the Republican nominee for president at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. During his acceptance speech Goldwater declares, “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

            Goldwater is an arch conservative and virulent anti-Communist whose campaign rhetoric will impact coming White House decisions concerning Vietnam. Above all, Johnson’s aides do not want the President to appear to be ‘soft on Communism’ and thus risk losing the November presidential election. But at the same time, they also want the President to avoid being labeled a ‘war monger’ concerning Vietnam.

            July 31, 1964 – In the Gulf of Tonkin, as part of Operation Plan 34A, South Vietnamese commandos in unmarked speed boats raid two North Vietnamese military bases located on islands just off the coast. In the vicinity is the destroyer U.S.S. Maddox.

            August 2, 1964 – Three North Vietnamese patrol boats attack the American destroyer U.S.S. Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin ten miles off the coast of North Vietnam. They fire three torpedoes and machine-guns, but only a single machine-gun round actually strikes the Maddox with no causalities. U.S. Navy fighters from the carrier Ticonderoga, led by Commander James Stockdale, attack the patrol boats, sinking one and damaging the other two.

            Seriously, if JFK wouldn’t support the losing rebels on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs, would have gotten fully into this deteriorating situation?

          • Photon says:

            Jonathan , how do you know JFK did not authorize similar operations?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jonathan May 13, 2014 at 6:46 pm

            The only distorted view here belongs to you, Jonathan.

            From the death of JFK until March of 65 (some 15 months) LBJ did as JFK did in Vietnam. He continued sending “advisers” and equipment and material to SVN. I’m sure “Jack” was cold in his grave by March of 1965.

            With the MACV command in 1962 this pretense of our troops as “advisers” pretty well went to hell in a hand basket. Even the Kennedyphilic books such as John Newman’s have given up on this bit of propaganda. We were losing Americans in the air and on the ground. Why? Because they were engaging in combat.

            You don’t know what JFK approved or didn’t approve. Do you know for sure those 400 Special Forces boys never crossed a border? Neither do I. But I have a good guess.

          • Jonathan says:

            To Photon and Bill Clarke:

            So, LBJ was just carrying on JFK’s policies in Viet Nam? Believe that if you wish.

            BTW, Photon, we know JFK did’t authorize SOG cross-border operations because SOG didn’t come into being until 1964.

            BTW, Bill Clarke, you can SPECULATE that the S.F. forces in SVN in 1962 and 1963 engaged in purposeful cross-border recon and snatch operations. You can speculate all day. A reasonably informed person would ask: Why then was SOG formed?

            Bil Clarke, you claim to know a lot more about Viet Nam than I. Yet you pick at the fact that American advisers were getting killed in Viet Nam — for example at Ap Bac in early 1963. Bill, I believe you don’t understand, or otherwise you’re misrepresenting here, what those advisers were doing. Sure they were going into combat with ARVN units, but not for the purpose of being warriors against the Viet Cong. Their job, as you either know or don’t know, was to try to increase the fighting efficiency of the ARVN troops.

            JFK NEVER gave a signal that he intended to inject U.S COMBAT FORCES, such as the 1st Marines or the 1st Air Cav, into Viet Nam and to take over the war there. Quite the opposite as one gleans clearly from NSAM 263. Quite the contrary as one gleans from the neutrality deal JFK worked out in Laos. It’s LBJ who lusted for American control of the war in Viet Nam.

            It’s not my view that’s distorted, Bill, it’s yours.

            The country didn’t have any of this during the JFK administration:

            “Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Jonathan May 15, 2014 at 10:52 am

            I will believe that LBJ continued doing just what Kennedy had been doing until you show me different. So far you haven’t done so, your misunderstanding of Special Operations in Vietnam included. See below for shoot down of your SOG argument.

            Your wrong answer to Photon: You don’t seem to know the history of these operations. Just because they didn’t name it SOG until 1964 doesn’t mean that the same type of operations was not being run before 1964. I don’t know what you think SACSA was doing under Krulak in 1962 and 1963 but I’d expect a conspiracy buff to suspect the worst, not the best. Pardon the Wikipedia reference but it serves the purpose in this case.

            “The Special Operations Group (as the unit was initially titled) was in fact controlled by the Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities (SACSA) and his staff at the Pentagon.a This arrangement was necessary since SOG needed some listing in the MACV table of organization and the fact that MACV’s commander, General William Westmoreland, had no authority to conduct operations outside territorial South Vietnam. This command arrangement through SACSA also allowed tight control (up to the presidential level) of the scope and scale of the organization’s operations.[1] “

            “1.^a These officers included Major Generals Victor H. Krulak, USMC (1962–1964)”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Assistance_Command,_Vietnam_%E2%80%93_Studies_and_Observations_Group

            I’m not speculating about Special Operations in Vietnam. I’m stating the history of it. You should learn some. Come on Jonathan, aren’t you a military man? You should know how the military works. Everything is rocking along fine and then someone comes up with a new alphabet soup lettered new command name or a new Task Force or whatever. The formation of the MACV command in 1962 caused a lot of new names. But you knew that.

            The First Marine Division or the 1st Cav Division are military UNITS. And you are correct; JFK did not send combat UNITS to Vietnam. Neither did LBJ for 15 months after the assassination of JFK. But JFK did send individuals that did in fact engage in ground combat. This is a fact. The air combat role we played is undeniable.

            Jonathan: The country didn’t have any of this during the JFK administration

            Yes they most certainly did. You just didn’t know about it.

            Jonathan: “Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?”

            Now I see where you get your Vietnam history.

  11. Jason L. says:

    I tend to agree that the clip is probably a more interesting story than the Mauser. The fact is that the clip should have fallen out of the gun as soon as the last round was chambered, so the pictures showing the gun with the clip in are head scratchers.

  12. leslie sharp says:

    Paul: I wasn’t familiar with the Mary Ferrell story. And of course suicides are committed by some who fell within the parameters of the Kennedy assassination. I do believe that each should be scrutinized closely. Thanks for this info on Craig.

  13. leslie sharp says:

    PM: One last question: Was Craig the sole source of testimony about the Mauzer-Carcano confusion? I may not be following this closely enough when it’s clearly significant.

    • Paul May says:

      Craig maintained his story until 1968 when he did an interview with the Los Angeles Free Press. During the interview he was asked if he had handled the rifle. His response:

      Roger Craig was interviewed in 1968 by the Los Angeles Free Press. In that interview he was asked if he handled the rifle. This was his response:

      “Yes, I did. I couldn’t give its name because I don’t know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south.”

      When Craig was interviewed for “Two Men in Dallas,” Craig claimed “7.65 Mauser” was actually stamped on the barrel. So which is it?

      So much ambiguity from Craig Leslie.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Paul: tks. It would have been extremely inconvenient for there to have been two rifles, less so for there to have been one which was misidentified, and more curious for either or both to have been left in the location to have been readily found. Authors of chaos were indeed present, but Oswald was not an author, he was a character in their story.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Paul, do you deliberately omit the last sentence in your quote of the LA Free Press article? Or was it just a big mistake?

        Roger Craig :Yes, I did. I couldn’t give its name because I don’t know foreign rifles. I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built–in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. ***But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon.*** (Gerry’s emphasis added)

        SOURCE => http://22november1963.org.uk/roger-craig-when-they-kill-a-president

  14. leslie sharp says:

    Jonathan: It’s critical to include in any argument involving Marina the details of where she was in the immediate aftermath of the assassination and who she was with. After one night in a hotel near the LBJ Freeway – and I believe (do not quote me yet on this) that she encountered Dick Stolley in this location – she was moved to Six Flags Over Texas which was owned by the Wynne family. As I’ve pointed out before, there were literally dozens of hotels with ample security and obscurity between LBJ and Arlington, so the choice of Six Flags had to have been based on something. I think it was PD Scott who first made this connection. A counter argument could be made that it was close to the Paine’s home, but that in and of itself introduces a further and obvious curiosity.

    • Jonathan says:

      Leslie,

      Marina is key.

      In 1964, she nailed her husband. When shown the purported Carcano, told the W.C., “the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald”, at which point Earl Warren “admits” the rifle into evidence.

      She told the W.C. she never saw Lee practicing with the rifle.

      In recent years, Marina has said LHO was innocent. June has said, let’s see the facts. I applaud June.

      • leslie sharp says:

        That is a display of courage suggesting there is hope for the future of their descendants.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Do you remember The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder?

        He interviewed one of Oswald’s daughters (could’ve been June but I can’t recall for sure).

        It was right after the O.J. Trial!

        Accordingly, she was comparing to that trial and felt that if they found reasonable doubt for O.J. Simpson, that they easily would’ve found that for her father, had he gone to trial.

  15. common sense says:

    Well, I see that the conspiracy Wolkenkuckucksheim is well populated. Jonathan, please explain to us why witnesses to the Tippit murder identified Oswald as the murderer out of not one, not two, but three separate police lineups. Please tell us why Marina’s comment about the jacket has any bearing whatsoever when she wasn’t even living with him but the housekeeper who was identified it? Isn’t it much more likely that Oswald got rid of his billfold so as to not have ID on his person, rather than to have some conspiracy secretly plant it while a half dozen witnesses were standing by? Was some secret ray gun used to blind them and at the same time cause mass hyteria so that they would pick the same innocent guy out of multiple lineups? If this Mauser nonsense is so significant why was Walter Cronkite reporting that the weapon was a “Manlicther Charcono” within 6 hours of the assassination? That’s on YouTube. All of the networks reported that a secret service agent was killed in the shooting. Where is the body? Why are they covering that up? Could it be that in the moment THEY MADE A MISTAKE? Could it be that multiple police officers who had never even heard of a Carcano but who had seen Mausers (one of the most common European bolt-action rifles) might mistake the similarly appearing Italian rifle for being one? Leslie Sharp, if you don’t know about Oswald’s time in NYC and that school district’s identification of Oswald as a sociopath you might want to study it. It is a classic story of an alienated loner with severe psychological issues-hardly a candidate for any conspiracy, or frankly any close human interaction.

    • Jonathan says:

      Hey, common sense. You want to communicate to me?

      Use elegant grammar.

    • leslie sharp says:

      CS: I am well informed about Youth House. I have tracked his doctor(s). I see suggestions that they were functioning under pressure, and I know of one particular coincidence involving one of them which no thinking individual could accept as such. I even know who the attorney was for Youth House and know his affiliations with major corporations. I also know that the facility was associated with Columbia University where one of it’s star social scientists was establishing a serious bona fides in the field. I also know of a distinct connection to the Human Ecology experiments taking place at Cornell University during the same period.

      Is it necessary for you to resort to this? “Wolkenkuckucksheim.” Is that a term taught at the higher levels of education? I prefer not to engage in the spirit you are displaying, but you obviously recognize that it is impossible to allow your observations to go unchallenged.

    • Louise says:

      Here is a good answer to your question “explain how witnesses identified Oswald out of a line up 3 times:” IF you really are interested in the answer! :)

      http://www.giljesus.com/Tippit/police_lineups.htm

  16. Jonathan says:

    Pay no attention to common sense.

    He presents (to use a medical term) as a disbelieving person.

    Fine.

    Except he’s ignorant and arrogant.

  17. leslie sharp says:

    CS:

    ” . . . why was Walter Cronkite reporting that the weapon was a “Manlicther Charcono” within 6 hours of the assassination? That’s on YouTube.

    ” . . . All of the networks reported that a secret service agent was killed in the shooting. Where is the body?”

    In my view, you can’t have it both ways. And in PD Moynihan’s view: “you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.:

  18. common sense says:

    “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”. Jonathan, unless Lee was taking target practice in the backyard why would you think that Marina would have seen him practicing with the rifle? Did she go to the range with him? Did she go with him out to the country and set up targets? More to the point,exactly how would she know what he was doing with the rifle when he wasn’t even living with him? I don’t believe that I used any medical terms today,but feel free to correct that statement if you have identified one.
    I find in general that when people start losing an argument they start to fall back to the “you’re stupid” argument and insults.I am reminded of Harry Truman-”I don’t give them hell, I tell them the truth and they think that’s hell.”

    • Gerry Simone says:

      The Mannlicher-Carcano was at Marina’s flat in Irvine, not at the rooming house in Dallas where Oswald stayed during the week for work.

      Oswald didn’t drive. There’s a report allegedly of Oswald at a firing range prior to November 1963 wherein he hit the next shooter’s target lol.

      Other than that, the FBI came up with no evidence that Oswald live-practiced with a rifle prior to the assassination.

  19. common sense says:

    Jonathan, how can you explain the Tippit line ups?

  20. common sense says:

    Now I get it- the Dallas PD put the real A. Hidell in those lineups. Earlier in the day they programmed him to shoot Tippit. After they took him back into custody they secretly planted the same gun on Lee. Lee just wanted to go to the movies on his lunch break and see that hit “War is Hell”-everybody wanted to see it.
    Yea,that’s the ticket. Actually it was free-he didn’t even need a ticket. He always spent his Fridays going to the movies. I can’t believe that I couldn’t see it.

  21. Curt says:

    Interesting discussion on Oswald and TSBD. I think he falls in a gray area-somewhere between being totally innocent and firing the fatal shot (also see 1963 SS renactment video at end of this write up):
    .
    On the involvement side: Marina always said he admired JFK, so why wasn’t he out watching the motorcade? Also, if it was a total frame up, the conspirators would have to know where he was at the given time–if Oswald had decided to go out with other workers and watch the parade, the set up wouldn’t have worked. Then, instead of lingering in the crowd after the shots as everyone else does, he goes home and gets his gun, having been intentionally dropped off a block or two from his actual rooming house. Personally, I believe he was in the lunchroom during the shooting. Why have him on the 6th floor when you can have some professional killers shoot, and by being in the lunchroom, there’s less risk of him being captured. Oswald already worked there, so that’s one strike against him already. His knowledge of logistics in the Depository may have been helpful to the plotters.

    Okay, now evidence he wasn’t the shooter: Carolyn Arnold sees him on the ground or second floor at 12:15 the same time Arnold Rowland and others see two men in the TSBD 6th floor window (he sees time on Hertz sign on TSBD flash 12:15). Why would he leave three spent shells the floor? Answer: because they were intended to be found–suggesting a set up. But perhaps Oswald’s role was to serve as a willing fall guy, perhaps not totally knowledgable about his co-conspirators. Motive still not clear.

    My theory on the shots. Consider the first shot was reported to sound more like a firecracker, different from the rest, and SS agents turning around to their rear (as shown in Altgens) photo. Seems convincing first shot came from TSBD, could well be exhibit 399 that lodged in his back and fell out. Second gunman from rear hits Connally, third and fatal shot from grassy knoll, and a fourth shot from the rear which may be the missed Tague shot, its angle tracks much closer to the Da Tex building than the TSBD.

    Check out his 1963 Secret Service video recreating path of JFK limo, JFK an unbelievable easy target as the limo approaches the TSBD, if it had only been the alleged shooter Oswald.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1TfcW21Vxo&list=PL9767BFA28EA17B78&index=1

    • leslie sharp says:

      Curt: I think that is a very interesting hypothesis. It will be interesting to see if others can challenge it in stages.

      I would add that 1) the depository business itself was the backdrop and certain characters involved in the business were privy to the plan 2) the umbrella man (no, he did not fire darts at the motorcade) was the spotter – his actions served to signal the direct hit as well as align the target.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Just a couple comments, Curt. The second gunman from the rear, as you describe, may well have been the second person Arnold Rowland saw. From that angle(as opposed to the sniper’s nest), it would have been easier to hit Connally). And you’re right…the missed shot(the one that sprayed debris onto Tague)probably came from the rear, as I believe the grassy knoll shooters were professional snipers. I’ll throw in that the shot that hit JFK in the back could well have come from the Dal-Tex bldg.

  22. common sense says:

    The umbrella man was identified years ago. He said that he was making a political statement,equating JFK with Neville Chamberlain.,ergo the umbrella. But hey,the conspiracy crowd likes to believe that he shot JFK with a curare tipped flèche tote to ” set him up for the fatal shot”. Curt your theories about Oswald and the TSBD are entertaining but not logical. The only thing I agree with is wondering why Oswald didn’t take the shot as the limo turned to the left to go toward the triple underpass. From the sixth floor he couldn’t have missed, but he may have felt too exposed. Or perhaps he didn’t have the nerve to see his victim’s face.
    At any rate your scenarios are like doing a tonsillectomy through the rectum. Wouldn’t it be much simpler to accept the fact that the only scenario that doesn’t require insanely complex and illogical actions is that Oswald fired 3 shots,dropped the rifle and left the building so he wouldn’t be caught?

    • leslie sharp says:

      The umbrella man was not old enough (or wise enough in my opinion) to have understood the Chamberlain nuance. At best, he might have been coached. None of what you state explains why he walked approximately 8 blocks from the Rio Grande National Life Ins. building to position himself at the very end of the parade when there were numerous spots along the route that would have been suitable. I have watched his interview and my personal assessment is that he is frightened and unsure of his playbook.

      • Pablo says:

        I was looking at some photos of the motorcade and noticed that there were 3 spectators holding umbrellas (closed). This illustrates to me that there were at least 4 individuals that were prepared for the possibility of rainfall, and makes “umbrella man” seem a little less out of the ordinary.
        I think that it would be much more productive for those who have the desire to further the case for conspiracy, to concentrate on the facts. Spending limited and precious energy bickering about theories and hypotheses serves only to “wear you down” and allow the dialogue be focused on non facts. A skilled debater will continually steer the line of questioning back to the facts, while deflecting and ignoring his opponents attempts to avoid the facts. For 50 years we have been dealing with a disinformation machine that has used its understanding of human psychology and behavior to create doubt and confusion with regard to the assassination. (Know you enemy). It is up to we, the truth seekers, to rise above the temptation to argue over hypotheses, and spend our time searching for more truths.

        • More common sense says:

          Personally I believe Oswald did it, the question being, why? To see these same repetitive ill informed arguments backed up with increasingly ridiculous problem solving scenarios is tiring. You talk of facts then bring up umbrella man..?!?
          When engaging in “research” try to look at all view points and consider them objectively instead of searching out the “facts” that fit your belief.

          Try this http://www.jfkfiles.com/index.html you really won’t like it but I’d be interested to learn where they’ve gone wrong.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Pablo is not fooled by computer-animations that are based on pre-conceived notions.

    • leslie sharp says:

      If you are weary and searching for the simplest of answers, that is entirely understandable.

      Perhaps the Warren Commission too would have benefited from those with the capacity for critical thinking and/or less institutionally indoctrinated minds.

  23. common sense says:

    Not old enough? That is about the strangest answer I have seen. How old do you have to be to understand history, to have knowledge of a historical figure? If I wasn’t old enough to remember the Kennedy assassination I couldn’t comment on it or have an opinion? That’s nonsense.
    The simplest answers are almost always the correct answers. Occam’s razor. The more complicated a theory is the less likely it is to be true. A theory that professional killers were shooting from the TSBD simultaneously with a shooter on the grassy knoll while planting 3 shells to frame Oswald and somehow then getting Oswald to leave the building and go back to his room and pick up his gun and then get framed for killing a second individual and then run into a theater without buying a ticket and then shooting a third person unsuccessfully because that person’s thumb blocks the trigger while Oswald says ” it’s all over now” at the same time that a rifle that Oswald’s wife took a picture of him holding is discovered on a sixth floor of a building that unknown strangers used as a sniper’s nest while eating fried chicken and being completely unnoticed by anybody else despite never having worked at building and and and- is simply too complex to be logical or likely.

    • heather says:

      We agree.

      The simple thing would have been for Oswald to buy a gun from anywhere and take advantage of the lax security and shoot Kennedy on the parade route.

      Better yet use the easier shot available to him from TSBD. Instead he fired 3 shots that were so difficult that most sharpshooters could only dream of making.

      That ‘simple’ explanation defies logic.

      • Paul says:

        A trained sniper was quoted in James Tague’s book as saying “Oswald couldn’t have done it(fired the fatal shot)because I couldn’t have done it”. His last name was Roberts.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Have you considered that the genius behind the conspiracy studied that razor of Occam’s and devised the plan, and that certain members of the Warren Commission had the same handbook?

    • Gerry Simone says:

      You totally oversimplify Occam’s Razor (and misquote it).

      The single-bullet theory relies on too many assumptions for Occam’s Razor to apply.

      It’s simply unbelievable.

  24. common sense says:

    Never shot a rifle, have you Heather? The three shot scenario has been excuted multiple times by multiple organizations on multiple media sites in even less time than we now know Oswald had-beginning with CBS in 1964. The claim that Oswald couldn’t make the shots is pure baloney. Whether you like it or not Oswald was able to make USMC Sharpshooter-that is a matter of public record. That makes him about an average shot among the some of the most expert riflemen in the world. And the most amazing thing about Oswald’s markmanship record is that like most everything else he did in the Corps he didn’t even care to make his best effort.

      • mball says:

        The fact that someone can jerk and pull the MC hard enough to crank off three rounds in the allotted time means little. Was the shooting scenario a replica of the 6th floor in the TSBD on 11/22? That would include the tree that blocked a good part of the view from that window . As a result, whoever was shooting from that window did not have long to see and then aim in on JFK. The tests that I’ve seen have been pretty generous in allowing time for the shooter to prepare the first shot. Further, I know of no test that produced the results of the actual assassination. In addition, Oswald scored in the lowest category of shooter in the Marines and, if I’m not mistaken, barely qualified in that category the last time he had to qualify. Nelson Delgado, a fellow Marine, said that Oswald used to hit “Maggie’s Drawers” (a missed shot) pretty regularly. Also, the fact that Oswald hit a target with a rifle a few times several years before 11/22 means nothing. Shooting accurately is a skill that tends to degrade if you don’t stay at it. There’s no indication that Oswald did. The world still awaits an accurate recreation of the alleged feat, with the same or very simialr results. Don’t hold your breath for it.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Total rubbish.

      The only guy who duplicated Oswald’s feat was Howard Donahue, a weapon’s expert, and on his third try only lol, using a different MC and with some practice and a good scope.

      It was a moving target but there were no trees obstructing the view, and they didn’t have to shoot from a half-open window.

      You can read more about his by googling Michael T. Griffith and the issue of Oswald’s marksmanship.

      Even that Australian Detective in the recent documentary entitled, The Smoking Gun, put two and two together when he says that a guy like Oswald (whose marksmanship declined over the years from Sharpshooter to barely passing as Marksman) would never have accomplished what he did on the 1st try in real life adrenalin-pumping conditions against the POTUS.

      (Incidentally, Oswald used an M1-Garand semi-automatic rifle in a horizontal-body position shooting at a fixed target. Not quite the analogy or persuasive comparison as a shooter from the alleged sniper’s lair).

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Actually, in one Marine boot camp photo, Oswald is seen semi-kneeling or crouching above off the ground (and not lying flat on his stomach as in a concealed sniper position).

  25. heather says:

    Not Surprised but you did not address my point at all. You basically ignore or bypass any point you do not have an answer and make sure you add an insult in any response.

  26. G W Young says:

    There are several models of 7.65 Mauser rifle. Those most commonly encountered as surplus rifles during the 1960′s were the 1891 Argentine Mauser, the 1909 Argentine Mauser, and the 1989 Belgian Mauser.
    The 1909 resembled the 7.92 Caliber Gew 98 Mauser used by Germany in WW1.
    The 1891 and 1889 Mausers resembled the Italian Manlicher Carcano. Each of these rifles had a slim single row box magazine that protruded from the bottom of the stock ahead of the trigger guard.
    The 1909 Mauser had a double row magazine that did not protrude.

    The markings on military rifles are notoriously hard to make out, most especially when the metal is worn, dinged up or dirty. It would be fairly easy to mistake a 6.5 for a 7.65 marking if that was what you expected to see.
    Best way to examine markings is to clean the metal and rub chalk or light colored grease pencil over it to fill in the stampings.

  27. SV Anderson says:

    The Mauser–Carcano issue is a red herring that leads nowhere. Clearly Boone and Weitzman were mistaken with their hurried initial identification and neither one EVER said later they were intimidated ot coerced to change their story by “powers that be.” Besides all bullet fragments and the one intact bullet recovered from the Connally stretcher matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons on the planet. We do not have any bullets in existence today that were associated with the assassination of President Kennedy that do not match the Mannlicher-Carcano purchased, handled, owned, and fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. His prints were on it, it was found where he worked, and it was missing from his wife’s residence.

    End of issue.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      End of issue you say lol?

      CE399 is devoid of biological matter or cloth fiber! End of issue?

      CE399 smashes through 10 cm of rib bone and radial bone but is virtually unscathed, yet allegedly, the bullet fragments found in the car of the nose and base broke apart by hitting skull bone moments later leaving the middle section embedded on the outer table of JFK’s skull as seen on the X-ray? Orlando Martin, decorated Drill Instructor, says a FMJ bullet would not break up like that if it hit a skull. Then we have a particle cloud of fragments as well as seen in the right lateral x-ray of JFK’s head? But wait, how can that WCC FMJ bullet disintegrate like that? Didn’t Dr. Lattimer prove with that silly pine board test that the WCC is VERY STABLE? (Relevant if JFK was Pinocchio but that’s besides the point here).

      End of issue you say?

      I could go on and on, but you don’t have to be a competent defense attorney to make the jury laugh at such incredulous beliefs or claims.

    • Paul Turner says:

      SV, there also was a print on a box right at the sniper’s position, belonging to Mac Wallace. Of course the FBI said it wasn’t a match to Wallace, because that would have ruined the work of John Edgar Hoover. Let’s say the only shooter was Oswald. Wallace “conspired” to make sure he had a comfortable position to aim the rifle.

  28. G W Young says:

    The Mannlicher Carcano has a Mannlicher magazine that loads by use of an “Enbloc” clip. Unlike the Mauser stripper clip the enbloc clip stays in the magazine until the last cartridge in the magazine has been chambered by movement of the bolt.

    The rifle can pnly be used as a repeater if the enbloc clip is present in the magazine.
    When empty the enbloc clip will either fall free through a square opening in the bottom of the magazine or be pushed out by loading a fresh clip.
    If only three shots were fired the clip would remain in the magazine unless pulled out from the top.

    The Winchester brand 6.5 ammunition Oswald used was noted for the bullets breaking in half inside a wound. The jackets of these bullets were not properly annealed and the process of crimping the bullet into the case mouth caused cracks a bit more than halfway back from the nose.

    One bullet nose was found and mis identified as a .25 (6.35mm) ACP pistol bullet, which would be about the same size as a broken off 6.5mm bullet nose.

  29. Rick Mires says:

    Where was Oswald’s wallet found exactly. In the squad car or on the street? I’m sure he would have picked it up before reloading . Tippet was probably dead by them.

  30. bob moore says:

    There was a picture on the front page of a Greensboro, N.C. news paper on Nov.22,1963 that showed agents holding a rifle and ammo that they had just found in that building. The rifle was an Argentine Mauser Model 1891 7.65 and the ammo had pointed projectiles, not rounded like a Carcano uses. I remember full well because I had one just like it and I went and got it and showed it to my wife. One of the detectives had been a gun smith and he said it was a mauser and read the information off of the receiver.

    • BrotherBruce says:

      I saw the same photo of the Mauser – in newspapers over the weekend of 11/22-11/24/63 and in several current books related to the assassination. Unfortunately, neither a video of the Mauser being pulled out of it’s hiding place on the 6th floor nor a good smack over the head with it is gonna change a closed mind. After all, this is the United States where President Lyndon Johnson’s team of Blue Ribbon investigators determined that John Kennedy was shot from the rear by a lone nut with a Mannlicher Carcano. There’s no room for doubt or speculation. You’ve been told how it happened and that’ll be the end of it, thank you. No more questions or smart remarks; Off to bed with you then and you better know you’re lucky you weren’t given a good spanking and left to cry yourself to sleep. And see to it that your attitude has changed come morning. Go ahead then; Off with ya, you’ll learn soon enough.

  31. John says:

    The Italians recently did tests on an identical Carcano rifle made in 1940. I think it was the makers or their military. The fastest they could get off three rounds was approx. 19 seconds in ideal conditions not hanging out of a window. They also at 80 yards fired it through sides of beef and got very different results.

    Has anyone timed a Mauser 7.65 in the fastest 3 rounds? How would that gun hold up to the conditions out of that window?

    • Beezup says:

      I just watched a re-run of a PBS Nova show titled “Cold Case JFK,” first aired 11-13-13. It focused on forensic autopsy (which was never conducted, mistakenly) and the terminal ballistics of 6.5 M-C ammo. Several notable bits were shown (and, oddly, never addressed in the program):
      film of the test-firing of a Mannlicher-Carcano at the range by an experienced forensic ballitician (who probably was not born in ’63, and may have little experience with boltguns) showed a notably clunky/balky bolt action;
      he actually jammed the action with a stovepipe empty ejection;
      there was film of this team firing into white pine boards, ballistic gel, and ballistic soap, and vintage film of firing into a gel-filled human skull, and none of these targets displayed the reactive movement back toward the shooter predicted by the “jet-nozzle exit effect” proponents.
      Useful info from the show:
      JFK’s jacket showed the smudgy soot of an entrance wound in his back/neck/shoulder (and that jacket, shirt and tie was left behind in Dallas, so the pathologists in Bethesda did not have essential info);
      the Bethesda pathologists saw the wound in his back, but the exit at the throat was obscured by the previous Dallas attempted tracheotomy;
      the Mannlicher ammo tended to remain axially stable in target media, but tumble upon re-emergence (as in, leaving JFK’s throat). This is consistent with the elongated entry in Connally’s inital jacket wound, and also consistent with the smooshed-along-its-length profile of the so-called “pristine” stretcher/Magic Bullet.
      In regard to timing of the shots, please consider that the shooter of a Mannlicher would presumably begin with a loaded rifle, so the sequence would be:
      Fire the first round;
      first bolt action to eject the fired case, cock the striker, feed a fresh round, and re-lock the breech;
      reacquire the target and Fire the second round;
      second bolt to eject, cock, feed and re-lock;
      reacquire the target and Fire the third round.
      The sequence of “Bang, click-click, Bang, click-click, Bang” seems like it’s possible in 6-10 seconds for any rifleman experienced with his weapon; whether that particular rifle, ammo, and man could hit that intermediate-size moving target at that intermediate distance is still up for discussion. LHO’s rickety, misaligned cheapie scope might be a red herring, as a good rifleman could just as easliy use the gun’s stock military iron sights. I’ve never seen any discussion of where those sights were aligned.

  32. Alfred says:

    Where are the crime scene photos?

  33. Hoeras says:

    “There was another rifle in the building. Warren Caster had two rifles, a 30.06 Mauser and a .22 for his son..” Lee Harvey Oswald speaking to Captain Fritz in Fritz’s office.

    Why would Oswald say this? Was there really another gun in the building where Oswald worked? A Mauser?

    Yes, there was… read on.

    Questioned by the Warren Commission, Warren Caster, who had an office in the building, admitted he had a Mauser 30.06 – just as Oswald had told Fritz.

    Mr. BALL. Did you ever bring any guns into the School Book Depository Building?

    Mr. CASTER. Yes; I did.

    Mr. BALL. When?

    Mr. CASTER. I believe it was on Wednesday, November 20, during the noon hour.

    Mr. BALL. Whose guns were they?

    Mr. CASTER. They were my guns.

    Mr. BALL. And what kind of guns were they?

    Mr. CASTER. One gun was a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser.

    Mr. BALL. Who owned them?

    Mr. CASTER. I had just purchased them during the noon hour that day.

    Very odd.

    Independently Roger Craig, Deputy Sheriff, always insisted they had found a Mauser and he was standing only three feet away when it was found. How could Oswald know this? He was not there when the gun was found. Just a very curious coincidence that is difficult to fathom?

    I am making no conclusions, simply pointing towards something very curious indeed.

    Often the truth is far more strange than fiction.

  34. Richard says:

    If you believe the Warren Commission then you believe there was no cover up at any time during the investigation. I find that impossible given all the EXAMPLES:

    1. Jackie Kennedy’s first reaction after the head shot was to jump on the BACK of the limo to retrieve a piece of her husband’s skull and at least one motorcycle cop riding behind had blood and tissue on his cheek. Not to mention that many witnesses stated that the back of his head exploded in a rear trajectory. How could this happen if the shot entered the rear of the head? If that was the case then the front of his head would have exploded out. And how is it that witnesses who were within feet of the killing weren’t called to testify before the WC?

    2. Every staff member at Parkland stated there was a GAPING hole in the rear of his head, yet the photos from Bethesda show a perfectly intact rear head. And why was the body taken illegally from Parkland where an autopsy by qualified pathologists could have been done? Instead it was whisked away to Bethesda and two doctors with no experience in forensic pathology performed the autopsy on the murderer of the century.

    3. How is it that the man who is accused of blowing the president’s head off in broad daylight is interrogated for 12 hours and there are no tapes or recorded notes? I’m not in law enforcement but this doesn’t seem like standard procedure to me. And then of all the people who walk into the basement of the DPD and shoot Oswald in front of live TV just happens to be a strip club owner with mob ties that half the police force knows and frequent his strip club.

    whose strip club caters to half the police force

    • Richard says:

      #2 correction: “murder of the century”

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Interrogation notes were later discovered but they were written by Captain Fritz well after the fact.

      They are not verbatim since there is no tape recording or transcript by a court reporter.

      Captain Fritz’s other actions are questionable.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Nice work, Richard. I’ll just add that as to your first point, it really angers me that WC members kept saying to the witnesses they DID have “It couldn’t have happened that way, you must be mistaken”. As if the WC members were right there, too????

  35. mball says:

    ATF agent Frank Ellsworth, who said that he was present in the TSBD, said that his recollection was that the rifle wasn’t found on the 6th floor. A woman whose relative (either a Dallas P.D. officer or deputy) once told her that the rifle Oswald was supposed to have used was not found on the 6th floor. I’m ratting around in some old stuff to see if i can find that conversation.

    • mball says:

      In re the above post, the woman was close to or related to Seymour Weitzman. She said that even after changing his story, he maintained privately that it was a Mauser that he identified correctly. The other was from a man who worked with a friend, and that friend was close to a Dallas County deputy who was one of the men credited with finding the gun. He said that the deputy would never talk about the assassination, except for one comment that he is aware of. He said that the deputy maintained, in private, that the rifle claimed as the murder weapon was not the one he found in the TSBD. From a post on JFK Lancer, April 12, 2010.

  36. Jonathan says:

    I think a strong case can be made for a 7.65 mm Mauser’s being found somewhere on the upper floors of the TSBD.

    – The on-scene, first-day, DPD, firearm-familiar witnesses.

    – The fact JFK was hit at least once from above and behind. I believe twice.

    – The fact witnesses saw men in sixth-floor windows before and after the assassination.

    – The fact one of the men seen in the windows was seen holding a rifle.

    – The fact the Mannlicher-Carcano was observed by Robert Frazier on the morning of November 23 to have a corroded barrel.

    – The fact the alleged murder weapon had a very difficult bolt operating mechanism and a mis-aligned scope.

    – The fact JFK’ss death certificate states he was killed by a high-powered or velocity round, whereas the M-C is a medium velocity weapon.

    – The fact a 7.65 Mauser is a superior, high velocity weapon.

    Why would Weizmann of all people clearly, unequivocally identify a rifle as a 7.65 Mauser based on metal stampings then assert he had made an honest mistake?

    ANSWER: The Official Story, formed after Weizmann’s identification, was not about to be challenged by Seymour Weizmann. Not if he valued his career. On this point, let’s all be real. He conformed his story to the Official Story. Easy to do when you’re a DPD constable and your story conflicts with that of the President of the United States and the Director of the FBI.

    • Paul says:

      Weitzman was there(in the 6th floor to see the Mauser). LBJ and Hoover weren’t. The fact that the Mannlicher-Carcano became the official weapon, when it may not have been, should confirm that LBJ and Hoover wanted the killer to be Oswald, when he may not have been. In the aftermath of the JFK Assassination, the Ï”in FBI didn’t stand for Ïnvestigation” at all.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Great post Jonathan. While I’m not totally ignorant about firearms I don’t have your knowledge of them.
      I’d really like to see Robert Prudehomme posst on this.
      A 22 hollow point in the throat…

    • Photon says:

      I doubt that anybody on the DPD had even heard of a Carcano rifle. On the other hand most would have known about a Mauser, including ETO vets. The Carcano has a Mauser-type action and a similar appearence.The fact that the Carcano was initially identified as a Mauser would not have been unusual- and probably even expected.
      Initial reports stated that JFK was transported to Parkland by ambulance. Why haven’t conspiracy theorists dissected those reports ad nauseum?

      • KenS says:

        So let me get this straight. Photon says the DPD IDed the rifle as a Mauser because it had a Mauser-type action and the appearance of a Mauser? And most DPD officers would have been familiar with Mausers, and could ID a Mauser. Hey, sounds like Photon thinks it was a Mauser!

      • Gerry Simone says:

        From a Google search,

        After World War II, Italy replaced its Carcano rifles first with British Lee-Enfields and then with the US .30 caliber (7.62 mm) M1 Garand semi-automatic rifle which the Italians labeled the ‘Model 1952 (M52). Finland sold all of its approximately 74,000 remaining 7.35 mm M91/38 Carcano rifles on the surplus market. As a consequence, large quantities of surplus Carcanos were sold in the USA and Canada beginning in the 1950s.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Photon, I’ll give you partial credit on the ambulance transportation, in that sirens could be heard over the radio report being done by the overhead helicopter. But Nellie Connelly states that during the ride to the hospital,. no one in the limousine said anything. I think those who got into the limo at Love Field were still in it at Parkland(inlcuding, of course, JFK).

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I think reference to ‘high-powered’ rifle in the death certificate is not an exact one and can include a medium velocity weapon. Who signed it?

      There are many examples of witnesses changing their story to conform to the official version after the fact, or had their testimony change to align with the official version.

      • Photon says:

        The certificate referred to was not signed by any physician.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Funeral director?

          Hospital administrator?

          Just curious.

          • Jonathan says:

            The reference to a high-powered rifle is contained in the Warren Report.

            The Texas Certificate of Death, signed by a J.P., states the cause of death as “multiple guns wounds to the head & neck.”

            George Burkeley’s White House Certificate od Death states the cause of death as a “gunshot wound to the head.” Burkeley’s narrative on the Certificate make three things clear to the reader:

            1) The skull was broken apart.

            2) The right hemisphere of the skull and its contents were greatly damaged.

            3) The back wound was at T-3.

            At trial, this Certificate would be admissible into evidence as an official record. As would the Texas Certificate.

          • Photon says:

            When is a certificate of death ever admissible if it is not signed by a physician?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Paul, ever since the body was stolen at gunpoint from the autopsy required by Texas law. Seems to be the type of “law’ for this case.

          • Jonathan says:

            Photon, check Texas law in 1963.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          The certificate referred to was not signed by any physician.

          I think it would pass muster if signed by a J.P.

          It’s not the equivalent of an autopsy report.

          I’d also add that any controversy over the term ‘high-powered rifle’ is merely semantical.

          I’d even call the MC a H-P rifle, whereas a 22 caliber is not (my dad had a neat little semi-automatic Franchi .22 rifle which is obviously smaller than his high-powered .30-06 Browning).

        • Paul Turner says:

          you must not be counting Dr. George Burkley, JFK’s personal physician. He signed it, Photon.

  37. Bill Clarke says:

    Osanic’s video is misleading when he claims the case with the bent case lip could not have fired a bullet. Of course the case lip was bent on extraction and ejection AFTER the bullet in it had been fired.

    • Jonathan says:

      Not necessarily so. You make an assertion when you say:

      “Of course the case lip was bent on extraction and ejection AFTER the bullet in it had been fired.”

      Experimenters have found, as I’m sure you know, the M-C doesn’t dent the lip of a full loaded cartridge upon extraction following firing. It only dents the lip of an empty cartridge loaded into the rifle and then extracted; i.e., a plant.

      Bill Clarke, you have been preceded here by John McAdams, Photon, and Jean Davison, among others. Your efforts are worthy but repetitive.

      • Photon says:

        Can you document that?

        • Jonathan says:

          Photon,

          I’d like to make the detailed argument myself, but I’ve not experimented with an M-C. The full details of the argument (and more) are laid out in:

          THE DENTED BULLET SHELL:

          HARD EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION?

          Michael T. Griffith

          2012

          @All Rights Reserved

          Third Edition

          The basic argument as I understand it is that if a live round is fed via clip into the M-C firing chamber, fired, and then ejected, there is no occasion for the shell case lip to get dented. If on the other hand, an empty case is forced into the firing chamber (which cannot be done via clip) and then ejected, denting of the case lip may well occur. The FBI determined that the dented M-C case in question had been fed into the alleged murder weapon at least three times.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Wrong. There are occasions when the case is bent on extraction before it leaves the rifle.

            True, if the bolt is used to chamber an empty case without the bullet to help guide the round into the chamber you can dent the case lip. This can occur when the bolt isn’t pulled back far enough for normal extraction and the bolt is pushed forward thinking we are loading a new round. This can even jam the weapon for a bit.

            Perhaps Oswald fed the rounds through his weapon as practice.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Photon, I can’t so much but Jean Davison, as is her way, has some good evidence to support this. I hope she will comment on this subject.

          My documentation is my personal experience with rifles and I readily admit these rifles were not the Carcano. But a bolt gun is a bolt gun, despite many claiming the Carcano was something special.

          To dent the case lip of a loaded case (the bullet inserted) would take a sharp blow with a hammer. That case isn’t going to chamber so the man was right. This dented but loaded round can’t fire since it can’t chamber.

          But here is what can and does occur; a normal case with bullet is chambered and fired. The bolt is turned, the extractor grips the case and the bolt is pulled back removing the case from the chamber. Now the ejector pops out and slams the case toward the ejection port (port where the case flies out) but it does this a bit too soon.

          A bit before the case has been pulled back far enough for ejection the case lip slams into the receiver wall and is dented. As the case is pulled farther back it is ejected through the ejection port. The case lip isn’t dented by striking a floor or other object but is dented by the rifle itself.

          I hand loaded for many years and loaded for many friends. I went through a good number of rifles and found this occurrence to be not so common but then it wasn’t so rare either.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks, Bill. What you’re saying is what I’ve heard others who’ve fired an M-C like Oswald’s say: the empty cartridge often gets dented when the empty case is forcefully ejected and it hits a part of the rifle as it flies out. The HSCA’s firearm panel showed an example, but I’ll have to look it up again.

          • Photon says:

            Sorry Bill, I was addressing Jonathan’s claim, which is bogus.
            We had a similar issue with my father’s 1903 Springfield. I thought that there was something wrong with the 50+ year old shells, but it was very intermittent .A generous use of Hoppe’s seemed to mitigate it somewhat.Perhaps the bolt moved smoother after that .

          • Jonathan says:

            Bill Clarke,

            Given that you have no experience with Carcanos, I invite you and the other Warren defenders here to read Michael Giffiths’s 2012 article I cite, in which Griffiths quotes Carcano experts who explain quite clearly why only an empty case loaded into a Carcano is dented on the lip upon being ejected.

            After you’ve perused the article, please come back and tell everyone here if you will why the experts Griffiths quotes are wrong.

          • Photon says:

            Where is the evidence thay Michael Griffith knows anything about ballistics, the Carcano rifle,the frequency of dented shells ejected from any bolt-action rifle, etc. Even his biography mentions a Masters in Theology and a Bachelor’s degree in “Liberal Arts”-whatever that means,plus a couple of Community College associate degrees. But NOTHING implying any expertise in ballistics,rifles or even basic firearms procedures. Yet he is your expert on this matter.
            No wonder you believe that a .410 bore is a realistic pheasant load!

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Photon:

            You must’ve missed the part where Michael T. Griffith’s article QUOTES **Carcano experts**.

          • John McAdams says:

            read Michael Giffiths’s 2012 article I cite, in which Griffiths quotes Carcano experts who explain quite clearly why only an empty case loaded into a Carcano is dented on the lip upon being ejected.

            Oh, they “state it quite clearly,” do they?

            This is what real experts say:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/firearms_hsca.htm#155

            Any conspiracist can find “experts” to tell him what he wants to hear.

            The way you do it properly is to find the top experts in the country.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        No, I didn’t know that Jonathan. The reason I didn’t know it is because it isn’t true.

        Thank you for putting me in such high company. I’m honored.

        • Jonathan says:

          Bill, you asserted exactly how the lip of the shell case got dented. You wrote:

          “Of course the case lip was bent on extraction and ejection AFTER the bullet in it had been fired.”

          Your unproven assertion is what I challenged.

          Your comment in response below to Dave, about the cartridge being hot when ejected — the implication being the metal of the cartridge case is soft and bends when the case hits the floor — is good for one thing: an insight on how far you’re willing to go to argue your side of the case.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Well Jonathan, I proved it to myself years ago. I didn’t see it happen just once but I saw it happen many times. So it wasn’t an unproved assertion. You come to Texas and I’ll prove it to you.

            I didn’t say the case lip was bent when it hit the wooden floor. In fact I said it wasn’t dented on the floor. It is dented on the inside of the receiver.

          • Jonathan says:

            How are you going to prove “it” to me when you’re admittedly unfamiliar with Carcanos?

            This whole discussion is moot anyway because the dented shell has been PROVEN not to have been ejected from the alleged murder weapon. It lacked the marking made by the alleged murder weapon’s bolt and contained three sets of markings on its base not tied to the alleged murder weapon and not found on the other two empty shells. Hoover memo to Rankin, 2 June 1964; FBI Ballistics Report, 25 December 1964

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan,

            Here’s evidence that the dent occurs when the empty cartridge hits the receiver of the rifle as it’s ejected and flies back.

            Probably the first to discover this were Harold Weisberg and R. Bernabei, who tested a rifle like Oswald’s in the 1960s. Bernabei’s description is in Weisberg’s archives. He wrote that he was certain that’s what happened because the brass left a mark where it hit the rifle.

            The HSCA’s firearms panel also got the same dent on ejection in one of its four test cartridges. It pointed out that there was a similar dent on the lip of one of the FBI’s test cartridges as well (CE 557).

            Here’s how the panel members were chosen and their qualifications:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=39369

            The HSCA’s conclusion is #155 here:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=381

            (Notice it also says it found no evidence the cartridge had been chambered more than once.)

            The testimony about the dent starts here:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=45858

            I’ve seen posts from 3 or 4 people on other JFK forums who’ve reported the same thing happened with their M-Cs. One of them noted that it happened in about one out of four shots, the HSCA’s ratio. The force or speed with which the bolt is operated may have something to do with it.

            Apparently this is a common problem with some semi-automatic weapons and there may still be online videos showing in slow motion how this happens, though granted, the M-C is a different type of weapon.

            So far as I can tell, Mike Griffith quoted only one person who could be considered a firearms expert (Donahue). Dr. Chapman is a medical examiner, I believe, and not a firearms specialist, so far as I know.

            What is the alternative, CT explanation for the dented shell? Did somebody throw down a cartridge that “couldn’t have been fired that day”? How silly is that?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            In answer to Jonathan’s request that I “please come back and tell everyone here if you will why the experts Griffiths quotes are wrong”.

            First a link to Griffith’s article which Jonathan must have forgot ; http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm

            Next I see Griffith well educated to pray and learn languages but no reference to any knowledge about rifles. This makes it hard for him to understand his experts. I believe you are also having this same problem. We will leave his webpage about Pearl Harbor without comment.

            Now Jonathan, I have no problem with what the “experts” say except the statement by Ian Griggs in which he states, “This can only happen with an empty case that has already been fired and even then only occasionally (emphasis by Griggs). Griggs is flat wrong. Pray tell how he knows it is the ONLY way. Did he try the method I described or other methods? If so he doesn’t report it. In summary Griggs is very wrong on this part.

            True, the case could not have been fired if it was dented as we see in the picture. You couldn’t have put a bullet in the bent case. If the case was bent after the bullet was inserted it still wouldn’t chamber and could not be fired. I don’t see why one must be a mental giant to realize the case was bent AFTER it was fired. And no, it wasn’t dented on the floor and you can’t dent it by stepping on it. I agree. But the ejector can slam the hot brass into the inside of the receiver and dent it just as the picture shows.

            Did you miss this in the article; “Another shell [of the three found on the sixth floor] was dented on the rim, raising doubts that it could have been fired from a rifle in that condition. In experiments by the House Select Committee, rapid firing of the Carcano resulted in some shells being dented in the exact same location upon ejection (HSCA, Vol. 1, pp. 435, 454, 534). (Case Closed, New York: Random House, 1992, p. 270)”

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Well Jonathon it looks like your getting ganged up on here. I’m no firearms expert like those arguing with you so not much help.
            While I’ve not in years I used to hunt deer in Texas. One close witness to the public slaughter of JFK was quoted as saying “In all the years I’ve hunted deer I’ve never had one fall towards me”. Me either.
            The first time I was in Dealy Plaza and stood under the Dal-Tex second or third window over from the corner and second window up I thought Bingo. Elevated 8-10′ I’m on a tee stand, with a straight shot at a downward angle (as Elm does) with an almost level shot because of that angle of about 100 yards or less.
            Previously, more than once, I’d been behind the picket fence. Looking at the x’s the saying “fish in a barrel” came to mind.
            I thought I could hit a quarter or 1/2 dollar most of the time with a 22 at that distance.
            Some of those times were after I went to the Warren Omission story on the 6th floor and crouched as close as I could to the “sniper’s nest” and looked through the tree limbs.
            I’ve read elsewhere the W.O. used not just the best of the NRA but Olympic
            qualifiers to duplicate the shots but couldn’t.
            In addition the best sniper out of Vietnam in the late 60′s could not duplicate the shots from a lower elevation with a closer target.
            I think both of these statements are paraphrased from Destiny Betrayed.
            I’m certainly no expert shooter or firearms expert but O through trees at that angle with a defective rifle and scope in six seconds is to my simple mind impossible.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I re-iterate what Jonathan has said here. The point is not simply the dent but the side markings which weren’t linked to the MC.

            This whole discussion is moot anyway because the dented shell has been PROVEN not to have been ejected from the alleged murder weapon. It lacked the marking made by the alleged murder weapon’s bolt and contained three sets of markings on its base not tied to the alleged murder weapon and not found on the other two empty shells. Hoover memo to Rankin, 2 June 1964; FBI Ballistics Report, 25 December 1964

          • Photon says:

            As predicted a conspiracy theorist brings up the Carlos Hathcock lie again. Ronnie, I don’t know where you get your information but I don’t recall any Olympians shooting for the Warren Commission. As Olympic shooting events involved stationary targets at the time it would have been pointless. Besides, CBS showed multiple ordinary marksmen were able to duplicate Oswald’s feat with more accuracy in less time.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            For Jonathon and Gerry. What you claim is not what these experts say.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/firearm.htm

            TESTIMONY OF FIREARMS PANEL: MONTY C. LUTZ, DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE, JOHN S. BATES, JR., AND ANDREW M. NEWQUIST

            Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Champagne, in your examination of those cartridge cases, did you compare your panel test cartridge cases, JFK No. F-280 with CE-543?
            Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes; we did.
            Mr. McDONALD. As a result of your examinations, what conclusions did you come to, and if we could have JFK chart F-99 placed on the easel, if you would use that in explaining your answer.
            Mr. CHAMPAGNE. To answer your question, we did come to a conclusion with respect to the tests that we had fired and exhibit CE-543. The conclusion we came to was that exhibit CE-543 was fired from the rifle.
            Mr. McDONALD. And which rifle are you referring to?
            Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Exhibit CE-139.
            The conclusion that we came to was based on a number of factors. The tests were compared microscopically with CE-543 in a number of areas. One of those areas was in the firing pin impression. The firing pin impression is an indentation in the primer of the center-fire cartridge. It is caused by the impingement of the firing pin on the soft metal of the primer. Any individual identifying features that may be present on the firing pin are then impressed into the metal of the primer. These can be in the form of machining marks that are put on there during the time of manufacture or they can be in the form of irregularities that are put on the firing pin impression during its use during its lifetime.
            Some of the marks that we found, and this is a photograph taken through a comparison microscope, shows exhibit CE-543 in the lefthand side of the field and panel test No. 1 in the right-hand side of the field. There’s a dividing line through both of these. In the comparison microscope, we take two physically separated objects and bring them together optically. It is almost as if we cut the two in half physically and bring them together. We do this through the prismatic bridge system of the comparison microscope. So that we have two objects brought together microscopically side by side and adjacent to one another.
            In the firing pin impression, we have a series of irregularities that show up and go from one side of the dividing line to the other indicating that the same firing pin caused the marks on both cartridge cases.
            In the lower photograph, we have what are known as extractor marks. Each extractor in each firearm has its own individual peculiarities. When the cartridge case is extracted from the weapon and thrown out of it, the extractor will leave irregularities or individual identifying marks on the rim of the case. In the lower photomicrograph, we have CE-543 and panel test 3.
            We have the same type of situation here where we have the dividing line down the center. We have a series of striations that have been put on the rim of the cartridge cases and you can see that there is a correspondence there among those striations.
            There were other areas that we examined as well as these two, breech face marks and some other marks that were not of a suitable nature for photographing. As a result of examination of all
            these marks, we came to the conclusion that CE-543 was fired in the exhibit rifle.

            Mr. McDONALD. Thank you, Mr. Champagne. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move JFK exhibits F-99, F-98 and F-100 be received into the record at this time.

            Chairman STOKES. Without objection they may be received in the record at this time.
            [JFK exhibits F-98, F-99, and F-100 were received into the record.]

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to Bill Clarke, 5-11-14 and 5-13-14:

            THE DENT: The HSCA produced DENTS, it did not replicate THE DENT on C.E. 543. Furthermore, it did so only by RAPID FIRING of the alleged murder weapon. As found on 11-22-63, the alleged murder weapon was NOT in rapid firing condition. Its bolt operated only with difficulty.

            THE PRIMER INDENTATION AND EXTRACTOR SCRATCH: Those marks are consistent with firing through C.E. 139. As in dry firing. Which the DPD easily could have done.

            Given the lack of provenance of C.E. 539 (no proof it was found in the sniper’s nest, no chain of custody); given the markings on it that don’t match with C.E. 139; given there’s absolutely no proof Oswald fired C.E. 539 on 11-22-63, none, it’s irrelevant to any discussion of the JFK case except as a possible plant.

            Face it, the “case” against Oswald doesn’t exist except in the fabric of the imagination of the Warren defenders. The real-world facts and plain common sense reveal Oswald was what he claimed to be, a patsy. This is one fact “you people” (in the style of John McAdams) don’t handle well.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Jean Davison (& Bill Clarke):

            I defer to Michael T. Griffith’s detailed analysis in his article here which hasn’t been rebutted in this thread at all:

            http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/dent.htm

            Like Jonathan pointed out, there are other features or indications that the dented hull was already fired (even Hoover’s memo pointed that the shell was loaded and extracted THREE TIMES!!!).

            As for a loaded case, a dent occurring one in four is NOT the same as one in three (the alleged WC shooting scenario).

            How many times did this happen in any of the test firings conducted by the WC or CBS (let’s not include the HSCA for now)? Obviously not enough since Howard Donahue test fired for CBS and made no remarks about this phenomenon.

            Dr. Chambers is as much of a firearms expert as the LAT commentators opining on here. His observation that the indentation at the base was DEEPER than the other shells further makes the suspect shell distinguishable from the others.

            (If Dr. Chambers’ evidence is less important, what makes Dr. Lattimer’s ballistic demonstrations important? Not only is he not a ‘firearms expert’ but neither is he a medical examiner. I believe he was a urologist.)

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan and Gerry,

            How do you know that the sources you’re quoting know what they’re talking about?

            One of your sources cites (but doesn’t quote) a Hoover memo and “FBI ballistics report” and claims that “the dented shell has been proven not to have been ejected from the alleged murder weapon.”

            The exact opposite is true. Both the FBI and the HSCA’s firearms panel concluded that the dented shell, along with the other two, were definitely fired from the M-C rifle.

            Your source isn’t giving you the FBI conclusion but rather telling you how *he* interprets what they wrote.

            I’m certainly no firearms expert but many of those who are seem to have no problem with the WC conclusions. Duncan MacPherson is the author of this book (which I haven’t read and no doubt wouldn’t understand if I did):

            http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Penetration-Modeling-Incapacitation-Resulting/dp/0964357704/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1400090304&sr=1-2&keywords=duncan+mcpherson+ballistics

            MacPherson has been quoted as saying, “The
            major frustrating feature of the Kennedy assassination phenomenon is the willingness of people to pretend to talk authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about, especially things related to firearms.”

            Sorry if that’s offensive, but that’s what he said.

            I’ve learned through bitter experience that you can’t rely on anything in a secondary source — you need to check the footnotes and look at the original document, before you buy it.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to Jean Davison @5-14-14:

            The argument I’m about to make is based on the Hoover memo to Rankin of 2 June 1964 (C.E. 2968). It is an argument that has been made by others and never refuted.

            1. The dented shell, C.E. 543, bears many marks, one of which stands out.

            2. The mark that stands out is the unique mark made by the magazine follower of the alleged murder weapon.

            3. The magazine follower pushes rounds upwards in the clip and only marks the BOTTOM ROUND in the clip.

            4. The bottom round is THE LAST ROUND in the clip.

            5. We are told this: (a) the dented shell, C.E. 543, was found on the floor of the sniper’s nest; and (b) a round, the fourth and last round loaded into the clip, was found unfired in the firing chamber of the alleged murder weapon.

            6. Proposition 1-5 establish conclusively C.E. 543 WAS NOT FIRED from the alleged murder weapon in the murder of President Kennedy.

            In order to have been so fired, it would have had to have been THE LAST ROUND IN THE CLIP, given the unique magazine follower mark it bears, but IT WASN’T.

            It was, therefore, a plant plain and simple.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Hi Jean,

            How do you know that the sources I quoted are NOT accurate?

            I trust Michael T. Griffith’s honesty and objectivity in his articles, as well as his research.

            I also defer to Jonathan’s follow up reply.

            I do own firearms and have handled a MC, but I wouldn’t call myself an expert just like I wouldn’t call Vincent Bugliosi a firearms expert, although we both can rely on such experts to back up our statements or writings.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Jonathan,

            Yes, the argument that the Hoover memo (CE 2968) shows that the dented shell was “a plant” has been made by many, but it shows no such thing.

            The 2-page memo starts here:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0243a.htm

            The first paragraph tells what it’s about: Rankin had asked the FBI to examine the cartridge cases to see if there were indications that they’d been loaded into and ejected from the rifle “more than once.” The memo reports that there were such markings on the cartridges.

            Evidently this suggests that someone had been practicing operating the bolt by ejecting the unfired bullets and loading them again. The dented shell could have been the last one in the clip on one of those occasions.

            Once again, I think your sources have misled you.

          • Sandy K. says:

            Michael Griffith’s essay buries the notion that the CE-543 shell held a live round at 12:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963. CE-543 is yet another sour pickle in the government’s whopper deluxe.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Photon/Paul. The Olympic reference is to qualifiers. I “discovered” it in Reclaiming Parkland. Jim D’s source is obvious and means the info has been around a long time if we all would read more.
            Pg. 53. “As Meagher explains it, these “master marksmen” were rated at the very top of the scale, not by the Marines, but by the National Rifle Association. In other words, they were even better than the top shooters in the by two or more classes; so proficient they they qualified for open competition and even the Olympic Games!
            …”One bettered Oswald’s time..firing from thirty feet up at a still target.”
            …”these men practiced all the time.”
            I.E. they were the best of the best under less taxing circumstances.

          • Jonathan says:

            Reply to Jean Davison @May 15 5:59 p.m.:

            Think about what you’re writing in the last paragraph of your comment. You’re making my point. Someone loaded the empty dented shell into the firing chamber of the alleged murder weapon. Why? In order to mark it.

            Welcome to the Warren critics side of the fence.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Think about it, Jonathan. The “unique” marking you mention doesn’t show that CE 543 had been fired from the weapon, only that at some point it had been loaded into it and extracted. CE 543 was linked to the murder weapon by the firing pin impression on the primer.

            What was the frame-up squad trying to do? Show that Oswald had practiced working the bolt? Good job!

    • Dave says:

      Bullet casings don’t dent so easily upon ejection. What did it hit that was so hard? The old wooden floor of the 6th floor TSBD.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        True Dave but I have described what happens in my reply to Photon. Remember that the just fired brass is very hot at this time.

        • Dave says:

          Bill, I’m afraid I am just more convinced by the observations and logic of the sources Griffiths cites, particularly Donahue and Kurtz. Although, you or anyone else are free to post a video of MC shell casings being dented in this same manner after firing. That would go a very long distance to convince me and many others that you are right.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Dave; As you wish but I hope you can at least keep this explanation in mind when this subject comes up again. I find it sad that such a simple explanation for the bent case lip can’t be understood and accepted. I wouldn’t harp on this but I have picked up too many hulls with the neck bent.

            Of course I’m not set up to do any filming of a case neck being dented and I know of none that shows this.

            But lets do this. Disregard how the lip got dented for a moment. Now I see no reason why a person can’t see that the case lip was fine and held a bullet. It was chambered and fired and then bent AFTER firing. That is simple.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Dave,

            Author Kurtz isn’t a firearms expert and got his facts wrong. He quotes Dr. E. Forrest Chapman saying that CE 557 “is a test cartridge fired *empty* from Oswald’s rifle” by the FBI, but CE 557 is actually two cartridges fired in the usual manner. One is dented:

            http://www.giljesus.com/ce557.JPG

            There’s nothing unusual about the dent.
            The HSCA’s firearms panel found that one in four of its test cartridges was dented during ejection. The second shell in Figure 2 has a D-shaped dent:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=82&relPageId=393

            Top view of CE 534 found in the sniper’s nest:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39397

            According to others who’ve fired similar Carcanos, it’s normal for some of the shells to be dented as they’re being ejected.

            Donahue apparently misunderstood the HSCA argument. Nobody claims that the dent was present when the bullet was fired.

            Mike Griffith is honest, but JFK books and online articles are filled with this kind of misinformation passed on from one researcher to another, apparently forever.

            How logical is it for the frame-up crew, always ready with evidence to be planted, to throw down a cartridge that “couldn’t have been fired” from the murder weapon?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Reply for Jonathan and Gerry, 5/23/14.

      Osanic said the case with the bent lip could not have been fired. This is wrong. It isn’t just a little wrong but it is instead very wrong. Anyone with the plain common sense you speak of plus a little experience firing a bolt rifle can easily understand this.

      If you can’t understand this I’m afraid there isn’t much I can do to help you. I’ve explained how the case lip is bent AFTER firing and neither of you have proved this wrong or impossible. It matters not if Oswald was a patsy or not, it has to do with the firing of a rifle. Don’t confuse the two.

      Jonathon, are you the one that said you were an Intelligence Officer in Vietnam?

      • Bill Clarke says:

        For Jean Davison; May 14, 2014 at 2:36 pm

        Jean, I checked out http://www.amazon.com/Bullet-Penetration-Modeling-Incapacitation thinking I might buy it. Then I saw they want $65 for it and changed my mind.

        The one review was a 5 star and says the book is excellent but is technical and not a light read. Probably too technical for our use.

        I like what he said about all these “experts”. It does make things confusing.

  38. Paul says:

    In one of the TV movies about the assassination, it was rather funny to watch Oswald’s character firing 3 rapid shots from what was supposed to be the Mannlicher-Carcano. As I remember it, the character placed too much effort on the work involved in firing the shots and trying to get 3 off in 8 seconds. He didn’t move the rifle in the way one would in trying to hit a moving target(the motorcade). The motorcade did slow down to a near stop, but after it was past the TSBD.

  39. Pablo says:

    It’s pretty easy to understand why most people in the US believe that their government lied to them regarding JFK. Let’s take a little stroll down memory lane, shall we?

    1. Affordable healthcare for all
    2. Weapons of mass destruction
    3. I did not have sex with that woman
    4. Read my lips, No new taxes. I was never in the CIA before I was in charge.
    5. I don’t recall
    6. I moved the position of the wound in an effort to be more clear.
    7. I am not a crook
    8. We need to escalate in Vietnam because of an incident in the gulf of Tonkin
    9. The USS Liberty was “accidentally” attacked by Israeli forces.

    I think most thinking people have the feeling that their government has been lying to them for a very long time. As a matter of fact, if we take a look at recent history, it would seem to illustrate that being told the truth by our government is the exception rather than the rule.

    • Sandy K. says:

      Preach it Pablo. The Warren Report is the government’s Mother of Lies.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Maravilloso Pablo!

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Excellent points all. I would add an even earlier instance, Eisenhower’s claim that he’d no idea we were overflying the USSR with the U2s. This was hurriedly issued once the “one of our weather planes is missing” explanation was proved by the Soviets to be a pile of puffed wheat. Unfortunately, there was already a suspicion among the populace was Ike was disconnected from his duties as POTUS and that Nixon and the Cabinet were really running things (this was not true, but a lot of people believed it). The claim that he knew nothing about the U2 reinforced this belief, so Ike finally had to ‘fess up and admit that he’d known about it from the beginning and had authorized every mission, including the one where Powers was shot down and captured. Though not the first time a President lied to the US public, it is considered to be the first time a POTUS was caught in a lie and had to admit the truth.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Pablo,

      One more lie.

      “It was only a weather balloon”.

  40. Justin says:

    Photon wrote: Besides, CBS showed multiple ordinary marksmen were able to duplicate Oswald’s feat with more accuracy in less time.

    That is incorrect

    only one out of the eleven who attempted was able to replicate the shots and that was on his third attempt.

    Howard Donahue is the name of the marksmen.

    • Photon says:

      You forget that the shooter was aiming at JFK’s head at hit the target only once out of three shots.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Let’s not forget, best sniper out of Vietnam in late 60′s couldn’t do it from a lower elevation and a shorter distance.
      Not just NRA but Olympic qualifiers couldn’t shortly after.

    • Photon says:

      5 of 10 shooters hit the target twice in the 1967 CBS re-creation.
      Your claim is false. One shooter hit the target 3 times in under 6 seconds. But as I stated Oswald hit his target (JFK’s head) only once.
      Go to YouTube and see it for yourself.
      You can claim all you want that the re-creation was inaccurate,not truly representative of the exact conditions in Dallas, not done with the crowd noise,not done during the exact humidity as noted on Nov. 22, etc,etc.
      But please don’t lie about easily obtained data, including the results seen by millions of Americans on national TV. If you have to lie about the results of a test because they disprove your theory, maybe it is time to discard the theory.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        The point is, it was difficult for even experts, who had more than one try with a different MC whose scope was not damaged.

        Oswald was no expert.

        Also, the dissimilarity was more than just humidity.

        There was no tree blockage to disrupt the bead on the moving target. They also didn’t have to shoot out of a half-open window.

        Those tests basically proved that it would’ve been even harder if not impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald.

        • Jonathan says:

          The CBS re-enactment worked like this: Shooters were located on a tower and fired at an outline target moving straight away on a small rail car moving at 11 mph. The shooters operated the bolt of their Csrcano quickly and easily.

          The re-enactment was flawed for a number of reasons:

          1) The CBS rail car moved at a fixed speed on a level track. JFK’s limo moved at varying speeds along Elm Street, which sloped down and curved first to the left and then to the right.

          2) The shooters fired a well-functioning Carcano, not the piece of junk alleged to be the murder weapon.

          3) The shooters, all of whom were experts (unlike Oswald), had an unobstructed view of their target: no Live Oak, no S.S. follow-up car, etc.

          4) The shooters were not constrained the way a sniper’s nest shooter would have been constrained.

          In other words, apples and oranges.

          A real re-enactment would have involved the alleged murder weapon or equivalent piece of junk, the sniper’s nest, a re-creation of the motorcade down Elm Street, and shooters having Oswald’s Marine shooting scores.

      • Paul says:

        But there were TWO headshots, Photon. That means another shooter besides Oswald fired at JFK’s ahead. Conspiracy.

  41. Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

    Anyway, the key here is that the weapon found by Dallas Police and attributed to LHO is not the one the FBI said LHO ordered. The WC said he ordered a 36″ Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, and the Dallas Police found a 40″ short rifle. Moreover, the good store in Chicago where LHO supposedly ordered the rifle from, did not put scopes on the 40″ model. Yet the one in evidence had a scope. See Jim DiEugenio’s Reclaiming Parkland, pp. 56 ff.

  42. Mark Barsotti says:

    BEYOND THE PARAFFIN TESTS…

    The Atomic Energy Commission alerted the FBI to the possibility of using Neutron Activation Analysis on the evidence collected from Oswald.

    In Dec ’63 the FBI hired Union Carbide to conduct the tests at the AEC’s facility in Oak Ridge. Mr. Hoover then tried to suppress and spin the results; the actual tests weren’t released into July, 1981 (!), as the result of a Harold Weisberg lawsuit.

    WC staffers Norman Redlich had the results in hand, however, when he wrote a memo to Alan Dulles on July 2, 1964, the meat of which states: “At best the analysis shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain.”

    And that “there is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle.”

  43. Ron B. says:

    I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents: I and most of America knows we have been lied to by our government. The Warren Report is a total joke ( and I’ve read it, twice) as we all know. With very little investigating, ANYONE can figure that out. I read a comment from “commen sense”, he seems to be convinced that NOBODY in our government would or could lie about this. Sad that people would or better yet, could think that Oswald could have done this. I love this forum though. :)

  44. mark daulerio says:

    All you need is the Seymour Weitzman Affidavit (just Google). He knew
    firearms, as did the other Dallas cops who joined him.

  45. leslie sharp says:

    Photon, a quick ‘Googley’ reveals a conversation involving one ‘David Vincent’ that causes me to wonder if you might be familiar with this online discussion relating to the religious faith of President John F. Kennedy?

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96960

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more