? Mr. Oswald...do you own a rifle ?

[Charles Black]

I recall suggesting this question at some time in the past as part of another thread, although I don't recall it being answered.

One of the questions that Oswald was asked during a police / FBI interrogation was, "Do you own a rifle"? His response was "NO" !

If my memory is correct concerning the above "semi-quotation", has anyone considered that he was technically telling the truth?

There has been much speculation which questions the origins of the "magic bullet" as well as the shell casings which were found on the 6th floor, and the possibility that the MC rifle may very well have been in the posession of the "Killers" days, or even weeks, in advance of the assassination.

Since I do not believe that LHO transported the rifle to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22, I feel that when he answered that he did not "own" a rifle.... that he may very well have been telling the truth.

The truth being that he was approached by "someone" with whom he had discussed owning a rifle at some date in advance of 11/22/63. He was confronted with an "offer to purchase" the rifle at a price considerably higher than what the weapon was worth......and he accepted the offer, sold the rifle, and May have even had a Bill of Sale for it.

This of course was a part of the "PATSY" set up !

He may well have stated this in the "UNRECORDED" police and FBI interviews. He may have even named the purchaser and displayed the Bill of Sale....as Oz did have "street smarts".

I realize that many of you do not like "What If's" BUT, what if Wes and Linnie were "enlisted/threatened/purchased" to state that Lee had a "PACKAGE". Wes, not being a Rhodes Scholar candidate, somewhat "screwed up" the story which involved the size of a package/weapon which he had "NEVER SEEN".

NO ONE else saw Lee with the package which he never carried !

I feel that with much very questionable "evidence"

we are going to necessarily enlist the use of perhaps many "What If's" !

If this particular "What If", turns out to be a "WHAT" rather than an "IF"; it answers a great many of my questions.

Is there something which I am overlooking which makes this theory irrational ?

Charlie Black

[Guest Mark Valenti]

[quote name='Charles Black' date='Jan 16 2007, 06:09 PM' post='89543

Is there something which I am overlooking which makes this theory irrational ?

Charlie Black

It's an exercise without an endpoint. What if LHO was having an affair with Ruth Paine and Marina planted evidence to betray him? What if Frazier was one of the shooters? What if Roy Truly was a CIA op? What if JFK was really an actor in disguise?

You could devise many scenarios that could fit into the holes - and it's interesting to do so - but without hard evidence they are and will remain little more than frustrating possibilities.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

[quote name=Charles Black' date='Jan 16 2007, 06:09 PM' post='89543

Is there something which I am overlooking which makes this theory irrational ?

Charlie Black

It's an exercise without an endpoint. What if LHO was having an affair with Ruth Paine and Marina planted evidence to betray him? What if Frazier was one of the shooters? What if Roy Truly was a CIA op? What if JFK was really an actor in disguise?

You could devise many scenarios that could fit into the holes - and it's interesting to do so - but without hard evidence they are and will remain little more than frustrating possibilities.

There might have been an "endpoint" to Charles' theorizing, had the Warren Commission and FBI only bothered itself to pursue data given to it regarding the sale by Oswald of a rifle to an Irving, Texas garage mechanic named Robert Adrian Taylor. About 3 weeks after the assassination, Taylor reported to the FBI that he had purchased a 30.06 rifle from a man whom he was certain had been Oswald, in either March or April of 1963. Taylor recognized Oswald immediately upon seeing him on TV while in DPD custody, and reported same to FBI. That first FBI report has never been located and wasn't reproduced by the Commission in its volumes of Exhibits, nor was Taylor called to testify.

Instead, the Commission deposed one of Taylor's garage coworkers, Glenn Emmett Smith, who vouchsafed for Taylor's credibility and reliability. Nevertheless, without calling Taylor as a witness, it subsequently disposed of him in its Report, by claiming: "Upon reflection, Taylor himself stated that he is very doubtful that the man was Oswald." That Taylor had never expressed any such "doubt" about the man from whom he'd purchased a rifle didn't prevent the Commission from reaching that conclusion on his behalf, by deliberately misstating what was contained in a subsequent FBI report on a re-interview with Taylor.

Taylor may have been mistaken in his belief that the 30.06 he purchased came from Oswald, but Taylor did identify Oswald as the seller more than once, and never changed his story. But if Taylor's story was true, and Oswald owned only a 30.06 which he then sold to Taylor, Oswald was entirely truthful in asserting to Dallas Police that he didn't own a rifle.

No part of the foregoing is a "devised scenario" designed to "fit into the holes." These are facts that remain evident despite the Commission's attempts to obfuscate the true nature of events. What those facts may mean, and how they may relate to Charles' theorizing, remains open to conjecture.

[Michael G. Smith]

There might have been an "endpoint" to Charles' theorizing, had the Warren Commission and FBI only bothered itself to pursue data given to it regarding the sale by Oswald of a rifle to an Irving, Texas garage mechanic named Robert Adrian Taylor. About 3 weeks after the assassination, Taylor reported to the FBI that he had purchased a 30.06 rifle from a man whom he was certain had been Oswald, in either March or April of 1963. Taylor recognized Oswald immediately upon seeing him on TV while in DPD custody, and reported same to FBI. That first FBI report has never been located and wasn't reproduced by the Commission in its volumes of Exhibits, nor was Taylor called to testify.

Instead, the Commission deposed one of Taylor's garage coworkers, Glenn Emmett Smith, who vouchsafed for Taylor's credibility and reliability. Nevertheless, without calling Taylor as a witness, it subsequently disposed of him in its Report, by claiming: "Upon reflection, Taylor himself stated that he is very doubtful that the man was Oswald." That Taylor had never expressed any such "doubt" about the man from whom he'd purchased a rifle didn't prevent the Commission from reaching that conclusion on his behalf, by deliberately misstating what was contained in a subsequent FBI report on a re-interview with Taylor.

Taylor may have been mistaken in his belief that the 30.06 he purchased came from Oswald, but Taylor did identify Oswald as the seller more than once, and never changed his story. But if Taylor's story was true, and Oswald owned only a 30.06 which he then sold to Taylor, Oswald was entirely truthful in asserting to Dallas Police that he didn't own a rifle.

No part of the foregoing is a "devised scenario" designed to "fit into the holes." These are facts that remain evident despite the Commission's attempts to obfuscate the true nature of events. What those facts may mean, and how they may relate to Charles' theorizing, remains open to conjecture. [/color]

Personally, I dont believe Oswald owned ANY gun. I read somewhere long ago about someone in the FBI/CIA? who was ordered to purchase several M/Carcanos by his superiors. He didnt know why at the time, and we have to assume he did as he was told. [cant remember where I read it. maybe someone can help out here]There never was any proof he owned a M/C. He owned a rifle because his wife was pressured to say he had one?? I beleive the order form he supposedly sent was a phony. His rifle range scene, could have been one of the M/C's being used by the stand-in Oswald. Could be someone else used another to take a shot at Walker, as it as stated that there was proof that the bullet was fired from "his" M/C. I beleive any and all proof of him owning any weapon was falsified from day one. The .38, I think, was planted in the theatre, to show he shot Tippit. There is no real, actual proof. Alledged proof. Thats it. The M/C found in the TSBD didnt have his prints, nor the shells. The backyard photos, phony. Package under his arm? What package? The man was set up from day one. His wife was threatened with deportation if she didnt go along with what she was told to say. Its sad. The poor guy didnt stand a chance. Granted, he wasnt an angel, but he surely didnt deserve what he got. Just my opinion FWIW

thanks-smitty

[Guest Mark Valenti]

No part of the foregoing is a "devised scenario" designed to "fit into the holes." These are facts that remain evident despite the Commission's attempts to obfuscate the true nature of events. What those facts may mean, and how they may relate to Charles' theorizing, remains open to conjecture[/size]. [/color]

There are facts...and there are inferences...and there are leaps...and there are chasms. And we don't really know which is which.

Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2977

FBI report dated May 19, 1964

"The President's Commission, by letter dated April 30, 1964, requested that Mr. ROBERT ADRIAN TAYLOR be reinterviewed concerning the rifle which he had purchased from an individual he thought to be LEE HARVEY OSWALD in March or April 1963...

TAYLOR said that since April 15, 1964, he has been employed by the City of Dallas, Dallas, Texas, driving a wrecker for the Police Department Wrecker Service...

TAYLOR advised that on November 23, 1963, he was watching television and, upon viewing LEE HARVEY OSWALD, commented to his wife, "Say, that looks like the guy I bought the .30-.06 from." He stated, however, he cannot be positively sure the man who sold him the rifle was OSWALD. He stated he feels that it was OSWALD since, upon viewing OSWALD on television, he immediately thought of this rifle and, at that instant, thought OSWALD was the man who sold the weapon to him...

On reflecting back, TAYLOR said he had never seen either of those two men before. He stated there is a possibility the man he believes to be OSWALD came into the station several weeks to a month later after he had purchased the rifle from him and he was, at that time, a passenger in another automobile, this time driven by a woman. He said he cannot recall what kind of automobile the woman was driving and would hesitate to give a description of it..

Concerning this woman and male passenger whom he thought to be the man from whom he had purchased the rifle, TAYLOR said he is very doubtful that this actually was LEE HARVEY OSWALD because, on reflection, he recalls the person from whom he purchased this rifle had promised to give him two boxes of ammunition for the rifle. He said he is almost sure that, if OSWALD had been this person in the station at that time, he would have remembered him because of the promised ammunition..."

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

No part of the foregoing is a "devised scenario" designed to "fit into the holes." These are facts that remain evident despite the Commission's attempts to obfuscate the true nature of events. What those facts may mean, and how they may relate to Charles' theorizing, remains open to conjecture[/size]. [/color]

There are facts...and there are inferences...and there are leaps...and there are chasms. And we don't really know which is which.

As we're about to see. Attention to detail helps narrow the field.

Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2977

FBI report dated May 19, 1964

"The President's Commission, by letter dated April 30, 1964, requested that Mr. ROBERT ADRIAN TAYLOR be reinterviewed concerning the rifle which he had purchased from an individual he thought to be LEE HARVEY OSWALD in March or April 1963...

The Commission made this request subsequent to taking the testimony of Taylor's co-worker Glenn Emmett Smith on April 1/64. Smith's testimony, shown below, impeaches the very conclusions stipulated herein by FBI....

TAYLOR said that since April 15, 1964, he has been employed by the City of Dallas, Dallas, Texas, driving a wrecker for the Police Department Wrecker Service...

TAYLOR advised that on November 23, 1963, he was watching television and, upon viewing LEE HARVEY OSWALD, commented to his wife, "Say, that looks like the guy I bought the .30-.06 from." He stated, however, he cannot be positively sure the man who sold him the rifle was OSWALD. He stated he feels that it was OSWALD since, upon viewing OSWALD on television, he immediately thought of this rifle and, at that instant, thought OSWALD was the man who sold the weapon to him...

And yet witness Glenn Emmett Smith depicted something else entirely, as he was present during FBI's prior interview of Taylor:

Mr. Liebeler.

Taylor told you afterwards that the FBI agent had showed him a picture and this picture was supposed to be a picture of Oswald?

Mr. Smith.

He showed both of us the picture.

Mr. Liebeler.

He showed both of you the picture?

Mr. Smith.

Yes.

Mr. Liebeler.

And Taylor told you after the FBI agent left that the picture that the FBI agent showed you was a picture of the man from whom Taylor had. purchased the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. Smith.

He told the FBI man that. He didn't tell me that after he left, but he definitely told him that in my presence. I heard him.

10H page 401

A disinterested witness, Smith had already testified that Taylor was honest and reliable, and - more troubling - that Taylor had, in Smith's presence, positively identified to the FBI a photo of Oswald as the man who sold Taylor the rifle. Did the Commission wish to plumb this issue further? Certainly not enough to actually call Taylor to the witness stand and swear him in. Rather, it had FBI re-interview Taylor and reach the polar opposite conclusion, that Taylor was now "unsure" of what he had twice previously stipulated to FBI.

On reflecting back, TAYLOR said he had never seen either of those two men before. He stated there is a possibility the man he believes to be OSWALD came into the station several weeks to a month later after he had purchased the rifle from him and he was, at that time, a passenger in another automobile, this time driven by a woman. He said he cannot recall what kind of automobile the woman was driving and would hesitate to give a description of it..

Concerning this woman and male passenger whom he thought to be the man from whom he had purchased the rifle, TAYLOR said he is very doubtful that this actually was LEE HARVEY OSWALD because, on reflection, he recalls the person from whom he purchased this rifle had promised to give him two boxes of ammunition for the rifle. He said he is almost sure that, if OSWALD had been this person in the station at that time, he would have remembered him because of the promised ammunition..."

If one reads the final paragraph closely, one understands the gossamer sleight of hand employed. It does not say that Taylor recanted his claim to have bought a rifle from Oswald, only that the second man who later came into his station wasn't the man from whom he'd bought the gun, Lee Harvey Oswald. To the best of my knowledge, the initial FBI report on Taylor has never surfaced [please advise if you know of the contrary being true].

It is clear the Commission realized Taylor wouldn't recant his allegation under oath, and thus eschewed calling him as a witness. Hence, this FBI re-interview seized upon rather iffy linguistic legerdemain, by which the Commission washed its hands of a troubling tale.

I agree wholeheartedly with your observation: "and there are inferences...and there are leaps...and there are chasms." There are insupportable inferences drawn, leaps of blind faith required, and chasms between the reality of what witnesses said, and what their testimony was rendered into, all courtesy of the Warren Commission and its FBI apparatchiks. Where I cannot agree is when you say "And we don't really know which is which." There is much we were intended not to know, but it doesn't mean we can't.

[Greg Parker]

No part of the foregoing is a "devised scenario" designed to "fit into the holes." These are facts that remain evident despite the Commission's attempts to obfuscate the true nature of events. What those facts may mean, and how they may relate to Charles' theorizing, remains open to conjecture[/size]. [/color]

There are facts...and there are inferences...and there are leaps...and there are chasms. And we don't really know which is which.

As we're about to see. Attention to detail helps narrow the field.

Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2977

FBI report dated May 19, 1964

"The President's Commission, by letter dated April 30, 1964, requested that Mr. ROBERT ADRIAN TAYLOR be reinterviewed concerning the rifle which he had purchased from an individual he thought to be LEE HARVEY OSWALD in March or April 1963...

The Commission made this request subsequent to taking the testimony of Taylor's co-worker Glenn Emmett Smith on April 1/64. Smith's testimony, shown below, impeaches the very conclusions stipulated herein by FBI....

TAYLOR said that since April 15, 1964, he has been employed by the City of Dallas, Dallas, Texas, driving a wrecker for the Police Department Wrecker Service...

TAYLOR advised that on November 23, 1963, he was watching television and, upon viewing LEE HARVEY OSWALD, commented to his wife, "Say, that looks like the guy I bought the .30-.06 from." He stated, however, he cannot be positively sure the man who sold him the rifle was OSWALD. He stated he feels that it was OSWALD since, upon viewing OSWALD on television, he immediately thought of this rifle and, at that instant, thought OSWALD was the man who sold the weapon to him...

And yet witness Glenn Emmett Smith depicted something else entirely, as he was present during FBI's prior interview of Taylor:

Mr. Liebeler.

Taylor told you afterwards that the FBI agent had showed him a picture and this picture was supposed to be a picture of Oswald?

Mr. Smith.

He showed both of us the picture.

Mr. Liebeler.

He showed both of you the picture?

Mr. Smith.

Yes.

Mr. Liebeler.

And Taylor told you after the FBI agent left that the picture that the FBI agent showed you was a picture of the man from whom Taylor had. purchased the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. Smith.

He told the FBI man that. He didn't tell me that after he left, but he definitely told him that in my presence. I heard him.

10H page 401

A disinterested witness, Smith had already testified that Taylor was honest and reliable, and - more troubling - that Taylor had, in Smith's presence, positively identified to the FBI a photo of Oswald as the man who sold Taylor the rifle. Did the Commission wish to plumb this issue further? Certainly not enough to actually call Taylor to the witness stand and swear him in. Rather, it had FBI re-interview Taylor and reach the polar opposite conclusion, that Taylor was now "unsure" of what he had twice previously stipulated to FBI.

On reflecting back, TAYLOR said he had never seen either of those two men before. He stated there is a possibility the man he believes to be OSWALD came into the station several weeks to a month later after he had purchased the rifle from him and he was, at that time, a passenger in another automobile, this time driven by a woman. He said he cannot recall what kind of automobile the woman was driving and would hesitate to give a description of it..

Concerning this woman and male passenger whom he thought to be the man from whom he had purchased the rifle, TAYLOR said he is very doubtful that this actually was LEE HARVEY OSWALD because, on reflection, he recalls the person from whom he purchased this rifle had promised to give him two boxes of ammunition for the rifle. He said he is almost sure that, if OSWALD had been this person in the station at that time, he would have remembered him because of the promised ammunition..."

If one reads the final paragraph closely, one understands the gossamer sleight of hand employed. It does not say that Taylor recanted his claim to have bought a rifle from Oswald, only that the second man who later came into his station wasn't the man from whom he'd bought the gun, Lee Harvey Oswald. To the best of my knowledge, the initial FBI report on Taylor has never surfaced [please advise if you know of the contrary being true].

It is clear the Commission realized Taylor wouldn't recant his allegation under oath, and thus eschewed calling him as a witness. Hence, this FBI re-interview seized upon rather iffy linguistic legerdemain, by which the Commission washed its hands of a troubling tale.

I agree wholeheartedly with your observation: "and there are inferences...and there are leaps...and there are chasms." There are insupportable inferences drawn, leaps of blind faith required, and chasms between the reality of what witnesses said, and what their testimony was rendered into, all courtesy of the Warren Commission and its FBI apparatchiks. Where I cannot agree is when you say "And we don't really know which is which." There is much we were intended not to know, but it doesn't mean we can't.

Robert, the exact date of the alleged sale would seem important in light of the Apr 10 potshot at Walker - especially given the recovered bullet was initially reported as being a 30.06. That said, I've always believed that whole deal was a publicity stunt.

If oswald did own a rifle, it seems he didn't still own one in Sept. He told the Kloepfer girls that he was going to Washington on "important bsiness" and to buy a "gun". If he did say "gun", it's unknown whether he meant a rifle or a pistol. I think it's more than possible though, that this was the K's interpretation. Given other things he said to them - and what he'd written about the ownership of such weapons - I think he may well have actually specified a rifle.

[Charles Black]

[quote name='Charles Black' date='Jan 16 2007, 06:09 PM' post='89543

Is there something which I am overlooking which makes this theory irrational ?

Charlie Black

It's an exercise without an endpoint. What if LHO was having an affair with Ruth Paine and Marina planted evidence to betray him? What if Frazier was one of the shooters? What if Roy Truly was a CIA op? What if JFK was really an actor in disguise?

You could devise many scenarios that could fit into the holes - and it's interesting to do so - but without hard evidence they are and will remain little more than frustrating possibilities.

Mark

You of course are entitled to any view which you wish to pursue.

However, I feel that you have gone to a great deal of effort to characterize my theory as making gigantic leaps into the unknown. I see NO great leap involved other than your effort to characterize it as "extreme" guesswork.

I feel that this theme is quite in line with previous research, and as I stated, it very "logically" answers many questions that have been proposed by what I feel are quite sound researchers. It is only logical to me, that if the conspirators were planning this rifle as a "plant", they would not have depended on Oswald bringing it to work on the morning of the assassination.

This was a "Coup" which was planned and carried out by some very experienced people....."chance" would play no part in their operational plan.

It is not "far fetched".....it is a very easy and quite logical method of solving "an important portion of the PATSY plan", as well as being in posession of spent Carcano shells and the "Magic Bullet". I truly feel that your feeling toward this is truly an "Ostrich eye view". Of Course I can't "prove it". What in fact is "Proven" ?

Regarding the sale of the rifle to the individual in the Service Station......I don't think that the credibility of this alledged incident very much adds or detracts from my my original point. If it is invalid, it would in no way invalidate my original theory.

It amazes me that there are persons who after 43 years do not acknowledge that what we have is no more than a barrel of conflicting "evidence" and testimonies.

It is as if original thought and speculation is criticized because it does not appear in "motion picture" form, with a Perry Mason ending

I feel that the only "motion picture" depiction of proof in this case, has been the greatest hindrance to its solution. There is no doubt, except by only some of the staunchest single gunman theorists, that the Xrays and autopsy photos are in extremely great doubt as to their originality.

I simply propose that the evidence which is most agreed upon, by whom we consider our soundest researchers, can serve only as a basis of hypothesizing "THE MOST LIKELY" outcomes.

There will not be a documentary, factual motion picture, which will spell out the solution as in a novel with a happy ending.

What I feel that is missing, is this correlation of what "we basically agree that we know". Nirvana will not be reached !

This may be taken as a general forum criticism, but it seems to me that we are quite rich in "conflicting evidence", which we can all repeatedly PARROT back and forth to each other in a scholarly manner, as if we had memorized a poem.

What is missing are persons not fearful of stepping out on a precarious ledge, with ORIGINAL THOUGHT, for fear that they will be ridiculed by their peers. For many years, I have been told that there is great progress being made in this case. Where The Hell Is It ?

We ARE NOT approaching consensus and conclusion. We are satisfied with wasting hundreds of posts in the rediscussion of what most have known for a great many years !

Charlie Black

[Guest Mark Valenti]

However, I feel that you have gone to a great deal of effort to characterize my theory as making gigantic leaps into the unknown. I see NO great leap involved other than your effort to characterize it as "extreme" guesswork.

Not a great deal of effort. Took about five minutes.

And my point, having failed to make it the first time, is this: you are trying to connect dots that cannot be connected.

I feel that this theme is quite in line with previous research, and as I stated, it very "logically" answers many questions that have been proposed by what I feel are quite sound researchers. It is only logical to me, that if the conspirators were planning this rifle as a "plant", they would not have depended on Oswald bringing it to work on the morning of the assassination.

This is what I mean by leaps of logic. You're making an assumption based on a theory which is based on a hunch which is based on a series of hypotheses. Where does it take you? How have you gained? I don't see that you have knocked down any bowling pins whatsoever. This is NOT a knock on you, I participate in this endless exercise as well. But really, to say X happened, close the book, end of story, seems merely hopeful.

This was a "Coup" which was planned and carried out by some very experienced people....."chance" would play no part in their operational plan.

It is not "far fetched".....it is a very easy and quite logical method of solving "an important portion of the PATSY plan", as well as being in posession of spent Carcano shells and the "Magic Bullet". I truly feel that your feeling toward this is truly an "Ostrich eye view". Of Course I can't "prove it". What in fact is "Proven" ?

And that's why I offered a few ridiculous examples -- we can all take established facts and try to link them with unknowable threads. Given a few moments I could construct an elaborate scenario involving the Mormon Church, Southern California surfers and the rubber tire industry and I'll betcha within a few months there would be serious discussion online about its merits.

It amazes me that there are persons who after 43 years do not acknowledge that what we have is no more than a barrel of conflicting "evidence" and testimonies.

My point exactly.

This may be taken as a general forum criticism, but it seems to me that we are quite rich in "conflicting evidence", which we can all repeatedly PARROT back and forth to each other in a scholarly manner, as if we had memorized a poem.

What is missing are persons not fearful of stepping out on a precarious ledge, with ORIGINAL THOUGHT, for fear that they will be ridiculed by their peers. For many years, I have been told that there is great progress being made in this case. Where The Hell Is It ?

We ARE NOT approaching consensus and conclusion. We are satisfied with wasting hundreds of posts in the rediscussion of what most have known for a great many years !

It remains the most fascinating puzzle of our time. And in my opinion, based on evidence I've seen and to which I've given my belief, Oswald did own a rifle. That's my leap.

Edited January 17, 2007 by Mark Valenti

[Guest Mark Valenti]

double dutch

Edited January 17, 2007 by Mark Valenti

[Charles Black]

Mark

Please pardon my ignorance, but you are apparently on an intellectual level so far above me, that I really have no idea of WHAT you just posted or WHY you posted it.

I would appreciate a much lower level explanation by either you or anyone else who might assist me.

You merely, in my thinking, posted a negative..... with absolutely no backing. With what type of person do you usually correspond that would find your "non-reponse" of any significance ?

You brilliantly stated "....Oswald did own a rifle.

That's my leap."

What does this have to do with what I proposed?

You followed with.....

" This is what I mean by leaps of logic".

What "leap of logic" ?

And then you informed me......"You're making an assumption based on a theory which is based on a hunch which is based on a series of hypotheses"

If you really know what you are talking about, please explain to this poor old country boy.

And then...."you are trying to connect dots that cannot be connected".

In your response, which was your most assertive statement (I think), you stated "OSWALD DID OWN A RIFLE".

Most on this forum would probably agree with that.

But please inform me as well as anyone interested, how you know that "Oswald did own a rifle" on November 22, 1963 ?

If I am not mistaken, I was "inferring" that there is more than a good chance that he DID NOT!

Do you really mean that you did not understand this?

There are no clear lines of facts in this case in which "the dots CAN be connected".

If there were, I would not be wasting my time answering your "brilliant" assertions !

Charlie Black

[Guest Mark Valenti]

Mark

Please pardon my ignorance, but you are apparently on an intellectual level so far above me, that I really have no idea of WHAT you just posted or WHY you posted it.

I would appreciate a much lower level explanation by either you or anyone else who might assist me.

You merely, in my thinking, posted a negative..... with absolutely no backing. With what type of person do you usually correspond that would find your "non-reponse" of any significance ?

You brilliantly stated "....Oswald did own a rifle.

That's my leap."

What does this have to do with what I proposed?

You followed with.....

" This is what I mean by leaps of logic".

What "leap of logic" ?

And then you informed me......"You're making an assumption based on a theory which is based on a hunch which is based on a series of hypotheses"

If you really know what you are talking about, please explain to this poor old country boy.

And then...."you are trying to connect dots that cannot be connected".

In your response, which was your most assertive statement (I think), you stated "OSWALD DID OWN A RIFLE".

Most on this forum would probably agree with that.

But please inform me as well as anyone interested, how you know that "Oswald did own a rifle" on November 22, 1963 ?

If I am not mistaken, I was "inferring" that there is more than a good chance that he DID NOT!

Do you really mean that you did not understand this?

There are no clear lines of facts in this case in which "the dots CAN be connected".

If there were, I would not be wasting my time answering your "brilliant" assertions !

Charlie Black

Charlie,

I'm finding your posts kind of weird so please bear with me. You stated that you believe it's possible that LHO did not own a rifle at all, correct?

Charlie says: LHO might not have owned a rifle at all.

Right?

I think this is silly. I believe he did own a rifle, based on lots of available evidence.

I find your thesis faulty.

I believe that in hoisting the theory that LHO did not own a rifle, you are making a great leap.

Got that?

[Ryan Crowe]

Does anyone know if there were any cleaning patches, bore brushes, cleaning rods, solvents, gun oil, extra ammo etc found that belonged to Oswald?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Does anyone know if there were any cleaning patches, bore brushes, cleaning rods, solvents, gun oil, extra ammo etc found that belonged to Oswald?

None were found anywhere.

And, the scratches along CE399 which the un-informed have claimed to represent a 6-groove bullet are in fact merely the scratches implied to the bullet by corrosion & crud (powder residue, bullet scraping; etc) inside the rifle barrel which usually

end up down in the bottom two grooves of the barrel and thereafter cause parallel scratches along the round as it forces it's way over and across this corrosion & residue.

IE: Poorly cleaned barrel and representative scratches on CE399 as a result of same.

Lastly, the WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo was issued by the box (20 rounds to the box) with no clips provided.

Since LHO obtained his WCC ammo at some unknown location, it must be assumed that he also acquired his apparantly one and only Carcano clip there as well.

We have no ammo box; we have no cleaning equipment; and we have no extra rounds. (other than #4 not fired & found)

And, PPS.

Inside each and ever box of ammo was found the following slip of paper which makes the production of this ammo about as clandestine as a pink elephant in the Wal-Mart Parking Lot.

Perhaps more than you asked for?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Does anyone know if there were any cleaning patches, bore brushes, cleaning rods, solvents, gun oil, extra ammo etc found that belonged to Oswald?

None were found anywhere.

And, the scratches along CE399 which the un-informed have claimed to represent a 6-groove bullet are in fact merely the scratches implied to the bullet by corrosion & crud (powder residue, bullet scraping; etc) inside the rifle barrel which usually

end up down in the bottom two grooves of the barrel and thereafter cause parallel scratches along the round as it forces it's way over and across this corrosion & residue.

IE: Poorly cleaned barrel and representative scratches on CE399 as a result of same.

Lastly, the WCC 6.5mm Carcano ammo was issued by the box (20 rounds to the box) with no clips provided.

Since LHO obtained his WCC ammo at some unknown location, it must be assumed that he also acquired his apparantly one and only Carcano clip there as well.

We have no ammo box; we have no cleaning equipment; and we have no extra rounds. (other than #4 not fired & found)

And, PPS.

Inside each and ever box of ammo was found the following slip of paper which makes the production of this ammo about as clandestine as a pink elephant in the Wal-Mart Parking Lot.

Perhaps more information than you asked for?