Denis Pointing

This a very interesting thread...at least to me, so I'm gonna bump!! Hope no one objects.

Denis, it appears you have misinterpreted what I wrote. At no point am I arguing that Oswald was not in some way involved in the assassination of JFK. Rather, I merely pointed out that no one can place that man in that--or any other--window with that rifle at the moment the shots were fired. In and of itself, that constitutes reasonable doubt. I believe that Oswald was connected with the ordering of A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; just not that it is the same rifle that was recovered from the TSBD. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Maybe, as has been suggested on another thread about Ozzie and the Intourist vouchers, LHO had some "inside information"...in this case, information on what "department code" to use on his order to get one of the "good" Carcanos while everyone else who didn't have the proper code got the junk rifles. But there simply isn't enough PROOF to place Oswald with his finger on the trigger in Dealy Plaza at 12:30 pm on November 22, 1963. There are plausible THEORIES, but not overwhelming [or as commonly referred to these days, "smoking-gun"] PROOF that Oswald shot anybody.

So while I believe that Oswald MAY be the guilty party, I'm not convinced that he was the ONLY guilty party...or that he was guilty at all. So I really haven't formed a set-in-stone opinion as to whether a conspiracy existed. If one did, the odds are that Oswald was either involved, or at least had some idea of who was involved. Too many of his actions, both prior to and subsequent to the assassination, reek of dime-story spy novel skullduggery, whether it was directed, or whether it was concocted within his own mind...IMHO.

I think it would be more interesting and challenging research to try to determine why the British have a pathological desire to brand all Americans the same, and our dysfunctional society late, when we are really the most varied society in history and just getting started.

BK

I dont believe that statement is really accurate Bill, the Brits I know are always surprised at the great diversity between Americans. I've been fortunate enough to travel America quite extensively and the people are vastly differant from state to state rather than just north to south as in Britain. The only generalisation I would make is that wherever one goes in America you cant help but be amazed how extremely patriotic you all are. The 'ole glory' flag is everywhere, I've seen people raise the stars an stripes in their gardens before going to work every morning and they actually salute it!!!

And when your anthem is played you stop dead, put your hand on your heart and sing ...out loud!!!

We Brits really do find this extreme patriotism incredibly strange. Fact is we Brits know by now (we have been around a lot longer) that the government, any government, is only there to screw the people every which way it can, as hard as it can, as often as it can. So we tend to equate patriotism with naivety, ignorance and gullibility. Having said all that we really are very fond of you 'yanks' you know. Well.... apart from Belvilaqua, Heally and a few others. HA HA

Hi Dennis

Yes I agree there is a grey area of belief? As for the majority thought process, annoying as it is to the authorities, the views of the great unwashed DO matter (polls etc), or why else would the powers that be spend so much money and time in manipulating them every election?

Hi John, yes of course what the majority of people believe is very importaint. My point was that something isn't necessarily true or untrue just because the majority of people believe it to be so.

I agree John. Simple common sense can be tiresome.

LOL Yes Paul, your right of course. I guess "common sense" isn't really so very common at all, is it?

The full truth of what occurred on November 22, 1963 in Dealy Plaza may never be known. The facts are that JFK was shot and died from his wounds, and John Connally was injured by gunfire while riding in the same car. Of those facts we are certain. But no one can with 100% certainty place Lee Harvey Oswald in the southwest [or any other] window of the TSBD at 12:30 pm on the date in question...nor can anyone with 100% certainty place any rifle in Oswald's hands at the time and place of the shooting. Yet there are those on this forum and elsewhere who will argue to the death that Oswald was certainly the assassin, to the exclusion of every other human being in the Dealy Plaza vicinity on that date at the time the fatal shots were fired.

I find that a curious position.

Christopher Andrew has published this week a book called "The Defence of the Realm". This is the first "authorized" history of an intelligence agency. Andrew has been for a long-time a willing propagandist for MI5 so this does not come as an unexpected decision. After inspecting MI5 files Andrew has reached the conclusion that MI5 made no attempt to overthrow Harold Wilson's government. This of course goes against the account that appeared in MI5 agent, Peter Wright's book Spycatcher.

Andrew admits that some MI5 officers did believe the testimony of Anatoli Golitsyn that Wilson was a KGB agent: "Sadly, a minority of British and American intelligence officers … were seduced by Golitsyn's fantasies."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSgolitsin.htm

IMO Golitsyn must have been a genuine defector, whist the KGB may have been willing to sacrifice Maclean and Burgess for the sake of planting a dis- info agent into the CIA I cant believe they would have sacrificed Philby, who was far too importaint an asset. If it took nearly 50 years for the British people to find out King Edward was a Nazi collaborator who knows what may yet be revealed about Harold Wilson in years to come? You should know John, as an historian, that no matter how ridiculous an accusation or innuendo may seem at the time it's often latter proven to be true. Is it, in your opinion John, totally impossible Wilson just may have actually been a KGB agent? This is not a rhetorical question, I would really appreciate the perspective of a left wing historian. Thank you.

Ray and Denis,

the interview has never been published. I did send parts of it to Larry Hancock and I believe he refers to that in the last version of his book.

I should correct what I said previously, having re-looked at it, the word mentioned was "gun" not "rifle" - though in context I do think "rifle" was what Oswald was referring to specifically.

Here is the part of the interview relevant to this thread:

Thus both my sister Karol and I remember our shock when Karol innocently asked him "Why did you leave the Soviet Union?" and he answered "Because they won't let you own a gun there." One of us persisted with something like "But why would you need a gun?" And he had said simply, shaking his head nervously, "you gotta have a gun!" He then went on to tell us that one thing he was going to do in Washington was "pick up a gun."

Denis,

at the time I was looking into the Drittal name, I had a German woman working for me. I asked her what DF might stand for in relation to the German word "dritte" or "drittel". It did not take her long at all to come up with "dienst fur" and the translation I gave, is the one she gave me. Checking an online translator, Fur = for; dienst = employment or service and dritte = third OR third party ("tal" and "tel" are merely suffixes). We can get caught up in literal translations and forget that most languages have a colloquial side to them. She was born and raised in Germany and had no idea why I was asking about this, so how she could be mistaken, or what possible motive she would have had to lie. In any case, the online translator seems to bear her version out.

And thanks for mentioning the Ashes. The wounds to the psyche were just starting heal, too...

One thing for certain, "Drittal" is definitely not a persons name. I tried tracing it some time back and as far as I'm able to tell there's not a Herr Drittal in the whole of Germany. It's not really the kind of name someone would just invent either is it? I know it sounds stupid but I've spent many an hour 'Googling' and pondering the name/word and try as I may I just cant tie it in with Oswald. With respect, I'm not really convinced by your theory but it's certainly better than anything I can come up with as yet.

QUOTE (Mark Knight @ Sep 1 2009, 09:09 PM)

John, one of the points that Tom Purvis has been trying to make is that there IS a difference in the accuracy of different Mannlicher-Carcano rifles...even the ones sold by Klein's Sporting Goods.

The ones referred to as a model 91/24--such as the one ordered in the name of A. Hidell--was a rifle that originally left the factory with "progressive-gain twist" rifling...that is, the rifling grooves in the barrel did NOT have a constant rate of twist. The rate of twist to the rifling increased closer to the muzzle end of the barrel. And by cutting off some barrel length to become the rifle advertised by Klein's, much of the accuracy was lost, as the bullet had less spin imparted on it by the rifling in the barrel.

On the other hand, the rifle recovered in the TSBD was NOT a shortened rifle, but instead was a rifle that came from the manufacturer with the same length barrel as it had when recovered. Therefore, THAT rifle would have had a high degree of accuracy, similar to that cited by the person who posted the Youtube video.

So some Carcanos were accurate, and some weren't. A. Hidell ordered the inaccurate model...and yet the accurate model was recovered from the TSBD.

................................................................................

.........................................

Mark, at that time the gun market was literally flooded with Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, the wholesalers were shipping them out to outlets like Klein's by the thousands. I belive its at least possible that with bulk selling of that size the outlets were sent a mixture of both shortened and unshortened rifles. The vast majority would have been the shortened inaccurate type certainly, but at least a few 'lucky' outlets would have received some of the accurate unshortened type. If this was the case then because of the bad name Mannlicher-Carcano rifles had, somewhat unfairly, acquired plus the fact that Klein's had got them so cheaply it just wouldn't have been economically viable to separate the good from the bad. If I'm right, and I admit its only a reasoned guess, Klein's would have advertised them all as 91/24 type because of advertising standard's. Which means of course that the rifle Oswald received from Klein's and the rifle found on the sixth floor could be one and the same. As to if Oswald actually fired that rifle at the President or not isn't really relevant to this post. Any thoughts? Disagreement's are welcome.

As for the other points raised by the 'youtube' video maker I belive the guy's 100% correct. I myself have pointed out on several post's that "the recovery of the rifle was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV, and his footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano."

................................................................................

...........................................

I just found a copy of some very interesting shipping documents which would seem to back up my theory. They not only show the incredible vast quantities of Carcano's that were shipped to the USA but they also comment on how badly the rifles were stored and even say that many were collected straight from the battlefield! After reading the documents there really can be little doubt that there's, at least, a very good chance that both unshortened and shortened (accurate and inaccurate) Carcano's were indeed mixed together. Here's the link :http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2562.pdf

This post has been edited by Denis Pointing: Today, 11:39 PM

He was talking about buying a rifle just prior to leaving NO in Sept, '63 giving the reason that "everyone needs one". He also hinted that lack of ability to own a rifle in Soviet Union was one of the reasons he did not like it there (source, 2001 interview with Ruth Ann Peters nee Kloepfer).

Greg, could you point me towards the above interview please, I cant find it anywhere.

I maintain that the pistol was purchased for a third party (DF Drittal was named as reference on coupon. "dienst fur drittel" is German and translates into "on behalf of a third party").

"dienst fur drittel" translates to: service for third. Which is meaningless. The correct translation for "on behalf/interest of a third party" is :auf interesse von dritte partei

Good. It needs questioning. The impression I get from their testimony is that there was little love between the two siblings. Wes said they rarely spoke - Linnie hints that he's an uneducated hick and below her station. They also differ on how Wes got his job. Through her recommendation according to her. Through a tip from an Irving employment agency according to him.

I must be missing your point here, how does Linnie's and Wes's relationship affect the reliability of their testimony?[/quote]

PS Bad luck with the Ashes mate

I give as I receive Bernice, where is the "posting etiquette" in Dixie's accusation that I posted "misleading inferences" against her? Read the post, I did no such thing. Dixie misquoted and I corrected the mistake, end of story.

PS "Dennis quote" is a mistake. It should read Denis quote, with one 'N', tut tut, do watch those quotes lol....

Dennis quote " I make it a rule never to 'quote' without being able to verify, even if I have read the quote in "several JFK books". I guess we all have different standards of research.

I referenced your last line in your previous post......as you are aware or cannot you dicipher..tut tut .....however.....same reference , you.....no matter how it is spelt...we certainly do have different standards of research, most do so kindly,in replying some simply shoot from the hip.....to draw any kind of attention, ok you got it, hope your satisfied......you made your day... tut

B....

Bernice, I really cant take this nonsense seriously enough to argue about it. If you really feel my post violated forum etiquette or forum rules in any way then I suggest you contact a moderator. I'm just too old for internet flaming wars or whatever the expression is...

Here you go Dixie......

Dennis quote " I make it a rule never to 'quote' without being able to verify, even if I have read the quote in "several JFK books". I guess we all have different standards of research.

Then why add insult to injury..in your last sentence........It does appear your standards are very lacking today in research posting etiquette.....

B.......

I give as I receive Bernice, where is the "posting etiquette" in Dixie's accusation that I posted "misleading inferences" against her? Read the post, I did no such thing. Dixie misquoted and I corrected the mistake, end of story.

PS "Dennis quote" is a mistake. It should read Denis quote, with one 'N', tut tut, do watch those quotes lol

Denis.....

Misquting tesrtimony? Why be so insulting??? Even thouggh, I posted this four years ago, no one has

mentioned finding Essie's testimony.

.

I was only qyoting what I have read in several JFK books...and not from my own made-up words. In fact, I also specifically mentioned that I had not been able to find Essie's testimony to verify it. I had searched for it, for some time, even before the MFF site ever came along.. I had no idea it was now at her website, since I am unable to ever access that website. So, I am still only able to accept what ypu say and not from reading her testimony with my own eyes.

Your apparently correct info, is actually welcomn to me, after tryimg to find it for so long and to finally read what she evidently did actually say. For that part, I do appreciate your help. But your own misleading inferences against me is not necessary and is unwelcome

Dixie

No insult was intended, I didn't belive for one second that your misquote was anymore than a mistake, I said as much in my post when I wrote "albeit by accident". Would you have preferred I had not pointed out your misquote? How on Earth can my correction of your mistake be interpreted as a "misleading inferences against me (you)"? I make it a rule never to 'quote' without being able to verify, even if I have read the quote in "several JFK books". I guess we all have different standards of research.

PS If you would care to read the transcript in full let me know, I'll only be to glad to post it. Denis.

Dixie wrote: "Linnie's mother, Essie Mae Williams testified in an FBI Report to SA Henry Oliver on 12/10/63,,,that she also watched LHO approah their house from their kitchen. and he was NOT carrying a brown bag or anything else. I have not yet located Essie's testimony, to verify it."

Dixie

Dixie, this interview is news to me and probably to many others. Can't wait to see your next post.

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C.S. Peirce

Ray, the interview is here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=148

Essie Williams does not say "he was NOT carrying a brown bag or anything else" as stated by Dixie.

She actually says "She did not see this person carrying anything" and that she "only got a quick glimpse of Oswald" big difference isn't it. Misquoting testimony, albeit by accident, does not help the cause.

It's worth noting that in those more 'innocent' times the very idea that the CIA had any control over British media, let alone British TV, would have sounded absolutely ludicrous. But it's just possible that Simon Dee, or to give him his real name Cyril Nicholas Henty-Dodd, had a slightly better understanding than most about 'how things worked'. Its not generally known but Dee was actually stationed in Baghdad with RAF intelligence.

John, one of the points that Tom Purvis has been trying to make is that there IS a difference in the accuracy of different Mannlicher-Carcano rifles...even the ones sold by Klein's Sporting Goods.

The ones referred to as a model 91/24--such as the one ordered in the name of A. Hidell--was a rifle that originally left the factory with "progressive-gain twist" rifling...that is, the rifling grooves in the barrel did NOT have a constant rate of twist. The rate of twist to the rifling increased closer to the muzzle end of the barrel. And by cutting off some barrel length to become the rifle advertised by Klein's, much of the accuracy was lost, as the bullet had less spin imparted on it by the rifling in the barrel.

On the other hand, the rifle recovered in the TSBD was NOT a shortened rifle, but instead was a rifle that came from the manufacturer with the same length barrel as it had when recovered. Therefore, THAT rifle would have had a high degree of accuracy, similar to that cited by the person who posted the Youtube video.

So some Carcanos were accurate, and some weren't. A. Hidell ordered the inaccurate model...and yet the accurate model was recovered from the TSBD.

Mark, at that time the gun market was literally flooded with Mannlicher-Carcano rifles, the wholesalers were shipping them out to outlets like Klein's by the thousands. I belive its at least possible that with bulk selling of that size the outlets were sent a mixture of both shortened and unshortened rifles. The vast majority would have been the shortened inaccurate type certainly, but at least a few 'lucky' outlets would have received some of the accurate unshortened type. If this was the case then because of the bad name Mannlicher-Carcano rifles had, somewhat unfairly, acquired plus the fact that Klein's had got them so cheaply it just wouldn't have been economically viable to separate the good from the bad. If I'm right, and I admit its only a reasoned guess, Klein's would have advertised them all as 91/24 type because of advertising standard's. Which means of course that the rifle Oswald received from Klein's and the rifle found on the sixth floor could be one and the same. As to if Oswald actually fired that rifle at the President or not isn't really relevant to this post. Any thoughts? Disagreement's are welcome.

As for the other points raised by the 'youtube' video maker I belive the guy's 100% correct. I myself have pointed out on several post's that "the recovery of the rifle was filmed by Tom Alyea of WFAA-TV, and his footage shows the rifle to be a Mannlicher-Carcano."

I can't believe some of the posts I'm reading. First of all, you're dealing with tampered piece of evidence in the Zapruder Film. I suggest you read The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, edited by Dr. Fetzer. Harvey Oswald, whom the police arrested, didn't shoot at anyone that day. He was the patsy, though there might have been more potential patsies elsewhere during the motorcade. I suggest you also read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong (whom I never met, spoke to, or corresponded with).

Kathy C

That's a matter of opinion Kathy, as far as I'm concerned Fetzer and Armstrong are an embarrassment to any serious researcher and total liability's to the conspiracy theory in general.

Armstrong's 'research' is so wacko I seriously suspect his real purpose was to make us all look like nut's.

Whats your motive for promoting this fairy tale, fabricated by some psyop. specialists half a century ago, postmarked by the FBI within 14 days after the murder, and gentled by the WC? "Higher duty"?

Karl, your really not doing yourself any favours here mate. Someone proves you wrong so you start questioning their "motive" and suggesting they have a "higher duty"!! That's getting far too common on this forum. Prove Jerry wrong or give it up... end of story.

Although I didn't mention it I was also thinking of a possible head shot from the Daltex Building which ofcourse would have been a shot from behind.

And does a sniper know for sure his bullet will stay on its path after hitting dense shull bone. If Jackie is not lined up exactly to the front of JFK 's face she's pretty dern close even closer from the Daltexs' Building s' perspective.

And if the bullet had of deflected to the left after impact and came out the target's head just under his left eye it would have [ IMO } hit Jackie right in the face.

My point is how does the shooter know his projectile will not come out at a place that would send it carreening into Nelly or Greer or Jackie.

IMO, the neck shot endangers no one else in the limo.

The back shot should not endanger anyone either.

But by the time of the head shot Jackie is leaning forward and turning to her right taking her completely out of the way for either hat man or badge man on the GN fence area to make their head shot from the front.

This is my reasoning for no head shot from behind.

Thank you for yall's comments,

jim

As a Forum member, only, I suggest you stop diverting the topic. I also would like to know where your extreme anger comes from. Take a stress pill. The topic is Papich and Oswald - have anything to say on it?

The "extreme anger" comes from the fact that I wont stand by and watch someone whom I respect and admire be insulted and unfairly accused.

But your right, perhaps I did over react. The "stress pill" has been duly taken and so back to the topic, which concerns Papich's alleged remark about Oswald "being a crappy shot" it is not about whether or not Oswald actually took the shots, that question belongs on another thread.

The link below should settle once and for all (I've a gut feeling it wont) Oswald's shooting capabilities and just how difficult the shot actually was. Its the testimony of Maj Anderson the assistant head of the USMC Marksmanship Branch.

I wont quote from it, anyone truly interested can read it for themselves.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...11_Anderson.pdf

Tom Purvis never convinced me of anything. If he is such an 'expert', he should know better and IMO probably does, but wants to pin the rap on the patsy and lead others liked the piped piper into believing it also. Oswald didn't shoot anyone that day. Period. Those that promote otherwise just want people chasing their own tails, so the case doesn't get solved and the putch that took over can continue in its destruction of America [now all but complete] IMO.

I find it interesting that the FBI-CIA liason found TMWKTM of 'interest'. Nagell was one of the 'keys' one could use to  unlock the secrets....but he was never called by the 'investigators' - as they didn't want to  unlock the secrets, really...just have a goon show and make it look as if they were. IMO.

Peter, if that's not an "opine on Tom's motives" then I dont know what is!! As a moderator I presume you do understand rule iv?

See, you ARE a riot! And predictable too. Sooo ... asking someone to discuss the witnesses and what someone disagrees with as presented in the article is off topic. Hmmmm. Well, from what we have seen so far, it would be for you and Pam, perhaps. :-)

ROTFL.

Barb, dont you know Dave's idea of staying on topic means insults and smears....Dave just doesn't 'do' evidence and research. LOL

Email from an anti-conspiracist journalist:

I note that you have highlighted Dick Russell's book on your main page and so I wanted to pass on this tidbit. When i was interviewing Sam Papich, the FBI liaison officer to the CIA, about the FBI's probe into the JFK assassination, several times he stopped the interview and referred me to that book. It was very strange, as if he was trying to tell me something. I'm not sure what, but he just kept saying it was an "interesting" account of events. Knowing Sam as I came to, I have been left with the impression that he regarded certain threads in that book has worthy of further exploration, but thought that journalists had not picked up on those threads.

He also mentioned in those interviews that the thing that bothered him most about the Warren report was that "this would have been very fancy shooting even for the best marksmen in the FBI. But everything we had on Oswald indicated that he was a crappy shot."

You can use this information however you like, but please don't attribute it to me....

And yet our very own and very respected Tom Purvis argues persuasively that the shot was a relatively easy one and that Oswald, who in Tom's experienced opinion was an excellent shot, would have been more then capable of delivering. I've never known Tom to be anything but trufull and there's no denying that he is an expert in such matters. Think I'll stick to the expert I know.

Tom Purvis never convinced me of anything. If he is such an 'expert', he should know better and IMO probably does, but wants to pin the rap on the patsy and lead others liked the piped piper into believing it also. Oswald didn't shoot anyone that day. Period. Those that promote otherwise just want people chasing their own tails, so the case doesn't get solved and the putch that took over can continue in its destruction of America [now all but complete] IMO.

I find it interesting that the FBI-CIA liason found TMWKTM of 'interest'. Nagell was one of the 'keys' one could use to  unlock the secrets....but he was never called by the 'investigators' - as they didn't want to  unlock the secrets, really...just have a goon show and make it look as if they were. IMO.

Peter, your not seriously suggesting Tom Purvis is some kind of dis info agent are you? Good God man, you have that long sig ranting on about "freedom and liberty" etc and yet anyone who voices a differant opinion to yourself is regarded as an enemy who should be silenced!! God help us all if you ever take up that offer as moderator.

And yet our very own and very respected Tom Purvis argues persauvely that the shot was a relatively easy one and that Oswald, who in Tom's experienced opinion was an excellent shot, would have been more then capable of delivering. I've never known Tom to be anything but trufull (sic) and there's no denying that he is an expert in such matters. Think I'll stick to the expert I know.

Even though Tom has been nothing but "trufull (sic)" everyone's subjective opinions are always open to interpretation and discussion, however. Certainly the kill shot could never have

been made from the TSBD 6TH floor window using a bolt-operated gun with mis-aligned sights. I think we all know that the kill shot came from the Grassy Knoll, don't we? Fact is, there was

a conspiracy, but neither Guns nor Gore will lead us to a living conspirator or suspects, only "suspicions". And that is why so much time is wasted in Dealey angles and Bethesda subterfuges.

Time to move on to something more productive.

I see your back Mr Bevilqua. Nice clear photo you've posted, I see your still managing to flout the rules of the forum. But for once I totally agree with you, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see you "move on to something more productive"...in fact the further you move the better.

P.S. Thanks for pointing out the spelling mistake, have you learned to spell vilify yet? See sig.

Email from an anti-conspiracist journalist:

I note that you have highlighted Dick Russell’s book on your main page and so I wanted to pass on this tidbit. When i was interviewing Sam Papich, the FBI liaison officer to the CIA, about the FBI’s probe into the JFK assassination, several times he stopped the interview and referred me to that book. It was very strange, as if he was trying to tell me something. I’m not sure what, but he just kept saying it was an “interesting” account of events. Knowing Sam as I came to, I have been left with the impression that he regarded certain threads in that book has worthy of further exploration, but thought that journalists had not picked up on those threads.

He also mentioned in those interviews that the thing that bothered him most about the Warren report was that “this would have been very fancy shooting even for the best marksmen in the FBI. But everything we had on Oswald indicated that he was a crappy shot.”

You can use this information however you like, but please don’t attribute it to me....

And yet our very own and very respected Tom Purvis argues persuasively that the shot was a relatively easy one and that Oswald, who in Tom's experienced opinion was an excellent shot, would have been more then capable of delivering. I've never known Tom to be anything but trufull and there's no denying that he is an expert in such matters. Think I'll stick to the expert I know.