Mike Williams

Mike, you're making a number of mistakes, IMO. But perhaps I am simply misinformed. It is my understanding that a bullet actually leaves the rifle low on a slightly upward trajectory, and doesn't cross zero on its upward arc until 15-25 yards.

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help.

In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly.

Now the Carcano Chart.

Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range).

This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range)

Those trajectories match.

It is also my understanding that the iron sights were zeroed in at 200 meters by the manufacturer, and that there was no evidence this was changed.

You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course.

I mean, it was Frazier who said the rifle fired high, not me. If the 4 inches high at 15 yards was what he expected, why didn't he say so? If the rifle fired straight on 11-27, why didn't he say so? And why did they re-sight the rifle in March?

Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken.

Okay. So we're stuck. You insist the scope was zeroed in at 400 yards without any evidence to support as much, beyond that you want this to be the truth. You also insist that the scope was damaged after 11-27, once again without any evidence, and in opposition to Frazier's testimony. You also keep evading that the FBI said the rifle could not be aligned without shims, that the Army confirmed this and added shims, and that Lattimer confirmed that this was a problem with the rifle/scope combination, and not unique to Oswald's rifle. You want to believe that the rifle was accurate on 11-22. Well I want to believe the shots came from the knoll. But the evidence tells me different. Whatever theory you're conjuring up that claims the scope was properly sighted-in and accurate on 11-22 should similarly be reconsidered.

Let me draw your attention once again to Frazier's testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, could you tell us why, in your opinion, all the shots, virtually all the shots, are grouped high and to the right of the aiming point?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. When we attempted to sight in this rifle at Quantico, we found that the elevation adjustment in the telescopic sight was not sufficient to bring the point of impact to the aiming point. In attempting to adjust and sight-in the rifle, every time we changed the adjusting screws to move the crosshairs in the telescopic sight in one direction-it also affected the movement of the impact or the point of impact in the other direction. That is, if we moved the crosshairs in the telescope to the left it would also affect the elevation setting of the telescope. And when we had sighted-in the rifle approximately, we fired several shots and found that the shots were not all landing in the same place, but were gradually moving away from the point of impact. This was apparently due to the construction of the telescope, which apparently did not stabilize itself--that is, the spring mounting in the crosshair ring did not stabilize until we had fired five or six shots.

The problem was with the construction...NOT with the individual scope.

Now watch how Eisenberg tries to get him to say the problem was with the individual scope, and that it had somehow been damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Do you know when the defect in this scope, which causes you not to be able to adjust the elevation crosshair in the manner it should be do you know when this defect was introduced into the scope?

Mr. FRAZIER - No; I do not. However, on the back end of the scope tube there is a rather severe scrape which was on this weapon when we received it in the laboratory, in which some of the metal has been removed, and the scope tube could have been bent or damaged.

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you first test the weapon for accuracy on November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Mr. EISENBERG - Have you any way of determining whether the defect pre-existed November 27th?

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY CLAIMING THE SCOPE HAD NOT RECENTLY DAMAGED PRIOR TO ITS BEING TESTED ON 11-27.)

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted. (HE IS THEREBY ADMITTING THAT HE AT NO TIME NOTED ANY DAMAGE TO THE SCOPE WHICH HE COULD ASSOCIATE WITH ITS INABILITY TO BE PROPERLY SIGHTED-IN. AS STATED, LATTIMER CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE RIFLE/SCOPE COMBINATION. SO WHY, AGAIN, ARE WE TO PRETEND THE SCOPE GOT DAMAGED SUBSEQUENT TO 11-27? BECAUSE IT FITS THE SINGLE-ASSASSIN THEORY?)

He later clarifies his position.

Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.

Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle. (HE THEREBY CLARIFIES THAT NO MATTER WHAT WAS DONE IN DALLAS, THE SCOPE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN ALIGNMENT.)

There is also this:

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, turning back to the scope, if the elevation cross-hair was defective at the time of the assassination, in the same manner it is now, and no compensation was made for this defect, how would this have interacted with the amount of lead which needed, to be given to the target?

Mr. FRAZIER - Well, may I say this first. I do not consider the crosshair as being defective, but only the adjusting mechanism does not have enough tolerance to bring the crosshair to the point of impact of the bullet. (NOTE: HE IS THEREBY REPEATING THAT THE PROBLEM WAS INHERENT IN THE SCOPE, AND NOT THAT THE SCOPE HAD BEEN DAMAGED.)

As to how that would affect the lead--the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you.

I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right. (FRAZIER IS THEREBY TESTIFYING THAT THE CROSSHAIRS WERE SET HIGH AND THAT THE SCOPE WAS NOT IN PROPER ALIGNMENT. THIS CONTRADICTS THE THEORY THAT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS, AND THAT THE BULLETS' LANDING HIGH WAS AS EXPECTED, AND COMPATIBLE WITH PROPERLY SET CROSSHAIRS.)

And this:

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; if you, for instance, take this rifle with a telescopic sight and sight it in for 300 feet--that is, the bullet will strike where you are looking when you are shooting at 300 feet--at 200 feet the bullet will be above the line of sight approximately one-quarter of an inch, and at 100 feet it will be approximately one-quarter of an inch below the line of sight. That is accomplished because the bullet is still coming up at 100 feet, it crosses the line of sight, and does not descend again to it until you come to the sighting-in distance of 300 feet.

If you sighted-in to strike at 450 feet, the bullet at 100 feet would be just at the line of sight--that is, on its way up would just cross the line of sight at about 100 feet. It would be one inch high at 200 feet, and approximately one and one-eighth inches high at 300 feet.

It would, of course, drop back down to the point of aim at 450 feet. If you sighted-in at 600 feet, then at 100 feet it would be approximately one-half inch high. At 200 feet it would be 2 inches high, and at 300 feet it would be approximately 3 inches high. (NOTE THAT THE FURTHEST DISTANCE FRAZIER MENTIONS AS A DISTANCE FOR WHICH A RIFLE WOULD BE SIGHTED IN IS 600 FEET OR 200 YARDS--HALF THE DISTANCE NEEDED TO MAKE HIS SHOTS LANDING HIGH ON 11-27 FIT THE EXPECTED TRAJECTORY. HE CLEARLY DOES NOT BELIEVE THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT 400 YARDS OR ELSE HE WOULD HAVE SAID SO.)

He confirms this later:

Mr. EISENBERG - What would be the usual minimum distance you use for sighting-in a weapon such as Exhibit. 139?

Mr. FRAZIER - It would vary from place to place depending upon shooting conditions, and I would say it would seldom be sighted-in for less than 150 or 200 yards.

(WHILE HE DOESN'T MENTION A MAXIMUM DISTANCE, HIS PREVIOUS ANSWER SUGGESTS HE FELT THE RIFLE WAS SIGHTED IN AT NO MORE THAN 200 YARDS.)

Pat,

I do see a few things that I need to change in my examination, and thank you much for that. Let me put some thought into this and we can keep moving forward.

I gotta tell you it's refreshing to talk to someone about this who actually ponders and does not just copy and paste epic sections of nonsense!

I for one appreciate it!

Mike

Perfect - don't bother reading it - but disagree anyway.

Please enlighten us to the original research you performed on Mr. Brennan other than googling his book and then copy/pasting a direct quote.

Please tell us who you've contacted in your endless search for the evidence linking Oswald with the rifle you claim is so wonderful and then you can address each of the points made in the post and attachment. It's called research you simple minded yokel... You read what others have done, you check their information for accuracy and you formulate a hypothesis then go test it.

I've had very productive discussions with a variety of authors and researchers... personally I prefer to work with photographs and video since so many others have taken the time to do the work to create valuable SOURCE material. Do you even bother to read Horne, Mantik, Hancock, Lane, Lifton, Kelly the original interviews and statements etc, etc, etc... If you have and still can argue points without a speck of supporting evidence you're a bigger fool thatn I thought

If you haven't - then you're just another wannabe important xxxxx with nothing better to do with your time.

That's why all your left with is me and Lee, for now.

But that ends now too...

You're like a bad accident - horrible to look at yet annoyingly compelling never the less. except you follow others around!

I've just got to learn to drive by without noticing like the rest of the forum members...

I'll learn

Bu Bye now.

To drive by without noticing, it does not escape me that this is the exact same position you take with the evidence.

Nice work.

I agree with Mike that physical evidence SHOULD trump eyewitness recollections

Martin

And I agree with you. It SHOULD. But in very many areas of this case, it doesn't. CE399 and CE573 are in good, or should that be bad, company.

Lee

So in fact both of you claim that witness testimony should take a back seat to physical evidence, and then accept the testimony over the evidence.

Impressive.....no.....really....

Mike,

Here is my final take on Howard Brennan bearing in mind our debate over his witness testimony and line-up attendance.

You suggest that you follow the evidence without prejudice.

Brennan claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

Arnold Rowland claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to believe Brennan, but disregarded his description.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to disbelieve Rowland because they were unhappy that he saw an elderly black man in the sixth floor window some minutes prior to the man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, taking his shots at the president.

Why?

If they believed Rowland then it puts a third man on the sixth floor in the lead up to the shooting. The Warren Commission had already coerced a change of testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams to say he was on the sixth floor eating his lunch prior to the shooting. He claims there was no one else on the sixth floor. They needed Williams up there to get rid of the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper bottle mystery when in actual fact he more than likely wasn’t on the sixth floor eating his lunch. Please see Greg Parker's website concerning Eddie Piper.

You see Mike; this is the problem with what the FBI, DPD and WC did. They fudged and intimidated testimony from certain people to fit the evidence but they opened up more problems for themselves. Arlen Specter’s handling of Arnold Rowland during his testimony is transparent and there for all to see. Specter’s job was simply to undermine Rowland’s credibility on the stand and it, for me, is appalling to read.

So, the FBI had their star witness in Mr. Brennan and would do their best to destroy Rowland. You claim that you believe Brennan’s testimony. You claim that testimony is evidence. But you do what you accuse others of here on this board. You cherry pick what you like from his testimony versus what you don’t. You think he saw Oswald in the window but his memory recall was so good that he didn’t identify him during the line-up he attended on the evening of the 22nd. He couldn't even count to four. To talk himself out of this, Brennan then came up with an excuse (or an excuse was given to him) as to why he didn’t pick Oswald out of the line-up. He claimed that he thought there was a “communist conspiracy” to kill JFK and he was the ONLY witness (how he knew this I do not know) to the shooting and therefore felt his family may be in danger. He stated in his Warren Commission testimony that once Oswald was dead he was relieved and in actual FACT could have identified him.

There’s a problem with this story Mike. Brennan made a further statement, after his initial one on the 22nd November. December 17th 1963 this is what he said:

"He advised that at about 7 P.M., November 22, 1963, when he observed a line-up of individuals at the Dallas Police Department he selected Lee Harvey Oswald as the individual most closely resembling the person whom he had seen with a rifle in the widow of the TSBD building. He said this was the extreme East window of the sixth floor on the front side of the TSBD building where he observed this individual. He noted that he was seated on a wall across Elm Street from the TSBD at the time the Presidential motorcade passed. He stated that he now can say that he is sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person he saw in the window at the time of the President’s assassination. He pointed out that he felt that a positive identification was not necessary when he observed Oswald in the police line-up at the Dallas Police Department at about 7 P.M., November 22, 93, since it was his understanding Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tipppit. He said that another factor which made him hesitate to make a positive identification of Oswald in the police line-up was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of Oswald on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said that he felt that since he had seen Oswald on television before picking Oswald out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification he made of Oswald at that time."

So on November 22nd in his affidavit he claimed he “could identify the man again.” He was supposedly invited to a line-up that night but then didn’t identify Oswald. He makes a statement on the 17th December claiming he can now identify Oswald and he didn’t identify him in November because he felt he didn’t need to and that seeing a picture of Oswald on TV prior to the line-up may have clouded his judgement.

There’s then ANOTHER affidavit taken on the January 7th 1964. In this one he states:

"Mr. Brennan advised that on November 22, 1963, after finishing lunch at about 12:18 PM, he sat on a retainer wall directly across from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) building, on Elm Street. While he was sitting there, he looked up at the TSBD building and noticed that there was a man standing in the sixth floor window; however, at this time, this man did not have a rifle. He said he then turned around and noticed that the man had left the window. Then he turned his head back toward the South where the Presidential motorcade would come. Approximately ten minutes after sitting down on this retaining wall, the Presidential motorcade turned onto Houston Street, and he was able to see President Kennedy and his wife pass approximately thirty yards west on Elm from where he was seated. The car passed out of sight and shortly thereafter, he heard one shot, which he first believed to have been a firecracker, and he immediately looked toward the TSBD building and saw a man on the sixth floor in the same window, near the southeast corner of the building, and noticed that this man took deliberate aim and shot the rifle again. When he saw the man shoot the rifle this time, he realized it was the same man that he had seen standing in the window a few minutes before. After the last shot, he immediately fell off the retaining wall and ran for an officer so that he could advise the police and Secret Service that the man whom he had seen take the last shot was in the TSBD building. ... Mr. Brennan added that after his first interview at the Sheriff’s office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 PM. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included the possible assassin of President Kennedy, he observed Lee Harvey Oswald’s picture on television.

Mr. Brennan said that this, of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the police lineup, he felt that Oswald most resembled the man whom he had seen in the window."

No communist conspiracy, no fear for his family. Both statements made LONG after Oswald was dead. This is your witness Mike. As mentioned in other threads, the only one you have to claim that Oswald was in that window. And you believe him? Jesus…

Helen Markham has more credibility than this guy. You want me to follow the evidence without prejudice Mike? I do and it leads me to conspiracy and monstrous cover-up every single time. Here’s one more thing for you to consider if you want to take his testimony at face value (cherry picked of course).

Mr. MCCLOY. How long did it take you, do you think, from the time of the - when you first got up - from the time of the last shot, how long would you estimate it would be before you got to the steps of the Texas Book Depository?

Mr. BRENNAN. I could not calculate that, because before I got to the steps of the Texas Book Store, I had already talked to this officer, and he had taken me to the Secret Service men, I had talked to them.

Mr. MCCLOY. And you stayed behind the retaining wall for a little while until you saw the coast was clear?

Mr. BRENNAN. Just seconds. I would say from the time the last shot was fired, and me diving off the wall there, and getting around on the solid side, and then running across to the officer, the time element is hard to figure, but it would still be in seconds.

So your precious witness, says within seconds he told an officer that he had seen, with his own eyes, a man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, who had shot the president from the south-east corner window of the second set of windows under the roof and it took them 40-45 minutes to find the bloody snipers nest? Instead of that officer, the minute Brennan informed of this, demanding all exits sealed and elevators and stairwells covered so they could arrest anyone in their thirties wearing light coloured clothing coming off those elevators or down those stairs, what did the officer do? He first told him to “wait there” and then went with Mr. Brennan to find “the secret service men” that took according to Howard Brennan 3-5 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if this so-called officer got a nice juicy promotion promoted after this effort...

Follow the evidence Mike. Without prejudice. If you don’t see this case for what it truly is, then you are truly lost…

Lee

So then you can prove without fail conspiracy? I suspect you disregard his testimony, for the very same reason you accuse me of accepting it. Because it does not support your conclusion. However, how many times does Brennan say he CAN identify Oswald? Several. That's pretty telling in itself. I have to laugh when someone from the CT side claims that they could not believe Brennan was afraid, and then talks about how witnesses were killed. OF course the man was afraid, and he believed it was a communist plot. So then, why was he afraid after Oswald was "long dead"? Simple. He thought that it was a communist plot, which he believed contained more than one person, why should he not be afraid after Oswald's death, he still believed there was remaining members of the plot!

The facts, 47 years later indicate one gunman from behind and not a shred of evidence for conspiracy at all. One would think after 47 years some should have surfaced, and yet, not one credible piece has. The one interesting observation, is that whenever a CT claims the proof is solid, it always seems to wash out when scrutinized.

I expected that level of reply to what I have written Mike. I'm not here to "prove" anything. Your government had the accountability to "prove" things and they failed miserably in 1963-64. Your own government then proved conspiracy in 1979 and requested the Justice Department investigate further. Do you not know this?

As far as Brennan is concerned. Your witness lied. So he has zero credibility. Ignore him and what do you have? You have nothing but dodgy palm prints and dodgy gun adverts.

I don't care if he was afraid that the "communists" were coming to get him. He lied. He had two opportunities to put this on record AFTER Oswald was dead and he didn't take them. He lied. Pure and simple. It's his words that I use. He said he was "relieved" when Oswald was dead, not me. If the shoe was on the other foot then you'd brush him aside the way you do Roger Craig.

He attended a line-up but couldn't count to four. He attended a line-up with the Davis sisters and they don't remember him being there. His attendance at the line-up was added to the Davis card the way Marion Baker's identification of Oswald was added to the end of Marvin Johnson's report into the events of the day.

You make assumptions about my beliefs in the case concerning shots from behind versus from the front and you can't deal with the inconsistencies I present. You're not suspicious of the police reaction to Brennan's claims? You have no answer for that level of ineptitude? You have no qualms that if Brennan's testimony is true that the police possibly let the killer go? You know the guy with the light clothing? Kinda like the guy that Baker accosted on the stairs of the third or fourth floor wearing a light brown jacket? You don't find it strange that Baker's testimony changed quite dramatically from his 22nd November affidavit? Good Lord!!

I asked you a question about Oswald's FLASH being removed by the FBI in October 1963. You claim faulty sources. My source is FBI Agent James Hosty and released FBI and CIA files. You have NO ANSWERS. And you can go and consult with DVP all you want on this issue because he won't have any either. He may tell you to claim "faulty sources"...hey wait a minute.

I really thought you were interested in debating the issues but then you come out with a garbage line that with CT viewpoints the "things wash out" when "scrutinised." You mean like DVP when he washes his undies? Here's some DVP "undie washing." FBI Agent Bob Barrett saw a wallet being "scrutinised" at the scene of the Tippit murder by Captain Westbrook. Westbrook asked Barrett if he knew Lee Oswald or Alex Hidell. Barrett said no. The wallet was caught on camera. Westbrook denied there was a wallet at the scene but because of the photographic evidence DVP knows he had to answer it. He claims it was Ted Callaway's. End of story.

Unfortunately he ignores the fact that Ted Callaway said it wasn't. That certainly washed that one away, just like the brum brums in the aforementioned DVP underwear.

That's the level of scrutiny your side of the argument can come up with? You love the minutea of the case because you can just keep pinging things backwards and forewards BUT the bigger issues and the bigger picture, such as the FLASH removal and Oswald being impersonated in Mexico, you have NO ANSWERS for.

Over and out

Lee

All that comedy in so few words!

Exactly Mike, "lack of evidence should never be considered evidence." So the lack of evidence that Oswald practiced does not allow us to conclude that he did. I mean come on, he didn't have the bloody thing in his possession in the 2 months leading up to the assassination.

And there is exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that Oswald fired at Walker.

Martin,

Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point.

SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes.

I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

No Mike. Not a fluke. A lie.

Even Walker knew (and stated publicly) that the bullet in evidence isn't the bullet that was retrieved from his home.

Just another lie to add to the rest. Chalk them up...

Lee,

Again with the "lie" gimmick?

Why did it have to be a lie? Because it does not fit the "plan"?

Is all of the evidence altered planted or forged?

Walker said it's NOT the bullet. Do you know more about that bullet than General Edwin Walker?

If someone stole your car (let's say a BMW) and the police claim they've found it and drive up to your home in a Nissan would you believe they'd found your car?

In answer to your last question. No. Just the stuff that was planted and forged...

...classic DVP and McAdams type of question though Mike. How about trying the "How many people where involved in this giant and all encompassing conspiracy?' next time?

Keep ignoring the evidence though...

Of course the errors in your analogy are glaring. If the police brought me a Nissan I would know it was not my car. However that bullet was not Walkers bullet.....so why should we give weight to his identification? It was Oswald's bullet, not Walkers.

So typical of the CT crowd to put witness testimony above physical evidence. Did you not know that witness testimony is the LEAST reliable?

No wonder there is so much confusion in figuring out a simple case for some folks.....

Tell you what xxxxx... you provide proof that Oswald was at the window doing the shooting

and prove that the rifle that now sits at the Archives is the one he used

and I'll agree that the $19.95 weapon of death was as reliable as your posting insults at every opportunity

and there are no political assassinations in the history of the US - nay, not here.

If you are going to avoid providing anything in the way of established legal evidence with a proper chain,

as I and most forum members expect, then you can get back to sitting alone polishing your gun.

You're nauseating and drastically take from what would normally be an enjoyable exchange of ideas...

But you already know that, why else would you get up out of bed each morning...

why ask me to prove ANYTHING to you - I gather you've never changed your mind about anything regarding the assassination

since you are obviously still living in 1964 where the government is always right

and LBJ is your role model.

The Great Carcano Swindle

By

Bill MacDowall

© 2000

This article reproduced here with the permission of the author

MURDER WEAPON FOUND!

Within an hour of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy Dallas Police Department (DPD) announced the discovery of a rifle on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) in Dealey Plaza.

Two DPD officers, Eugene Boone and Seymour Weitzman, were present when the weapon was found and both were credited with finding it by the Warren Commission (WC). Both officers subsequently described the rifle they found as a 7.65MM Mauser bolt-action rifle.

On November 22nd 1963, the day of the assassination, Eugene Boone prepared a written report for his superior Sheriff Decker in which he confirmed the rifle he had found was a Mauser. On November 23rd, a full day later, Seymour Weitzman signed a detailed sworn affidavit confirming his original identification of a Mauser. Also on November 23rd Dallas District Attorney Henry M. Wade gave a televised press conference at which he advised the media that the weapon found in the TSBD was a Mauser 7.65MM bolt action rifle.

More than 24 hours would elapse before anyone would publicly announce that the rifle found was anything other than a Mauser. Indeed a CIA report dated November 25th was still describing the rifle as a Mauser.

Subsequent claims would indicate that the true identity of the rifle found was known to Dallas Police within a very short time of its discovery but there is absolutely no documentary evidence to support this assertion. All that does exist is a record of conflicting stories, missing documents and evasive testimony.

Eventually the DPD revealed that the TSBD rifle was in fact an Italian made Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM carbine, serial no. C2766, manufactured in 1940. Based on an original Mauser design the Carcano superficially resembles the Mauser genre from which it was derived but is betrayed by its inferior build-quality.

Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was allegedly purchased from a Chicago mail order house by an A. Hidell, an alias apparently used by Lee Harvey Oswald. Almost immediately suspicions began to emerge in some quarters that the rifle originally found had been switched for the Mannlicher Carcano linked to Oswald. Oswald had been arrested shortly after the assassination in connection with the killing of DPD officer J.D. Tippit.

Controversy over the true identity of the rifle originally found in the TSBD has continued to rage ever since. In seeking to unravel this mystery it quickly becomes clear that a dark shadow hangs over the testimony of many of the individuals involved in the finding of the TSBD rifle. More than that, it seems highly probable that the chain of evidence linking Lee Harvey Oswald to the ownership and use of Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was fabricated by those charged with responsibility for investigating the assassination of John. F. Kennedy.

A RIFLE IS BORN

Our story begins not in Dallas but in the Italian town of Terni in 1940. Italian involvement in world war two created an urgent demand for rifles to equip the armed forces. At the Royal Arms Works in Terni (Regio Esercito Terni-RE Terni) north of Rome workers were turning out 2,500 rifles a day. It was here that Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was made.

On pages 21-22 of his 1975 book "The Gun: A Biography of the Gun that Killed John F. Kennedy", Henry S. Bloomgarden described the means by which C2766 acquired its allegedly unique identity:

"Each weapon was stamped with its own numbers and marking; together these would brand each gun as a unique entity."

He went on to describe one such gun thus:

CAL 6.5 (the calibre of the weapon)

RE TERNI (place of manufacture)

TNI (with a proof mark in the form of a crown)

PG (initials of the bolt handle designer)

SD (initials of the inspector of the rifle)

ROCCA (after Giuseppe Rocca manufacturer of the bolt cocking piece)

C2766 (the serial number)

1940 (the year of manufacture)

According to Bloomgarden:

A serial number and letter in combination were stamped into the metal giving a particular unit identity; no other gun would be so marked. One was branded, forever, C2766.

As with much of the lore surrounding C2766, this assertion was only partly accurate. In fact Mannlicher Carcano rifles were being made at several plants throughout Italy. The Model 91/38 Carcano, of which C2766 is an example, was also manufactured by Beretta, FNA and Gardone VT as well as the Terni plant. The Royal Arms Works at Terni was, however, the largest producer accounting for around 800,000 units out of a total of 948,000 Model 91/38's made.

The nomenclature, markings and identification of Carcanos varies widely. Specific models are not always marked in like fashion and this often causes confusion, which is reflected in the available Carcano literature. Regardless of Bloomgarden's conviction that each Carcano made bore a unique serial number, the fact is that several Carcanos may have carried the serial number 2766 with or without the "C" prefix.

After the war Carcano rifles and carbines found their way back to the RE Terni plant by the thousand. Most of these weapons had seen service on the battlefields of Europe and Africa and were in poor condition. The Terni plant, which had once manufactured Carcanos now, turned its attention to repairing and restoring the detritus of war.

In 1958, the Italian Ministry of Defence (Ministero della Difesa), offered for sale a consignment of more than 500,000 rifles. Sicilian Attorney Alberto Bagnasco got wind of the Ministry of Defence plans and contacted Philadelphia attorney Andrew Farnese, a business contact, with a view to finding a buyer for the surplus Carcanos.

Farnese contacted Louis and Irving Feldsott, owners of the Folsom Arms Company of New York, who expressed an interest in acquiring the surplus Carcanos but lacked the financial resources necessary to make a bid for the inventory. An approach was then made to Adam Consolidated, who agreed to fund the venture.

The Adams Consolidated/Folsom Arms alliance bid of $1,776,000 was accepted by the Italian Ministry of Defence. In Italy, Irving Feldsott and Alberto Bagnasco agreed the terms of a contract with the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Adam Consolidated consortium.

Adam Consolidated were to act as financiers and importers. A new company called Crescent Firearms was incorporated, with Louis Feldsott as President, to distribute the rifles.

The contract provided for the supply of approximately 570,000 Carcano Model 91/38 6.5MM rifles and 5300 kilos of assorted spare parts. Some 300,000 of the Carcanos to be supplied were known to be defective to a greater or lesser degree.

Prior to shipping the Carcanos to the United States, Bagnasco was retained by Adam Consolidated to arrange for the renovation and repair of the defective units to make them ready for the US market. Bagnasco contacted the Brecia-based arms company Breda in the hope that they might be interested in contracting for the renovation and repair of the Carcanos but they declined. Breda did, however, suggest that company executive Luciano Riva, a 5th generation gunsmith of some repute, might be interested.

Riva was later provided with various sample weapons to work on in order that Adam Consolidated might assess the quality of his workmanship. Riva evidently impressed Adam Consolidated because Bagnasco was soon instructed to offer him the contract. Riva was initially reluctant to enter into a contract with Adam Consolidated on his own account. His stated preference was to carry out the work as a sub-contractor to Breda but eventually he was persuaded to sign the contract.

Under the terms of the contract, Riva was required to renovate and repair damaged or defective weapons and, where appropriate, to shorten or lengthen the barrels of weapons to meet the needs of the US sporting and target shooting fraternities. Additionally, and most importantly, all identifying markings on the weapons were to be removed and the words "Made in Italy" stamped on each barrel.

As Bloomgarden wrote in his book:

"A very simple operation, Riva said: To shorten the 91's with long barrels, to lengthen those with short barrels...and to remove the markings and inscribe "Made in Italy" on each weapon - these were easy tasks. Shortening was a matter of sawing; lengthening was a matter of inserting a sleeve; the various digits and letters could be removed by grinding."

So it was that Luciano Riva accepted the contract from Adam Consolidated, repaired, renovated and restored the Carcano rifles entrusted to him and removed all the unique identifying marks, including serial numbers, replacing these with the simple legend "Made in Italy". By reputation, Luciano Riva was a proud and dedicated craftsman who would produce workmanship of the very highest standard for his new benefactors.

On May 24th 1960, Riva signed the contract that charged him with the obligation to renovate and repair 150,000 rifles to be shipped to the United States in four lots as follows:

50,000 by end of July 1960

15,000 in August 1960

45,000 in September 1960

40,000 in October 1960

All told, Riva made a total of 12 shipments of Carcanos to Adam Consolidated. The last of these left Riva's Brescia workshop in September 1960. Shipments ceased abruptly when Adam Consolidated and Riva became caught up in a dispute. Riva was angered by Adam Consolidated's failure to pay for the rifles already shipped to the United States whilst Adam Consolidated claimed that large numbers of rifles leaving the Brescia workshop were defective.

Henry Bloomgarden defended Riva against this attack on his competence:

"Riva knew guns. His family had been gunmakers for 5 generations. He knew his work had not been defective. His only failure, towards the end, had been in not removing the identification marks on the last of the guns, as with 2766."

The claim that Riva failed to remove the identifying marks on rifles shipped towards the end is a vital element in the chain of evidence relating to Mannlicher Carcano C2766. Everything I have learned about Riva points to a man who was exploited by Adam Consolidated but was possessed of great professional integrity. On balance, I am inclined to think that Luciano Riva would have honoured his contract and would have removed the markings on all Carcanos shipped from his workshop. It would seem extremely odd if he had renovated and repaired these rifles as required by his contract and then failed to erase the markings...why would he?

Whilst Henry Bloomgarden's book is a helpful resource it falls down in many important respects. He provides no sources for any of the claims he makes and his reliability on the matter of serial numbers is undermined by contradictions in his own reporting. Referring to documentation raised to support shipments he says:

"Riva made 12 shipments, all handled identically...packed ten to a carton, the serial number of each gun was checked and recorded on a slip headed "Crescent Firearms Inc."

WHAT SERIAL NUMBER?

Bloomgarden makes a further reference to serial numbers on pages 114-115:

"Periodically, Fred Rupp, RFD 2, Mink Road, Perkasie, Pennsylvania, picked up loads of 91's from Harborside Terminal. He brought them to his shop where, under a subcontract with Crescent Firearms, he would clean and test fire each weapon, then ship it from his place to various customers designated to him by Crescent. If a carton was mutilated, he would repack the weapons in a new carton after cleaning and test firing them. The new carton would be numbered by him with the same number as appeared on the original carton picked up from Harborside. If a particular gun did not function properly, he would replace it with another, and he would indicate on the slip the serial number of the weapon removed and the weapon substituted."

Note again the reference to serial numbers when Bloomgarden himself agrees that the serial numbers were to be removed, and in all but a few alleged examples were removed, in accordance with the terms of Riva's contract. Bloomgarden is completely unreliable on the matter of serial numbers and apart from one Carcano allegedly bearing the serial no. C2766 there is no evidence to suggest that Riva did not remove all serial numbers from the rifles he shipped.

It also appears that Fred Rupp had a stockpile of Carcanos, which he could use as replacements if "a particular gun did not function properly.." Since there is no known record of where these "spare" Carcanos came from, it is possible that Rupp, acting for Crescent Firearms had sources other than Riva. Further checks reveal that alternative stocks of Carcanos were being drawn upon by Adam Consolidated/Crescent Firearms.

Adam Consolidated was struggling to meet the terms of the agreement they had signed with the Italian Ministry of Defence. As indicated earlier Adam Consolidated had contracted to buy 570,000 rifles but the hiatus in dealings with Riva meant that only 150,000 had been processed. Under the threat of breech of contract litigation by the Defence Ministry, Adam Consolidated asked Alberto Bagnasco to find an "alternative renovator". This "alternative renovator" was duly found and shipped a further 80,000 rifles to Adam Consolidated.

Mannlicher Carcano C2766 has not yet reached Klein's Mail Order house in Chicago yet its provenance is already looking a little shaky.

C2766 WHERE ARE YOU?

Mannlicher Carcano serial no. C2766 was apparently dispatched from Riva's Storo workshops in carton no. 3376 on Crescent Firearms shipping slip no. 3620. Carton no. 3376 was one of 520 such cartons making up a consignment of 5,200 rifles loaded aboard the cargo ship Elettra Fassio at the port of Genoa on September 29th 1960 bound for New York. The ship docked in the USA on October 17th 1960.

It would be another 28 months before the carton said to contain C2766 would find its way from the Harborside Terminal to Fred Rupp's workshop. The reason for this delay was apparently due to the fact that the shipment had been impounded by US Customs on the grounds that Adam Consolidated had undervalued the cargo in an attempt to reduce the amount of duty payable. I have been unable to discover why this one consignment out of the 12 identical consignments shipped from Riva should have been singled out in this way. It may be that Adam Consolidated was simply the victims of a random swoop.

The record shows that between October 1960 and October 1962 , Fred Rupp continued to take delivery of consignments of Carcanos from Harborside without let or hindrance from US Customs. These included rifles shipped from Riva and the 80,000 rifles renovated elsewhere.

On February 12th 1963, Fred Rupp dispatched carton no. 3376, said to contain C2766, via North Penn Transfer Company against Crescent Firearms order no. 3178 to Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago. If the record thus far is to be believed then Klein's took delivery of Mannlicher Carcano serial no. C2766, allegedly one of a very very few rifles out of a total of 150,000 repaired and renovated by Luciano Riva that did not have its identifying marks removed.

Luciano Riva allegedly failed to ensure that all identifying marks were removed from a small number of Carcano rifles. The seemingly arbitrary decision of US Customs to impound that particular consignment of 5,200 rifles out of 150,000 shipped to Adam Consolidated, resulted in the contents of carton no. 3376 being sold to Klein's Sporting Goods. How lucky could the FBI get?

KLEIN'S LOSS IS YOUR GAIN

There is nothing like a little white lie to oil the wheels of commerce and the people at Klein's were not above spicing up their marketing copy with a few harmless untruths. The banner on their full page spread in the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine proclaimed: RECEIVED TOO LATE FOR THE HUNTING SEASON....Klein's loss is your gain!

The fact that Klein's had not screwed up on an order or been let down by a supplier resulting in an accumulation of bad stock was by the by. There has to be an excuse for every bargain offer lest the buying public think there may be something wrong with the goods being offered. What better reason than an unspecified faux pas that had left Klein's up to their eyes in guns at a time of the year when the customer's buying inclinations were directed elsewhere?

KLEIN'S RECEIVE AN ORDER FROM DALLAS

On 13th March 1963, Klein's received an envelope containing a small order slip clipped from their full-page advert in the February issue of American Rifleman. Mr A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas, had enclosed a US Postal Money Order no. 2,202,130,462 to the value of $21.45 in payment for one Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM Carbine with scope as advertised with reference no. C20-T750 priced at $19.95 with an additional $1.50 postage and handling. Though the advert offered ammunition and a clip as added extras Mr Hidell did not order either.

On March 20th 1963, Klein's dispatched a Mannlicher Carcano, apparently bearing the serial no. C2766, to the order of Mr Hidell. whose postal address was P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.

The case against Lee Harvey Oswald depends entirely upon establishing a solid chain of evidence that links him to the Mannlicher Carcano dispatched by Klein's to the order of A. Hidell and places him (Oswald) on the 6th floor of the TSBD with that weapon at 12.30 PM on November 22nd 1963. It will become clear that no such chain of evidence exists.

Lee Harvey Oswald rented Dallas Post Box 2915 on October 9th 1962 using his own name. Effectively the address A. Hidell, PO Box 2915 never existed. In order to rent a post box, Oswald was required to fill out Form 1093 (Application for Post Office Box). This was a multi-part form. Part 3 of the application form included a section where the applicant could nominate other persons authorized to collect mail from that particular box. Harry D. Holmes, Dallas Postal Inspector, told the WC that:

"Form 1093 includes a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself."

The ability of Lee Harvey Oswald to collect a package addressed to A. Hidell at Post Box 2915 depends entirely upon A. Hidell being listed as an authorized person in Part 3 of Oswald's application. It should have been an easy matter to verify this by reference to Part 3 of Oswald's application but, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the WC, Part 3 had been destroyed:

"...when the box has been closed, Postal Regulations require that they tear off Part 3 and throw it away."

Box 2915 had been closed by Oswald on May 14th 1963.

Fortunately, Postal Inspector Holmes is not the final authority on Postal Regulations. The Postal Manual, Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed."

Harry D. Holmes lied about postal procedures and the WC accepted that lie as fact.

A week after the assassination Harry D. Holmes was quoted in a New York Times article where he stated:

"No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box".

Holmes could not have made this statement unless he had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form after the assassination.

Further confirmation that Part 3 of Oswald's application form existed after the assassination and that A. Hidell was not an authorized nominee can be found in the Warren Report (WR). To refute claims made by writer Thomas G. Buchanan in his book "Who Killed Kennedy?", the FBI produced a document that specifically addressed 32 different allegations made by Buchanan. Published in the WR, this document CE 2585, contained the following:

12. CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

As with Harry D. Holmes revelations to the New York Times, the FBI could not have made this determination unless they had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form. The only conclusion it is possible to draw from this information is that Part 3 of Oswald's application still existed after John F. Kennedy was assassinated and that Harry D. Holmes and the FBI knew as much. Harry Holmes' story that Postal Regulations required Part 3 of the form to be destroyed when the box is closed was an act of perjury that attempted to hide the fact that an important piece of evidence had been destroyed sometime after the assassination.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that Part 3 of Oswald's application form is the one document that underpins the entire chain of evidence linking Oswald to the Carcano and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If A. Hidell was authorized to collect mail at Post Box 2915, then Oswald could have taken delivery of the Carcano by masquerading as Hidell. If A. Hidell was not authorized to collect mail at that box then Oswald would not have been able to take delivery of the Carcano package.

In practice, when the Carcano package addressed to A. Hidell at Box 2915, was received Post Office staff would have checked the appropriate documentation. They would have noted that Box 2915 was rented in the name of Oswald and that A. Hidell was not authorized to collect mail. An additional check may have been made to establish if A. Hidell was a previous renter of Box 2915 who had left a forwarding address. In the event that these checks proved negative the Carcano package would have been returned to sender.

Even exercising great generosity of spirit it is difficult to see any explanation for the destruction of Part 3 of the Oswald application form other than to sustain a false chain of evidence. The WC accepted as fact the sworn testimony of Harry D. Holmes that Part 3 of the form had been destroyed legitimately in line with Postal Regulations. In addition, they allowed Holmes to create a false mechanism by which Oswald could still have collected the Carcano package. This was typical of the "belts and braces" approach the WC used to cover all angles.

Holmes claimed that when a package was received, a notice would be placed in the relevant box to advise the holder that a package was waiting to be collected. This would be done, Holmes claimed, regardless of who the package was addressed to, authorized or not. Thereafter, the holder of the box would only have to produce the notice at the collection window to take delivery of the package. Possession of the notice was deemed to be proof of entitlement.

This is how the WC created the foundations of the chain of evidence linking Oswald to the Carcano. It is ironic that the WR could publish the testimony of Holmes claiming that Part 3 of Oswald's application form had been destroyed and the FBI document, CE 2585, proving it had not.

All evidence is not equal and in seeking to take a view it is necessary to decide what weight can be placed on any particular piece of evidence. The evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have taken delivery of the Carcano package by any known official means is very strong indeed. It is strengthened even more by the knowledge that Harry D. Holmes offered perjured testimony and that a crucial piece of evidence, Part 3 of the Oswald's application form, was destroyed during the post-assassination period.

I think the only plausible interpretation of the facts is that Oswald could not, and did not, take possession of the Carcano package. To sustain the illusion that Oswald did collect the Carcano package, vital evidence was destroyed and additional evidence was fabricated.

The Post Box evidence is not the only evidence the WR offers to link Oswald to the Carcano. Other evidence includes the infamous "backyard photographs", the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts and Marina Oswald, the mysterious contents of the brown paper bag Oswald is alleged to have carried into the TSBD on the day of the assassination, the analysis of the handwriting on the Klein's order slip and the apparent linkage between Oswald and the A. Hidell alias.

THE BACKYARD PHOTOGRAPHS

An in depth analysis and appraisal of the backyard photographs is beyond the scope of this article and is probably a pointless exercise anyway. For decades the arguments for and against fakery have raged back and forth without any kind of consensus being reached. Far from clarifying matters, experts brought in to appraise the evidence have succeeded only in creating more confusion. On paper the idea of seeking the opinion of an expert witnesses seems a valid one. Sadly, for every expert witness who expresses an opinion it is usually possible to find another equally qualified witness who will express the opposite opinion.

The best available evidence on the authenticity of the backyard photographs is to be found in the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) photographic panel. After extensive tests on the photographs and negatives the panel concluded that the photographs were probably genuine and that the rifle being held by Oswald appeared to be Mannlicher Carcano C2766. A photographic panel spokesman did later concede that "it is possible to make a false photograph that we would not be able to detect."

In seeking to take a view on the matter of the backyard photographs context is everything. The totality of the evidence surrounding the assassination strongly suggests that Oswald was offered up as a scapegoat by the investigative and intelligence community. There is no doubt that important evidence was tampered with or even destroyed. Witnesses were ignored or "persuaded" to modify their evidence. Oswald was characterized as a disaffected and feckless loner when the know facts point more to a young man who was intelligent, thoughtful and probably an intelligence operative.

The HSCA photographic panel concede that the backyard photographs could be fake. If they are then it is likely that the faking was done by experts in the employ of one or other government agency. This is the context in which these photographs must be viewed.

Taken in isolation I would have to concede that the photographs probably are genuine but the behaviour and activities of the FBI, CIA and ONI in this case cast grave doubts on the authenticity of any the evidence. I am certainly not confident enough in the backyard photographs to include them in this charted history of C2766.

THE TESTIMONY

Marina Oswald testified that she had taken the backyard photographs at Lee's request. Whilst she was able to state that Lee did have a rifle her various descriptions of that weapon could in no way be regarded as a positive identification of C2766 to the exclusion of any other rifle. The best guide to the weapon Marina claims to have seen are the backyard photographs. George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt testified to knowledge of Oswald's rifle but were unable to confirm that the rifle in question was C2766.

It is interesting to note that one of the backyard photographs did not turn up until April 1967. George DeMohrenschildt announced that during a search of luggage held in storage he had uncovered a photograph of Oswald. The photograph was another copy of the backyard image showing Oswald holding the rifle and leftist literature. Oddly, there was an inscription on the back of this photograph written in Russian Cryllic Script. The inscription translated to: "Hunter of Fascists ha-ha-ha!!!". The photograph was endorsed with the words "To my friend George from Lee Oswald 5/IV/63" written in Oswald's hand.

The DeMohrenschildts were unable to throw any light on how the photograph came to be in their luggage. An analysis of the Cryllic inscription revealed that it had originally been written, then rewritten in pencil by someone unfamiliar with the Cryllic alphabet. The Cryllic inscription could not be matched to the handwriting of Lee or Marina Oswald.

George DeMohrenschildt's son-in-law Gary Taylor also testifying to seeing a rifle in the Oswald household but was unable to confirm that it was C2766.

ATTEMPTED MURDER OF GENERAL WALKER

The WC tried to link Oswald and Mannlicher Carcano C2766 to the attempted murder of General Edwin Walker on April 10th 1963. In 1978 the HSCA commissioned Neutron activation tests on the remnants of the bullet CE 573 fired at Walker. The tests were conducted by Dr Vincent P. Guinn who testified that CE573 was "rather characteristic of WCC Mannlicher-Carcano bullet ." This language was typical of that used throughout the WC and HSCA investigations and tends to mislead rather than inform. There was no such thing as a "Mannlicher Carcano bullet". What Dr Guinn should have said was "a 6.5MM WCC bullet that was suitable for a range of weapons including a Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM."

I dealt with the Guinn Neutron activation tests at some length in my article "On the Trail of a Magic Bullet". At that time I concluded that "Dr Guinn's work is interesting as far as it goes but in reality that is not very far". I don't think that Dr Quinn succeeded in demonstrating that the bullet fragments recovered after the Walker shooting and the JFK assassination were fired from C2766. In the case of CE573, the bullet was so badly damaged that no Ballistics evidence linking it to C2766 could be gleaned. The FBI tried to overcome this by stating that CE573 "showed the characteristics of a round that had been fired by a Mannlicher-Carcano".

The following exchange demonstrates the way in which the FBI in the person of Special Agent Andrew M. Newquist tried to create evidence that didn't exist:

Mr. McDonald: Did you find similar class characteristics, between the Walker bullet, CE-573, and the panel test bullets that you have before you?

Mr. Newquist: Yes, class characteristics of CE-573 and the class characteristics of the bullets, CE-572, the Federal test from the Oswald firearm and also the panel test fired from the Oswald firearm were consistent in number, width, and direction of twist.

Mr. McDonald: Could your panel reach a conclusion as to the rifle of origin for CE-573 using the evidence available to you?

Mr. Newquist: Would you repeat the question?

Mr. McDonald: Were you able to reach a conclusion as to what rifle fired CE-573, the Walker bullet?

Mr. Newquist: No, we were not, due to the distortion of CE-573, and lacking a significant correspondence of individual characteristics with the test, no conclusion could be reached. However, no significant difference was observed from CE-573 to CE-572, no gross difference was noted to indicate that it had not been fired from it.

Mr. McDonald: But what you are saying is, through distortion, because of impact, the peculiar identifying marks were not able to be found by your panel on CE-573?

Mr. Newquist: That is correct.

Mr. McDonald: And was this the conclusion that the FBI reached in 1963?

Mr. Newquist: That is correct.

Neither Mr Newquist nor Dr Guinn offer anything persuasive to suggest that Mannlicher Carcano paused briefly in the backyard of the Walker household en route from Terni to the TSBD.

ASSASSINATION DAY

Did Lee Harvey Oswald take a brown paper bag containing a Mannlicher Carcano rifle into the TSBD on the morning of November 22, 1963? Neighbour and co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier drove Oswald to work on the morning of the assassination. The WC called Frazier to testify at the Veterans of Foreign Wars Building, Washington DC. on Wednesday 11th March 1964. Frazier told the commission that he remembered Oswald had a package with him on that morning. WC counsel Joseph A. Ball was keen to establish that this package contained C2766.

When disassembled Mannlicher Carcano C2766 measured approximately 34.8 inches. Frazier offered the following testimony:

Mr. Ball: You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?

Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball: You mean one end of it under the armpit?

Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.

Mr. Ball: And he had the lower part....

Mr. Frazier: The other part with his right hand.

Mr. Ball: Right hand?

Mr. Frazier: Right.

Mr. Ball: He carried it then parallel to his body?

Mr. Frazier: Right, straight up and down.

This was not the kind of testimony Joseph Ball wanted to elicit. It was just not physically possible that Oswald could carry a package on that length in the manner described...his arms would not have been long enough. Ball repeatedly tried to shake Frazier's testimony on this point:

Mr. Ball: When you saw him get out of the car, when you first saw him when he was out of the car before he started to walk, you noticed he had the package under the arm?

Mr. Frazier: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball: One end of it was under the armpit and the other he had to hold it in his right hand. Did the package extend beyond the right hand?

Mr. Frazier: No, sir. Like I say if you put it under your armpits and put it down normal to the side.

Mr. Ball: But the right hand on, was it on the end or the side of the package?

Mr. Frazier: No; he had it cupped in his hand.

Mr. Ball: Cupped in his hand?

Mr. Frazier: Right.

Frazier remained adamant throughout the cross-examination. Yes Oswald had taken a package into work that day but the package he saw could not have contained the Mannlicher Carcano.

The testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier was not uncorroborated. Linnie Mae Randle, Frazier's sister, also testified before the commission that day:

Mrs Randle: I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport.

Mr Ball: Was he carrying any package?

Mrs Randle: Yes; he was.

Mr Ball: What was he carrying?

Mrs Randle: He was carrying a package in a sort of heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it.

Mr Ball: And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?

Mrs Randle: No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know, just like you grab something like that.

Mr Ball: And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?

Mrs Randle: Yes, sir .

At this point Counsel Ball showed the witness a mock-up of the bag allegedly found in the TSBD.

Mr Ball: Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?

Mrs Randle: Well, it wasn't that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn't that long.

Mr Ball: I see. You figure about two feet long, is that right?

Mrs Randle: A little bit more.

Mr Ball: Is that about right? That is 28 and a half inches.

Mrs Randle: I measured 27 last time.

Mr Ball: You measured 27 once before?

Mrs Randle: Yes, sir .

Jack Dougherty, an Oswald co-worker was the only person to see Oswald arrive at work on the morning of the assassination. Dougherty testified that he didn't see Oswald carry any package into the TSBD on that day.

I find the testimonies of Frazier and Randle very credible...infinitely more credible than many of the witnesses the WC relied upon to "convict" Oswald. In the face of a prolonged and determined effort by Ball to get them to modify their opinions neither would be deflected.

I do not believe that Oswald carried the Mannlicher Carcano into the TSBD that morning in the way the WC claimed. I also have grave doubts over the origins of the paper bag allegedly used. Crime scene photographs taken at the time do not show the paper bag in position as good evidence handling practice requires. There is also considerable doubt that Oswald could have had access to the materials required to construct the bag. I would direct the reader to the testimony of TSBD employee Troy Eugene West for further information on this matter.

A GUN IS FOUND

At approximately 1.22pm on November 22nd 1963 Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone discovered a rifle concealed behind boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD. Detective Seymour Weitzman was nearby and noticed the weapon almost simultaneously.

Seymour Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser 7.65MM Bolt-action rifle. Boone concurred with this identification. Later in the day Eugene Boone prepared a written report in which he confirmed the rifle found to be a Mauser. The next day, Seymour Weitzman swore an "Affidavit in Any Fact" in which he again described the rifle as a Mauser.

This description of the rifle as a Mauser persisted for some considerable time after it was found as noted earlier in this article before finally being confirmed as a Mannlicher Carcano 6.5MM Carbine serial number C2766 (CE 139) Establishing whether the rifle found by Boone was the same weapon we have followed since the time of its manufacture in Italy has not proved easy.

An attempt was made by the WC to show that the original description of the rifle as a Mauser was nothing more than a simple, honest mistake. If this was the case then the record should have been capable of dispelling any lingering doubts that anyone might have had. Regardless of any misidentification of the rifle by Weitzman and others there should exist a detailed and verifiable chain of evidence that shows how the rifle was finally identified, when and by whom. That chain should detail the means by which the rifle was traced to its supplier and satisfy us that C2766 was genuinely all that it was later purported to be.

I now propose to look in detail at the handling and processing of the rifle eventually entered into evidence as C2766 from the time it was allegedly found through to the conclusions contained in the WR.

THE CHAIN OF EVIDENCE

Weitzman and Boone are agreed that immediately after the rifle was found DPD Captain W.J. Fritz, a 42 year veteran in the Dallas Police, took charge of the weapon and ejected one live round from the chamber. A short time later they were joined by Lt. J.C. Day in his capacity as a crime scene investigator. Boone testified:

Mr Ball: There is one question. Did you hear anyone refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?

Mr Boone: Yes I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.

Mr Ball: Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

Mr Boone: I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what is was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.

There were several police officers present, some of senior rank and vast experience. There were 2 officers from the identification section, Day and Studebaker, present also. They discussed this weapon back and forth and said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser. The Mannlicher Carcano this rifle was later claimed to be had the words "Made in Italy" and "Cal 6.5" stamped on its barrel...what was there to discuss and speculate about?

WC Counsel Joseph Ball would later question Captain Fritz about the identification of the rifle:

Mr Ball: Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?

Mr. Fritz: I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.

Mr. Ball: Did you hear any conversation right there that day?

Mr. Fritz: Right at that time?

Mr. Ball: Yes

Mr. Fritz: I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.

Mr. Ball: Did you think it was a Mauser?

Mr. Fritz: No, sir; I knew...you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.

Mr. Ball: Well, did you ever make any...did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?

Mr. Fritz: No, sir; I am sure I did not.

Mr. Ball: Or did you think it was such a thing?

Mr. Fritz: No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.

Mr. Ball: Did you initial the rifle?

Mr. Fritz: The rifle; no, sir.

Fritz never did answer Joseph Ball's question about a Mauser being discussed...he just ignored it. Two things I find odd here. Texas was the gun capital of the USA, practically everybody had one. Fritz was a 42-year police veteran, 31 of those in homicide and he says he wasn't "too sure about Mauser rifles?" Also, Fritz mentioned that he hadn't initialed the rifle...no officer did. This is a standard evidence handling procedure to assist in the positive identification of exhibits at a later stage.

Seymour Weitzman testified before the WC on April 1, 1964. Far from clearing up doubts over the true identity of the rifle he found his testimony served only to raise suspicions:

Mr. Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?

Mr. Weitzman: In a glance, that's what it looked like.

Mr. Ball: That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?

Mr. Weitzman: No; I said that. I thought it was one.

Mr. Ball: Are you fairly familiar with rifles?

Mr. Weitzman: Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.

On the surface Weitzman's claim that he had only glanced at the rifle seems a fair enough explanation of how the misidentification occurred but later in his testimony he was able to describe that rifle in far greater detail than he could possibly have done if he had only seen it "at a glance".

Mr. Ball: I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.

Mr. Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?

Mr. Ball: Mauser bolt action.

Mr. Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.

Mr. Ball: You also said it was a gunmetal color?

Mr. Weitzman: Yes.

Mr. Ball: Gray or blue?

Mr. Weitzman: Blue metal.

Mr. Ball: And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?

Mr. Weitzman: That's right.

Mr. Ball: And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?

Mr. Weitzman: It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.

Mr. Ball: Rough wood, was it?

Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir; rough wood.

Mr. Ball: And it was equipped with a scope?

Mr. Weitzman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ball: Was it of Japanese manufacture?

Mr. Weitzman: I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

This segment of testimony seriously compromises Seymour Weitzman. I have had the benefit of inspecting a Mannlicher Carcano M91/38 carbine fitted with the same model of Ordinance Optics scope as C2766. This scope bears the following information in highly readable white print against the black cylinder of the scope:

4 x 18 coated

Ordinance Optics Inc

Hollywood, California

010 Japan. OSC

I do not believe for one minute that Seymour Weitzman could have gleaned the information he did about the colour, texture and degree of wear and tear on specific components of C2766 "at a glance" or that he could remember these in such detail 5 months later. Nor do I believe that having been able to glean so much detail about the appearance and condition of C2766 he could have failed to read the information on the scope and confuse this Japanese instrument with a Weaver.

Some people have tried to suggest that Seymour Weitzman was a firearms expert who could reasonably be expected to know his Mausers from his Mannlichers. I do not believe that there is any evidence to support this assertion. Weitzman does, however, admit to having worked in a sports shop and to being "fairly familiar" with guns. I find it hard to accept that a man with this background, with a working knowledge of guns would not have taken an immediate interest in matters such as the markings and other identifying features of the rifle found. There is ample evidence that the identity of the gun was discussed among the officers present and it is more than likely that Seymour Weitzman contributed more to that discussion and the eventual identification than he has ever been prepared to admit.

A "DAY" TO REMEMBER

Lieutenant John Carl Day played a pivotal role in the handling and processing of the rifle found in the TSBD. Day had 23 years police experience including, most recently, 7 years as a supervisor within the Identification Bureau responsible for crime scene analysis. Of all those present when the rifle was found Lt. Day should have known how to handle and record the evidence in order to preserve the chain of possession. Like many others involved in the investigation of the assassination, Lt. Day fell well short of the acceptable standard.

In his capacity as an officer of the Identification Bureau, Lt. Day had certain priorities with regard to the handling of the rifle and these were outlined by Richard Bartholomew in his thought-provoking article "The Gun that Didn't Smoke":

Fingerprints take priority during collection because they are the most fragile. But prior to submitting a gun to the crime laboratory, it should be unloaded and all parts that are removable without the aid of tools, and which may leave an imprint on the bullet or cartridge case, should be removed from the gun and properly marked or labeled for identification as they are being collected or as soon as possible thereafter. All of that information, plus any unique characteristics, such as caliber or gauge, make, lot number, and serial number, should be recorded in the investigator's notebook during or immediately after the search.

Perusal of the record of evidence seen and collected on November 22nd 1963 fails to reveal any mention of an ammunition clip. There is no clip mentioned in the Property Clerk's receipt dated November 26th which otherwise lists everything else about the rifle allegedly found. There is no record in either the reports made by the many officers present, or the reports of the conversations between these officers, of anyone having seen a ammunition clip. I have viewed photographs and television footage of the rifle being handled by Lt. Day soon after it was found and there is no sign of any clip. The significance of this clip to the events of that day are many. It is a peculiarity of Mannlicher Carcano rifles that the ammunition clip falls out once the last round in the clip is chambered.

When the rifle was found it had a live round in the chamber, which Captain Fritz admitted to ejecting. Other officers present when Fritz ejected the round confirm his admission. As found, either the clip had fallen out of the rifle when the last round was chambered or due to some malfunction had remained in place. As noted earlier, there is no sign of a clip in the magazine. The television footage mentioned shows Lt. Day rotating the rifle in such a way that had there been a clip in the magazine it would have been visible. This only leaves a scenario where the clip fell out, as designed to, when the last round was chambered. So where was the clip?

Without this clip the Mannlicher Carcano would only have been capable of firing a single shot at a time making a mockery of the brief time window available for that rifle to have fired all the known shots at the Presidential Motorcade.

As one of the more likely sources of fingerprints the clip would have been of immediate interest to Lt. Day but there is no mention of him finding this clip or checking it for fingerprints. What is odd, however, is that photographs taken of Lt. Day leaving the TSBD show a clip projecting from the magazine, a clip that was certainly not there earlier.

Something else to consider with regard to the Mannlicher Carcano clip is the fact that it is designed to hold 6 bullets. Since only 3 spent shells and 1 live round were apparently found at the scene it is logical to assume that if there was a clip it only contained 4 bullets at the time the shooting occurred. This is problematic because when a Carcano clip is underloaded the bullets have a strong tendency to fall over making it impossible to load and shoot them properly.

After leaving the TSBD Lt. Day said that he took the rifle to the Identification Bureau where it was locked in an evidence box until further checking could be done. This was around 2pm on the afternoon of the assassination. At approximately 2.45pm Lt. Day returned to the TSBD to continue the investigation with other crime scene officers. It was not until about 7pm that evening that Lt. Day returned to the Identification Bureau to begin checking the rifle for fingerprints. It seems a little strange to me that the single most important piece of evidence should be locked away untouched for 5 hours but Lt. Day claims that is what he did.

The time factor involved in investigating the rifle are quite important because, by any standard, the FBI were able to trace it to A. Hidell a.k.a. Lee Harvey Oswald extremely quickly. Quicker than they were able to settle on the type of rifle it was apparently.

If Lt. Day is to be believed, the FBI trace on the rifle could have begun as early as 2pm because he claims that he was driven back to the Identification Bureau by FBI Special Agent Odum and that Odum called in the description of the rifle. There should be a record of this action on the part of SA Odum to which we can refer but it doesn't exist. This is not the only Carcano-related evidence that is missing. Lt. Day claimed that upon his return to the Identification Bureau he dictated a report to his secretary that included an accurate description of the Carcano, not a Mauser. This report is missing. Also missing are FBI documents in which Seymour Weitzman and DPD detective C. Dhority provided descriptions of the rifle.

TRACING THE CARCANO

Despite the denials of Lt. Day, Captain Fritz and others one thing emerges from the testimony and contemporaneous documentation of the events if November 22nd 1963, no one, but no-one, ever identified the rifle as a Mannlicher Carcano.

Fritz said:

" No, sir; I knew...you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was".

Lt. Day said:

"On the gun itself, "6.5 caliber C2766, 1940 made in Italy." That was what was on the gun."

In the face of the reported facts it is strange that the FBI were able to trace this "unidentified" rifle to Klein's and thence to Oswald by the early hours of Saturday morning. Personally I do not see any reliable evidence to suggest that the FBI began tracing this rifle before late Saturday night when Lt. Day was ordered to hand the weapon over to FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain. If this is the case then the ability of the FBI to trace the rifle to Klein's almost instantaneously is highly suspicious.

People will argue that Lt. Day provided Special Agent Odum with sufficient information to start a trace on the weapon during the drive back to the Identification Bureau around 2pm on the day of the assassination but where is the evidence? As mentioned earlier there is no record of Special Agent Odum calling in a description of the weapon, there is no written report by Odum detailing his actions that afternoon. All we have is the word of Lt. Day, an experienced officer who did not exactly cover himself in glory by his actions, who proved evasive to the point of deception in important areas of his testimony before the WC and who, in common with many others, had a propensity for failing to follow procedure and lost documentation.

There should be no room for speculation about how the rifle was traced. There should exist a detailed public record of how the rifle was identified and how it was traced. All that does exist is an account, in the most general of terms, with no detail of how the trail led to Klein's.

Jim Bishop. in his book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot" provides the following narrative:

The New York office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had traced a big shipment of cheap Italian military rifles to Crescent Firearms, which sold in lots to mail order distributors. Early in the evening, the Dallas office had notified Washington that the rifle found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building was a 6.5-caliber Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number C2766 stamped on it. Alan Belmont had passed this information on to all field offices. The New York group, contacting one gun house after another, found that Crescent had them.

Unfortunately Jim Bishop's book is another of those apparently scholarly works on the assassination that has no sources. That aside, if his account is right then the FBI did not get a description of this rifle until early evening. What Bishop's account does not say is whether this description was passed on in the early evening Dallas Time or Washington time. Either way, it does appear that if Special Agent Odum was the source of the description and did indeed "Call it in" then it took at least 2 hours, and perhaps as long as 4 hours, for that information to be sent to Washington. That degree of time lag seems unreasonable and for that reason I have doubts that Special Agent Odum was the source of the description the FBI used to trace the rifle. I also have doubts that anyone had identified the rifle as a Mannlicher Carcano by early evening. At best the FBI had a description of a 6.5 mm rifle "Made in Italy" to go on.

Supposing that Odum was not the source of the description that started the trace on the rifle then we know that the rifle remained locked in an evidence box until around 7pm when Lt. Day returned to the Identification Bureau to begin checking for fingerprints. It seems more reasonable to conclude that Jim Bishop's reference to "early evening" referred to around 7pm Dallas time when Lt. Day returned to the Identification Bureau.

Jim Bishop continues:

The company had cooperated in keeping the office open as the FBI agents watched employees run through the files. The records were not overly precise, but they indicated that C2766 had been sent to Klein's Sporting Goods, Incorporated, at 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago. The Chicago office of the FBI was alerted and, late at night, found William J. Waldeman, Vice-President of Klein's, at his home, 335, Central Avenue, in Wilmette, Illinois.

Jim Bishop goes on to explain how Mr Waldeman agreed to accompany the FBI to his office, how he needed to call in staff to help search the records, how they ransacked the file cabinets. This, it seems, was no quick rummage through the filing cabinet. Klein's, as their turnover indicates, was a company involved in selling a large and diverse range of goods in considerable numbers. It was already after midnight when an invoice from Crescent Firearms was found detailing a shipment of Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 mm Carbines. These were packed 100 to a box and shipped by the North Penn company.

This prompted a search through the microfilm records at Klein's. Jim Bishop's footnotes reveal:

At 4am. Dallas time, the order for C2766 was located. It was a coupon clipped from the "American Rifleman" of February 1963. It was ordered by A. Hidell, PO Box 2915, Dallas Texas.

This is largely the way in which C2766 was allegedly traced to Klein's and thence to Oswald a.k.a. Hidell. There are variations to be found in the WR and in the assassination literature but all saying essentially the same thing. What they all have in common is an absence of the definitive time when the rifle was identified as a Mannlicher Carcano and a meaningful timeline showing the sequence of events from the time the rifle was allegedly identified until it was traced to Oswald.

I have strong reservations about how the rifle was supposedly traced in such a short time but cannot prove anything untoward. All I can observe is that, if the FBI did indeed trace this rifle in the time available and in the manner suggested, it was perhaps the only decent, solid example of police work of the entire investigation.

We have traced the life of C2766 from the time it was manufactured through to the WC investigation and a sometimes tortuous journey it has been. During the 2 years I have been researching this article one question keeps cropping up in my mind, is the Mannlicher-Carcano serial number C2766 manufactured at Terni in 1940 the same rifle that was found in the TSBD and is now in the National Archives? At times I have even wondered if C2766 was manufactured in 1940 at all.

MAUSER OR CARCANO?

I am as certain as it is possible to be that Boone and Weitzman did not find a Mauser rifle in the TSBD. Apart from the admission of Weitzman and statements attributed to others present at the time, there is no evidence to support the Mauser story. Film and photographic records clearly shows a Carcano, not a Mauser. Some people have claimed that a uniformed police officer was seen bringing a rifle down from the roof of the TSBD. The weapon in question was clearly a police-issue shotgun not a rifle.

Ruling out a Mauser does not automatically mean that the rifle actually found was Mannlicher Carcano C2766. Too many question marks hang over the conduct of many of the officers involved in searching the TSBD in the aftermath of the assassination. Evidence handling procedure was at best poor and at worst corrupt. There is no doubt in my mind that certain parties were guilty of evasion, equivocation and downright dishonesty in their testimony before the WC. Crucial documentary evidence simply vanished presumably because it was thought to contain inconvenient information.

Although the Mauser identification may have been made in genuine error, it is difficult to avoid speculating that it persisted much longer than it had to and became a convenient means to confuse the issue of identification for a period of time after the rifle was found. Describing the rifle as a Mauser bolt-action would have had the effect of precluding Carcano specific questions but allow later deniability on the grounds that a Carcano bears a superficial resemblance to a Mauser.

In reaching this conclusion I am mindful of the fact that, at no time during the day of the assassination, despite the incessant media clamour for information, did one single piece of information about the Carcano emerge. There was no mention anywhere that the rifle was 6.5 mm, no mention that it bore the legend "Made in Italy". Nothing emerged from the DPD that could later be uniquely associated with C2766.

The action of Lt. Day in taking the Carcano back to the Identification Bureau and locking it up for 5 hours strikes me as suspicious too. No other item of evidence was more important than the suspected murder weapon. This weapon would hold out the expectation of fingerprints, Ballistics evidence and perhaps be traceable to its owner. It beggars belief that the investigation of the evidence the weapon potentially had to offer was ignored for 5 hours. In the circumstances, it seems much more likely that the weapon was locked away for the same reason it was misidentified as a Mauser...to preclude Carcano-specific questions in the hours immediately after it was found.

Reading the testimonies provided by Fritz, Boone, Day and Weitzman there are obvious signs of prevarication.

Ludicrous though it may now seem, Weitzman was never shown the Carcano during his appearance before the WC and asked to confirm this was the rifle he had found and misidentified. The Carcano was there, it would have been a simple matter to hand the weapon to him and ask "Is this the rifle you found that day in the TSBD?". Easy to ask but no-one did. Co-finder Eugene Boone was shown the rifle but he could not confirm it was the same rifle. Even lawyer-cum-assassination writer Mark Lane got to handle the rifle at the WC hearings but not Seymour Weitzman.

Proponents of the lone assassin theory dismiss speculation over the rifle as groundless but there is much that needs explaining. The facts as we know them are that the true identity of the rifle did not emerge for some time after it was found. The officers who found the rifle and those, like Fritz, who joined them soon after left a lot to be desired in their professional conduct that day.

SO IT WAS A CARCANO?

There is little doubt in my mind that a Carcano was found by Boone and Weitzman but I am not convinced it was same Carcano later introduced into evidence. A closer look at the post-assassination affidavit and WC testimony of Seymour Weitzman provide valuable clues. Weitzman's affidavit is not that detailed with regard to the rifle found. He simply describes it as:

"a 7.65 mm Mauser bolt action with 4/18 scope with a thick brownish-black sling on it."

It seems clear that the rifle was discussed by Weitzman, Boone, Day and Fritz although the latter two deny it.

I do not subscribe to the popular view that Weitzman was a firearms expert but it is likely that he knew more than most. A Mannlicher Carcano is sufficiently similar to a Mauser in appearance to be mistaken for one without a really close examination. It has to be understood that there was no such thing as a unique Mauser. Mauser rifles were made under license by a number of countries. These included Belgium, Argentina, Turkey and Sweden. It would be unreasonable to suppose that Wietzman would be familiar with the many incarnations of this popular rifle. It would, however, be perfectly reasonable to suppose that Weitzman would recognize a Mauser-type bolt-action rifle, which is precisely what a Carcano is.

I think that Weiztman genuinely thought the rifle he had found was a Mauser. I think he looked at the rifle and reported what he saw. He saw a bolt-action rifle with a brownish-black sling, 4/18 scope and apparently marked 7.65mm.

By the time Weitzman came to testify before the WC his identification of the rifle was already an issue. It became important to dismiss any lingering doubt that Mannlicher Carcano C2766 was the weapon he found. Seymour Weitzman did what most people would do when faced with the situation he found himself in...he embellished. First he sought to minimize any responsibility for his "mistaken" identification by claiming he only saw the rifle at a glance. He could hardly go on to tell the WC that he knew all along that the rifle was a Carcano so he did the next best thing, he provided a highly detailed physical description of the rifle. The description he provided was sufficiently applicable to C2766 that it served to offset his earlier "mistaken" identification.

Three things stand out in Weitzman's testimony:

1) he gave a much more detailed description of the rifle than he could have gleaned "at a glance",

2) he provided largely new descriptive information that did not appear in his affidavit and

3) he was never shown the rifle he was apparently identifying for the purpose of confirmation.

I believe that the detailed description Weitzman provided for the WC was "given" to him sometime after the affidavit and that the report he provided for the FBI was deliberately destroyed because it was incompatible with C2766.

The rifle forever associated with the assassination is a 6.5mm Carcano serial number C2766. I suspect, the rifle Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone found was actually a 7.35mm Carcano. It is a fact that 7.65mm Mausers were not exactly common in the USA in 1963. Unless Seymour Weitzman had seen something on the rifle that led him to designate it 7.65mm, it is much more likely he would have called it a 7.62mm.

The confusion that surrounds the rifle is virtually impenetrable. If we take Eugene Boone's testimony at face value then it was Fritz who identified the rifle as a Mauser. Fritz would later protest that he had no knowledge of Mausers but coming from a 40-year veteran with 31 years experience as a homicide officer I cannot believe he had never come across Mauser rifles before.

Even the time the rifle was found is open to interpretation.

It has always been thought that Boone and Weitzman found the Carcano at approximately 1.22pm on the day of the assassination. This is the time Boone claimed to have noted from his watch. In 1971, former Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig produced a manuscript entitled "When They Kill A President"which was never formally published. Craig's manuscript contained an account of the discovery of C2766:

Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly then handed it to Capt. Fritz, who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman a deputy constable was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons, being in the sporting goods business for many years he was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser, Fritz agreed with him....At that exact moment an unknown Dallas police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I instinctively looked at my watch and the time was 1:06 P.M.

If Roger Craig's account is true then it suggests a rifle was found as much 16 minutes earlier than the official record claims. It is known that the first media account that a rifle had been found was broadcast by WBAP-TV at 1.23 PM, one minute after the time the rifle was officially discovered. This report seems to have been broadcast far too early to be consistent with the official time the rifle was allegedly found.

Similar question marks exist over the exact time Luke Mooney found the empty shells by the 6th floor window of the TSBD. The Warren Report states that Mooney found the shells at 1.12 PM and claims this timing is supported by Mooney's testimony. Mooney actually testified that he found the shells no later than 1pm.

Captain Fritz said he arrived at the TSBD around 12.58 PM and that it wasn't long before the shells were found.

Discussion of the shells is beyond the scope of this work but the same confusion that surrounds the rifle is apparent in the story of the shells. There is evidence that Captain Fritz was responsible for moving the shells prior to them being photographed. It is a fact that he put the unused bullet ejected from the rifle into his pocket and retained it for several days such that it only found its way onto the Property Clerk's receipt as an afterthought. As mentioned earlier, the clip essential to firing a Carcano in the manner proscribed and from which these shells would have been fed never did appear on the property sheet.

PROBLEMS WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER

It is impossible to state with any certainty that C2766 is a serial number uniquely associated with the Carcano alleged to have belonged to Oswald. Unlike a new rifle, the true history of C2766 is not necessarily known. It is entirely possible that C2766 is a hybrid rifle repaired and renovated using parts cannibalized from other Carcanos. Some Carcanos were remodeled and carry 2 serial numbers, the original serial number and a new number added after remodeling. It is also the case that Carcanos were made in a number of factories where the prefix "C" was used for serial numbers. (44)

There is some evidence, though it may be moot, that Klein's sold Carcano rifles and carbines with a C2766 serial number and that Dr Lattimer bought one. (45)

In 1964, J. Edgar Hoover wrote a memo in which he conceded that the serial number C2766 was not necessarily unique. It is known that the FBI did trace a Carcano rifle serial number 2766(prefix unknown) to an unidentified Canadian firearms supplier. The WR Chapter IV quotes the rifle serial number as CS-2766. This might be a typographical error but the prefix "CS" is a valid Carcano serial number.

Serial number duplication is not sufficient by itself to render the WR claims and conclusions unsafe but there are other matters already hinted at that do seriously undermine the official story.

If C2766 is the same rifle the FBI claim they traced to Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago the fact that it bears any serial number at all is strange. Henry S. Bloomgarden faced this dilemma when he tried to document the history of C2766. Bloomgarden's book purports to be a history of C2766 but it is much more a political statement in support of the anti-gun lobby. In order to make his political statement he had to show C2766 was the same rifle imported by Crescent Firearms, sold on to Klein's and used to assassinate JFK. The fact that Riva was required to remove serial numbers from the rifles he renovated became a problem. To overcome this problem Bloomgarden simply claimed that of all the shipments Riva made, only those in the shipment containing C2766 had their serial numbers intact. (46)

It should not escape attention either that there were literally thousands of Carcanos circulating in the USA with no serial number. A simple enough matter to convert a Carcano without a number to any serial number desired.

PROBLEMS WITH THE CARCANO

The Carcano Oswald allegedly ordered from Klein's is not the same as the one entered into evidence by the WC. A coupon clipped from the February 1, 1963 issue, supposedly used by Oswald to order the rifle, shows a Carcano, order number, C20-T750, measuring 36 inches. The rifle entered into evidence, as CE 139 is 39 inches long. Interestingly, the Klein's advert entered into evidence by the WC is for a Carcano of the right length but comes from the November 1963 issue of Field and Stream. This advert was offered to the WC by the ubiquitous Postal Inspector Harry Holmes! (47)

This might be as good a time as any to mention that Harry D. Holmes was more than just a Postal Inspector. In addition to his postal duties, Holmes was an FBI informant. He appeared to have an uncanny knack of being in crucial places at crucial times during the day of the assassination and on subsequent days. Odd though it may seem, he also took part in the interrogation of Oswald at the DPD. (48)

There is a lesser-known problem relating to the Carcano that I believe to be significant. At the time it was recovered C2766 was said to be in generally poor condition with the firing pin in particularly precarious condition due to rusting. It was fitted with a scope that had to be fitted with shims to be used accurately. The problem here is that, according to the evidence, C2766 had only been in Oswald's possession for 8 months. It is claimed that during most of this 8 months the rifle was wrapped in an old rug. How exactly does a reconditioned rifle with a new, professionally fitted scope, get into such a poor condition in just 8 months? (49)

In contrast to all this evidence suggesting that Oswald had purchased C2766 there was a total absence of any evidence that he ever bought the Western Cartridge Company ammunition that was allegedly used in the assassination. Only 4 bullets were apparently found at the scene, 3 in the form of spent shells and 1 live round in the rifle. Despite thorough searches of property and premises associated with Oswald no ammunition was ever found.

This particular ammunition was part of a consignment of 4 million rounds made by the Western Cartridge Company of Alton, Illinois and shipped it 4 lots numbered 6000 - 6003. The ammunition was apparently purchased by the US Army to supply allies but in reality it was purchased by the CIA for use in the weapon provided to the Cuban rebels being trained for the abortive Bay of Pigs invasion. Part of the consignment found its way on to the surplus market and was available in Dallas. The owners of gun shops stocking this ammunition were questioned but did not recall selling any to Oswald or anyone resembling Oswald.

In fact, investigators were unable to find any of the normal paraphernalia one might expect to find in the possession of a gun owner such as lubricating oil and cleaning kit.

This raises another dilemma. The ammunition allegedly found at the TSBD had marks consistent with it having been chambered more than once. The implication of these marks is that the shells may well have been fired previously, the empty shells collected and then reloaded. Another possibility is that the shells were fired in another rifle and then loaded into C2766 to produce forensic evidence. (50)

Needless to say, Oswald did not appear to own any of the equipment necessary to reload ammunition. In Dallas 2 gun shops stocked Western Cartridge Company 6.5mm ammunition but only one of these reloaded bullets with the same type of hunting load used in the suspect bullets. He was John Masen, a right-wing extremist and member of the notorious Minutemen organization and a man with a history of illegal arms dealing. Perhaps the most significant thing about Masen is that he bore an uncanny physical resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald. (51)

PROBLEMS WITH THE PAPER TRAIL

The speed with which the FBI were able to trace C2766 to Klein's of Chicago was breathtaking. There were many places that particular type of rifle could have been sourced. The WR contains a version of how the rifle was traced to Hidell a.k.a. Oswald but it lacks the ring of truth:

Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, agents of the FBI learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles. During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that the firm had shipped an Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill. After searching their records from 10 PM. to 4 am. the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20, 1963. (52)

Although the record of how the rifle was traced leaves much to be desired it is clear that the FBI did not learn "shortly after" the assassination that Crescent Firearms Inc of New York was a distributor. Contact was not made direct with the FBI in New York as would be expected if this were true and the call that did alert the FBI Washington Office did not come until early evening. The FBI Washington office circulated details of the rifle to all FBI offices and apparently it was old-fashioned legwork by the FBI in New York that produced the link to Crescent. (53)

Although the official version of events states that Fred Rupp dispatched the Carcano to Klein's in response to their order number 1243 on January 24th 1963, Louis Feldsott of Crescent told the FBI that the rifle was sold to Klein's on June 8th 1962. (54) In June 1962, C2766 was supposedly still impounded by New Jersey customs.

Klein's Vice-President William Waldman claimed that Oswald's money order for $21.45, dated March 12th, was received on March 13, 1963 and was banked that day as part of a deposit amounting to $13,827.98 and this was supported by a deposit slip entered into evidence. The date on the bank slip showing a deposit of $13,827.98 is 15th February 1963. (55)

One of the things that stood out in the paperwork from Klein's was that it was comprehensive to the point of overkill. Strange then that these anomalies should arise. (56)

The order coupon produced by Klein's purports to written in Oswald's hand. Below I indicate why I feel the backyard photographs are fakes and the same general comments apply to the handwriting evidence, which can easily be faked.

PROBLEMS WITH THE DALLAS POST BOX

Without question the problem of Oswald's Dallas post box deals a fatal blow to the Carcano chain of evidence. At the same time, the destruction of the crucial Part 3 of Oswald's application form points to criminal evidence tampering. The destruction of this key piece of evidence points to a deliberate attempt to sustain a false chain of evidence but this may not be the only interpretation. If, as Postal Inspector Harry Holmes and the FBI report claim, A. Hidell was not authorized to collect mail at Oswald's box the implication is that only Oswald could collect mail. If Part 3 of Oswald's form did not contain the names of anyone authorized to collect mail then why destroy it? The existence of a blank Part 3 is in no way injurious to the case made against Oswald by the WC. I strongly believe that there was another person(s) authorized to collect mail at Oswald's box and the document was destroyed to conceal this information. There was at least one Dallas FBI agent whose relationship with Oswald was never fully explained and who had a propensity for destroying evidence. He is only one of a number of individuals whose name might conceivably have appeared on Part 3 of Oswald's application for a post box.

The FBI were responsible for destroying the note left by Oswald at Dallas FBI headquarters for Special Agent Hosty and were at least party to the knowledge that Part 3 of Oswald's application form had been deliberately destroyed in the post assassination period. Military intelligence operatives are also known to have destroyed their Hidell file...routinely so they claimed. (57)

Agencies that are capable of destroying evidence that does not suit its purpose are equally capable of creating false evidence that does. The conveniently incriminating backyard photographs of Oswald posing with a rifle he could not have collected from the Dallas Post Office are a case in point. In the absence of any reliable evidence that Oswald could have taken delivery of the Carcano package the backyard photographs cannot be genuine. It is a fact that agencies known to have destroyed vital evidence had the technical expertise to produce impeccable fake photographs. It is known that DPD had a ghost mask image of Oswald posing in the backyard. Such a mask represents a stage in the production of a fake photograph. No satisfactory explanation of when, why and who created this image has ever been forthcoming. (58)

DRAWING CONCLUSIONS

Much of the evidence relating to C2766 is less clear-cut than the WR tried to claim. There are many problem areas that should have been investigated in greater detail to resolve issues raised. For the most part these issues were simply ignored. The chain of evidence that places C2766 in the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30PM on November 22nd 1963 is fatally flawed and evidently contrived. There is no reliable evidence to show that C-2766 is the same rifle Luciano Riva restored, no reliable evidence that C2766 was ordered and sold to Klein's in the manner and on the dates claimed. There is no reliable evidence that the money order Oswald was alleged to have used to purchase the rifle arrived at Klein's on the date and in the manner claimed.

It cannot be satisfactorily established that Oswald could have taken delivery of the Carcano in the way Harry Holmes alleged.

On the day of the assassination no one saw Oswald take any package into the TSBD that could reasonably have contained C2766. Vigorous attempts were made to induce Buell Wesley Frazier, Linne May Randle and Jack Dougherty to say otherwise but these attempts failed. There is strong evidence that Oswald could not have fabricated the bag alleged to have been used to carry C2766 into the TSBD and a complete absence of photographic evidence that the bag ever existed.

The testimonial evidence raises more questions than it ever answers. The conduct and professionalism of the DPD officers involved in the finding and handling of C2766 was dire. The testimonies of Fritz, Day and Weitzman in particular are replete with prevarication and equivocation. In taking the testimony of these officers the WC counsel had ample opportunity to fully air all the issues raised and to clarify the ambiguities. In failing to do so, the WC counsel were culpable.

Perhaps most damning of all is the destruction/loss of evidence and the fabrication of new evidence. It must have been apparent to the WC that something was wrong. Why, for example, rely upon Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes to explain the procedure for handling post box application forms when it would have been a simple matter to obtain the official procedure manual? Why accept the evidence provided by Holmes and the FBI that Hidell was not authorized to collect mail from P.O. Box 2915 when they could not have known this unless they had seen Part 3 of the form supposedly destroyed?

So many years after the assassination it has still been possible to trace the history of C2766 and the evidence tendered in support of it being the assassination weapon.

It is not possible to state that Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved in some way with the assassination but I am satisfied that the evidence linking him to C2766 is not legitimate.

and if that is not enough... read the attached... take your time....

So I take it your answer is no, you can not support your assertions.

How is it that I figured as much.

Please don't waste my time copying and pasting someone else's work, especially after you accused me of being a parrot. What a hypocrite.

You read that long winded waste of time and give me the short part that you think supports your "theories".

By the way, I believe the Gov is mostly wrong, just goes to show how much you know about me and how quick you are to nibble up an assumption my little gold fish.

Stop parroting and do some research.

Ill be waiting.

Exactly Mike, "lack of evidence should never be considered evidence." So the lack of evidence that Oswald practiced does not allow us to conclude that he did. I mean come on, he didn't have the bloody thing in his possession in the 2 months leading up to the assassination.

And there is exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that Oswald fired at Walker.

Martin,

Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point.

SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes.

I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

No Mike. Not a fluke. A lie.

Even Walker knew (and stated publicly) that the bullet in evidence isn't the bullet that was retrieved from his home.

Just another lie to add to the rest. Chalk them up...

Lee,

Again with the "lie" gimmick?

Why did it have to be a lie? Because it does not fit the "plan"?

Is all of the evidence altered planted or forged?

Mike, you're making a number of mistakes, IMO. But perhaps I am simply misinformed. It is my understanding that a bullet actually leaves the rifle low on a slightly upward trajectory, and doesn't cross zero on its upward arc until 15-25 yards.

A bullet starts to rise the very instant it leaves the barrel, because of the upward angle of the barrel. Perhaps this diagram will help.

In this example the bullet begins low as you say, but rises to the 0 plane quickly.

Now the Carcano Chart.

Note that the bullet is 8.8" high at 50 yards. This is 4.4" high at 25. (Frazier averaged 4" high at this range).

This 4.4" high at 25 equates to about 2.6" high at 15 (Frazier averaged 2.8" high at this range)

Those trajectories match.

It is also my understanding that the iron sights were zeroed in at 200 meters by the manufacturer, and that there was no evidence this was changed.

You maybe correct on the 200m for irons, I can find references for both 200 and 300. This would not alter what the scope was zeroed for of course.

I mean, it was Frazier who said the rifle fired high, not me. If the 4 inches high at 15 yards was what he expected, why didn't he say so? If the rifle fired straight on 11-27, why didn't he say so? And why did they re-sight the rifle in March?

Frazier did say the rifle fired high, because it did fire high. However unless it were zeroed for 15 yards, we would expect it to fire high. I would think that had the rifle not performed as expected on 11/27 Frazier surely would have noted it. He simply tells us it fired high, which it should have. He does not make any indication of abnormalities with the rifle until March 16th of 1964, when it was attempted to sight it in at Quantico. Why would they attempt to sight it in at Quantico? Because it had been broken.

Exactly Mike, "lack of evidence should never be considered evidence." So the lack of evidence that Oswald practiced does not allow us to conclude that he did. I mean come on, he didn't have the bloody thing in his possession in the 2 months leading up to the assassination.

And there is exactly ZERO EVIDENCE that Oswald fired at Walker.

Martin,

Then why would the CT crowd always contend Oswald never practiced? There is no proof either way, and that IS the point.

SO what id he only had it for 2 months, I could have this rifle ready to shoot in 15 minutes.

I suppose the bullet recovered from Walkers matching Oswald's weapon is just a fluke.

Mike,

Here is my final take on Howard Brennan bearing in mind our debate over his witness testimony and line-up attendance.

You suggest that you follow the evidence without prejudice.

Brennan claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

Arnold Rowland claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to believe Brennan, but disregarded his description.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to disbelieve Rowland because they were unhappy that he saw an elderly black man in the sixth floor window some minutes prior to the man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, taking his shots at the president.

Why?

If they believed Rowland then it puts a third man on the sixth floor in the lead up to the shooting. The Warren Commission had already coerced a change of testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams to say he was on the sixth floor eating his lunch prior to the shooting. He claims there was no one else on the sixth floor. They needed Williams up there to get rid of the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper bottle mystery when in actual fact he more than likely wasn’t on the sixth floor eating his lunch. Please see Greg Parker's website concerning Eddie Piper.

You see Mike; this is the problem with what the FBI, DPD and WC did. They fudged and intimidated testimony from certain people to fit the evidence but they opened up more problems for themselves. Arlen Specter’s handling of Arnold Rowland during his testimony is transparent and there for all to see. Specter’s job was simply to undermine Rowland’s credibility on the stand and it, for me, is appalling to read.

So, the FBI had their star witness in Mr. Brennan and would do their best to destroy Rowland. You claim that you believe Brennan’s testimony. You claim that testimony is evidence. But you do what you accuse others of here on this board. You cherry pick what you like from his testimony versus what you don’t. You think he saw Oswald in the window but his memory recall was so good that he didn’t identify him during the line-up he attended on the evening of the 22nd. He couldn't even count to four. To talk himself out of this, Brennan then came up with an excuse (or an excuse was given to him) as to why he didn’t pick Oswald out of the line-up. He claimed that he thought there was a “communist conspiracy” to kill JFK and he was the ONLY witness (how he knew this I do not know) to the shooting and therefore felt his family may be in danger. He stated in his Warren Commission testimony that once Oswald was dead he was relieved and in actual FACT could have identified him.

There’s a problem with this story Mike. Brennan made a further statement, after his initial one on the 22nd November. December 17th 1963 this is what he said:

"He advised that at about 7 P.M., November 22, 1963, when he observed a line-up of individuals at the Dallas Police Department he selected Lee Harvey Oswald as the individual most closely resembling the person whom he had seen with a rifle in the widow of the TSBD building. He said this was the extreme East window of the sixth floor on the front side of the TSBD building where he observed this individual. He noted that he was seated on a wall across Elm Street from the TSBD at the time the Presidential motorcade passed. He stated that he now can say that he is sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person he saw in the window at the time of the President’s assassination. He pointed out that he felt that a positive identification was not necessary when he observed Oswald in the police line-up at the Dallas Police Department at about 7 P.M., November 22, 93, since it was his understanding Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tipppit. He said that another factor which made him hesitate to make a positive identification of Oswald in the police line-up was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of Oswald on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said that he felt that since he had seen Oswald on television before picking Oswald out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification he made of Oswald at that time."

So on November 22nd in his affidavit he claimed he “could identify the man again.” He was supposedly invited to a line-up that night but then didn’t identify Oswald. He makes a statement on the 17th December claiming he can now identify Oswald and he didn’t identify him in November because he felt he didn’t need to and that seeing a picture of Oswald on TV prior to the line-up may have clouded his judgement.

There’s then ANOTHER affidavit taken on the January 7th 1964. In this one he states:

"Mr. Brennan advised that on November 22, 1963, after finishing lunch at about 12:18 PM, he sat on a retainer wall directly across from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) building, on Elm Street. While he was sitting there, he looked up at the TSBD building and noticed that there was a man standing in the sixth floor window; however, at this time, this man did not have a rifle. He said he then turned around and noticed that the man had left the window. Then he turned his head back toward the South where the Presidential motorcade would come. Approximately ten minutes after sitting down on this retaining wall, the Presidential motorcade turned onto Houston Street, and he was able to see President Kennedy and his wife pass approximately thirty yards west on Elm from where he was seated. The car passed out of sight and shortly thereafter, he heard one shot, which he first believed to have been a firecracker, and he immediately looked toward the TSBD building and saw a man on the sixth floor in the same window, near the southeast corner of the building, and noticed that this man took deliberate aim and shot the rifle again. When he saw the man shoot the rifle this time, he realized it was the same man that he had seen standing in the window a few minutes before. After the last shot, he immediately fell off the retaining wall and ran for an officer so that he could advise the police and Secret Service that the man whom he had seen take the last shot was in the TSBD building. ... Mr. Brennan added that after his first interview at the Sheriff’s office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 PM. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included the possible assassin of President Kennedy, he observed Lee Harvey Oswald’s picture on television.

Mr. Brennan said that this, of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the police lineup, he felt that Oswald most resembled the man whom he had seen in the window."

No communist conspiracy, no fear for his family. Both statements made LONG after Oswald was dead. This is your witness Mike. As mentioned in other threads, the only one you have to claim that Oswald was in that window. And you believe him? Jesus…

Helen Markham has more credibility than this guy. You want me to follow the evidence without prejudice Mike? I do and it leads me to conspiracy and monstrous cover-up every single time. Here’s one more thing for you to consider if you want to take his testimony at face value (cherry picked of course).

Mr. MCCLOY. How long did it take you, do you think, from the time of the - when you first got up - from the time of the last shot, how long would you estimate it would be before you got to the steps of the Texas Book Depository?

Mr. BRENNAN. I could not calculate that, because before I got to the steps of the Texas Book Store, I had already talked to this officer, and he had taken me to the Secret Service men, I had talked to them.

Mr. MCCLOY. And you stayed behind the retaining wall for a little while until you saw the coast was clear?

Mr. BRENNAN. Just seconds. I would say from the time the last shot was fired, and me diving off the wall there, and getting around on the solid side, and then running across to the officer, the time element is hard to figure, but it would still be in seconds.

So your precious witness, says within seconds he told an officer that he had seen, with his own eyes, a man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, who had shot the president from the south-east corner window of the second set of windows under the roof and it took them 40-45 minutes to find the bloody snipers nest? Instead of that officer, the minute Brennan informed of this, demanding all exits sealed and elevators and stairwells covered so they could arrest anyone in their thirties wearing light coloured clothing coming off those elevators or down those stairs, what did the officer do? He first told him to “wait there” and then went with Mr. Brennan to find “the secret service men” that took according to Howard Brennan 3-5 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if this so-called officer got a nice juicy promotion promoted after this effort...

Follow the evidence Mike. Without prejudice. If you don’t see this case for what it truly is, then you are truly lost…

Lee

So then you can prove without fail conspiracy? I suspect you disregard his testimony, for the very same reason you accuse me of accepting it. Because it does not support your conclusion. However, how many times does Brennan say he CAN identify Oswald? Several. That's pretty telling in itself. I have to laugh when someone from the CT side claims that they could not believe Brennan was afraid, and then talks about how witnesses were killed. OF course the man was afraid, and he believed it was a communist plot. So then, why was he afraid after Oswald was "long dead"? Simple. He thought that it was a communist plot, which he believed contained more than one person, why should he not be afraid after Oswald's death, he still believed there was remaining members of the plot!

The facts, 47 years later indicate one gunman from behind and not a shred of evidence for conspiracy at all. One would think after 47 years some should have surfaced, and yet, not one credible piece has. The one interesting observation, is that whenever a CT claims the proof is solid, it always seems to wash out when scrutinized.

Mike, I deal with all this on my website and show all the targets. I matched the bullet hole size on the targets fired from 15 yards and the one fired from 25 yards. This demonstrated that the shots fired from 25 yards were off target to the degree expected if the rifle was off 4 inches at 15 yards, as found in the first series of tests. In other words, the rifle was consistently high and to the right. Just as Frazier testified...

Pat,

Of course the rifle should be high and right at 15 and 25 yards, unless of course it was zeroed for 15 and 25 yards. If the rifle was zeroed for any range further than that the bullets would be passing the target on the rise of the trajectory arch. So, having targets that show high and right at 15 and 25 yards is not an indication that the scope was misaligned.

www.jfkballistics.com/trajectoryexplained.html

As far as your assertion that the scope "certainly" did not need 5-6 shots to re-align on 11-27, I suspect this is not based on any evidence, but is simply something you'd like to believe. Do you have evidence suggesting the rifle was damaged between the FBI's first tests in November and its subsequent tests in March? If so, when did this happen and who was responsible? You seem unable to acknowledge there were problems with the rifle. If the rifle and scope were fine, as you seem to think, how do you explain the Army's finding it necessary to add shims? Are you aware that others firing the scope/rifle combo also found that the two could not be brought into alignment without shims?

The assertion that the rifle did not need 5-6 shots to realign is most certainly based on evidence. Look at the targets they shot.

Do you see those groups? That in itself shows that the rifle was very stable on 11/27. It also shows us that the target was hitting high by 4" roughly which is to be expected at such a short range, given the fact that trajectory creates an arc. You are right I am unable to acknowledge that there was an issue with the rifle on 11/27, because there were no issues that I have been able to find.

Obviously the Army found the need to add shims, because at some point after 11/27 the rifle was damaged. This is brutally clear. Who did it, and when is really beside the point, interesting, but beside the point. The evidence shows this to be the case. How else would you explain it?

P.S. You still haven't explained where you got that the rifle was zeroed in at 400 yards. Is this just your guess? If so, can you explain why a rifle used in an assassination attempt from a distance of less than 100 yards would be zeroed in for 400 yards, which would make shots fired at the head of the target sail significantly high?

I base the 400 yard zero on a common principle. Ballistic trajectory. If we have the defined weight, average velocity, and ballistic coefficient of a bullet we can determine the trajectory arc. The BC is a value based on the surface area and nose shape of the bullet. This number determines in numeric value how much drag a bullet would have. Once these values are known, they can be calculated, with a ballistic calculator, to determine the exact trajectory of a bullet.

Since we have targets at 15 and 25 yards, we can then determine how much of in increase in elevation we see between the two, this determines the projectiles angle of rise in the ballistic arch. We can match this with the ballistic tables and determine which of the tables shows this type of rise at and between 15 and 25 yards, and we then can know the zero of the weapon.

Now as to WHY someone would zero a weapon for 400 to shoot a target at less than 100. Simply, who knows? That would involve me trying to predict the thoughts of another, and enter into nothing more than pure speculation. Perhaps the thought to commit this crime was impulsive, and there was no time to go zero the weapon for a shorter range. Who really knows. But again it does not matter really. If the person shooting the weapon knew it was set up for 400, then they would know that they had to compensate for that in a shorter shot. Its not really that difficult to do.

In the Marines we do this all the time, and in fact we teach it. Imagine a guy on the battle field having to re-zero for every shot he takes! Of course they would not do that, what they do do is learn to fire at different ranges with one setting, and compensate for the increase/decrease in range.

So...you are acknowledging that the damage done to the scope between November and March, requiring it to be fired 5-6 times before reaching alignment, is something for which you have no evidence. You don't want to believe the scope was damaged before 11-27, and so you conjure up an imaginary incident whereby the scope was damaged afterward, and then simply claim it happened. I must say I'm disappointed. This is a typical LN approach to the evidence. I suspect you've been spending too much time on the McAdams website, or reading Bugliosi. Next thing you know you'll be saying that the SBT must be true because...we all know Oswald did it and it's the only way he could have acted alone!

No Pat there is plenty of evidence, if you really understand what you are looking at. I see no evidence of the scope being damaged before 11/27/63. I have conjured up nothing. You can find these very words in Fraziers testimony:

Mr. FRAZIER - When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting.

Mr. EISENBERG - But you are unable to say whether--or are you able to say whether--the defect existed before November 27th? That is, precisely when it was, introduced?

Mr. FRAZIER - As far as to be unable to adjust the scope, actually, I could not say when it had been introduced. I don't know actually what the cause is. It may be that the mount has been bent or the crosshair ring shifted.

So Frazier tells us that there were no issues with stabilization on 11/27/63, and that at that time he could not say when it had been introduced as an issue. This is significant in that if the condition had existed prior to 11/27 Frazier would have known that the condition existed prior to them having received the rifle. As for spending to much time on McAdams website, and reading to much Bugliosi, you are making a rather large assumption here. Fact is McAdams has much incorrect about the rifle as well, and Bugliosi is a bit dry for me. I have read some of his writing, but probably retained little.

I base my opinions on what is in the evidence, I certainly don't need anyone to explain that to me, as I know this stuff fairly well. However there are so many misconceptions about the ballistic evidence, and so many people that have made conclusions based on what they consider to be correct, that this is exactly what prompted me to pursue writing a series of articles that address the rifle and its condition point by point. I am nearly finished with the first article which addresses the misconception that the scope was misaligned, and in fact sent a sneak peak to Lee yesterday for a quick look over by him, as I felt he would benefit from that. There is also an article On my website called "trajectory explained" that addresses how a bullet flies and explains how sights effect this flight. Anyone interested in the ballistics should read that as well.

As far as the targets, when you make the argument that Oswald really only hit one target, because he really only hit the head once, you shoot yourself in the foot. As shown by the Army's targets, NONE of the shots rapid-fired by the Army's shooters using Oswald's rifle hit as close to the center of the target as the two hits attributed to Oswald.

The CBS re-enactment had a similar problem. While they REPORTED that several of the shooters, including Donahue, re-created, or improved upon, Oswald's purported feat, they did not show us the bulk of the targets hit by these men. For all we know, many of the "hits" were to the shoulders or arms of the silhouettes.

Again you are now talking about ability, which is speculation. I can however tell you one thing. If you and I headed to the range to fire one of my rifles, I can guarantee you would not be anywhere near as proficient with my rifle as you would one of your own, even if our abilities were exactly the same. There is much to be said for being familiar with your weapon! For one thing, those men were all shooting the same rifle, and not one of them re calibrated it for their own personal use! Remember me telling you about two people shooting a different "zero"? While the CT crowd likes to tel us that there is no evidence of Oswald practicing, I like to remind them that every second of his time is not accounted for, and that lack of evidence should never be considered evidence.

According to the CT crowd, and your post earlier, Oswald only ever fired at one other living target, Walker.

This gives him, in his possession 5 rounds of ammo. Not even one full clip. However 6.5mm ammunition was sold in 20 ct boxes, with no clips, and in 18 count packages with 3 clips and 6 rounds in each clip. So are we to think that Oswald found a gun shop that sold individual cartridges? I myself have never seen that. So what did he do with the other rounds, because as you pointed out, there is no extra rounds found? Additionally, I have to ask, would you have entered into this with only a partially loaded clip? I bet you would not, and I myself sure would not. This to me is yet another indication of the impulsive nature of the act. Perhaps he had no time to acquire more ammo, and perhaps this was a last minute decision, made the night before? All speculation of course, but as I like to call it logical speculation.

By the way, the King Mackerel are biting come on down!

Mike

Thanks Duncan...

Please tell me that the same type of analysis was done on the image to the left, behind the tree, along the southern face of the fence.

Never have seen size analysis done on that area...

you?

Once one looks at and comprehends the ballistic evidence, one will stop wasting time with such foolishness as a knoll shooter. Of course it does keep the goldfish, who gobble up any flake thrown to them, occupied and out of the way of real research.

Some people are so easily fooled.

Well, some folks believe that Badge Man is there, and his shot missed.

The jury is still out on the acoustical evidence.

BTW, I would certainly appreciate it if all here could speak a little more civilly to one another. This is getting to be a little much.

Kathy

Kathy,

For you Darlin, anything, I can even be nice to this Josephs person, as trying as he may be with all his bluster and no bolster. I will refrain from feeding the fish.

Bill,

For you, OK. I myself believe it was Oswald. I also believe, especially after reading portions of Brennan's book, that he was identified. However, You know me, and I generally like several forms of confirmation on things, and admittedly, I lack those multiple avenues in putting Oswald behind that rifle.

I have never understood the air tight alibi. However I do understand why someone would have thought he had a bald spot. I assume Greer and Kellerman were not afflicted with bald spots, but they sure look like they have one.

How did he get away? By hiding in plain sight, talking to Baker, and then waltzing out of the building.

I decided out of the generosity in my heart, to not make you prove all your ridiculous claims, except one. The rifle.

Please provide the evidence for your assertions that is was junk.

Come on....out of all the flakes you spread, you should surely be able to back up just one.

Pat,

Now another issue to address is the instability of the rifle and scope. This did not exist on 11/27/63 when the rifle was tested. This is very clear by the groups that were shot at 15 yards.

This is a photo of 6 rounds fired on 11/27/63 by Cunningham and Frazier.

Here is Killions 11/27/63 target also very consistent.

There is no instability of the rifle on 11/27/63.

There was no sign of instability until March of '64.

Now a word about alignment.

If we look at the above 15 yard targets we notice that both targets have very tight shot groups. We also notice that the Frazier Cunningham target is a bit different than the Killion target. There is good reason for that. They shoot a different "zero". Or to be more precise Cunningham and Frazier shoot nearly the same zero, but this zero is not Killions zero.

When using a scope the way that we look through that scope, and mount the rifle becomes a critical part of how we sight the rifle in. We set it up, for ourselves. Each person mounts a rifle a bit differently and has a bit different sight picture.

Clearly Frazier and Cunningham are close, but Killion is not. Its obvious that Killion is not a poor shot, look at his group pattern, very consistent. However he shoots about 2" lower than Frazier and Cunningham. This is not because he is a poor shot, its because he shoots a different zero.

For anyone to say that there was an alignment issue on 11/27/63, is misleading. WE can say the set up was stable, based on the groups they shot. But there is no way we can say it was misaligned.

Now I note in your post above that you claim " He was thereby acknowledging that the scope and rifle as discovered were fatally out of alignment, and that this misalignment was not the result of a Dallas police officer bumping the scope or some such thing."

This is in reference to Simmons testimony about the shims, and is clearly false. There is no evidence what so ever that the scope was misaligned on 11/27. Now it is correct that this could not have been caused by a Dallas Policeman, because the damage did not exist when the rifle was in Dallas custody, it occured between 11/27 and 3/64. Also noted is that in 3/64 the FBI noted the scope was loose as well.

I also notice you tossed in the "fear of breaking the firing pin" line. Common fair with the CT crowd, but again, it is only an inexperienced person, unfamiliar with firearms that would make such an assumption. The reason is simple, as any competant gunsmith will tell you you NEVER dry fire a center fire rifle. Why? Because you risk breaking the firing pin. New, old, it does not matter this is a huge no no. It is also common knowledge among those that know firearms.

The recreation tests.

Can you offer me one example of a recreation that was done as it should have been? I have been unable to find one. Fact is Oswald missed the first 2 shots, clearly. It was only after the Limo slowed that he was able to connect properly. Was Oswald an expert rifleman. No. But then again he did not have to be. Hell he only connected properly one in three shots.

Howard Donahue was the only man I have heard of that accomplished the shooting event. However, there are two things and two things only to consider.

1) Does the shooter have a clear line of sight? Most every theory contends that yes he does.

2) Can the Carcano be fired 3 times in 6 seconds. Of course it can.

Ability on anyone's scale is pure speculation.

I am currently working on a series of articles that deal with many of these issues. If for no other purpose than to put all this garbage about how awful the Carcano was to rest.

There is much I have yet to learn about the assassination. However the firearms aspect is one I am very well versed in, and wish that many others were as well, so that they could at least evaluate the evidence properly. We are researching a shooting event after all.

Mike

Pat,

Negative.

The 5-6 shots to realign it was after the shims in March of 64. Certainly not on 11/27/63.

The chart I posted represents a 400 yard zero. However if we break that down and see what elevations the rifle should have fired at 15 and 25 yards, we can develop a trajectory arc. With a 400 yard zero we should see a weapon fire 17" high. This means at 50 yards it would fire 8.5" high, and at 25 it would fire 4.2" high. This just happens to be the average of the rounds Frazier fired at 25 yards. The average elevation of all Frazier's rounds at 25 yards is 4.5" high. The average right for his shots at 25 yards, is 2.4" right. However this was under rapid fire conditions, and can vary a bit. Remember he tells us that accuracy was a back seat to speed in these tests.

In calculating Frazier's shots at 25 yards, I calculated each bullet hole is about .25", slightly smaller than the bullet, which is normal in cardboard/paper.

Here are the averages. The Blue group is series 1 and the Red is series 2.

The numbers for series one are:

1-1 5.8" High and 1.8" Right

1-2 4.1" High and 1.6" Right

1-3 5.5" High and 3" Right

Series one average elevation is 5.1"

Series one right average is 2.1"

Series two:

2-1 4.8" High and 2" Right

2-2 5.7" High and 4.2" Right

2-3 1.5" High and 2.1" Right

Average elevation is 4"

Average right is 2.7"

Overall elevation average is 4.5"

Overall right average is 2.4"

Frazier was correct in his calculations and numbers.

to be continued.....

QUOTE (David Josephs @ Jun 7 2010, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No one saw him do it

Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says:

I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been.

Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald.

As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks

Interesting how you put that "for a variety of reasons" I wonder if his reasons included the fact he felt betrayed by the DPD, or possibly was in fear? How about this from Brennan's own book:

"The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.

I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him."

I knew I could identify him, if they needed me later! Sounds like Brennan saw Oswald in that window. Now I wonder why you did not elaborate on "for a variety of reasons"

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0085a.htm

Page 145/146 of the WCR – “Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive ID of Oswald when he first saw him in the police line-up. The Commission, therefore, does NOT base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan’s subsequent identification of LHO as the man he saw fire a rifle.”

While the Report admits that Brennan believes he saw someone who looked like Oswald, according to him, the only thing that can be taken as evidence is a witnesses’ positive or negative identification. Well what do you know... the DPD records HAS such a document!! {image already provided}

And instead of firing back with Fischer and Edwards – who also used the term “could” have been LHO, never positively identified Oswald. Or Euins who actually saw a black man at the window and was scared into changing his story – kind of like Dr. Perry, someone considerably less shaken than a 15 year old kid, who was hounded into changing what he KNEW to be a frontal entrance into a maybe....

Proof Mikey... Evidence.... Brennan’s words are all hearsay. He didn’t ID Oswald as the shooter

#1 proven – No one saw him (LHO) do it

QUOTE

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other.

I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor.

Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter.

So where was he DURING the assassination. You readily admit you have him located just before, and just after. Rowland does in fact see a dark complected man in the window at about 12:15, as I recall. He also sees a gunman, which rather fits Oswald's description, but he never sees the both at the same time. So you have Oswald accounted for till say 12:20, and then again at 12:31. This does not rule him out at all.

As far as someone telling a researcher something, come on, you don’t really believe hearsay like that is going to fly do you? I am not a CT. I don’t bite that easily.

Yes Mikey... If someone is seen on the 1st/2nd floor at 12:15-12:20 and possibly even 12:25 and then again at 12:31 in the exact same area... it is reasonable to conclude he never went anywhere, NOT that he ran up 5 flights of steps, assembled a rifle, built a boxed-in sniper’s lair, fired and hit 2 of three shots while MANY witnesses: civilian, DPD, SS testify to a shot coming from the right front of the limo; lay the rifle down, make a clip and paper bag disappear until needed, run down 5 flights of steps, get change for a coke, buy the coke and casually walk into a gun pointed at his stomach. All in 6-12 minutes. I can see where you’d think this scenario does not rule him out...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC482g/Spring1999/ExternalComm.html

Then, there is the mishandling of the Carolyn Arnold statements. Taken together, the two support her later claims that she saw LHO on the first floor at 12:25; making it unlikely that he went up five flights of stairs and ran over to the window to shoot JFK. In her hand written statement she told the FBI she saw LHO "at about 12:25 PM" (Weisberg Post Mortem, p. 333 citing Commission Document 706(d)). The FBI retyped her statement to read that she LHO "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" (Roffman, p. 185, citing CD 5:4l). On page 276 Roffman notes the dishonestly of the Warren Report which claimed "that it knew of no Book Depository employee who claimed to have seen Oswald between 11:55 and 12:30 on the day of the assassination."

British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold:

When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water.

Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the second floor lunchroom. ”Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.”

ref. Crossfire, p 49; Conspiracy - Who Killed Kennedy?, p 108

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

A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Moreover, as mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came back downstairs at 12:15 or 12:20. The motorcade was scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned out, the motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald could not have known that. Arriving at the sniper's window at 12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to build (or finish building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes next to the window as a gun rest, and then reassemble the rifle. One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an assembled rifle--on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16, and Rowland said nothing about seeing any boxes being moved in the sniper's nest.

Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?

Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock.

Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock?

Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor.

Mr. BALL. What was he doing?

Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him-“It’s about

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

Jarman and Norman appeared together on the first floor again, about ten minutes after stepping outside. Because the crowds in front of the Depository were so large, the two men went up to the fifth floor at 12:20 or 12:25. To do this, they walked around to the back of the building, entering on the first floor through the rear door and taking the elevator up five stories (3H202).

Obviously, Oswald could not have told the police that "Junior" and a short Negro employee were together on the first floor unless he had seen this himself.[3] For Oswald to have witnessed Jarman and Norman in this manner, he had to have been on the first floor between either 12:10 and 12:15 or 12:20 and 12:25. The fact that Oswald was able to relate this incident is cogent evidence that he was in fact on the first floor at one or both of these times. If he was on the sixth floor, as the Commission believes, then it was indeed a remarkable coincidence that out of all the employees, Oswald picked the two who were on the first floor at the time he said, and together as he described. Since this is a remote possibility that warrants little serious consideration, I am persuaded to conclude that Oswald was on the first floor at some time between 12:10 and 12:25, which is consistent with the previously cited testimony of Eddie Piper.[4]

Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams. First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20 (4:103). Former WC member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth floor "just minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the corner of Houston and Elm"

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

And the testimony of Mrs. Reid

Mr. BELIN. Now, Mrs. Reid, you left lunch about what time?

Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late.

But I went down rather soon and stood on the steps.

Mr. DULLES. Where was your husband working?

Mrs. REID. He works for the records building.

Mr. BELIN. Where is that located?

Mrs. REID. Well, it is off the left-hand side, kind of cater-cornered across from our building.

Mr. BELIN. The records building has one side of it on Elm Street running from Houston to Record Street?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And I believe it is on, it would run on, the south side of Elm?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is that correct?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?

Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there.

Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?

Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone.

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?

Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.

Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. I went into the office.

Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him."

He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else.

How does Oswald know that Williams is eating his lunch not 15 feet from the corner from 12- 12:15 so he cannot go up... and finally have you read Jack Dougherty’s testimony? http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm you might find it interesting.

#2 Proven – he was elsewhere immediately before and after the shots were fired, no one saw him go up to the floors that were occupied until 12:20 by Williams or even later by Dougherty... and no on e saw him come down.

If you can prove, with evidence, that Fritz was wrong when he said they could not put that man in the window at the time of the shots... please do. Please don’t just argue and offer nothing in support.

QUOTE

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work.

Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story...

Paraffin eh? Your kidding me right? You do of course know of the unreliability of this test. Let me refresh for you by asking you to read what Cunningham had to say in WCH3p487.

"And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands."

And then Further:

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG:

So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):

EISENBERG:

A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

EISENBERG:

Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

I find it interesting that you would try to use something that is inconclusive, as an indication of exoneration. Note I said interesting, not surprising.

And Mikey... It’s interesting you simply stop with the above and not look into the more complete examination of the paraffin casts which show higher levels on the palms of his hands as opposed to the back of his hands where the residue would be left if he ONLY fired a gun or rifle as opposed to interacting with all the elements found in the TSBD... same story with the cheeks.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gallagher.htm

Mr. REDLICH. Getting back to the hand casts, did you use the outside surface of the hand casts as a control surface?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did, sir.

Mr. REDLICH. Could you tell us how the inside or the outside surface of the hand cast compared with regard to the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Much more barium and antimony were found on the inside of the hand casts than were found on the control specimens taken from the outside of the hand casts of the subject.

Mr. REDLICH. All right. Now let us turn to the cheek casts, Mr. Gallagher. Could you tell us the results of your examination of the cheek casts with reference to the presence of the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. However, when the cheek cast was analyzed, both surfaces of the cheek cast were studied. That is, the surface adjacent to the skin of the subject and the surface away from the skin of the subject, or the outside surface of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. For our record, let us call the surface adjacent to the skin the inside surface, and the other surface the outside surface.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of this cast was found to contain--barium and antimony--actually more barium was found on the outside surface of the cast than on the inside surface.

Mr. REDLICH. And as far as antimony is concerned, was there more on the outside than on the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. There was slightly less antimony on the outside of the cast than on the inside of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you have any explanation for the presence of barium and antimony on the outside of the cast, and as part of the same question, do you have any explanation for their being more barium on the outside than the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no explanation for this difference.

And please try to remember that there was not a single fingerprint found on the rifle, nor were there the multiple fingerprints one would expect to find on all the boxes around the SL. Either he was practicing with the rifle and left prints or he never touched the rifle to begin with... there was nothing done to determine whether the rifle was fired that day...

And if he did indeed clean and oil the rifle – you of all people should know that looking down the barrel or smelling the barrel would indicate whether it was fired recently.

QUOTE

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long?

Really?

Yes I have read these claims before. Pure rubbish, and spewed by people who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to firearms. To answer your question, yes, I do think a 20 year old firearm with a partially loaded clip (which is irrelevant) could have done the deed.

Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by "non-existent" clip. There is documented proof the clip was in the TSBD.

so why not photograph it with ALL the other stuff found up there... like the paper bag in the location it was found – NOT. There were no photos of the clip because there was no clip to photograph.

I also assume in talking about the firing pin, you are referring to it showing signs of much use? Imagine that a war rifle showing signs of use. I also suppose you are going to quote that they were afraid to dry fire it because they feared breaking the firing pin.

I hear this often, and it is comical. You are aware of the fact that you never dry fire a weapon with this type of pin design aren't you? The reason is, that even if the pin is BRAND NEW, you run the risk of breaking it. They were not afraid to dry fire it because it was defective, they were afraid to because that is standard firearms knowledge. Its also the reason these were made to allow gunsmiths, like myself, to test fire weapons and have a striking surface for the pin:

Now a word about the scope. You do realize that it was in very good firing order on 11/27/63 when the FBI tested it? In fact they fired six rounds that made a keyhole in the target!:

Of course these rounds were fired at 15 yards. Someone with no knowledge would jump all over that, but what they fail to realize is this is a strong indication that the scope was in fact zeroed in at 400 yards. More about this to come.

Yet another completely useless comment by you Mikey...

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:

1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[59] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[60] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2 1/2 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[61] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."

{so either LHO knows the scope is off - there is no evidence for this at all - and proceeds not to correct it for his killing of the president, OR he does not know its off and would us a lead. If you fired a rifle that was off 2.5-5” would you leave it that way? If you didn’t know it was off would you fire it as if it was... Mr. gunsmith??}

2) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[62]

{what do you have for this Mikey?}

Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963.

59. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, Testimony of Robert A. Frazier.

60. ^ Warren Commission Exhibit CE-549.

61. ^ The Warren Commission estimated that President Kennedy was 176.9 feet (53.9 m) to 190.8 feet (58.2 m) from the sixth floor corner window of the Depository when he was shot in the neck, and 265.3 feet (80.9 m) when he was shot in the head.

62. ^ Warren Commission Hearings: 3 WCH 440-5.

As for the ridiculousness of the dented shell. Of course it could not have been fired dented, but it sure could have been dented after. Its called a short cycle. I have done it many times, and have seen it done by others. It is simply, not pulling the bolt far enough back to eject the shell, then when you run the bolt forward it hits the chamber lip.

So this would have to have been the LAST shot fired since what you describe would not have ejected the shell the first time – the shooter double works the bolt AFTER he sees JFK’s head blow up, and then leaves a live round in the rifle. If the Clip was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD why wasn’t it by the window and other shells since chambering the last round ejects the clip? Why wasn’t it photographed? Who shoved it back into the weapon and why would anyone do that?

Try answering a few questions instead of asking for once...

QUOTE

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message*

Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

What you would fail to realize is that in the day pistols were automatics, and revolvers were well revolvers. Another epic case of someone not knowing what they are talking about. People who murder with revolvers generally don’t hang around long enough to eject the shells. It is perfectly logical for the officer to assume they were autos, just because they were laying around on the ground. There is no indication that he picked them up and examined them before making the statement. I dare say, can you find the auto and the special in this illustration?

I’m not as ballistics expert Mikey... but I’d venture to say an 8 year veteran, now a sergeant of the DPD is better qualified than I am...

Mr. HILL. Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package.

Once again – there is nothing that states he simply assumed anything as you try to point out without an ounce of proof – whereas we now have Hill stating specifically he was shown the shells...

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

And what a surprise HW Summers was never called to testify

Mr. POE. There were two in an empty Winston cigarette package.

Mr. BALL. Did you save the Winston cigarette package?

Mr. POE. I turned it in with the two cartridges.

Mr. BALL. To the crime lab?

Mr. POE. Yes, sir.

Wonder where that third shell went.....

So you see David, once you apply a little common sense, and actually know what you are talking about things become far more clear. So I would have to give you some advice, based on the advise you gave me. I do my research, thats why is it so easy to debunk foolish theories like to ones you propose. Stop parroting someone elses work, your obviously not an idiot, stop being lazy, and do your own work. Things will become clear for you as well.

and you know better than what you post or at least you should. You haven’t “debunked” anything other than the fact you’re to be taken seriously.

You know full well the problems with the bullets “that were entered into evidence” don’t even match the ones pulled from Tippit’s body...

http://scribblguy.50megs.com/tippit.htm

On the very day of Officer Tippit's murder, Dallas homicide had made a summary of all the evidence it had in the case, a most important standard police procedure. Although a number of witnesses mentioned that they had seen cartridges strewn around after the shooting and the early recorded radio messages had described the murder weapon as an automatic because of the ejector marks on cartridges found at the scene, this summary did not include cartridges of any kind.

It was not until six days after it had sent the single bullet to the F.B.I. Iab in Washington that the Dallas homicide division finally added four cartridges allegedly found at the scene to the Tippit evidence summary. The cartridges were then sent off to Washington, and the Bureau lab promptly reported back that they indeed had been fired by the same revolver that Oswald allegedly purchased through the mail under the alias of A. Hidell.

The Dallas police force may have been relieved to hear this result, but to me the late appearance of the cartridges only focused more attention on the Dallas homicide unit's unconscionable manipulation of evidence. I knew that if the cartridges had actually been fired by Oswald before his arrest, they routinely would have been included in the summary of evidence and sent off to the F.B.I. Lab on the evening of the murder. But these cartridges were not sent until well *after* Dallas homicide had learned that the lab could not find positive markings from Oswald's gun on the single bullet. (This evaluation would have come from the Washington lab to the Dallas Bureau office by telex within 24 hours.)

It seemed clear to me what had happened. Having failed to get a positive identification with Oswald's revolver from the bullet, Dallas homicide was not about to send off cartridges with an automatic hand gun's ejector marks on them, even if these were the actual cartridges found at the scene. Instead, someone in the homicide division or cooperating with it had fired the confiscated revolver *after* Oswald's arrest, thereby obtaining the needed cartridges bearing its imprint. Then those cartridges were sent to Washington.

However, competence was not the Dallas homicide unit's strong suit, even in fabricating evidence. The F.B.I. Lab found that *two* of the cartridge cases had been manufactured by Western and *two* by Remington. Since the lab had already concluded that *three* of the bullets found in Tippit's body were copper-coated Westerns and *one* was a lead Remington, these numbers simply did not add up.

Worse yet, at the Warren Commission hearings it became embarrassingly apparent that the used cartridges that the Dallas homicide team had sent to the F.B.I. Lab were not the cartridges actually found at the scene of Tippit's murder. One witness, Domingo Benavides, found two used cartridge shells not far from the shooting and handed them to Officer J.M. Poe. Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill instructed Poe to mark them i.e., to scratch his initials on them in order to maintain the chain of evidence. This is standard operating procedure for all homicide officers everywhere.

Poe informed the Warren Commission that he believed he had marked them, but he could not swear to it. At the Commission hearing Poe examined four cartridges that were shown to him but was unable to identify his marks on them. Sergeant W.E. Barnes informed the Commission that he had received two cartridges from Officer Poe back at police headquarters and had added his own initials to them. However, he too was unable to positively identify the two shells.

I can go thru the exercise of providing proof for all these statements but you’re simply not worth the time. And from what I’ve read on so many other threads on this site... I am not alone in these feelings...

Good bye and good luck Mikey....

I expected you to scamper off. I would to if I were in your position. Brennan clearly ID's Oswald in his book. Mishandling of statements, planted evidence forged material, you guys never cease to amaze me with your bluster, but when the chips are down you fold, just like you happened to just do.

Your dismissed.

I also think there are some miscalculations made in examining the targets and saying Frazier fudged the numbers. More on this in a bit once I finish examining them.

Hope you have been well Pat!

Mike

I don't think it's irrelevant Mike. I don't think Brennan attended an actual line up and his name was added to Davis's card afterwards. Brennan claimed in his Warren Commission testimony that there were 7 (more or less 1) people in the line up he attended. Is there nothing wrong with this testimony in your opinion? Could the star witness not count to 4?

Lee

Mike,

I take it if you believe Brennan's testimony, then he must have had double vision, his memory was very poor or he just couldn't count during the line-up he attended?

In addition to an answer to the above question I'd also like to ask you something else. I believe all of the points we are discussing to be quite moot because the evidence has been so thoroughly tainted in so many areas that you can argue the case backwards and forwards forever.

There is, however, a much wider context to the assassination so with that in mind what is your reply to the following?

On October 6th 1963 Oswald's FLASH was taken off/removed from his security file at the FBI. This FLASH would have placed him on the security list for Kennedy's trip to Dallas and he, in all likelihood, would have been taken off the streets that day. It would also have triggered some major alarms regarding the information that was due to arrive from the CIA concerning Oswald's supposed trip to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing was impeccable and certainly not down to error or coincidence. Rifles, Tippit, and DP witness testimony aside, what are your thoughts on this incredible, and unbelievable, aspect to the story? Obviously Oswald didn't do this himself, did he?

Lee

Lee,

Quite simply if I had been asked to look at a line up, and I was looking for one single person, I may not recall how many people were in the line, just weather I saw the one I was looking for or not. Certainly years later I would not recall, and honestly I doubt you would either.

As for the removal of Oswald's FLASH. I would have to read more about it before commenting, otherwise I would just be speculating. If you care to send info on it I would be glad to read it. Frankly, I have issues believing anything that is set in front of me until I read it myself. As hard as this is to believe there are actually CT's out there who take things out of context and make mountains from mo hills. I am not saying you would, however your source might.

Let me ask you something while I am here.

How do you explain the fact that the weapon that fires the bullet into Tippit's head was found on Oswald at the time of his arrest, just a short time later?

Oh yes and dont buy into that defective pistol crap, that comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I must say Lee you are one of the few I actually enjoy discussing things with. Your ideas are often well thought out and I certainly appreciate your honesty, its refreshing frankly. Thank You.

Mike

Mike

You can't be serious? You wouldn't remember one of, if not the most, important thing that has ever happened to you? There were four people in that line-up Mike. Not seven, not six and not eight. Four. You go into a room. The people walk in. They are assigned numbers. You look them up and down. One after the other. You take your time. You pick the guy out using those numbers. So if there are four, you would say either "number one", "number two", "number three", or "number four." It's not complicated. And four is an easy number to count to...for most people. It's also an easy number to remember...for most people. I can't, don't and will not believe Brennan's story, testimony or memory. I also find it incredibly suspicious that it was an FBI agent who conducted this line up (or so we are told.) And I wouldn't believe Forrest Sorrells if he told me I had five toes on each of my feet...

The source for the removal of Oswald's FLASH is James P. Hosty's book "Assignment Oswald" p.166 and Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA' p.4. The FBI agent who removed the FLASH (Marvin Gheesling) was duly censured by Hoover.

The Tippit shooting is complicated one and I suggest you get up to speed by reading the thread "The Attempted Planting of the Revolver on Oswald" - if you can prove to me a tamper proof chain of evidence on that revolver Mike, I'll buy you a brand new AK-47...

Lee

If you'll make is a new Wilson's combat CQB Ill read it lol!

As for Brennan, I dont find it odd at all that he would not recall how many were in the line up. I think this is making a mountain from a mo hill. I certainly believe there was a line up, and in fact, believe much of what he had to say.

By the way, if you dont mind my asking, how long have you been researching the assassination, and what is your particular area of interest?

I've been interested in the events since I was 15 years old Mike. My Dad got me onto it when we had 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' aired for the first time in the U.K..

I got seriously into it, buying the books, hunting down old journals and the like when I was 18-19. I was obsessed with it till about the age of 25 and then kinda went onto other things. In my early 30's I picked the books and my notepads back up. For the last 3 years, outside of looking after my young daughters and being a husband, has been my number one interest and passion.

Lee Oswald, the real man behind the one dimensional WC portrait, is what I'm truly interested in. I know this guy was innocent Mike. Set up by JJ Angleton and a combination of Texas moneymen and the Military. He was moved around a chessboard thinking he was a knight when he was, unfortunately, just a pawn.

Lee

Lee,

Thanks for sharing that. I myself have been researching about 3 years only and much of that on other things. As you know I am mostly interested in the ballistics. As you might also know I own www.jfkballistics.com. If you are ever interested in writing an article on Oswald I would love to have it on my site.

I post all kinds of things from all sides of the debate. Not just ballistics. All I ask is that if it has ballistics in it that it be accurate.

So anyhow just thought I would offer.

Mike

I'll have a think about it Mike. I already have lots of things in my notes, part essays, part dramatisations of what I think happened, I've written 2/3's of a script...but I'll let you know in the next few weeks when I get some real time to organise my thoughts. I'll be back in Dallas in July (going to Houston to visit the in-laws and will be traveling up there for a few days) so will take some reflection time on the knoll to think what I may want to forward to you.

Thanks for the offer

Lee

P.S. Thanks for sending me your article. I'll have a read through tonight...

Lee you are most welcome. Just bear in mind it is not complete as yet. I have some polishing to do and am certainly not an author!

Would love to have some of your work, just let me know.

Mike

I'll take you at your word Mike concerning the test.

It's the one aspect of the case I'm not well versed in, hence my reason to not want to go into it very much.

But I will say, the scope could have been aligned perfectly, it may have been used to kill JFK, it may have happened in under 6 seconds, all of the fragments may have come from that rifle, NAA may not be junk-science, the shell with the dented lip may have occurred naturally, the scatter pattern of shells may be fine and dandy...

...but it wasn't Oswald firing it. And he certainly, IMO, did not order it.

Lee

FYI, Lee, regarding the scope. From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

On 3-31-64, the testimony of two weapons experts casts grave doubt on the theory that Oswald fired all the shots. Under questioning by Melvin Eisenberg, FBI ballistics expert Robert Frazier testifies that on 11-27-63 he and two other ballistics examiners fired the rifle found in the depository in order to judge both the speed at which three shots could be fired, and the accuracy of those shots. He relates that, when firing on targets but 15 yards away, agent “Killion fired in 9 seconds… (agent) Cunningham fired his three shots in 8 seconds and I fired my three shots in 5.9 seconds”. He testifies further that, after moving to a 25 yard range, he attempted to fire the rifle as rapidly as possible, and was able to fire three times in 4.6 seconds, and then 4.8 seconds. He then relates that on March 16, 1964, after adjusting the rifle to make it fire as accurately as possible while using the scope, he fired on outdoor targets at 100 yards, and was able to fire three shots in 5.9. 6.2, 5.6, and 6.5 seconds, respectively. When asked by counsel Eisenberg if firing at a moving target would have lengthened these times, he states “It would have lengthened the time to the extent of allowing the crosshairs to pass over the moving target.” When asked how long this would take, he answers “Approximately 1 second. It would depend on how fast the target was moving.” When asked if increased familiarity with the rifle would have helped him shorten his time, he replies “Oh yes” but then talks about how it would improve his accuracy. He eventually answers the question in the negative by replying “4.6 is firing this weapon as fast as the bolt can be operated, I think.”

(The date of this last test is intriguing. Let's recall that a January 9, 1964 column by Allen and Scott reported that the FBI had been asked to conduct more tests on the speed at which the rifle could be fired. Well, here are the tests, only two months later... Hmmm... This gives us something to think about. Let's reflect...should these March tests have proved that Oswald could not have acted alone, would Hoover have even allowed this information be given to the Commission? Would he have risked criticism that he'd dragged his feet while Oswald's accomplices escaped? One can only assume "No". Then what follows is that Hoover and the FBI knew that no matter what these tests showed, they were not to be used to suggest that more than one shooter was involved.)

But if Frazier's testimony raises questions about Oswald's ability to fire all the shots, and the FBI's honesty about this ability, it raises even more questions about the accuracy of the weapon purportedly used by Oswald. Frazier tells the Commission that the first six shots fired by the FBI on 11-27 hit 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards. He says the next three hit 2 1/2 inches high and 1 to the right at 15 yards. He then discusses the next six shots fired with the weapon, fired from 25 yards in an effort to fire the rifle as rapidly and accurately as possible. He claims "The first series of three shots were approximately--from 4 to 5 inches high and from 1 to 2 inches to the right of the aiming point...The second series of shots landed--one was about 1 inch high, and the other two about 4 or 5 inches high..." A close look at the target used for these six shots, and a comparison of this target with the targets created from 15 yards, is most revealing, however. It shows that Frazier was way off, and that the shots he claimed landed 4 to 5 inches high in fact landed 6 to 8 inches high, and 2 1/2 to 5 inches to the right of the aiming point. This confirms that the shots from 15 yards were not an anomaly, and that the scope was, in fact, considerably misaligned.

So misaligned, apparently, that the FBI and Warren Commission felt the need to cover up. At one point, undoubtedly to downplay that the rifle was so woefully inaccurate, Frazier claims that "apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned." Well, this is disingenuous on two fronts. One is that the scope, while being removed from the rifle in Dallas and Washington, was never taken off the barrel, with which it was aligned. Two is that Frazier himself suspected that NOTHING had happened to the rifle to knock it out of alignment. Later in his testimony, Frazier admits that when the FBI subsequently tried to sight-in the rifle and make it fire as accurately as possible, he found that the scope was defective, and that it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope after an adjustment, and that this still wasn't enough, as the rifle still fired 4-5 inches high and to the right at 100 yards. He then admitted "When we fired on November 27th, the shots were landing high and slightly to the right. However, the scope was apparently fairly well stabilized at that time, because three shots would land in an area the size of a dime under rapid-fire conditions, which would not have occurred if the interior mechanism of the scope was shifting." Well, there it is. Frazier had thereby admitted that there was reason to believe that the rifle had been misaligned when fired on the 22nd. While he'd fired two comparison bullets on the 23rd, he later found it took 5 or 6 shots to stabilize the scope. It follows then that the rifle on 11-22 before the shooting was as misaligned as it was on the 27th, when Frazier tested its accuracy. (On May 20, 1964, William Waldman testified before the Commission as a representative of Klein's Sporting Goods, the company that sold Oswald the rifle. He testified that the scope had been installed at Kleins's but that it was not sighted in by Klein's. This raises the question of whether the scope had EVER been sighted in prior to the FBI's attempt to sight it in on March 16, 1964.)

The significance of this misalignment becomes clear later in the testimony. Counsel Melvin Eisenberg asks Frazier a series of questions about the sniper's having to lead his target, in order to hit his target. He gives some specifics, telling Frazier: "I would like you to make the following assumptions in answering these questions: First, that the assassin fired his shots from the window near which the cartridges were found--that is, the easternmost window on the south face of the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building, which is 60 feet above the ground, and several more feet above the position at which the car was apparently located when the shots were fired. Second, that the length of the trajectory of the first shot was 175 feet, and that the length of the trajectory of the third shot was 265 feet. And third, that the elapsed time between the firing of the first and third shots was 5 1/2 seconds. Based on those assumptions, Mr. Frazier, approximately what lead would the assassin have had to give his target to compensate for its movement--and here I would disregard any possible defect in the scope."

Well, this is interesting. Eisenberg is telling Frazier that, in the opinion of the Commission, the limousine traveled but 90 feet between the first and third shots. This is in keeping with the findings of Secret Service Agent Howlett on 11-27, but is a total refutation of the FBI's later claim the limousine traveled 140 feet between the shots. Perhaps Eisenberg, then, is telling Frazier to play ball, or else the Commission will expose the FBI's scandalous deception regarding the distance the limo traveled.

If so, it worked. Well, sort of... Frazier at first testifies that the proper lead for the target at 175 feet would be 6 to 8 inches. But there's a problem with this. Frazier can't leave well enough alone. Dissatisfied with Eisenberg's asking him to disregard the misalignment of the scope in making his calculation, he offers: "the gun, when we first received it in the laboratory and fired these first targets, shot high and slightly to the right. If you were shooting at a moving target from a high elevation, relatively high elevation, moving away from you, it would be necessary for you to shoot over that object in order for the bullet to strike your intended target, because the object during the flight of the bullet would move a certain distance. The fact that the crosshairs are set high would actually compensate for any lead which had to be taken. So that if you aimed with this weapon as it actually was received at the laboratory, it would be necessary to take no lead whatsoever in order to hit the intended object. The scope would accomplish the lead for you."

Uhhh,,,there's a problem with this. It's nonsense! If the rifle was firing 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right at only 15 yards, as suggested by Frazier's own testimony, then it follows that it would fire 24 inches high and 6 inches to the right at 90 yards, the approximate location of Kennedy at the time of the head shot. If the proper lead for this shot was 6.1inches, as Frazier later specified, it follows that, in order to hit Kennedy in the head at frame 313 of the Zapruder film, the sniper would have to 1) know that the rifle was firing significantly high, and 2) aim almost 18 inches LOW, at the middle of Kennedy's back.

But there's a problem with this as well. The middle of Kennedy's back was obscured by the backseat of the limo. That's right. If one assumes that the rifle as fired on 11-22 was in the same condition it was on 11-27, one has to acknowledge that the sniper hitting Kennedy in the head was actually aiming at the backseat of the limo. This is counter-intuitive.

And it's actually understating the case. It is believed that Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was sighted-in to strike targets at 200 meters. At 200 meters gravity will have taken effect and the bullet will no longer be flying in a straight path. As a result, the bullet of a rifle sighted in at 200 meters will start out low, gradually lift above its line of sight, and then slowly drop back to the line of sight, and hopefully the center of its target, at 200 meters. Frazier testified that a bullet sighted in such a manner at 200 yards would land about a half-inch high at 100 feet, two inches high at 200 feet, and three inches high at 300 feet. This suggests that a bullet fired from 265 feet, a la the fatal bullet if fired from the sniper's nest, would land about 2 1/2 inches high.

And Frazier was probably understating the case. Ballistics calculators (such as those found online at Hornady ammunition website) and charts (such as those found in the book American Ammunition and Ballistics) suggest that the bullet fired in Oswald's rifle would actually have been around 5 inches above the line of sight at 265 feet.

And even this is understating the case. If one accepts Frazier's testimony regarding the inaccuracy of the weapon on 11-27 and the stabilizing effect of shots on the scope, and then considers that the fatal bullet was heading on a downward path, and not be subject to the usual amount of gravity, it seems likely that the fatal bullet supposedly fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano on 11-22-63 would have landed even greater than 23 inches higher than aimed (29 inches minus the 6 inches or so traveled by the limousine between the moment the rifle was fired and the moment the bullet struck) and that the only way for the sniper to have hit Kennedy in the head was for him to have aimed at the trunk of the car.

The confusion related to leading a moving target by firing below or behind the target becomes even more confusing when we consider Frazier's next statement. He added "I might also say that it also shot slightly to the right, which would tend to cause you to miss your target slightly to the right." Uhhh... he said the rifle shot but an inch to the right at 15 yards...which translates to 6 inches to the right at 90 yards. Although Frazier has supplied the Warren Commission with no information regarding the left-right lead necessary to hit the target, photos taken from the sniper's nest suggest that the left-right lead would be about the same as the vertical lead. This would be about 6 inches.This suggests that, while the rifle was firing high and to the right, the sniper would need to make a large adjustment for the former--an adjustment which Frazier denies--but no adjustment at all for the latter--which Frazier also denies.

Something is just askew with Frazier's testimony. First, he under-reports how badly the rifle performed during his 11-27 tests of the rifle from 25 yards. Then he under-reports the adjustment needed to overcome the misalignment of the rifle, and actually suggests this misalignment was an advantage to the sniper. What is he doing? Is he deliberately trying to conceal that such a large adjustment for the rifle's shooting high would have been necessary? If so, then why did he turn around and make it sound like the rifle's shooting right was the bigger problem? Is he simultaneously trying to conceal that the limo was not heading straight away from the sniper, but moving left to right? Or is he just following orders to the best of his ability?

We suspect the latter. On 3-26-64, J. Edgar Hoover sent J. Lee Rankin a letter discussing the accuracy of the rifle. This letter was published as Commission Exhibit 2724. Most of the information contained in this letter was repeated in Frazier's testimony. But not all of it. While Frazier let it slip that the condition of the scope had probably not changed between 11-22 and 11-26, Hoover would have no part of it. He wrote "It is pointed out that the grouping of the shots in the targets shows an inherent capability of great accuracy under rapid fire conditions. No other significance whatever can be attached to these tests since there is no way of determining whether the present condition of the telescopic sight is the same as at the time of the assassination. It is to be noted that at the time of firing these tests, the telescopic sight could not be properly aligned with the target since the sight reached the limit of its adjustment before reaching accurate alignment." (Now here comes the spin.) "The present error in alignment, if it did exist at the time of the assassination, would be in favor of the shooter since the weapon is presently grouping slightly high and to the right with respect to the point of aim, and would have tended to reduce the need for "leading" a moving target in aiming the rifle."

Well, I'll be. Hoover said that the present error in alignment--which would mean the alignment demonstrated on 3-16 AFTER the scope had been sighted in as accurately as possible--would be an advantage, and Frazier testified that the misalignment of the rifle as received by the laboratory would be an advantage. There's a huge difference. And Hoover, for once, was right. The misalignment of the scope on 11-26, when Frazier first tested the accuracy of the rifle, was in no way an advantage. It is of no help at all to a sniper to have to aim at a car trunk to hit a man in the head. But the slight misalignment of the rifle on 3-16, after it was sighted in, would be a slight advantage to someone tracking an object moving left to right and away, provided the person is aware of this misalignment. This leads us to suspect that Frazier was given specific orders on how to testify, and screwed them up.

This gives us plenty to think about. IF the rifle was severely misaligned on 11-22, as suggested by Frazier's testimony, then either the shooter was a marginally talented shooter, like Oswald, who was just firing in the President's general direction and got "lucky", or he was an expert marksman well acquainted with Oswald's rifle, and well aware of its tendency to fire high and to the right, and talented enough to compensate for this tendency. (Testimony of

Pat,

Incorrect.

In testing the rifle at 25 yards on 11/27 Frazier specifically says he was firing for speed and accuracy secondary. He was not trying to fire as fast AND accurately as possible as you said. Further, if you look at the ballistics table for the Carcano, you would see that the 15 yard target should be 4 inches high, if the weapon was sighted for 400 yards. The six shots fired were all interlocking save one which was very close to being interlocking. Frazier also tells us that the first time they had an issue with the instability of the rifle was 3/16/64. The firings on 11/27 prove the scope was quite stable as we can see in this target.

The claim that the rifle was severely misaligned is false in as much as 11/27 goes. However by 3/16/64 it not only was loose, but was misaligned.

There is the Table for the 6.5mm Carcano. Note that at 100 yards it shoots 17" high. This means at 50 it would be 8.5 high and at 25 it would be 4.25 high, and roughly 4 high at 15 yards. Exactly what the tests on 11/27 show.

Also note the tight pattern in the target above, clearly showing that there was no misalignment and instability of the scope on 11/27/63.

Further more at 100 yards the scope would shoot about 17" high and 3 inches right. Care to guess how far the head of JFK moves in the time it takes the bullet to travel from the muzzle to him? Let put it this way, if a shooter were to hole the scope right on the President, with no lead, he would have hit him right in the head!

Additionally Frazier fires his 25 yard groups in 4.8 and 4.6 seconds, and he still held them in a 2" circle!

The long held beliefs that the rifle was junk and the scope misaligned are nothing more than CT misinformation.

Mike

I don't think it's irrelevant Mike. I don't think Brennan attended an actual line up and his name was added to Davis's card afterwards. Brennan claimed in his Warren Commission testimony that there were 7 (more or less 1) people in the line up he attended. Is there nothing wrong with this testimony in your opinion? Could the star witness not count to 4?

Lee

Mike,

I take it if you believe Brennan's testimony, then he must have had double vision, his memory was very poor or he just couldn't count during the line-up he attended?

In addition to an answer to the above question I'd also like to ask you something else. I believe all of the points we are discussing to be quite moot because the evidence has been so thoroughly tainted in so many areas that you can argue the case backwards and forwards forever.

There is, however, a much wider context to the assassination so with that in mind what is your reply to the following?

On October 6th 1963 Oswald's FLASH was taken off/removed from his security file at the FBI. This FLASH would have placed him on the security list for Kennedy's trip to Dallas and he, in all likelihood, would have been taken off the streets that day. It would also have triggered some major alarms regarding the information that was due to arrive from the CIA concerning Oswald's supposed trip to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing was impeccable and certainly not down to error or coincidence. Rifles, Tippit, and DP witness testimony aside, what are your thoughts on this incredible, and unbelievable, aspect to the story? Obviously Oswald didn't do this himself, did he?

Lee

Lee,

Quite simply if I had been asked to look at a line up, and I was looking for one single person, I may not recall how many people were in the line, just weather I saw the one I was looking for or not. Certainly years later I would not recall, and honestly I doubt you would either.

As for the removal of Oswald's FLASH. I would have to read more about it before commenting, otherwise I would just be speculating. If you care to send info on it I would be glad to read it. Frankly, I have issues believing anything that is set in front of me until I read it myself. As hard as this is to believe there are actually CT's out there who take things out of context and make mountains from mo hills. I am not saying you would, however your source might.

Let me ask you something while I am here.

How do you explain the fact that the weapon that fires the bullet into Tippit's head was found on Oswald at the time of his arrest, just a short time later?

Oh yes and dont buy into that defective pistol crap, that comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I must say Lee you are one of the few I actually enjoy discussing things with. Your ideas are often well thought out and I certainly appreciate your honesty, its refreshing frankly. Thank You.

Mike

So that's it?

You have nothing that places Oswald in the window with that rifle?

And you have the gaul to copy and paste an entire post from DVP as your basis for yet another TROLLING ARGUMENT yet

you've only known of him for less than a month...?

You trust his analysis that much you are willing to associate yourself with him... good or bad... and discount the continuing work of

all those who are posting here...

Your real profile is coming more and more into focus.

One final note before I go back to the reply I've been working on

Even your Mr Brennan describes what he hears as a firecraker or backfire AT STREET LEVEL.

Yet thinks that it must have been someone 6 stories up throwing something out the window. Sure.

MANY other witnesses describe the gunshot sounds as a backfire or firecracker - these are STREET LEVEL sounds

since... wait for it... some shots were taken from street level - the GK, Dal-Tex, just not 65 feet up in the air and 120 feet behind the limo.

Yawn....

Do you have any idea what the most common analogy is when talking to witnesses of a shooting? It sounded like a firecracker! No kidding huh? And why do you classify these as "street level" noises? Now I know this maybe a real shocker, but, the witnesses are standing at street level! Of course they may have sounded that way. Does not take much common sense to understand that, I hope I am not giving you to much credit.

SO

You once again make an assumption about a shot at street level, I sure hope your evidence of this will be forth coming. Apparently you have no ability to hold the testimony to the physical evidence and make an intelligent decision.

What exactly was my "trolling argument"? The fact that I posted something that shows the inept way Harris does research? Is that what has your undies in a bunch? I did not have to trust his analysis, I could see it for myself! What is so difficult for you to understand?

You really are a comical guy. Slap stick must be your forte, research obviously is not.

Now quite beating around the bush and get me some evidence already. How hard can it be, given all the wild assumptions you have made, one would think you would be ready to support them. Or do you yap first and then pray for support later?

Brennan's own words put Oswald in that window, as blind to that as you maybe.

So please by all means let see your evidence. Your beating around the bush is getting boring.

Lee,

I have no doubt you would defend what you believe. But would you do so at the cost of common sense and your own integrity? Of course not. I have read some of the most outlandish trash from many who have, and do. I do not place you in that crowd.

Back to the scope.

How can you be "sure" of the suspension? What do you base this on? Frazier had a car, best I recall, not a truck.

At any rate. If this were the case and the scope had been misaligned at the time of the assassination, then how did the FBI manage to shoot groups like this only 5 days later? How did they manage to do so with an average time of 6 seconds for 3 shooters?

Maybe they realigned the scope?

As far as the suspension is concerned - I'm making an assumption - I'm not a firearms expert Mike, nowhere near being one, but I was posing a hypothetical. If you were going to a range with a MC rifle would you sight the scope before you went and then leave it on the back seat of a car (in a brown paper bag) and expect it to fire perfectly on its first shot? Or would there be a likelihood, however small, that the scope may have to be readjusted and realigned?

For the record, I have no problems with the FBI timings, but I'd be more impressed (and interested) if they'd have been shooting at a moving target from the actual sixth floor window for their tests...

Lee,

Actually they were firing the rifle to test if for accuracy "as is". It shot remarkably well. I do not think at this point they were trying to recreate the event.

I appreciate your honesty about the assumption, I wish more were as forthright as you are.

My military rifle and scope rode in my hummer for days , and I had little concern for its accuracy. However, I also was very careful to make sure it was secure and unharmed.

Mike

I'll take you at your word Mike concerning the test.

It's the one aspect of the case I'm not well versed in, hence my reason to not want to go into it very much.

But I will say, the scope could have been aligned perfectly, it may have been used to kill JFK, it may have happened in under 6 seconds, all of the fragments may have come from that rifle, NAA may not be junk-science, the shell with the dented lip may have occurred naturally, the scatter pattern of shells may be fine and dandy...

...but it wasn't Oswald firing it. And he certainly, IMO, did not order it.

Lee

Lee,

I am going to PM you a link to an article I am working on but have not published yet. You can get the jist of the scope info there. I appreciate you taking me at my word, but its all in Fraziers testimony in WCH3. Its a bit elusive to read in the testimony, but I think I lay it out fairly well in the article. Check your PM box.

Mike

You're a real curiousity of nature as well Mikey...

the fact that you can't see your hand in front of your own face proves how seriously blind you are to reality.

3 whole years of research...

and all on your own, well alittle DVP hand holding, you've figured out how to xxxxx, Insult, Bait, Switch,

and stay as far away from anything of substance in your posts...

Way to go.... DVP and your family must be proud

I'll ask one last time but know you have nothing...

Please post ANYTHING, in ANY VOLUME of EVIDENCE that someone in a court of law can use to place

Lee Harvey Oswald in that window firing that rifle.

The piece of real evidence that I posted proves he did not make an identification...

Brennan can claim he was the easter bunny and will "prove it later" - no one cares

I am still working on the first reply... takes a little time when you have to track down sources and evidence

but I haven't forgotten about you buddy....

and btw - the first words out of Chief of Police Curry and Sheriff Decker

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

12:30 Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

Believe whatever you want Mikey - the Church of Lone Nutters is always open for business

See this is typical CT assumptions in action. I have known DVP, and been talking to him, for maybe, maybe 4 weeks. So you see, you make an errant assumption which seems to be your mainstay. It would be far easier to take you seriously if you researched more and assumed less.

Ok so

What relevance does your radio transmission have other than that they thought something happened there? This is more foolishness from you. I ask you for evidence and you give me a radio call.

I bet you have not forgotten about me, but I am sure you will soon wish you could.

So ill be waiting for your evidence when are you going to stop dodging and live up to your claims?