Bernice Moore

I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. GOOD QUESTION IS WHERE IS IT..????http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14182 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=249DTnfrKMo ALYEA FILM .b

Second weapon rotated. Are there, or are there not two rifles in this photo? Where did this picture come from? Is it a still from a film? bill i am not positive but have seen it in the past try the alyea films...b...yes duncan says a alyea frame...b

paul groody ..http://video.google....197648489321290 tmwkk at 44.41 approximately.. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy it appears now that none of the segments are available, i belie e paul was on part 3,,,

well he was writing the manuscript, that i believe at the time was known about, and he would not apparently, shut up as he had been told to, especially, whomever were shaken up after he was in contact with Garrison, which in the end seems to have resulted in his firing, why do so if what he was saying, was not true, after all he had been awarded the best there were two years i believe and all are to buy into the fact that he overnight turned into a clutz officer, that dog don't hunt, perhaps it took time to finally get him,as he had been in the military and a trained policeman, and was more wise in regard to such things as the ordinary citizen,he would know and was wise to what could go on behind the scenes and did and does, to this day, and i imagine they also have their own clutzes within..who simply goof a job, and therefore must try try again, .if there was nothing to it, then why such as his wife , that he was separated from, believe that she was being followed..??..and was possibly in danger, ?? after all they could kill many if and when if all goes according to hoyle, but they whomever cannot , could not bump them all off at once.. that would be way too obvious,which became so in time, anyway with some witnesses, but one at a time seems to have been the scenario, but by creating different situations of death , imo anyone who thinks after all this time, today,with all the findings that their government has released and been found out about, that the u.s government has not and had it's behind the scenes, death squads or whatever one wants to call them, which has been uncovered and is available in documented government releases, perhaps ought to wake up some...and not be so naive unless they cannot survive in their make believe world believing that their government, cannot be lilly white..........b

Here's the low down: weitzman Go back to previous topicForum nameJFK Assassination ResearchTopic subjectEmails from someone who knew Seymour WeitzmanTopic URLhttp://1078567.sites.myregisteredsite.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=5727357273, Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Denis Morissette, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM According to a woman who contacted me, Weitzman would have kept the piece of bone he found in Dealey Plaza. I obtained this person's permission to post her emails here, and even invited her to join the forum. EMAIL 1 I knew my "Uncle Sy" from at least 1961 to 1971. He was my fathers best friend. My father was DCDS and was in county radio room most of that day with Sheriff Decker. All I know of Uncle Sy before that is his work in retail garment business, and his problems due to tourture in Japanese prison camp during WWII. He suffer from what were explained to me as "blackouts" (akin to alcoholic blackouts). He was probably hospitalized at the end of his interment by the V.A., but I am not sure. He was a "pilot's gunner", but I don't recall if it was a B-17 or B-29. Contrary to all that has been written or said He did NOT mis-identify the rifle. He was adament (in Private) that the gun he found was a German Mauser. He was the first to see the gun, and identified it by the scope. I know he recanted later and said he must have been mistaken, but in private, around people he trusted, he always said it was definitely as Mauser. WHY DID HE CHANGE HIS STORY??? A day or two after the assassination he was fired from the Constable Department. I was only 9 years old when all this happened, and I knew from the things I heard and the attitudes of Uncle Sy, my father and other close friends of theirs, something was very wrong. I spent as much time in Uncle Sy's house as I did my own and the atmosphere changed dramaticly. To me he was a great man, always happy, outgoing, joking,and very loving. Afterwards the house became very quiet, dark, dismal. He went back into retail shortly there after. In 1968 he and my father parted company,I think because he sided with my mother during my parents divorce, but I'm not sure. The next and last time I saw him was in 1970 or 71 in Houston. When we arrived at his apartment, it was just like the old days. Everyone was happy and glad to have the chance to catch up with each other. When the subject of the assassination came up that dark atmosphere returned. My father made me leave the building, something that had never happened before. I was always privy to conversations about every thing. I believe by then they were both worried about people who were connected to the assassination dying before there time. But he was very much sane. And he still had the piece of JFK's skull. He never gave it to a man at the scene like he said in public. He was very much sane, but very scared to state the truth in public ever again. I never saw him again, but have thought of him almost daily all my life. I loved him as if he were my father. I never saw any signs of mental illness. Infact, he was a brilliant man, who was a success in everything he did. But something or someone put too much pressure on him in the days after the assassination and it took its toll. Something broke a beautiful, wonderful soul. ========================================================= From Denis: I then asked her who could have that piece of bone. ================================================================ EMAIL 2 Sorry, No. I don't know who claimed his estate or who took care of his belongings when he was put into the V.A. hospital. He had a sister, and two childre by his first wife. He had not seen his children since they were babies. then around the time of the assassination he was reunited with them. His son, Seymour Weitzman Jr. was in the Marine Corp at the time and I don't remember if he went to Viet Nam and if he did if he survived it. I don't remember his daughter's name, his sister was named Ester but I don't rember her married name, only that her husband was named Billy.He had a brother, Ben, who owned a bicycle shop in Dallas. His second wife, Aunt Jean, Passed away in 1970 I believe, and MaMa had passed sometime between 1968 and 1971. As I said , that day in late 1970 or early 1971 was the last day I ever saw him. He was living alone in a small apartment in Houston. He gave me some jewelry of Aunt Jean's, but what happened to the rest of his belongings, I don't know . I wish I did. None of his family was mentioned during that visit (with the exception of his late wife and mother). I know nothing of the circumstances of him going into the V.A. hospital later. I wish I did. After 1972 I was living in Arkansas and tried to reach him, but he always had an unlisted phone and we didn't have computers then. If the state was awarded his estate someone probably threw it out not knowing what it was. I don't know if his children or siblings would even know what it was if they came across it. I hope they knew, but it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't. I have probably not been of any help to you, but when I started reading about Uncle Sy and the things people have been saying about him all this time I had to speak out. None of these other people knew him. None of these other people were there. Has no one else that knew him ever answered your inquiery?? He was a man worth defending. ==================================================== EMAIL 3 You can post as you wish, but for know I would only like to correspond with you. I may join the board later. People will probably think I'm a nut. I assure you what I say is the truth. My father died several years ago of cancer and can not back me up. But as he had saftey concerns too, I'm not sure he would any way. Does this sound nutty? As I said I was privy to many conversations among law enforcment people in Dallas at the time. I was the only child in a room of adults sitting quietly to the side listening. Dallas knew of assassination threats before JFK came to town. That's a given. On the day of the assassination I was a 5th grader at Victor H. Hexter Elementary. My teacher, Mrs.Gibson, was at the door of the classroom telling each student as we came in from recess about the event. When she told me, I said, "Oh,that. I knew that was going to happen." She looked at me in disbelief as I went on about my day like nothing happened. It was no surprise to me. I can't remember what I had heard watching all those men sitting around our kitchen table drinking coffee. Much of it was so ordinary to me I disregarded it. But I knew something was going to happen. Another nutty conection. Before my father was a cop he worked at the Holiday Inn - Love Field. There was a man who came there alot , mostly to eat and enjoy the club that was there. I hung around the pool alot and became friends with the man who would sit around the pool in a suit and tie talking to other men in suits and ties. He became another "Uncle" of mine, being a friend of my fathers. He was my "Uncle Jack". He didn't have to sneak into the DPD garage to get Oswald. He walked in and out at will. His clubs were filled with officers on and off duty. They all knew him. He made friends on both sides of the law because he was an unimportant man who wanted desperately to be important. Now, the nuttiest thing of all . In 1977 my father came to visit me and my new family. I asked him to tell my new husband about the assassination. My husband didn't believe me when I told him. He believed my father. That is the first time my father voiced his concerns about the safety of people involved. My father was as right wing as they come and never went against the government. What they said was the truth as far as he was concerned was the truth. But first came the incident with Uncle Sy losing his job and being in fear, then my father said something else happened. About two weeks after the assassination, my father and other officers were ordered to Love Field. When they got there they were told to stand in a perimeter guard ,(I think 100 ft.) around a large plane. My father said it was either Air Force 1 or 2. He wasn't sure which. There were other guards with rifles directly under the plane. My father and the other officers were told to fan out on three sides of the plane ( while something or someone was being loaded on the other side). They were told if they turned around during their assignment they would be shot (presumably by the men under the plane). The plane was loaded without incident, the men were dismissed knowing not to speak of it. My father and I had many conversations about the assassination, but it took until 1977 for him to tell me this. I don't know if I would believe me either. Thanks for listening 57286, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Steve Thomas, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Denis, >I obtained this person's permission to post her emails here, >and even invited her to join the forum. Very interesting. Steve Thomas 57289, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Bruce Kelly, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM The accuracy of what is reported by this correspondent could be checked on some of the facts asserted. For example, "A day or two after the assassination he was fired from the Constable Department." Is this true? Please note, even if statements she writes are not accurate, this does NOT mean that she is lying or making things up. She may have been told the inaccurate information, or years later she may not be remembering it quite accurately. But if those with knowledge can assess some of the particular statements, this gives some indication of the overall accuracy. Bruce 57337, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Steve Thomas, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Bruce, >The accuracy of what is reported by this correspondent could >be checked on some of the facts asserted. For example, "A day >or two after the assassination he was fired from the Constable >Department." Is this true? >Bruce This is what he told the Warren Commission on April 1, 1964: Mr. BALL - Will you state your name? Mr. WEITZMAN - Seymour Weitzman. Mr. BALL - What is your occupation? Mr. WEITZMAN - Deputy constable, Dallas County. "At the end of 1960, I closed up all the stores, retired from the discount operation and went to work for Robie Love in Dallas County, precinct 1. Mr. BALL - You've been there ever since as deputy constable? Mr. WEITZMAN - That's right. " Steve Thomas 57300, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Denis Morissette, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM I'd like to know who her father was. I have not obtained a response yet. 57307, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by James Richards, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Denis, Most interesting indeed. Here are some names that might be of help or that might jog distant memories for your contact. Weitzman's father was named Harry, had a brother named Ben and a sister Esther Mae. Two uncles, Lyn and Leo. There was also a David Weitzman in the family but I do not know what the relationship was there. Seymour achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant in the Army Air Force and did his training at Fort Sill and at Will Rogers Field in Oklahoma. This photo below shows Weitzman in 1942. FWIW. James 57311, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Denis Morissette, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Thanks. I'll tell her that we have a photo of Seymour on this board. 87134, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Bob Ringler, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM This is so interesting I think it deserves to be brought back to our minds. Apparently, weitzman was fired a few days after the assassination. 87159, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Dave Ciardello, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Hi Dennis! Those emails remind me of two individuals: Bonnie Ray Williams and Eugene Boone. I believe i already posted here a few years ago my encounters with people who were very close personal friends with both men. When i worked for Texas Instruments(84-95), i worked with a guy who always talked about a really great guy named "Gene". He was considered family for mamy years(the guy's father and "Gene" were like brothers). Well one night i brought in a JFK assassination book (maybe "The Last Investigation")and the co-worker told me that the "Gene" he was always talking about was non other than Eugene "Gene" Boone! I got really excited and asked him if he could help me arrange an interview with "Gene" and he said it was out of the question. He told me that "Gene" was a fun loving really outgoing kind of person(at least with his father and other family members). But one topic that changed all that in an instant were the events(as they related to him)surrounding the JFK assassination. He would absolutely refuse to talk about it no matter how many times they would ask him. His whole demeanor would change and everyone knew that he was extremely uncomfortable when the topic was mentioned. Finally, on only one occasion he brokedown and made only one comment to them(as of 1989 that i am aware of). He stated that the rifle introduced to the world as the murder weapon that was used to kill JFK was NOT the rifle he discovered on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository building on November 22nd, 1963. My other encounter was with a lady who also worked at Texas Instruments at the same time i was employed there. She had grown up with Bonnie Ray Williams (she also knew Harold Norman)and he was like a big brother to her. She was reminiscing about how they were always together and how Bonnie was very outgoing and a very jolly kind of guy. But that all changed forever when he testified before the Warren Commission. He became introverted and avoided her and others. She pleaded with him to tell her what was wrong that he wasn't the same Bonnie Ray Williams that she grew up with and wanted to help him. He told her that on 11/22/63, the three of them (Williams, Norman, and Jarman) all heard shots and believed they were coming from somewhere west of the Texas School Book Depository building and ran to the west end of the 5th floor and observed two men(one with a rifle) running away from the picket fence across the railroad tracks. They decided not to mention it to the police because the police had (at that point in time)decided that the (sole)source of the shots was "Oswald's" window on the 6th floor and being black in the sixties in the deep south, they weren't about to contradict the police. Bonnie said of his testimony before the Warren Commission that he gave them what they wanted(whatever that was). This lady seemed credible to me. I tried for weeks to gain her trust so she would open up to me and talk. Her response to me was always the same, "I don't want to die". She also had a friend who worked at the Carousel Club who was murdered shortly after the assassination. A fellow co-worker told me about this lady and that she knew alot about the assassination but was afraid to talk about it with others. Those emails you posted reminded me of two men who were most deeply affected by their experiences of November 22nd, 1963 particuliarly Bonnie Ray Williams. I truely believe that Seymour Weitzman was another who was experiencing something related to the JFK assassination that deeply troubled him. Thanks for sharing those emails with us Dennis! Dave Ciardello 87196, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Miles Scull, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Harold Norman, on June 15, 1994, told Gary Shaw that he was afraid to tell Shaw the real story of what happened, but would; that his running to the west window was part of that story. Norman died on September 17, 1994, before he could tell Shaw what actually happened. Seems to be a pattern here. 87163, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Debra Conway, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Dennis, Thank you so much for sharing the emails with us on this forum. Please extend my gratitude to Mr. Weitzman's niece. There are so many witnesses who have admitted they were threatened or felt threatened, it is a shame only their families may know the truth of their experiences. Best, Debra 87164, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Phil Dragoo, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM Someone involved with Seymour Weitzman in the discovery and identification of the weapon as a 7.65 Mauser was Roger Craig whose nephew Jerry Craig posts as a forum member beginning on page 2 of this thread: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1745.0.html These two members of the Dallas County Sheriff's Department are examples of the dark side of the official orthodoxy, enforcement through threats and murderous violence. 87166, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Denis Morissette, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM >Dennis, > >Thank you so much for sharing the emails with us on this >forum. Please extend my gratitude to Mr. Weitzman's niece. >There are so many witnesses who have admitted they were >threatened or felt threatened, it is a shame only their >families may know the truth of their experiences. > >Best, > >Debra Thanks for everyone who commented on this thread. The original post dated a little more than three years ago. ;-) Maybe I can try to re-communicate with this lady? http://www.jfkassassinationfiles.com 87185, RE: Emails from someone who knew Seymour Weitzman Posted by Bob Ringler, Wed Dec-31-69 05:00 PM According to weitzmans 1964 testimony to Mr.Ball weitzman still worked for the Dallas Sherrif Department. But the first email says he was fired 2 day after the assassination. How do we resolve this? Mr. BALL - Mr. Weitzman, I'm Joe Ball and this is Lillian Johnson, the court reporter. Will you please stand and raise your right hand? Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. WEITZMAN - I do. Mr. BALL - Will you state your name? Mr. WEITZMAN - Seymour Weitzman. Mr. BALL - What is your occupation? Mr. WEITZMAN - Deputy constable, Dallas County. Mr. BALL - What is the location of your place of business? Mr. WEITZMAN - Precinct I which is the old courthouse, third floor, room 351. Mr. BALL - Where were you born? From the email above EMAIL 1 ...A day or two after the assassination he was fired from the Constable Department. I was only 9 years old when all this happened, http://www.jfklancer..._id=57273&page= b

ALSO 3 DEPUTY SHERIFFS SEYMOUR WEITZMAN: found a small piece of skull in the plaza---7H107; JACK FAULKNER: "No More Silence" by Larry Sneed (1998), pp. 215-223+photos---[p.216] "As we were crossing Elm Street, [A.D.] McCurley picked up a white piece of bone near the north curb. He asked me, "Do you suppose that could be part of his skull?" I said, "There's no blood on it," and he put it down. Later, we got to thinking, and somebody said your skull doesn't necessarily have to be touching something that's bloody. We went back and looked for it later but never found it. To this day, I believe it was a piece of John Kennedy's skull." bbbbbBBBBBhttp://127.0.0.1:4664/cache?event_id=83734&schema_id=4&q=weitzman&s=n9igNxXw_Ux1FxmYK0MD-KPd4hk

Thank you, Bernice. Since my last post about that Craig article, I've found out a little more about it via two sources -- Vincent Bugliosi's book and John McAdams' website. The latter has an excellent article all about Roger Craig's lies (and the McAdams page is something I have read before, but I had forgotten all about it when this topic came up here at this forum). I've now discovered the L.A. Free Press interview with Craig (and Penn Jones) occurred in March of 1968, six years before Craig added his "7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel" lie to his already-lengthy list of lies. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm http://img36.imagesh...onespage10.jpg/ THANKS for the information i will check into it at penn's site and files to see if any other info comes to light.. do you really think everything that craig stated were lies, in your opinion, do you not believe his life after that day in november, was not a terrible tragic turn and that he was in fear for his life as time went on...which was also acknowledged by others that knew him b..

David my error,you are correct on the one newspaper article the 68 means 1968 for the date....that it was printed..the other has the two..dates inscribed...b

What the evidence and testimony actually showed The two Sheriff's Deputies who found a rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was taken from the floor, all identified it as a "7.65 mm Mauser". Subsequent documents and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it in that same manner (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323). CIA documents still identified it as a "Mauser", four days later. One of the officers, decorated Deputy Sheriff, Roger Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony before the Warren Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had the word "MAUSER" stamped on the barrel. Craig also told researchers that his Warren Commission testimony had been altered in fourteen different places by Warren Commission counsel David Belin, so that it appears to be "bland" in the 26 volumes [of Warren Commission). Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also sold rifles while working for many years in a sporting goods store, and therefore had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. Police officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses. The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this “problem” with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a “glance” at the weapon. The tape recording of a news broadcast of 22 November 1963 on Dallas radio station K-BOX said (CE-304): Sheriff’s Deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty-five Mauser, a Germanmade Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three spent shells were found nearby. Additionally, in his book On the Trail of the Assassins, Jim Garrison claims to have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day, which he stated shows a police officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository were missing from the FBI files on the President’s assassination when presented to the Warren Commission. Those documents were: 1. Dallas Police Department Lt. Carl Day’s dictated memorandum on the weapon; 2. Day’s description to the FBI’s Special Agent Bardwell Odum; 3. Odum’s subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio; 4. Constable Weitzman’s original report to the FBI; and 5. Dallas Police Department Detective C. N. Dhority’s written report. The legal “chain of possession” of CE-139 was never properly established. The officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so. Neither identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally done some six hours later, at Dallas Police Department Headquarters, after the found weapon had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly lain in the evidence room for several hours. What chain of possession that existed after that was again broken when the rifle was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, by FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain on the night of 22 November 1963, unaccompanied by any officer of the Dallas Police Department. In 1963, even though threatening the President was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely considered an all-too-common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas officer to maintain the legal “chain of possession”. The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal officers, are very suspicious. This type of handling would have been questionable enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, how fortunate for them that there was no trial. http://www.assassina.../v3n2dolmar.pdf

With the Mauser we have both Craig and the detective who once owned a gun shop visibly seeing the metal stamp "Mauser" on the barrel. So, since the police statement was filled out and signed by the detective, we know some of what Craig is saying is credible. And it looks like he could have been murdered as well and made to look like a suicide. That also lends credibility. So, unless Oswald just lucked out that his friend's green Rambler was passing by at the time, we have what looks like a planned rendezvous and therefore conspiracy. Gerald Ford lied when he said the mis-identification of the Mauser was a mistake someone made when talking to the media. Truth is it was witnessed and confirmed by two police officers at the scene. Ford should have easily known that since there was a police report on it. Why did Ford lie? The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Shortcut to: http://216.122.129.112/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=80283&mesg_id=80283&page=

Roger Craig info...b

The WCR altered Craig's deposition to hide the true facts & to concoct the LN rubbish. Craig writes: I first saw my testimony in January of 1968 when I looked at the 26 volumes which belonged to Penn Jones. My alleged statement was included. The following are some of the changes in my testimony: Arnold Rowland told me that he saw two men on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15 minutes before the President arrived: one was a Negro, who was pacing back and forth by the southwest window. The other was a white man in the southeast corner, with a rifle equipped with a scope, and that a few minutes later he looked back and only the white man was there. In the Warren Commission: Both were white, both were pacing in front of the southwest corner and when Rowland looked back, both were gone; I said the Rambler station wagon was light green. The Warren Commission: Changed to a white station wagon; I said the driver of the Station Wagon had on a tan jacket. The Warren Commission: A white jacket; I said the license plates on the Rambler were not the same color as Texas plates. The Warren Commission: Omitted the not -- omitted but one word, an important one, so that it appeared that the license plates were the same color as Texas plates; I said that I got a good look at the driver of the Rambler. The Warren Commission: I did not get a good look at the Rambler. (In Captain Fritz's office) I had said that Fritz had said to Oswald, "This man saw you leave" (indicating me). Oswald said, "I told you people I did." Fritz then said, "Now take it easy, son, we're just trying to find out what happened", and then (to Oswald), "What about the car?" to which Oswald replied, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don't try to drag her into this." Fritz said car -- station wagon was not mentioned by anyone but Oswald. (I had told Fritz over the telephone that I saw a man get into a station wagon, before I went to the Dallas Police Department and I had also described the man. This is when Fritz asked me to come there.) Oswald then said, "Everybody will know who I am now;" the Warren Commission: Stated that the last statement by Oswald was made in a dramatic tone. This was not so. The Warren Commission also printed, "NOW everybody will know who I am", transposing the now. Oswald's tone and attitude was one of disappointment. If someone were attempting to conceal his identity as Deputy and he was found out, exposed -- his cover blown, his reaction would be dismay and disappointment. This was Oswald's tone and attitude -- disappointment at being exposed! http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

Philadelphia attorney Vincent J. Salandria, one of the earliest critics of the Warren Commission, wrote in 1971: "I have long believed that the killers actually preempted the assassination criticism by supplying the information they wanted revealed and also by supplying the critics whom they wanted to disclose the data. Does it not make sense that if they could perpetrate a coup and could control the press, they would have endeavored to dominate likewise the assassination criticism?" The facts reveal that one of those compromised sources of information was Roger Craig.88 In his 1971 unpublished manuscript, When they Kill a President, former deputy sheriff Roger Craig revealed new details about the discovery of the rifle. On page ten of his original manuscript he wrote: 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 instictively [sic] looked at my watch and the time was 1:06 P.M. [emphasis in original] In a 1974 videotaped interview, Craig described Weitzman as a "gun buff." Craig added that Weitzman "had a sporting goods store at one time. He was very good at -- with weapons. And he said, 'It looks like a Mauser.' And he walked over to Fritz. And Captain Fritz was holding the rifle up in the air. And I was standing next to Weitzman -- who was standing next to Fritz. And we weren't more than six to eight inches from the rifle. And stamped right on the barrel -- of the rifle -- was 7.65 Mauser. And that's when Weitzman said, 'It is a Mauser,' and pointed to the 7.65 Mauser stamp on the barrel." That interview was conducted in April 1974 by Lincoln Karle and can be seen in a videotape called Two Men in Dallas: John Kennedy and Roger Craig (Alpa Productions, 1977). In that interview, Craig speaks very slowly and deliberately when he says the words "seven-point-six-five Mauser." In the space of a few sentences the word Mauser is used four times and the caliber is given twice. On February 8, 1975, thirteen weeks before Craig's untimely death, Massachusetts high school teacher Edgar F. Tatro wrote his first of several letters to Craig. In an article Tatro later wrote detailing that correspondence, he said, "Roger Craig's second letter to me contained a shocker, something I had never seen attributed to him in print before. He had written that the rifle was `a 7.65 Mauser so stamped on the barrel'. If this was accurate, it was new information, to my knowledge, and crucial to a new investigation."89 In a letter to coauthor Richard Bartholomew, Mr. Tatro updated his Craig research. He said, "...After I wrote `Roger Craig and 1984', his best friend and I corresponded for years. She was amazing! From her I learned what was true and false, who forced Roger to embellish his original story, who were disinformation agents among us....I'm afraid his Mauser identification is a lie....It's a complex and tragic story and someday I'll tell it, but several dangerous individuals are still alive and I'd rather not tangle with them."90 While Tatro does not say it specifically, there is reason to believe Craig was forced to lie about the Mauser. The way Craig wrote about Weitzman and the tool mark (authoritatively), and the way he spoke about it on film (slowly and deliberately) indicates that Craig's revelation -- that the stamp said "7.65 Mauser" -- could have had a sinister purpose. The tool stamp did not read "7.65 Mauser." This falsehood, therefore, smacks of setting up a straw man that can be knocked down. On these guns, the mark, if present at all, shows the caliber without the name.91 Coauthor Walter Graf discovered that "Mauser" existed in the tool stamp on the Chilean Mauser. He also discovered a 6.5 mm. Argentine Mauser, mentioned by Trask as one of the descriptions broadcast the day of the assassination. British researcher Chris Mills learned that the Argentine carbine has "Mauser" in its tool stamp. But these two rare tool marks are even more problematic to Craig's honesty: M1895 rifles, short rifles and carbines known as "Boer Models" made by Loewe Co. and DWM were distributed to China, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Orange Free State, Persia, Paraguay, the South African Republic (Transvaal), Serbia, Sweden, Venezuela and Uruguay, as well as to Chile. Those ordered by the Orange Free State were marked "O.V.S." Those ordered by the Transvaal had no "special markings." Those ordered by Chile from the Loewe Co. had a tool stamp on the barrel which read, "MAUSER CHILENO MODELO 1895 MANUFACTURA LOEWE BERLIN."92 This Chilean Mauser can be categorized in a Mauser group -- the M1893 and M1895, Boer, or Spanish Mauser, which was mostly 7 mm. but also 6.5 mm. and 7.65 mm. -- that definitely does not include a Carcano look alike.93 Chris Mills confirmed this during a visit to the "Pattern Room" at the British Royal Ordnance Factory. He examined an example of every 7.65 Mauser that has been made. He learned that there were only three that could have been remotely confused with the Carcano: the Belgian 7.65 carbine and the Argentine 7.65. Supposedly one could include the Turkish version, which is visually similar to the Argentine, but it is clearly marked in Arabic script. According to the "Pattern Room" Curator, none of the Mausers had the caliber stamped on the barrel at the point of manufacture, and none of the examples Chris saw had such. The Curator explained that it may have been possible, but rather unlikely, that the caliber was stamped on later if the guns were resold on the U.S. market. This could have been done so that 7.62 ammunition was not used by mistake. One model had the word "Mauser" in its tool stamp: the Argentine carbine. The accompanying text on the engraving, however, was obviously Spanish. Also, the sitting of the word "Mauser" on the weapon is most problematic to Craig's assertions. The weapon reportedly seen by Craig had a scope mounted. The mounting bracket of the scope would have fitted directly over the position of the "Mauser" engraving and none of the wording would have been visible until the scope was removed.94 Craig added "Mauser" for a reason. It could be that Craig purposely misspoke about the stamp as a subtle message to gun experts that he was lying. It may be a variation of the old trick whereby a person in danger cryptically lets someone know something is wrong. Craig died May 15, 1975 of a rifle wound to the chest. It was ruled a suicide despite the fact that Craig did not own a rifle. A couple of weeks earlier, in an interview with author Michael Canfield, Seymour Weitzman had identified a man from a photograph as the one he saw impersonating a Secret Service agent in the parking lot north of Dealey Plaza just after the assassination.95 On page eight of his 1971 manuscript, Craig told of a similar encounter between himself and a Secret Service impersonator. With Craig's death, these two eyewitnesses to the same and similar events that Friday afternoon never got a chance to compare their stories for the benefit of researchers. Craig's carefully chosen words, the oddity of that particular caliber number, and his experience with guns support the idea that it was not a slip of the tongue. And if it was not a slip of the tongue, what else could it be but a lie obvious enough to be easily discredited or draw suspicion to his motive for saying it? Given that, what then do we make of the Mauser identifications made by several others? Deputy Sheriff Boone said it appeared to be a 7.65 Mauser in two different assassination-day reports96 because, according to his testimony, Fritz identified it to him as such just after its discovery. He said they discussed this while Day prepared to photograph it.97 Twelve hours into the investigation, District Attorney Henry Wade told a reporter it was a Mauser because, Wade swore, the police identified it to him as such. Weitzman's sworn affidavit -- given the next day -- corroborates both Boone and Wade's police sources. The Warren Report said Weitzman was the source of the error. They based that conclusion on absolutely nothing. Weitzman never testified before the Commission itself. Mark Lane first brought Weitzman's November 23, 1963 affidavit to the Commission's attention on March 4, 1964.98 Nowhere in that affidavit does Weitzman say that he was Boone's source.99 Perhaps that is why it is unmentioned in the Report.100 The Commission called Boone twenty days later. Boone never said Weitzman was his source. After hearing Boone, all they knew was that it started with Fritz, was officially reported twice by Boone, then by the press, then by Weitzman the next day. Weitzman then gave a deposition to Staff Counsel Joseph Ball on April 1, 1964, during which he seemed to perjure himself by saying no one but him said it was a Mauser. Mr. Ball. In the statement 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.101 Weitzman was not asked nor did he volunteer whether he was the source of Boone's reports dated the day before Weitzman's police affidavit. The vagueness of this exchange, as well as the question of perjury made it more important than ever for the Commission to question Weitzman -- especially if they suspected he was the original source of the Mauser identification; but they never called him to testify. On April 22, 1964, the Commission instead questioned Curry, Fritz and Day. Strangely, Police Chief Jesse Curry and Commissioner McCloy, who with Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin was questioning Curry, both stated they knew of no police reports or records identifying the weapon as a Mauser -- again raising the question of perjury.102 In 1976, Curry told the Detroit News that "it's more than possible" the rifle could have been switched and that due to lack of security anyone wanting to do so "could have gotten away with it at the time."103 Fritz denied he called it a 7.65 caliber but did not deny he called it a Mauser.104 The November 23, 1963, New York Times, however, quoted him saying it was "of unusual, undetermined caliber."105 That certainly applies to the ancient 7.65, Paul Mauser's original 1890s design, long replaced by the 7.92 Mauser. Day said, "I didn't describe the rifle to anyone other than police officers." Commission Counsel David Belin's question to Day had been, "Did you ever describe the rifle as anything but a 6.5-caliber with regard to the rifle itself?" Day therefore did not answer the question. Belin pressed him: "Is the description that you used with the police officers the same that you dictated here into the record from your notes?" Day answered, "Yes, sir."106 No such dictation was made,107 or made public, however. On June 8, 1964, Wade testified that, "...all my information came from the police and actually somebody said originally it was a Mauser but it turned out it was not."108 So on June 8th the Commission knew Fritz was first with the Mauser identification; then it appeared in Boone's sheriff department reports; followed by radio and TV reports; then twelve hours after the assassination -- after Wade saw "some officer wave that gun around" and "saw somebody take it through homicide and give it to the FBI"-- Wade's police sources, who got their information from Day, told Wade it was a Mauser. Only after all this did Weitzman, knowing the penalty for perjury, make his identification in a sworn affidavit the day after the assassination; bringing the minimum time of this ludicrous misidentification to twenty-four hours. The next and most important parts of this chronology make it impossible to deny there was a deliberate attempt to pass this rifle off as a Mauser. Three full days after the assassination, a CIA report identified the gun as a Mauser. This report did not surface until 1976.109 And a CIA translation of an Italian military intelligence document dated six days after the assassination, also suppressed until 1976, reads, "2. The weapon which appears to have been employed in this criminal attack is a Model 91 rifle, 7.35 caliber, 1938 modification... 3. The description of a `Mannlicher-Carcano' rifle in the Italian and foreign press is in error."110 This later CIA description came from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service (S.I.F.A.R.). As Evica says, "...the 91 series was made up of 6.5 mm. rifles, but the original 38 model was a 7.35 mm. Encountering difficulties, the Italians `began producing many of these rifles as 6.5-millimeter caliber rifles, known as the 6.5-millimeter Model 91/38.' Warren Commission Exhibit 139 (CE 139) is one of those 91/38s, originally a 7.35 mm. rebarreled to 6.5 mm." It was the description of an originally-barreled 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the Italian and foreign press (and everywhere else) that was in error. The November 28, 1963, Italian S.I.F.A.R. document, shared with the FBI in Rome, ending up at CIA headquarters in the U.S. within hours, raised these important questions, posed by Evica: "If the rifle allegedly discovered by Weitzman and Boone had a Mauser-type bolt action, and if it looked like an American caliber 30.06 or foreign 7.65 mm., why not simply say so? Why not tell the truth before the truth no longer would be believed?...a one millimeter mistake is not so bad...For almost a week, local and national papers remained confused about the precise identity of the rifle. What could have motivated the Dallas Police, the F.B.I., the Secret Service, and even the C.I.A....to keep silent through the thunder of misinformation?"111 A one millimeter mistake is not so bad. But the original, too-prolonged mistake of a clip-fed rifle for a non-clip-fed rifle, which is unavoidable in this "7.65 Mauser" debate, is incredibly bad. To maintain the conspiracy, the clip debate must, even today, be desperately avoided, or confused. The point of this analysis of Roger Craig's statements is that by the time Craig came around to talking about the rifle, the name Mauser and the 7.65 caliber were old news. Craig added only two new facts. First was his belated eyewitness account of Weitzman as the first person to identify the rifle. And how did Weitzman make this identification? From Craig's second new fact: the "7.65 Mauser" tool mark on the barrel. Craig's statements then became the first and only evidence supporting the Warren Report's claim that Weitzman was the original source of the Mauser misidentification. Those who forced Craig to say this probably knew that the "Mauser" tool mark never existed. Thus, since the "Commission could not accept important elements of Craig's testimony" on other matters,112 it was again possible to prove him wrong where it counted most, and stick to their story that Weitzman was mistaken, having only glanced at the gun before it was removed from its hiding place. Craig's cryptic call for help, if that is what it was, therefore failed. It should be reemphasized here that before Craig made his claims about the discovery of the rifle, the Commission revealed absolutely nothing to support its claim that Weitzman was the original source for the Mauser identification. The evidence showed (and still shows) that everyone took their cues first from Fritz and then from Day. (Boone did not handle the rifle and his two "Mauser" reports followed both Fritz's and Day's examination at the scene.) J.W. Hughes did inform the authors of the eyewitness account of WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea which, if true, partially corroborates Craig's and the Commission's claim that the word Mauser was first uttered by Weitzman. That is a long way, however, from a Mauser identification. And if this was the Commission's "source" evidence, they did not reveal it publicly. Perhaps that was because it did not tell exactly the story they wanted told. According to Hughes, "The type of action `mauser' was the comment that Weitzman said he thought it was and Fritz concurred. "Tom Alyea and I have talked about this several times. Tom was standing there next to Fritz when Weitzman stated that it was a Mauser rifle and that they saw 7.65 stamped on the action. "Mannlicher-Carcano does have a 7.35 mm. In the heat of the `find' Weitzman stated `Mauser' and everyone simply agreed. It wasn't until Day was showing the rifle off at the Police Station that it was properly identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano."113 Although properly identified, it was officially reported to be a Mauser for the next twenty-four hours without an official correction. The point here is that this eyewitness account seems to confirm that there was no Mauser, and that Weitzman, imagining a "7" and a decimal point where there was none, somehow inspired the others present, including Fritz, the ranking officer in charge of the crime scene, to call it something it was not; and as discussed above, even something bizarre. Given Alyea's film of this event, it seems that is probably what happened. The unnecessary complications involved in reenacting this scene make Alyea's claim even more plausible. There is no such thing as a 7.65 Mannlicher-Carcano. If "they saw 7.65 stamped on the action" it was some strange rifle. And if Weitzman misread the caliber on a 7.35 Mannlicher-Carcano, it was also another rifle. The question this raises is the same one we began with: Why in the world would the crime scene investigators enter into a criminal conspiracy to call a weapon easily linked to their suspect something else? Of course, it seems the other confirmation from Alyea's film is that there was no clip seen or handled on the sixth floor. There is some justification that the word "Mauser," in its earliest use in Dallas, was a redundant generic term for what in effect were nearly all bolt-action rifles. Since "bolt action" would exclude just about all semi-automatic and automatic weapons, there is some justification that the redundancy was used to emphasize that very exclusion. It could even be argued that the redundant use of the word "Mauser," in addition to deflecting attention from clip-fed weapons, served the purpose of deflecting attention from early reports of automatic gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Later, Commission attorney Joseph Ball was particularly careful to refer only to "Mauser bolt action" rather than an actual Mauser rifle in his questioning of Weitzman on April 1, 1964.114 But within hours of the assassination, and certainly within months, the trend seemed to focus attention on an actual Mauser, a second rifle.115 This trend was the reverse of what one would expect. One would think, at the later stage, investigators would endeavor to establish that the initial use of the word "Mauser" was one of those inadvertent, honest mistakes: that the word was used loosely. But no. The Warren Commission was, and especially Gerald Ford and staff attorneys Ball and Liebeler were, apparently trying to lend weight to the initial use of the word, even adding the word "German." Even the Commission's earliest and most vocal critic, Mark Lane, helped his professed adversary strengthen the link between "German" and "Mauser," further undermining any chance for a more correct generic interpretation of Weitzman's description.116 Gun experts, of course, know the Mauser 7.65 was anything but solely German. One wonders if those who initiated use of that term for the rifle realized how wrong the usage was. Two primary sources for the later references to an actual Mauser were Mark Lane and Roger Craig. It is reasonably suspected that Craig was forced to lie. Similar, and earlier, influence over Lane cannot be ruled out. It was Lane who first embellished this trend with the liberal use of the word "German."117 An influential stockholder in Holt, Rinehart and Winston, the publisher of Lane's 1966 book, Rush To Judgment, was Dallas oilman Clint Murchison, suspected by several sober JFK researchers of being a conspirator in the assassination and coverup. Two years before Lane's book was published, Murchison helped arrange a large monetary advance and travel expenses for another author whose book on the assassination was never published. The would-be author was Dallas Judge Joe Brown, dismissed from presiding over Jack Ruby's trial because of that book deal.118 It was not just Lane and Craig, however. Concerted effort was made in the direction of establishing an actual gun of Mauser make. But the possibly unintended result of this direction was the creation of the specter of a second rifle. Why was attention directed down this avenue? Were they so concerned with the prolonged Mauser misidentification in connection with the clip? Were they so concerned that they were willing to sacrifice the one-assassin/one-rifle scenario by offering a second rifle as a rationalization? After all, the too-prolonged Mauser misidentification was crying for an explanation that eventually had to be met. The idea of a second rifle was therefore the apparent lesser of two evils. Conversely, feeling it necessary to go to such lengths as to entertain the idea of a second rifle, shows the seriousness they attached to the initial problem of explaining the prolonged misidentification. From the conspirators' point of view, a conspiracy that can never be proved (i.e., Mauser switch) was far safer than one that could (i.e., fake clip). The benefit to the conspirators in choosing the lesser evil can be judged by the result: a thirty-year debate over a non-existent second rifle, and no debate whatsoever over an all too real, grossly out of place clip. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html

control yourself, xxxxx.... this is not ACJ DVPITA...open your eyes and read, the date is on the article in fact twice...b

Your very welcome Steve...b

Len, Gore Vidal, yes or no? How absurd can you get? If Vidal said this I would like to see what evidence he cited, he was a novelist and essayist not a historian or journalist. But David only said that he “believes” Vidal “alluded” to this and used the disclaimer "Caveat lector". He was also part of the Kennedy extended family. Whether he is a novelist or essayist has no bearing on the matter. So we will give Gore Vidal a thumbs down. We'll put him with Meyer Lansky, Frank Costello, Diamond Joe Esposito, Henry Reifel and the records of the Canadian Royal Commission on Customs. We'll also sit and wonder how the old Irishman financed a Presidential campaign and also left $500 million behind when he died in 1969. HI TER, may i ask the documentation of old joe leaving 500 million behind when he died in 69...thanks much take care...b

RIFLE INFORMATION..

keeping the record straight i do believe that, ''Secrets that she is finally ready to reveal''. this is not first time she has done so, she has been revealing them since i believe 1998 on the web...beginning with the alts...then proceeding to other forums....as well as in some articles..and information pertaining to a previous two book edition of her story...that she has now recinded.stating....that the manuscript was stolen and printed without her permissin.. ''Jack Rubyâs revolver as he shot Lee Oswald in the chest at point-blank range,'' he was not shot in the chest he was shot in the abdomen...

nix gifs showing direction of blood splatter and fragment ....to the rear..fwtaw b i do not know the why ?? but you must click on each of the gifs in order to activate the gif movement...does anyone know why the gifs do not post with the action any longer..i none of my gifs now post activated....many thanks b

Thanks Jack, I Found these one was marked thompson upi...is this possibley it, ?and the upi from the newspaper...best b..

well seeing that so may are expressing their opinions, which is allowed, mine right now is for a thread that was said to have been begun not as a flame thread, it certainly has all the makings by several besides the first post appearing to be stirring that pot, some for all it's worth, but the person being discussed if he retaliates in any way, it shall be pointed out, immediately SEE!!! THAT IMO IS H/S..this is a flame thread... duh!!!! b.

thanks robert, agreed blow out to the back of the head imo also...zap 337 is interesting as you point out in your video thanks, so is zap frame 374..these were posted originally by martin hindrichs...b

thanks robin, i was not sure if that was what was mentioned, there are so many different copies, within...take care b I think that is probably the best one to work with Bernice, as it was made before the polaroid started to deteriorate, and before the thumb print. Moorman FBI Copy Crop I found his crop above also...i guess it comes down to whatever the majority of the photographer researchers decide on at any particular time within,, but then again that also changes as we know, as better work is released,but i must say it is a great copy of the moorman...,ta b..

hi dave, i did some housework on the uploads there is only so much space allowed so every now and then we must clean out, , any in particular i will re post for you, if they were posted by me...best b

thanks robin, i was not sure if that was what was mentioned, there are so many different copies, within...take care b