David Von Pein

Oh, great. We're back to your make-believe 11/22/63 "Mauser" TV footage again, eh? In reality, of course, no such footage exists, and never did.

Of course I'm denying it. And that's because there is no evidence whatsoever to show that TWO different rifles were found on the sixth floor (or anywhere else within the Depository building, including the roof).... "NO RIFLE ON THE ROOF" And if you bring up the Mentesana Film, you've got no proof the gun in that film is a rifle found inside the Depository. Who says it is? Groden? Please. How would he know?

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything. That's what Bug Man said. Wycht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he tookl off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one DVP. It does not enhance your image. Whenever Vince Bugliosi said in his many radio interviews that Oswald "would have been one of the last people in the world the conspirators would hire to kill the President", it is always based on the fact (based on the evidence) that Oswald DID KILL KENNEDY. IOW, in almost all the interviews he did in 2007, Vince establishes (in summary form, of course) Oswald's GUILT first. He then goes on to talk about how ridiculous it would be for anyone to actually hire this unstable loser with a 12-dollar gun to perform such a big "hit" for the Mafia or CIA or whoever else the CTers want to have involved. But the key in Vince's chronology is almost always to establish Oswald's guilt first. And from that POV and framework, Vince makes total sense to me, because it would be a situation where you'd have to believe (based on the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt) that the CIA or some other group actually DID hire Lee Oswald to murder the President for them, vs. the popular conspiracy theory we always hear about Oswald never firing a shot and then being used as the unwitting patsy for JFK's murder.

You could possibly be correct about Oswald hiding somewhere on the west side of the sixth floor as Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch. I favor the likelihood that Oswald was probably hiding in the Sniper's Nest on the east side of the building during the few minutes Williams was up there eating his lunch, but it's certainly possible that LHO could have secreted himself elsewhere. There were boxes stacked all over the sixth floor. I've speculated about a similar scenario myself.... "11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times). It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes. Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner). It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him. Now, I cannot fully explain why Oswald wanted to take the empty paper bag WITH HIM to the east end from the west end via this scenario I'm laying out here....but I've got to assume (naturally) that he DID do just that after assembling the rifle on the west end. Perhaps--just perhaps--Oswald had it in his mind that he would be able to re-insert the weapon back into that bag and, just maybe, get the incriminating rifle out of the building the same way he smuggled it in--in the brown paper package that supposedly contained those never-found "curtain rods". Yes, that last part is fairly weak...I'll admit that. I don't much like that idea either. For, Oswald would surely have known that he wouldn't have the time (or want to take time) to dismantle the rifle AFTER shooting at the President. But, then too, who can know what crazy thoughts might be swimming through the head of a person who is contemplating murdering a U.S. President from his very own place of employment? That's a difficult type of mind to thoroughly probe and to figure out indeed." -- DVP; April 2007 More "Timeline Talk" here: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html There is also the fact that the Warren Commission conducted four separate "Shell Dropping" tests throughout the year 1964 (on March 20, May 9, June 7, and September 6). The last three of those tests were done with various members of the Warren Commission present each time. Here's what the Commissioners heard.... "All seven of the Commissioners clearly heard the shells drop to the floor." -- Warren Report; Page 71 Well, Michael, I'm certainly no expert on rifles (or the levels of sound emitted by such weapons). And, no, I have never fired a rifle in my life. But all of your comments in your last post make sense to me. Thank you.

Mark, No re-enactment can reproduce with to-the-inch 100% accuracy the position of the gunman in the window. And you know that's true. Mark. The re-enactments are based on educated guesses regarding the angle and position of the rifle in the window. And I'm doubting that if Oswald had scooted just a few inches to his right, that fact would have suddenly made all of the FBI's trajectory data completely useless and worthless and invalid. That's not a reasonable thing to think, because there's got to be some "margin of error" built in to such trajectory studies. Plus, after looking at the Howlett re-creation photo again (below), I'm not sure Oswald would have needed to do any "scooting" to his right at all. We can't know exactly how much space there is between Howlett's left shoulder and the pipes. And why on Earth would you think it would have been impossible for Howlett to have used his RIGHT hand to simulate the rifle here (instead of the left hand/arm he is using)? I see no problem at all here for a right-handed shooter. But CTers "see" strange things all the time, don't they?....

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.) But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible? Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer (Mooney?) who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.) But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest. I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963. Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can. And, btw, I wasn't calling YOU any names (like "nincompoop") in my previous post. I was aiming those remarks at the make-believe "patsy framers". I'd also be interested in knowing the answer to this question, Mark (if you don't mind answering it).... Prior to this discussion in this EF thread, have you ever once made this statement to anyone previously?..... "A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this." -- Mark Knight; 6/30/15 I'm just curious to know if this suddenly popped into your head just this week (during this thread), or if you've believed for years (or decades) that the cramped Nest exonerates Oswald? Thanks.

And, btw, nobody in this discussion (and nobody else on Earth either, for that matter) has come close to proving that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this". And it's absurd to think that ANYONE has performed the task of "proving" that a right-handed shooter could not have fired shots at JFK from the Sniper's Nest window.

Ken just proved my previous point -- that the people who Ken must certainly think were framing Oswald WERE, indeed, nincompoops/idiots/dolts/morons (take your pick)....because "they" left TWO rifles on the sixth floor (per Ken). Brilliant plan there. Back to reality.... There, of course, was never a "Mauser" found in the TSBD. The policemen who said it was a Mauser were mistaken--and they admitted there WERE mistaken. Since a Mauser looks pretty much like a Carcano, the officers thought it was a Mauser. But they were incorrect. Simple as that. But Ken LIKES the idea that there were two rifles found. It makes the notion of conspiracy easier to swallow. Right, Ken? But any sober and reasonable analysis of the "Mauser" misidentification will easily allow a sensible person to reach the correct answer---the Mauser identification was simply a mistake. Nothing more than that. Now, let's watch Ken ignore these two witnesses who initially called the rifle a Mauser.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04azA5NFoo

Time for a Vince Bugliosi "Common Sense" break....

So? What difference does that make? Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes. You just made my case for me, on two points: (1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and (2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it. The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible. Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible. And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed). Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.) What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were.

Glenn, That obviously was a fairly early evaluation (and OPINION) concerning the timing of the three shots, which was put together for the Warren Commission shortly after the WC began doing its work on the case. And the timing of the shots as seen in that FBI report (CD298) is quite clearly in error. The last shot is now widely believed to be the head shot, which is quite clearly occurring at Z313.

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave? The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words... "True or false". So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE. At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics. The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.) So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking). I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest. Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure.

Indeed I do. And, btw, so do you. Nothing even remotely close to the effort you apply. And my budget is a fraction of yours. Oh, good. So you DO think I'm employed by someone who provides me with boatloads of cash to post on Internet forums. Thanks for confirming that. It's not pointless as long as there are conspiracy theorists in the world who have no ability to properly determine the facts in the JFK case. I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists can be a useful and worthwhile hobby. Wouldn't you agree? (No, you probably wouldn't.)

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate. So I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right, Ken?

So, what are you saying, Kenneth? Are you saying that NO rifle was sticking out of that window at all on Nov. 22 (even though 4 witnesses said they saw a gun in that window)? I could just as easily turn the tables and ask the CTers this.... Since CTers are positive that a gunman was "blazing away" (as Ken put it) from the Grassy Knoll, why didn't any of the photographers get a picture of the gun or the gunman on the Knoll?

Indeed I do. And, btw, so do you.

Do you really believe that, Bob?

So? What difference does that make?

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF. It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest".

The difference in the amount of space required for a right-handed shooter versus a left-handed gunman would be very minimal. (IMO.) Also: If you own Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", go look at the last picture in the 2nd of the 2 photo sections in that book. That picture shows Bugliosi alongside Gerry Spence as they both stand in front of the famous sixth-floor window in the TSBD, with Vince pointing an imaginary gun downward toward the street with his RIGHT arm/hand. Looks like he's got enough room to me without having to smash through the wall. Of course the conditions in that Bugliosi/Spence photograph are not at all the same as they were when Lee Oswald was firing from his "boxed-in" Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and I'm not suggesting for a moment that the conditions are exactly the same. But in a very general "Could a right-handed assassin fit into this space in front of this window?" kind of way, I think that 1986 photo of Bugliosi on the sixth floor serves a marginal purpose. The same photo can also be found in Bugliosi's 2008 paperback book ("Four Days In November") too, between pages 340 and 341. EDIT --- I just now found the Bugliosi/Spence picture online. Here it is....

That's true. It's not exactly a luxury suite at the Conrad Hilton. But he had enough room. BTW / FWIW.... Prior to this discussion, I don't ever recall any conspiracy theorist utilizing the "He Didn't Have Enough Room To Fire The Shots From The Sniper's Nest" excuse before. A brand-new theory perhaps? I don't recall ever arguing with anyone about this topic in the past. If I ever have, I've totally forgotten about it. What will tomorrow's new theory be? I'll just leave it open-ended, as Internet conspiracy theorists invent new (and even lamer) excuses in their perpetual effort to satisfy their intense desire to complete this sentence.... Lee Harvey Oswald could not possibly have shot President Kennedy because....

True. But that witness is a proven l-i-a-r: Roger Craig's Mauser Lie False. What some people have claimed is an "unfired" bullet is not an unfired bullet at all. There seems to be a piece of trash or debris (possibly a small scrap of paper) on the floor right next to the easternmost bullet shell. The piece of debris is situated in such a way as to make it appear as though it could be a complete unfired bullet. But higher-quality photos of the shells indicate that all three shells are EXPENDED (SPENT) SHELLS. None are whole, unfired cartridges. Here's one such high-resolution picture of the shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives.... http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339287/m1/1/high_res/ Also see: http://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/partners/DSMA/browse/?q=window+book+depository&t=fulltext I'm not sure if that is True or False. Robert Frazier did talk about some corrosion on the inside of the barrel after the FBI received the weapon from Dallas. And I know that many conspiracy theorists contend this "corrosion" (or "rust") issue means the rifle could not possibly have been fired on the day of the assassination at all. Well, I'm certainly no gun expert (far from it), but the evidence is quite clear that the C2766 rifle in question (whether it had some corrosion/rust in the barrel or not) WAS fired into President Kennedy's vehicle on 11/22/63 without a doubt. The two bullet fragments in the front seat of the car are enough to prove that fact for all time (IMO). I know that a lot of conspiracists don't think the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (like those two front-seat fragments) means anything at all. They'll just say "Prove they weren't planted". But it's my opinion that those fragments were not planted. In fact, I think it's dumb to believe those fragments are fraudulent fragments. But many CTers think differently. So be it.

I don't know why you would say that, Bob. None of the shells are to the LEFT (east) of the window Oswald was shooting from. You can even see the corner of one of the boxes in front of the window in CE510, and all of the shells are to the RIGHT of that box. You've got the windows mixed up, Bob. You're thinking the window we can see in CE510 is the "shooter's window". But it's not. The shooter's window is the EASTERNmost window, right in front of the box that is just barely visible in CE510. CE511 (on the right) shows it better. No shells ended up LEFT of the shooter's window....