Robert Prudhomme

Robert,

Why are you trying to jam the word "Argentine" into Kenneth Drew's mouth and posts? Kenneth never said anything about his TWO make-believe "Mausers" specifically being "Argentine" Mausers. He just said Mauser, period.

And in most of the early Nov. 22 reports on TV and radio, the commentators are calling the TSBD rifle a "German Mauser". (Except for a couple of references made by Ron Reiland and Bob Clark, who call it an "Argentine Mauser" at one point.)

It's true that one of the Dallas deputies who first saw the gun on the sixth floor on Nov. 22, Seymour Weitzman, said in his affidavit on Nov. 23 that the rifle was a "7.65 Mauser".....

Seymour-Weitzman-Affidavit

But Weitzman, of course, was incorrect about the type of gun it was, and he later said he was mistaken, as everyone can hear him say for themselves in the 1967 video I presented earlier, which includes a statement by Weitzman that a large number of conspiracy theorists have completely ignored. And the CTers who haven't ignored it usually say that Weitzman was lying in that 1967 interview with CBS. The CTers can see the shiftiness in Weitzman's eyes. But the things a CTer can "see" don't usually have any relation to reality at all.

More Mauser Talk (And Roger Craig Talk Too):

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-803.html

Dave

You frustrate me almost as much as some of these other half baked researchers. Do you ever actually read anything completely through?

Why do I call it an Argentine Mauser? For the simple fact that Seymour Weitzman identified the rifle in his statement as a "7.65 Mauser", and the only Mauser on the planet chambered for the 7.65x53mm cartridge just happens to be known worldwide as the "Argentine Mauser".

Do you get it now or do you want me to draw pictures for you?

P.S.

Ron Reiland and Bob Clark were obviously the only ones who knew their butts from a hole in the ground when it came to rifles.

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is half baked researchers shooting their mouths off with nothing more than a couple of Youtube videos to back them up.

In infantry rifles of the world, there were three main calibres of Mausers; the 7.65mm, the 7mm and the 7.92mm (8mm). The 7mm and 8mm were the calibres employed by German infantry rifles, although the 7mm was mostly abandoned by the time WW I began. The 8mm Mauser served the German infantry during two world wars.

The 7.65x53mm Mauser became known as the Argentine Mauser, for the simple fact it was adopted by the armies of almost every country in South America, plus the armies of Turkey and Belgium. It is less commonly known as the 7.65mm Belgian Mauser.

Roger Craig was either seriously deluded, or outright lying. The simple fact of the matter is that Mauser never stamped the calibre of the 7.65mm Mauser anywhere on the barrel, or the receiver, for that matter.

Let me tell you a secret, Kenneth. Just because you see something in a Youtube video, does not necessarily mean it is true.

" Everyone in the world that was watching television on 11/22 saw the Mauser being held up with the 7.65 Mauser stamped on it."

Not really trying to help DVP out here but, the truth of the matter is, no 7.65mm Argentine Mauser (not the military issue, anyways) ever had the calibre stamped on it anywhere.

Thanks for your comment, but who said anything about Argentine? The picture above that DVP shows is not of the Mauser. Everyone in the civilized world knows that there were two rifles found inside the TSBD that day, one Mauser (Roger Craig) and One MC( not c2766) and one mauser without a scope was found on the roof of the TSBD. I can't say that I could actually read the words or numbers one the rifle that was held up, but I could see him (Constable Wietzman) point to them and read them off the weapon itself. I actually saw that on TV in 1963, I don't need to see a picture of it now to remind me. It is available on youtube if you want to see it.

Perhaps you could post a link to this video showing Weitzman pointing to identifying marks on a rifle. If he is pointing to the base of the barrel of a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser, I'm afraid I have bad news for you. This is what he would have been pointing to:

No calibre stamp, only a crest. On the side of the receiver, he would have seen this:

Still think anyone read the calibre off of this rifle?

One thing we should keep in mind is that C2766 was an infantry rifle. While the basic rifle parts were manufactured the same in every M91/38 short rifle, soldiers came in all different shapes and sizes, and while one rifle stock may be perfect for one soldier, it might be too long or too short for the next soldier. For this reason, infantry rifles come with varying lengths of stocks. The 40.2 inch measurement assigned to the M91/38 would be a measurement for the most common length of rifle, made for a man of average stature, but there would be many M91/38's longer or shorter than this.

" Everyone in the world that was watching television on 11/22 saw the Mauser being held up with the 7.65 Mauser stamped on it."

Not really trying to help DVP out here but, the truth of the matter is, no 7.65mm Argentine Mauser (not the military issue, anyways) ever had the calibre stamped on it anywhere.

Interesting theory someone had about lowering a rifle down the elevator shaft from the 6th floor to the basement.

Only two questions from me. Could you get a rifle past (or between) the two elevators? Did the elevators go to the basement?

Which thread at the ROKC?

Robert,

I disagree that most of us on this forum have the attention span of a three year old. The Prayer man thread demonstrates that. Members are not required to respond to every member. It is perfectly acceptable to just debate and converse with members of a like mind.

James

James

I don't care if they respond or not. It's when a thread turns into a circus, I get a little annoyed.

And away we go! We are now so far from the original topic, one would almost think a concerted effort has been made to derail this thread. Lord knows DVP certainly is unable to refute the argument about the vertebrae.

I just chimed in to point out that the issue isn't in doubt.

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

That's okay, Cliff. Most of us on this forum have the attention span of a three year old and DVP makes the most of this when he is presented with undeniable proof the SBT could never have happened. Diversion beats having to face reality any day of the week.

Anyways, I hope my little explanation shows that the SBT is not only dead in the water, it was always a non-starter.

And away we go! We are now so far from the original topic, one would almost think a concerted effort has been made to derail this thread. Lord knows DVP certainly is unable to refute the argument about the vertebrae.

Thank you, Greg. I've always believed the best argument is one that feeds your opponent's "facts" right back at him in as unpalatable a dish as possible. In this case, I would say the WC has definitely painted itself into a corner. Even if the apologists attempt to explain things by saying the Magic Bullet was deviated from a straight and true course through JFK's neck by passing through the strap muscles, this actually has the effect of making things worse for the apologists, as the only course of deviation that would work for them is a course to the left of the 9° angle from the sniper's nest to the limo.To make the SBT work, the bullet would enter at a 9° angle, 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal mid line and then, either from contact with T1 or the strap muscles, it had to follow a curving path to the left AROUND JFK's cervical vertebrae, ultimately going through the right side of his trachea.

While certainly not impossible, it begs the question: Upon exiting JFK's throat, would the bullet not still be travelling to the left, and considerably away from Connally's right armpit?

Robert,

This chart you have used is at the heart of any criticism of the SBT. It is what distinguishes theory - as proposed by the Warren Commission - and reality. I believe your chart may not be completely accurate, but it is more than sufficient for this debate.

As you suggest, assuming a straight line from entrance ( the red dot ) to exit ( the blue dot), then this bullet has to accomplish massive damage to JFK lower head.

Updated SBT apologists do accept that some damage was done to either C7 or T1. But this is just nonsense. If the bullet followed this path it could cause considerable damage to the spine.

Link CAT Scan

John Nichols chart that I have posted a number of times - and was pointed out to me by Pat Speer - is so important.

In order for the bullet to avoid such damage the bullet would need to enter either 3 inches or 28º to the right. It would not avoid all damage a number of the important arteries would still be likely to be in its direct path.

And of course as this bullet exited it would be traveling in the direction of Nellie Connally and not John Connally.

Link to John Nichols Chart

Your chart is important because it distinguishes the difference between theory and reality.

James.

Thank you, James. As you stated, what I am showing here is not new, but it is one of, if not the, crucial weakness of the SBT, and it needs to be brought into the light regularly.

While SBT aplogists may waffle over whether it was the right transverse process of C7 or the right transverse process of T1 that was fractured by a bullet, the fact remains that the Warren Commission accepted the medical evidence from the autopsy that it was T1 that was fractured.

Cervical vertebrae shown from the front.

Cervical vertebrae seen from the rear, with thoracic vertebra T1 seen below cervical vertebra C7.

The projections to the left and right on the vertebrae are called "transverse processes". Make careful note that, while the cervical vertebrae are quite uniform in their transverse processes, the transverse processes of T1 project much further than those of C7.

Given that the medical evidence shows no damage to the right transverse process of C7, and that there is not enough room for a bullet to pass between the transverse processes of C7 and T1 (especially a bullet travelling downward from the 6th floor), it is safe to surmise that the bullet was on a course that would take it just to the right of the tip of the right transverse process of C7, and just above the right transverse process of T1.

As the medical evidence, garnered from x-rays of JFK's neck, is unequivocal about the injury to T1, and as the possible area of contact (see diagram) on T1 is extremely small, it is possible to locate an entrance wound on JFK's back by simply drawing a line through the wound in the right side of JK's trachea (windpipe) and the only point of contact possible on JFK's T1 right transverse process.

As I said, this is nothing new, as this diagram posted by James earlier clearly shows.

I should point out that I personally do not believe the entrance wound was at the level of T1, nor do I believe it was a through and through wound. I believe the entrance wound was at the level of thoracic vertebra T3, and that the bullet entered the top of the right lung, broke apart and stayed in the lung; inflictin a pneumothorax in that lung.

However, the T1 level entrance wound is what the WC chose to go with and I am more than happy to use their own flawed evidence to make a mockery of the SBT.

Everyone had a chance to study all of the medical diagrams?

Hi Bart

I've been following your parallel thread to this one on ROKC, plus Martin Hay's responses. In one post, he states it would have been simpler for the conspirators to simply have destroyed the Zapruder film, rather than going to all of the trouble to alter it, and take the chance of being caught.

I think we have to look at this matter through the eyes of a world in 1963, and not 2015. Just look at the photos, stills and enhancements that can be seen on this forum, all brought up with the push of a button. And, with the push of another button, they can be viewed on the Internet by millions. This high tech magic was not even dreamed of in the 1960's, or the 1970's.

Know why it wasn't destroyed? It wasn't destroyed because those unimaginative, cocksure clowns in 1963 thought they could use it to their advantage, and never dreamed you and I would be analyzing closeups of Z stills on our PC's, 51 years later.

He obviously moved a few feet to his left in order to get a better view of the departing President.

I agree Mark

Photo Credit: Jim Pomerville

Modern day photo looking from the top step area of the TSBD

from this position you can't see down Elm St

He could see down Elm St. just fine if he leaned out from behind the wall, as we see him doing in Altgens 6.

Hi Clive

The woman seen running behind Baker in the Couch film is on the Elm St. extension, and not Elm St. proper. Would she have climbed the bank from Elm St. just to run up the extension or would she have just run up the sidewalk, if we assume she was standing on the Elm St. sidewalk?

P.S.

It appears that the person we are assuming to be Lovelady is already talking to a person in a light skirt and dark top when the woman is seen running behind Baker, in a light top and dark skirt. As established earlier, Calvary was supposedly wearing a dark top and light skirt.

Could be Robert yes, ran into the shelter perhaps, then along the walkway and through the gap in the wall but I just don't see anyone north of Elm and west of Croft with her description, so I have to consider this general area the prime spot.

If Lovelady was correct in naming Calvary as the first person to give him the news it could be minutes after 12:30 because isn't that frame that shows the three women after Darnell got back from the knoll?

IMHO for a woman to witness, I mean truly witness the headshot so that she hysterically runs back to the TSBD through shock and gets there and is already telling BL about it before Baker gets anywhere near the entrance is asking quite a lot, I mean I'm far more comfortable with the idea that Lovelady was just mistaken on the time but it's not impossible especially since someone has to have told Smith to look in the bushes and he is already heading that way.

This is what is so puzzling, Clive. Both Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady testified to remaining on the steps for 3-4 minutes, following the shots, before Gloria Calvary returned to the steps with news of the assassination, and only then did they do their walkabout through the rail yard.

In their first day statements, Shelley was the only one of the two to mention Ms. Calvary, only in this version, she had come running back up, and he ran out to the concrete island to talk to her and get the news.

It seems that, at some point, Ms. Calvary did come running back up to the steps, but I cannot see how she was able to do this PLUS relate the news to Shelley and Lovelady before Baker arrived at the steps.

Is it just me, or does Lovelady seem to be moving around a lot? First, he is on the west side of the steps, against the wall, and then he appears to be in the middle of the steps. I'm assuming, of course, that the "F" is pointing to Lovelady.

As can be seen from Bronson

The 3 - Zapruder ladies are NOT actually standing next to the Stemmons sign

They are standing some distance away from it.

I can see now I was mistaken about Calvary being within a few feet of the Stemmons sign. The still from Betzner shows it best, that she was actually quite a ways from it. I also thought UM and DCM were on the other side of the sign from her but that is obviously incorrect, too. It's interesting how perspective can fool a person in these photos.

I still find it very interesting that Ms. Calvary stated the first shot occurred when JFK was directly in front of her. Looking at the Betzner still, and frames from Zapruder, this would seem to place JFK behind the Stemmons sign (from Zapruder's perspective) at the time of the first shot, and make an earlier missed shot unlikely.

And JFK is lying on his left side in z340, and the back of his head should have the noon sun shining on it.

Must be rough.

This is fun, keeping DVP up late. Love to see the overtime bill.

Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.

In this comparison I made below of the head positions of Secret Service agent Clint Hill and JFK, it doesn't look to me as if Hill's head is in a position (relative to the sun) that is all that much different than JFK's head position. Does it? And yet I see the same blackness appearing at the back of both of their heads. And with respect to the Z317 frame shown here of President Kennedy's head, I've heard many conspiracy theorists say that they think JFK's head has most certainly been artificially "blacked out" here....

Looks like one more conspiracy myth debunked by merely examining other parts of the same allegedly "altered" Zapruder home movie.

That the best you can do, Davey? Comparing z317 to a photo further down the road? Not only has the limo rounded a curve, JFK is, as Ron points out, practically lying on his side in this photo.

Hill's head is turned far more to the north, and is in shadow. Look at Altgens' shadow.

Hi Clive

The woman seen running behind Baker in the Couch film is on the Elm St. extension, and not Elm St. proper. Would she have climbed the bank from Elm St. just to run up the extension or would she have just run up the sidewalk, if we assume she was standing on the Elm St. sidewalk?

P.S.

It appears that the person we are assuming to be Lovelady is already talking to a person in a light skirt and dark top when the woman is seen running behind Baker, in a light top and dark skirt. As established earlier, Calvary was supposedly wearing a dark top and light skirt.

This whole argument is kind of a waste of time, since there is no way a bullet could have gone through JFK's neck, and gone on to hit Connally in the right armpit, without going through and smashing some of JFK's cervical vertebrae.

If Ms. Calvary was standing just uphill of the Stemmons Freeway sign by a few feet, and heard the first shot when JFK was directly in front of her, this would seriously contradict the belief held by WC supporters that there was an early missed shot pre-z190.