Kenneth Drew

Unlike you DVP, I can't give you any advice. Any nutter that believes the WCR hook, line and sinker is far beyond any reasonable help and should just go ahead and sign in at the Nut house. Yes, they have special places for Nutters. Why would anyone consult anything from the WCR as being authentic? Sure, there are actually some true things in the WCR, but only things that support their foregone conclusion. But the information is so useless that it is only beneficial for Nutters to use as their guidebook.

Does that incessant shrugging come from your years in the Pigpen?

Just to humor you, I viewed that video of the 'expert' attempting to duplicate the photo. First the photo he used is not one of the 3 regularly shown, it is an altered one. Then in the 'recreation', the actor is standing further to the left, his shadow is further to the right. In short, nothing he said is proof of anything except that he was trying to make someone happy.

Then this quote: " "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials.""

why was that statement made as it was? We already know that words mean something, so why did they add the word 'materials' onto that sentence. Why do they distinguish the materials from the photos? The photos are fake, but at least they used non-fake materials to make them. Strange.

"(Either that, or you have decided on your own to just totally dismiss ALL of the evidence as fake and phony. Right?)" No, only the fake and phone evidence is taken that way. As opposed to someone who swallows every lie, hook line and sinker? I know of not one single piece of evidence that you are anyone, anywhere that is linked to 'who shot John" and what he was shot with. No one has ever produced anything, so you can't possibly have any evidence.

So even if you accept that really is LHO in that BYP and that they're not faked, then you still don't have anything because the rifle in it is not the rifle that you would like to believe is the one the FBI produced on 11/23/63 which has never been tied to any shots ever fired at anyone. So It is strange that you put so much effort into trying to make a case that you just simply can't make. You DO NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE PROVABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

You're nitpicking, Ken. You said that you saw Weitzman on TV on 11/22/63 and that Weitzman himself said the rifle was a Mauser (whether it be a "7.65" Mauser or some other caliber, who cares). And that just simply did not happen. Therefore, you could not possibly have seen it on TV in 1963.

Nitpicking? Are you the same character that lectured me a few days ago about 'quoting someone'? So do you think that you can change a quote I made and then say that someone didn't say 'what you said they said'. Typical Nutter.

But, how do you know it 'did not happen'. You are telling me that you know what was broadcast on a tv station in Jacksonville, Fla on 11/22/63 without any possibility that you are incorrect. When you can assure the world that you have a copy of every minute of every film broadcast in Jacksonville, Fla that day, then you can make that statement. You might want to recall your own words about 'quoting someone correctly'.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP.

Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was.

Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made.

The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Gary,

You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald?

I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office).

If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45.

But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know.

Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning.

Thanks.

GARY MACK SAID:

I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days.

The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.

Wow, that post is so full of 'if's' 'ands' and 'butts' that I'm surprised you have one left to sit on. Gary Mack said: "Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was." Really? No one would be interested in finding out if there might have been more than one weapon with the same serial number? or something else?

"And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63."

Kenneth, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but, there is only one group of Mausers chambered for the 7.65mm cartridge, and they are universally known as Argentine Mausers. No one had to mention the word "Argentine", as soon as they said 7.65mm, the only thing it could be was an Argentine Mauser.

Very good Robert, except I didn't say that they said 7.65 Mauser. Only "mauser" yes, I realize that later versions of Roger Craig being asked, he did say 7.65, but not back in 1963. From what I recall, I don't remember anyone discussing back in 63, how many classes of Mauser there were. I know that I had heard of German Mausers since back in WWII and never have equated Mauser's with Argentina. If you want to give us all a history lesson on Mauser's, tell us what the Mauser's used by the German's during WWII were. I guess I don't see how me saying that I never heard anyone say Argentine Mauser implies that it really was one since someone thought it was a 7.65. but recall, I never heard them say 7.65 either. But I see you're at least in agreement that the rifle they were looking at was identified as a Mauser.

My only problem with all this discussion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the assassination of JFK. We don't know any details at all about what weapon was fired, by who, or where from. But discussion about a rifle that we know absolutely had no part in it is completely a smoke screen by the Nutters.

Germany made a 7.92mm Mauser for its troops during WW II. The original 7mm Mauser was discontinued prior to the commencement of WW I.

As the 7.65mm Mauser was not nearly as well known as the 8(7.92)mm Mauser, what led Weitzman to ID this rifle as a 7.65mm?

What led him to identify it as a 7.65? I have no clue. What led him to ID it as a Mauser? I would guess that reading the word Mauser off of the rifle had something to do with it.

I know, I've read that before. It is, however, IMO, not the same rifle ... repeating the point ... at a minimum the sling and sling mounts are dramatically different (you would be correct to say they could have been changed ... forward sling mount from bottom to side not so easily, however) ... now we need to question the competency of the advisors to and the HSCA. Why would they make that statement and not acknowledge and explain the differences that can be so clearly seen? I don't take any of the government pronouncements at face value, especially when we have photographic evidence to evaluate ourselves. Again I think really shoddy patsying, planting a different rifle (and a slug from that rifle that is so pristine as to be questioned by most observers ... ie: SBT is long dead.)

"Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing" Exactly ... agreed ... inexplicable except maybe they tried to do too much in a short time.

And have one with the figure cut out show up in the (DPD?) years later. Weird

The forward sling mount ring is the only outstanding difference between the BYP rifle and the 6th floor rifle. While the M91/38 was manufactured with side mounted rings, both on the forestock and the buttstock, it is unusual in the extreme to see an M91/38 with a bottom mounted forward sling ring, but not unheard of. I have read through a Carcano registry, and the odd M91/38 is registered as having bottom mounted rings on the forestock.

I believe these exist due to the condition of many of the Carcanos sold as surplus by the Italian government, following WW II. These were a mixed bag of carbines, short rifles and long rifles, and both the long rifles and most of the carbines were made with bottom mounted sling rings. Some carbines had both bottom AND side rings. As a good percentage of these rifles were in pieces and various states of disrepair, it was often necessary to rob parts from rifles beyond repair to make complete rifles of other rifles. There would have been nothing stopping a gunsmith from robbing a bottom mounted sling ring from a carbine to replace the missing side mounted ring on an M91/38.

There was also nothing stopping someone from replacing the bottom mounted ring with a side mounted ring after the BYP's were taken but before the rifle arrived on the 6th floor.

Robert is is interesting that you state that the rifle in the BYP and TSBD are identical but then state that forward sling mount is different on the two rifles. Maybe the word identical means something different to you than I think the recognized defintion means. Doesn't identical mean 'no different', not well only one thing is different? I think it would be hard to locate a gunsmith that had robbed a part from one Carcano to put on this rifle just to make it identical to the TSBD rifle. How would he have known which ring to change to match the photo? I think it is pretty well accepted that the rifles are different rifles and for the most part, only nutters tend to maintain the fiction that they are the same rifle.

WAIT Uh Oh ... We've suddenly found bogus back yard photos of LHO holding some other similar weapon! Why were these created and by whom, not Marina? REALLY bad patsying? When precisely were these created and for what purpose? Nothing at all to do with the lone nut. Maybe Roscoe White's body? Marina didn't take the photos. Different rifle. What's going on here? Why do we have them at all?

But Bruce, the backyard photos have been authenticated as genuine. They are NOT fake pictures. Why are you continuing to believe in the "Fake Backyard Pictures" myth?

The HSCA authenticated the BY pics:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

And Marina Oswald has always maintained that she took the photos. She doesn't recall exactly how many she took, but she recalls taking SOME pictures in the Neely St. backyard while Lee was holding guns and was dressed all in black--just like the things we see in the photos you are assuming are fakes.

In addition, I would still like a good (i.e., reasonable) answer to a question I've been asking for years....

Why on Earth would anyone want to fake multiple pictures that are depicting the exact same thing (Oswald with guns and newspapers in the Neely backyard)?

It makes no sense for any "plotters" to even WANT to fake more than just one such photograph. The chances of the fakery being exposed is only multiplied by the number of fake pictures being created. And why wouldn't just ONE such photo suffice for the patsy framers? Obviously, one photo would have sufficed. One picture is just as good as having three or four. And a lot less risky.

So, IMO, the NUMBER of backyard photos that exist is another thing that (circumstantially) suggests that those photos are genuine. Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing. It's just a dumb idea to begin with.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

DVP, you don't really believe that anyone has authenticated the back yard fake photos do you? I mean, when you can look at the photos and see what's in the background through the body on the photo, you know the image is layed on over the background. They didn't get the heads aligned correctly and they didn't get the shadows lined up correctly. Even a complete novice could tell those photos are fake within a couple minutes of looking. But you're telling us that you buy it hook line and sinker. You can tell, without any doubt whatsoever, but for some reason you can't see any differences in that rifle and the TSBD rifle? So that means your identification system is all discretionary. It can only see fakery that you believe in, but not real fakery? We know that Marina only said that she took a photo after they told her she was booked on a flight to Russia, but if she remembered taking the photos, they could cancel her travel plans.

"And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63."

Kenneth, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but, there is only one group of Mausers chambered for the 7.65mm cartridge, and they are universally known as Argentine Mausers. No one had to mention the word "Argentine", as soon as they said 7.65mm, the only thing it could be was an Argentine Mauser.

Very good Robert, except I didn't say that they said 7.65 Mauser. Only "mauser" yes, I realize that later versions of Roger Craig being asked, he did say 7.65, but not back in 1963. From what I recall, I don't remember anyone discussing back in 63, how many classes of Mauser there were. I know that I had heard of German Mausers since back in WWII and never have equated Mauser's with Argentina. If you want to give us all a history lesson on Mauser's, tell us what the Mauser's used by the German's during WWII were. I guess I don't see how me saying that I never heard anyone say Argentine Mauser implies that it really was one since someone thought it was a 7.65. but recall, I never heard them say 7.65 either. But I see you're at least in agreement that the rifle they were looking at was identified as a Mauser.

My only problem with all this discussion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the assassination of JFK. We don't know any details at all about what weapon was fired, by who, or where from. But discussion about a rifle that we know absolutely had no part in it is completely a smoke screen by the Nutters.

AT NO TIME did I say that he said it was a 7.65 Mauser.

You most certainly did. You said this....

"It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser." -- K. Drew

Your false memory is about the worst I've ever seen. You don't even remember what you've said just minutes after you've said it. And I'm supposed to believe you can recall intricate details about the TV coverage from 52 years ago? Yeah, sure.

Show me, in that quoted sentence, where the '7.65 Mauser' is located. If you can point out the 7.65 in my sentence then you are a magician. Maybe you were just 'misremembering' what I had said. But since you can't even read a sentence correctly within the last hour, why should anyone believe you can correctly interpret anything?

Well, this is all speculation, of course, thanks to the first-rate investigation of the crime. And it still doesn't tell us who did it.

The flechette scenario leads to Persons of Interest -- the Staff Support Group within US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick, MD, especially individuals described by flechette developer Charles Senseney as an Air Force colonel and an Army colonel who were conducting CIA ops with military cover.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

Agreed, Cliff. Establishing the existence of any type of exotic projectile in this assassination beyond a home made hollow point bullet, such as the flechettes you speak of or the highly complex (and unheard of in 1963) frangible bullets I speak of, automatically eliminates 99.999999% of the population as suspects, and points directly at agencies of the US Government with access to high tech weaponry.

I agree Robert. If I were the planner, I would not plan for a shot through the windshield, but somebody must have known something we don't and thought it was a worthwhile effort. Maybe the type projectile had been tested as firing through a windshield.

And Ron, exactly right. We don't know who did it. Don't know what kinds of projectile hit him, don't know what kind or type of weapon fired it or from where it was fired. Other than that?

Why would they plan to shoot JFK thru the windshield?

It was a clear shot for a north knoll shooter with JFK coming toward him. And if it was planned to look like a pro-Castro ambush, why would a bullet through the windshield matter? It would mean, however, they were mighty confident that a Plan B lone-nut scenario would not be necessary.

Good assessment. I don't know if the windshield shot was planned that way or not. Doesn't seem like a good idea, but worked out well for them, unless it was planned to hit him in the head with it. Seems as if it must have been a small round to not go thru his body. Since that was likely the first shot, seems as if they didn't think the Lone Nut theory would work, or either not be necessary. I will say though that if that one shot had hit him in the temple, no other shot would have been necessary and they could still use the 'lone nut', just from the knoll instead of snipers nest.

Let's handle the odds against two defective rounds this way. The back wound was a defective round. The throat wound was caused by a paralyzing, dissolving fletchette from an umbrella gun. (Remember that such a gun existed at the time, and we know that the umbrella man was playing some kind of game with his umbrella.)

Right church, wrong pew.

The Umbrella man was standing too far to JFK's right to account for the slightly left-to-right trajectory of the throat shot.

JFK's head was turned to the right circa Z190, with a laceration on the right side of the trachea, broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes.

And almost straight-on shot, slightly left to right.

Fits Black Dog Man to a tee, perhaps with one of these, developed by the same folks who developed the umbrella weapon.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

'Well, except that shot would not have passed through the windshield where it did. I might also add that a shot from umbrella man would not have passed through that spot in the windshield.

I watched TV continuously for at least 3 days, beginning as soon as the news coverage of the assassination began that day. I saw several police officers looking amongst the shelves and boxes etc in the SBD. I saw them with a rifle in their hands. Some of them were looking at it, there was a discussion as to what type of rifle it was. It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser. Everyone took a look and seemed to be satisfied, at least to the point that all or most of them signed a sworn affidavit that it was a Mauser.

This is all in your mind, Ken. Nothing even remotely close to that scenario occurred during the live TV broadcasts of November 22, 1963. Not even close. You've conflated Weitzman's affidavit with Roger Craig's 1974 lie and then you've convinced yourself you saw this scenario play out on live television on 11/22/63. But it never happened. And the biggest reason we can KNOW this scenario you painted never happened on TV is because the rifle found in the Depository could not possibly have been stamped with a "7.65 Mauser" marking....because it wasn't a Mauser....it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

BTW, the only video or film footage that was taken of the rifle while it was still inside the TSBD building is the footage taken by Tom Alyea. And it's a SILENT motion picture. There's no audio on Alyea's film. So how did you manage to HEAR people talking in that footage, Ken?

What you probably are remembering is the WFAA/ABC coverage that has ABC's Bob Clark narrating while we see the Alyea Film on the screen. At one point while narrating Alyea's footage, Clark tells the audience (incorrectly, of course) that the rifle being shown in the film is an "Argentine Mauser". That is the closest that Ken Drew can possibly get to the situation that he says occurred in his post above.

DVP, one thing we can all be sure of after that response is that you are so tuned in to saying everyone is mistaken and don't know what they saw and that you are so positive that YOU know all ofl the REAL details because you read and believe the Warren commission report. AT NO TIME did I say that he said it was a 7.65 Mauser. Those are your made up words, not mine. Also, at no time did I say it was a 'talkiing movie or film" I said that what they said he was doing and saying. Are you now claiming that when the studio was showing the film that they weren't describing what was taking place? Your Pigpen must be a magic world where you use a lot of imagination in creating what others say. But I notice that in all scenarios, your memory, according to you is spot on, even tho you were never there to see what happened that day. And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63. I did hear Cronkite say CarChanto. But that was after the FBI took over the details and got us all straightened out and had the palmprint installed on the wrong rifle.

Maybe you need to go back and look at some of those films that you are collecting and see what is actually on them and quit relying on your failing memory.

Why don't you answer the questions I had about your post no. 142, and don't just tell us, show us. I want you to just show us any piece of evidence that links ANY rifle to the shooting of JFK.

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

And, I will stress again, unless Bill Waldman was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document below is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his WC testimony at 7 H 366....

Am I missing something in that photo? I don't see LHO's name. I don't see where LHO signed for a rifle received at his PO Box. I don't see any proof that any rifle was ever delivered to anyone. I don't see any evidence that indicates that the serial number is unique to that rifle to the exclusion of all others that Klein 'supposedly" shipped. To sum it all up, Better start again at the beginning, see if you can actually come up with something.

So where are those microfilm records TODAY? Can you produce them? Can you tell us where in the National Archives they might be found?

Because if that microfilm CANNOT be found today...then its evidentiary value is greatly diminished.

Mark,

The WC exhibits known as Waldman 7 and CE788 and CE773 are photographic copies made from the original Klein's microfilmed records. That's practically the same thing as having the original microfilms. Although for handwriting anaylsis, it is always better to have an "original". But that argument certainly doesn't apply to Waldman #7, which has no "Oswald" writing on it at all. So that excuse won't work for CTers regarding the crucial document known as Waldman Exhibit No. 7.

Plus there is the testimony of Bill Waldman, who verified that what we see in Waldman #7 is a copy of the original.

Those things don't meet your requirements for "proof", Mark? You MUST see the "originals" in order to believe the documents are authentic, is that it?

In order for the rifle paper trail to be a falsified trail, CTers have no choice but to call William Waldman a big fat xxxx. There IS no way around that.

Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a xxxx and a person who wanted to frame Oswald?

Should I have a reason to think everybody EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is a suspect in this crime?

"Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a xxxx and a person who wanted to frame Oswald?" Why would anyone care? Let's assume for the moment that everything was 100% accurate that Waldman thinks is accurate. It doesn't put a rifle in LHO's hands on 11.22.63, or any other day in his lifetime. It doesn't provide a rifle that has been proven to have any relation to the JFK assassination. So tell us again what difference it makes. I'll bet you think Superman can really fly, don't you?

David, too many questions....

Bruce,

IMO, there are no unanswered "questions" with respect to Oswald's rifle purchase at all. To the contrary, it couldn't BE any more crystal clear from the paperwork that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's and Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald's PO Box. How much more straightforward can it get? And the testimony of the Klein's representative (Waldman) seals the deal on the transaction---that rifle WAS shipped by Klein's in Chicago to to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

The rifle transaction is, in a sense, ON FILM --- microfilm records.

Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked.

As they have done in so many other areas of the JFK murder case, conspiracy advocates have invented any number of flimsy reasons to disregard the perfectly solid evidence that proves Oswald ordered the rifle and that Oswald (aka Hidell) was shipped the eventual Kennedy murder weapon by Klein's.

In addition, I think one of the silliest and dumbest and lamest of all the theories put forth over the years by CTers is the throry that has a group of unknown plotters creating all of the rifle documents from whole cloth in order to have what looks like a solid trail for the rifle purchase. A much much better "CTer theory" would be to just accept what is obviously the truth about Oswald ordering and possessing the C2766 rifle --- and then the CTers can pretend that the plotters went about the much easier task of framing Oswald with his own rifle, versus having the conspirators having the need to invent the rifle trail from the ground up themselves.

But that's what usually happens when CTers go down these silly paths to conspiracy --- they end up looking mighty foolish when the truth (and the paperwork and the testimony of William Waldman) is stacked up alongside the weak-sister "Everything's Phony" excuse that is always propped up by the conspiracy believers.

"Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked." I would like to point out that the exact opposite of every thing you said is just as likely. No Nutter has ever proved that any of the documents connected with 'that' rifle have ever proved to be real. Why would a nutter believe any of the fake documents are real? They have zero proof that any are real? real documents? on microfilm? that prove 'something'? Give us a link. I don't believe any jury in the world would accept as 'proof' that just because someone 'claims' that an object was mailed to someone's PO box in some one else's name that is absolute evidence that a different person received that object. Tell us you believe that DVP. If I were to show you a 'document' that said I shipped an object to your PO address but in someone else's name and you never see that object, could you still provide absolute proof that you received it? All this smoke and mirrors over a weapon that has never been associated in any way with JFK's assassination.

Then why did EVERY cheek that fired the weapon test positive...?

Wrong....

"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"

Is that the only thing you disagreed with? You're quoting different info from a different time. Try to get back onto the discussion and veering off on a tangent.

Robert and David are right. No such footage has ever emerged.

Thanks Stephen, but it was there in 1963, I saw it, myself. I have seen it since. I'm not interested in it. It has nothing to do with 'who shot John".

Sorry, Kenneth, no you didn't. I have an extensive collection of post-assassination films (although maybe not as extensive as DVP's), and I'm fully aware of all the film inventories made from that time. There is NO FILM such as you describe. You're right, it's irrelevant, but you are misremembering.

BTW, there is "evidence which would prove something in court," and there is "evidence which is not conclusive but which strongly suggests what really happened." Just because the original evidence has been challenged at every turn doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable inferences from it, for historical rather than evidenciary purposes. If one believes the evidence faked, one has to consider how complicated it would have been to fake it.

Sorry Stephen, but you're wrong. Can't really understand why you would be interested in even having an opinion or discussion about it. You said I was 'misremembering'. Well, no, actually I'm not. First you must be under the impression that I'm testing my memory of something from the past. That's not the case. The events happened as I described them and I knew it 'at the time' and it is not any different today. First, I don't really see why it deserves discussion because it really didn't have anything to do with the weapon that shot JFK or the persons involved because it was on the 6th floor and the whole civilized world knows there were no shots fired from the snipers nest on 11/22/63. But, just for the sake of discussion. I watched TV continuously for at least 3 days, beginning as soon as the news coverage of the assassination began that day. I saw several police officers looking amongst the shelves and boxes etc in the SBD. I saw them with a rifle in their hands. Some of them were looking at it, there was a discussion as to what type of rifle it was. It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser. Everyone took a look and seemed to be satisfied, at least to the point that all or most of them signed a sworn affidavit that it was a Mauser. So anyhow, after seeing that, then sometime the next day, Walter Cronkite said he had been told that after the FBI had looked at the rifle in DC that they determined it was a Manliter CarChanto. Remember that pronunciation? I remember thinking at the time that it was strange that an expert could look at a rifle, read the name off of the rifle and get the manufacturer wrong. And not only that, that everyone that he pointed out the name on the rifle also saw it wrong and were so sure of what they had seen that they were willing to sign a sworn affidavit as to what they had seen. So Stephen I remember that from 11/22 and 11/23, not from today or last week. So why don't you fill me in on the exact details that you saw that day and how that memory from that day compares with what you remember today.

The whole civilized world, except for certified Nutters, believe that LHO didn't have anything to do with shooting JFK, so it hardly matters what kind of rifle that the conspirators had planted in the SBD. But, for you to make a claim that I can't remember what I saw is a little pathetic on your part. First you have no knowledge of my mental capability and it seems as if you're remembering the events of the assassination based on things you have read or been told. I'm remembering what I, myself, actually saw and it's not an exercise in 'misremembering'.

Kenneth,

Maybe it's time for you to stop believing in so many myths about this case.

There was no hole in the windshield.

Paraffin tests are essentially worthless as evidence.

And there is no proof that there was any gunman on the Knoll.

The next thing you'll be posting is that Mr. Umbrella Man was an assassin too.

"Maybe it's time for you to stop believing in so many myths about this case." Is believing in myths worse than attempting to spread them? So they just replaced the windshield for the heck of it? Paraffin tests are worthless? Then why did EVERY cheek that fired the weapon test positive and no one that didn't fire it test negative? the presence of a small amount indicates 'might' have fired. large amount, probably did. no residue, probably did not. If they are worthless, why do judges allow that evidence be allowed in shooting cases?

"And there is no proof that there was any gunman on the Knoll." Well, you got one right. True, it certainly could have been a gunwoman. Since we don't know who it was we certainly can't claim it to be a 'man'. We certainly do know that a rifle was fired from behind the fence with the bullet hitting JFK in the right temple, but we don't know any details of what type of weapon fired it or whether it was a man or a woman firing that weapon.

...the rifle thought to have fired at JFK was not owned by LHO...

Bruce,

The JFK murder weapon had the exact same serial number as the rifle Klein's mailed to Oswald's P.O. Box.

Why deny the obvious? Klein's shipped Oswald/Hidell the same weapon that ended up being used by an assassin to murder the President.

And who is more likely to have used a rifle that was mailed to Oswald/Hidell than Oswald/Hidell himself --- be it November 22, 1963, or any other day?

"The JFK murder weapon" Oh, now we may be getting somewhere. Ok DVP, tell us which weapon killed JFK? Now remember, you actually have to be able to show that the bullet that hit JFK was fired from the weapon. And remember that weapon had to have been somewhere near the picket fence area ahead and to the right of JFK.

You don't even know what type or caliber weapon shot JFK so you can't possibly know the serial number or where it came from or who was holding it when it was fired. We do know that LHO was given a parafin test on his right cheek and both hands and there was no gun shot residue. Every other person that test fired the MC weapon that they attribute to LHO had gun shot residue on their cheek. What kind of magic did LHO employ that allowed him to not have any evidence of firing a weapon?

which rifle fired the shot that came through the windshield and hit him in the throat? Did LHO order that one from Klein's also?

Let's try again ... "Did LHO order 'the' rifle?"

Marina said she took at least one of the back yard photos

The photos depict LHO holding a rifle she thought he owned

We have no evidence that he ever owned more than one rifle (whatever the source)

The rifle in the photos appears to be a MC

A 6.5 MC was said to be found (by police) on the 6th floor on the day of the assassination and is presently in evidence

The rifle in evidence is not the same one or the same as the rifle in the BYPs (at a minimum, sling and sling mounts)

Ergo, the rifle thought to have fired at JFK was not owned by LHO

? Just bad patsying ?

Hence the question "which rifle", we have two to be concerned about

From the evidence available, I can't find that LHO ordered the rifle found in the TSBD

You are correct, there is no evidence that LHO ever ordered that rifle or any other rifle. We know that Marina didn't know anything about the BYphotos until after the Warren commission reminded her that she must have taken them or she could get her travel arrangements together for a trip back to Russia. Other than that......

Of course there is no evidence tying any MC rifle to having fired a shot that hit JFK.

So my summation would be like this:

There is no proof that LHO ever owned or fired any rifle (in Dallas)

There is no forensics that tie any particular weapon to having shot JFK

There is no evidence that any shots were fired from the snipers nest

The rifle purported to have fired at JFK has never been proven to have actually been fired at anyone.

The rifle from the 6th floor is not known to have also been behind the picket fence that day.

The real question is,, who is the Warren commission covering for?

So you're going to tell me that I didn't see what I said I saw in 1963?

It's not uncommon at all for people to think they had seen something on television that we know they could not have possibly seen. But in that person's mind, they would swear on a stack of bibles that they saw it. It's part of their memory forever---even though it's a distorted and inaccurate chunk of their memory.

I provided one such example of this type of false memory when I talked about the woman who said she saw "the whole thing on television", which we know was impossible.

Another example emerged during a radio interview with a JFK author (it was probably in one of Vincent Bugliosi's many interviews in 2007, but I can't recall exactly which interview this occurred in). A caller claimed that he heard Jack Ruby shouting several things to Oswald before Ruby fired the shot that killed LHO. And the caller insisted he heard Ruby's voice as he was watching the live TV coverage of the shooting on November 24, 1963. The caller's memory is vividly clear on this point.

Of course, we know from the videotape TV footage and from the Ike Pappas audio recording that Ruby's voice is never heard once. Ruby never uttered a sound that was audible on either television or radio. But a man has a clear memory of Ruby shouting stuff at Oswald nonetheless. And his false memory will likely never change---even though he probably knows he is wrong.

"(it was probably in one of Vincent Bugliosi's many interviews in 2007," Everything Bug man wrote has been proven to be horseradish. You may as well quote McAdams.

your quoting of things people said that they may have been wrong on are fine for people like you that only want to sell one version of events. As long as you think LHO was involved, just think of all the things your memory is misleading you about. It even allows you to think there are some 'real' back yard photos. It allows you to think that A HIdell is a alias for LHO. It allows you to think LHO shot Tippit with an automatic weapon when he only had a revolver with him. Why, it even allows you to think that Marina Oswald didn't have to be coerced into saying she took one of the BY photos. You can just continue to allow your imagination run away with you. Why you can even imagine that LHO fired a rifle that day,

Robert and David are right. No such footage has ever emerged.

Thanks Stephen, but it was there in 1963, I saw it, myself. I have seen it since. I'm not interested in it. It has nothing to do with 'who shot John".

Kenneth, did you not see Roger Craig claiming the impossible, that he read the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the base of the rifle barrel, from 8 inches away?

P.S.

The one you claim from '63 does not exist.

So you're going to tell me that I didn't see what I said I saw in 1963? I've seen that video before, but what difference does that make, it's not the 63 film. What is your obsession with the rifle? What does it have to do with ANYTHING? There was no rifle fired from the snipers nest that day, so what is the discussion about a rifle about? Are you trying to tell me that the whole deal is you can look at a Carcano and might be able to tell it from a Springfield? Big deal. Do you remember what you saw on tv that day in 1963? Do you think if I told you that you didn't see what you are sure you saw that you would believe me? I know you don't believe anything in the WCR is considered to be factual so why are you trying to argue that the rifle means anything? Why don't you tell us what kind of pistol that tippet was killled with and what type of pistol LHO had, but, don't try to tell me that LHO was anywhere near where tippit was killed.

Beginning about the 5:00 mark, Roger Craig relates how he read "7.65 Mauser" on the base of the barrel.

The rifle seen lying on the floor, and outlined in red, at the 5:50 mark is the Remington Model 8 brought into the TSBD by the DPD detective.

This film was made some time later and has nothing to do with anything. Total waste of time. Put up the one from 63.

Translat

If you can find me the film, I can tell you the make and model of the rifle by looking at it. The Carcanos were very distinctive rifles.

You have to understand you do not really have much of a case there. You saw a silent film, and a narrator tells you they are ID'ing a Mauser rifle. Excuse me for not peeing my pants in excitement.

Every film I have seen of the 6th floor has clearly shown a 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifle or a 7.35mm Carcano M38 short rifle. The two rifles are virtually indistinguishable.

A DPD detective is seen walking out of the TSBD with a Remington Model 8 semi-auto rifle. This is not unusual, as this rifle was a favourite of Southern law enforcement since the days of Bonnie and Clyde.

I'm not flat out saying you are wrong. I just want to see the film for myself. If it's not a Carcano in the film you speak of, it will be obvious very quickly.

Robert, as I said, I'm not going to link you to something you've likely seen several times and just want to ignore. And I don't care what kind of rifle was found in the TSBD because none were ever fired from the 6th floor snipers nest on ll/22/63, so just what difference does it make what the conspirators planted. This is an example of the kind of crap the Nutters want the CTers to do is argue the details that DO NOT MATTER. As you well know, the rifle you claim was in the TSBD is NOT the same as the rifle in the FAKE BYP's and neither of them is the rifle alledgedly ordered by A Hidell from Kleins's. So, what difference does it make 'what kind of rifle did they find'? you said:" Excuse me for not peeing my pants in excitement." I'd sure hope you aren't so bent on thinking you've finally found something someone is right or wrong on that you are standing there holding your breath. Maybe you could be working on supplying some of those delicacies you keep promising us 'when you get time' between your plumbing jobs.

Translation = Kenneth cannot find the film

Translation, Apparently Robert is going to tell us what difference it makes. Tell us Robert, why does it matter what kind of rifle was planted in the TSBD? Tell us, if in your opinion, that rifle ever fired a shot that day? but Kenneth knows exactly where the film is, but has no need to link a distraction.