jfk taken out by mob??? Contains Graphic Images

fergus o brien · 04-01-2011 4:33pm

killerking wrote: »

There is no reason to assume the mystery man was anyone other than a government agent of some kind who flashed his badge after he ran into the same area as Patrolman Smith.

Conspiracy theorists are adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

we know for a fact it wasnt lem johns (because we have the description of the man given by joe smith) and add to that he never acknowledged that it was him ,we know it wasnt sorrels because the earliest he was in dealey plaza was 12.50 ,and we have the secret service records that no agents were active in the area in question . even dallas police believe he was bogus so you have nothing to base your conclussion on.

fergus o brien · 04-01-2011 5:08pm

killerking wrote: »

fergus o brien wrote: »

No 7.65 shell or bullet was found. So give it rest.

You didn't make any innocent claims. You just don't want to concede that there was no conspiracy.

the warrren commissions expert stated that there was no indication (due to lack of markings or oil ) that the well oiled rifle was ever in the paper bag ,and there is no photographic evidence showing the paperbag was ever in the snipers nest area.

Why would there be oil on the bag? The bolt and other lubricated moving parts were inside the gun. You don't know much about guns do you?

His fingerprints on the boxes show that he moved the boxes and stacked them around the window.

i

Oswald's prints were found on the bag, no curtain rods were ever found, the bag was found by cops in the sniper nest. It is obvious that Oswald carried the bag with the rifle into the TSBD.

You are alleging that Oswald could not have brought the bag into work.
You are alleging that Oswald did not fire the shots and you are alleging that Kennedy was not wounded by shots fired from the 6th floor window.
So you have to explain how conspirators did that despite the overwhelming evidence that proves Oswald's guilt.
If you can't or won't then you have no credibility.

well the evidence of a shell has been posted by myself ,and the evidence itself is still in the national archives for any one to view ,but if you can show evidence to show im wrong regarding the shell post it and ill happily retract what i say about the shell.

you can choose to see my posts or comments any way you see fit ,but it wont make them untruthfull or unfactual because you choose not to believe them.

i can only reiterate what the warren commisions expert said ,
"When FBI hair-and-fiber expert Paul Stombaugh examined CE 142 on November 23, he found that it contained a single, brown, delustered viscose fiber and "several" light-green cotton fibers (R136). The Report does not mention Stombaugh's qualification of the word "several" as indicating only two or three fibers (4H80). It seems that these few fibers matched some composing the blanket in which the rifle was allegedly stored, although Stombaugh could render no opinion as to whether the fibers had in fact come from that blanket (R136-37)."
he also said
"I was also requested . . . to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle....And I couldn't find any such markings."

your correct i dont claim to be an expert on guns/rifles so i have relied (as you see above ) on the warren commissions own experts testimony ,and you will have to agree he does know about guns/rifles.

if you can find a witness that saw oswald carry that package into the texas school book depository and show a photograph of the paper bag in the snipers nest not only will i be amazed id be very impressed .

i am not claiming that oswald never carried a package (clearly he did) but the package he carried was not the broken down carcano .
i am not claiming (as you say ) that shots werent fired from the 6th floor ,clearly people saw a man /men in the windows of that floor with a rifle.
the only evidence of oswalds guilt (overwhelming guilt you call it ) is a palm print on the top of a box (not on the sides of the box indicating he had his hand on the box and didnt lift it ) and on a paper package supposedly found on the 6th floor of a building where the man was an order filler where he would have been in contact with many boxes/packages ,and a rifle that can only be tied to him by use of an alias and nothing more .

When Jesse Curry retired as police chief of Dallas, Texas, he wrote a book called "JFK Assassination File." In a 1969 interview for the Dallas Morning News around the time of publication, Curry stated,
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
.

DublinWriter · 04-01-2011 5:12pm

killerking wrote: »

The physical evidence shows that JFK was struck by two bullets fired from Oswald's rifle. Are seriously trying to claim that Oswald was hired by LBJ to kill the President? What evidence do you have?

In the wider political picture at the time the hawks in the US Government were egging the administration for a full-scale US invasion of Cuba after the Bay of Pigs disaster.

I suspect that Oswald was a resource of the intelligence services (more than likely recruited during his time as a Marine in the top-secret Okinawa US Radar base) and had been tasked with playing a minor role of an Agent Provocateur in order to gauge pro-Castro support within the Dallas immigrant community.

The Hawks needed to goad the greater American public into pushing for a Cuban invasion and personally, I believe that Oswald's mission was to fire shots at the motorcade in order to create the impression that an attempt had been made on JFK's life.

Certainly, the rifle Oswald used was not up to the job. The scope was so loose that when the US Army tested it, one of the marksmen had to insert a metal wedge (or shim) between the scope and the rifle as the scope was too wobbly and loose to be able to be used at all.

Here we come to the riddle wrapped up in an enigma.

Running inside that particular black OP was LBJ's own personal black-op, run by Cord Meyer. LBJ was very politically ambitious and knew that he would never hold Presidential office because after a second JFK term the Democrats would field RFK for potentially another two terms. JFK had Cord Meyer's wife as one of his mistresses and Meyer had an almost pathological hatred of JFK.

Oswald by that time was a 'busted flush' and I doubt the intelligence services saw little other value in him, other than being a patsy.

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 7:18pm

So, what are you saying, Oswald was firing to scare but to miss?

A laughably crap shot (according to most conspiracy beilevers), knowingly using a crap rifle with a crap, misaligned sight in a crowded public place?

Highly responsible - NOT. I'm no US Marines-trained Sharpshooter, but I am a reasonable shot with a rifle, and I can honestly say that would be criminally, homicidally negligent.

A misalignment of the scope by an unknown amount could have seen bystanders dropping like flies - or even the "deliberately missed target" having his head blown off.

Laughable, ludicrous idea.

killerking · 04-01-2011 8:21pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

In the wider political picture at the time the hawks in the US Government were egging the administration for a full-scale US invasion of Cuba after the Bay of Pigs disaster.

That still does not change the fact Oswald acted alone, brought his rifle to work and shot Kennedy from the 6th floor. Oswald was a wacko lunatic.

I suspect that Oswald was a resource of the intelligence services (more than likely recruited during his time as a Marine in the top-secret Okinawa US Radar base) and had been tasked with playing a minor role of an Agent Provocateur in order to gauge pro-Castro support within the Dallas immigrant community.

You have no evidence of this whatsoever. You're justing making it up.

The Hawks needed to goad the greater American public into pushing for a Cuban invasion and personally, I believe that Oswald's mission was to fire shots at the motorcade in order to create the impression that an attempt had been made on JFK's life.

The only problem is that the bullets fired from Oswald's rifle killed the President. Those conspirators got that one wrong didn't they?:D

Certainly, the rifle Oswald used was not up to the job. The scope was so loose that when the US Army tested it, one of the marksmen had to insert a metal wedge (or shim) between the scope and the rifle as the scope was too wobbly and loose to be able to be used at all.

The scope wasn't loose, it was misaligned, possibly when Oswald stuffed it behind the book crates when he fled the 6th floor.
Besides the rifle has iron sights (you don't know squat about rifles do you?) and the target was less than 90 yards away.
An easy shot for a trained Marine like Oswald.

Here we come to the riddle wrapped up in an enigma.

Running inside that particular black OP was LBJ's own personal black-op, run by Cord Meyer. LBJ was very politically ambitious and knew that he would never hold Presidential office because after a second JFK term the Democrats would field RFK for potentially another two terms. JFK had Cord Meyer's wife as one of his mistresses and Meyer had an almost pathological hatred of JFK.

So why didn't they bug his bedroom and release the tape?

Oswald by that time was a 'busted flush' and I doubt the intelligence services saw little other value in him, other than being a patsy.

So why not arrange to have Oswald's dead body in the 6th floor with a rifle bullet wound in the roof of his mouth? Why take the risk of him leaving the building and being paraded in front of the press when he would have named names?

Ridiculous.

DublinWriter · 04-01-2011 9:50pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

A laughably crap shot (according to most conspiracy beilevers), knowingly using a crap rifle with a crap, misaligned sight in a crowded public place?

No...just according to Oliver Stone's re-write of history.

Oswalds USMC records show that he could shoot with 86% accuracy at a static head-and-shoulders target at 200 yards. This was a 'marksman' grade shot in the USMC, 'sharpshooter' grade was 95% and above.

Crowded place? Take a look at the Zapruder film and notice how few people were actually in situ on the left side of Elm St. just after the fatal shots.

DublinWriter · 04-01-2011 9:56pm

killerking wrote: »

The scope wasn't loose, it was misaligned, possibly when Oswald stuffed it behind the book crates when he fled the 6th floor.
Besides the rifle has iron sights (you don't know squat about rifles do you?) and the target was less than 90 yards away.
An easy shot for a trained Marine like Oswald.

I agree re the easy shot point, see my post above about his USMC shooting records.

I don't know squat about rifles? Look mate, I'm not interested in getting into a bitchy internet handbag fight, I'll leave that to the pros, but don't make assumptions, just deal with the points of argument as they arise.

Read the Warren commission report re the scope. It was practically hanging off the rifle. Acquaint yourself with the basic facts before stating your case.

killerking · 04-01-2011 10:37pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I agree re the easy shot point, see my post above about his USMC shooting records.

I don't know squat about rifles? Look mate, I'm not interested in getting into a bitchy internet handbag fight, I'll leave that to the pros, but don't make assumptions, just deal with the points of argument as they arise.

Read the Warren commission report re the scope. It was practically hanging off the rifle. Acquaint yourself with the basic facts before stating your case.

You just said the rifle was not up to the job.

The rifle was up to the job because the bullets fired at the President and the Governor came from Oswald's rifle excluding all other weapons and the scope was not practically hanging off the rifle.

You are the one who does not have a basic acquaintance with the facts.

Maybe you should go and actually read the Warren Report instead of pretending you did and posting on this thread?

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 10:40pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

No...just according to Oliver Stone's re-write of history.

Oswalds USMC records show that he could shoot with 86% accuracy at a static head-and-shoulders target at 200 yards. This was a 'marksman' grade shot in the USMC, 'sharpshooter' grade was 95% and above.

Crowded place? Take a look at the Zapruder film and notice how few people were actually in situ on the left side of Elm St. just after the fatal shots.

So... Oswald was a fine shot, with a perfectly usable rifle, well aligned sights, or at least enough for the task at hand, to shoot at the President but not to hit him, although his CIA masters wanted Kennedy dead?

Did Oswald really believe that that was all these mysterious, nameless CIA guys wanted? I wasn't aware he was regarded as retarded. Didn't a single little alarm bell ring even for such ain idiot after the very first real shot hit JFK? Why even hang around for the head shot?

"Hey, leave me alone, cop! I was only shooting at him to scare him!"

Wow, that has to be one of the most bizarre of many, many bizarre JFK conspiracy ideas I've heard!

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 10:42pm

Oh, and the point about a trained rifleman knowingly firing a rubbish rifle with the scope "hanging off" still stands: homicidal.

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 10:45pm

Why do people believe such convoluted concepts are so, so SO much more likely than a trained marksman with a powerful rifle shooting to kill at a man he hated - as so many other are also accused of hating?

DublinWriter · 04-01-2011 10:59pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Why even hang around for the head shot?

Oh look, just read the Warren Commission report for starters and come back when you're a little more well read on the subject in-hand.

Sorry dude, I don't want to be your Internet 'nemesis', I'm sure you'll find more like minded people to bicker with anonymously.

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 11:04pm

killerking wrote: »

Besides the rifle has iron sights

Sorry, killerking, it hates me to have to disagree with an eminently sensible person such as your good self, but I can't see how Oswald could use the iron sights with a scope attached to the rifle.

I find the idea of the scope being misaligned due to rough treatment of the rifle after shooting very plausible. It's quite easily done.

I also agree with the rest of that post.

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 11:10pm

DublinWriter wrote: »

Oh look, just read the Warren Commission report for starters and come back when you're a little more well read on the subject in-hand.

Sorry dude, I don't want to be your Internet 'nemesis', I'm sure you'll find more like minded people to bicker with anonymously.

It's all right, mate, doesn't bother me.

I just find the idea of Oswald being a wide-eyed dupe firing to miss, and the CIA KNOWING he would be so stupid as to do that, a real hoot.

FYI, I have read Warren (so generously released to the public), and the later House Special Committee on Assassination report. Nothing in either to imply anyone was shooting to miss, such as extra bullets and spent hulls littering the scene.

bog master · 04-01-2011 11:12pm

killerking wrote: »

DublinWriter wrote: »

Besides the rifle has iron sights (you don't know squat about rifles do you?) and the target was less than 90 yards away.
An easy shot for a trained Marine like Oswald.

So what is your opinion about when former U.S. Marine snipers Craig Roberts and Carlos Hatchcock are of the opinion Oswald could not have done the shooting from that position, within the timeframe according to the W.C.

Dragonblaster · 04-01-2011 11:51pm

Or did they both chamber a round, fire, chamber a round, fire and chamber a round, fire and chamber a round?

If the first round was already chambered with the safety on when the rifle was brought into the book depository it shortens the cycle.

Besides, it was Oswald's rifle and presumably he knew it a little better than Gunny Hathcock (correct spelling) did, meeting it for the first time.

I have an underlever spring air rifle that some much better shots than me with far more expensive ones find it hard to even cock. Their arms start to ache after a couple of shots, I don't have any trouble with it at all, and I can shoot it all day without the slightest ache in my arms.

And I'm not remotely like a body-builder with arms like sacks of bowling balls either.

bog master · 05-01-2011 10:27am

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Or did they both chamber a round, fire, chamber a round, fire and chamber a round, fire and chamber a round?

If the first round was already chambered with the safety on when the rifle was brought into the book depository it shortens the cycle.

Besides, it was Oswald's rifle and presumably he knew it a little better than Gunny Hathcock (correct spelling) did, meeting it for the first time.

I have an underlever spring air rifle that some much better shots than me with far more expensive ones find it hard to even cock. Their arms start to ache after a couple of shots, I don't have any trouble with it at all, and I can shoot it all day without the slightest ache in my arms.

And I'm not remotely like a body-builder with arms like sacks of bowling balls either.

"Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did". Carlos Hathcock

"...I analyzed the scene as a sniper. In the time allotted, and in the distance along the street in which the rounds had impacted the target from first report to final shot, it would take a minimum of two people shooting. There was little hope that I alone, even if armed with the precision equipment I had used in Vietnam, would be able duplicate the feat described by the Warren Commission. So if I couldn't, I reasoned, Oswald couldn't..."
- Craig Roberts

johnnyvega86 · 05-01-2011 1:39pm

bog master wrote: »

"Let me tell you what we did at Quantico. We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did". Carlos Hathcock

"...I analyzed the scene as a sniper. In the time allotted, and in the distance along the street in which the rounds had impacted the target from first report to final shot, it would take a minimum of two people shooting. There was little hope that I alone, even if armed with the precision equipment I had used in Vietnam, would be able duplicate the feat described by the Warren Commission. So if I couldn't, I reasoned, Oswald couldn't..."
- Craig Roberts

In 1967 CBS replicated the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

They mounted a standard FBI head and shoulders target on a rail moving at 11mph mimicking the exact movements of JFK as he sat in his limo in Dealey Plaza.

A panel of riflemen were assembled and each man fired three shots with a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 mounted with a 4 power scope from a 60 foot tower.

They were all able to get off three shots in less than 5.6 secs and most scored two hits out three shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsOEJF6qoy4

The Warren Commission also replicated what Oswald would have seen when he targeted JFK through his scope. It is quite clear that Oswald would have had no difficulty in getting 2 shots out of 3 on target.

bog master · 05-01-2011 3:17pm

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

In 1967 CBS replicated the shooting in Dealey Plaza.

They mounted a standard FBI head and shoulders target on a rail moving at 11mph mimicking the exact movements of JFK as he sat in his limo in Dealey Plaza.

A panel of riflemen were assembled and each man fired three shots with a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano M91/38 mounted with a 4 power scope from a 60 foot tower.

They were all able to get off three shots in less than 5.6 secs and most scored two hits out three shots.

A few aspects were not created. One, they were sitting in an open tower with a very good line of sight, not peering out of a cramped "sniper nest" with a half open window. This gave them more time to track and acquire the target. The target was on its own, almost highlighted, quite different than aiming at a head in a car. And no distractions of crowd and vehicles and the attendant noise. Then of course they used the WC information as to when the first shot was fired, and this is still under debate.

They were using the same type rifle,yes, but was it in the same condition as Oswald's? Rusted firing pin? Misaligned scope?

I dont have the hit and miss ratio,but it was stated a total of 37 times but with 17 misfires or trouble with the rifle. I would be interested in seeing the full results if they are available. And I thought the WC Report stated the surplus war ammunition was very reliable!

Yes, I agree, it is possible to get off the shots in that time frame, could Oswald do it with his rifle and his shooting skills? I believe not.

johnnyvega86 · 05-01-2011 4:31pm

bog master wrote: »

One, they were sitting in an open tower with a very good line of sight, not peering out of a cramped "sniper nest" with a half open window.

I'm just after showing you a video from the 6th floor window. There was a clear line of sight. Maybe you should try looking at the video again?

The target was on its own, almost highlighted, quite different than aiming at a head in a car.

I just showed you a video (it was filmed through the scope of the same rifle used by Oswald) tracking the head of a man in the back seat of an open car passing through Dealey Plaza. How could a shooter not get at least 1 hit?

And no distractions of crowd and vehicles and the attendant noise.

What difference would that make? Oswald was a trained Marine who would have used a range with other men firing their rifles too.

Then of course they used the WC information as to when the first shot was fired, and this is still under debate.

The WC examined the Zapruder film which showed that the approximate time frame of the shots was about 6 secs.
The videos I have just shown you demonstrate that 3 shots with 2 hits can be achieved in 6 secs with the assassination rifle.

They were using the same type rifle,yes, but was it in the same condition as Oswald's? Rusted firing pin? Misaligned scope?

If you watched the videos you will see they were using the same type of rifle.
Oswald's own rifle was in perfect working order.
Testers took it out on a range and found no problems with it.
I don't know why you are talking about a rusted firing pin?
Are you sure this isn't a figment of your imagination?
The scope was misaligned possibly because when Oswald stuffed the rifle behind some book crates when he fled the 6th floor.
However he still could have used the iron sights on the weapon.

I dont have the hit and miss ratio,but it was stated a total of 37 times but with 17 misfires or trouble with the rifle. I would be interested in seeing the full results if they are available. And I thought the WC Report stated the surplus war ammunition was very reliable!

Well why don't you look at the results for yourself then?

CBS conducted a firing test in 1967 at the H. P. White Ballistics Laboratory located in Street, Maryland. For the test 11 marksmen from diverse backgrounds were invited to participate: 3 Maryland State Troopers, 1 weapons engineer, 1 sporting goods dealer, 1 sportsman, 1 ballistics technician, 1 ex-paratrooper, and 3 H. P. White employees. CBS provided several Carcano rifles for the test. The MC rifle WC-139 was not used in this test. The targets were color coded orange for head/shoulder silhouette and blue for a near miss. The results of the CBS test were as follows: 7 of 11 shooters were able to fire three rounds under 5.6 seconds (64%). Of those 7 shooters, 6 hit the orange target once (86%), and 5 hit the orange target twice (71%). Out of 60 rounds fired, 25 hit the orange (42%), 21 hit the blue portion of the target (35%), and there were 14 misses on the target (23%).
One volunteer was unable to operate his rifle effectively so the following statistics are based on the 10 remaining shooters. The average time of all 10 was 5.64 seconds. The mode was 5.55 seconds and the mean was 5.70 seconds. The average for the top five shooters was 5.12 seconds, and for the bottom five shooters 6.16 seconds. There was a high occurrence of jamming during the test. On average the rifles jammed after 6 rounds. The most rounds fired without jamming were 14, 11, 10 in a row. The least was 0 (back to back).
The first shooter to lead off the experiment was Al Sherman, Maryland State Trooper. The record of his effort: 5.0 sec: 2 orange, 1 blue / 6.0 sec: 2 orange, 1 blue / NT (jam at 3rd cartridge)/ 5.2 sec: 1 orange, 2 low / 5.0 sec: 1 orange, 2 blue. Sherman was able to fire 8 rounds before his rifle jammed. Of all shooters, the fastest times were: 4.1 sec, 4.3 sec, 4.9 sec, 5.0 sec. The best accuracy was 3 orange in 5.2 seconds. The rifles were oiled and allowed to cool down between shooters. CBS reporter Dan Rather attended this experiment.

Yes, I agree, it is possible to get off the shots in that time frame, could Oswald do it with his rifle and his shooting skills? I believe not.

Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in riflery, scoring 212 in December 1956(slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191 (barely earning the lower designation of marksman).
He could only have achieved those scores if he was able to fire rapidly and hit targets at much greater distances than 90 yards.
Clearly he could have been able to do it with his rifle and his shooting skills.

If you believe that he couldn't have performed those shots you can believe what you like. Nobody is stopping you from ignoring the evidence.

I found out all this information in seconds on google.

bog master · 05-01-2011 8:08pm

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

If you watched the videos you will see they were using the same type of rifle.
Oswald's own rifle was in perfect working order.
Testers took it out on a range and found no problems with it.
I don't know why you are talking about a rusted firing pin?
Are you sure this isn't a figment of your imagination?
The scope was misaligned possibly because when Oswald stuffed the rifle behind some book crates when he fled the 6th floor.
However he still could have used the iron sights on the weapon.

Gil Jesus
10-01-2008, 03:05 PM

WAS FRAZIER SAYING THAT THE RIFLE WASN'T FIRED ?
By Gil Jesus ( 2008 )

FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Oswald rifle was "roughened" from corrosion ( rust ), then commented that "if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust."

So why did the barrel have surface rust after Oswald had fired THREE rounds ?

THE RUSTED BARREL

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

( 3 H 395 )

The visual examination of the barrel was so convincing that the rifle had NOT been fired, that Frazier never even bothered to examine it for fouling in the barrel:

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
( ibid.)

THE RUSTED BOLT

Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also rusted:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.

( 3 H 447 )

The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes BEFORE he began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
(ibid.)

They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from it's rust. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from it becomes and the faster the elaspsed times are for the shooters.

Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.

( 3 H 449 )

OIL ON THE RUSTED FIRING PIN, SPRING & BOLT

Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and it's spring for someone to have oiled it:

".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further, THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN AND ITS SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )

The rifle was so badly rusted, they had to oil it. CE 2974 also states that not only was "the firing pin and spring of this weapon well oiled", there just happened to be oil "residue" on the "interior surfaces" of the bolt as well. The FBI denied that it was the one who oiled the weapon, adding that "it is not known if it was oiled by any other person having this rifle in his possession". This document further states that the rust on the spring and the firing pin "must have formed prior to the oiling of these parts." ( ibid. )

Although one might argue that the rust appeared on the rifle AFTER the assassination, Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in and "roughened" the surface of the barrel:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

( 3 H 395 )

CONCLUSION

Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that the two were both rusted ?

The significance of rust inside a barrel is described by Frazier :
IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST

If the barrel of the rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then not even one round had been fired from it.

Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder
weapon.

The testimony not only strongly suggests that the inside of the barrel was rusted, but also that the bolt was rusted so badly that in order to get it to move, they had to first work in in through a "dry-run practice exercise" and then oil it.

The evidence indicates that both the firing pin and the spring contained rust and both had been "well oiled" at some point after the rust had formed and some oil "residue" was found on the bolt.

So who oiled the weapon ?

When the Warren Commission asked the FBI, the FBI replied that it was not responsible for the oiling and did not know if the weapon had been oiled by "any other person having this rifle in his possession".

Couldn't they find out ? I mean wasn't this the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION ?

Of course they could have. Only a few agencies possessed the weapon.

On the Commission's question of whether or not the firing pin had been changed, the Bureau responded that it had " no record of any outlet where spare parts, including firing pins, can be obtained for rifles for such as Commission Exhibit 139".

Talk about spare parts...... Didn't the FBI have in its possession the EXACT SAME RIFLE in CE 542 ?

Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling.

They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.

The ease of operation of the bolt was essential to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether that was Oswald or anyone else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.

Finally, when the Warren Commission asked the FBI in August 1964 to examine the rifle to see if the firing pin had been changed, the Bureau found that the firing pin and the spring were "well oiled" and that they and the bolt were all oiled by a person or persons unknown to it. The Bureau also found that the oil had been added to the weapon AFTER it had rusted.

Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were "well" oiled indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had been applied rather recently. The point is, that if oil was added to the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.

It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Now, are you satisfied that the firing pin was not in perfect condition?

More comments on your post to follow

All the best

bog master · 05-01-2011 8:13pm

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

Like all Marines, Oswald was trained and tested in riflery, scoring 212 in December 1956(slightly above the minimum for qualification as a sharpshooter) but in May 1959 scoring only 191 (barely earning the lower designation of marksman).
He could only have achieved those scores if he was able to fire rapidly and hit targets at much greater distances than 90 yards.
Clearly he could have been able to do it with his rifle and his shooting skills.

If you believe that he couldn't have performed those shots you can believe what you like. Nobody is stopping you from ignoring the evidence.

Sharpshooter is the minimum qualification for a US Marine. Was he using a Mannicler Carcano with a mis-aligned scope and old ammo? Was he firing at a moving target from within a confined space and field of view?
Did he all the time in the world to make his shots? What did his fellow Marines comment on about his shooting?

His shooting on that day, yes, was possibly, I will admit, maybe he got lucky, but its only one part of the case.

Dragonblaster · 05-01-2011 8:20pm

bog master wrote: »

Sharpshooter is the minimum qualification for a US Marine.

Wronggg! The lowest rating for a Marine rifleman (any of whom is likely to be head and shoulders above an enthusiastic amateur) is Marksman. THEN you have Sharpshooter, and the ultimate accolade is Expert.

bog master · 05-01-2011 8:25pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

Wronggg! The lowest rating for a Marine rifleman (any of whom is likely to be head and shoulders above an enthusiastic amateur) is Marksman. THEN you have Sharpshooter, and the ultimate accolade is Expert.

I apologise for my mistake, have had a few pints. But how about the points I raised? A bit more important I would think?

Dragonblaster · 05-01-2011 8:37pm

You say he must have got lucky on his Sharpshooter qualifying day. However, luck doesn't really come into it. Lucky individual shots, yes, but not a whole series.

Why is Oswald being incredibly lucky on a whole series of shots so much more probable than having a bad day on his Marksman-scoring day (still way better than a civilian)? Hangover, lack of sleep, migraine, nerves, tummy upset... all kinds of things can lower your average, but I can't think of one thing that would make everything fortuitously going right one day.

That would require a whole series of improbable circumstances. On a good day, I can shoot about as well as I normally can. However, many are the bad days where something just isn't right; that's easy. And despite making some very lucky individual shots in Hunter Field Target on occasion, I've never been so consistently jammy to take the prizes from the consistently good.

johnnyvega86 · 05-01-2011 8:42pm

bog master wrote: »

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

Gil Jesus
10-01-2008, 03:05 PM

WAS FRAZIER SAYING THAT THE RIFLE WASN'T FIRED ?
By Gil Jesus ( 2008 )

FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Oswald rifle was "roughened" from corrosion ( rust ), then commented that "if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust."

So why did the barrel have surface rust after Oswald had fired THREE rounds ?

THE RUSTED BARREL

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

( 3 H 395 )

The visual examination of the barrel was so convincing that the rifle had NOT been fired, that Frazier never even bothered to examine it for fouling in the barrel:

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
( ibid.)

THE RUSTED BOLT

Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also rusted:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.

( 3 H 447 )

The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes BEFORE he began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
(ibid.)

They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from it's rust. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from it becomes and the faster the elaspsed times are for the shooters.

Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.

( 3 H 449 )

OIL ON THE RUSTED FIRING PIN, SPRING & BOLT

Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and it's spring for someone to have oiled it:

".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further, THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN AND ITS SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )

The rifle was so badly rusted, they had to oil it. CE 2974 also states that not only was "the firing pin and spring of this weapon well oiled", there just happened to be oil "residue" on the "interior surfaces" of the bolt as well. The FBI denied that it was the one who oiled the weapon, adding that "it is not known if it was oiled by any other person having this rifle in his possession". This document further states that the rust on the spring and the firing pin "must have formed prior to the oiling of these parts." ( ibid. )

Although one might argue that the rust appeared on the rifle AFTER the assassination, Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in and "roughened" the surface of the barrel:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

( 3 H 395 )

CONCLUSION

Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that the two were both rusted ?

The significance of rust inside a barrel is described by Frazier :
IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST

If the barrel of the rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then not even one round had been fired from it.

Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder
weapon.

The testimony not only strongly suggests that the inside of the barrel was rusted, but also that the bolt was rusted so badly that in order to get it to move, they had to first work in in through a "dry-run practice exercise" and then oil it.

The evidence indicates that both the firing pin and the spring contained rust and both had been "well oiled" at some point after the rust had formed and some oil "residue" was found on the bolt.

So who oiled the weapon ?

When the Warren Commission asked the FBI, the FBI replied that it was not responsible for the oiling and did not know if the weapon had been oiled by "any other person having this rifle in his possession".

Couldn't they find out ? I mean wasn't this the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION ?

Of course they could have. Only a few agencies possessed the weapon.

On the Commission's question of whether or not the firing pin had been changed, the Bureau responded that it had " no record of any outlet where spare parts, including firing pins, can be obtained for rifles for such as Commission Exhibit 139".

Talk about spare parts...... Didn't the FBI have in its possession the EXACT SAME RIFLE in CE 542 ?

Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling.

They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.

The ease of operation of the bolt was essential to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether that was Oswald or anyone else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.

Finally, when the Warren Commission asked the FBI in August 1964 to examine the rifle to see if the firing pin had been changed, the Bureau found that the firing pin and the spring were "well oiled" and that they and the bolt were all oiled by a person or persons unknown to it. The Bureau also found that the oil had been added to the weapon AFTER it had rusted.

Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were "well" oiled indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had been applied rather recently. The point is, that if oil was added to the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.

It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Now, are you satisfied that the firing pin was not in perfect condition?

More comments on your post to follow

All the best

Ok so the rifle was a little rusty?

Nice try but this does not change the fact that the CE399 bullet and the 2 fragments found on the front seat of the limousine were fired by Oswald's rifle excluding all other weapons.

They could ONLY have been fired by Oswald's rifle.

Kennedy was shot in the back of the head and the back of the neck.

It has been proven that when Kennedy was shot in the back of the neck, the bullet exited the base of this throat, struck Connally in the upper back, exited his right chest, passed through his wrist and lodged in his thigh and this bullet - CE399 bullet - could only have come from Oswald's gun.

You have to explain how the CE399 bullet turned up on Connally's stretcher unless it was the bullet that wounded both JFK and JBC?

How did the two fragments of bullet turn up on the seat of the limousine unless they were from a bullet that struck Kennedy in the back of the head and exited the top front right side of the skull and struck the chrome frame of the windshield?

The President's and the Governor's wounds clearly demonstrate that shots came from above and behind and to the right from the direction of the 6th floor window of the TSBD.

johnnyvega86 · 05-01-2011 8:52pm

bog master wrote: »

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

Sharpshooter is the minimum qualification for a US Marine.

Oswald had enough training to be able shoot a head and shoulders sized target at less than 90 yards moving at 11 mph in a direct line away from him from a 60 foot elevation.

Was he using a Mannicler Carcano with a mis-aligned scope and old ammo?

He could have used the irons sights have I've said in my previous post.

Was he firing at a moving target from within a confined space and field of view?

If you looked at the video I already posted you would see that from the sixth floor window there was an almost unrestricted view of the back of the President's head.
From his perspective the car would have appeared almost stationary but diminishing in size.
I told you already to look at the video?
Why didn't you?

Did he all the time in the world to make his shots? What did his fellow Marines comment on about his shooting?

He did not have all the time in the world. But he did have the time to get off three shots from the time the limousine turns from Houston onto Elm until it reached the triple underpass.
Witnesses and the Zapruder film show that Oswald could have got off three shots in less than 6 seconds.
Tests replicating the shooting have shown that this feat can be performed with ease.

For a Marine, Oswald was a poor shot, but compared to the average civilians he was an exceptional shot.

His shooting on that day, yes, was possibly, I will admit, maybe he got lucky, but its only one part of the case.

It IS the entire case.
He did NOT get lucky.
He was a trained Marine who chose his ambush position well, lay in wait and killed the President by firing three shots in 6 seconds, scoring two hits, as he passed below him in an open car.

The bullets that struck Kennedy and Connally could only have come from Oswald's rifle because they were forensically matched to the gun with the exclusion of all other weapons.

I've looked through the previous comments and numerous commentators have brought up these very same points again and again but you completely ignore them.

Why?

Then when these posters don't come back you continue posting up the same material again and again before more posters like myself arrive and post almost the same information.

You are not prepared to engage in any honest debate whatsoever.

You deliberately ignore any evidence that disproves your points and then jump to new points with out bothering to explain the rebuttal of your first points.

I have have shown that Oswald was well capable of shooting Kennedy, I have shown that it is possible to shoot 3 shots in 6 secs scoring two hits with the assassination rifle but you persist in denying it even though the evidence is inarguable.

Why?

bog master · 05-01-2011 8:54pm

Dragonblaster wrote: »

You say he must have got lucky on his Sharpshooter qualifying day. However, luck doesn't really come into it. Lucky individual shots, yes, but not a whole series.

Why is Oswald being incredibly lucky on a whole series of shots so much more probable than having a bad day on his Marksman-scoring day (still way better than a civilian)? Hangover, lack of sleep, migraine, nerves, tummy upset... all kinds of things can lower your average, but I can't think of one thing that would make everything fortuitously going right one day.

That would require a whole series of improbable circumstances. On a good day, I can shoot about as well as I normally can. However, many are the bad days where something just isn't right; that's easy. And despite making some very lucky individual shots in Hunter Field Target on occasion, I've never been so consistently jammy to take the prizes from the consistently good.

I have not personally experienced the qualifying standards for the US Marines. From memory they had about two weeks intensive training and shot about 500 rounds. I may be mistaken. His fellow Marines seem to think he was a very poor shot. However, I accept we all may have different opinions.

But as why I dont believe he was the only assassain,if he shot at all, is the contradictions in almost every aspect of this case, from his background, his military history, and the evidence gathered by the DPD, the FBI, the botched autopsy and some of the conclusions of the WC.

I believe, that in any investigation, one can accept some one got lucky, maybe a few contradictions in the case, but this is riddled with inconstienency, which makes me wonder why.

I would be most pleased to discuss any and all aspects of the case, which I have been following with great intetest since I was ten years of age. I did subscibe to some early theories which have proven to be FALSE and I admit it. Now, I just question the evidence and ask. I have no definite
theory as to who did it and why, but to me, there is to much covering up to make me believe it was the work of one lone, deranged assassin. If it was that simple, why are we at this today?

johnnyvega86 · 05-01-2011 9:03pm

bog master wrote: »

I have no definite
theory as to who did it and why, but to me, there is to much covering up to make me believe it was the work of one lone, deranged assassin. If it was that simple, why are we at this today?

If you have no definite theory but you believe there is a cover up you must give a reason why you believe there is a cover up and you must explain how it was done.

The reason the jfk conspiracy is still being debated is because people like you who have been shown the overwhelming evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy alone refuse to accept the obvious.

bog master · 05-01-2011 9:33pm

johnnyvega86 wrote: »

If you have no definite theory but you believe there is a cover up you must give a reason why you believe there is a cover up and you must explain how it was done.

The reason the jfk conspiracy is still being debated is because people like you who have been shown the overwhelming evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy alone refuse to accept the obvious.

I don't agree with you. Now, I just look at evidence and testinony or the changing evidence and testimony and try to work it out in my mind. Is it logical, does it make sense to me. I dont have the time or funds to research it, go to Dallas, try to look out of the sixth floor of the TSBD, or buy Mannicler Carcanos to test fire. I can only rely on testimony and yes some experts, whom we all agree, tend to be on opposite sides, depending on who is paying them.

But you seem to be a reasonable person, so I would ask you, why some
many contradictions and blunders in this investigation? From Oswald's backround, his trip to Russia at the height of the Cold War, his strange Marine history, the Dallas PD bungling of the evidence, the botched autopsy, and the evidence from just after the shooting within days that the public must be satisfied that Oswald acted alone. Does this not make you in any suspicious?

jfk taken out by mob??? **Contains Graphic Images**

Comments

jfk taken out by mob??? Contains Graphic Images