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

robtri

mysterious wrote: »

Ritual is more than what you know of it. I'm sure.:rolleyes:

well you have me at a disadvantage, care to explain how this was a ritual murder then.....

mysterious

robtri wrote: »

well you have me at a disadvantage, care to explain how this was a ritual murder then.....

Well you could find out you know.

robtri

mysterious wrote: »

Well you could find out you know.

without sounding rude...... DUHHHHHHHHH
isnt that why i asked you the question????????

if nobody answers questions how is one supposed to find the answers they seek....

mysterious

robtri wrote: »

without sounding rude...... DUHHHHHHHHH
isnt that why i asked you the question????????

if nobody answers questions how is one supposed to find the answers they seek....

So you like the classroom environment so? You sit and we tell you the answer. I was right after all. You want someobody to dedicate their entire lives just answering to you. Is that not very childish?

How about learning to discern and find out yourself? It's a trait I admire in people. Show's how mature and responsible people are when facing the real world. Seek your own authority.

How many times do you need to be told this?

Yitzhak Rabin

Mysterious, why bother come on here and say "Its a ritual murder :rolleyes:" and then not explain what you mean. Because no one has a focking clue what you are on about.

Its not an interrogation, people are just asking you to expand on what you mean.

My name is URL

yekahs wrote: »

Mysterious, why bother come on here and say "Its a ritual murder :rolleyes:" and then not explain what you mean. Because no one has a focking clue what you are on about.

Its not an interrogation, people are just asking you to expand on what you mean.

Would it not be better to just focus on the bits that you have an interest in rather than responding to him and dragging threads in the direction of getting Mysterious to explain his views even though you know he won't?

Nobody is forcing anyone to agree with their beliefs.. everyone has the capability of ignoring someone who has no interest in discussing matters

fontanalis

robtri wrote: »

ritually murdered, didnt know being shot from a distance by a sniper(s) was considered a ritual murder...

It wasn't a ritual murder; it was actually a ritual suicide. It's ahard to explain but I went lookig for the answer and Iofund it.

bonkey

My name is URL wrote: »

Nobody is forcing anyone to agree with their beliefs.. everyone has the capability of ignoring someone who has no interest in discussing matters

This is not your personal blog. If you're not interested in discussing what it is that you post, then you probably shouldn't be posting it.

That's from the charter. Its there for a reason.

There is nothing wrong with asking someone to discuss the opinions they have put up on a thread. There is something wrong with refusing to do so, and to go on to berate or belittle people for asking that you do so.

Consequently, mysterious has been infracted.

robtri

fontanalis wrote: »

It wasn't a ritual murder; it was actually a ritual suicide. It's ahard to explain but I went lookig for the answer and Iofund it.

can you give me some good links then, as i havent found anything good or explains it all properaly

mysterious

bonkey wrote: »

This is not your personal blog. If you're not interested in discussing what it is that you post, then you probably shouldn't be posting it.

That's from the charter. Its there for a reason.

There is nothing wrong with asking someone to discuss the opinions they have put up on a thread. There is something wrong with refusing to do so, and to go on to berate or belittle people for asking that you do so.

Consequently, mysterious has been infracted.

You are simply a bully... Your actions prove that point. Am I arguing you. No I'm just telling you straight out.

I'd say the same if I'd meet you. I'm not belittling anyone. People belittle themselves by finding ways to attack posters for not answering their question's Bonkey. I'm entitled to my opinions and I don't have to defend myself to others. Nor should you be defending others against me. That was very sneaky of you.


I am never surprised by how you twist and swift things around. Really really shows you up as a bad moderator.

I like telling the truth too.

bonkey

Mysterious banned.

Di0genes

mysterious wrote: »

So you like the classroom environment so? You sit and we tell you the answer. I was right after all. You want someobody to dedicate their entire lives just answering to you. Is that not very childish?

How about learning to discern and find out yourself? It's a trait I admire in people. Show's how mature and responsible people are when facing the real world. Seek your own authority.

How many times do you need to be told this?

I believe JFK was killed by himself from the future. The research is out there go and prove it.

On other notes bogmaster I will get back to you on the policeman, it's just I'm off hiking in portugal for two weeks now so I'm not lugging a dongle and a laptop with me. What I will say is this Oswald's rifle was designed based on the mauser. Whats more likely that JFK's killers used one gun and then substituted another after it had been removed as evidence? Why? Surely if the entire murder had been planned why have multiple marksmen? Also, why indeed have multiple marksman? As has been proven time and time again, Any reasonably well trained marksman could have made the shots so why bring another shooter into the mix?

Tallus. You obviously read a completely different thread than I did. As has been explained Oswald was an average shot by Marine standards. However what you need to understand is the yardstick changes. For example someone who plays for Chelsea's reserve team may not be good enough for premier league football, but it's fair to say they could wipe the floor with your pub five a side squad. Degrees of competence are relative. Someone who has pilots licence isn't capable of being a WW2 ace.

The Marines considered Oswald to be a competent shot.

tallus

Di0genes wrote: »

I believe JFK was killed by himself from the future. The research is out there go and prove it.

On other notes bogmaster I will get back to you on the policeman, it's just I'm off hiking in portugal for two weeks now so I'm not lugging a dongle and a laptop with me. What I will say is this Oswald's rifle was designed based on the mauser. Whats more likely that JFK's killers used one gun and then substituted another after it had been removed as evidence? Why? Surely if the entire murder had been planned why have multiple marksmen? Also, why indeed have multiple marksman? As has been proven time and time again, Any reasonably well trained marksman could have made the shots so why bring another shooter into the mix?

Tallus. You obviously read a completely different thread than I did. As has been explained Oswald was an average shot by Marine standards. However what you need to understand is the yardstick changes. For example someone who plays for Chelsea's reserve team may not be good enough for premier league football, but it's fair to say they could wipe the floor with your pub five a side squad. Degrees of competence are relative. Someone who has pilots licence isn't capable of being a WW2 ace.

The Marines considered Oswald to be a competent shot.

Agreed he might have been a competent shot, but I still don't think he was alone, and I don't think he was good enough based on the evidence I have seen online.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter because I don't think I'll be changing my mind any time soon.
It was interesting trading views tho

jurgenscarl

but I still don't think he was alone, and I don't think he was good enough based on the evidence I have seen online.

Would this evidence satsify you? Or would no evidence satisfy you?

In accordance with standard Marine procedures, Oswald received extensive training in marksmanship. During the first week of an intensive 8-week training period he received instruction in sighting, aiming, and manipulation of the trigger. He went through a series of exercises called dry firing where he assumed all positions which would later be used in the qualification course. After familiarization with live ammunition in The .22 rifle and .22 pistol, Oswald, like all Marine recruits, received training on the rifle range at distances up to 500 yards, firing 50 rounds each day for five days.

Following that training, Oswald was tested in December of 1956, and obtained a score of 212, which was 2 points above the minimum for qualifications as a "sharpshooter" in a scale of marksmansharp-shooterexpert. In May of 1959, on another range, Oswald scored 191, which was 1 point over the minimum for ranking as a "marksman." The Marine Corps records maintained on Oswald further show that he had fired and was familiar with the Browning Automatic rifle, .45 caliber pistol, and 12-gage riot gun.
Based on the general Marine Corps ratings, Lt. Col. A. G. Folsom, Jr., head, Records Branch, Personnel Department, Headquarters US. Marine Corps, evaluated the sharpshooter qualification as a "fairly good shot" and a low marksman rating as a "rather poor shot." When asked to explain the different scores achieved by Oswald on the two occasions when he fired for record, Major Anderson said:
...when he fired that [212] he had just completed a very intensive preliminary training period. He had the services of an experienced highly trained coach. He had high motivation. He had presumably a good to excellent rifle and good ammunition. We have nothing here to show under what conditions the B course was fired. It might well have been a bad day for firing the riflewindy, rainy, dark. There is little probability that he had a good, expert coach, and he probably didn't have as high a motivation because he was no longer in recruit training and under the care of the drill instructor. There is some possibility that the rifle he was firing might not have been as good a rifle as the rifle that he was firing in his A course firing, because [he] may well have carried this rifle for quite some time, and it got banged around in normal usage.
Major Anderson concluded:
I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal tobetter than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.
When Sergeant Zahm was asked whether Oswald's Marine Corps training would have made it easier to operate a rifle with a four-power scope, he replied:
Based on that training, his basic knowledge in sight manipulation and trigger squeeze and what not, I would say that he would be capable of sighting that rifle in well, firing it, with 10 rounds.
After reviewing Oswald's marksmanship scores, Sergeant Zahm concluded: I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr4.htm#p39

tallus

jurgenscarl wrote: »

Would this evidence satsify you? Or would no evidence satisfy you?



http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/wcr4.htm#p39

This could go on ad infinitum.

Even after weeks of practice and intensive training, Oswald barely managed to qualify at the level of "Sharpshooter," the middle of three rifle qualification levels in the Marines. He obtained a score of 212, two points above the minimum for the "Sharpshooter" level. In other words, even after extensive training and practice, and even though he was firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle and had plenty of time to shoot (even during the so-called "rapid-fire" phase), Oswald narrowly missed scoring at the lowest possible qualification level.

The next time Oswald fired for record in the Marines, he barely managed to qualify at all, obtaining a score of 191, which was one point above the minimum needed for the lowest qualification level, "Marksman." To put it another way, he came within two points of failing to qualify.

---

Three Marine Colleagues

---

Nelson Delgado, Sherman Cooley, and James R. Persons served with Oswald in the Marines and saw him shoot. Here is some of what they had to say about his marksmanship ability:

* Nelson Delgado

Before the Warren Commission:

Q. Did you fire with Oswald?

DELGADO. Right; I was in the same line. By that I mean we were on line together, the same time, but not firing at the same position, but at the same time, and I remember seeing his [shooting]. It was a pretty big joke, because he got a lot of "Maggie's drawers," you know, a lot of misses, but he didn't give a darn.

Q. Missed the target completely?

DELGADO. He just qualified, that's it. He wasn't as enthusiastic as the rest of us. We all loved--liked, you know going to the range. (8 H 235)

In a filmed interview with attorney Mark Lane:

LANE. Sergeant, prior to your Warren Commission testimony, were you interviewed by agents of the FBI?

DELGADO. Yes, they came to my home in south Jersey to interview me. The first two visits, they came just to get my story--what I knew about Oswald, how close we were, and things like that. After that, the questions were tending [to try] to break my story down. . . .

LANE. When did you first meet Oswald?

DELGADO. Just prior to the Christmas of 1958, Lee Oswald reported into our unit. Oswald and I got along really good together. We were, like I say, working in the same job, involving aircraft and radar. We controlled them from the ground, and ran intercepts. We were about forty enlisted men who participated in this job.

All of us knew Lee, and he knew all of us. We got along fine. We had discussions, and, uh [stops].

LANE. Was Oswald interested in guns?

DELGADO. They [the Warren Commission] say he was a gun enthusiast, but I recall many instances where we stood inspections, and he was constantly being gigged for having a dirty weapon and for taking improper care of his weapon. He was always reminded when he had to clean the weapon. He never took it upon himself to do so.

LANE. Do you have personal knowledge of Oswald's ability with a rifle?

DELGADO. At the range he couldn't prove by me that he was a good shot.

As any person who has ever served in the armed forces could tell you, there's a part in the qualification that calls for rapid firing. This is done with ten shots, eight in the clip and two that you load by hand. They give you forty-five seconds to fire these ten rounds. Well, when you fire these, then you stand you stand away from your firing position, till everyone has finished firing. Then the targets are brought down and scored. The targets are run back up, and there are disks for the number that you have hit--fives, fours, threes, or misses.

Well, in Oswald's particular case, it was quite funny to look at, because he would get a couple of disks. Maybe out of a possible ten he'll get two or three Maggie's drawers. Now, these [the Maggie's drawers] are a red flag that's on a long pole, and this is running from left to right on the target itself. And, you don't see this on a firing line too often--not a Marine firing line. You can't help but noticing when you're seeing disks, round cylinder things, coming up and down, and farther on down the line you see a flag waving [i.e., a Maggie's drawer]. Well, that was gonna catch your eye anyway. And we thought it was funny that Oswald was getting these Maggie's drawers so rapidly, one after the other. And this is why I can't think that he could be a good shot, because a good shot doesn't pull this. He'll pull a three, but he won't pull a Maggie's drawer-- that's a complete miss.

LANE. How did the FBI react to your statement that Oswald was a poor shot?

DELGADO. They tried to disprove it. They did not like the idea when I came up with the statement that Oswald, as far as I knew, was a very poor shot.

LANE. Do you feel that the agents of the FBI actually tried to get you to change your statement that Oswald was a poor shot.

DELGADO. Yes, sir, I definitely do. (From the 1966 documentary RUSH TO JUDGMENT, produced by Mark Lane and Emile de Antonio)

* Sherman Cooley

Cooley said the following in an interview with former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt:

If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas. (REASONABLE DOUBT, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99)

* James R. Persons

Hurt reported on what Persons said about Oswald's coordination and shooting ability:

He [Persons] also remembers that Oswald possessed a lack of coordination that contributed to his being very poor in rifle marksmanship. (REASONABLE DOUBT, photo page 14, caption)

---

Other Interviews and Statements

---

In addition to Sherman Cooley, Henry Hurt interviewed over fifty other former Marine colleagues of Oswald's. Hurt reported the results of those interviews:

On the subject of Oswald's shooting ability, there was virtually no exception to Delgado's opinion that it was laughable. . . .

Many of the Marines mentioned that Oswald had a certain lack of coordination that, they felt, was responsible for the fact that he had difficulty learning to shoot. They believed it was the same deficiency in coordination responsible for his reported inability to drive a car. (REASONABLE DOUBT, pp. 99-100)
Ignoring all the evidence, lone-gunman theorists often are heard to claim that the Warren Commission's shooting scenario would have been an "easy" feat of marksmanship, that it would not have been very difficult. Yet, the facts prove otherwise. No one has ever duplicated Oswald's alleged shooting performance; not even world-class or Master-rated marksmen have done so. For that matter, no rifle test has ever actually simulated all of the factors under which Oswald would have fired. FBI rifleman and ballistics expert Robert Frazier admitted in 1969 during the Clay Shaw trial that no FBI reenactment had duplicated Oswald's alleged performance. Monty Lutz, an expert rifleman and ballistics expert who served on the firearms panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, conceded during a 1986 mock Oswald trial that to his knowledge no marksman had duplicated Oswald's supposed shooting feat. Lutz made this admission when he was cross-examined by leading trial attorney Gerry Spence:

Spence: Would it be true that in the history of the whole world, to your knowledge, nobody has ever duplicated what Lee Harvey Oswald is supposed to have done with that supposed rifle from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository? That's true, isn't it?

Lutz: I don't know of any test that has been done from the School Book Depository in an attempt to duplicate it.

Spence: You don't know of anybody that's even duplicated that anywhere, do you? School Book Depository or elsewhere. You didn't, did you?

Prosecutor: Wait a minute, he didn't answer your first question.

Judge: We've got two questions.

Spence: Let's do this right. You don't of anybody that has ever duplicated what Lee was supposed to have done, do you?

Lutz: I do not.

Spence: Not even master marksmen. Isn't that true?

Lutz: I do not.

Lutz, an expert shot himself, also testified that he conducted his own rifle test but that he FAILED to duplicate Oswald's supposed shooting feat.

Some lone-gunman theorists will assert that Oswald's alleged shooting performance was duplicated by several expert marksmen in the CBS rifle test. However, the CBS test did not simulate all of the factors under which Oswald allegedly fired. Furthermore, the four riflemen who managed to score at least two hits out of three shots in less than six seconds failed to do so on their first attempts, yet Oswald would have had ONLY one attempt. And, needless to say, all of these men were experienced, expert riflemen. Seven of the eleven CBS shooters failed to score at least two hits on ANY of their attempts. The best shot in the group, Howard Donahue, took THREE attempts to score at least two hits out of three shots in under six seconds. In addition, the CBS shooters did not use the alleged murder weapon, with its difficult bolt and odd trigger--they used a different Carcano.

The impossibility of Oswald's alleged shooting feat was what led former Marine sniper Craig Roberts to reject the lone-gunman theory. Roberts explains as he recounts the first time he visited the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository:

I turned my attention to the window in the southeast corner--the infamous Sniper's Nest. . . . I immediately felt like I had been hit with a sledge hammer. The word that came to mind at what I saw as I looked down through the window to Elm Street and the kill zone was: IMPOSSIBLE!

I knew instantly that Oswald could not have done it. . . . The reason I knew that Oswald could not have done it, was that *I* could not have done it. (KILL ZONE: A SNIPER LOOKS AT DEALEY PLAZA, p. 5)

Source

Would this evidence satsify you? Or would no evidence satisfy you?

No, but the evidence i posted satisfies me.
People who actually knew him, and saw how piss poor a shot he was.
You can go on ignoring that evidence, but I can't. I know you're not going to change your mind no matter how much evidence I can link to here and frankly it's a bit rich for you to ask me:

Or would no evidence satisfy you?

considering that you don't appear to have taken a single point made by anybody else on this thred on board.
Pot calling the kettle black.

jurgenscarl

tallus wrote: »

This could go on ad infinitum.


Source

No, but the evidence i posted satisfies me.
People who actually knew him, and saw how piss poor a shot he was.
You can go on ignoring that evidence, but I can't. I know you're not going to change your mind no matter how much evidence I can link to here and frankly it's a bit rich for you to ask me: considering that you don't appear to have taken a single point made by anybody else on this thred on board.
Pot calling the kettle black.

The physical evidence demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Kennedy was hit in the back of the neck and the back of the head by two 6.5mm bullets fired from LHO's Mannlicher Carcano rifle from the direction of the 6th floor south east corner window of the TSBD. Governor Connally was wounded in the back, chest, right forearm and left thigh by the same bullet that passed through JFK's neck.

That is utterly beyond dispute.

It is also beyond all reasonable doubt that LHO recieved sufficient training in the USMC to be able to kill JFK by firing three shots in less than 6 secs from an elevation of 60 feet and a distance of less than 100 yards at a head and shoulders sized target moving in an almost direct line away from his viewpoint at a speed of 11 mph or less down a 3 degree slope.

That is utterly beyond dispute.

Joshua Jones

jurgenscarl wrote: »

The physical evidence demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Kennedy was hit in the back of the neck and the back of the head by two 6.5mm bullets fired from LHO's Mannlicher Carcano rifle from the direction of the 6th floor south east corner window of the TSBD. Governor Connally was wounded in the back, chest, right forearm and left thigh by the same bullet that passed through JFK's neck.

That is utterly beyond dispute.

It is also beyond all reasonable doubt that LHO recieved sufficient training in the USMC to be able to kill JFK by firing three shots in less than 6 secs from an elevation of 60 feet and a distance of less than 100 yards at a head and shoulders sized target moving in an almost direct line away from his viewpoint at a speed of 11 mph or less down a 3 degree slope.

That is utterly beyond dispute.

It was a Mauser 7.65.

tallus

jurgenscarl wrote: »

That is utterly beyond dispute.

According to you it is. I think otherwise.

jurgenscarl

Joshua Jones wrote: »

It was a Mauser 7.65.

Really?



Lt. J.C. Day in a still from the Alyea film examines the rifle after it was discovered behind some book cartons on the 6th floor of the TSBD.



A still from TV footage showing the rifle carried out of the TSBD.



A detective holds the rifle aloft in the hallway of the DPD headquarters.



The Mannlicher-Carcano compared to a Mauser.



Oswald posing with the rifle.



The Klein Sporting Goods magazine page with the advert for the Mannlicher Carcano - 3rd from top on the right hand side of page - which Oswald purchased by mail order filled out using his habitual alias Hidell in his own handwriting.

I think we can safely agree the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Joshua Jones

jurgenscarl wrote: »

I think we can safely agree the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

Is that the royal we, as in you. Your jedi mind tricks dont work on me.

bog master

jurgenscarl wrote: »

The physical evidence demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that Kennedy was hit in the back of the neck and the back of the head by two 6.5mm bullets fired from LHO's Mannlicher Carcano rifle from the direction of the 6th floor south east corner window of the TSBD. Governor Connally was wounded in the back, chest, right forearm and left thigh by the same bullet that passed through JFK's neck.

That is utterly beyond dispute.

Now, may I assume what you mean as physical evidence includes the following:

Rifle
Bullet casings
Bullet Fragments
Book Cartons arranged at “snipers nest(
Fingerprints
Autopsy

And please bear with me, I will deal with each issue separately because of time constraints, and allow you to rebut.

Rifle: There is no doubt a Mannichler Carcano Serial no. 2766 was ordered by AJ Hidell an alias Oswald used. AGREED

So, Oswald orders a rifle from Kleins, expert handwriting confirms this. But on to the
anomalies.

Why order a rifle with an alias, leave a paper trail, when you could buy
a rifle with cash and no ID?

Why order a rifle to be used in a crime, using an alias and having it
shipped to a postal address with your own name on it?

Harry D. Holmes, Chief US Postal Inspector is quoted as saying,
…..“ no evidence that Oswald was the one that picked up the package
which contained the rifle." The form which authorises other people to
collect your mail was destroyed, even though postal regulations demand
it be kept for several years. Which by the way he stated the opposite
in his WC testimony.

The money order in evidence was purchased on the 12/03/63 and the letter
posted on the same date between 8 am and 10:30 am. But Oswald was at work
at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall at the time, and no one noticed him missing for
any length of time and time sheets show him working on particular jobs.

There is major discrepancies in the length of the rifle listed in the February issue
and the one entered into evidence. Take a look at Robert Fraziers testimony to the
WC and photographs from CE 139. Also the FBI reported the rifle was

The rifle when examined had an extremely worn firing pin, making experts
Concerned about firing the rifle. The scope was misaligned and needed two metal shims to correct it, no shims were ever found or entered into evidence.

A clip is now part of the evidence, but shows up nowhere as being found
or in any Dallas PD documents.

And lastly for now, we have disputed testimony about the identification of the rifle,
whether it was a Mauser or not.

There are a few other points, but ones I am not familiar enough with.

I believe, if you take any one of the above points on its own, it would not
sway some ones opinion. But take all of the above together, it certainly raises
many many questions.

jurgenscarl

bog master wrote: »

Now, may I assume what you mean as physical evidence includes the following:

Rifle
Bullet casings
Bullet Fragments
Book Cartons arranged at “snipers nest(
Fingerprints
Autopsy

And please bear with me, I will deal with each issue separately because of time constraints, and allow you to rebut.

Rifle: There is no doubt a Mannichler Carcano Serial no. 2766 was ordered by AJ Hidell an alias Oswald used. AGREED

So, Oswald orders a rifle from Kleins, expert handwriting confirms this. But on to the
anomalies.

Why order a rifle with an alias, leave a paper trail, when you could buy
a rifle with cash and no ID?

Why order a rifle to be used in a crime, using an alias and having it
shipped to a postal address with your own name on it?

Harry D. Holmes, Chief US Postal Inspector is quoted as saying,
…..“ no evidence that Oswald was the one that picked up the package
which contained the rifle." The form which authorises other people to
collect your mail was destroyed, even though postal regulations demand
it be kept for several years. Which by the way he stated the opposite
in his WC testimony.

The money order in evidence was purchased on the 12/03/63 and the letter
posted on the same date between 8 am and 10:30 am. But Oswald was at work
at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall at the time, and no one noticed him missing for
any length of time and time sheets show him working on particular jobs.

There is major discrepancies in the length of the rifle listed in the February issue
and the one entered into evidence. Take a look at Robert Fraziers testimony to the
WC and photographs from CE 139. Also the FBI reported the rifle was

The rifle when examined had an extremely worn firing pin, making experts
Concerned about firing the rifle. The scope was misaligned and needed two metal shims to correct it, no shims were ever found or entered into evidence.

A clip is now part of the evidence, but shows up nowhere as being found
or in any Dallas PD documents.

And lastly for now, we have disputed testimony about the identification of the rifle,
whether it was a Mauser or not.

There are a few other points, but ones I am not familiar enough with.

I believe, if you take any one of the above points on its own, it would not
sway some ones opinion. But take all of the above together, it certainly raises
many many questions.

Oswald left a paper trail because he was a complete idiot.
Idiotic criminals incriminate themselves all the time.
It saves policemen lots of work.

In regard to the post form - there is nothing mysterious about postal forms going missing. Forms go missing all the time. Why would the delivery of a package to Oswald be different than any other package? Months after it was signed do you think a postal worker would care less about one more form among a blizzard of paper and a bureacratic regulation?

Did Oswald have time to collect the rifle - Maybe Oswald slipped out and then came back to work? The guy had a history of playing truant and heading off. He played truant in school, he was a lousy Marine, he defected to Russia and then ran home when his plan to become a great socialist leader failed dismally. He was drummed out of job after job after job. It is totally within his character to sneak out without telling anybody.

There is no dispute about the length of the rifle - it was a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 and it didn't shrink or grow longer after it was purchased by Oswald or while it was examined by law enforcement officers.

The rifle had iron sights which Oswald could have used instead of the scope.

The consensus is that first shot missed. It's quite possible Oswald used the misaligned scope and then switched to iron sights and achieved greater accuracy with the following two shots.

Where was the rifle clip?



I found this picture after a simple search on google. Do you mean to tell me you never bothered to do the same?

You can make all the points you want if you don't want to believe the facts.

But only a nut would do that when the facts are plain as day.

It seems to ee you are flailing about and latching onto any half baked theory.

bog master

jurgenscarl wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

Oswald left a paper trail because he was a complete idiot.
Idiotic criminals incriminate themselves all the time.
It saves policemen lots of work.

I honestly expected a serious reply to my point. Maybe you are a complete idiot!

In regard to the post form - there is nothing mysterious about postal forms going missing. Forms go missing all the time. Why would the delivery of a package to Oswald be different than any other package? Months after it was signed do you think a postal worker would care less about one more form among a blizzard of paper and a bureacratic regulation?

Why have regulations? And you appear to be missing the point. AJ Hidel ordered the rifle, but used Oswalds PO Box No. And please may I have your source that US Postal forms go missing all the time? Was this package different, YES, addressed to a name not nominated on the form
, if it could be found, to collect mail. Do you at home receive packages, especially a rifle, that are not addressed to you? And why were the forms kept and are in evidence of the other PO Boxes Oswald procurred?

Did Oswald have time to collect the rifle - Maybe Oswald slipped out and then came back to work? The guy had a history of playing truant and heading off. He played truant in school, he was a lousy Marine, he defected to Russia and then ran home when his plan to become a great socialist leader failed dismally. He was drummed out of job after job after job. It is totally within his character to sneak out without telling anybody.

Oswald worked on various print jobs, all of which had time sheets which were used to invoice the customers. He also had to clock in and out, and none of his co workers could remember him leaving work for any length of time. Records show he clocked in and was working from 8am to 1215 pm. Furthermore, he had to have left work between 8 am and 1030 am to purchase the money order and post the letter with the order. The walking time from his place of work and the Post Office was approx 15 minutes, making a half hour abscence quite conspicious.

There is no dispute about the length of the rifle - it was a Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 and it didn't shrink or grow longer after it was purchased by Oswald or while it was examined by law enforcement officers.

I shall address this shortly.

The rifle had iron sights which Oswald could have used instead of the scope.

No argument there!

The consensus is that first shot missed. It's quite possible Oswald used the misaligned scope and then switched to iron sights and achieved greater accuracy with the following two shots.

Where was the rifle clip?

I found this picture after a simple search on google. Do you mean to tell me you never bothered to do the same?

You can make all the points you want if you don't want to believe the facts.

But only a nut would do that when the facts are plain as day.

It seems to ee you are flailing about and latching onto any half baked theory.

Look at my post, I asked where was the clip recorded in Dallas PD evidence records? My sources tell me when the last round is chambered in a Mannicler Carcano rifle which supposedly Oswald had on that fateful day, the clip falls out of the rifle. WC evidence suggest there was one last round chambered, therefore the clip should have not been attached, as it were to the rifle. If that is the case, then someone collected/found the clip, put it back in the rifle, and then evidence has been tampered with!

Lastly, please quote which half baked theory I have latched onto?
I question the evidence, and if 100% proof is shown that Oswald did it and did it alone, I will state on here, I accept it. You need to open your eyes and question some of the so called evidence in this case.

bog master

Apologies to all for the formatting, pc went into meltdown!

bog master

jurgenscarl wrote: »

Really?



The Klein Sporting Goods magazine page with the advert for the Mannlicher Carcano - 3rd from top on the right hand side of page - which Oswald purchased by mail order filled out using his habitual alias Hidell in his own handwriting.

May I assume this is the ad in the February 63 issue of American Rifleman from which AJ Hidel ordered the rifle? If so, I would like to point out that
the rifle listed as C20-T750 is listed as a 36" in length and
weighs 5 1/2 lbs.


From the Warren Commission:

"The rifle...was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight. Inscribed on the rifle were various markings, including the words "CAL. 6.5," "MADE ITALY," "TERNI," [the city of the
manufacturer: the Royal Arms factory] and "ROCCA" [the manufacturer of the bolt cocking piece]; the numerals "1940" and "40" [the year of manufacture]; [and] the serial number C2766.... The Rifle bore a very inexpensive Japanese four-power sight, stamped, "4 X 18 COATED," "ORDINANCE OPTICS INC.," "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA...."

However, having an open mind in all matters related to this, IF the rifle
was only 36" in length, it more closely corroborates the testimony of Buell
Frazier who saw Oswald carrying the package cupped under his arm, and the testimony of Linnie Mae Randle who described the package as 24 inches or so in length.

jurgenscarl

bog master wrote: »

May I assume this is the ad in the February 63 issue of American Rifleman from which AJ Hidel ordered the rifle? If so, I would like to point out that
the rifle listed as C20-T750 is listed as a 36" in length and
weighs 5 1/2 lbs.


From the Warren Commission:

"The rifle...was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight. Inscribed on the rifle were various markings, including the words "CAL. 6.5," "MADE ITALY," "TERNI," [the city of the
manufacturer: the Royal Arms factory] and "ROCCA" [the manufacturer of the bolt cocking piece]; the numerals "1940" and "40" [the year of manufacture]; [and] the serial number C2766.... The Rifle bore a very inexpensive Japanese four-power sight, stamped, "4 X 18 COATED," "ORDINANCE OPTICS INC.," "HOLLYWOOD CALIFORNIA...."

However, having an open mind in all matters related to this, IF the rifle
was only 36" in length, it more closely corroborates the testimony of Buell
Frazier who saw Oswald carrying the package cupped under his arm, and the testimony of Linnie Mae Randle who described the package as 24 inches or so in length.

The only measurements that matter are the measurements of the weapon in the crime lab which correspond with the measurements of the rifle in analysis of the backyard photo and in the Alyea footage which shows the police retrieving the weapon from the crime scene.

The ad in the magazine does not have to accurately describe the weapon for it be used as evidence. The facts are that the rifle WAS advertised by the magazine and that someone called AJ Hidell who had the same writing as Oswald filled out the mail order.

Oswald dissembled the rifle into its components - the wooden stock, upper reciever and barrel etc which he put in the paper package so he could carry it under his arm without suspicion and lie to his ride to work that he was carrying curtain rods.

He was hardly going to carry a fully assembled rifle wrapped in paper to work?

It is believed that Oswald put the weapon back together and tightened the stock to the barrell using a coin to turn the screw. A coin was found on the floor of the sixth floor close to gun nest and it was found to be more than adequate to loosed or tighten the screw.

Clearly Oswald DID purchase the Mannlicher-Carcano, he did own it, he did bring it work that morning and as I have already pointed out in previous posts, he DID fire it.

If you can't use basic logic, basic reasoning, if you selectively quote evidence that supports your whacko conspiracy theory and deliberately overlook glaring evidence of Oswald's guilt, then this discussion is over.

You are either a. a nut b. dishonest.

Either way I am through arguing with you any more.

King Mob

bog master wrote: »

From the Warren Commission:

"The rifle...was a bolt-action, clip-fed, military rifle, 40.2 inches long and 8 pounds in weight. Inscribed on the rifle were various markings, including the words "CAL. 6.5," "MADE ITALY," "TERNI," [the city of the
manufacturer: the Royal Arms factory] and "ROCCA" [the manufacturer of the bolt cocking piece];

Why would a German made Masuer with 7.65 callibur rounds have MADE IN ITALY and CAL. 6.5 on it?

bog master

jurgenscarl wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

The only measurements that matter are the measurements of the weapon in the crime lab which correspond with the measurements of the rifle in analysis of the backyard photo and in the Alyea footage which shows the police retrieving the weapon from the crime scene.

The ad in the magazine does not have to accurately describe the weapon for it be used as evidence. The facts are that the rifle WAS advertised by the magazine and that someone called AJ Hidell who had the same writing as Oswald filled out the mail order.

Please answer which ad did you post up as evidence in your last post?
February 63 American Rifleman of which the order coupon corresponds or Nov. 63 Field and Stream, which is the one entered in evidence to the WC. Now why would the Nov issue be enterted into evidence, would it be
the rifle in that issue is described as 40" in length and not the 36" in the Feb issue of American Rifleman?






Oswald dissembled the rifle into its components - the wooden stock, upper reciever and barrel etc which he put in the paper package so he could carry it under his arm without suspicion and lie to his ride to work that he was carrying curtain rods.

He was hardly going to carry a fully assembled rifle wrapped in paper to work?

It is believed that Oswald put the weapon back together and tightened the stock to the barrell using a coin to turn the screw. A coin was found on the floor of the sixth floor close to gun nest and it was found to be more than adequate to loosed or tighten the screw.

Clearly Oswald DID purchase the Mannlicher-Carcano, he did own it, he did bring it work that morning and as I have already pointed out in previous posts, he DID fire it.

If you can't use basic logic, basic reasoning, if you selectively quote evidence that supports your whacko conspiracy theory and deliberately overlook glaring evidence of Oswald's guilt, then this discussion is over.

You are either a. a nut b. dishonest.

Either way I am through arguing with you any more.

bog master

jurgenscarl wrote: »

bog master wrote: »

The only measurements that matter are the measurements of the weapon in the crime lab which correspond with the measurements of the rifle in analysis of the backyard photo and in the Alyea footage which shows the police retrieving the weapon from the crime scene.

The ad in the magazine does not have to accurately describe the weapon for it be used as evidence. The facts are that the rifle WAS advertised by the magazine and that someone called AJ Hidell who had the same writing as Oswald filled out the mail order.

Please answer which ad did you post up as evidence in your last post?
February 63 American Rifleman of which the order coupon corresponds or Nov. 63 Field and Stream, which is the one entered in evidence to the WC. Now why would the Nov issue be enterted into evidence, would it be
the rifle in that issue is described as 40" in length and not the 36" in the Feb issue of American Rifleman?

Oswald dissembled the rifle into its components - the wooden stock, upper reciever and barrel etc which he put in the paper package so he could carry it under his arm without suspicion and lie to his ride to work that he was carrying curtain rods.

He was hardly going to carry a fully assembled rifle wrapped in paper to work?

It is believed that Oswald put the weapon back together and tightened the stock to the barrell using a coin to turn the screw. A coin was found on the floor of the sixth floor close to gun nest and it was found to be more than adequate to loosed or tighten the screw.

FBI tests show the rifle could be assembled in about 7 minutes using a dime, agreed. See, I agree with you sometimes. Personally, I agree he probably had a rifle in the curtain rods package. However Buell Frazier
testified he carried the package with one hand cupping one end and the other end under his armpit. The 40" rifle could not fit that scenario, the 36" rifle most likely could be carried that way.

Clearly Oswald DID purchase the Mannlicher-Carcano, he did own it, he did bring it work that morning and as I have already pointed out in previous posts, he DID fire it.

Personally I believe he did order the rifle, did own it, and did bring it to
the TSBD. What is the proof that he fired the rifle that day?

If you can't use basic logic, basic reasoning, if you selectively quote evidence that supports your whacko conspiracy theory and deliberately overlook glaring evidence of Oswald's guilt, then this discussion is over.

You are either a. a nut b. dishonest.

Either way I am through arguing with you any more.

I believe I do use logic and reasoning, look at conflicting evidence and try to make a balanced judgement.

Not sure I can decipher "You are either a. a nut b. dishonest."

But, if you are losing your argument, and cant take the heat, maybe its best you got out of the kitchen!

jurgenscarl

bog master wrote: »

jurgenscarl wrote: »

I believe I do use logic and reasoning, look at conflicting evidence and try to make a balanced judgement.

Not sure I can decipher "You are either a. a nut b. dishonest."

But, if you are losing your argument, and cant take the heat, maybe its best you got out of the kitchen!

There is no conflicting evidence.
You people keep putting forward 'gaps' in the evidence that hint at a conspiracy e.g. the rifle was not a Mauser 7.65mm.

When I demonstrated you people that the rifle was a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle after a lot of ridiculous argument, you finally accepted it was a rifle.

But instead you switch the goalposts by picking up on some new point which has been argued to death already.

This is just going around in circles.

I have no interest in arguing with you any more.