Cheerful Spring wrote: » Go to specsavers then it says Mauser.
The Nal wrote: » Craig, as the only person who says he saw that, years after I might add, is not reliable. He changed his story later to say that they found the Mauser on the roof. Theres news footage of them holding the Carcano up in the TSBD. Although I'm sure you'll claim this was "re-shot" with the Carcano. How many people do you actually think are in on this conspiracy? Oswald, all the Dallas cops, Marina, Ruth Paine, Ruby, President Ford, all of the Warren Commission, most eye witnesses to the assassination and the Tippet killing, the mob....... Sounds to me like you've just read Rush to Judgement and flicked through Crossfire and taken it as gospel. Ill say it again - you haven't produced one piece of credible evidence in all of your posts. P.S Your're still ignoring the photo of Kennedys back wound in favour of a drawing which isn't accurate and isn't to scale.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » but it doesnt say "german mauser" as you insisted.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Are you this annoying in real life?. What difference does it make if it had German Mauser or Mauser on the rifle. Roger Craig was just saying it was a German Mauser rifle he saw. This is accurate as Mauser is stamped near the barrel. It be only confusing to the layman if 7.65 Mauser was not a unique weapon.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Are you this annoying in real life?. What difference does it make if it had German Mauser or Mauser on the rifle. Roger Craig was just saying it was a German Mauser rifle he saw. This is accurate as Mauser is stamped near the barrel.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » It be only confusing to the layman if 7.65 Mauser was not a unique weapon.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » False, why are you continuing with this. We have the news reports a German Mauser was found.
Charmeleon wrote: » From what I remember the confusion of the back entry wound is partly due to the location of the hole in JFKs jacket, which had bunched up behind him as he sat in the car. This made the wound entry look like it had to be lower than it actually was when the jacket was laid out flat. The photo posted previously shows it was definitely at the base of his neck and not lower on the back.
The Nal wrote: » We do, but the video shows them holding up the Carcano. The initial police reports and news reports are clearly wrong. Yep. CS has ignored that photo though in favour of a drawing because he wants to believe in a conspiracy. A pig headed failure to look at undeniable facts in the face.
Tipsy McSwagger wrote: » Have you read Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History?
The Nal wrote: » I have indeed. Craig is torn apart in it over a couple of pages. Reading Bugliosi's Outrage at the moment. About the OJ case. Really enjoying it.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » We have photographs of a rifle found at the Texas School book Depository. The police officers at the scene identified as 7.65 calibre Mauser rifle. Here is a Photograph ( below) of both guns Carcano and Mauser. Mauser and Carcano resemble each other. The build quality is not as good with the Carcano. Of course it possible Roger Craig a decorated Deputy Sheriff was mistaken? I don't believe that though. Capt Fritz his commanding officer backed up his story at the Warren Commission. The Warren Commission was never about finding out the truth, the main purpose was set to blame Lee Oswald for the shooting of Kennedy no matter what the evidence showed. Capt Fritz:Crucial part you see he clearly says Mauser was written on the rifle they found at the scene. So how can two officers be wrong? Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so. Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser? Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything. Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day? Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time? Mr. BALL. Yes Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not. ]Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser? Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was. Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser? Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not. Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing? Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » are you this poor on facts in real life? If it said 7.65 Mauser then it wasn't a german mauser. It was argentinian. Craig was a layman. He had no particular expertise in identifying firearms.
Are Am Eye wrote: » Cheerful Spring who are you saying was in the DBD at the time of the shooting. Was it Oswald or someone else who fired this mauser. Or were they both there. Was Oswald part of the conspiracy group? Was there also someone on the grassy knoll? Do you maintain shot 2 came from the front?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » All i know is this. All four police officers who found the rifle swore they found a Mauser 7.65. Least two of them we now know and most importantly Capt Fritz a commanding officer said he knew the rifle was a Mauser. How? No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was. So his clearly stating a cover up! Official record only 1 rifle was found and it belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Are Am Eye wrote: » Do you have a sequence of events as they played out at the shooting? Who was where? Who shot who? Who was in on the conspiracy and what was the motivation or objective of the conspiracy?
Cheerful Spring wrote: » The CIA, FBI and Mob/Mafia and Cuban Exiles wanted Kennedy got rid of. They all had reason to cover up the killing afterwards. I think it's likely the mob in Dallas was involved. Jack Ruby killing of Oswald. Jack had no reason to kill Oswald. His bosses gave him an order to do it or Jack was involved with the killing and had to silence Oswald? The people there watching this, the majority ran towards the Grassy Knool looking for the shooter. Patrolman Joe Marshall Smith, who was one of the first officers to get to the scene found a man who flashed a secret service badge and officer Smith left him go after a short conversation. Confirmation years later the secret service had no men located at the grassy knool after the shooting. So we left with a puzzle who was this man flashing a badge just a minute or minutes after the shooting? There also a captured/photograph of a man walking away from the scene with a briefcase. This maybe contained a rifle? Watch the Zaprauder film also. A shot to the back of the head would have thrown brain matter into the air and it would have been visually easy to see. What we actually saw is an exploding of brain matter near the head above the right ear/ lobe This would be a impressive shot, observe, Kennedy was facing in left-inwards towards his Wife chest. Oswald would be seeing his left side if he was shooting from the 6th floor. The second shot came from the right side/ Grassy Knool.
Are Am Eye wrote: » That's all very vague. Lot of maybes and ifs. Also now you have Oswald back in the Depository. What happened to your mauser. If Oswald was in the Depository, what makes you so hung up that his rifle wasn't there. Where would you expect his gun to be? If a shot was fired from the knoll it would gone through Jack and blown Jackies head off. The camera footage from the far side of the Plaza shows the knoll to be empty just as the shots are fired. No sign of anyone there.
Are Am Eye wrote: » If a shot was fired from the knoll it would gone through Jack and blown Jackies head off. The camera footage from the far side of the Plaza shows the knoll to be empty just as the shots are fired. No sign of anyone there.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Jackie was leaning out in front of Jack when the second shot impacted. She would not have got hit by this bullet. There is a fence blocking the view. There is no possible way you can see a person standing behind a fence. The picture we have is blurry and unclear.
tomwaterford wrote: » Surly the technology exists to clarify this photo?
Are Am Eye wrote: » The picket fence was five feet tall. A man leaning over it with a rifle firing at the car would be very visible. The footage (digitally enhanced) is examined at the exact moment of the shots. There is no sign of anyone along the fence. Jackie was in a direct line from the knoll through Jack. A rifle round would have gone through Jacks head and through her. I'm not discounting a conspiracy here. I'm just asking you to provide a train of events of a conspiracy that matches up with the known facts, the scene and the evidence gathered. I think the conspiracy falls down on the events that we now understood took place at the scene. Not so much in the area of motivation etc of the alleged conspirators. However the known facts as we have them now preclude other shooters being present.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » Blown up the conspiracy people find people behind the fence. The Skeptics deny this. So what you got left is a blurry black and white photograph.
Are Am Eye wrote: » From the JFK Lost Bullet documentary - 25:00 - we see a scan of the grassy knoll and picket fence right at the moment of shot fired, taken from Orville Nix footage. There is no one visible. We must also take account of the testimony of Amos Euins. He was standing looking up at the Book Depository as the motorcade passed it coming around the corner. He saw the gun out the open window. He heard three shots from this gun. He heard no other shots.
Cheerful Spring wrote: » All 4 men who found the rifle at the scene said it was a Mauser 7.65. I have hard time believing 4 police officers made a mistake? I think least two changed their mind forced to i betting. Two others stuck to their guns. And least i forget Roger Craig had least 3 assassination attempts against his life, after this. Never mind the countless others killed for the connection to this event.
Whiplash85 wrote: » Wasn't there a couple of studies using mathematical reasoning calculating the probability of all these witnesses dying in mysterious circumstances? I vaguely remember reading something and thinking it was bizarre.
