(b) The weapon wasn't exactly well-hidden. Oswald (or whomever) could have put it in an outgoing box destined for shipment to himself and it would never have been found in the Depository, correct? Instead it was found on the northwest side of the building immediately next to the stairwell that leads to an escape. Oswald (or whomever used it, but most likely Oswald) would have carried the weapon to the stairwell to facilitate his escape (he didn't know how quickly the cops would respond, and indeed, one of them [Officer Baker] was inside the building within about 40-60 seconds of the assassination). Once he reached the stairwell, the rifle (which could have been used to shoot one officer) was abandoned amongst some boxes. Having served its purpose, there was no need to take care of it any longer. The shooter would have simply dropped it amongst some boxes with one and shoved another box over it with the other. He would not have taken care to place it gingerly anywhere -- the goal at that point (whether the shooter is Oswald or someone else intent on framing Oswald) is to get out of the building as quickly as possible. Every second of delay adds to his chance of discovery. So I don't need to show proof the rifle was dropped. You would need to show evidence it wasn't, contrary to all the reasonable reconstructions of the event.
You said it was dropped; how did it drop?
See, the earth has this thing called mass, and mass has an attractive force called gravity. Objects with mass will be pulled toward the earth's center of mass, meaning they will drop if not suspended by a force greater than the force of gravity. Let me know if you need more details.
Read carefully what I wrote... snip... "Heck, we are talking about a rifle that was never even tested for recent firings when in the hands of the Dallas Police or FBI." The key component of the previous sentence was recent firings. Show me where the Dallas Police and/or the FBI checked the weapon for recent firings.
Show me this test which one can utilize to check a firearm for
recent firings. Name it, for starters.
Tell us why it's not your responsibility to account for the damage to the rifle. Are you suggesting it was planted with a defective scope? If not, what exactly are you suggesting? Or don't you know? I think you're suggesting a shooter (specifically Oswald) could not have performed the assassination with the scope in that condition. You'd be wrong for a variety of reasons, not least because the scope isn't even necessary to the performance of the assassination. The iron sights are perfectly adequate. I made four of six shots using the iron sights on a 1917 (WWI) Mannlicher-Carcano on July 5th, 2015 at 100 yards, after a few minutes of walk-through with a ex-military gun buff. I had never fired a weapon before in my life.
The other reason we know that weapon was used (and that if the scope was used in the assassination it wasn't damaged) was the ballistics evidence indicates that weapon was used. The ballistic evidence includes six items that link the weapon to the shooting (three shells recovered at the window; two fragments recovered from the limo; one bullet recovered at Parkland). All six items were linked ballistically to the rifle found in the Depository to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
You are only offering evidence that the bullets recovered came from the rifle.
Same difference. The evidence those six pieces of evidence came from that rifle is the evidence the rifle was recently fired.
First off, It's not bullets, plural. It's one nearly whole bullet, two large bullet fragments, and three spent shells.
One bullet was found in Parkland and two large bullet fragments were found *in the limo* the evening of the assassination. Clearly, those two bullet fragments and that one bullet got there only one way, via the assassination. It's the only time the limo was in the vicinity of the rifle, which was recovered from the Depository building the shooter was seen in by numerous witnesses. The limo went by the Depository at 12:30 on 11/22/63. Three shots were heard by a majority of the witnesses, and two victims in the limo were struck by gunfire. The bullet then fell out of John Connally's pants leg in the hospital and was recovered from his stretcher, the two fragments were remnants of the shot that hit JFK in the head. All three pieces of evidence were ballistically traceable to the weapon recovered in the Depository. To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
In addition, three shells were recovered at the sniper's nest window in the Depository (the southeast corner window on the sixth floor). All three of those shells were traceable to the same weapon as the bullet and the two fragments.
To the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.
So don't be too quick to disregard that evidence that those six pieces of evidence were fired from the rifle. It's ALSO the evidence that establishes the rifle was used that day -- i.e., recently fired.
And you ignored this point: Are you suggesting it was planted with a defective scope? If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
... and who determines what is "reasonable"?
Is this a philosophy class? Clearly, we'll each reach our own judgments on that. Above is my *reasonable* answer to your issue about the evidence for the recent firing of the weapon in question. What's yours? Start with the name of this supposed test you've referenced more than once.
You said that you bought the entire collection of the WC and you now claim that the test has been mentioned in conspiracy books (for the record, this minor visual test for recent firings was told to me by a member of the Phoenix Police Department and not conspiracy books).
You're bringing up stuff that's mentioned in numerous conspiracy books. It's been covered in the predecessor threads here in this forum, probably more than once.
It's a minor visual test? What's it called? Who can perform it? What qualifications are needed to perform this test? Can you cite any criminology books that mention this test? Or any court cases? Or are you just believing what you read in conspiracy books?
The WC mentions it but you appear to not know very much about the operations of firearms and/or rifles so it is entirely plausible that you read the passage and moved on to something else that you did comprehend.
I'll let others decide whether you've crossed the line into ad hominem there. Address the message, not the messenger.
Let me give you a hint so you can revisit your collection. Review FBI Agent Frazier's testimony when questioned by McCloy.
I did NOT ask for hints. Here's a reminder of what I did ask:
I've seen that claim in conspiracy books for DECADES. Curiously, not one conspiracy book I've read ever names this test or tells us how it's performed.
Enlighten us about this test for recent firings of a firearm... how exactly does that test work? What's that test called?
Or read the thread (and its predecessor threads) and learn what points not to bring up.
You've done none of that. You're reduced to "giving me hints".
Hilarious.
The bigger question is: Why would the Dallas Police test LHO to see if he recently fired a weapon and NOT check the weapon to see if the weapon was recently fired? Then the FBI does not check to see if the weapon was recently fired... the convenience of not knowing is amazing.
That would be pertinent if you could establish the actual existence of such a test. You can start by naming it, showing who is qualified to administer it, how this test works, cite a criminology text that references this test, and cite a court case where it was used.
Or you can continue to give me 'hints'.
Ball in your court.
Hank
