JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[HSienzant]

He would need to establish that the person who said it was a Mauser had first read every marking on the rifle before drawing the conclusion that it was a Mauser. At first glance, it does look like a Mauser. Pictures of a Mauser and a MC were posted earlier in the thread to show the similarities. See post #52. That discussion was apparently not understood by Robert.

The men who claimed it was a Mauser initially said later under testimony they didn't handle it and didn't examine it closely. They said "it looked like a Mauser."

The only person who later claimed he allegedly saw the "7.65 Mauser" marking on the rifle itself was one Roger Craig, who has serious credibility problems.

And as I pointed out previously, on more than one occasion, the rifle was photographed in place as found, filmed as it was picked up from its hiding place and examined, photographed by newsmen as it was taken from the building, and photographed numerous times in the Dallas Police station as well as in official crime lab photos.

All those photos show Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

Robert ignores all that, because without the old hoary myths, he wouldn't have any talking points at all.

Hank

 

[Robert Prey]

T

The only person who later claimed he allegedly saw the "7.65 Mauser" marking on the rifle itself was one Roger Craig, who has serious credibility problems.

And as I pointed out previously, on more than one occasion, the rifle was photographed in place as found, filmed as it was picked up from its hiding place and examined, photographed by newsmen as it was taken from the building, and photographed numerous times in the Dallas Police station as well as in official crime lab photos.

All those photos show Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

Robert ignores all that, because without the old hoary myths, he wouldn't have any talking points at all.

Hank

You don't know that the rifle was filmed as they found it and not a reenactment. You don't know that a mauser was not found on another floor as ATF Agent Ellsworth claimed. And you certainly do not know that any carcarno that may have been found (or planted) belonged to Oswald to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world, much less even owned by Oswald. Talk abut hoary myths!!! Talk about Hyperbole!!!

And you certainly don't know that Roger Craig was lying.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/11th_Issue/guns_dp.html
From "The Guns of Dealey Plaza" by John S. Craig


Moreover, even Chief Curry admitted that there could have been a rifle substitution.

"The possibility of a rifle substitution was even admitted by Dallas police chief Jesse Curry. In 1976 in an interview with the Detroit News Curry agreed, ' It's more than possible' the rifle found in the depository could have been exchanged for the gun now in the national archieves. Curry said anyone wanting to substitute one suspected murder weapon for another 'could have gotten away with it at the time." Because no special precautions were taken to isolate the weapon as historic evidence."

From Crossfire by Jim Mars.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The men who claimed it was a Mauser initially said later under testimony they didn't handle it and didn't examine it closely. They said "it looked like a Mauser."

The only person who later claimed he allegedly saw the "7.65 Mauser" marking on the rifle itself was one Roger Craig, who has serious credibility problems.

And as I pointed out previously, on more than one occasion, the rifle was photographed in place as found, filmed as it was picked up from its hiding place and examined, photographed by newsmen as it was taken from the building, and photographed numerous times in the Dallas Police station as well as in official crime lab photos.

All those photos show Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world.

Robert ignores all that, because without the old hoary myths, he wouldn't have any talking points at all.

Hank

Yes, that seems to nail the lid shut on that bit of CT idiocy.

 

[jimfish]

And you certainly don't know that Roger Craig was lying.

A March 1968 interview Roger Craig gave to the Los Angeles Free Press has him answer that he handled the sixth floor rifle when it was discovered, but couldn't identify it, except that it was "foreign made." No mention that it was a Mauser. No mention of reading a "7.65 Mauser" marking. However, he does mention that a seperate rifle, a Mauser, was allegedly found on the roof. It's odd that he specifically names this roof rifle in the interview, but doesn't identify the sixth floor rifle as a Mauser also, despite handling it himself.

By 1976, his story had expanded, or at the least, he had seemingly merged the two stories together. Interviewed for Two Men in Dallas, the Mauser was no longer on the roof, but found on the sixth floor, where he saw the 7.65 Mauser marking.

As far as I can tell, Craig didn't start talking about this "7.65 Mauser" stamp until long, long after the assassination in the 70s. He is simply not a reliable witness.

 

[Robrob]

And you certainly do not know that any carcarno that may have been found (or planted) belonged to Oswald to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world, much less even owned by Oswald.

And we certainly do not know that space aliens may have used teleportation beams to whisk away the real shooter and replace him with LHO.

 

[Robert Prey]

A March 1968 interview Roger Craig gave to the Los Angeles Free Press has him answer that he handled the sixth floor rifle when it was discovered, but couldn't identify it, except that it was "foreign made." No mention that it was a Mauser. No mention of reading a "7.65 Mauser" marking. However, he does mention that a seperate rifle, a Mauser, was allegedly found on the roof. It's odd that he specifically names this roof rifle in the interview, but doesn't identify the sixth floor rifle as a Mauser also, despite handling it himself.

By 1976, his story had expanded, or at the least, he had seemingly merged the two stories together. Interviewed for Two Men in Dallas, the Mauser was no longer on the roof, but found on the sixth floor, where he saw the 7.65 Mauser marking.

As far as I can tell, Craig didn't start talking about this "7.65 Mauser" stamp until long, long after the assassination in the 70s. He is simply not a reliable witness.

Craig's assertion as/per the Mark Lane video points to the very CIA affidavit disclaiming a carcano just 3 days after the event. Thus, Craig's assertion, the dubiius LAFP interview notwithstanding, is backed up by both the CIA and Seymour Wetizman's sworn statement which is remarkable for its specificity of the caliber as 7.65 -- not a detail that would emanate from a "guesstimate".
And as a Police officer Weitzman surely knew that when you swear that something is true, it had better BE true. Finally, the demeanor of Roger Craig as he makes the assertion also suggests honesty for why would Craig have any motive at all to lie about it? The others changed their story and lived while Craig did not, eventually ended up being fired and then had several attempts on his life which ended in an alleged "suicide."

 

[HSienzant]

You don't know that the rifle was filmed as they found it and not a reenactment.

Actually, we do. The man who filmed the rifle being examined, Tom Alyea, has stated more than once, that those are the films he recorded. He vouches for the legitimacy of the film. It is not a reenactment, except in your fervent hopes and dreams.

Tom Alyea's film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94APWcGDMyY

-- quote --
"...I ran on upstairs with the Secret Service men. Then other units came in - the Riot Squad. I thought I was going to film a gun fight. They ran to the 4th floor and I went with them. Some of the other units went to the top of the building. They were conducting a systematic search. It boiled down to the sixth floor. After awhile it was obvious that the assassin was not in the building. They looked for the gun. I filmed 400 ft. of film of the Secret Service men looking for the assassin, climbing over boxes, over the rafters, and the actual finding of the gun. At the time it was suspected that the assassin had stayed quite a time there. There was a stack with a stack of chicken bones on it. There was a Dr. Pepper bottle which they dusted for fingerprints. The fingerprints were not Oswald's. You know how he piled the boxes up? The gun was found across the length of the room from where he fired. It was stashed between boxes. I had difficulty in filming. They did not want me closeto the window or to the gun. I asked permission to go to the window to film. A Secret Service man said, 'You are close enough.' I asked the Secret Service man to take pictures of the stashed gun. I set the camera but he wiggled the camera. I got a picture of them taking the gun from the hiding place and dusting it for fingerprints. After this the Crime Lab man, Captain Will Fritz - and I have footage of this - pulled the bolt back and a live round came out. They dusted the gun for fingerprints. This was my third camera. They wouldn't let me out of the building and they wouldn't let anyone else in. I never saw my film on the air because I had to get the film to someone outside. This was the first film from there. We had Mal Couch's film of the crowd but not of the President being hit. [How did you get the film out?] There's a story for you. I actually handed it out through the door but it had been publicized over the air and established everywhere that I had thrown it out of the building through a window. I hesitate to tell you the real story. I started to throw it out of the building but being so close and knowing that we had the other film, I wanted our station to be the first to show a film of the assassination. A A.J. L'Hoste was under the window. I yelled out to him. In actuality I tossed the film out the front door to Ron Reiland who had gotten back from covering the apprehension of Oswald at the Texas Theater. This was another ABC exclusive. There were 2 policemen at the Depository door. They were not sure that I should get things outside. Ron was outside and I was inside. One of the policemen there called a Lieutenant and while they were calling him, I threw the film out....."
-- unquote --

The Rifle was also photographed in place, photographed as it was removed from the building, photographed at the police station, and photographed by the DPD Crime Lab as well as photographed by the FBI later that week end when it was turned over to the FBI.

It all cases it is Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, bearing the unique serial # C2766, to the exclusion of any and ALL other weapons in the world.

Pretend some more this is unsettled. It's not.

You don't know that a mauser was not found on another floor as ATF Agent Ellsworth claimed.

Ellsworth's story was a recollection a good 15-20 years after the assassination. He was simply confused. One rifle was found, one rifle was photographed, one rifle was removed from the building. Oswald's, from the sixth floor.

And you certainly do not know that any carcarno that may have been found (or planted) belonged to Oswald to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world, much less even owned by Oswald. Talk abut hoary myths!!! Talk about Hyperbole!!!

The rifle bearing the serial # C2766 was shipped to Oswald's PO Box and he was photographed with it by his own wife, as she insists to this day. His palmprint and fingerprints were on it when discovered. He owned and possessed this rifle, and transported it to the Depository on the morning of the assassination.

And you certainly don't know that Roger Craig was lying.

Anyone who knew Roger Craig knew Craig's nose grew each time he talked.
For example, Mary Ferrell posted this on the old Prodigy forum in the early 1990's:

-- quote --
I knew Roger Craig for several years before his death. It is my belief
that Roger was a very sick young man. He had made a name for himself as a
very promising young law enforcement officer. When he came forward with
some of the "stories" he told following the events of that November
weekend, he believed that he would be offered a great deal of money and,
possibly, speaking engagements. I am very sorry to say that I am one of
the few conspiracy nuts who never believed Roger Craig.

When Roger made a number of speeches about the fact that "they" prevented
him from getting a job, I talked my husband into giving him a job. Roger
did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had
"seen something or other."

I have made enemies because I have continued to say that I have never
really believed him.

Mary Ferrell
-- unquote --

Moreover, even Chief Curry admitted that there could have been a rifle substitution. "The possibility of a rifle substitution was even admitted by Dallas police chief Jesse Curry. In 1976 in an interview with the Detroit News Curry agreed, ' It's more than possible' the rifle found in the depository could have been exchanged for the gun now in the national archieves. Curry said anyone wanting to substitute one suspected murder weapon for another 'could have gotten away with it at the time." Because no special precautions were taken to isolate the weapon as historic evidence."

Except it wasn't. The rifle in the National Archives in 1978 was the same weapon photographed in place by Detective J.C.Day of the Dallas Crime Lab on the afternoon of the assassination on 11/22/1963 where it was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The HSCA photographic panel studied the rifle, archival film and photographs of the rifle, and determined that was Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert do you have any material physical evidence for another rifle?
Or is it still this claim that was debunked thoroughly a hundred pagesback?


Rhetorical question, we know you don't have any physical evidence.

Prove me wrong. Just produce some.

 

[HSienzant]

...Finally, the demeanor of Roger Craig as he makes the assertion also suggests honesty for why would Craig have any motive at all to lie about it?

lol. What part of the below is not a motive to lie?

Roger did not want to work. He wanted people to give him money because he had "seen something or other."

-- Mary Ferrell, who knew Roger Craig.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, we do.

Yes, that seems to nail the lid shut on that bit of CT idiocy (again).

It's time to recall the CT poster child:

 

[BStrong]

Craig's assertion as/per the Mark Lane video points to the very CIA affidavit disclaiming a carcano just 3 days after the event. Thus, Craig's assertion, the dubiius LAFP interview notwithstanding, is backed up by both the CIA and Seymour Wetizman's sworn statement which is remarkable for its specificity of the caliber as 7.65 -- not a detail that would emanate from a "guesstimate".
And as a Police officer Weitzman surely knew that when you swear that something is true, it had better BE true. Finally, the demeanor of Roger Craig as he makes the assertion also suggests honesty for why would Craig have any motive at all to lie about it? The others changed their story and lived while Craig did not, eventually ended up being fired and then had several attempts on his life which ended in an alleged "suicide."

Robert,

In my years of service in LE, I've encountered numerous examples of LEO's misidentifying firearms when they had the firearm in their possession, and in some cases even after I had properly identified the firearm in question, they insisted they were correct - and I'm not talking about like type misidentifications - there were officers in our department that would consistently misidentify semi-auto rifles of any manufacture or design as being "AK" rifles.

I have no doubt that like instances occured in 1963.

 

[HSienzant]

...Seymour Wetizman's sworn statement which is remarkable for its specificity of the caliber as 7.65 -- not a detail that would emanate from a "guesstimate".
And as a Police officer Weitzman surely knew that when you swear that something is true, it had better BE true.

Weitzman's affidavit:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif

Weitzman's sworn testimony:

Mr. Ball. In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?
Mr. Weitzman. In a glance, that's what it looked like.
Mr. Ball. That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?
Mr. Weitzman. No; I said that. I thought it was one.
Mr. Ball. Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. Weitzman. Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.
Mr. Ball. What branch of service were you in?
Mr. Weitzman. U.S. Air Force.
Mr. Ball. Did you handle rifles?
Mr. Weitzman. Mostly Thompson machine guns and pistols.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/history/wc_period/warren_report/Weitzman.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=17718


Postscript and change of subject:
Note something interesting conspiracy theorists never talk about. Weitzman scaled the grassy knoll fence after the shooting. He's his testimony on that point:

Mr. Weitzman. I immediately ran toward the President's car. Of course, it was speeding away and somebody said the shots or the firecrackers, whatever it was at that time, we still didn't know the President was shot, came from the wall. I immediately scaled that wall.
Mr. Ball. What is the location of that wall?
Mr. Weitzman. It would be between the railroad overpass and I can't remember the name of that little street that runs off Elm; it's cater-corner--the section there between the--what do you call it--the monument section?
Mr. Ball. That's where Elm actually dead ends?
Mr. Weitzman. Yes, sir; I scaled the wall and, apparently, my hands grabbed steampipes. I burned them.

Steampipes behind the grassy knoll fence? Oh my. Robert, can you figure out why conspiracy authors like Marrs and Groden, et.al., never mention steam pipes behind the grassy knoll fence?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Craig's assertion as/per the Mark Lane video points to the very CIA affidavit disclaiming a carcano just 3 days after the event. Thus, Craig's assertion, the dubiius LAFP interview notwithstanding, is backed up by both the CIA and Seymour Wetizman's sworn statement which is remarkable for its specificity of the caliber as 7.65 -- not a detail that would emanate from a "guesstimate".

The CIA affidavit, what's the source of their information?

Was it perchance something Weitzman said in error, after only a glance at the rifle? And then got put out world-wide on the television, on the radio, and in print, again in error? And then got put in a CIA memo, again in error?

What's the source of the information in the CIA memo?

If it's Weitzman's statement, it's *NOT* an independent corroboration of Weitzman's account, as it stems entirely from Weitzman's account and is entirely dependent on it.

Where's that info come from in the CIA memo?

 

[HSienzant]

Robert,

If you truly believe there were multiple guns found in the TSBD, please explain why they would do this. Your argument on its face makes absolutely no sense.

Wouldn't it make more sense to you to just shoot the President from behind with the weapon provably ordered by the "Lone Nut Patsy", rather than to shoot the President from multiple locations with multiple weapons, none of which are the Lone Nut's, and then have to spirit away the real weapons and plant the fake one (or leave them behind to be discovered by Weitzman and Powell, among others), and then also alter the x-rays, the autopsy photos, the Zapuder film, and other films taken in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting?

Hank

 

[infocusinc]

Photo analysis that makes Jack White look like a genius

Gotta love CT's, they are a target rich environment!

www.oswald-innocent.com

 

[HSienzant]

Gotta love CT's, they are a target rich environment!

www.oswald-innocent.com

That's the newly created website of a chiropractor with no photographic interpretative skills whatsoever.

I've been debating him on the Amazon discussion boards. He had to post under the name of Linda Hadley thereon, as he was banned from Amazon under his own name for abusive and obscene language.

Here's a few links to start you off. Or you can just Google "Amazon Discussion Forum Cinque". That should get you there.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history...Q5IKV&cdMsgID=Mx24W8HC75K2H7U#Mx24W8HC75K2H7U

http://www.amazon.com/forum/jfk ass...LRED2TYB89B&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx2UDM1Q2Q956B4

Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Gotta love CT's, they are a target rich environment!

www.oswald-innocent.com

Wow, I have rarely seen such a collection of absurd speculation and circular reasoning. And absolutely no skill whatsoever at photographic analysis and interpretation. These people are dumber than the Moon hoax crowd. I love how the only requirement for belonging to their organization is a loyalty test. In other words, "no critical thinkers need apply."

As with most JFK conspiracy claimants, their major argument is that a key piece of evidence, the Altgens photo, has been faked -- altered to remove evidence that Oswald was actually down on the ground in Dealey Plaza instead of up in his sniper's nest. They have no direct evidence of alteration, of course, just "anomalies" that (to them) can only be explained by darkroom chicanery.

Here are a few riotous excerpts:

So, did they have time to make the alterations? As Jim Fetzer often says, “The fact that the alterations can be seen is proof that they had time to make them.”

Purely circular reasoning. No, the fact that there wasn't enough time to alter the photo between when it was taken and when it first appeared in public argues against the explanation of the "anomalies" as deliberate alterations.

The presence of the patsy in a photograph taken during the assassination would have, obviously, ruined everything for the conspirators. So, they had to fix it. Why didn’t they just get rid of the picture completely, that is, destroy it? That is a good question, but we do not know.

Translation: We know our hypothesis makes no sense, but we have no explanation for that. Not only is there a better way to dispose of the photo, there's a better way not to have the photo be incriminating: why let Oswald be out in public where he can be photographed in the first place?

Bear in mind that it takes only one alteration to prove that the photo was corrupted. To deny that the Altgens was “fixed” would require disproving every single charge that we have made above.

Translation: We don't have to prove ourselves right; you have to prove us wrong. What's hilarious is that their case for "anomalies" is based entirely on what they admit is speculation for what alterations may have been done -- cutting and pasting certain parts of the photograph from one place to another. Not only do they present absolutely no evidence of the alteration itself (just speculation from their "illustrator" and their chiropractor), they admit that they're just speculatively and subjectively moving pieces of the photo around like jigsaw puzzles to fit their preconception.

 

[Robert Prey]

Hank wrote:

The rifle bearing the serial # C2766 was shipped to Oswald's PO Box and he was photographed with it by his own wife, as she insists to this day. His palmprint and fingerprints were on it when discovered. He owned and possessed this rifle, and transported it to the Depository on the morning of the assassination.

Reply:

If you still believe in the fingerprint fairy tale, I can't help you. There were no identifiable fingerprints.

 

[BStrong]

Hank wrote:

The rifle bearing the serial # C2766 was shipped to Oswald's PO Box and he was photographed with it by his own wife, as she insists to this day. His palmprint and fingerprints were on it when discovered. He owned and possessed this rifle, and transported it to the Depository on the morning of the assassination.

Reply:

If you still believe in the fingerprint fairy tale, I can't help you. There were no identifiable fingerprints.

And if you believe that somebody with a hard-on big enough to motivate them to assassinate JFK and set up a patsy for the job would use a different type/caliber rifle and leave the piece at the scene...

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert,

In my years of service in LE, I've encountered numerous examples of LEO's misidentifying firearms when they had the firearm in their possession, and in some cases even after I had properly identified the firearm in question, they insisted they were correct - and I'm not talking about like type misidentifications - there were officers in our department that would consistently misidentify semi-auto rifles of any manufacture or design as being "AK" rifles.

I have no doubt that like instances occured in 1963.

D'ja ever know of an LEO who ID'ed a Carcano bearing the imprint "Made Italy, Cal 6.5" as a Mauser 7.65 corroborated by 3 other LEO"s and then affirm that fact in a sworn affidavit???