JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

Status
Not open for further replies.
Exotic traveller, you got a cite on that law that says a person would have to have a certificate signed by a judge just to own a rifle? The reason I ask is that I was born in Texas in 1961, and when I was a little kid, just about every adult male in my town owned multiple rifles. I just can't imagine a judge being burdened with signing a "certificate of character" for every one of those yahoos in my home town. They'd have to have a judge dedicated to doing that and nothing else!
 
Exotic traveller said:
10. The place ( Kleins) where Oswald supposedly bought the rifle, had never mounted a scope on that particular rifle. This was verified by the armorer who worked for them, and by the FBI having to tell them how to mount such a scope on that model rifle and where exactly to mount it. They didnt know and had NEVER done it.
Click to expand...
Not exactly.
Warren Commission Report said:
According to the vice president of Klein's, William Waldman, the scope was mounted on the rifle by a gunsmith employed by Klein's, and the rifle was shipped fully assembled in accordance with customary company procedures.
Click to expand...
 
Robert Prey said:
And shot the President from the Grassy Knoll?? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

The only shots that were fired came from the TSBD, and were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Every other argument, yours included, falls apart the minute the "facts" are reviewed.

If anybody should know you should.

The last guy that took this bad a beating was Rodney King.
 
Exotic traveller said:
No, but the FBI had the rifle the next day, the FBI expert who officially examined it that next day( Nov 23) stated that 1 round fired through the bore would remove rust. He examimed it , and found it indeed did have rust in the bore, and this testimony was in fact heard later before the WC after it was convened.

That still doesnt account for the money order never getting stamped, no post office employee verifying Oswald showed up, and other oddities i posted.
I will recheck on laws governing what paperwork was needed back then to purchase a rifle.


Edit, did check

That law was enacted in 1938, and was in effect in Texas at the times in question. It doesnt matter if a weapon was new, used or whatever. In order to purchase a firearm, you needed a Certificate of Character from a judge in your county before you could own a rifle.( Texas)
If you dispute this, kindly point me in the right direction to find such information.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

"The Gun Control Act mandated the licensing of individuals and companies engaged in the business of selling firearms. This provision effectively prohibited the direct mail order of firearms (except antique firearms) by consumers and mandated that anyone who wants to buy a gun from a source other than a private individual must do so through a federally licensed firearms dealer. The Act also banned unlicensed individuals from acquiring handguns outside their state of residence. The interstate purchase of long guns (rifles and shotguns) was not impeded by the Act so long as the seller is federally licensed and such a sale is allowed by both the state of purchase and the state of residence."

Prior to 1968, the simple act of sending a money order or check got you any type of non-NFA weapon or device - and the sellers didn't bother to check anything other than the validity of the payment.

The fact that Texas had a statute calling for a permit didn't mean anything to them

I know the age restrictions didn't mean anything to the mail-order dealers, because what I bought came as soon as the PMO cleared.

Commentary and reproduction of actual magazine advertisments:

http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/2011/03/remember-when-you-could-buy-these_20.html
 
BStrong said:
The only shots that were fired came from the TSBD, and were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Every other argument, yours included, falls apart the minute the "facts" are reviewed.

If anybody should know you should.

The last guy that took this bad a beating was Rodney King.
Click to expand...

Your can always tell a loser on theses boards -- they are the ones who feel the need to declare "victory."
 
Seriously Robert, even IF the medical evidence you posted so far meant what you thought it meant (and not what it actually means) you would have proven a shooter directly ahead of JFK, and not to one side on the grassy knoll.

Why the obsession with the knoll? Seen Wanted and expect bullets to curve in space?
 
Exotic traveller said:
That law was enacted in 1938, and was in effect in Texas at the times in question. It doesnt matter if a weapon was new, used or whatever. In order to purchase a firearm, you needed a Certificate of Character from a judge in your county before you could own a rifle.( Texas)
If you dispute this, kindly point me in the right direction to find such information.
Click to expand...


The law was struck down by the Texas courts in 1958 (ruling). The web site you're parroting used a source from 1950. Fail.

ETA: Here are a couple of newspaper items that are on point:

San Antonio Express, July 6, 1952, p. 70:

". . . a Certificate of Character in order to purchase a pistol may be secured from any Sears."

El Paso Herald Post, March 15, 1963, p.1:

"A section of the law requiring that the buyer provide a certificate of character from a magistrate was knocked out on technical grounds by the Court of Criminal Appeals."

In addition, as noted, even if such a law had been in effect, it would very likely not have stopped Oswald from purchasing the weapons as he did.
 
Last edited:
Robert Prey said:
No answers, only questions:

Why did 3 officers describe the weapon as a Mauser, 7.65, when the rifle was clearly imprinted: "Made Italy, Cal. 6.5"

Why did former sports store owner Seymour Weitzman sign a sworn statement that the recovered weapon was in fact a Mauser, 7.65.

Why were there other reports that a weapon was found on another floor.

Why was there a paper trail of the weapon purchase, when it could have simply be bought over the counter with no paper trail.

Why the alias used in the mail order purchase when that alias ID was "found" in the suspect's wallet upon capture.

Why was there no record of anyone taking delivery of the rifle from the Post Office?

And why would there have been any possibility of a rifle substitution in such an infamous crime?


"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.
Click to expand...
So you refuse to consider posts from others when they contain more than one question, but go to town when it's your turn to ask?

You're your own worst enemy, you know that, don't you?

Oopsie, two questions. I'm such a bad boy.
 
Straw Man said:
You're counting Chuck Crenshaw back in again?

From a 1994 interview with Denis Breo published in JAMA in 1995.
You're counting Chuck Crenshaw back in again?

From a 1994 interview with Denis Breo published in JAMA in 1995.

Quote:

Q: You, in 1963, did not have the background or training to perform the procedures that a forensic pathologist would perform to determine the direction of entry of these wounds, did you?

CC: No.

Q: And you don't today, do you?

CC: No, I'm not a pathologist.
Click to expand...

Slight correction:
The reason I asked for an exact citation, other than the fact that you did not provide one, is because it made no sense for Dennis Breo to interview Dr. Crenshaw, after he failed to do so before publishing the defamatory article in JAMA. And, as Judge Judy likes to say, if something doesn't seem reasonable, it's probably not true. Fact is, the citation as provided by someone else on this board is not an interview but a published letter of reply to Dr.Crenshaw's letter of reply which the court mandated JAMA publish as part of the settlement, in addition to the monetary award. According to Breo, these Q's and A's were taken from Dr.C's deposition which may be true, but not from any interview with Breo though Breo himself hardly has a very high credibility quotient based on the lies contained in his original JAMA article.
 
Medical Witness No.6 -- Dr.Paul Peters

PAUL PETERS, MD:"...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71
 
BStrong said:
If anybody might be interested in wound ballistics, here's a good place to start learning the mechanics involved - if you want to believe the JFK CT's, you might not like the material or the author:

http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/upload/ballistic_injury.pdf
Click to expand...

I see nothing in that article that would contradict the fact that entrance wounds are mainly small and exit wounds, large. For your own enlightenment I recommend the following:

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds

"The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound, which can sometimes be ragged with skin, tissue, and muscle and bone damage."


"Exit wounds...are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound. Exit wounds will often bleed profusely as they are larger but entrance wounds can sometimes look only like small holes - unless the weapon is fired at close proximity to the victim."

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
 
Robert Prey said:
PAUL PETERS, MD:"...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput...It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect." (WC-V6:71
Click to expand...

And you don't think the trauma of an entry wound would be a large defect?

All you ever have is your interpretation of subjective words.

The only time you have produced a measurement from the WC it was 71cm, and even with the benefit of the doubt that it should have been 7cm, you still assume that is width not depth.

None of your witnesses have disagreed with the known wounds in the known autopsy photos.
 
Robert Prey said:
I see nothing in that article that would contradict the fact that entrance wounds are mainly small and exit wounds, large. For your own enlightenment I recommend the following:

Understanding Injuries > Entrance and Exit Wounds
Entrance and Exit Wounds

"The entrance wound is normally smaller and quite symmetrical in comparison to the exit wound, which can sometimes be ragged with skin, tissue, and muscle and bone damage."


"Exit wounds...are usually larger than the entrance wound and this is because as the round moves through the body of the victim it slows down and explodes within the tissue and surrounding muscle. This slowing down of the projectile means that as it reaches the end of its trajectory it has to force harder to push through. This equates to the exit wound normally looking larger and considerably more destructive than its pre-cursor - the entrance wound. Exit wounds will often bleed profusely as they are larger but entrance wounds can sometimes look only like small holes - unless the weapon is fired at close proximity to the victim."

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/entrance-and-exit-wounds.html
Click to expand...

Yes. Like the small exit woundin the back of JFKs head and the large exit wound in the autopsy reports and photographs.

Of course, a wound small in comparison compared to an exit wound can still be a large wound, and have a large defect. Notice that entrance wounds can only "sometimes" look like small holes?

We have autopssy photos of a smaller entry wound and large exit wound, that matches the descriptions you post.

We have film footage of the large exit wound exploding out as your source describes.

We have blood stains that match to that expected from the "official" wounds.

We have polaroids and on the scene photograpshs that fit the "official" wounds.

In short we have physical evidence, and this forensics page, that all confirm the shot came from behind and blew out at the front.


You have your subjective opinion of subjective words, and a failure to understand that a "tiny" hole in the back of a head leaving a wound track through brain tissue IS a "large" and "gaping" and "blasted" defect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom