JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.

Who told you this?
What does it mean?

[LunarOrbit]

The issue is that you expect a lot more than there is, but for reasons already explained the inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.

Who told you this?
What does it mean?

Maybe the fact that you don't understand what it means is a sign that you're not quite up to the task of "investigating" the JFK assassination.

[profmunkin]

You're not taking the slightest bit of notice of anything anyone says here, are you? The two rifles look very similar, and Weitzman has said he did not undertake a detailed investigation of the rifle. Inly a total idiot find a snipers nest and assassination weapon at the scene of a crime and then goes in and disturbs it before bringing in the proper authorities. Weitzman did not examine the rifle up close. He made a simple mistake, and it is a small mistake.

You have these answers then?
Please share them with me

  Was Weitzman the only person allowed to examine this weapon?
  Exactly how this mistake could have been made?
  Why did the Dallas Police department release information to the News Media concerning the rifle being a 7.65 Mauser before making sure the identification was certifiably correct.
  How was the identification of the rifle properly made?
  How was the identification of the scope properly made?
  Why did it take till the following day to identify it properly?
  Who made the identification of the rifle?
  Who made the identification of the scope?
  Were is there additional testimony that explains these issues?
  If Weitzman was incompetent why was he allowed to identify the rifle and the scope?

Thanks

[profmunkin]

Maybe the fact that you don't understand what it means is a sign that you're not quite up to the task of "investigating" the JFK assassination.

Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected given the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

[LunarOrbit]

Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.

[profmunkin]

Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.

Were there many witnesses that said they had difficulty determining the direction of the shots? 
Please post them

[LunarOrbit]

Inability of witnesses to localise rifle reports is quite expected gievn the layout of the plaza.
Please define what localize means?

It means determining the location of a gunman based on the sound of the gun. It's easy to be confused by the echos coming from nearby buildings... which is why people might have thought the gunman was in one location (such as the grassy knoll) when he was really in a different location (like the Schoolbook Depository).

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.

Were there many witnesses that said they had difficulty determining the direction of the shots? 
Please post them

They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.

[profmunkin]

They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.

So no witness complained that they had difficulty in determining the direction of the rifle reports?

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

[LunarOrbit]

They likely didn't realize that they misjudged the location of the gunman. That is what you don't seem to understand... a witness can be 100% certain that they know where a gunshot came from and not realize that they were basing that judgment on an echo.

So no witness complained that they had difficulty in determining the direction of the rifle reports?

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?

[profmunkin]

The echoes are also why witnesses might have thought there were more shots fired than there actually were, or that there was more than one gunman.

Which witnesses thought there were more or less then 3 shots?

Then

Why did these witnesses experience this difference?

Can these difference be reconciled with 3 shots?

[profmunkin]

Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?


How about you actually read what I said. If they believed they knew where the shot came from why would they complain about such difficulty? Are you really this dense, or are you just being a troll?

It's a simple, straight forward question.
Which witnesses were not sure of the direction of the shots?

[profmunkin]

This is why witness testimony doesn't carry more weight than things like the film footage or the other evidence.

Does it carry less?
Is witness testimony considered at all when "thing like film footage and other evidence is available" is available?

[Jason Thompson]

Answer these two quesions, please
1) Have you read Reclaiming History- The Assassination Of JFK by Vincent Bugliosi ?

2) Do you believe what he wrote ?

No, I have not read it, therefore question 2 is unanswerable.

I am not trawling through endless piles of documents and evidence here. I am taking issue only with your interpretations and attitudes.

[Jason Thompson]

I was wrong even though I was right, so what ? I was still right.

Anything to avoid owning up to your own mistakes, eh prof?

[Jason Thompson]

You have these answers then?
Please share them with me

The thing is not whether I have the answers, it is whether you have them.

Was Weitzman the only person allowed to examine this weapon?

Unlikely.

Exactly how this mistake could have been made?

This has already been explained to you. He did not examine thye rifle closely, he said what he thought he could identify based on an obscured view from a distance. Since the 7.5 mauser and the 6.5 carcano are vidually very similar, this is an easy mistake to make. Have you looked at any pictures of the rifles and scopes, such as those already provided on this thread?

Why did the Dallas Police department release information to the News Media concerning the rifle being a 7.65 Mauser before making sure the identification was certifiably correct.

Who knows. However, it is not uncommon for prelimnary statements to be made and later found to be in error.

How was the identification of the rifle properly made?
How was the identification of the scope properly made?

I would imagine by being properly examined by the people who came to collect it, wouldn't you?

Why did it take till the following day to identify it properly?

Who says it did? It might have taken that long for a proper investigation of its status and forensic evidence to have been compiled and released as a report. That doesn't mean the people who collected it were not able to identify it in five minutes flat once they had it in their possession.

Who made the identification of the rifle?
Who made the identification of the scope?

I have no idea.

Were is there additional testimony that explains these issues?

Why should there be any? This is normal stuff for an investigation. I suspect the only reason the initial report of a 7.5 mauser was issued too early was because of the high profile nature of the case and the media clamouring for information.

If Weitzman was incompetent why was he allowed to identify the rifle and the scope?

Who said he was incompetent, and who said he was 'allowed' to identify the rifle and scope? He found it and offered his thought on what it was based on his initial observation of an obscured rifle from a distance. That's all he did. Where is the official testimony, since you seem intent on asking for this stuff, that said Weitzman's identification was in any way official and not just his own unsolicited observation?