JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[Chew]

Having read your clarification, this still stands. Your earlier argument for saying the shots were not fired from the TSBD was that it was impossible. The evidence of more than one experiment disproves that utterly. It has been demonstrated that two bullets fired from the TSBD sixth floor window CAN produce the pattern of wounds seen in JFK and Connally.

Jason
I have put forward data proving that there is a lack of witness testimony in support for any shots being fired from the TSBD.

No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.

[profmunkin]

He identifies of the rifle declaring that it was a 7.65 Mauser, with a 2.5 Weaver scope.
The next day someone discovered that it was a 6.5 carcano with a cheap Japanese scope

Since the two guns closely resemble one another and could easily be mistaken, that is hardly a serious anomaly.

"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."

At a glance it looked like an apple but it turned out to be a banana.

So you are assuming the scope that was not a Weaver did not bear sufficient resemblance to one to be mistaken for one? Where do you get that information from?

This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?

Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.

Weitzman's excuse seems to have been adequate for WC, I am telling you, for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges. Hence leaves the door open to doubt as to what weapon, scope and cartridges were actually found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

I get that information from Weitzman
"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."

In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other. 
Note: there is a conflict within his statement, did he look at it or did he glance at it to make his identification?

[profmunkin]

No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.

Please define or post "tons" of evidence of the shooter actually being on the 6th floor during the assassination. 
Post the names of the eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there, please.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason to be fair, if the evidence that I present must be restricted to an official legal source, then evidence you present must meet the same criteria.

No. Physics cares not a jot for legal process. It does not matter where the shots were duplicated, or if they were part of a legal proceeding or not. If they can be duplicated then they can be duplicated. End of story.

Yes, I dismissed it out of hand.
If I must present only that information discovered while a witness was under oath, you must do the same.

And yet you still can't grasp the fact that i called you on your dismissal of it immediately after you wrote that you had no idea what it was you were dismissing. you did not know if it met those criteria.

Lets stick to the facts.

I am. It is a FACT that you said you had no idea what he posted and that it was not evidence. Those two statements are contradictory, no matter how much you try and gloss over what you said.

[Jason Thompson]

My opinion is JFK getting hit about Z-189 and Connally not effected by this shot.

Then please explain JFK's total lack of reaction to this shot. The first time anyone reacts to a shot is about 25 frames later.

That's your opinion.

No, that is a fact. There is not one single bit of evidence of JFK reacting to being shot until frame 224. If you have evidence of it then present it.

[Jason Thompson]

Jason
I have put forward data proving that there is a lack of witness testimony in support for any shots being fired from the TSBD.

No, you put forward data that showed there was in fact some evidence for it. Some witnesses did indeed report they thought the shots came from there. 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.

[Jason Thompson]

This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?

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.

Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.

Yes, and for everyone else except you, it seems.

In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other.

That's your interpretation. Please explain why it is more valid than mine, which is that he simply made a mistake in identifying it. Have you looked at the pictures that were provided earlier, which show that indeed the scope on the rifle does look like a Weaver scope, at least superficially.

[Chew]

No, you have ignored tons of evidence of a shooter being on the 6th floor of the TSBD, including three eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there.

Please define or post "tons" of evidence of the shooter actually being on the 6th floor during the assassination. 

Shell casings matched to Oswald's rifle found at the sniper's nest.
Oswald's handprints on the boxes around the sniper's nest.

Post the names of the eyewitnesses who saw a shooter there, please.

After reviewing their testimony I have to reduce the number of eyewitnesses I said saw a shooter down to two. Howard Brennan and Amos Euins saw a shooter in the 6th floor window. Robert Jackson and Malcolm Couch saw a rifle being withdrawn after the shooting.

[BazBear]

He identifies of the rifle declaring that it was a 7.65 Mauser, with a 2.5 Weaver scope.
The next day someone discovered that it was a 6.5 carcano with a cheap Japanese scope

Since the two guns closely resemble one another and could easily be mistaken, that is hardly a serious anomaly.

"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."

At a glance it looked like an apple but it turned out to be a banana.

So you are assuming the scope that was not a Weaver did not bear sufficient resemblance to one to be mistaken for one? Where do you get that information from?

This was no small mistake.
I would have expected the Warren Commission would have demanded adequate testimony and evidence to determine exactly how this mistake could have been made, then perpetrated and then how was the identification properly made, who was the genius that actually LOOKED at the rifle and scope and made a positive identification and how did he do it when no one else seemed to be able to do so and why did it take almost a day to determine this? No one present wondered how a 6.5 cartridge would work in a 7.65 Mauser?

Weitzman's excuse of having just glanced at the weapon and scope was sufficient for the Warren Commission to answer all of these questions.

Weitzman's excuse seems to have been adequate for WC, I am telling you, for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges. Hence leaves the door open to doubt as to what weapon, scope and cartridges were actually found on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

I get that information from Weitzman
"Mr. WEITZMAN - And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn't; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance."

In my opinion he is saying that if he had not just glanced at this scope, that he would have realized it could not have possibly been a Weaver scope, it didn't look anything like a Weaver scope. He is saying that a person familiar with rifle scopes would not say that these scopes could be mistaken one for the other. 
Note: there is a conflict within his statement, did he look at it or did he glance at it to make his identification?

Looked like an apple and turned out to be a banana? Come on, the two weapons and scopes are not that different, especially at just a glance. It's more like it he thought it looked like a macintosh and it turned out to be courtland.

If your alleged perpetrators wanted to make it appear that one shooter using a 6.5mm Carcano shot Kennedy, do you seriously believe they would plant or leave a 7.65mm Mauser on the 6th floor?

[Chew]

In every field of study there are always red flags that let you know your opponent is not dealing with a full deck. The big red flag in the moon hoax debate is LEM instead of LM. The JFK assassination has more than its fair share. The big one is the Mauser - MC canard. What moron is going to use Oswald's rifle to kill the President but then leave a different caliber rifle at the scene? The stretcher bullet is another. You're going to plant a bullet to frame Oswald while the victims are still in surgery and you have no idea what their wounds are and if any bullets are still in the bodies?

[gillianren]

To me, that's where 99% of JFK conspiracists fall down; their plans require things that can't have been counted on.  For example, let's look at the Grassy Knoll.  Where, as it happens, a lot of people were.  It's true that there is no clear picture of the Grassy Knoll, but why would they assume there wouldn't be?  While it is also certainly true that cameras weren't as ubiquitous in 1963 as they are now, it is also a demonstrable fact that this was exactly the sort of thing that got people to take out their cameras.  Abraham Zapruder was hardly the only person documenting that particular motorcade.  It is, in fact, pure dumb luck that there isn't any good photography of the Grassy Knoll, and anyone with any sense would have known that would be the case.  And if they were planning to fool everyone into thinking the shots, all of them, came from the TSBD, why would you risk the existence of photographs or film clearly showing that you were lying?

No, any conspiracy that involves the shots coming from anywhere other than that window is silly, and any conspiracy that involves the shots coming from anywhere other than that rifle is showing an unawareness of quite a lot of relevant evidence, including that your average emergency room doctor, while not trained in knowing whether a wound is an exit or an entrance, would certainly recognize a bullet if one were left in the body.

[Jason Thompson]

Ultimately it makes no sense to do anything other than what you plan to use as the cover story. If you're going to try and convince the public that one lone nutter did the job from a particular location, the best way to do that is to get one person to do it from that location. Anything else just overcomplicates things absurdly, to the point where you are almost guaranteed to fail in keeping the story plausible.

[DataCable]

...for me, it does not begin to answer any questions concerning the identification of this weapon, scope or cartridges.

Detail for us the obvious physical differences between the weapons, scopes and ammunition in question.

[profmunkin]

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 ?

[profmunkin]

I am. It is a FACT that you said you had no idea what he posted and that it was not evidence. Those two statements are contradictory, no matter how much you try and gloss over what you said.

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