JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[profmunkin]

The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle. 

what is this protruding from the bottom of this rifle, is it the clip or the magazine?
and if it is the magazine, by comparing photos, this does not appear to be the magazine design I have seen on other photos of the Carcano.

What is going on in this photo?
Does the clip fall out the bottom of the rifle or ejected out the top when the last shell is ejected?

[profmunkin]

What part of "Weitzman did not examine the rifle" do you not understand?

I can say the same:
What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?
Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.

Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?

[profmunkin]

Wow. You can't even keep your own claims straight. Was there a clip or not?

Why should we take you seriously?

Because, I don't know, was there a clip or not?

You haven't taken me seriously yet, so I doubt if I will be concerned that you ever will.

[profmunkin]

That's also the site which lists exactly where all those witnesses stated they believed the shots to come from, which, yes, shows that you're wrong that "virtually all" of the witnesses believed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.

If you read my posts, I said that I am reading the testimonies of witnesses, starting with all of them listed as witnesses to the assassination,
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
 over 70 read so far, the data for these witnesses is as posted.

Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?

[Jason Thompson]

What part of "Weitzman signed an affidavit swearing it was a 7.65 Mauser" do you not get?

Show us this affidavit. Specifically the part where he states this identification was based on an inspection of the rifle and not simply a cursory glance. Then tell us in detail exactly how you prove that it was not simply a mistake.

Weitzman just glanced at the murder weapon of a sitting president, guessed at the identificaton of the rifle and the identificaton scope then testified to these FACTS in an affidavit to be FACTS.

An affidavit swears only to the belief or memory of the person writing it. If he believed on cursory examination that the weapon was a Mauser, of course he would put that in a signed affidavit. That doesn't mean he can't have been wrong.

Why did the Dallas Police announce to the news media that it was a 7.65 Mauser?

Show us the police statement and the precise timing of events that means this statement could not have been issued before the proper identification was made.

Why did the Dallas Police not make a correction till the next day?

Show us the correction, and then explain why they should immediately rush out to the media and correct it, rather than following normal procedures for reporting and fact gathering. Their obligation is to find the truth, not to report it to the papers as and when every fact comes in.

[Jason Thompson]

Why don't you start reading WC testimonies yourself and quit relying on other people to tell you what you should think?

Why don't you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't actually done the research themselves already? How do you know that she has not already done the reading and therefore is advancing a perfectly sound conclusion? It is typical of you as a conspiracy theorist to assume the only reason anyone disagrees with you is closed-mindedness or something along those lines.

[twik]

Why would a conspiracy to murder a president, that depended on split-second timing and immense coordination, fail to use a throw-down weapon of the type they wanted people to believe was used?

Even supposing they did, was the Dallas Police Department part of this conspiracy? If so, why did they give the "wrong" rifle identification? If they weren't, what does that do to the parts of your theory that rely on the DPD to be in on it?

Seriously, the misidentification of the rifle is a silly argument. But, I suppose it's the way profmunkin sees the case. Any evidence of "anomalies" must be unvarnished truth - mistakes, bad memory, confabulation, all are impossible. Of course, any evidence that contradicts that testimony is a bald-faced lie by paid or inimidated stooges.

Again, profmunkin - do you think that the witnesses who told Ontario police that Kristen French had been kidnapped by a couple in a black Trans Am were telling the truth? I mean, they made an official police report about it. So it must be true, right?

[BazBear]

The Carcano ciip is intended to falll out after the last round is fed into the chamber.  But if the clip is bent, very dirty, rifle held sideways or other issues exist, then the clip stays in the rifle. 

I own a Carcano with a 4x scope on it.  It is a real piece of crap as the barrel is black and pitted but the bolt cycles smoothly.  I am an experienced shooter, but I cannot say I was as good a marksman as Oswald was as he was a Marine.  It is a simple matter to pull the trigger three times cycle the bolt twice in six seconds and put each bullet into a man sized target at 80 yards even with my crappy rifle.  The fact that the limo was moving slowly away at a small angle only made the feat a bit harder.



Ranb

I've never had one fail to fall out, but I certainly can see how it could happen. I'll also have to admit I'm not sure what we are seeing in the McAdams photo of Day carrying out the rifle. If it is the clip, it must have slid part way out and stuck. Since Day's note doesn't say where he found the clip, it's possible McAdams may simply be mistaken about the photo.

ETA-Apparently Day removed it later that day at the DPD crime lab, so it must have stuck.

[gillianren]

Profmunkin, you have two choices as of this moment.  Explain, in precise detail and with supporting citations, exactly what you think happened or inaugurate my ignore list.  I'm tired of playing games with you.  You quibble and bicker and cherry-pick evidence and refused to be pinned down on details.  I've had enough of that, because the very first question I asked you in this thread was intended to prevent it from happening.  I asked you then if you were capable of learning, and you assured me you were.  Very rude of you to lie to me.

[profmunkin]

Why don't you stop assuming that everyone who disagrees with you hasn't actually done the research themselves already? .

Because it makes the difference, if you read the WC, Shaw and HSC you will know what happened, what didn't happen.
I am not here to argue with you, I am doing this to clarify my thinking on this subject and to bounce facts at you guys in the hope one of you may start to question what you believe you know.
Don't believe me, you have to find out for yourself, check out what I am saying.

Why in the world do you think Warren said we may never really know the truth. Wake up, don't sleep the rest of your life away.

[twik]

I suspect Warren said that we may never know the truth, because that is the nature of historical study. Trying to recreate an event after it's over is never completely, 100%, possible. There are always, yes, anomalies, times when you say, "that piece of evidence contradicts this piece, and yet we don't have grounds for saying one is the 'truth' more than the other".

Not all the jigsaw pieces are going to fit. Some are missing, and we'll never find them, because the cat ate them. Some got accidentally put in the box from another puzzle. And we've got one jammed in where we think it fits, but it actually should be put in the opposite corner, and we won't realize it until we get there. That doesn't mean The Puzzle Is a Lie.

[Jason Thompson]

Because it makes the difference, if you read the WC, Shaw and HSC you will know what happened, what didn't happen.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You haven't yet read the reports and testimonies. You're in the process of doing so, so you tell us. I am asking you why you assume that everyone who disagrees with you does so because they haven't read the things they are directing you to.

I am not here to argue with you, I am doing this to clarify my thinking on this subject and to bounce facts at you guys in the hope one of you may start to question what you believe you know.

That there says it all. you are not interested in learning, you are interested in changing our minds. I can assure you that my mind on the matter of things like the way Kennedy's head moves when he is shot, the way human hearing works (and the inherent limitations of it in terms of localising gunshot sounds), and the like will not be changed by reading reports and testimonies, because it is based on YEARS of study of the underlying science. Study that my current profession as a scientist suggests I comprehended very well, thank you very much.

Don't believe me, you have to find out for yourself, check out what I am saying.

And you still won't accept that that is just what some of us have done, either after you mentioned it or before, and yet you still assume we only disagree with you because we have not done so, and you presume to sit there dismissing hard facts and science. How arrogant can you get?

Why in the world do you think Warren said we may never really know the truth.

Because that is the nature of trying to reconstruct past events. Eyewitness testimonies can be contradictory, pieces of evidence that would be useful are missing simply because no-one was in a position to get them at the time, and some people simply will not accept actual science. Furthermore, the only person who can tell us exactly why Oswald shot JFK is Oswald, and he's dead. That doesn't mean what he had to say would have blown a conspiracy open, it just means we will never truly know why he did it. What we get to from investigations is as close to reality as we can get, but it will never be 100% correct.
 

Wake up, don't sleep the rest of your life away.

I am awake, and I am thinking. If you want to change my mind you'll have to do better than you are.

You could start by telling us exactly how one person from in front inflicted all the wounds on JFK and Connally...

[ka9q]

I would like to study more WC testimonies...

Hey, I think you're finally on to something.

Why not go all the way and study all of the Warren Commission testimony before you formulate such definite conclusions? Wouldn't that be more productive than randomly leafing around for a few cherry-picked witnesses that you can quote selectively and out of context to support your predetermined conclusion?

[profmunkin]

Profmunkin, you have two choices as of this moment.  Explain, in precise detail and with supporting citations, exactly what you think happened or inaugurate my ignore list.  I'm tired of playing games with you.  You quibble and bicker and cherry-pick evidence and refused to be pinned down on details.  I've had enough of that, because the very first question I asked you in this thread was intended to prevent it from happening.  I asked you then if you were capable of learning, and you assured me you were.  Very rude of you to lie to me.

This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.  gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose. 

quibble and bicker - lol

cherry-pick evidence?  - so far the evidence I have been presenting has strictly been taken from WC and has centered on witness corroboration for few specific issues. How can you miss true this to mean cherry-picking?

It is interesting to me that you guys argued against everything I prestented from researchers on the assassination because it wasn't from the Warren Commission and now you guys continue to argue as vehemently against everything I am now prestenting and this has come directly from within the Warren Commission, do you find this at all odd?
This is a science forum, but no one thinks in terms of examining the data.

I do not lie, I do make mistakes, believe as you will.

[Jason Thompson]

This forum so far has been incapable of examining the evidence provided, then forming opinions based on this evidence.

Wrong. That is exactly what I have done.

gillianren as I have explained, it would be folly to propose an alternate story if the set of evidences your believing is true blocks your perception to what I might propose.

Stop making excuses. If you have an alternate theory then present it. if not, quit dancing around and say so.
 

cherry-pick evidence?  - so far the evidence I have been presenting has strictly been taken from WC and has centered on witness corroboration for few specific issues. How can you miss true this to mean cherry-picking?

Because you have yet to concede that evidence from the same source that contradicts yours actually exists, or does contradict it.

It is interesting to me that you guys argued against everything I prestented from researchers on the assassination because it wasn't from the Warren Commission

Please show me where I did that. You are dealing with individuals here.

This is a science forum, but no one thinks in terms of examining the data.

Bull. The only person here who has dismissed science and data is YOU. You already told me that talking about physics is pointless, so don't you try to use the 'this is a sceince forum' crap here when it is you who is refusing to listen to any actual science.

I do not lie, I do make mistakes, believe as you will.

You may not lie, but you are intellectually dishonest. You have been caught out time and again making contradictory arguments yet you refuse to acknowledge the fact.