Discussion:
The Four Ramblers And Their Escape Routes
(too old to reply)
curtjester1
2013-05-16 04:18:08 UTC
Permalink
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19228&hl=pennington

Perfect cover, using a vehicle so common that it would blend in and
not cause suspicion. After all it was the third leading seller behind
Chevy and Ford at the time.

CJ
Canuck
2013-05-16 20:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19228&hl=pennington
Perfect cover, using a vehicle so common that it would blend in and
not cause suspicion. After all it was the third leading seller behind
Chevy and Ford at the time.
CJ
I'm glad to see someone named King at educationforum pointed out that Ruth
Paine's station wagon was not a Rambler. As John McAdams would say,
another factoid. Btw, John has yet to respond to my post about the clip.

- prwhitmey
curtjester1
2013-05-17 03:19:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Canuck
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19228&hl=pennin...
Perfect cover, using a vehicle so common that it would blend in and
not cause suspicion.  After all it was the third leading seller behind
Chevy and Ford at the time.
CJ
I'm glad to see someone named King at educationforum pointed out that Ruth
Paine's station wagon was not a Rambler.  As John McAdams would say,
another factoid.  Btw, John has yet to respond to my post about the clip.
- prwhitmey
There's probably no one more versed on aspects of Ramblers or station
wagons than researcher Richard Bartholomew. His 'article' which is
like a book is online. Byrds, Planes, and an Automobile.

In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.

I believe there are ties of ownership of C. Smith of UT and his major
influence of LBJ and the Paine title, and of George Gordon Wing who
had a lot of dubious political ties where some interesting JFK
assassination references were unearthed. It's been awhile since I've
read it.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler4.html

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-17 03:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Canuck
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19228&hl=pennin...
Perfect cover, using a vehicle so common that it would blend in and
not cause suspicion.  After all it was the third leading seller behind
Chevy and Ford at the time.
CJ
I'm glad to see someone named King at educationforum pointed out that Ruth
Paine's station wagon was not a Rambler.  As John McAdams would say,
another factoid.  Btw, John has yet to respond to my post about the clip.
- prwhitmey
There's probably no one more versed on aspects of Ramblers or station
wagons than researcher Richard Bartholomew. His 'article' which is
like a book is online. Byrds, Planes, and an Automobile.
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. It was a Chevy.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144895

Loading Image...

Let me guess: you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-17 15:08:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Canuck
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19228&hl=pennin...
Perfect cover, using a vehicle so common that it would blend in and
not cause suspicion.  After all it was the third leading seller behind
Chevy and Ford at the time.
CJ
I'm glad to see someone named King at educationforum pointed out that Ruth
Paine's station wagon was not a Rambler.  As John McAdams would say,
another factoid.  Btw, John has yet to respond to my post about the clip.
- prwhitmey
There's probably no one more versed on aspects of Ramblers or station
wagons than researcher Richard Bartholomew.  His 'article' which is
like a book is online.  Byrds, Planes, and an Automobile.
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real.  It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess:  you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-17 20:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!

I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.

Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?

You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.

Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-18 01:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from.  The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections.  Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings.   If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony.  I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63. Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!). If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler? Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color. This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-18 01:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from.  The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections.  Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings.   If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony.  I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.

Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?

And your evidence is?

(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.

But you don't really get it, do you?

Craig was lying.

For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.

But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
different:

Loading Image...

Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?

You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-18 19:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Her interview was in Dec.so who can be certain 100%? There was some story
that she took a station wagon back east that was brown. Most CT's on the
subject believe she had a Chevy wagon when she went to N.O. to move the
Oswalds....Whatever the case, the Rambler used to cart off suspects was
not dependant on her vehicle or her involvment. Here's the EF discussion:
brown wagon, etc.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6673&page=4
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
I don't think I am one bit.
Oswald never said that.
Sure, because you say it.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
When he corrected the errors made in his testimony.
(I know, you believe Craig.)
No reason not to about the Rambler sighting. Others did too.
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
Balderdash, she lived with the Paines at the time of the assassination
and rode with Mrs. Paine many times before. If she knew vehicles at
all, she would know.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
Well, he's lying about a Rambler because?
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
And you believe this article? Do you have any verification by Craig
that what was said, was true?
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
People saw Mauser besides Craig, and the rifle he described was not the
same as was described by other witnesses with the scope intact, etc. We
also know the filming of the rifle 'find' was not at the time as it came
later.
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
So, that's what we're here to discuss. There's just as much evidence that
Oswald and others rode away in a Rambler station wagon, as there is that
he rode a bus and a taxi cab. It's why there are so many theories out
there.

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-19 00:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Her interview was in Dec.so who can be certain 100%? There was some story
that she took a station wagon back east that was brown.
Do you have *any* evidence she ever owned a Rambler?
Post by curtjester1
Most CT's on the
subject believe she had a Chevy wagon when she went to N.O. to move the
Oswalds....Whatever the case, the Rambler used to cart off suspects was
brown wagon, etc.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6673&page=4
The only "evidence" that any Rambler was used to cart off suspects is
Craig's testimony about Oswald getting into a Ramber.

Other witnesses saw *somebody* get into a Rambler, but they did *not*
ID the man as Oswald.

Oswald clearly was on McWatter's bus.

Loading Image...
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
I don't think I am one bit.
Oswald never said that.
Sure, because you say it.
And your evidence is?
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
When he corrected the errors made in his testimony.
No, when *he* changed it when he found out that, to be Ruth Paine's
wagon, it *needed* to be light green.

His very first statement, before any of the Evil Minions of The
Conspiracy could have known they needed to change his testimony.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=144055

You folks, when you latch onto a witness, will believe *any* silly
thing to avoid admitting that you have a crackpot witness.
Post by curtjester1
(I know, you believe Craig.)
No reason not to about the Rambler sighting. Others did too.
You mean believed him? That's irrelevant.

If you mean others saw a Rambler, that's correct, but nobody else saw
*Oswald* get in it.
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
Balderdash, she lived with the Paines at the time of the assassination
and rode with Mrs. Paine many times before. If she knew vehicles at
all, she would know.
So you are *positing* a Rambler owned by Paine, in spite of solid
evidence that her station wagon was a Chevy.

You know Michael Paine owned anther car, right?

So why did Ruth Paine need *two* station wagons?
Post by curtjester1
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
Well, he's lying about a Rambler because?
Mrs. Paine did not own a Rambler. And Oswald was on Cecil McWaters'
bus.
Post by curtjester1
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
And you believe this article? Do you have any verification by Craig
that what was said, was true?
Do you thin the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS, which was supportive of the
Garrison investigation, lied to discredit Craig?
Post by curtjester1
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
People saw Mauser besides Craig, and the rifle he described was not the
same as was described by other witnesses with the scope intact, etc. We
also know the filming of the rifle 'find' was not at the time as it came
later.
And you know that how?
Post by curtjester1
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
So, that's what we're here to discuss. There's just as much evidence that
Oswald and others rode away in a Rambler station wagon, as there is that
he rode a bus and a taxi cab. It's why there are so many theories out
there.
No, the transfer is hard evidence.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif

And nobody but Craig said that it was Oswald -- at least not until
years later.

In fact, the two witnesses who saw a man get into a Rambler would have
know what Oswald looked like (they were interviewed the day *after*
the assassination) and they failed to ID him.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-19 18:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Her interview was in Dec.so who can be certain 100%?  There was some story
that she took a station wagon back east that was brown.
Do you have *any* evidence she ever owned a Rambler?
Not Motor Vehicle evidence, but Buddy Walthers went over to the house soon
after the assassination and told Craig that there was a Nash Rambler
parked there.
Post by John McAdams
Most CT's on the
subject believe she had a Chevy wagon when she went to N.O. to move the
Oswalds....Whatever the case, the Rambler used to cart off suspects was
brown wagon, etc.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6673&page=4
The only "evidence" that any Rambler was used to cart off suspects is
Craig's testimony about Oswald getting into a Ramber.
Not quite true. 'The' Rambler was seen by the Pennington's in Oakcliff as
they were the only ones in a laundromat there, and Oswald got out of the
Rambler, made a phone call and after, walked off, toward the theater
direction, one mile south of it, and did not re- enter the Rambler.
Post by John McAdams
Other witnesses saw *somebody* get into a Rambler, but they did *not*
ID the man as Oswald.
Oswald clearly was on McWatter's bus.
I agree. That's why there IMO, is a a set up Oswald and the arrested
Oswald, both in Dealey that day. Oswald was on McWatter's bus because he
admitted it in interrogation, and was corroborated by McWatters, Bledsoe,
and Jones.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
I don't think I am one bit.
Oswald never said that.
Sure, because you say it.
And your evidence is?
You should be asking the same of yourself that he didn't say it. I say he
did because there would be no reason to make up some story that Craig
couldn't have made up by himself. He would have had to hear it, and it's
obvious he conferred or Walthers overheard it himself to make him check
out the Paines and what the vehicle was.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
When he corrected the errors made in his testimony.
No, when *he* changed it when he found out that, to be Ruth Paine's
wagon, it *needed* to be light green.
That's just playing god, to bolster an argument and is hearsay.
Post by John McAdams
His very first statement, before any of the Evil Minions of The
Conspiracy could have known they needed to change his testimony.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
You folks, when you latch onto a witness, will believe *any* silly
thing to avoid admitting that you have a crackpot witness.
He changed 14 items. Victoria Adams said she never talked with Shelley
and Lovelady when they went down stairs, corroborated by Styles, yet the
WC just added it in on purpose. And none of their testimonies together
make sense so anybody that reads would know that someone was lying or made
to lie.
Post by John McAdams
(I know, you believe Craig.)
No reason not to about the Rambler sighting.  Others did too.
You mean believed him?  That's irrelevant.
If you mean others saw a Rambler, that's correct, but nobody else saw
*Oswald* get in it.
But since the car is so-called the same, and people see people entering
the vehicle, it can be assumed that Craig didn't just make that up to be
part of their or the whole account.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
Balderdash, she lived with the Paines at the time of the assassination
and rode with Mrs. Paine many times before.  If she knew vehicles at
all, she would know.
So you are *positing* a Rambler owned by Paine, in spite of solid
evidence that her station wagon was a Chevy.
I'm not positing anything. i don't have solid evidence that she owned
the Chevy that day and was in use of it.
Post by John McAdams
You know Michael Paine owned anther car, right?
So why did Ruth Paine need *two* station wagons?
Don't know. I don't know that she got rid of one and got another one out
of convenience, nor do I know exactly about her trip back east in another
colored wagon. I can only wonder and suspect. But that's what people do,
investigate all angles as far as they can, when they pursue as absolute
truth as they can. They just don't play logic detective and assume their
opinion is right because it is only based on their on version of logic.
Post by John McAdams
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
Well, he's lying about a Rambler because?
Mrs. Paine did not own a Rambler.  And Oswald was on Cecil McWaters'
bus.
We don't need your opinion, we need your proof.
Post by John McAdams
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
And you believe this article?  Do you have any verification by Craig
that what was said, was true?
Do you thin the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS, which was supportive of the
Garrison investigation, lied to discredit Craig?
I don't know it was a real paper article. I don't know if it was, that
the reporter didn't screw up his facts. and most importantly I don't know
if Craig was confronted by it because he sure was emphatic after that and
before that he saw the imprint of Mauser on the rifle. And I don't know
anything about the journalist either. The only thing in google is your
little blurb on it.
Post by John McAdams
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
People saw Mauser besides Craig, and the rifle he described was not the
same as was described by other witnesses with the scope intact, etc.  We
also know the filming of the rifle 'find' was not at the time as it came
later.
And you know that how?
Because the crime scene changed for one. They had to wait for people to
get there for one, and the rifle was not open to view as the film showed.
It was covered up, and there is proof that many crime scenes were not the
same, and things were edited, and even things were re- enacted at a later
date.
Post by John McAdams
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
So, that's what we're here to discuss.  There's just as much evidence that
Oswald and others rode away in a Rambler station wagon, as there is that
he rode a bus and a taxi cab.  It's why there are so many theories out
there.
No, the transfer is hard evidence.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/transfer.gif
And nobody but Craig said that it was Oswald -- at least not until
years later.
Who besides Craig said it was Oswald. We have more now!
Post by John McAdams
In fact, the two witnesses who saw a man get into a Rambler would have
know what Oswald looked like (they were interviewed the day *after*
the assassination) and they failed to ID him.
Well that's ok, isn't it? Whaley saw Oswald on TV and reported it to his
boss...same thing. How else would they know. And Craig was brought in
the same day without TV because of just the Rambler alone, and well was
there right with the witness that looked enough like Oswald to be ID'd by
him, if you believe his account, which many do.

CJ
mainframetech
2013-05-18 22:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.

It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.

Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."

Chris
John McAdams
2013-05-18 22:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.

That's a later addition to his story.

It was apparently only added in 1974.

In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.

And a Mauser and a Mannlicher-Carcano do look very similar:

Loading Image...
Post by mainframetech
Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
We know he was entirely unreliable.
Post by mainframetech
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Huh? You are saying that, since you believe in a conspiracy, you'll
accept any conspiracy witness?
Post by mainframetech
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
If you choose to believe every conspiracy factoid, you are always
going to be spinning your wheels.

Do you even know about the Alyea film?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2013-05-19 18:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Whoops. I didn't ignore it. I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you. I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
Tut, tut. Be nice now. That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different. With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often. I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
 Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'? Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.

Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view. And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it. So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
to sign on to? While Craig might have modified his story so that it would
have a better chance of being believed, remember that he would not back
off from his story like everybody else did, and his career suffered from
that point on. Why cling to a lie and lose your career and everything?
He was sane and healthy and had a good future.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
They don't look so similar when you read the markings on them.
Post by John McAdams
Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
We know he was entirely unreliable.
Nope. If you're trying to suggest he was crazy, that was dealt with in
another forum. As to his changing his story a bit, it wasn't that much of
a change. That isn't "entirely unreliable".
Post by John McAdams
  It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Huh?  You are saying that, since you believe in a conspiracy, you'll
accept any conspiracy witness?
Nope. But if an overview of the case shows it to be a conspiracy, then
it's more likely that Roger Craig's story is believable. I certainly
don't think you can ever say to accept ANY witness to a conspiracy. I've
mentioned some witnesses and had folks here show me reason not to use
them, and I've dropped them immediately from that time. One of them was
Beverly Oliver.
Post by John McAdams
  Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
If you choose to believe every conspiracy factoid, you are always
going to be spinning your wheels.
As we know, every conspiracy factoid is not always true.
Post by John McAdams
Do you even know about the Alyea film?
You mean film from up on the 6th floor of the cops poking around? I've
seen it. Chaotic and confusing as to who did what in what order. To me,
I find it odd that the cops would let all the reporters into the place
while they searched. It can't possibly be a decent search with all those
civilians running around flashing pictures and asking questions.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-20 21:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Whoops. I didn't ignore it. I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you. I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
Tut, tut. Be nice now. That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different. With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often. I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'? Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view. And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it. So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
Post by mainframetech
to sign on to? While Craig might have modified his story so that it would
have a better chance of being believed, remember that he would not back
off from his story like everybody else did, and his career suffered from
that point on. Why cling to a lie and lose your career and everything?
He was sane and healthy and had a good future.
Habitual liars are like that. They can't stop lying.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
They don't look so similar when you read the markings on them.
If you get close enough to read them. Look at the ads in the magazine.
Can you see the markings?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
We know he was entirely unreliable.
Nope. If you're trying to suggest he was crazy, that was dealt with in
another forum. As to his changing his story a bit, it wasn't that much of
a change. That isn't "entirely unreliable".
So, according to you as our board certified psychiatrist someone has to
be crazy to lie?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Huh? You are saying that, since you believe in a conspiracy, you'll
accept any conspiracy witness?
Nope. But if an overview of the case shows it to be a conspiracy, then
it's more likely that Roger Craig's story is believable. I certainly
That does not follow logically.
There is no evidence that a Mauser was fired.
A conspiracy could and should use Oswald's Carcano to frame him.
Post by mainframetech
don't think you can ever say to accept ANY witness to a conspiracy. I've
mentioned some witnesses and had folks here show me reason not to use
them, and I've dropped them immediately from that time. One of them was
Beverly Oliver.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
If you choose to believe every conspiracy factoid, you are always
going to be spinning your wheels.
As we know, every conspiracy factoid is not always true.
Post by John McAdams
Do you even know about the Alyea film?
You mean film from up on the 6th floor of the cops poking around? I've
seen it. Chaotic and confusing as to who did what in what order. To me,
I find it odd that the cops would let all the reporters into the place
while they searched. It can't possibly be a decent search with all those
civilians running around flashing pictures and asking questions.
Right, you just confirmed that you know nothing about the Alyea film. He
was the only press lucky enough to get inside the TSBD before the cops
locked it up.
You know absolutely nothing about this case.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chris
mainframetech
2013-05-20 23:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
   Whoops.  I didn't ignore it.  I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you.  I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
   Tut, tut.  Be nice now.  That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
    MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different.  With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often.  I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
So in the matter of a president being murdered Weitzman only looked at
the rifle "in a glance"??? And then signed his name and swore to it too?
For the world to see that he made a mistake? Naah. It doesn't compute.
Something doesn't make sense if we simply accept whatever excuse is thrown
out without thought. I can see Roger Craig saying he saw the marking up
close just to get people to believe him that it was a Mauser that the cops
were trying to cover up, but not any other reason. If he was an habitual
liar he wouldn't have been elected "cop of the year". Cops would see
through the lies quickly. And then to go on and ruin his career for not
laying down like everyone else did? And then to have to put up with a
nutty wife on top of it all. Talk about a burden. But he held up under
it for years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
    You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'?  Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
By the time the HSCA was doing their thing, any Mauser that was around
was gone. If there was a Mauser, it was gone the same day they found the
rifle. Since Oswald had bought an MC, the Mauser wouldn't help things,
only make it look like there was another shooter besides Oswald. If there
was a Mauser, it had to go. Remember too, that the HSCA record of
complete honesty was a shambles, especially after they tried to get away
with saying that all the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was
only a tiny hole in the back of JFK's head. They were shown to be lying on
that one. And when they declared that it was probably a conspiracy, did
they recommend opening the case and starting the search for the
conspirators? Nope. That wasn't what they were supposed to do there.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view.  And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it.  So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
Odd. Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling. And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS. Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
Post by Anthony Marsh
to sign on to?  While Craig might have modified his story so that it would
have a better chance of being believed, remember that he would not back
off from his story like everybody else did, and his career suffered from
that point on.  Why cling to a lie and lose your career and everything?
He was sane and healthy and had a good future.
Habitual liars are like that. They can't stop lying.
See above. He would have been picked out as a liar long before he
was made "cop of the year". Cops are better at telling who's lying
than we are. Her had gotten 4 promotions before the murder too.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
   They don't look so similar when you read the markings on them.
If you get close enough to read them. Look at the ads in the magazine.
Can you see the markings?
Weitzman wasn't looking at ads. He was right up near the rifle and
signed and swore he saw a 'Mauser 7.65'. Why?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
We know he was entirely unreliable.
   Nope.  If you're trying to suggest he was crazy, that was dealt with in
another forum.  As to his changing his story a bit, it wasn't that much of
a change.  That isn't "entirely unreliable".
So, according to you as our board certified psychiatrist someone has to
be crazy to lie?
Whoops! I'm not the first one to talk about Craig's 'unreliability' for
being an 'habitual liar'. I said that to forestall anyone trying to use
information that has been rumored around about Craig. It's to some folks
advantage to say that Craig was crazy because some people were going
online and saying that about him in the Education Forum.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Huh?  You are saying that, since you believe in a conspiracy, you'll
accept any conspiracy witness?
  Nope.  But if an overview of the case shows it to be a conspiracy, then
it's more likely that Roger Craig's story is believable.  I certainly
That does not follow logically.
There is no evidence that a Mauser was fired.
A conspiracy could and should use Oswald's Carcano to frame him.
You're forgetting that there was 2 purposes for the conspirators. First,
to set up Oswald as the 'patsy' and second, to murder the president.
They might not think much of Oswald's choice of weapon as being exactly
what it was. A WW2 surplus rifle that was 'worn and corroded' (as per
Frazier), and one that was not known to a good shooter who would probably
want his own weapon (the Mauser) that was known to be dependable. The
Mauser was then spirited away when the deed was done.
Post by Anthony Marsh
don't think you can ever say to accept ANY witness to a conspiracy.  I've
mentioned some witnesses and had folks here show me reason not to use
them, and I've dropped them immediately from that time.  One of them was
Beverly Oliver.
Post by John McAdams
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
If you choose to believe every conspiracy factoid, you are always
going to be spinning your wheels.
   As we know, every conspiracy factoid is not always true.
Post by John McAdams
Do you even know about the Alyea film?
   You mean film from up on the 6th floor of the cops poking around? I've
seen it.  Chaotic and confusing as to who did what in what order.  To me,
I find it odd that the cops would let all the reporters into the place
while they searched.  It can't possibly be a decent search with all those
civilians running around flashing pictures and asking questions.
Right, you just confirmed that you know nothing about the Alyea film. He
was the only press lucky enough to get inside the TSBD before the cops
locked it up.
You know absolutely nothing about this case.
Here we go again with me having to correct your egregious errors again.
I watched the Alyea film a few times. And you actually think there were
NO other press people in the TSBD at that time? And again, saying that I
know nothing about the case shows your desperation to find me in error.
I guarantee it's possible, keep trying...:)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-21 22:57:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Whoops. I didn't ignore it. I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you. I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
Tut, tut. Be nice now. That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different. With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often. I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
So in the matter of a president being murdered Weitzman only looked at
the rifle "in a glance"??? And then signed his name and swore to it too?
Yes, exactly.
Post by mainframetech
For the world to see that he made a mistake? Naah. It doesn't compute.
The world?
Post by mainframetech
Something doesn't make sense if we simply accept whatever excuse is thrown
out without thought. I can see Roger Craig saying he saw the marking up
close just to get people to believe him that it was a Mauser that the cops
were trying to cover up, but not any other reason. If he was an habitual
liar he wouldn't have been elected "cop of the year". Cops would see
Yes, he would. Cops always lie.
Post by mainframetech
through the lies quickly. And then to go on and ruin his career for not
laying down like everyone else did? And then to have to put up with a
nutty wife on top of it all. Talk about a burden. But he held up under
it for years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'? Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
By the time the HSCA was doing their thing, any Mauser that was around
was gone. If there was a Mauser, it was gone the same day they found the
rifle. Since Oswald had bought an MC, the Mauser wouldn't help things,
only make it look like there was another shooter besides Oswald. If there
was a Mauser, it had to go. Remember too, that the HSCA record of
complete honesty was a shambles, especially after they tried to get away
with saying that all the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was
only a tiny hole in the back of JFK's head. They were shown to be lying on
that one. And when they declared that it was probably a conspiracy, did
they recommend opening the case and starting the search for the
conspirators? Nope. That wasn't what they were supposed to do there.
Two different issues. The HSCA didn't lie about everything. Craig didn't
lie about everything.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view. And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it. So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
Odd. Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling. And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS. Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
No, he just said that it looked like a Mauser. He was never close enough
to confirm that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
to sign on to? While Craig might have modified his story so that it would
have a better chance of being believed, remember that he would not back
off from his story like everybody else did, and his career suffered from
that point on. Why cling to a lie and lose your career and everything?
He was sane and healthy and had a good future.
Habitual liars are like that. They can't stop lying.
See above. He would have been picked out as a liar long before he
was made "cop of the year". Cops are better at telling who's lying
than we are. Her had gotten 4 promotions before the murder too.
Meaningless.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
They don't look so similar when you read the markings on them.
If you get close enough to read them. Look at the ads in the magazine.
Can you see the markings?
Weitzman wasn't looking at ads. He was right up near the rifle and
signed and swore he saw a 'Mauser 7.65'. Why?
So you stipulate that you can't see any markings in the ads. The is the
type of view that Weitzman had. Day had to use a loupe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
We know he was entirely unreliable.
Nope. If you're trying to suggest he was crazy, that was dealt with in
another forum. As to his changing his story a bit, it wasn't that much of
a change. That isn't "entirely unreliable".
So, according to you as our board certified psychiatrist someone has to
be crazy to lie?
Whoops! I'm not the first one to talk about Craig's 'unreliability' for
being an 'habitual liar'. I said that to forestall anyone trying to use
information that has been rumored around about Craig. It's to some folks
advantage to say that Craig was crazy because some people were going
online and saying that about him in the Education Forum.
So, again, do you equate lying with being crazy?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Huh? You are saying that, since you believe in a conspiracy, you'll
accept any conspiracy witness?
Nope. But if an overview of the case shows it to be a conspiracy, then
it's more likely that Roger Craig's story is believable. I certainly
That does not follow logically.
There is no evidence that a Mauser was fired.
A conspiracy could and should use Oswald's Carcano to frame him.
You're forgetting that there was 2 purposes for the conspirators. First,
to set up Oswald as the 'patsy' and second, to murder the president.
They might not think much of Oswald's choice of weapon as being exactly
what it was. A WW2 surplus rifle that was 'worn and corroded' (as per
Frazier), and one that was not known to a good shooter who would probably
want his own weapon (the Mauser) that was known to be dependable. The
Mauser was then spirited away when the deed was done.
No Mauser was fired from the sniper's nest. What good does it do to fire
blanks from the Mauser if you are trying to kill the President? You're
not thinking through your theories.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
don't think you can ever say to accept ANY witness to a conspiracy. I've
mentioned some witnesses and had folks here show me reason not to use
them, and I've dropped them immediately from that time. One of them was
Beverly Oliver.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
If you choose to believe every conspiracy factoid, you are always
going to be spinning your wheels.
As we know, every conspiracy factoid is not always true.
Post by John McAdams
Do you even know about the Alyea film?
You mean film from up on the 6th floor of the cops poking around? I've
seen it. Chaotic and confusing as to who did what in what order. To me,
I find it odd that the cops would let all the reporters into the place
while they searched. It can't possibly be a decent search with all those
civilians running around flashing pictures and asking questions.
Right, you just confirmed that you know nothing about the Alyea film. He
was the only press lucky enough to get inside the TSBD before the cops
locked it up.
You know absolutely nothing about this case.
Here we go again with me having to correct your egregious errors again.
I watched the Alyea film a few times. And you actually think there were
NO other press people in the TSBD at that time? And again, saying that I
know nothing about the case shows your desperation to find me in error.
I guarantee it's possible, keep trying...:)
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Chris
Jean Davison
2013-05-23 00:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
   Whoops.  I didn't ignore it.  I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you.  I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
   Tut, tut.  Be nice now.  That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
    MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different.  With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often.  I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
  So in the matter of a president being murdered Weitzman only looked at
the rifle "in a glance"???  And then signed his name and swore to it too?
For the world to see that he made a mistake?  Naah.  It doesn't compute.
Something doesn't make sense if we simply accept whatever excuse is thrown
out without thought.  I can see Roger Craig saying he saw the marking up
close just to get people to believe him that it was a Mauser that the cops
were trying to cover up, but not any other reason.  If he was an habitual
liar he wouldn't have been elected "cop of the year".  Cops would see
through the lies quickly. And then to go on and ruin his career for not
laying down like everyone else did?  And then to have to put up with a
nutty wife on top of it all.  Talk about a burden.  But he held up under
it for years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
    You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'?  Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
  By the time the HSCA was doing their thing, any Mauser that was around
was gone.  If there was a Mauser, it was gone the same day they found the
rifle.  Since Oswald had bought an MC, the Mauser wouldn't help things,
only make it look like there was another shooter besides Oswald.  If there
was a Mauser, it had to go.  Remember too, that the HSCA record of
complete honesty was a shambles, especially after they tried to get away
with saying that all the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was
only a tiny hole in the back of JFK's head. They were shown to be lying on
that one.  And when they declared that it was probably a conspiracy, did
they recommend opening the case and starting the search for the
conspirators?  Nope.  That wasn't what they were supposed to do there.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view.  And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it.  So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
  Odd.  Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling.  And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS.  Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
Fritz wasn't holding the rifle when he walked past Weitzman and
Craig, that I see. But if he was, he was holding a Mannlicher- Carcano,
not a Mauser.

Jean
mainframetech
2013-05-23 23:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
   Whoops.  I didn't ignore it.  I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you.  I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
   Tut, tut.  Be nice now.  That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
    MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different.  With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often.  I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
  So in the matter of a president being murdered Weitzman only looked at
the rifle "in a glance"???  And then signed his name and swore to it too?
For the world to see that he made a mistake?  Naah.  It doesn't compute.
Something doesn't make sense if we simply accept whatever excuse is thrown
out without thought.  I can see Roger Craig saying he saw the marking up
close just to get people to believe him that it was a Mauser that the cops
were trying to cover up, but not any other reason.  If he was an habitual
liar he wouldn't have been elected "cop of the year".  Cops would see
through the lies quickly. And then to go on and ruin his career for not
laying down like everyone else did?  And then to have to put up with a
nutty wife on top of it all.  Talk about a burden.  But he held up under
it for years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
    You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'?  Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
  By the time the HSCA was doing their thing, any Mauser that was around
was gone.  If there was a Mauser, it was gone the same day they found the
rifle.  Since Oswald had bought an MC, the Mauser wouldn't help things,
only make it look like there was another shooter besides Oswald.  If there
was a Mauser, it had to go.  Remember too, that the HSCA record of
complete honesty was a shambles, especially after they tried to get away
with saying that all the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was
only a tiny hole in the back of JFK's head. They were shown to be lying on
that one.  And when they declared that it was probably a conspiracy, did
they recommend opening the case and starting the search for the
conspirators?  Nope.  That wasn't what they were supposed to do there.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view.  And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it.  So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
  Odd.  Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling.  And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS.  Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
        Fritz wasn't holding the rifle when he walked past Weitzman and
Craig, that I see.  But if he was, he was holding a Mannlicher- Carcano,
not a Mauser.
                                                    Jean
I appreciate the news, but I still can't identify a Mauser 7.65 from an
MC 6.5. Do you have some way of recognizing the signs on the rifle Fritz
was carrying? They both look alike to me for this medium we're using. I
see that the MC rifle drops a clip downward, and the Mauser doesn't, but
you can't see that in these videos. And were you able to identify the
other rifle outlined in the video that I pointed out? That has me
wondering.

http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI

Go forward to just past 5:40 and see the red outline of what looks like
a rifle behind the rifle he is holding. Please help with these questions.
Thanks.

Chris
mainframetech
2013-05-23 23:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
   Whoops.  I didn't ignore it.  I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you.  I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
   Tut, tut.  Be nice now.  That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
    MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different.  With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often.  I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
  So in the matter of a president being murdered Weitzman only looked at
the rifle "in a glance"???  And then signed his name and swore to it too?
For the world to see that he made a mistake?  Naah.  It doesn't compute.
Something doesn't make sense if we simply accept whatever excuse is thrown
out without thought.  I can see Roger Craig saying he saw the marking up
close just to get people to believe him that it was a Mauser that the cops
were trying to cover up, but not any other reason.  If he was an habitual
liar he wouldn't have been elected "cop of the year".  Cops would see
through the lies quickly. And then to go on and ruin his career for not
laying down like everyone else did?  And then to have to put up with a
nutty wife on top of it all.  Talk about a burden.  But he held up under
it for years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
    You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'?  Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
  By the time the HSCA was doing their thing, any Mauser that was around
was gone.  If there was a Mauser, it was gone the same day they found the
rifle.  Since Oswald had bought an MC, the Mauser wouldn't help things,
only make it look like there was another shooter besides Oswald.  If there
was a Mauser, it had to go.  Remember too, that the HSCA record of
complete honesty was a shambles, especially after they tried to get away
with saying that all the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was
only a tiny hole in the back of JFK's head. They were shown to be lying on
that one.  And when they declared that it was probably a conspiracy, did
they recommend opening the case and starting the search for the
conspirators?  Nope.  That wasn't what they were supposed to do there.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view.  And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it.  So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
  Odd.  Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling.  And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS.  Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
        Fritz wasn't holding the rifle when he walked past Weitzman and
Craig, that I see.  But if he was, he was holding a Mannlicher- Carcano,
not a Mauser.
                                                    Jean
Again, how did you determine that the rifle being held was an MC?
I can't see any marks to tell between that and a Mauser.

It would help me also to know what the rifle is that I outlined
behind the rifle being held in hand in this video after 5:40.

http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI

Chris
John McAdams
2013-05-24 00:52:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
  Odd.  Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling.  And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS.  Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
        Fritz wasn't holding the rifle when he walked past Weitzman and
Craig, that I see.  But if he was, he was holding a Mannlicher- Carcano,
not a Mauser.
                                                    Jean
Again, how did you determine that the rifle being held was an MC?
I can't see any marks to tell between that and a Mauser.
The HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel had high quality versions of all
the material, and not only identified the rifle in the Alyea film as
an MC, but identified it as the Mannlicher-Carcano that sits to this
day in the Archives.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=78105

There were several distinctive marks on the rifle.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-24 02:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Whoops. I didn't ignore it. I'm just less enamored of newspapers than
you. I've seen cases where they have gotten a story completely bass
ackward, and so I took the statement from the primary witness before the
paper.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
Tut, tut. Be nice now. That's an implied insult.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
MAYBE he was telling the Free Press something different. With
newspaper reports, they get it wrong often. I've seen it.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?
Craig never said he *saw* "7.65 Mauser" right after all the events
happened.
That's a later addition to his story.
It was apparently only added in 1974.
In his 1971 account, he only said that other officers said it was a
Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?
He *was* questioned about it, and he said that "in a glance" that's
what it looked like.
So in the matter of a president being murdered Weitzman only looked at
the rifle "in a glance"??? And then signed his name and swore to it too?
For the world to see that he made a mistake? Naah. It doesn't compute.
Something doesn't make sense if we simply accept whatever excuse is thrown
out without thought. I can see Roger Craig saying he saw the marking up
close just to get people to believe him that it was a Mauser that the cops
were trying to cover up, but not any other reason. If he was an habitual
liar he wouldn't have been elected "cop of the year". Cops would see
through the lies quickly. And then to go on and ruin his career for not
laying down like everyone else did? And then to have to put up with a
nutty wife on top of it all. Talk about a burden. But he held up under
it for years.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
You mean he said that the next day when they got him to go along with
the 'lone nut' scenario'? Mauser's have a logo or their name stamped on
the rifle.
All Mausers? Show me the Mauser stamp on the rifle that Day is examining.
Do you understand that the HSCA proved that the rifle they found in the
TSBD was Oswald's Carcano. I think you should change your theory to a
Mauser being found on the roof.
By the time the HSCA was doing their thing, any Mauser that was around
was gone. If there was a Mauser, it was gone the same day they found the
rifle. Since Oswald had bought an MC, the Mauser wouldn't help things,
only make it look like there was another shooter besides Oswald. If there
was a Mauser, it had to go. Remember too, that the HSCA record of
complete honesty was a shambles, especially after they tried to get away
with saying that all the onlookers at the autopsy agreed that there was
only a tiny hole in the back of JFK's head. They were shown to be lying on
that one. And when they declared that it was probably a conspiracy, did
they recommend opening the case and starting the search for the
conspirators? Nope. That wasn't what they were supposed to do there.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Why would Weitzman and Fritz make the mistake of reading it wrong? The
logo is in plain view. And the MC rifle had a clear 'CAL 6.5' stamped on
it. So how would Weitzman the sports shop person miss the obvious
identification stamped on the rifle and make an assumption he was willing
Because he didn't see it up close.
Odd. Jean just got through saying the film shows that Weitzman was
close to Fritz when Fritz was holding up the rifle by the sling. And
Weitzman signed and swore it was a 'Mauser 7.65' that probably murdered
the POTUS. Others said Weitzman was close to the rifle too.
Fritz wasn't holding the rifle when he walked past Weitzman and
Craig, that I see. But if he was, he was holding a Mannlicher- Carcano,
not a Mauser.
Jean
Again, how did you determine that the rifle being held was an MC?
I can't see any marks to tell between that and a Mauser.
It would help me also to know what the rifle is that I outlined
behind the rifle being held in hand in this video after 5:40.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
Chris
What rifle?
YOU outlined or some kook on a kook website outlined?
Jean Davison
2013-05-19 01:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%22roger+craig%22+jfk+youtube+mauser&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-900

Jean
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-19 03:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%22roger+craig%22+jfk+youtube+mauser&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-900
Jean
That URL is only a list of your search results not the specific Alyea
clip you want to show.
Jean Davison
2013-05-19 18:40:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
That URL is only a list of your search results not the specific Alyea
clip you want to show.
Thanks. It's at the lower right, labeled "7.65 Mauser."

And to Chris I say, Look at the trigger guard and compare it
with the pictures here:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg

Craig says "Mauser" but the film definitely shows an M-C.

Jean
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-20 21:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Davison
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
That URL is only a list of your search results not the specific Alyea
clip you want to show.
Thanks. It's at the lower right, labeled "7.65 Mauser."
And to Chris I say, Look at the trigger guard and compare it
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
Craig says "Mauser" but the film definitely shows an M-C.
Jean
Chris is hopeless. He doesn't know anything about guns.
He doesn't even know his brass from his oboe.
Can you see the markings on the rifle in the Alyea clip?
Can you read the Fascist Date?
I'd like to see the kooks claim they can see the Mauser stamp.
Please, pretty please with sugar and molasses on it, guys.
mainframetech
2013-05-21 04:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
    Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
     It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
     Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
          This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                      Jean
That URL is only a list of your search results not the specific Alyea
clip you want to show.
          Thanks.  It's at the lower right, labeled "7.65 Mauser."
          And to Chris I say, Look at the trigger guard and compare it
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
           Craig says "Mauser" but the film definitely shows an M-C.
Jean
Chris is hopeless. He doesn't know anything about guns.
He doesn't even know his brass from his oboe.
Can you see the markings on the rifle in the Alyea clip?
Can you read the Fascist Date?
I'd like to see the kooks claim they can see the Mauser stamp.
Please, pretty please with sugar and molasses on it, guys.
Marsh, you need to get a grip on your efforts to find me in error.
That alone is an error on your part. I know enough about guns to
understand talk about them, and you've seen nothing to prove anything
different here. Another one of your errors is to think anyone has
said they can see markings on a rifle in a newspaper picture or a
badly done video. No one ever said that, so it's another one of your
errors used to try to denigrate me. You've failed once again. Keep
up the bad work though...:)

Now, listen carefully as I teach you about our subject. 'Kooks'
have not claimed that they can see a stamp on any rifle in question
here. However, it was obvious that Weitzman could see the markings,
and so was able to sign and swear to what he saw. Give up your effort
to say that anyone is trying to say they can see markings on a rifle
from our position here. Now if you need further clarification, just
let me know, as I will be here for a long time to come and will be
monitoring your posts for more errors which you are bound to make.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-21 22:57:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jean Davison
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
That URL is only a list of your search results not the specific Alyea
clip you want to show.
Thanks. It's at the lower right, labeled "7.65 Mauser."
And to Chris I say, Look at the trigger guard and compare it
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rifle1.jpg
Craig says "Mauser" but the film definitely shows an M-C.
Jean
Chris is hopeless. He doesn't know anything about guns.
He doesn't even know his brass from his oboe.
Can you see the markings on the rifle in the Alyea clip?
Can you read the Fascist Date?
I'd like to see the kooks claim they can see the Mauser stamp.
Please, pretty please with sugar and molasses on it, guys.
Marsh, you need to get a grip on your efforts to find me in error.
That alone is an error on your part. I know enough about guns to
understand talk about them, and you've seen nothing to prove anything
different here. Another one of your errors is to think anyone has
You can't even recognize that it is a Carcano in the Alyea film.
Post by mainframetech
said they can see markings on a rifle in a newspaper picture or a
badly done video. No one ever said that, so it's another one of your
errors used to try to denigrate me. You've failed once again. Keep
up the bad work though...:)
YOU said they could see markings. Craig said he could see the word "Mauser."
Post by mainframetech
Now, listen carefully as I teach you about our subject. 'Kooks'
have not claimed that they can see a stamp on any rifle in question
here. However, it was obvious that Weitzman could see the markings,
No, he didn't.
Post by mainframetech
and so was able to sign and swear to what he saw. Give up your effort
to say that anyone is trying to say they can see markings on a rifle
from our position here. Now if you need further clarification, just
let me know, as I will be here for a long time to come and will be
monitoring your posts for more errors which you are bound to make.
Chris
curtjester1
2013-05-19 18:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.


I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser. Does that not make it suspicious alone? And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle. It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-20 21:35:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser. Does that not make it suspicious alone? And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle. It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
curtjester1
2013-05-21 05:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.

CJ
Bud
2013-05-21 22:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
curtjester1
2013-05-22 15:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
 Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-22 15:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
 Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
Nobody read "Mauser" on the rifle.

Look . . . how do you explain Craig's 1968 interview with the LOS
ANGELES FREE PRESS? How do you explain that *reading* "7.65 Mauser"
was not in his 1971 account?

How do you explain that Mrs. Paine did *not* have a Rambler?

How do you explain that Craig's later (1974) testimony about seeing a
spent bullet on the Dealey Plaza infield flatly contradicted his WC
testimony?

Will you posit *anything* to avoid the obvious conclusion: that he was
telling tall tales?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-22 23:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
Post by curtjester1
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
Nobody read "Mauser" on the rifle.
Look . . . how do you explain Craig's 1968 interview with the LOS
ANGELES FREE PRESS?  How do you explain that *reading* "7.65 Mauser"
was not in his 1971 account?
How do you explain that Mrs. Paine did *not* have a Rambler?
How do you explain that Craig's later (1974) testimony about seeing a
spent bullet on the Dealey Plaza infield flatly contradicted his WC
testimony?
Will you posit *anything* to avoid the obvious conclusion: that he was
telling tall tales?
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Why do you believe the LA newspaper account? I have asked that you
verify the article and so far you can't. I believe you are the only
person I know that believes it, and the only one on the entire net
that even has it in their 'arsenal'. Why?

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-23 00:10:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
Post by curtjester1
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
Nobody read "Mauser" on the rifle.
Look . . . how do you explain Craig's 1968 interview with the LOS
ANGELES FREE PRESS?  How do you explain that *reading* "7.65 Mauser"
was not in his 1971 account?
How do you explain that Mrs. Paine did *not* have a Rambler?
How do you explain that Craig's later (1974) testimony about seeing a
spent bullet on the Dealey Plaza infield flatly contradicted his WC
testimony?
Will you posit *anything* to avoid the obvious conclusion: that he was
telling tall tales?
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Why do you believe the LA newspaper account? I have asked that you
verify the article and so far you can't.
You go to the library, and have the librarian in charge of
Interlibrary Loan get the March, 1968 numbers of the LOS ANGELES FREE
PRESS.

Are you even aware that they were *promoting* conspiracy theories?

But then, when you get the article back, and it's exactly as I posted,
you'll claim it was faked.

You'll deny *anything* that inpeaches your beloved Roger Craig.
Post by curtjester1
I believe you are the only
person I know that believes it, and the only one on the entire net
that even has it in their 'arsenal'. Why?
You only read kook websites.

If you think I forged it somehow, then show me up! Get the FREE PRESS
on microfilm, and show that it's not there.

BTW, I got this from Dennis Morissette's site.

http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/newspapers

But I suppose you think he forged it.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
2013-05-24 00:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
Post by curtjester1
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
Nobody read "Mauser" on the rifle.
Look . . . how do you explain Craig's 1968 interview with the LOS
ANGELES FREE PRESS?  How do you explain that *reading* "7.65 Mauser"
was not in his 1971 account?
How do you explain that Mrs. Paine did *not* have a Rambler?
How do you explain that Craig's later (1974) testimony about seeing a
spent bullet on the Dealey Plaza infield flatly contradicted his WC
testimony?
Will you posit *anything* to avoid the obvious conclusion: that he was
telling tall tales?
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Why do you believe the LA newspaper account?  I have asked that you
verify the article and so far you can't.  I believe you are the only
person I know that believes it, and the only one on the entire net
that even has it in their 'arsenal'.  Why?
CJ
Here's his testimony in the Shaw trial. I see no mention of a Mauser
therein.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm

He also mentioned no Mauser in his earliest statement on the
assassination signed by himself:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig1.htm

You were provided his FBI statement.
You have his 1964 testimony to the Warren Commission here:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig.htm

The 1968 newspaper article mentions a rifle found on the rooftop, not
any second rifle in the building.

Thus, the *earliest* account we have of a supposed second rifle seen
by Craig is almost a decade after the fact.

And people who actually knew him said he wasn't trustworthy.

Like Mary Ferrell:

From the old Prodigy Bulletin Board:

-- quote --
TIME: 8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE

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 --

And of course, his own daughter called him unstable:

-- quote --
One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable – book review

Michelle Palmer says:
July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm

Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK’s
actual death.

I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
their theories. You are ALL full of it.
-- unquote --

My conclusion, based on the above evidence, is that Craig made up the
story of actually seeing the word *Mauser* and the caliber of the
weapon in the 1970's.

Hank
curtjester1
2013-05-24 13:21:04 UTC
Permalink
On May 23, 8:44 pm, "Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)"
Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
Post by curtjester1
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
Nobody read "Mauser" on the rifle.
Look . . . how do you explain Craig's 1968 interview with the LOS
ANGELES FREE PRESS?  How do you explain that *reading* "7.65 Mauser"
was not in his 1971 account?
How do you explain that Mrs. Paine did *not* have a Rambler?
How do you explain that Craig's later (1974) testimony about seeing a
spent bullet on the Dealey Plaza infield flatly contradicted his WC
testimony?
Will you posit *anything* to avoid the obvious conclusion: that he was
telling tall tales?
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Why do you believe the LA newspaper account?  I have asked that you
verify the article and so far you can't.  I believe you are the only
person I know that believes it, and the only one on the entire net
that even has it in their 'arsenal'.  Why?
CJ
Here's his testimony in the Shaw trial. I see no mention of a Mauser
therein.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craigsh.htm
He also mentioned no Mauser in his earliest statement on the
assassination signed by himself:http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig1.htm
You were provided his FBI statement.
You have his 1964 testimony to the Warren Commission here:http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/craig.htm
The 1968 newspaper article mentions a rifle found on the rooftop, not
any second rifle in the building.
Thus, the *earliest* account we have of a supposed second rifle seen
by Craig is almost a decade after the fact.
And people who actually knew him said he wasn't trustworthy.
-- quote --
TIME:  8/24 1:25 PM
TO: BILL AMBROSINO
FROM: MARY FERRELL
SUBJECT: JFK-CIA EXPERTISE
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 --
-- quote --
One Response to JFK and the Unspeakable – book review
July 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Bullshit. You are ALL so full of it. Roger Craig was unstable from
childhood. His suicide had more to do with his own mental illness (and
being sucked into the GD conspiracy crap) than anything to do with JFK’s
actual death.
I am his child. I knew him. I knew the people who used him to promote
their theories. You are ALL full of it.
-- unquote --
My conclusion, based on the above evidence, is that Craig made up the
story of actually seeing the word *Mauser* and the caliber of the
weapon in the 1970's.
Hank
Mine for now, is two weapons were found, and the M-C was the one used
on film later. An interesting report is from ATF Ellsworth in seeing
them bring up the M-C from one of the lower floors.

CJ

Anthony Marsh
2013-05-22 20:02:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser. Does that not make it suspicious alone? And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle. It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
CJ
No one read "Mauser" on the rifle. YOU can't see the word "Mauser" on the
rifle in the Alyea film. What you guys need to do is claim that Alyea's
film clips really do show Oswald's Carcano being examined, but the
conspirators threw away his other clips which show the Mauser. Yes, the
cops tampered with the crime scene. Routine incompetence in those days.
Like walking around in pools of blood and leaving bloody foorsteps back to
the station.

They also did not have all the fancy tests that we do nowadays.
curtjester1
2013-05-22 23:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
    Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
     It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
     Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
          This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                      Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
  Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
CJ
No one read "Mauser" on the rifle. YOU can't see the word "Mauser" on the
rifle in the Alyea film. What you guys need to do is claim that Alyea's
film clips really do show Oswald's Carcano being examined, but the
conspirators threw away his other clips which show the Mauser. Yes, the
cops tampered with the crime scene. Routine incompetence in those days.
Like walking around in pools of blood and leaving bloody foorsteps back to
the station.
They also did not have all the fancy tests that we do nowadays.
I think you were the one that brought up that there were different reels
of film that Aylea made, and editing was possible. Surely you can make
possible for a looking at 'a' rifle as being a little later than what
wants to be, can't you? There are several threads on the subject on the
minutae of the fine points that could make Alyea's portrayal here as not
as early as people like it to have happened.

There are so many youtube's and such that have Craig reading Mauser, 7.65
from "six to eight inches away." It's your choice not to believe him or
not. I happen to believe him. He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M. Impossible, crazy to most. Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case. I believe the man that people accuse of this rifle
being held up as his rifle is completely exonerated in a murder that many
thinks he committed, and if those times were re-arranged there to make it
allow for him to get there in time for Tippit; think how possible it might
be what is taken for granted, to just not might, maybe, be not so.

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-23 00:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
CJ
  Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
CJ
No one read "Mauser" on the rifle. YOU can't see the word "Mauser" on the
rifle in the Alyea film. What you guys need to do is claim that Alyea's
film clips really do show Oswald's Carcano being examined, but the
conspirators threw away his other clips which show the Mauser. Yes, the
cops tampered with the crime scene. Routine incompetence in those days.
Like walking around in pools of blood and leaving bloody foorsteps back to
the station.
They also did not have all the fancy tests that we do nowadays.
I think you were the one that brought up that there were different reels
of film that Aylea made, and editing was possible. Surely you can make
possible for a looking at 'a' rifle as being a little later than what
wants to be, can't you? There are several threads on the subject on the
minutae of the fine points that could make Alyea's portrayal here as not
as early as people like it to have happened.
There are so many youtube's and such that have Craig reading Mauser, 7.65
from "six to eight inches away."
You mean because there are "so many," that it must be true?
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not. I happen to believe him. He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M. Impossible, crazy to most. Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?

Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.

BTW, Craig said the following in his 1971 essay:

<Quote on>

At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.

<End quote>

Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered. But it wasn't at 1:06.

Of course, he changed his story about that too:

Loading Image...

When are you going to get tired of the mental gymnastics necessary to
believe Craig?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-23 02:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
CJ
No one read "Mauser" on the rifle. YOU can't see the word "Mauser" on the
rifle in the Alyea film. What you guys need to do is claim that Alyea's
film clips really do show Oswald's Carcano being examined, but the
conspirators threw away his other clips which show the Mauser. Yes, the
cops tampered with the crime scene. Routine incompetence in those days.
Like walking around in pools of blood and leaving bloody foorsteps back to
the station.
They also did not have all the fancy tests that we do nowadays.
I think you were the one that brought up that there were different reels
of film that Aylea made, and editing was possible. Surely you can make
possible for a looking at 'a' rifle as being a little later than what
wants to be, can't you? There are several threads on the subject on the
minutae of the fine points that could make Alyea's portrayal here as not
as early as people like it to have happened.
There are so many youtube's and such that have Craig reading Mauser, 7.65
from "six to eight inches away."
You mean because there are "so many," that it must be true?
In his mind the truth is an opinion poll.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not. I happen to believe him. He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M. Impossible, crazy to most. Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?
Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.
<Quote on>
At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.
<End quote>
Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered. But it wasn't at 1:06.
Maybe 1:06 on his watch is 1:22 in real time.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
When are you going to get tired of the mental gymnastics necessary to
believe Craig?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2013-05-23 23:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
CJ
  Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
CJ
No one read "Mauser" on the rifle. YOU can't see the word "Mauser" on the
rifle in the Alyea film. What you guys need to do is claim that Alyea's
film clips really do show Oswald's Carcano being examined, but the
conspirators threw away his other clips which show the Mauser. Yes, the
cops tampered with the crime scene. Routine incompetence in those days.
Like walking around in pools of blood and leaving bloody foorsteps back to
the station.
They also did not have all the fancy tests that we do nowadays.
I think you were the one that brought up that there were different reels
of film that Aylea made, and editing was possible.  Surely you can make
possible for a looking at 'a' rifle as being a little later than what
wants to be, can't you?  There are several threads on the subject on the
minutae of the fine points that could make Alyea's portrayal here as not
as early as people like it to have happened.
There are so many youtube's and such that have Craig reading Mauser, 7.65
from "six to eight inches away."
You mean because there are "so many," that it must be true?
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not.  I happen to believe him.  He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M.  Impossible, crazy to most.  Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?
Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.
<Quote on>
At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.
<End quote>
Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered.  But it wasn't at 1:06.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
When are you going to get tired of the mental gymnastics necessary to
believe Craig?
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Looks like more gymnastics trying to discredit him. Though there are
some problems untangling the phony efforts to try and cover up his
statements, since he shows something that makes conspirators unhappy. He
saw Oswald get into a Rambler with a swarthy heavy fellow, who fits the
description that Acquilla Clemmons gave of a man that was reloading his
gun right after Tippit was shot. Craig also speaks of a Mauser that
Weitzman saw, also suggesting another shooter or a problem with one of the
main bits of evidence that would be used to set up Oswald.

So far I had to untangle the story that was passed around everywhere
that Craig was crazy, and then that Craig was an inveterate liar, and any
other discredit to his reputation. Odd, since he was the only one that
stayed true to his original story when everyone else immediately flipped
the very next day to the MC rifle. A "Cop of the year" with 4 promotions
and everyone is dumping on him like last week's garbage. Very odd. I know
that people can be mean when their main beliefs are threatened, but to
smear an officer that had done nothing but make a good reputation for
himself, just shows how important it was to the conspirators to push him
under using all the rumor-mongering they could, as well as possible
physical threats to him too.

Chris
curtjester1
2013-05-24 00:48:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
CJ
  Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What, about the reading Mauser on a rifle or seeing the crime scene
tampered with and re-arranged??
CJ
No one read "Mauser" on the rifle. YOU can't see the word "Mauser" on the
rifle in the Alyea film. What you guys need to do is claim that Alyea's
film clips really do show Oswald's Carcano being examined, but the
conspirators threw away his other clips which show the Mauser. Yes, the
cops tampered with the crime scene. Routine incompetence in those days.
Like walking around in pools of blood and leaving bloody foorsteps back to
the station.
They also did not have all the fancy tests that we do nowadays.
I think you were the one that brought up that there were different reels
of film that Aylea made, and editing was possible.  Surely you can make
possible for a looking at 'a' rifle as being a little later than what
wants to be, can't you?  There are several threads on the subject on the
minutae of the fine points that could make Alyea's portrayal here as not
as early as people like it to have happened.
There are so many youtube's and such that have Craig reading Mauser, 7.65
from "six to eight inches away."
You mean because there are "so many," that it must be true?
One should suffice to make it firm for a sighting/citing.
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not.  I happen to believe him.  He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M.  Impossible, crazy to most.  Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?
He went to the TSBD after the Rambler sighting, I presume. It was called
in by phone. There were cops at the TSBD not long after the shooting.
Post by John McAdams
Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.
Well-known adjusted tampering evidence. They also destroyed the phone
caller folks who called in from the scene. The DPD clerks had equipment
that would monitor any call-in, so they just made that disappear for their
convenience's sake.
Post by John McAdams
<Quote on>
At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.
<End quote>
So, it was when the rifle was really discovered, then. You forget
they had to get the props ready for the photographer at times.
Post by John McAdams
Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered.  But it wasn't at 1:06.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
Obviously a bogus account you trust and can't and won't verify.

CJ
John McAdams
2013-05-24 01:09:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not.  I happen to believe him.  He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M.  Impossible, crazy to most.  Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?
He went to the TSBD after the Rambler sighting, I presume. It was called
in by phone. There were cops at the TSBD not long after the shooting.
Before it was broadcast on police radio?

You have no evidence at all for that, and it's bizarre.

Nobody in the DPD knew about the shooting until a call came in from
Tippit's car at 1:16:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture45.ram
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.
Well-known adjusted tampering evidence.
You are getting desperate.

You have no evidence of that.
Post by curtjester1
They also destroyed the phone
caller folks who called in from the scene. The DPD clerks had equipment
that would monitor any call-in, so they just made that disappear for their
convenience's sake.
I'm not following you.

By the time anybody called on a landline, the cops already knew.
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
<Quote on>
At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.
<End quote>
So, it was when the rifle was really discovered, then. You forget
they had to get the props ready for the photographer at times.
The rifle was "really discovered" at 1:22.

You have no evidence to the contrary.
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered.  But it wasn't at 1:06.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
Obviously a bogus account you trust and can't and won't verify.
You'll say *anything* to avoid facing the truth about Craig.

Are you denying it appeared in the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS? Or are you
accusing that paper of concocting a false report just to impeach
Craig?

Either way, that's absurdly bizarre.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-24 02:27:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not. I happen to believe him. He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M. Impossible, crazy to most. Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?
He went to the TSBD after the Rambler sighting, I presume. It was called
in by phone. There were cops at the TSBD not long after the shooting.
Before it was broadcast on police radio?
Yes, Baker within seconds, other cycle cops within minutes.
Post by John McAdams
You have no evidence at all for that, and it's bizarre.
"Not long after" is vague enough for him to get away with it.
Post by John McAdams
Nobody in the DPD knew about the shooting until a call came in from
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture45.ram
How did we jump to Tippit?
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.
Well-known adjusted tampering evidence.
You are getting desperate.
You have no evidence of that.
Post by curtjester1
They also destroyed the phone
caller folks who called in from the scene. The DPD clerks had equipment
that would monitor any call-in, so they just made that disappear for their
convenience's sake.
I'm not following you.
By the time anybody called on a landline, the cops already knew.
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
<Quote on>
At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.
<End quote>
So, it was when the rifle was really discovered, then. You forget
they had to get the props ready for the photographer at times.
The rifle was "really discovered" at 1:22.
According to whose watch?
Post by John McAdams
You have no evidence to the contrary.
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered. But it wasn't at 1:06.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
Obviously a bogus account you trust and can't and won't verify.
You'll say *anything* to avoid facing the truth about Craig.
Are you denying it appeared in the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS? Or are you
accusing that paper of concocting a false report just to impeach
Craig?
Maybe he's denying that the LA Free Press existed. ;]>
Post by John McAdams
Either way, that's absurdly bizarre.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-24 13:20:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
It's your choice not to believe him or
not.  I happen to believe him.  He also stated that the Tippit murder was
at 1:06 P.M.  Impossible, crazy to most.  Only Helen Markham could
corroborate and everyone uses her as 'an eccentric.' It just so happens
there have been two other witnesses that have been found or come forward
in recent years and now they have a 1:06 time, and not one has held a deep
interest in the case.
How could Craig have possibly known at 1:06, as he said he did?
He went to the TSBD after the Rambler sighting, I presume.  It was called
in by phone.  There were cops at the TSBD not long after the shooting.
Before it was broadcast on police radio?
You can look at witness testimony and see after the shots people
congregating outside the TSBD and inside. Nothing even compelling
there. Fritz was there before 1:00 even. Craig was close by and
would have seen all that.
Post by John McAdams
You have no evidence at all for that, and it's bizarre.
Nobody in the DPD knew about the shooting until a call came in from
Oh your talking about Tippit already. No that's a bogus time.

http://ww.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html (Bartholomew/Graf
Upstairs Rifle)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6322 (Tippit
Died at 1:00 EF)
http://www.ctka.net/pr198-jfk.html (Police transcript 1:10 National
Archives)
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html (Craig's Unfinished
Manuscript. see ch. 2
http://whokilledjfk.net/alyea_replies_to_tomnln.htm (Aylea to Rossley
400 ft. of film)
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture45.ram
Post by John McAdams
Nobody in the DPD knew until the murder was called in from Tippit's
radio 1:15-1:16.
Well-known adjusted tampering evidence.
You are getting desperate.
Not at all. National Archives has it at 1:10 and the other time is a
latter 'adjustment'
Post by John McAdams
You have no evidence of that.
They also destroyed the phone
caller folks who called in from the scene.  The DPD clerks had equipment
that would monitor any call-in, so they just made that disappear for their
convenience's sake.
I'm not following you.
Mary Wright and Barbara Davis called in immediately when Tippit was
just dead. Clerks receive those calls, and put their message on a
conveyor for the dispatcher. There is no records of their calls, but
its how they were able to relay how quickly Tippit was down.
Post by John McAdams
By the time anybody called on a landline, the cops already knew.
Post by John McAdams
<Quote on>
At that exact moment [of the discovery of the rifle] an unknown Dallas
police officer came running up the stairs and advised Capt. Fritz that
a Dallas policeman had been shot in the Oak Cliff area. I
instinctively looked at my watch. The time was 1:06 p.m.
<End quote>
So, it was when the rifle was really discovered, then.  You forget
they had to get the props ready for the photographer at times.
The rifle was "really discovered" at 1:22.
You have no evidence to the contrary.
There is plenty I posted in the above links.
Post by John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Interestingly, since the rifle was discovered at 1:22, Craig probably
was telling the truth about "that exact moment" when the rifle was
discovered.  But it wasn't at 1:06.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
Obviously a bogus account you trust and can't and won't verify.
You'll say *anything* to avoid facing the truth about Craig.
There are many people that support Craig's timeline. Aynesworth,
Markham, Higgins, Holan, T.F. Bowley, and a few of the Tippit murder
witnesses give times just after 1:00 P.M.....W. Smith, Clark, and I
believe Scoggins.
Post by John McAdams
Are you denying it appeared in the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS?  Or are you
accusing that paper of concocting a false report just to impeach
Craig?
To have Craig even be in L.A. or have a L.A. reporter interview him
would be unlikely. There is not one word that Craig has ever said
that he made that interview, and there isn't any verification if it is
a real article, or was ever in a newspaper, or if the writer was
competent in writing the article.
Post by John McAdams
Either way, that's absurdly bizarre.
Your lack of investigative skills and throwing off one-liners is too
telling.

CJ
Post by John McAdams
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
curtjester1
2013-05-22 15:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
 Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What?, you mean about reading the word and caliber of a certain make
on a rifle, or how the crime scene changed with cartridges and stuff?

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-22 20:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Bud
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser. Does that not make it suspicious alone? And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle. It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What?, you mean about reading the word and caliber of a certain make
on a rifle, or how the crime scene changed with cartridges and stuff?
CJ
Rumors from kook Web sites. Never any facts.
curtjester1
2013-05-23 00:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
    Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
     It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
     Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
          This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                      Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
  Are you trying to highlight the lengths CTers will go to deny the
evidence?
What?, you mean about reading the word and caliber of a certain make
on a rifle, or how the crime scene changed with cartridges and stuff?
CJ
Rumors from kook Web sites. Never any facts.
I don't believe looking at a M-C is tantamount to be a fact-
determiner. Do you?

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-21 22:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser. Does that not make it suspicious alone? And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle. It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
You need to explain EXACTLY what you think Alyea admitted.
Even better, quote him.
All you ever post are vague rumors. That is not researcher.
How about some documents.
And no there is not a high degree of post saying they are not the same
MC. Only a couple of fervent kooks.
curtjester1
2013-05-22 15:36:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
    Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
     It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
     Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
          This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                      Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
You need to explain EXACTLY what you think Alyea admitted.
Even better, quote him.
And you need to use the search in the upper right hand corner and
anyone knows you can find Aylea and projected timelines.

http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
All you ever post are vague rumors. That is not researcher.
Vague rumors are good, its a sign of a great poster. If you look at
my threads, they generate a ton of followings, and I can actually have
people do my research verifications for me.
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about some documents.
And no there is not a high degree of post saying they are not the same
MC. Only a couple of fervent kooks.
I'll just say that if one purchases the book, The Girl On The Stairs,
they will find an intersting bit of information on the rifle and what
was done to the crime scene before it was filmed, told by an
unsuspected source. (See how I generate interest in threads?...:))

CJ
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-22 21:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser. Does that not make it suspicious alone? And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle. It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself. There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after. Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told. If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment. And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
You need to explain EXACTLY what you think Alyea admitted.
Even better, quote him.
And you need to use the search in the upper right hand corner and
anyone knows you can find Aylea and projected timelines.
What search on what page? What you see on your screen may not be the
same as my screen.
Post by curtjester1
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
All you ever post are vague rumors. That is not researcher.
Vague rumors are good, its a sign of a great poster. If you look at
my threads, they generate a ton of followings, and I can actually have
people do my research verifications for me.
But you don't. You never come up with any facts. Only rumors from kook
Websites.
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about some documents.
And no there is not a high degree of post saying they are not the same
MC. Only a couple of fervent kooks.
I'll just say that if one purchases the book, The Girl On The Stairs,
they will find an intersting bit of information on the rifle and what
was done to the crime scene before it was filmed, told by an
unsuspected source. (See how I generate interest in threads?...:))
Yes, it's interesting. So is pro westling, but it's not the truth.
Post by curtjester1
CJ
curtjester1
2013-05-22 23:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
     Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
      It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
      Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
           This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                       Jean
I don't know which clip you wanted, but I latched on to this one.
http://youtu.be/4XNHtUDEDAI
That may not be the one she saw, but it includes the Alyea film.
Look at the clip at 4:40 and on. See the rifle Day is holding.
Do you think that is a Carcano or a Mauser? Can you see the markings on
it? Can you see a Mauser stamp on it?
Post by curtjester1
I find it so interesting, that since this ID was so easy to sort out with
just looking at it and Day never stating that it was a Mauser, that
somehow every TV and every reporter for a day and a half was announcing
the find as a Mauser.  Does that not make it suspicious alone?  And well
how three men could state that it was makes me think it was something they
could read on the rifle.  It's always interesting to read discussion about
the M-C found there and compare the BY Photos as well, and have people
tell why the two rifles are so different as well.
CJ
It's a moot subject to me, when there is so much subjectivity to the
film(s) itself.  There were like 3 rolls of film, some that was just
lost, people making film days after.  Alyea even admitted that some
things weren't just as they were as evidence was handled cavalierly
and was told to do as he was told.  If you see any rifle being pulled
from the ground and held up, it's a re-enactment.  And many have
debated the M-C in the archives, the M-C in the TSBD, and the M-C in
the BY Photos, to which a high degree of posts don't think they are
even the same M-C's.
CJ
You need to explain EXACTLY what you think Alyea admitted.
Even better, quote him.
And you need to use the search in the upper right hand corner and
anyone knows you can find Aylea and projected timelines.
What search on what page? What you see on your screen may not be the
same as my screen.
Huh? You think the print is going to change or something?!
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
I sent stuff to your query on Aylea and a few things that were
considered by him and others. Just for stimulating thinking. Why
didn't you read it?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
All you ever post are vague rumors. That is not researcher.
Vague rumors are good, its a sign of a great poster.  If you look at
my threads, they generate a ton of followings, and I can actually have
people do my research verifications for me.
But you don't. You never come up with any facts. Only rumors from kook
Websites.
I either come up with facts, or I come up with distressing scenarios
that don't look quite right. That's why people are interested in the
threads I put out, generally.

When something is not to your liking, instead of 'fact' somebody back,
you just call them kook websites or something similar. That's as
tired as a Ben Holmes type of reply.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by Anthony Marsh
How about some documents.
And no there is not a high degree of post saying they are not the same
MC. Only a couple of fervent kooks.
I'll just say that if one purchases the book, The Girl On The Stairs,
they will find an intersting bit of information on the rifle and what
was done to the crime scene before it was filmed, told by an
unsuspected source.  (See how I generate interest in threads?...:))
Yes, it's interesting. So is pro westling, but it's not the truth.
The sixth floor crime scene is 'not the truth', the portrayal of Adams
account is 'not the truth,' and people leaving in a Rambler station wagon
as to be just avoided is 'not the truth'. There are so many 'official
story' accounts that have been proven, 'not the truth'. Sometimes the
truth is like a pimple, and you just have to keep at it before the truth
pops out.

CJ
mainframetech
2013-05-19 18:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,

That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle? A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help. Here's the link:

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php

Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
where Fritz says all that:

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php

Chris
Jean Davison
2013-05-19 21:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.

In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.



The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.

Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.


Jean
mainframetech
2013-05-20 16:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.

I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification. The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.

All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off, and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder. The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt:
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.

Chris
Jean Davison
2013-05-20 21:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
 So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
  Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
No, no, and no, in that order. :-) Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind. That was Craig's spin only. Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake. As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance." The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action." Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
work history:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when. It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks. Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.

Why did Craig lie? If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter. Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.

http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
   I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.

You think the cops were dumb? How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window? And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing? The Three Stooges?
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
  Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin. Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
   All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
  That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting. That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY

Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
   I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris? MC or Mauser?

Jean
mainframetech
2013-05-21 04:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
 So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
  Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
      No, no, and no, in that order. :-)  Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind.  That was Craig's spin only.  Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake.  As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance."  The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action."  Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
         http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony. Here's a statement
from it:

"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."

Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job. As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles. how much? We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped. Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
          I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when.  It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks.  Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
Interesting. You could have fooled me then. In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black). A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
it, here it is:

Loading Image...

I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.

Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
         Why did Craig lie?  If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter.  Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.

I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was. I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself. Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
the daughter against Simkin:

"My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."

Here's a link for that part of the case:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c13c61f15a&app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1


Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig: "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."

Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin: "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"

If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office. Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.

What we have is a typical 'pecking party'. When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death. For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
   I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
          Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place. Why wasn't that seen? Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
          You think the cops were dumb?  How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window?  And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing?  The Three Stooges?
I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found. I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that. But I'm flexible on that point.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
           The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
I agree. As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted. And of
course, I've never said it was planted. I can't think of any reason to
pant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
  Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
           But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin.  Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did. So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him. If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
   All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
  That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
        IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting.  That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
Nope. Won't do. Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington. And other people that saw the Rambler
and the man getting into it were Marvin Robinson and Roy Cooper:

From: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0

Once again Craig is corroborated.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
          Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening. I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat. It's been while though and I
don't have the details anymore. Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt. What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street? That there was NO other guy with
Oswald? Could be. If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses. That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though. His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot. Was that just in the Movie, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
   I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
           What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris?  MC or Mauser?
I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation. One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over? In the Alyea film I
se someone holding out a rifle without a clip. Is that the one you want
to identify? I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-21 22:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
Post by Jean Davison
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
No, no, and no, in that order. :-) Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind. That was Craig's spin only. Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake. As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance." The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action." Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony. Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job. As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles. how much? We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped. Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
No, only on one point. He was also honest in stating his name. That does
not mean he was honest about everything.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when. It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks. Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
Interesting. You could have fooled me then. In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black). A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
Can you be sure that Weitzman knew that everyone else said it was an
Italian rifle?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Why did Craig lie? If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter. Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was. I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself. Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
Simkin is a whacko himself.
Post by mainframetech
"My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c13c61f15a&app=core&module=search&do=search&fromMainBar=1
Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig: "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin: "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office. Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
Yeah, so what? That just makes him a good 'ol boy.
Post by mainframetech
What we have is a typical 'pecking party'. When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death. For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
Post by Jean Davison
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Post by mainframetech
I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place. Why wasn't that seen? Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
Can you see the "6,5" in the Alyea film? That's about as close as
Weitzman got and much closer than Craig got.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
You think the cops were dumb? How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window? And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing? The Three Stooges?
I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found. I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that. But I'm flexible on that point.
Where do you think it was planted accidentally?
Certainly not on the sixth floor. You can see for yourself that rifle is
a Carcano.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
I agree. As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted. And of
course, I've never said it was planted. I can't think of any reason to
pant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
So your new weekly theory is that a Mauser was left behind by accident?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin. Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did. So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him. If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
Craig never saw the rifle up close.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
Post by Jean Davison
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting. That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
Nope. Won't do. Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington. And other people that saw the Rambler
Garbage. Just like the sightings of Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza.
Post by mainframetech
From: http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
Once again Craig is corroborated.
No.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening. I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat. It's been while though and I
don't have the details anymore. Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt. What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street? That there was NO other guy with
Oswald? Could be. If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses. That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though. His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot. Was that just in the Movie, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris? MC or Mauser?
I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation. One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over? In the Alyea film I
se someone holding out a rifle without a clip. Is that the one you want
to identify? I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
The clip is INSIDE the rifle.
So, you admit that you can't recognize a Carcano. The HSCA could and did.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2013-05-22 15:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
Jean,
   That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
            No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
            In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
  So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
             The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
   Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
       No, no, and no, in that order. :-)  Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind.  That was Craig's spin only.  Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake.  As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance."  The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action."  Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
         http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
   Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony.  Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
   Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job.  As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles.  how much?  We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped.  Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
No, only on one point. He was also honest in stating his name. That does
not mean he was honest about everything.
Nor does YOUR word mean he was dishonest in any way at all. And are you
suggesting now that Weitzman was lying about his sporting goods
experience, and that he was "fairly familiar" with rifles? That's your
usual attempt at discreditation when you don't like something someone
said.
Post by Anthony Marsh
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
           I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when.  It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks.  Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
   Interesting.  You could have fooled me then.  In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black).  A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
     I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
   Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
Can you be sure that Weitzman knew that everyone else said it was an
Italian rifle?
I don't think they said that. They were cops and they knew each other
to a degree. They simply knew which way the wind was blowing and when the
word came down, they all heeded it except Craig, which probably made him
an outcast at that point.
Post by Anthony Marsh
          Why did Craig lie?  If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter.  Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
   I wondered when someone would bring this up.  That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
    I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was.  I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself.  Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
Simkin is a whacko himself.
Prove it. You're busy damaging another person's reputation, which
requires proof. Otherwise, you've made big doubts about YOUR reputation.
Until you are able to prove it, I must assume that Simkin is more normal
than you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
   "My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
    Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig:  "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
    Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin:  "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
    If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office.  Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldn't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
Yeah, so what? That just makes him a good 'ol boy.
So what? You seem to miss the most obvious implications, eh? Let me
correct your viewpoint. Now, if he were all that you say he was, which
was mainly a liar, then the police around him for the years he worked with
them would figure it out pretty quickly and he wouldn't have made it to
"Cop of the year" or gotten the 4 promotions'. That strongly says that
Craig wasn't a liar, which makes your contention false and useless.
Post by Anthony Marsh
   What we have is a typical 'pecking party'.  When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death.  For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
    I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
           Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
   Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place.  Why wasn't that seen?  Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
Can you see the "6,5" in the Alyea film? That's about as close as
Weitzman got and much closer than Craig got.
Odd. I know that Craig said Weitzman got a close look at the rifle
that Fritz was holding up, and I thought Jean said the same based on the
Alyea film. Still, have you forgotten that Weitzman (with the sporting
goods experience) not only named the make of the rifle, but the caliber
too, and later signed his name and swore to it on paper. He was sure of
what he saw, but smart enough to back off later when he saw which way the
wind was blowing. Can YOU see the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps in
this photo?

Loading Image...
Post by Anthony Marsh
           You think the cops were dumb?  How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window?  And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing?  The Three Stooges?
    I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found.  I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that.  But I'm flexible on that point.
Where do you think it was planted accidentally?
Certainly not on the sixth floor. You can see for yourself that rifle is
a Carcano.
That sentence doesn't make sense. "Planted accidentally" Is that
an oxymoron? I have not had my hands on that type of rifle, but I
know the 2 might be mistaken for each other.
Post by Anthony Marsh
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
            The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
   I agree.  As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted.  And of
course, I've never said it was planted.  I can't think of any reason to
pant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
So your new weekly theory is that a Mauser was left behind by accident?
I consider that possibility, especially if the owner was working at the
TSBD and couldn't just walk out any time. And by the way, I'm flexible as
information changes, which it does in a case like this. You should try
flexibility. The ARRB made many changes that it appears that many here
haven't been able to encompass yet.
Post by Anthony Marsh
  A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
          No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
   Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
            But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin.  Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
   As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did.  So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him.  If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
Craig never saw the rifle up close.
Prove it. Or I must assume he is telling the truth. Since Weitzman
was there and gave the name of the rifle, Craig may not have seen the
necessity to act like he knew what he had seen and steal Weitzman's
thunder.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
    All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
           Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
   That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
         IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting.  That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
     Nope.  Won't do.  Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington.  And other people that saw the Rambler
Garbage. Just like the sightings of Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza.
Ah. 'Garbage'. Your latest deep analysis of the situation and the
human dynamics along with your deep need to be right and therefore
call all others that disagree with you 'liars'. Suuure! Once again
for the 3rd time just in this post, I have to tell you to prove it!
Or the assumption is that it is good information.
Post by Anthony Marsh
From:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
   Once again Craig is corroborated.
No.
Yes. Or prove otherwise.
Post by Anthony Marsh
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
           Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
  Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening.  I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat.  It's been while though and I
don't have the details anymore.  Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt.  What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street?  That there was NO other guy with
Oswald?  Could be.  If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses.  That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though.  His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot.  Was that just in the Movie, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
    Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
     Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
    I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
            What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris?  MC or Mauser?
   I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation.  One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over?  In the Alyea film I
see someone holding out a rifle without a clip.  Is that the one you want
to identify?  I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
The clip is INSIDE the rifle.
So, you admit that you can't recognize a Carcano. The HSCA could and did.
First, the HSCA didn't know anything about the rifles, they had to
use 'experts'. Second, They were found in a few cases to be lying.
Who knows on this issue? I showed you 2 photos and you were unable to
say why one showed a clip and the other didn't. You have only given a
reason for the one NOT showing the clip. Would the clip show through
the bottom of the rifle, or is it like the M-1 where the clip goes in
from the top and pops out through the top? I'm waiting:
Loading Image...

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-22 20:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
Post by Jean Davison
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
No, no, and no, in that order. :-) Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind. That was Craig's spin only. Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake. As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance." The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action." Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony. Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job. As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles. how much? We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped. Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
No, only on one point. He was also honest in stating his name. That does
not mean he was honest about everything.
Nor does YOUR word mean he was dishonest in any way at all. And are you
suggesting now that Weitzman was lying about his sporting goods
experience, and that he was "fairly familiar" with rifles? That's your
usual attempt at discreditation when you don't like something someone
said.
Stop asking stupid questions. I said nothing like that. I said quite
clearly and others have as well that it was Roger Craig who lied about
Weitzman's qualifications and Weitzman told the truth that he was not an
expert on foreign rifles. Why do you play these silly games?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when. It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks. Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
Interesting. You could have fooled me then. In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black). A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
Can you be sure that Weitzman knew that everyone else said it was an
Italian rifle?
I don't think they said that. They were cops and they knew each other
YOU said that:

" since they had all decided to identify the MC rifle."

Did you misspeak? Did you misquote yourself? Did you not really mean it
the way it came out?
Post by mainframetech
to a degree. They simply knew which way the wind was blowing and when the
word came down, they all heeded it except Craig, which probably made him
an outcast at that point.
Outcast? Then why didn't they shoot him on the spot? Sloppy conspiracy, eh?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Why did Craig lie? If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter. Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was. I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself. Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
Simkin is a whacko himself.
Prove it. You're busy damaging another person's reputation, which
requires proof. Otherwise, you've made big doubts about YOUR reputation.
Until you are able to prove it, I must assume that Simkin is more normal
than you.
I don't have to prove anything to you. Lots of other people have pointed
out the wacky things he's said.
I don't care what your opinions are.
I am not here to cozy up to you.
If you want to be like Simkin, go ahead.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
"My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig: "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin: "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office. Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldn't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
Yeah, so what? That just makes him a good 'ol boy.
So what? You seem to miss the most obvious implications, eh? Let me
correct your viewpoint. Now, if he were all that you say he was, which
was mainly a liar, then the police around him for the years he worked with
them would figure it out pretty quickly and he wouldn't have made it to
"Cop of the year" or gotten the 4 promotions'. That strongly says that
Craig wasn't a liar, which makes your contention false and useless.
You are fantasizing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
What we have is a typical 'pecking party'. When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death. For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
Post by Jean Davison
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Post by mainframetech
I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place. Why wasn't that seen? Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
Can you see the "6,5" in the Alyea film? That's about as close as
Weitzman got and much closer than Craig got.
Odd. I know that Craig said Weitzman got a close look at the rifle
that Fritz was holding up, and I thought Jean said the same based on the
Alyea film. Still, have you forgotten that Weitzman (with the sporting
No, we said that Weitzman did NOT get a close look. What is that called
when we say WHITE and you claim that we said BLACK?
Post by mainframetech
goods experience) not only named the make of the rifle, but the caliber
too, and later signed his name and swore to it on paper. He was sure of
what he saw, but smart enough to back off later when he saw which way the
wind was blowing. Can YOU see the "Cal 6.5" and "Made Italy" stamps in
this photo?
Not clearly. YOU can't read the markings. And this is a close-up
photograph. Not a glance from 6 feet away. You can't even see those
markings in the Alyea film.

He admitted that he guessed.
You still won't say if you can see the markings on the rifle in the
Alyea film.
Again, we can see that Day had to use a loupe to read the markings.
Post by mainframetech
http://members.reocities.com/CapitolHill/parliament/3997/ce541d.jpg
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
You think the cops were dumb? How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window? And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing? The Three Stooges?
I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found. I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that. But I'm flexible on that point.
Where do you think it was planted accidentally?
Certainly not on the sixth floor. You can see for yourself that rifle is
a Carcano.
That sentence doesn't make sense. "Planted accidentally" Is that
an oxymoron? I have not had my hands on that type of rifle, but I
know the 2 might be mistaken for each other.
No. You have no experience with rifles.
That's why it's easy to confuse the two.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
I agree. As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted. And of
course, I've never said it was planted. I can't think of any reason to
pant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
So your new weekly theory is that a Mauser was left behind by accident?
I consider that possibility, especially if the owner was working at the
TSBD and couldn't just walk out any time. And by the way, I'm flexible as
Any employee can walk out at THAT time. And many did. It was the lunch
break and employees are allowed to leave the building.
Post by mainframetech
information changes, which it does in a case like this. You should try
flexibility. The ARRB made many changes that it appears that many here
haven't been able to encompass yet.
Yes, the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, the HSCA, the
ARRB, the JFK Records Act have all changed my opinions over the years. I
used to argue that silencers were used, but gave that up when I saw the
acoustical readings.
I believed Tink when he said there were two shots to the head, but
realized there was no hit to the rear of the head when the autopsy
photos were leaked.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin. Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did. So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him. If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
Craig never saw the rifle up close.
Prove it. Or I must assume he is telling the truth. Since Weitzman
Wrong. The Alyea film proves it. He could not get closer to the rifle
than Day did and Day needed a loupe to see the markings. QED.
Post by mainframetech
was there and gave the name of the rifle, Craig may not have seen the
necessity to act like he knew what he had seen and steal Weitzman's
thunder.
Craig got it from Weitzman and embellished it as liars often do to try
to sound believable. That's wgt he added that bit about the Mauser
stamp, which Weitzman said nothing about.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
Post by Jean Davison
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting. That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
Nope. Won't do. Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington. And other people that saw the Rambler
Garbage. Just like the sightings of Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza.
Ah. 'Garbage'. Your latest deep analysis of the situation and the
human dynamics along with your deep need to be right and therefore
call all others that disagree with you 'liars'. Suuure! Once again
for the 3rd time just in this post, I have to tell you to prove it!
Or the assumption is that it is good information.
I do not call everyone liars. Just those who lie. And you know that you
are protected here by McAdams. That is why you say so many outrageous
things. And why you refuse to answer my questions even though I answer
all your stupid questions.
You can't accept the simplest fact.
If you read it on a Web page you'd claim that JFK wasn't even shot that day.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
From:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
Once again Craig is corroborated.
No.
Yes. Or prove otherwise.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening. I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat. It's been while though and I
don't have the details anymore. Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt. What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street? That there was NO other guy with
Oswald? Could be. If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses. That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though. His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot. Was that just in the Movie, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris? MC or Mauser?
I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation. One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over? In the Alyea film I
see someone holding out a rifle without a clip. Is that the one you want
to identify? I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
The clip is INSIDE the rifle.
So, you admit that you can't recognize a Carcano. The HSCA could and did.
First, the HSCA didn't know anything about the rifles, they had to
use 'experts'. Second, They were found in a few cases to be lying.
The term HSCA refers to their entire work, including expert analysis.
Not just the Congressmen.
Post by mainframetech
Who knows on this issue? I showed you 2 photos and you were unable to
say why one showed a clip and the other didn't. You have only given a
reason for the one NOT showing the clip. Would the clip show through
the bottom of the rifle, or is it like the M-1 where the clip goes in
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_clip.gif
Since you've never used a Carcano you don't know that the clip is
inserted in the top and falls out the bottom. But it does not always
fall out after the last shot. My theory is that after the last shot
there was still a round in the clip and that prevented it from falling
out. It started to fall out while Day was examining it and we can see it
sticking out in the Alyea film and the photos taken in front of the
TSBD. This is very old news and has been thoroughly discussed by many
researchers.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Jean Davison
2013-05-22 03:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
 So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
  Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
      No, no, and no, in that order. :-)  Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind.  That was Craig's spin only.  Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake.  As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance."  The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action."  Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
         http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
  Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony.  Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
  Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job.  As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles.  how much?  We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped.
 Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
          I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when.  It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks.  Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
  Interesting.  You could have fooled me then.  In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black).  A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
    I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
  Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
I don't recall that. Could you give me a cite?
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
         Why did Craig lie?  If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter.  Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
  I wondered when someone would bring this up.  That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
   I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was.  I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself.  Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
  "My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
   Here's a link for that part of the case:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
   Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig:  "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
   Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin:  "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
   If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office.  Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
  What we have is a typical 'pecking party'.  When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death.  For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
   I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
          Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
  Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place.  Why wasn't that seen?  Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
          You think the cops were dumb?  How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window?  And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing?  The Three Stooges?
   I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found.  I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that.  But I'm flexible on that point.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that a Mauser was left
there for some other reason? Do you think that's a Mauser in the film, or
are we going to have a fake Alyea film now?
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
           The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
  I agree.  As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted.  And of
course, I've never said it was planted.  I can't think of any reason to
pant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
Yes, and that's another reason to conclude that the gun was
misidentified and there was no Mauser.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
  Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
           But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin.  Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
  As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did.
Craig touted him as a gun expert, that's not what Weitzman
said.
 So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him.  If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
It takes a weird turn, since he claims a Mauser was found and
the film shows a Carcano.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
   All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
  That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
        IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting.  That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
    Nope.  Won't do.  Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington.
According to which conspiracy author? Kurtz? Can you quote
Pennington ID-ing Oswald?
 And other people that saw the Rambler
From:http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
  Once again Craig is corroborated.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
          Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
 Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening.  I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat.  It's been while though and I
don't have the details anymore.  Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt.  What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street?  That there was NO other guy with
Oswald?  Could be.  If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses.  That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though.  His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot.  Was that just in the Movie, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
I hope you're not using "JFK" as a source. That his revolver
wouldn't fire is Conspiracy Myth # 213 or thereabouts.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
   I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
           What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris?  MC or Mauser?
  I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation.  One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over?  In the Alyea film I
se someone holding out a rifle without a clip.  Is that the one you want
to identify?  I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
It doesn't take a "gun nut" to compare the photos and ID the
rifle in the Alyea film.

Someone who owned an MC has said that the clip isn't visible
yet in the film, but as Day walks with it outside, gravity and jostling
bring it into view. The HSCA firearms panel had a similar experience with
the clip hanging up.

The evidence that Craig lied about the rifle is right there
in the film. In effect, he's lying to your face.

Jean
mainframetech
2013-05-22 19:59:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
 So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
  Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
      No, no, and no, in that order. :-)  Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind.  That was Craig's spin only.  Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake.  As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance."  The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action."  Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
         http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
  Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony.  Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
  Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job.  As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles.  how much?  We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped.
 Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
          I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when.  It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks.  Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
  Interesting.  You could have fooled me then.  In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black).  A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
    I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
  Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
            I don't recall that.  Could you give me a cite?
"It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-_Bugliosi_Parses_the_Testimony

I don't have a reporter quoting Fritz, this is what I found.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
         Why did Craig lie?  If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter.  Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
  I wondered when someone would bring this up.  That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
   I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was.  I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself.  Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
  "My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
   Here's a link for that part of the case:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
   Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig:  "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
   Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin:  "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
   If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office.  Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
  What we have is a typical 'pecking party'.  When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death.  For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
   I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
          Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
  Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place.  Why wasn't that seen?  Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
          You think the cops were dumb?  How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window?  And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing?  The Three Stooges?
   I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found.  I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that.  But I'm flexible on that point.
           I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that a Mauser was left
there for some other reason?  Do you think that's a Mauser in the film, or
are we going to have a fake Alyea film now?
I don't have any reason to think the Alyea film is faked in any
way. But I wonder what the rifle is in the background that has been
outlined at 3:35 in:
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw

I'd be interested in any thought you have on that.

I'm suggesting the possibility that a legitimate shooter fired from
the SN with a rifle in far better condition than the MC rifle as
reported by the FBI after they got it that night. But as I've said
before, it isn't critical to the conspiracy scenario, just another odd
situation. When I look at what people do and say in certain
situations, it sometimes stands out.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
           The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
  I agree.  As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted.  And of
course, I've never said it was planted.  I can't think of any reason to
plant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
     Yes, and that's another reason to conclude that the gun was
misidentified and there was no Mauser.
Or that the Mauser was found when it wasn't supposed to be.
Although if it were clean of prints, it wouldn't mater if it were
found if its history had been erased.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
  Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
           But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin.  Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
  As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did.
         Craig touted him as a gun expert, that's not what Weitzman
said.
Craig didn't say 'expert' that I can remember, only that Weitzman
was the guy that knew about guns from his sporting goods business.
When Weitzman said he was 'fairly familiar' with guns, he sounded like
he knew a lot and was being humble, but we don't know for sure. Craig
would have known Weitzman more fully, since they were both deputies.
We have at least shown that Weitzman had some of the experience that
Craig attributed to him, making Craig a bit less a 'liar' as some have
called him.
 So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him.  If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
         It takes a weird turn, since he claims a Mauser was found and
the film shows a Carcano.
I've asked before and will repeat the question. What are the
obvious signs of the MC rifle that are seen in the picture of it being
held? Since I haven't held that rifle I'm not that familiar with
it.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
   All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
  That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
        IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting.  That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
    Nope.  Won't do.  Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington.
          According to which conspiracy author?  Kurtz?  Can you quote
Pennington ID-ing Oswald?
The source is below as before. The name on the item is 'Jeff
Shaw'. I don't have a quote. Given that this info suggests a
conspiracy, there's no way this information would be spoken of or
allowed to get into any panel discussion like the WC or HSCA.
However, as we slowly rehabilitate Roger Craig's damaged reputation we
find that he was the main person that saw the Rambler and IDed Oswald
(later, he says).
 And other people that saw the Rambler
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
  Once again Craig is corroborated.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
          Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
 Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening.  I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat.  It's been a while though and I
don't have the details anymore.  Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt.  What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street?  That there was NO other guy with
Oswald?  Could be.  If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses.  That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though.  His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot.  Was that just in the Movie house, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
        I hope you're not using "JFK" as a source.  That his revolver
wouldn't fire is Conspiracy Myth # 213 or thereabouts.
Hmm. I'll check that out.

In the movie theater McDonald the officer that arrested Oswald
grappled with him and he put his hand in between the revolver hammer
and the bullet and the gun wouldn't fire. It appears that it's true
that the revolver wasn't fired. Here's FBI testimony:
"Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near
the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that
that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in
the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also,
a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was
made by a firing pin."

So the 'nick' was taken by some as the revolver being fired, but the
FBI says no. Thank you for the info.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
   I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
           What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris?  MC or Mauser?
  I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation.  One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over?  In the Alyea film I
see someone holding out a rifle without a clip.  Is that the one you want
to identify?  I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
           It doesn't take a "gun nut" to compare the photos and ID the
rifle in the Alyea film.
Yet no one points out for me the identifying marks in the picture
where the rifle is being held up. Perhaps someone will do that.
           Someone who owned an MC has said that the clip isn't visible
yet in the film, but as Day walks with it outside, gravity and jostling
bring it into view.  The HSCA firearms panel had a similar experience with
the clip hanging up.
Here's the 2 rifles together. The Mauser is on top and the MC
is below. Now what are the signs that the MC is the rifle being held
up in this picture below those two?
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
           The evidence that Craig lied about the rifle is right there
in the film.  In effect, he's lying to your face.
Please look at the 2 pictures above and help identify the MC
markings. Thanks.

Chris
Jean Davison
2013-05-23 02:59:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
 So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
  Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
      No, no, and no, in that order. :-)  Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind.  That was Craig's spin only.  Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake.  As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance."  The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action."  Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
         http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
  Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony.  Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
  Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job.  As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles.  how much?  We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped.
 Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
          I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when.  It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks.  Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
  Interesting.  You could have fooled me then.  In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black).  A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
    I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
  Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
            I don't recall that.  Could you give me a cite?
  "It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
  I don't have a reporter quoting Fritz, this is what I found.
But is it true?

In the same paragraph the author claims, "It was Fritz who refused
to allow the suspect access to legal counsel," which is false. Fritz
allowed Oswald to use the jail phone to try to reach a lawyer, and Oswald
met with a different Dallas lawyer on Saturday. The claim that Oswald was
denied legal counsel is a CT myth.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
         Why did Craig lie?  If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter.  Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
  I wondered when someone would bring this up.  That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
   I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was.  I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself.  Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
  "My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
   Here's a link for that part of the case:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
   Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig:  "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
   Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin:  "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
   If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office.  Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
  What we have is a typical 'pecking party'.  When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death.  For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
   I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
          Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
  Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place.  Why wasn't that seen?  Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
          You think the cops were dumb?  How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window?  And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing?  The Three Stooges?
   I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found.  I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that.  But I'm flexible on that point.
           I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that a Mauser was left
there for some other reason?  Do you think that's a Mauser in the film, or
are we going to have a fake Alyea film now?
  I don't have any reason to think the Alyea film is faked in any
way.  But I wonder what the rifle is in the background that has been
outlined at 3:35 http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
   I'd be interested in any thought you have on that.
Answered in another post today.
  I'm suggesting the possibility that a legitimate shooter fired from
the SN with a rifle in far better condition than the MC rifle as
reported by the FBI after they got it that night.  But as I've said
before, it isn't critical to the conspiracy scenario, just another odd
situation.  When I look at what people do and say in certain
situations, it sometimes stands out.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
           The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
  I agree.  As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted.  And of
course, I've never said it was planted.  I can't think of any reason to
plant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
     Yes, and that's another reason to conclude that the gun was
misidentified and there was no Mauser.
  Or that the Mauser was found when it wasn't supposed to be.
Although if it were clean of prints, it wouldn't mater if it were
found if its history had been erased.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
  Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
           But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin.  Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
  As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did.
         Craig touted him as a gun expert, that's not what Weitzman
said.
    Craig didn't say 'expert' that I can remember, only that Weitzman
was the guy that knew about guns from his sporting goods business.
When Weitzman said he was 'fairly familiar' with guns, he sounded like
he knew a lot and was being humble, but we don't know for sure.  Craig
would have known Weitzman more fully, since they were both deputies.
We have at least shown that Weitzman had some of the experience that
Craig attributed to him, making Craig a bit less a 'liar' as some have
called him.
 So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him.  If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
         It takes a weird turn, since he claims a Mauser was found and
the film shows a Carcano.
  I've asked before and will repeat the question.  What are the
obvious signs of the MC rifle that are seen in the picture of it being
held?  Since I haven't held that rifle I'm not that  familiar with
it.
See below please.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
   All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
  That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
        IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting.  That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
    Nope.  Won't do.  Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington.
          According to which conspiracy author?  Kurtz?  Can you quote
Pennington ID-ing Oswald?
  The source is below as before.  The name on the item is 'Jeff
Shaw'.   I don't have a quote.  Given that this info suggests a
conspiracy, there's no way this information  would be spoken of or
allowed to get into any panel discussion like the WC or HSCA.
However, as we slowly rehabilitate Roger Craig's damaged reputation we
find that he was the main person that saw the Rambler and IDed Oswald
(later, he says).
 And other people that saw the Rambler
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
  Once again Craig is corroborated.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
          Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
 Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening.  I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat.  It's been a while though and I
don't have the details anymore.  Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt.  What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street?  That there was NO other guy with
Oswald?  Could be.  If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses.  That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though.  His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot.  Was that just in the Movie house, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
        I hope you're not using "JFK" as a source.  That his revolver
wouldn't fire is Conspiracy Myth # 213 or thereabouts.
  Hmm.  I'll check that out.
  In the movie theater McDonald the officer that arrested Oswald
grappled with him and he put his hand in between the revolver hammer
and the bullet and the gun wouldn't fire.  It appears that it's true
"Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up  near
the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that
that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in
the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also,
a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was
made by a firing pin."
  So the 'nick' was taken by some as the revolver being fired, but the
FBI says no.  Thank you for the info.
I'm glad you looked it up.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
   I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
           What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris?  MC or Mauser?
  I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation.  One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over?  In the Alyea film I
see someone holding out a rifle without a clip.  Is that the one you want
to identify?  I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
           It doesn't take a "gun nut" to compare the photos and ID the
rifle in the Alyea film.
   Yet no one points out for me the identifying marks in the picture
where the rifle is being held up.  Perhaps someone will do that.
           Someone who owned an MC has said that the clip isn't visible
yet in the film, but as Day walks with it outside, gravity and jostling
bring it into view.  The HSCA firearms panel had a similar experience with
the clip hanging up.
      Here's the 2 rifles together.  The Mauser is on top and the MC
is below.  Now what are the signs that the MC is the rifle being held
up in this picture below those two?http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-
I don't think that photo actually shows a Mauser. Try this
one and compare to your photo of Day below:

Loading Image...

1...http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8527/8635069627_159feb6219_z.jpg

Differences -- the shape of the metal "trigger guard" in front
of the trigger, and the location of the bolt. Notice the ball- shaped end
of the bolt is further forward on the Carcano and comes down lower on the
rifle. Can you see now that Day is holding an M-C?

Jean
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-23 23:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
Post by Jean Davison
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
No, no, and no, in that order. :-) Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind. That was Craig's spin only. Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake. As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance." The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action." Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony. Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job. As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles. how much? We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped.
Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when. It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks. Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
Interesting. You could have fooled me then. In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black). A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
I don't recall that. Could you give me a cite?
"It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
I don't have a reporter quoting Fritz, this is what I found.
But is it true?
In the same paragraph the author claims, "It was Fritz who refused
to allow the suspect access to legal counsel," which is false. Fritz
allowed Oswald to use the jail phone to try to reach a lawyer, and Oswald
met with a different Dallas lawyer on Saturday. The claim that Oswald was
denied legal counsel is a CT myth.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
Post by Jean Davison
Why did Craig lie? If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter. Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
I wondered when someone would bring this up. That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was. I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself. Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
"My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
Here's a link for that part of the case:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig: "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin: "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office. Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
What we have is a typical 'pecking party'. When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death. For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
Post by Jean Davison
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Post by mainframetech
I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place. Why wasn't that seen? Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
Post by Jean Davison
You think the cops were dumb? How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window? And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing? The Three Stooges?
I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found. I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that. But I'm flexible on that point.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that a Mauser was left
there for some other reason? Do you think that's a Mauser in the film, or
are we going to have a fake Alyea film now?
I don't have any reason to think the Alyea film is faked in any
way. But I wonder what the rifle is in the background that has been
outlined at 3:35 http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
I'd be interested in any thought you have on that.
Answered in another post today.
Post by mainframetech
I'm suggesting the possibility that a legitimate shooter fired from
the SN with a rifle in far better condition than the MC rifle as
reported by the FBI after they got it that night. But as I've said
before, it isn't critical to the conspiracy scenario, just another odd
situation. When I look at what people do and say in certain
situations, it sometimes stands out.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
I agree. As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted. And of
course, I've never said it was planted. I can't think of any reason to
plant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
Yes, and that's another reason to conclude that the gun was
misidentified and there was no Mauser.
Or that the Mauser was found when it wasn't supposed to be.
Although if it were clean of prints, it wouldn't mater if it were
found if its history had been erased.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin. Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did.
Craig touted him as a gun expert, that's not what Weitzman
said.
Craig didn't say 'expert' that I can remember, only that Weitzman
was the guy that knew about guns from his sporting goods business.
When Weitzman said he was 'fairly familiar' with guns, he sounded like
he knew a lot and was being humble, but we don't know for sure. Craig
would have known Weitzman more fully, since they were both deputies.
We have at least shown that Weitzman had some of the experience that
Craig attributed to him, making Craig a bit less a 'liar' as some have
called him.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him. If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
It takes a weird turn, since he claims a Mauser was found and
the film shows a Carcano.
I've asked before and will repeat the question. What are the
obvious signs of the MC rifle that are seen in the picture of it being
held? Since I haven't held that rifle I'm not that familiar with
it.
See below please.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
Post by Jean Davison
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting. That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
Nope. Won't do. Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington.
According to which conspiracy author? Kurtz? Can you quote
Pennington ID-ing Oswald?
The source is below as before. The name on the item is 'Jeff
Shaw'. I don't have a quote. Given that this info suggests a
conspiracy, there's no way this information would be spoken of or
allowed to get into any panel discussion like the WC or HSCA.
However, as we slowly rehabilitate Roger Craig's damaged reputation we
find that he was the main person that saw the Rambler and IDed Oswald
(later, he says).
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
And other people that saw the Rambler
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Once again Craig is corroborated.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening. I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat. It's been a while though and I
don't have the details anymore. Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt. What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street? That there was NO other guy with
Oswald? Could be. If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses. That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though. His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot. Was that just in the Movie house, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
I hope you're not using "JFK" as a source. That his revolver
wouldn't fire is Conspiracy Myth # 213 or thereabouts.
Hmm. I'll check that out.
In the movie theater McDonald the officer that arrested Oswald
grappled with him and he put his hand in between the revolver hammer
and the bullet and the gun wouldn't fire. It appears that it's true
"Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near
the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that
that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in
the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also,
a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was
made by a firing pin."
So the 'nick' was taken by some as the revolver being fired, but the
FBI says no. Thank you for the info.
I'm glad you looked it up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris? MC or Mauser?
I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation. One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over? In the Alyea film I
see someone holding out a rifle without a clip. Is that the one you want
to identify? I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
It doesn't take a "gun nut" to compare the photos and ID the
rifle in the Alyea film.
Yet no one points out for me the identifying marks in the picture
where the rifle is being held up. Perhaps someone will do that.
Post by Jean Davison
Someone who owned an MC has said that the clip isn't visible
yet in the film, but as Day walks with it outside, gravity and jostling
bring it into view. The HSCA firearms panel had a similar experience with
the clip hanging up.
Here's the 2 rifles together. The Mauser is on top and the MC
is below. Now what are the signs that the MC is the rifle being held
up in this picture below those two?http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-
I don't think that photo actually shows a Mauser. Try this
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TINpTkwt9_I/AAAAAAAAFP4/0edTl-snHVk/s1600/Mauser-Carcano+Comparisons.jpg
1...http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8527/8635069627_159feb6219_z.jpg
Differences -- the shape of the metal "trigger guard" in front
of the trigger, and the location of the bolt. Notice the ball- shaped end
of the bolt is further forward on the Carcano and comes down lower on the
rifle. Can you see now that Day is holding an M-C?
Jean
No, he refuses to look.
mainframetech
2013-05-24 00:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
  Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
   It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
   Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
        This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                    Jean
Jean,
  That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
           No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
           In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
 So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
            The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
  Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
      No, no, and no, in that order. :-)  Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind.  That was Craig's spin only.  Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake.  As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance."  The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action."  Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
         http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
  Thanks for the link to Weitzman's testimony.  Here's a statement
"Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?
Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods
business awhile."
  Now we don't know how much Weitzman did with the rifles in the store,
but Craig knew about his work with rifles, and they may have spoken of it
during idle times on the job.  As Weitzman says, he was "fairly familiar"
with rifles.  how much?  We don't know, but Craig says that he knew them
well and the others would go to him for an ID of a rifle if they were
stumped.
 Weitzman has now backed up Craig on this point of him working
with rifles at a sporting goods business, and so we find Craig to be
honest in this case.
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all.  Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'.  Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that?  He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this.  I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
          I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when.  It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks.  Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
  Interesting.  You could have fooled me then.  In his affidavit Weitzman
described the rifle including the make (Mauser), caliber (7.65), the
action type (bolt), the scope type (4/18) and the sling (thick, leather,
brownish-black).  A complete description, and then he signed and swore to
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif
    I'm sure we could add a few items to that list, but that pretty
much gives an idea of what the rifle was.
  Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
            I don't recall that.  Could you give me a cite?
  "It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
  I don't have a reporter quoting Fritz, this is what I found.
       But is it true?
Weitzman changed his testimony to say he saw a MC rifle. Was he telling
the truth? We have to use our senses like jurors to make decisions about
some of the people we run across in the case. It sounds reasonable given
that a few people said that Fritz had repeated the Mauser statement in
front of them, and the press getting the make of the rifle from someone
higher up in the DPD. I tend to believe it, and I think Fritz is a real
politician when I read his notes about what happened in the TSBD. He had
'forgotten' Craig and Weitzman altogether and said the HE knew what kind
of rifle it was and that he said so! His story doesn't sound true, but I
think he would be just the type to blat his views about the weapon to the
press and gain some column space. Later, just the type to do an smooth
about face and go with whatever the boss wanted.
       In the same paragraph the author claims, "It was Fritz who refused
to allow the suspect access to legal counsel," which is false.  Fritz
allowed Oswald to use the jail phone to try to reach a lawyer, and Oswald
met with a different Dallas lawyer on Saturday. The claim that Oswald was
denied legal counsel is a CT myth.
Remember that the testimony of Weitzman was after the cops had all backed
off of the Mauser ID that Weitzman had originally given (except Craig).
Weitzman was not going to testify that he was the one that carefully
looked at the rifle and told Fritz what it was, since they had all decided
to identify the MC rifle.
         Why did Craig lie?  If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter.  Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
  I wondered when someone would bring this up.  That's why I said it
had been cleaned up in another forum.
   I read the comments of the daughter (who no doubt was trained by the
mother) about Roger Craig and what a nut case he was.  I also read the
comments of Simkin who commented that she had gone overboard and might be
a little whacko herself.  Here's one of his comments after a tirade from
  "My immediate response was to leave the comments on the web page. I
don't take kindly to being threatened. However, as several people have
pointed out, the woman is clearly disturbed and we should not take
advantage of this."
   Here's a link for that part of the case:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?s=e8b142e8283dc55e47a9d2c...
   Here is Simkin's opinion of Craig:  "This is why this filmed interview
with Roger Craig is so important. It allows us to assess if he is telling
the truth (this is much more difficult to do with a written interview). To
my mind, Craig is a man of integrity who suffered a great deal for his
honesty. Craig is therefore one of the most important witnesses that we
have."
   Here's a statement from Jerry Craig after the daughter dumped on
Simkin:  "ok just so everybody knows deanna and her mom changed there
names not for privacy they were the ones paranoid our family never seen
then or knew what there name were i personaly seen deanna at roger funeral
in 75 and my moms im 79 and her and her mom wore shades and kept to
themselves talk about paranoia what does that tell you about there mental
states roger never hid BUT MOLLY AND DEANNA DID so think about that and
see who was disturbed"
   If Craig was as disturbed as the daughter wanted everyone to believe,
then it would have shown up in the years he worked for the sheriff's
office.  Working with a bunch of cops will show up any real problems
(including lying), and he wouldm't have been treated so well during his
time there before the murder.
  What we have is a typical 'pecking party'.  When one hen pecks another
and leaves a blood spot, al the other chickens join in and peck the poor
critter to death.  For whoever's story it's used for, Craig must go and
discrediting him is one commonly used method.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
   I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made.  I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible.  odd.
          Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
  Yes, if you didn't look at the stamps on them, like "Cal 6.5" in an
obvious place.  Why wasn't that seen?  Since it's a different caliber than
the Mauser they were all talking about.
          You think the cops were dumb?  How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window?  And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing?  The Three Stooges?
   I'm not convinced that the Mauser was planted with the intent to have
it found.  I think it was found accidentally and any looking further was
not done as carefully after that.  But I'm flexible on that point.
           I'm not sure what you're suggesting -- that a Mauser was left
there for some other reason?  Do you think that's a Mauser in the film, or
are we going to have a fake Alyea film now?
  I don't have any reason to think the Alyea film is faked in any
way.  But I wonder what the rifle is in the background that has been
outlined at 3:35 http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
   I'd be interested in any thought you have on that.
              Answered in another post today.
Sorry, I'll look for it. Remember which thread? This one?
  I'm suggesting the possibility that a legitimate shooter fired from
the SN with a rifle in far better condition than the MC rifle as
reported by the FBI after they got it that night.  But as I've said
before, it isn't critical to the conspiracy scenario, just another odd
situation.  When I look at what people do and say in certain
situations, it sometimes stands out.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them.  Mauser stamps most of their weapons too.  But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
           The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
  I agree.  As noted above, I don't think the Mauser was planted.  And of
course, I've never said it was planted.  I can't think of any reason to
plant a Mauser when you want the 'patsy' to be blamed with an MC rifle.
     Yes, and that's another reason to conclude that the gun was
misidentified and there was no Mauser.
  Or that the Mauser was found when it wasn't supposed to be.
Although if it were clean of prints, it wouldn't mater if it were
found if its history had been erased.
 A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was.  So
there was some time in between there.  Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling.  So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
         No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes.  Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes.  In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die.  The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
  Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us.  I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service.  They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong.  Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
           But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin.  Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
  As proven from Weitzman's testimony, he had the experience that Craig
said he did.
         Craig touted him as a gun expert, that's not what Weitzman
said.
    Craig didn't say 'expert' that I can remember, only that Weitzman
was the guy that knew about guns from his sporting goods business.
When Weitzman said he was 'fairly familiar' with guns, he sounded like
he knew a lot and was being humble, but we don't know for sure.  Craig
would have known Weitzman more fully, since they were both deputies.
We have at least shown that Weitzman had some of the experience that
Craig attributed to him, making Craig a bit less a 'liar' as some have
called him.
 So Craig was NOT a liar and was NOT spinning a tale about
Weitzman as the WC faithful have tried to paint him.  If Craig's
information were accepted, then the case takes a very different turn.
         It takes a weird turn, since he claims a Mauser was found and
the film shows a Carcano.
  I've asked before and will repeat the question.  What are the
obvious signs of the MC rifle that are seen in the picture of it being
held?  Since I haven't held that rifle I'm not that  familiar with
it.
         See below please.
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them.  When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
   All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems.  Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized.  The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned.  Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head.  An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole.  An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
          Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
  That one never caught my interest.  Too hard to prove one way or the
other.  There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me.  I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
        IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting.  That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
    Nope.  Won't do.  Other than Craig there are at least 2 other people
that identified Oswald as the guy getting into the Rambler. They were
Helen Forrest and James pennington.
          According to which conspiracy author?  Kurtz?  Can you quote
Pennington ID-ing Oswald?
  The source is below as before.  The name on the item is 'Jeff
Shaw'.   I don't have a quote.  Given that this info suggests a
conspiracy, there's no way this information  would be spoken of or
allowed to get into any panel discussion like the WC or HSCA.
However, as we slowly rehabilitate Roger Craig's damaged reputation we
find that he was the main person that saw the Rambler and IDed Oswald
(later, he says).
 And other people that saw the Rambler
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=4984.0
  Once again Craig is corroborated.
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him.  An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely.  And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC.  She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
          Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
 Actually, if you go through all those folks you'll find very few of them
had their eyes open and were watching what was happening.  I went through
one time and found that only one woman has actually seen something that
might be evidence, and she was a dingbat.  It's been a while though and I
don't have the details anymore.  Now Acquilla Clemmons said that the FBI
told her to keep shut or she would get hurt.  What did the FBI tell some
of the other witnesses on that street?  That there was NO other guy with
Oswald?  Could be.  If Clemmons' story is true, then Oswald was told to
run and he did, and that would be seen by many other witnesses.  That
doesn't make him guilty of murder though.  His revolver was shown to have
been fired and failed to shoot.  Was that just in the Movie house, or was that
from earlier and the revolver was as bad a weapon as the MC rifle Oswald
bought?
        I hope you're not using "JFK" as a source.  That his revolver
wouldn't fire is Conspiracy Myth # 213 or thereabouts.
  Hmm.  I'll check that out.
  In the movie theater McDonald the officer that arrested Oswald
grappled with him and he put his hand in between the revolver hammer
and the bullet and the gun wouldn't fire.  It appears that it's true
"Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up  near
the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that
that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in
the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also,
a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was
made by a firing pin."
  So the 'nick' was taken by some as the revolver being fired, but the
FBI says no.  Thank you for the info.
          I'm glad you looked it up.
I'm not a CT. If a fact looks straight, I'll use it. And in this case,
it doesn't affect the out come much. It only says that those that heard a
click during the scuffle in the movie house and thought Oswald had fired
his gun and it failed, were wrong. He never fired his revolver. Since it
was a different person that was seen reloading his gun just after Tippit
got shot, Oswald may not have been involved in that shooting either.
With all his involvement with his 2 weapons, it doesn't look to me like he
fired anything at anybody. The MC rifle was a mess. I wonder how they
got a positive paraffin test from him.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
   Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen.  The 'lone nut' scenario is in force.  Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
    Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error.  The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was.  It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
   I hear you.  It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber.  And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake.  It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away.  I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
           What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris?  MC or Mauser?
  I looked at the static pictures and find a curious situation.  One
picture shows the rifle being held up with no clip, and another shows it
being carried by the sling with what is probably a clip in place. Have you
had a knowledgeable gun 'nut' look the pictures over?  In the Alyea film I
see someone holding out a rifle without a clip.  Is that the one you want
to identify?  I'm not personally familiar with either of the rifles in
question, so I'm not the person to ask about the identification.
           It doesn't take a "gun nut" to compare the photos and ID the
rifle in the Alyea film.
   Yet no one points out for me the identifying marks in the picture
where the rifle is being held up.  Perhaps someone will do that.
           Someone who owned an MC has said that the clip isn't visible
yet in the film, but as Day walks with it outside, gravity and jostling
bring it into view.  The HSCA firearms panel had a similar experience with
the clip hanging up.
      Here's the 2 rifles together.  The Mauser is on top and the MC
is below.  Now what are the signs that the MC is the rifle being held
up in this picture below those two?http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sQ7OwjM2bGY/TjXqgthQBGI/AAAAAAAAAOo/Rbijy-
          I don't think that photo actually shows a Mauser.  Try this
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TINpTkwt9_I/AAAAAAAAFP4/0edTl-s...
1...http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8527/8635069627_159feb6219_z.jpg
            Differences -- the shape of the metal "trigger guard" in front
of the trigger, and the location of the bolt.  Notice the ball- shaped end
of the bolt is further forward on the Carcano and comes down lower on the
rifle.  Can you see now that Day is holding an M-C?
                                                            Jean
Ah yes! Definitely your picture is better than the one I found. Yes, it
appears that he is holding up an MC rifle. Simplifies things for me,
though I'm still a bit put off by the clear cut identification Weitzman
gave, and Craig staking his career on that ID. But that's for another
day. Thanks...:)

Chris
John McAdams
2013-05-24 01:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
  Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
            I don't recall that.  Could you give me a cite?
  "It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
That's a poor cite.

It's a secondary essay from Don Thomas, and it has no primary source
citation.

But do you *care* about that?
Post by mainframetech
  I don't have a reporter quoting Fritz, this is what I found.
       But is it true?
Weitzman changed his testimony to say he saw a MC rifle. Was he telling
the truth?
You have a problem typical among buffs.

You think all witnesses are fearless truth tellers, or lying scum.

As for Weitzman, you think he was a fearless truth teller when he said
it was a Mauser, and lying scum when he said he was mistaken.

I think he was honestly mistaken about the Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
We have to use our senses like jurors to make decisions about
some of the people we run across in the case. It sounds reasonable given
that a few people said that Fritz had repeated the Mauser statement in
front of them,
Produce some citations for this, please.
Post by mainframetech
and the press getting the make of the rifle from someone
higher up in the DPD. I tend to believe it, and I think Fritz is a real
politician when I read his notes about what happened in the TSBD. He had
'forgotten' Craig and Weitzman altogether and said the HE knew what kind
of rifle it was and that he said so!
Cite!
Post by mainframetech
His story doesn't sound true, but I
think he would be just the type to blat his views about the weapon to the
press and gain some column space. Later, just the type to do an smooth
about face and go with whatever the boss wanted.
       In the same paragraph the author claims, "It was Fritz who refused
to allow the suspect access to legal counsel," which is false.  Fritz
allowed Oswald to use the jail phone to try to reach a lawyer, and Oswald
met with a different Dallas lawyer on Saturday. The claim that Oswald was
denied legal counsel is a CT myth.
  In the movie theater McDonald the officer that arrested Oswald
grappled with him and he put his hand in between the revolver hammer
and the bullet and the gun wouldn't fire.  It appears that it's true
"Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up  near
the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that
that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in
the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also,
a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was
made by a firing pin."
  So the 'nick' was taken by some as the revolver being fired, but the
FBI says no.  Thank you for the info.
          I'm glad you looked it up.
I'm not a CT. If a fact looks straight, I'll use it. And in this case,
it doesn't affect the out come much. It only says that those that heard a
click during the scuffle in the movie house and thought Oswald had fired
his gun and it failed, were wrong. He never fired his revolver. Since it
was a different person that was seen reloading his gun just after Tippit
got shot,
And your evidence for that is?
Post by mainframetech
Oswald may not have been involved in that shooting either.
With all his involvement with his 2 weapons, it doesn't look to me like he
fired anything at anybody. The MC rifle was a mess. I wonder how they
got a positive paraffin test from him.
Huh?

You can get a positive paraffin test from somebody who hasn't fired a
gun.

And a negative from somebody *known* to have fired a gun.
Post by mainframetech
                                                            Jean
Ah yes! Definitely your picture is better than the one I found. Yes, it
appears that he is holding up an MC rifle. Simplifies things for me,
though I'm still a bit put off by the clear cut identification Weitzman
gave, and Craig staking his career on that ID. But that's for another
day. Thanks...:)
Good! You are beginning to pay attention to the evidence.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-24 02:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
I don't recall that. Could you give me a cite?
"It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
That's a poor cite.
It's a secondary essay from Don Thomas, and it has no primary source
citation.
But do you *care* about that?
And you can't follow that back to the original source and you don't know
how to use Google?
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
I don't have a reporter quoting Fritz, this is what I found.
But is it true?
Weitzman changed his testimony to say he saw a MC rifle. Was he telling
the truth?
You have a problem typical among buffs.
You think all witnesses are fearless truth tellers, or lying scum.
As for Weitzman, you think he was a fearless truth teller when he said
it was a Mauser, and lying scum when he said he was mistaken.
I think he was honestly mistaken about the Mauser.
Post by mainframetech
We have to use our senses like jurors to make decisions about
some of the people we run across in the case. It sounds reasonable given
that a few people said that Fritz had repeated the Mauser statement in
front of them,
Produce some citations for this, please.
Post by mainframetech
and the press getting the make of the rifle from someone
higher up in the DPD. I tend to believe it, and I think Fritz is a real
politician when I read his notes about what happened in the TSBD. He had
'forgotten' Craig and Weitzman altogether and said the HE knew what kind
of rifle it was and that he said so!
Cite!
Post by mainframetech
His story doesn't sound true, but I
think he would be just the type to blat his views about the weapon to the
press and gain some column space. Later, just the type to do an smooth
about face and go with whatever the boss wanted.
Post by Jean Davison
In the same paragraph the author claims, "It was Fritz who refused
to allow the suspect access to legal counsel," which is false. Fritz
allowed Oswald to use the jail phone to try to reach a lawyer, and Oswald
met with a different Dallas lawyer on Saturday. The claim that Oswald was
denied legal counsel is a CT myth.
Post by mainframetech
In the movie theater McDonald the officer that arrested Oswald
grappled with him and he put his hand in between the revolver hammer
and the bullet and the gun wouldn't fire. It appears that it's true
"Mr. EISENBERG. Are there any nicks on either of those cartridges?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. There is a small nick, an indentation, up near
the edge of the primer in the Remington-Peters .38 Special cartridge.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this nick have been caused by the firing pin?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There was no indication, from an examination, that
that nick had been so caused by a firing pin. First of all, it is in
the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also,
a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was
made by a firing pin."
So the 'nick' was taken by some as the revolver being fired, but the
FBI says no. Thank you for the info.
I'm glad you looked it up.
I'm not a CT. If a fact looks straight, I'll use it. And in this case,
it doesn't affect the out come much. It only says that those that heard a
click during the scuffle in the movie house and thought Oswald had fired
his gun and it failed, were wrong. He never fired his revolver. Since it
was a different person that was seen reloading his gun just after Tippit
got shot,
And your evidence for that is?
Post by mainframetech
Oswald may not have been involved in that shooting either.
With all his involvement with his 2 weapons, it doesn't look to me like he
fired anything at anybody. The MC rifle was a mess. I wonder how they
got a positive paraffin test from him.
Huh?
You can get a positive paraffin test from somebody who hasn't fired a
gun.
And a negative from somebody *known* to have fired a gun.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Jean
Ah yes! Definitely your picture is better than the one I found. Yes, it
appears that he is holding up an MC rifle. Simplifies things for me,
though I'm still a bit put off by the clear cut identification Weitzman
gave, and Craig staking his career on that ID. But that's for another
day. Thanks...:)
Good! You are beginning to pay attention to the evidence.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2013-05-24 02:27:23 UTC
Permalink
On 23 May 2013 22:26:08 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
I don't recall that. Could you give me a cite?
"It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
That's a poor cite.
It's a secondary essay from Don Thomas, and it has no primary source
citation.
But do you *care* about that?
And you can't follow that back to the original source and you don't know
how to use Google?
There is no citation, and Google will just run up a lot of nonsense,
not the proper primary source.

Do *you* have a primary source for that?

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-24 03:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 23 May 2013 22:26:08 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Fritz stated that it was a Mauser 7.65 to the press and they quoted him.
I don't recall that. Could you give me a cite?
"It was Fritz who was responsible for the misidentification of the
murder weapon widely reported in the press as a Mauser rifle."
From:http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Rewriting_History_-...
That's a poor cite.
It's a secondary essay from Don Thomas, and it has no primary source
citation.
But do you *care* about that?
And you can't follow that back to the original source and you don't know
how to use Google?
There is no citation, and Google will just run up a lot of nonsense,
not the proper primary source.
Do *you* have a primary source for that?
The Chairman.
Sheriff, thank you very much.
Mr. Ball.
There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as
a Mauser that day?
Mr. Boone.
Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was
7.65 Mauser.
Mr. Ball.
Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?
Mr. Boone.
I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and
before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it
looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID
man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it beck and forth. And he said it looks
like a 7.65 Mauser.
Mr. Ball.
Thank you.
The Chairman.
Thank you very much, Sheriff. You have been very helpful.
Mr. Ball.
Call Officer McDonald.

Source:
Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. III, p. 291-295.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anything else? Want to see the CIA liaison call it a Mauser? How about
news reports? As It Happened?
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-21 23:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
Post by Jean Davison
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
No, no, and no, in that order. :-) Weitzman didn't claim to be a
gun specialist of any kind. That was Craig's spin only. Weitzman didn't
*LIE*, he make a mistake. As he said, "at a glance, that is what it
looked like" and "that's all I saw, was at a glance." The rifle had what
he called a "Mauser action." Here's his testimony, in which he gave his
A+
Post by Jean Davison
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Post by mainframetech
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I'm not sure what Fritz said, or when. It was the job of Lt.
Day of the Crime Lab to ID the weapon, which he did later by examining the
marks. Weitzman's affidavit established that he was a witness to when and
where the rifle was found -- it wasn't an actual ID of the weapon.
So, can you see any markings on the rifle when it is held up by Fritz in
the Alyea film or even when Day is holding it up back at the station?
Post by Jean Davison
Why did Craig lie? If you'll enter "Rober Craig" in Google
Groups search along with "daughter" and "Simkin forum," you'll find an
e-mail said to be from his daughter. Or enter CT icon "Mary Ferrell" with
his name and find her negative opinion of him.
http://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&
Post by mainframetech
I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
Look at the photos of the two rifles -- it was easy to
mistake one for the other.
You think the cops were dumb? How incredibly dumb would it have
been to plant the wrong gun, one that didn't match the shells found at the
window? And then expect all these people to fall in line in a coverup?
Who was running this thing? The Three Stooges?
I'm not sure anyone has a theory about the cops planting a gun.
Maybe the conspirators.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
The discrepancy was explained long ago, and the
alternative, that the wrong rifle was planted, is ridiculous.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification.
But nobody went to Weitzman for the weapon ID -- that's more
Craig spin. Weitzman was a deputy constable in the sheriff's department
who happened to be there when the rifle was found.
Post by mainframetech
The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
Post by Jean Davison
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off
IIRC, Craig was the only witness who ID-ed this man as Oswald.
Someone who looked like Oswald came down the hill and got into a Rambler
about 15 minutes after the shooting. That's all that is established, so
far as I know.
Post by mainframetech
and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder.
The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
warned by the FBI to shut up or she could get hurt
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
Several witnesses were much closer to the shooting and their
version is quite different.
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
What weapon is in the Alyea film, Chris? MC or Mauser?
Jean
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-20 23:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
So that says that Craig was indeed close to the rifle and Weitzman
and Fritz.
When you watch the Alyea do you see a Mauser?
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
Then since Weitzman, the more experienced gun specialist, also said
it was a Mauser 7.65, he was lying too, since he was close to the
rifle also and could see the stamp on the rifle identifying it, yes?
And Fritz just went along with Weitzman, the more knowledgeable of
them all. Then they all backed away from 'Mauser 7.65' the next day,
including Weitzman, who had signed an affidavit to the effect it was a
Mauser'. Craig for some reason stuck to his guns for years after.
Why would he do that? He was the up and coming deputy 'cop of the
year' with 4 promotions before this. I wonder why he would jeopardize
that instead of doing what everybody else did and laying down.
I also wonder why they picked out '7.65', since there were many
calibers that Mauser made. I wonder too why they had to wait until
the next day to discover that the rifle was an MC 6.5, since the
caliber was stamped right on the rifle as well as "Made Italy".
Either this was a dumb bunch of cops, or originally they saw 'Mauser
7.65' which was quickly switched to the MC as soon as possible. odd.
It's not critical to the general scenario, since the MC had to be
found in any event to set up Oswald, but it makes one wonder at the
misidentification of the 2 types of rifles, with the stamps right on
them. Mauser stamps most of their weapons too. But then the faithful
don't wonder about these things...:)
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Yes, some of these questions have come down a long way to us. I
guarantee that the newspapers made many mistakes when I was in the
service. They would report on our doings and they usually got it
wrong, and sometimes very wrong. Now the Mauser wasn't an error of
the newspapers or books, it was an error of the police, including the
person they went to for weapon identification. The papers just
repeated what the cops told them. When questions about this fact or
that fact stay in the public eye, either you have rabid CTs, or you
have an anomaly that begs attention and won't go away.
All the oddities surrounding the large hole in the back of JFK's
head is one of those kind of problems. Over 40 people saw the large
hole, yet the autopsy photo of the BOH doesn't show that large hole,
only a small one that was bullet sized. The small hole in the
hairline on the right temple/forehead, which would make a perfect
entry wound and seen by more than one person is never mentioned. Both
of these suggest strongly a frontal shot that hit the forehead that
blew out the back of the head. An anomaly that persists, along with
all the trained medical personnel at Parkland saying they saw that
hole. An anomaly like that is not going away for lack of interest,
even though some people ignore it.
Post by Jean Davison
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
That one never caught my interest. Too hard to prove one way or the
other. There were enough witnesses to make me believe that Oswald
came out the door and ran down the grass to a Rambler waiting for him
and drove off with him, but whether Oswald was waiting in the doorway
or further back for the car is of no interest to me. I'm more
interested in the fact that a number of witnesses saw Oswald get into
a Rambler with a driver and go off, and later they turn up a bus
transfer (was it even needed?) on him. An oddity that gets my
attention and wonder. The pair of guys that Acquilla Clemmons
described matched Oswald and that driver closely. And her story is
another oddity that was never called up by the WC. She had been
http://youtu.be/aaCCd0hzLsY
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
Jean
I hear you. It seems to make sense on the surface, but being me, I
wonder why an experienced gun seller could give a captain of the
police a judgment as to what kind of rifle it was without looking at
the stamps that most guns have on them, and which give away the
manufacturer/caliber. And then to top it off, he proceeds to fill out
a sworn affidavit to the same effect, knowing he could well be
questioned hard at trial if he made a mistake. It's one of those
questions like you said that won't go away. I think partly because it
hasn't been satisfactorily explained.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-20 18:05:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
Are you talking about the Alyea film?
Are you aware that most of it was thrown away?
Post by Jean Davison
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
Which clip do you mean? You only pointed to your search results.
You need to document your sources.
Post by Jean Davison
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
How come you are allowed to say that? If I just use plain English and
says that Roger Craig was lying I'd be censored and attacked from all
sides for claiming that everyone is a liar.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
A few minutes later when Day heard
that the rifle had been found, he went over to it where Fritz was. So
there was some time in between there. Now if we follow Boone's testimony,
he says that Capt. Fritz was first to reach in and grab the rifle and hold
it up by the sling. So getting the right name on the right person might
help.
No surprise there, people make lots of mistakes. Newspapers and
books publish lots of mistakes. In the JFK "literature" these errors
never die. The Mauser error is 50 years old and will surely outlive me
and probably everybody else here.
Not to mention the equally false "Oswald in the doorway,"
likewise apparently immortal.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page295.php
Interestingly, Capt. Fritz denied in his WC testimony that he ever said
'Mauser' himself and wasn't sure if anyone else had done so. Fritz said he
KNEW it was not a Mauser because he could read the caliber on the rifle.
Brilliant. So now we are supposed to believe that Fritz was a weapons
expert and knew that there was never a 6.5 mm Mauser? Is that what you
are saying or are you saying that Fritz was a moron?
The caliber was perhaps the easiest marking on the rifle to read.
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
No mention of Weitzman saying it was a Mauser...all that was now forgotten
as if it didn't happen. The 'lone nut' scenario is in force. Here's
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol4/page206.php
Weitzman later admitted he'd made an error. The Mauser was a much
more common weapon in the U.S. in those days than an M-C was. It
*looked like* a Mauser and several people thought it was.
In fact the Carcano was a much more recent import.
Post by Jean Davison
Jean
Jean Davison
2013-05-20 21:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
   Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
    It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
    Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
         This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                     Jean
Jean,
   That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
            No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
Are you talking about the Alyea film?
Are you aware that most of it was thrown away?
            In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
Which clip do you mean? You only pointed to your search results.
You need to document your sources.
You snipped out the link!! Here's what I said without
your snips:
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I believe Craig is
the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he talks about
standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left, Fritz in the
white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.

http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
You need to document that you know how to read.
Post by Anthony Marsh
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
             The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
How come you are allowed to say that? If I just use plain English and
says that Roger Craig was lying I'd be censored and attacked from all
sides for claiming that everyone is a liar.
What nonsense. Typical, though.

Jean
Anthony Marsh
2013-05-21 22:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jean Davison
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by Jean Davison
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC. She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines. And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example: you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Interesting. Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser? Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial? Do the newspapers ever get it wrong? Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him? We don't really know any of these
things.
It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
Yep. "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano. Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
Jean
Jean,
That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
Are you talking about the Alyea film?
Are you aware that most of it was thrown away?
Post by Jean Davison
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I
Which clip do you mean? You only pointed to your search results.
You need to document your sources.
You snipped out the link!! Here's what I said without
My software doesn't know how to do snips.
Post by Jean Davison
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2," I believe Craig is
the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he talks about
standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left, Fritz in the
white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
I was talking about your original message.
Post by Jean Davison
You need to document that you know how to read.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jean Davison
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52. Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
How come you are allowed to say that? If I just use plain English and
says that Roger Craig was lying I'd be censored and attacked from all
sides for claiming that everyone is a liar.
What nonsense. Typical, though.
Jean
mainframetech
2013-05-22 17:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams
Post by curtjester1
Post by curtjester1
In his conclusion Roger Craig who initiated the Rambler wagon said
that Buddy Walthers went out to the residence and saw a Nash Rambler.
It was only a Chevy when Hosty confirmed it was, and we know how fast
he was in destroy evidence.
Get real. =A0It was a Chevy.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/37/3772-002.gif
Let me guess: =A0you are now going to say that *all* these folks were
lying.
People connected to the assassinaton very well may have had stuff to
distance themselves from. The Paines always have been highly suspect
especially with their connections. Unfortunately when they did
research of the suspected Rambler and it's history, it went no further
back on the Motor Vehicle record than the infamous C.B. Smith who was
very connected to Texas politics, LBJ, and suspected to the Paines.
So, that left 4 years of record that someone owned it, but not
available because of file purgings. If one goes into the article
here, one can view the Rambler and the Esquire magazine found years
and years later dealing with the JFK assassination.
http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/17th_Issue/rambler1.html
Sashay(tm)!
I posted links to two documents showing that Ruth Paine owned a Chevy,
and you ignored them and started bitching about something else
entirely.
Did you even *look* at the documents I linked to?
You are as bad as mainframe tech, who was touting Roger Craig's
"Mauser" testimony. I posted links showing that Craig was saying
something entirely different in 1968, and he ignored it.
Do you see why serious people pay no attention to you folks?
These are not documents that would provide any proof for 11/22/63.
OIC.  She owned one *before* the assassination, and owned one
immediately *after* the assassination, but she didn't own one on the
day of the assassination.
Post by curtjester1
Your
first one doesn't even say station wagon and the Paine's did have another
vehicle (its' very amusing this is from the Rambler Motel!).
So it wasn't a station wagon, it was another Chevy with the exact same
license number.
Post by curtjester1
If you wanted
to offer sound proof for an exoneration (which no one says is out of the
question), you would need to provide some proof from the Motor Vehicle
office providing some proof that a Chevy wagon with such and such license
plate belong to the Paines.  And why would Oswald say that about not
bringing Ruth Paine into it, when the questioner was relaying Craig's
opinion about a Rambler?
Geese, are you sloooow about getting this.
Oswald never said that.
Post by curtjester1
Also it turns out they weren't too confident as
they made Craig's testimony color of his vehicle white, when he said it
was an off-green, like Mrs.Paine's vehicle color.
Did he say that?
And your evidence is?
(I know, you believe Craig.)
Post by curtjester1
This might be a
question for Marina to answer, eh?
No, she would know nothing about that.
But you don't really get it, do you?
Craig was lying.
For example:  you've probably seen him telling Lincoln Carle (1974)
that he saw the inscription "7.65 Mauser" on the rifle.
But in 1968 he was telling the LOS ANGELES FREE PRESS something rather
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
Now . . . will you kindly read the link above?
You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this.
.John
--------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
    Interesting.  Since he had his statement that was made right after all
the events happened, and the newspaper story 5 years later, which is the
true one about the Mauser?  Why would Weitzman sign an affidavit that it
was a 'Mauser 7.65' knowing he might be questioned about it at a later
time, maybe in a trial?  Do the newspapers ever get it wrong?  Do you
suppose Craig was trying to save his life by announcing a different story,
since attempts were made on him?  We don't really know any of these
things.
     It's much easier to put all the oddities of the case, and all the false
statements from the WC and other panels, and the foolishness with the
autopsy, and the efforts of the FBI to intimidate witnesses that said
things outside the 'lone nut' scenario, and look over the whole thing.
If it looks like a conspiracy, then it helps decide the truth of what
Craig originally said, or if the newspaper story is right.
     Yep.  "You can spin your wheels forever with stuff like this."
Chris
          This Alyea film clip, starting about one minute in, shows
Craig in the background when the rifle was found, with Lt. Day lifting
the rifle from its hiding place..... and it's clearly NOT a Mauser,
it's a Mannlicher-Carcano.  Craig described this very scene in his
narration, but he changed the make of the gun, and the film proves
it.
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AuJzuF3l1yo96vqaWgipzS2bvZx4?p=%2...
                                      Jean
Jean,
    That film isn't clear as to who is Craig, but was it at the actual
moment that Boone found the rifle?
             No, and CTs would surely say it was staged if the cameraman had
been following Boone around to film that exact moment.
Are you talking about the Alyea film?
Are you aware that most of it was thrown away?
             In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I
Which clip do you mean? You only pointed to your search results.
You need to document your sources.
              You snipped out the link!!   Here's what I said without
My software doesn't know how to do snips.
In this clip called "Depository revisited - Alyea#2,"  I believe Craig is
the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he talks about
standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left, Fritz in the
white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
I was talking about your original message.
            You need to document that you know how to read.
Post by Anthony Marsh
believe Craig is the dark-haired man at about 1:52.  Then at 2:53, when he
talks about standing next to Weitzman, I think it's Weitzman on the left,
Fritz in the white hat, and Craig in a white shirt and tie on the right.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw
              The rifle in this film is definitely an M-C, and when Craig
says he read Mauser on this weapon he was not being truthful.
How come you are allowed to say that? If I just use plain English and
says that Roger Craig was lying I'd be censored and attacked from all
sides for claiming that everyone is a liar.
             What nonsense.  Typical, though.
Jean
Jean,
In the film at about 3:35 another rifle is shown in the background
with a red line around it. Does anyone know what that is? It was
circled for some reason.
http://youtu.be/-WQr4y1j4Gw

Chris
Jean Davison
2013-05-22 23:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by curtjester1
Post by John McAdams