+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Mauser......Mannlicher (/thread-11238.html)
Mauser......Mannlicher - Rob Caprio - 27-08-2013
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I don't have the list at hand, but there were many others than Craig who said they saw a Mauser, or called it a Mauser at first. I believe somewhere on this forum there is a post that has the complete list - anyway this can be found in the literature. I'd also be a little cautious about Weisberg's style. While a brilliant and tenacious researcher, he was a well known curmudgeon and highly skeptical of others.
The WC defenders like to blame Weitzman for the mis-identification, but no one said they identified the rifle as a Mauser because of him. In fact, they were explicit about it being a 7.65 mm type, and again, the M-C had "6.5" stamped on it so where did they get the 7.65 caliber from then IF they looked at the M-C as claimed?
Obviously, they saw a weapon different from the alleged murder weapon.
Mauser......Mannlicher - Tracy Riddle - 27-08-2013
Remember that Warren Caster on 11/20/63 brought into the TSBD "a Remington, single-shot, .22 rifle, and the other was a .30-06 sporterized Mauser." Weird coincidence #45,312 or something else?
Mauser......Mannlicher - David Josephs - 28-08-2013
If we believe him... and there's little reason not to...
"A rifle is brought into the TSBD on 11/20... "
Control questions - "your name is Ralph Yates?" are designed to create a baseline for the truth.
That there were "no significant emotional responses" to the relevant question indicates he was telling the truth... NOT that there was no conclusion....
Your FBI at work.
Below that is his statement reproduced from the H&L CD.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5181[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5182[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5183[/ATTACH]
Mauser......Mannlicher - Tracy Riddle - 28-08-2013
Charles Drago Wrote:Don Jeffries Wrote:As Vincent Salandria first suggested, it appears the conspirators wanted us to know there was a conspiracy.
Salandria was quite correct.
If so, I don't understand the plotters' urgent need to alter or fabricate the Zapruder film.
Mauser......Mannlicher - Charles Drago - 28-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Don Jeffries Wrote:As Vincent Salandria first suggested, it appears the conspirators wanted us to know there was a conspiracy.
Salandria was quite correct.
If so, I don't understand the plotters' urgent need to alter or fabricate the Zapruder film.
Hi Tracy,
On another thread I addressed similar points made by you. I'll repost that material now:
You asked: Charles, if the plotters really had such stunning technical capabilities, why didn't they also change the direction of JFK's head to make it lurch violently forward (consistent with a TSBD shot) and spread JFK and Connally's wounds far enough apart to be caused by two shots from a Carcano? Then they could have shown it to the American people and been done with it.
I responsed: Because -- and this is absolutely CRITICAL to a deep political understanding of the JFK conspiracy -- the plotters never intended to convince anyone of anything. The cover-up was and remains designed to sustain doubt indefinitely.
For the umpteenth time on DPF I remind one and all that the disempowerment engendered by doubt is the weapon of mass distraction, if you will, that continues to protect the lives and insure the power of the Sponsors and those Facilitators they continue to value.
I've gone on at length about the significance of doppelgangers within the conspiracy structure: two -- or more -- Oswalds, rifles, brains, brain exams, autopsies, USG investigations, conflicting conclusions of those investigations, and yes, Z-films -- for starters.
Let me put it another way: The LAST thing the plotters want is for the people to "be done with" the JFK assassination's faux debate.
And I can think of no more obvious and important support system for the continuation of the faux debate than continuation of the Z-film contretemps as it now has been brought to DPF.
All of this, by the way, serves to illustrate what I previously attempted to explain to DiEugenio (in BOLD below):
While you [Jim] are correct in noting the appropriateness of including in "deep political analysis of the Zapruder film" the technical investigations you reference, your implication that such work alone would satisfactorily complete said analysis is sadly and gravely incorrect.
I'll help you along now by re-posting how I tried to help Jeff:
"[D]eep political analysis of Z-film alteration arguments suggests that some of the most easily refuted were made to diminish all of the most easily demonstrated[.]"
Finally, I'm not certain that there was an "urgent need" to alter the Z-film. Doing so -- in such a fashion that alteration would be suspected, discovered and argued over to the point at which a large section of the honorable research community began to come apart at the seams -- significantly enhanced the cover-up's efforts to prolong doubt.
And here we are, fighting tooth-and-nail on this thread.
Emulsion accomplished.
Mauser......Mannlicher - David Healy - 28-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Don Jeffries Wrote:As Vincent Salandria first suggested, it appears the conspirators wanted us to know there was a conspiracy.
Salandria was quite correct.
If so, I don't understand the plotters' urgent need to alter or fabricate the Zapruder film.
in order to create an environment for conspiracy debate, evidence of said conspiracy needs to be removed from the most obvious photographic-film record, the Zapruder film. TWO shooters means conspiracy! Hence, a grassy knoll (from the front) shot, the TSBD 6th floor shot=2 shooters=conspiracy -- verses 3 shots from the 6th floor=1 shooter-LHO, hence the SBT= no conspiracy. And the debate has raged on for 40+ years.
Zapruder film legitimacy has been questioned since the late 60's, David Lifton one of the first.
World War III or a raging debate Mr. Riddle, your choice? Not rocket science. That "urgent" enough?
Is this an interview Mr. Riddle, shall I expect to see my opinion published elsewhere?
Mauser......Mannlicher - David Josephs - 29-08-2013
I don't believe that was what Tracy meant DH...
To Salandria and most THINKING people of the time and in the rest of the world, the conspiracy WAS obvious.
To the rest of the U.S.A. citizens, it was not OBVIOUS, in fact it was not even POSSIBLE. Those thing s simply did not happen in the grand ole US of A
To those that would consider doing anything about it, the conspiracy was OBVIOUS and THREATENING
So threatening that to acknowledge it was to sign the death warrant on a career, or on oneself...
But history and the US sheep needed to move on. They NEEDED a conclusion. They (the McAdams' of the world) also needed something to point to and defend...
as the result of the massive effort to determine the TRUTH...
The autopsy report would be THE "best evidence"
The Zapruder Film's frames would support this farce.
Most people were not even AWARE that other films of the assassination were even taken... and why we come to find the Nix original is gone and Muchmore claims to have never taken those images.
It would be ALL ZAPRUDER all the time... but only the frames an even those in the wrong order... and mislabeled.
---
I am not sure if I got your drift Tracy, yet I think that was what you were asking.... the "film that almost never was" imo becomes part of the legend... Zap goes back to get his camera...
it might not have even been taken - how lucky are we... bull-puckey..
A citizen in Dallas is asked by two shotgun toting policemen to hand over a piece of evidence... Zap says no, and everyone is just fine with that. Same with the Secret Service and the FBI. :what:
Zap wants to sell the film to the highest bidder so NO the US Gov't can't have the original... Luce might as well have been LBJ's Secretary of Disinformation between TIME and LIFE.
Sorrels, in the middle of developing this film, LEAVES. Cause he MUST get to Oswlad asap ??? Leaving not a single agent or officer at KODAK - he didn't think or know there was anything on the film worth anything...
or he knew it wouldn't matter.
Rowley has an 8mm film in his possession late Saturday night.
DeLoach claims to have seent he Zfilm early, early sunday morn...
This film disappears...
---
THE MAUSER:
In a case in which we find there were two of most everything in most every situation... we wonder why a 2nd rifle is described on the 6th floor.
Hoover and Elsworth both claim the rifle and shells were taken up from the 5th floor and left on the 6th AFTER the shooting.
Weitzman owned a Sporting Goods Store and knew rifles...
From the Alyea film we are see that Lt Day picked up this rifle "from its resting place" -
Alyea also tells us that FRITZ picked up the shells for the film and then threw them back on the ground...
Did FRTIZ take the Mauser? Is that other rifle a shotgun that just happens to be right next to the found murder weapon?
I did not find this scene in the Alyea I have... is this from the film or was this taken by Studebaker?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5185[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5186[/ATTACH]
Senator COOPER - Did you notice whether the rifle that you discovered had a telescopic sight?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, it did.
Senator COOPER - Did it have a sling?
Mr. BOONE - Yes, it did. Because Captain Fritz picked it up by the sling when he removed it from its resting place.
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.
and now the LEAD GUY, HEAD HONCHO...
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any marking of yours on the empty cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. On that loaded cartridge?
Mr. BALL. On that loaded cartridge.
Mr. FRITZ. I don't know, I am not sure, I don't think so.
Mr. BALL. Did you initial the rifle?
Mr. FRITZ. The rifle; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. You didn't. Who did you give the rifle to after you ejected this live cartridge?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that that rifle, I didn't take the rifle with me, Lieutenant Day took that rifle, I believe, to the city hall, and later I asked him to bring it down--I don't believe I ever carried that rifle to city hall
Mauser......Mannlicher - Tracy Riddle - 29-08-2013
David Healy Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Don Jeffries Wrote:As Vincent Salandria first suggested, it appears the conspirators wanted us to know there was a conspiracy.
Salandria was quite correct.
If so, I don't understand the plotters' urgent need to alter or fabricate the Zapruder film.
in order to create an environment for conspiracy debate, evidence of said conspiracy needs to be removed from the most obvious photographic-film record, the Zapruder film. TWO shooters means conspiracy! Hence, a grassy knoll (from the front) shot, the TSBD 6th floor shot=2 shooters=conspiracy -- verses 3 shots from the 6th floor=1 shooter-LHO, hence the SBT= no conspiracy. And the debate has raged on for 40+ years.
Zapruder film legitimacy has been questioned since the late 60's, David Lifton one of the first.
World War III or a raging debate Mr. Riddle, your choice? Not rocket science. That "urgent" enough?
Is this an interview Mr. Riddle, shall I expect to see my opinion published elsewhere?
I don't know what your problem is, Mr. Healy. I asked Charles, if the plotters wanted us to know there was a conspiracy, why would they attempt to remove the evidence of it from the Zapruder film. Maybe his reply is stuck in the moderators' traffic jam. You, on the other hand, appear to be looking for a fight with someone.
You say "in order to create an environment for conspiracy debate, evidence of said conspiracy needs to be removed from the most obvious photographic-film record, the Zapruder film." That's a wonderful theory, with one tiny problem. The evidence of a shot from the front wasn't removed.
But let's all take a break and watch this.
Mauser......Mannlicher - David Josephs - 29-08-2013
Quote:You say "in order to create an environment for conspiracy debate, evidence of said conspiracy needs to be removed from the most obvious photographic-film record, the Zapruder film." That's a wonderful theory, with one tiny problem. The evidence of a shot from the front wasn't removed.
Correct. Kind of... that backward movement was explained, ad nauseum... JET-EFFECT, Neurospasms, "you gonna believe us or your lying eyes?"
So instead...
the public does not get to see the film
until the first unelected POTUS - the FBI's man on the WC - has pardoned
the man responsible for a good chunk of this nation's BS since 1952, Nixon
and placed an unelected VPOTUS - a Rockefeller - a heart-beat away from the presidency.
NOW you get to see the film that set the stage for the WCR... the film that helped us determine what happened
before we even knew if it was possbile...
I repost this memo as it appears to me to be THE smoking gun of the cover-up by the WC, seperate and distinct from the conspiracy to kill JFK.
April 27, 1963 Redlich to Rankin
Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by
the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President
by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the
bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast
corner window of the TSBD building.
As our investigation now stands,however, we have not shown
that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested
above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis whichappears to be
supportedby the medical testimony but which has not been checked out
against the physical facts at the scene of theassassination.
----
It is apparent, therefore, that if
GovernorConnally was even as late as frame 240, the President would
haveto have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even
earlier.
We have not yet examined theassassination scene to determine
whetherthe assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to
frame 190.
---
I should add that the facts which we now have in our
possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI* and
Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will
present a completely misleading picture.
*FBI report
Investigation has (1) developed detailed background information concerning
Oswald from his birth to his death; (2) strengthened the evidence that
Oswald was the assassin of the President although no clear-cut motive has
been established; and (3) despite numerous allegations which have been
investigated,developed no sound evidence indicating that he received any
financial assistance or that any other person, group, or foreign government
inspired or directed the assassination or was cognizant of his plan to
assassinate President Kennedy. On the contrary, the data developed strongly
indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little
advance planning.
Mauser......Mannlicher - David Healy - 29-08-2013
Tracy Riddle Wrote:David Healy Wrote:Tracy Riddle Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Salandria was quite correct.
If so, I don't understand the plotters' urgent need to alter or fabricate the Zapruder film.
in order to create an environment for conspiracy debate, evidence of said conspiracy needs to be removed from the most obvious photographic-film record, the Zapruder film. TWO shooters means conspiracy! Hence, a grassy knoll (from the front) shot, the TSBD 6th floor shot=2 shooters=conspiracy -- verses 3 shots from the 6th floor=1 shooter-LHO, hence the SBT= no conspiracy. And the debate has raged on for 40+ years.
Zapruder film legitimacy has been questioned since the late 60's, David Lifton one of the first.
World War III or a raging debate Mr. Riddle, your choice? Not rocket science. That "urgent" enough?
Is this an interview Mr. Riddle, shall I expect to see my opinion published elsewhere?
I don't know what your problem is, Mr. Healy. I asked Charles, if the plotters wanted us to know there was a conspiracy, why would they attempt to remove the evidence of it from the Zapruder film. Maybe his reply is stuck in the moderators' traffic jam. You, on the other hand, appear to be looking for a fight with someone.
You say "in order to create an environment for conspiracy debate, evidence of said conspiracy needs to be removed from the most obvious photographic-film record, the Zapruder film." That's a wonderful theory, with one tiny problem. The evidence of a shot from the front wasn't removed.
...
No problem Mr. Riddle and bravo, you're correct, evidence wasn't removed of a frontal shot, yet, the debate goes on... you need a break?
Well, I would too now that you agree the Zapruder film proves a conspiracy murdered JFK.
Now Mr. Riddle: World War III or a raging conspiracy debate, your choice? Not rocket science. Is that "urgent" enough (that one kinda slid by you).
Have a nice day, son. And yes, there is no debate! No need for theatrics.
snip the lone nut, video clip/diversionary nonsense