Mauser......Mannlicher

[Charles Drago]

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.

See my reply in post # 15 above.

It was indeed stuck in traffic; the direct route accessible to everyone else posting here is not available to me.

Accordingly, whenever the expectation of a response from me arises on this or any other thread, you should backtrack to the point where it would have appeared had not a priori restraints been imposed.

Thanks for your patience and interest.

And thank, Tracy, for continuing this exchange.

[Rob Caprio]

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.

Here is more on this subject and you will see NO one said they called the weapon initially found a Mauser because of Weitzman.

***********************************

Despite there being more evidence for a Mauser being found on the sixth floor (and/or elsewhere in the building) of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) than a Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) the Warren Commission (WC) would claim ONLY the M-C was found by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63.

The WC blamed the confusion on one manDeputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman as they said everyone went with his lead in calling it a Mauser. The ODD thing is NO one said that in their testimony before them however, so why did the WC claim this? The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would also look at this issue too. This post will look at this very important issue much closer to see what is closer to the truth.

NOTE: Keep in mind when you are reading these comments by witnesses that the alleged murder weapon, CE-139, had the words "MADE ITALY" and "6.5 CAL." stamped on it, therefore, even if someone was confused about what they were seeing how did they consistently get a Mauser (NOT an Italian rifle and NOT made in Italy) that was in a 7.65 caliber? Do all DPD officers and Deputy Sheriffs have an inability to read? You must believe this to accept the OFFICIAL explanation and conclusion.

*************************************************

The man who found the rifle was Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone. Here is what he said about the discovery before the WC.

Mr. BALL - What did you do after you got up to the sixth floor?

Mr. BOONE - Well, I proceeded to the east end of the building, I guess, and started working our way across the building to the west wall, looking in, under, and around all the boxes and pallets, and what-have-you that were on the floor. Looking for the weapon. And as I got to the west wall, there were a row of windows there, and a slight space between some boxes and the wall. I squeezed through them.

When I did--I had my light in my hand. I was slinging it around on the floor, and I caught a glimpse of the rifle, stuffed down between two rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it. And I hollered that the rifle was here.

So he saw the rifle "stuffed down between rows of boxes with another box or so pulled over the top of it" according to his testimony. This leads to a very important questionhow in the world would Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) have time to do this IF he was the shooter as the WC claimed? In about 90 seconds after the shooting LHO was seen in the SECOND FLOOR lunchroom by DPD Officer Marrion Baker! How would he have the time to stash the rifle so well IF it was the M-C in question that he allegedly used?

Here is what Boone said about the rifle he found being a Mauser and NOT a M-C.

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.

Here Boone accepts responsibility for calling it a Mauser and does NOT blame it on Weitzman as the WC would. He would say someone else said it was a Mauser, but it was NOT Weitzman.

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.

We see it was Captain Fritz who said it looked like a Mauser and NOT Weitzman! In a report to the Sheriff, Bill Decker, Boone would say the rifle appeared to be a 7.65mm Mauser. He did NOT say that it was later shown to be a M-C.

Quote on

The rifle appeared to be a 7.65mm Mauser with a telescopic sight on the rifle.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc..._0263a.htm

Quote off

Why did he NOT tell his BOSS that he had been "mistaken" and the rifle was actually a 6.5mm M-C? The man who was blamed was also asked about this before the WC, let's see what he said.

Mr. BALL - In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.65 Mauser bolt action?

Mr. WEITZMAN - In a glance, that's what it looked like.

Mr. BALL - That's what it looked like did you say that or someone else say that?

Mr. WEITZMAN - No; I said that. I thought it was one.

Mr. BALL - Are you fairly familiar with rifles?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Fairly familiar because I was in the sporting goods business awhile.

He clearly says it looked like a Mauser to him and NO one else (i.e. Fritz or Boone) caused him to think this. Also, remember his comment about being familiar with rifles as this will come up in the HSCA testimony of a firearms expert.

Weitzman said he only got a "glance" of the rifle so that is why he made the "mistake" calling it a Mauser, but if we read his testimony where he describes the rife in FULL detail we see the real MISTAKE was in saying he ONLY got a glance of the rifle!

Mr. BALL - I understand that. Now, in your statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, you gave a description of the rifle, how it looked.

Mr. WEITZMAN - I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn't I?

Mr. BALL - Mauser bolt action.

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

Mr. BALL - You also said it was a gun metal color?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes.

Mr. BALL - Gray or blue?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Blue metal.

Mr. BALL -And the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn, is that worn?

Mr. WEITZMAN - That's right.

Mr. BALL - And the wooden portion of the rifle was what color?

Mr. WEITZMAN - It was a brown, or I would say not a mahogany brown but dark oak brown.

Mr. BALL - Rough wood, was it?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir; rough wood.

Mr. BALL - And it was equipped with a scope?

Mr. WEITZMAN - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Was it of Japanese manufacture?

Mr. WEITZMAN - I believe it was a 2.5 Weaver at the time I looked at it. I didn't look that close at it; it just looked like a 2.5 but it turned out to be a Japanese scope, I believe.

Besides the very leading questions by Ball we see a FULL description of the rifle by Weitzman including the FACT it had a WORN REAR PORTION OF THE BOLT AND ROUGH WOOD! How in the world would you know this from a "glance?" Why would the WC be asking him for such a full description IF he only got a glance as he claimed? Does this make any sense to you? Also, IF he made a mistake as suggested and he realized it later on when a M-C was claimed to have been found first, why was he willing to sign an affidavit saying the rifle he first saw was a 7.65mm Mauser on 11/23/63?

Quote on

I was working with S. Deputy Boone of the Sheriff's Department and helping in the search. We were in the northwest corner of the sixth floor when Deputy Boone and myself spotted the rifle about the same time. This rifle was a 7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it. The rifle was between some boxes near the stairway. The time the rifle was found was 1:22 pm.

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0433-001.gif

Quote off

IF he was mistaken why was he still saying it was a Mauser the NEXT DAY and willing to sign a LEGAL DOCUMENT saying so? Here is what Captain Fritz testified to before the WC. He too will NOT blame Weitzman for starting the Mauser claim.

Mr. BALL. Was there any conversation you heard that this rifle was a Mauser?

Mr. FRITZ. I heard all kinds of reports about that rifle. They called it most everything.

Mr. BALL. Did you hear any conversation right there that day?

Mr. FRITZ. Right at that time?

Mr. BALL. Yes

Mr. FRITZ. I just wouldn't be sure because there were so many people talking at the same time, I might have; I am not sure whether I did or not.

Mr. BALL. Did you think it was a Mauser?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I knew--you can read on the rifle what it was and you could also see on the cartridge what caliber it was.

Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?

Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.

IF his testimony is true and accurate than Boone had to be lying as he said Fritz said it was a Mauser. Why would Boone lie about this and blame a CAPTAIN to boot? That is a question the WC never bothered to answer (nor have the present day WC defenders). Also NOTE that he said you could read on the rifle what caliber it was, so again, why were so many confusing CE-139 for a 7.65 Mauser IF CE-139 was the rifle found as claimed?

As we have seen in an earlier post in this series (#25, point 5) Dallas District Attorney (DA) Henry Wade said the weapon found was a German Mauser during his press conference on 11/22/63, and this was near midnight! Surely by then they would have determined their earlier "mistake", right? I guess not.

We also have a CIA report dated three days after the assassination identifying the gun as a Mauser. The report is dated November 25, 1963, it reads as follows:

Quote on

The rifle he [Oswald] used was a Mauser which OSWALD had ordered (this is now known by handwriting examination) from Klein's Mail Order House, Chicago, Illinois. He had the rifle sent to a Post Office Box which Lee OSWALD had rented. In the order for the rifle, Oswald used the name Alex HIDELL.

OSWALD also had in his possession at the time of his arrest (after he also killed a Texas policeman) a U.S. Selective Service Card in the name of Alex HIDELL. (CIA Document No. 1367, declassified spring 1976; cited in Fensterwald 443-44. Henry Hurt, Reasonable Doubt (New York: Henry Holt, 1985) pp. 102-03. Evica 23.)

Quote off

Can any WC defender explain why the CIA was calling the alleged murder weapon a Mauser three days after the assassination?

The HSCA would look into this too and they had an expert by the name Monty Lutz give testimony on this issue. He would make a composite photograph showing how the M-C looked similar to other bolt action rifles. It was included with this testimony.

Mr. MCDONALD. …Mr. LUTZ, could a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle be easily mistaken for a German Mauser, and before you answer the question, if we could have marked for identification JFK exhibit F-96. If you would utilize the chart in explaining your answer.

Mr. LUTZ. In regards to that question, there are considerable similarities between the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in conjunction with numerous rifles of several countries and several sources of origin. The similarities with the 7.65 German Mauser are quite a few. The similarities that would be noted between the Carcano and the 7.65 German Mauser are depicted in this particular photograph that I have here. The photograph that I have put together represents several rifles that have the general class characteristics or the overall silhouette design for this particular rifle.

The features that could possibly be confused with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and an Argentine Mauser would the Mannlicher-type magazine protruding from the bottom of the receiver area. The feature that is common on all bolt action rifles, the operating handle or the bolt handle protruding from the right side, on all of these rifles.

The photograph is designated JFK F-96.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk...448f96.jpg

Did one of the similarities include the ARGENTINE MAUSER being stamped with "MADE ITALY" AND "6.5 CAL." too? Just wondering.

Mr. McDONALD. Mr. Lutz, would you please tell us which one is the Mannlicher-Carcano in that composite photograph.

Mr. LUTZ. The photographs that I have are a series of photographs involving the Mannlicher-Carcano being the second one from the top of the photographic display. This is a rifle of the same model type and general characteristics as the questioned rifle, CE-139. It is not CE-139 but a rifle just like it. The second one from the top. The similarities that are available and quite noticeable and might be confused with an Argentine Mauser rifle, manufactured in Germany, can readily be seen.

So we see they are setting the stage for showing that the M-C in question and an Argentine Mauser look similar. Again, keep in mind that the alleged murder weapon had "MADE ITALY" AND "6.5 CAL." stamped on it! Thus, NO one should have confused it for an ARGENTINE Mauser of a 7.65 caliber!

Mr. MCDONALD. Can you determine the caliber of a rifle merely by looking at it?

Mr. LUTZ. No, you cannot, because many times the differences in caliber is a few thousandths of an inch. The difference between a 6.5-millimeter Carcano bullet, or the muzzle, the barrel itself, the inside diameter, and the difference between it and the 7.65 German Mauser is only a few thousandths of an inch, 40-some thousandths of an inch difference. We are speaking of .265 inches in diameter for the 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bore diameter and we are speaking of .313 inches of diameter for the Argentine Mauser made in Germany.

We again fail to see the mention of the FACT that the alleged murder weapon had the caliber STAMPED ON IT!

Mr. MCDONALD. To a casual observer would it be easy to mistake a Carcano for a Mauser?

Mr. LUTZ. Yes, sir; I believe it would.

Who was the "casual observer" they are referring to? Captain Fritz had nearly 40 years of police experience, Weitzman was very familiar with rifles, Boone was a deputy sheriff who had to have seen rifles before, and Roger Craig was an experienced deputy sheriff too. Furthermore, even if NONE of them knew a rifle from a pistol the alleged murder weapon was stamped with "MADE ITALY" AND "6.5 CAL." so how did they get an ARGENTINE MAUSER OF A 7.65 CALIBER OUT OF THAT? Can any WC defender explain this?

Once again we see the WC's own evidence does NOT support their conclusion. Here we see the feeble attempt by the HSCA did NOT remedy this issue in the least.

Once again we see the WC's claim that a Mauser was NOT found is sunk.

[Tracy Riddle]

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.

See my reply in post # 15 above.

It was indeed stuck in traffic; the direct route accessible to everyone else posting here is not available to me.

Accordingly, whenever the expectation of a response from me arises on this or any other thread, you should backtrack to the point where it would have appeared had not a priori restraints been imposed.

Thanks for your patience and interest.

And thank, Tracy, for continuing this exchange.

Thanks, Charles, I missed both of your responses because they were delayed, and I don't think to go back and look at older pages in the thread.

I respect your analysis, even though I disagree with it. I think it would make a fine film noir, or a great novel like Libra. But I've studied a lot of historical plots (the Hitler bomb plot in 1944, the Benigno Aquino assassination, the Archduke in 1914 and others), and in real life they are messy, haphazard things. Stuff goes wrong, there are unforeseen complications and unexpected changes of plan. Attempted cover-ups sometimes fail (Aquino's killing was like RFK's, but too many people in the Filipino government wouldn't cooperate in hiding the truth). They are, after all, run by human beings, not movie supervillains, so they are not infallible and have no magical abilities.

The more complicated a plot becomes, the more likely someone will screw it up. A lot of things went wrong with the JFK assassination (Oswald being captured alive, Kennedy not being killed by one bullet fired from the rear, etc.)

Maybe it's just because of my own experiences, all the companies I've worked at where I see just how dysfunctional and badly-run organizations are. The people at the top have more money and power, but they still aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Just more ruthless.

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, Charles, I missed both of your responses because they were delayed, and I don't think to go back and look at older pages in the thread.

I respect your analysis, even though I disagree with it. I think it would make a fine film noir, or a great novel like Libra. But I've studied a lot of historical plots (the Hitler bomb plot in 1944, the Benigno Aquino assassination, the Archduke in 1914 and others), and in real life they are messy, haphazard things. Stuff goes wrong, there are unforeseen complications and unexpected changes of plan. Attempted cover-ups sometimes fail (Aquino's killing was like RFK's, but too many people in the Filipino government wouldn't cooperate in hiding the truth). They are, after all, run by human beings, not movie supervillains, so they are not infallible and have no magical abilities.

The more complicated a plot becomes, the more likely someone will screw it up. A lot of things went wrong with the JFK assassination (Oswald being captured alive, Kennedy not being killed by one bullet fired from the rear, etc.)

Maybe it's just because of my own experiences, all the companies I've worked at where I see just how dysfunctional and badly-run organizations are. The people at the top have more money and power, but they still aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Just more ruthless.

We'll happily agree to disagree. And by the way, you're not the first person to suggest to me that I may be giving too much credit to the Facilitators.

Vis a vis your comment regarding "dysfunctional and badly-run organizations," I would note only that the Facilitators who conceived and were responsible for "running the plot" were not exactly average rank-and-file types of guys and gals. They were the best in the world at what they did.

So perhaps we're both right. Perhaps Abraham Zapruder was the classic lemon from which some among the highest level of Facilitators decided to make lemonade.

Or ... Wittingly or otherwise, he was positioned on the pedestal to make certain that a pre-determined film doppelganger gambit could be pulled off.

[Peter Lemkin]

Thanks, Charles, I missed both of your responses because they were delayed, and I don't think to go back and look at older pages in the thread.

I respect your analysis, even though I disagree with it. I think it would make a fine film noir, or a great novel like Libra. But I've studied a lot of historical plots (the Hitler bomb plot in 1944, the Benigno Aquino assassination, the Archduke in 1914 and others), and in real life they are messy, haphazard things. Stuff goes wrong, there are unforeseen complications and unexpected changes of plan. Attempted cover-ups sometimes fail (Aquino's killing was like RFK's, but too many people in the Filipino government wouldn't cooperate in hiding the truth). They are, after all, run by human beings, not movie supervillains, so they are not infallible and have no magical abilities.

The more complicated a plot becomes, the more likely someone will screw it up. A lot of things went wrong with the JFK assassination (Oswald being captured alive, Kennedy not being killed by one bullet fired from the rear, etc.)

Maybe it's just because of my own experiences, all the companies I've worked at where I see just how dysfunctional and badly-run organizations are. The people at the top have more money and power, but they still aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Just more ruthless.

We'll happily agree to disagree. And by the way, you're not the first person to suggest to me that I may be giving too much credit to the Facilitators.

Vis a vis your comment regarding "dysfunctional and badly-run organizations," I would note only that the Facilitators who conceived and were responsible for "running the plot" were not exactly average rank-and-file types of guys and gals. They were the best in the world at what they did.

So perhaps we're both right. Perhaps Abraham Zapruder was the classic lemon from which some among the highest level of Facilitators decided to make lemonade.

Or ... Wittingly or otherwise, he was positioned on the pedestal to make certain that a pre-determined film doppelganger gambit could be pulled off.

I have to side with Charles here....but it depends on how one defines 'mistakes', 'errors', ''leaks', et al. I think to the student of 11/22/63 one can clearly see some plans that went awry and how they were replaced with plan/cover-up B and even C and D....etc. But, if one looks at the fact that JFK was murdered instantly [along with the American Polity] and the Truth has basically been covered-up to this very day; the evidence made to disappear, altered or denied to us to be seen; that no REAL investigation has been permitted to proceed and when they do many witnesses are either not called, have their testimony changed, or are murdered just prior or just after. Further, the Coup d'etat that was an integral part of Dallas is, IMFO, STILL in full effect - I'd call that a success, despite the 'flubs' here and there.....along the way. When we have reversed and overthrown the Coup; exposed the full nature of the Conspiracy and who backed it/gave it the 'nod' [not who pulled triggers and did the chump chores - even the planning and the still ongoing cover-up]; then come talk to me about how they 'messed so much up' - 'as happens in all big conspiracies' [or so they'd like us to believe]....... Its the end goal that counts - and so far they've won on that, hands down....or the Truth would be out...America would not be the America of today...and we might actually have a democracy...not a hairs breath from a totalitarian permanent warfare omniscient cyberspy neo-fascist police state! Sadly, on the 50th the voice of Truth of the events of 11/22/63 will be very little heard - but there will be a ROAR and celebration of the heirs to the Coup and their sycophants, agents, and minions....confusing the Average Person.

[Tracy Riddle]

Obviously, the plot succeeded and the institutions responsible are in the drivers' seat today. That has more to do with the successful century-long program of propaganda, advertising, television brainwashing, etc., than the actual mechanics and logistics of the JFK plot.

[Don Jeffries]

One of the arguments I often get from people who don't believe in "conspiracy theories" is: "but no one can keep a secret" and the similar "they (CIA-FBI-whatever) aren't that competent- they couldn't pull off any big conspiracy." Basically, the "someone would have talked" argument. I counter this by saying, "Just because they have the power, doesn't mean they're brilliant." And considering the gullibility and dumbed down nature of the populace, they don't even have to try to be clever about it. As Salandria pointed out, for whatever reason, they like to leave these clues in plain sight. They want us to know.

We see the exact same sort of "mistaken" early reports about crucial evidence in every high profile case that arises, all the way up to recent incidents like Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombing. The excuse is that this is to expected, that it is normal for the press and law enforcement to issue such inaccurate information early on. While I have a very low opinion of the mainstream media and law enforcement in general, I refuse to believe that they continuously foul things up so thoroughly in all these cases. If the weapon was misidentified, then it is a coincidence of monumental proportions that both Boone and Weitzman made an identical error, and swore to it.

It's good to see a kinder and gentler Charles back posting and doing what he does best; analyzing political events critically. Good luck on your screenplay.

[Charles Drago]

Thanks, Charles, I missed both of your responses because they were delayed, and I don't think to go back and look at older pages in the thread.

I respect your analysis, even though I disagree with it. I think it would make a fine film noir, or a great novel like Libra. But I've studied a lot of historical plots (the Hitler bomb plot in 1944, the Benigno Aquino assassination, the Archduke in 1914 and others), and in real life they are messy, haphazard things. Stuff goes wrong, there are unforeseen complications and unexpected changes of plan. Attempted cover-ups sometimes fail (Aquino's killing was like RFK's, but too many people in the Filipino government wouldn't cooperate in hiding the truth). They are, after all, run by human beings, not movie supervillains, so they are not infallible and have no magical abilities.

The more complicated a plot becomes, the more likely someone will screw it up. A lot of things went wrong with the JFK assassination (Oswald being captured alive, Kennedy not being killed by one bullet fired from the rear, etc.)

Maybe it's just because of my own experiences, all the companies I've worked at where I see just how dysfunctional and badly-run organizations are. The people at the top have more money and power, but they still aren't any smarter than the rest of us. Just more ruthless.

We'll happily agree to disagree. And by the way, you're not the first person to suggest to me that I may be giving too much credit to the Facilitators.

Vis a vis your comment regarding "dysfunctional and badly-run organizations," I would note only that the Facilitators who conceived and were responsible for "running the plot" were not exactly average rank-and-file types of guys and gals. They were the best in the world at what they did.

So perhaps we're both right. Perhaps Abraham Zapruder was the classic lemon from which some among the highest level of Facilitators decided to make lemonade.

Or ... Wittingly or otherwise, he was positioned on the pedestal to make certain that a pre-determined film doppelganger gambit could be pulled off.

I have to side with Charles here....but it depends on how one defines 'mistakes', 'errors', ''leaks', et al. I think to the student of 11/22/63 one can clearly see some plans that went awry and how they were replaced with plan/cover-up B and even C and D....etc. But, if one looks at the fact that JFK was murdered instantly [along with the American Polity] and the Truth has basically been covered-up to this very day; the evidence made to disappear, altered or denied to us to be seen; that no REAL investigation has been permitted to proceed and when they do many witnesses are either not called, have their testimony changed, or are murdered just prior or just after. Further, the Coup d'etat that was an integral part of Dallas is, IMFO, STILL in full effect - I'd call that a success, despite the 'flubs' here and there.....along the way. When we have reversed and overthrown the Coup; exposed the full nature of the Conspiracy and who backed it/gave it the 'nod' [not who pulled triggers and did the chump chores - even the planning and the still ongoing cover-up]; then come talk to me about how they 'messed so much up' - 'as happens in all big conspiracies' [or so they'd like us to believe]....... Its the end goal that counts - and so far they've won on that, hands down....or the Truth would be out...America would not be the America of today...and we might actually have a democracy...not a hairs breath from a totalitarian permanent warfare omniscient cyberspy neo-fascist police state! Sadly, on the 50th the voice of Truth of the events of 11/22/63 will be very little heard - but there will be a ROAR and celebration of the heirs to the Coup and their sycophants, agents, and minions....confusing the Average Person.

Beautiful, Peter.

[Charles Drago]

It's good to see a kinder and gentler Charles back posting and doing what he does best; analyzing political events critically. Good luck on your screenplay.

Thank you, Don.

Peace.