From: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Conspiracy
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:22:42 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <KILCUP.93Jan24001157@einstein.mps.ohio-state.edu>, kilcup@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu (Greg Kilcup) writes:
>
>
>> How about the claim that the gun discovered on the sixth floor of the School
>> Book Depository was "really a Mauser?"  Actually, the officers who discovered
>> it said it was a Mauser because, they said, "it looked like a Mauser."  And
>> indeed a MC does look like a Mauser.
>Actually Officer Weitzman reported quite explicitly that he recovered
>a "7.65 Mauser bolt action" (WC vol.24 p.228).  In addition to being
>a police officer, Weitzman was a sporting goods store owner, and was
>someone likely to be familiar with a variety of weapons. Deputy Roger Craig
>also testified that he saw the word "Mauser" stamped on the rifle.
>

First, Weitzman didn't insist that it was a Mauser.  He explained to the Warren
Commission that "in a glance that's what it looked like."

More importantly, motion pictures and still photos clearly show that the rifle
being discovered and removed is a Mannlicher-Carcano.

>> How about the claim that Oswald is actually standing on the front steps of the
>> School Book Depository, and is visible in a photo taken at the time of the
>> assassination?
>How about it?  I know the "orthodox" explanation is that that is Billy
>Lovelady, but I also know that Lovelady claimed to be *sitting*
>elsewhere when Kennedy drove by, and to be wearing a plaid shirt.
>

But think about this:  if Oswald was an "innocent patsy," not under the control
of The Conspiracy, he might certainly have been standing right out in front. 
He might also have been sitting chatting with fellow employees the moment the
shots rang out.

Would any rational conspiracy bet the whole ball of wax that he *wouldn't* be
doing one of these things?  Would they concoct a whole elaborate plan that was
dependent on Oswald being in the john, or otherwise out of sight?  When the
whole thing would be shot to hell if Oswald didn't happen to be out of sight?

>
>> How about Mark Lane, who interviewed a man in a railroad signal tower above
>> Dealey Plaza, and he claimed to have seen a "puff of smoke" from the area of
>> the grassy knoll at the moment of the assassination?  Apparently, Lane believes
>> that modern assassins use muskets.
>Or recently oiled guns.  In any event there is a film from an NBC
>photographer which indeed shows a puff of smoke on the grassy knoll.
>

I'll take your word on recently oiled guns.  I don't know that much about
firearms.  But don't you think assassins do?  If they do, why would they use a
recently oiled gun.

It's also the case that there was a parking lot behind that famous fence. 
Smoke from a car exhaust could be what was seen.

>
>> How about the claim that Oswald's rifle wasn't capable of hitting the
>> president? 
>What about it?  That seems quite plausible to me, given the
>misaligned sight and inability of *good* riflemen to pull of
>the same stunt, even for CBS and Dan Rather.
>

As I remember the Rather special, they *did* pull off the same stunt.

>> ... If it wasn't, why would a conspiracy plant such a weapon? 
>> Presumably the conspiracy had the resources to plant any weapon they wanted?

>It is not mine to speculate on the minds of those involved.
>However, if you insist on a plausible scenario, how about this:
>the conspirators wanted the gun to be traceable to Oswald, and
>Oswald had already conveniently purchased a M-C rifle.

Then how did The Conspiracy *know* that Oswald purchased the rifle?  Did they
have a national database of unstable individuals known to have purchased
weapons?  When they found out that Kennedy was going to Dallas, did they query
the database and turn up a potential patsy along the parade route?

And if the real assassin used a Mauser, then why did he leave it on the sixth
floor when he ran off?  It's true it would have been impossible to simply carry
out of the building.  But The Conspiracy would have known that, and would
have realized a left-behind Mauser would be a massive problem.

If you're The Conspiracy, you clearly want to be shooting at Kennedy with
Oswald's rifle.  Indeed, the ballistic evidence is that Kennedy was shot with
Oswald rifle.

But if you're The Conspiracy, and have to face the *possibility* that a bullet
may turn up fired from a gun other than Oswald's, you're going to want to use
the MC, not some other weapon.

>> How about the claim that the head shot came from in front?  Not only does the
>> Zapruder film show Kennedy being hit from behind, all the medical evidence is
>> that he was.  I know people like you believe it was all faked, but I don't
>> believe that.

>??!?!  I thought one thing everyone agreed on was that the Zapruder
>film sure *looks* like Kennedy was hit from the front.  Then you have
>say things like "muscle spasm" if you believe that there were only
>shots from behind.  Personally I find it most plausible that *two*
>shots arrived at JFK's head almost simultaneously.  Many earwitnesses
>report hear two reports right on top of each other at the end.
>

His brains are being blow out forward and upward.  A shot from behind would
blow them out backward.

>To cut to the chase, I used to believe the WC until I ran into
>two irremovable obstacles:  (1) the testimony of policeman
>Joe Smith that he encountered a man with Secret Service ID
>on the grassy knoll, and (2) the *highly* improbably magic bullet.
>(I mean improbably here in the same sense as in "It is improbable
>that a meteor will stike the White House this century, but I
>can't prove it is impossible.")
>

Concerning (1): what does this prove?  Was the Grassy Knoll gunman equipped
with a Secret Service ID?  Instead of running away, did he hang around and talk
to the police?

If it really *was* a Secret Service agent, what does that prove?  Do you think
the Secret Service was in on the plot?  If so, why would they have an agent on
the Grassy Knoll?  Wouldn't they *avoid* the Grassy Knoll, and let the gunman
have a clear shot?  And why would they identify themselves?

As to the "magic bullet":  I don't find it as all implausible that a bullet
fired at Kennedy would pass through his neck and hit Connolly.

But let me ask you this:  if the bullet wasn't what the WC said, what *was* it? 
If it was planted, who planted it?  And why?  If your Conspiracy Central, why
would you plant an extra bullet?  Remember, your scheme is to *cover up* the
number of bullets shot at the limo.  Why plant an extra bullet that might be
the "one bullet too many" that blows open the whole plot?

And if you're going to plant a bullet, why not one that's a bit more banged up? 
Remember, you can fire bullets into cadavers.  Presumably, The Conspiracy is
willing to *make* cadavers for that purpose.  Why plant such a thing?

>Concerning the coverup, I certainly would not expect the WC to be
>knowing and willing partners in a grand conspiracy.  But it should
>be recognized that committees and agencies have their own dynamics
>which can cause them to deliberately look away from their supposed
>object.  

But remember, the conspiracy theorists claim that the weight of evidence was so
massive, and the existence of a conspiracy so obvious, that only a willing
knowing WC could cover it up.

IOW, either you believe that the overwhelming majority of the "evidence" the
critics bring forward is bogus, or you believe that the WC was in on the
coverup.  

.John