(PART 604)


Did Oswald Smash his Rifle After the Shooting? .....

One of the more comical Lame Nut talking points, and one universally accepted by this crowd even though there is not a shred of evidence to support it, is that the reason the scope on the Carcano found on the 6th floor was so badly out of adjustment is that Oswald, in a fit of madness (?), smashed the rifle against a post on the 6th floor just before he hid it.

If this were true, it would only serve to highlight another puzzling thing about the Carcano. When cartridges are loaded into the Carcano magazine, they must be in the en bloc clip that holds them. There is a spring loaded elevator bar that pushes up on the bottom cartridge in the clip, but does not contact the clip itself. When the last cartridge is chambered, there is nothing to hold the clip up and it simply falls out the bottom of the magazine onto the ground.

Should this clip hang up in the magazine, the tiniest of bumps will jar it loose and make it drop out. With all of the handling by the shooter, following the chambering of the fourth and last cartridge, and the handling by the DPD searching for fingerprints, the clip does not fall out, and is not seen until Day is carrying the Carcano on Houston St. Oddly, it still has not fallen to the ground, but can be seen protruding partway out of the magazine.

One would think a blow hard enough to knock the scope out of alignment would have easily jarred the clip loose.


I know of no LNer in the world who has ever stated that "Oswald, in a fit of madness, smashed the rifle against a post on the 6th floor just before he hid it".

Where on Earth are you getting that notion, Robert P.?

Furthermore, why would anybody think that Oswald would have needed to "smash" the rifle against anything in order to knock the scope out of alignment?

For Pete's sake, I've been told by some conspiracists that a scope on a rifle like Oswald's (or on any rifle) would need to be "sighted in" before using it to ensure the proper scope alignment. With those same CTers informing me of their opinion that Oswald, after assembling the pieces of his rifle there on the sixth floor of the Book Depository, would have required at least 3 or 4 practice shots (maybe even more, I can't recall the exact number cited by CTers as being the minimum) in order to make sure the scope was aligned properly--and he'd need to make any adjustments that were needed to the crosshairs on the scope if his practice shots were not hitting his target properly.

Of course, no one can know for sure whether Oswald used the 4x telescope or the iron sights when he was shooting at President Kennedy in Dallas. Since Oswald didn't tell anybody this information before Jack Ruby bumped him off two days later, it's a guessing game as to which sighting method LHO employed on November 22nd.

But as far as I am aware, the common "LN" theory regarding the defective telescope on Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is, I believe, that Oswald might very well have knocked the scope out of alignment as he hurriedly dropped the rifle between the book cartons near the stairs on the sixth floor just after shooting the President with that gun.

And, IMO, that is a perfectly reasonable scenario regarding the possible way in which the scope became defective. There is no proof that the scope was misaligned prior to the assassination. Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't.

One of my theories has been (and yes, this is a guessing game too--it can't be anything else when this subject comes up) that one of the reasons Oswald's first shot missed the whole limousine is because the scope was out of alignment (without Oswald knowing it), and hence his first shot (possibly taken through that scope) struck a portion of the oak tree, which was a tree that would have, indeed, been located to the RIGHT of Oswald's rifle muzzle if he had fired his first shot at approximately Zapruder Frame 160 (as I believe he did). And according to the FBI experts, the rifle was firing shots high and to the right of the target when it was test-fired after the assassination:


And the clip, Dave? If he had accidentally bumped the rifle, would the clip not have fallen out some time before the rifle made it to the DPD?


I haven't the slightest idea.

But am I really supposed to believe there's something "phony" about the Carcano rifle being found in the TSBD because of the conspiracy theorists' continual complaints about the clip? That's silly. Does everything have to lead down Conspiracy Blvd.?

It's an especially silly idea to think that the "clip" controversy brought up quite often by CTers has any bearing on what rifle was found on the sixth floor, because the Alyea Film is showing us the proof that it was a Mannlicher-Carcano being lifted off of the floor by Carl Day. What more proof do you need?

You'd think that having a FILM of the Carcano rifle being found in the Depository would be enough to put this stale matter to rest. But, as with all discredited conspiracy theories surrounding this case, it is not.

Also -- Was the FBI's Robert Frazier lying when he confirmed that the clip seen in CE574 and CE575 was the clip from Oswald's rifle (when answering "Yes" to this question by Melvin Eisenberg)?....

Mr. EISENBERG - You have shown us photographs of a clip--the clip from the Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - One photograph loaded, and one unloaded?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. In one instance I put six cartridges in the clip and photographed it.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you take those photographs?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.


Dave, you are purposely evading the point here. The real issue, to me, is not that it was a 6.5 Carcano found on the 6th floor but, rather, whether or not that Carcano ever fired a bullet on [November 22, 1963].


The 3 shells from that gun and the 2 bullet fragments in the limo provide the proof that C2766 was fired from the TSBD on November 22nd.

How can it get any easier than that combination of things to prove that C2766 was being used on 11/22?

To repeat this critical point that is often totally ignored by conspiracy theorists:

Bullet fragments linked conclusively to Oswald's Carcano were found in the very same car where JFK was shot with rifle bullets.


The clue as to the likelihood of it not firing any bullets that day is that the clip, despite all the handling the rifle received, never fell out of the magazine until the rifle was halfway to the DPD headquarters.


But I've provided you with two much bigger clues that prove it was fired from the TSBD (the two I just mentioned above). And I didn't even mention CE399. But 399 isn't even needed to win this argument.


Carcano clips typically fall right out of the magazine as soon as the last round is chambered. Explain to all of us why this one did not.


And you think that a sticky clip somehow trumps the three bullet shells and CE567/569, eh? That's very bad thinking, Bob.

If you can't figure out the easy ones like Was Oswald's rifle fired at all on November 22nd, 1963?, you probably shouldn't even be looking into this murder case at all. Because that one was solved on Day 1.


Let's see just how circumstantial ALL of your evidence is.

1. Three spent shells and two bullet fragments. LOL! I've got a whole box full of spent shells and you would have no trouble matching them to my rifles. Big deal.


Huh? What the heck are you babbling about here? Who cares about YOUR rifles? We're talking about the three bullet shells found below the SNIPER'S WINDOW in the Depository and the bullet fragments FOUND IN THE LIMO being conclusively linked to OSWALD'S rifle.

And somehow you just dismiss all that ballistics verification with a wave of your hand and something about a box of shells being matched to YOUR rifles. (As if that means anything important at all when discussing the JFK case.)

To clarify your oddball remark above, are you saying that you think the three spent rifle shells found in the TSBD (CE510) could somehow be matched to YOUR rifles (plural even!) too?

You must be dreaming.


And bullet fragments? I can make all that you want.


Time for a second one of these --- Huh????!!!

(And a "WTF?" wouldn't hurt here either.)


2. CE 399? I can shoot a bullet out of one of my rifles and make a CE 399 for you any time you like. Doesn't prove a thing.


Looks like it's WTF? time again.

Does anyone have the slightest idea what Robert P. is talking about here?


Sorry, Dave, none of these things prove the Carcano was fired that day, and they certainly don't prove Oswald fired the rifle on that day, or any other.


Oh sure, Bob. We've only got shells from OSWALD'S gun in the Sniper's Perch....and CE399 from OSWALD'S gun in the hospital where the victims were taken....and two large pieces of a bullet from OSWALD'S gun right there in the same car where the victims were shot.

Why should I even BEGIN to believe that OSWALD'S rifle was being fired at President Kennedy with flimsy, half-baked evidence like all that stuff, right?

But, like all CTers who pretend that Oswald's gun wasn't fired at JFK, you have no choice but to try and explain away all the evidence that proves you're dead wrong. And based on your last post, you're doing a miserable and pathetic job of doing that.


You've got nothing, Dave, and you've always had nothing. You're just a man that talks a lot, and only the foolish listen to you.


Since you're obviously in a full-fledged "Dream" mode, I think I'll join you now, because your last ridiculous comment makes me want to .... ~yawn~.


The spent shells in the Sniper's Nest mean nothing.


Bullet fragments can be produced by shooting a rifle into a tank of water and then planting them in the limo.


CE 399 can be made by shooting another bullet into any kind of gelatinous substance. ... There seem to be holes in the chain of custody.


Davey, you've got nothing, and you've always had nothing.


Robert Prudhomme doesn't like the evidence in the case, so he's decided to do just what Jim DiEugenio (et al) has done -- he's decided it's all fake. Of course, he hasn't come close to proving that ANY of it is fake, but he's decided that ALL of it is fake anyway. (Lovely tactic.)

Such a blanket theory about all of the evidence against Oswald being faked, forged, or planted is patently absurd, and it's just the kind of argument a defense attorney who wants to get a "Not Guilty" verdict from a jury would have no choice BUT to argue. Because without the bullet shells being planted and without CE399 being planted and without the front-seat fragments being added to the evidence pile---then Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon.

And who else is MORE likely to have used Oswald's rifle on November 22nd--or any other day--especially since we know that the rifle's owner worked in the building and was present in that building at the time of the assassination? (Not a difficult question, is it?)

And I love the statement above by Robert P. about the front-seat bullet fragments possibly being produced by the evil authorities after the assassination by firing a bullet from Oswald's rifle into "a tank of water".

The "water" supposedly resulted in these banged-up pieces of bullet:

The "water tank" argument is usually reserved for the CTers' lame and wholly-unprovable argument regarding CE399, not CE567 & 569. But maybe Robert's water is rock hard with a lot of resistance to it.

And because some conspiracy-happy clown named Robert P. says so, I'm supposed to believe the bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest "mean nothing".

And even though the LNers have ALL of the evidence to convict Oswald ten times over, Robert Prudhomme, without displaying a hint of embarrassment while saying it, claims that I've "got nothing".

The hilarity exhibited day after day by certain conspiracy seekers is still strong....even after 50 years of the evidence staring them in the face. Go figure.

Addendum re: CE399.....

"If a person digs into the records deep enough, that person can and will find documentation to support the idea, which is totally foreign to most conspiracy theorists, that Bullet CE399 was the bullet that made its way from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to the FBI laboratory in Washington on November 22, 1963." -- DVP; 9/28/2012 [more HERE]

David Von Pein
January-February 2014