Post by Rob Caprio on Dec 23, 2021 14:24:32 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
2.bp.blogspot.com/-e0iBuymjGDQ/VM2B3CjKd-I/AAAAAAABC_c/epx0vaMP6dw/s527/Mauser-Carcano-Comparison.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/9c/6e/c8/9c6ec88a68e2f630787636934d6d3b98.jpg
Seymour Weitzman:
spartacus-educational.com/JFKweitzman.jpg
We have seen that there is much evidence for showing a Mauser was found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) initially. In fact, there is much more showing this kind of rifle was found first instead of the alleged murder weapon which was a Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) 40” short rifle.
How did the Warren Commission (WC) get around this fact? They simply ignored it and blamed one man for making a “misidentification” of the rifle. That man was Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman. We have looked at this issue in many other posts to see that NO one said they got their identification of the weapon from him (i.e. Deputy Sheriffs Eugene Boone, Roger Craig, Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, the media, etc…) so why did the WC keep blaming him for the “mistake?” He obviously was a patsy for them.
They covered this claim of a mistake being made by saying Weitzman only got a “glance” of the weapon, but again as we have seen numerous times he described the weapon he saw in FULL DETAIL before the WC right down to the worn bolt and rough wood. So this again is not a true claim by the WC. Let’s look at something else that proves all of this is a just a lie by the WC and its current day defenders.
**************************************
As we have seen previously in other posts the WC blamed Weitzman over and over again for the “misidentification” of the rifle.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0053a.gif
Constable Deputy Sheriff Deputy Weitzman, who only saw the rifle at a glance and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle. (WCR, p. 81)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0053a.htm
Quote off
And:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0130a.gif
For example, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building was initially identified as a Mauser 7.65 rather than a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 because a deputy constable who was one of the first to see it thought it looked like a Mauser. (WCR, p. 235)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0130a.htm
Quote off
And:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0335a.gif
Speculation.—The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository was identified as a Mauser 7.65 by the man who found it, Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman.
Commission finding.—Wietzman, the ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE SPECULATION that the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon. Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it as close range. He had little more than a GLIMPSE of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-action rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano…(WCR, p. 645) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0335a.htm
Quote off
They said he made this mistake because he only got a “glance” or a “glimpse” at/of the weapon and “thought it looked like a Mauser.” Did he only got a glance or glimpse of it? Let’s look at this WC testimony where he FULLY describes the weapon he saw on November 22, 1963.
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.
This alone defies the claim of him only “glancing” or “glimpsing” the rifle to me, but this is not good enough for the WC defenders, so let’s give them something extra to show ONCE AND FOR ALL WEITZMAN DID NOT GET JUST A QUICK LOOK AT THE RIFLE initially found in the TSBD.
Quote on
Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.
The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were dark brown in color and of rough wood, having been used or damaged to considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick brown-black bandolier-type leather sling.
AFTER HE HAD OBSERVED THE RIFLE TO THE EXTENT DESCRIBED ABOVE, Capt. Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him."
(FBI reports of 11/23/63 and designated as HSCA files 180-101115-10327 and 180-10086-10049)
Quote off
This clearly sinks the claims the WC made regarding this issue as it shows Weitzman FULLY VIEWED the rifle before Captain Fritz took it from him. This makes sense in regards to the full description he gave the WC and others about the rifle. Notice what he said about the sling too. He said it was a thick brown-black BANDOLIER-type leather SLING. Let’s get a definition for the word bandolier.
Quote on
A bandolier or a bandoleer is a pocketed belt for holding ammunition. It was usually slung sash-style over the shoulder, with the ammunition pockets across the midriff and chest.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandolier
Quote off
Obviously they have updated this in some countries to include sewn in pockets on the uniform to hold extra clips and ammunition, but this is a general use for the bandolier. Another example could be the holster of a western cowboy as they had a belt that could hold ammunition in for a quick and easy way to have ammunition handy.
Compare these with how FBI Agent Robert Frazier described the sling seen on CE 139 (alleged murder weapon).
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you examined the sling on Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you feel that this is--that this sling was originally manufactured as a rifle sling?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it is not in any way similar to a normal sling for a rifle. It appears to be a sling from some carrying case, camera bag, musical instrument strap, or something of that nature.
We have made attempts to identify it, with no success.
Mr. EISENBERG - Apart from the addition of this sling and mounting of the telescopic sight, have any modifications been made in the C-139 rifle--- in the Commission Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
This shows us he does NOT mention a bandolier at all. He said it was NOT the original sling that would have come with the rifle and that it looked like it came from a carrying case, camera bag, or musical instrument strap. He also said they “could NOT identify it” it either. Surely, if it was a bandolier it would be obvious to him. Someone put this makeshift sling on it to either make it look like that was all Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) could afford or that was all that was handy to them.
We see again the claims of the WC, and its current day defenders, are erroneous and based on the evidence that was/is available to them we can’t call them anything but lies as the evidence shows they are FALSE. And yet, year after year they keep making them as if they were true.
2.bp.blogspot.com/-e0iBuymjGDQ/VM2B3CjKd-I/AAAAAAABC_c/epx0vaMP6dw/s527/Mauser-Carcano-Comparison.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/9c/6e/c8/9c6ec88a68e2f630787636934d6d3b98.jpg
Seymour Weitzman:
spartacus-educational.com/JFKweitzman.jpg
We have seen that there is much evidence for showing a Mauser was found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) initially. In fact, there is much more showing this kind of rifle was found first instead of the alleged murder weapon which was a Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) 40” short rifle.
How did the Warren Commission (WC) get around this fact? They simply ignored it and blamed one man for making a “misidentification” of the rifle. That man was Deputy Sheriff Seymour Weitzman. We have looked at this issue in many other posts to see that NO one said they got their identification of the weapon from him (i.e. Deputy Sheriffs Eugene Boone, Roger Craig, Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, the media, etc…) so why did the WC keep blaming him for the “mistake?” He obviously was a patsy for them.
They covered this claim of a mistake being made by saying Weitzman only got a “glance” of the weapon, but again as we have seen numerous times he described the weapon he saw in FULL DETAIL before the WC right down to the worn bolt and rough wood. So this again is not a true claim by the WC. Let’s look at something else that proves all of this is a just a lie by the WC and its current day defenders.
**************************************
As we have seen previously in other posts the WC blamed Weitzman over and over again for the “misidentification” of the rifle.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0053a.gif
Constable Deputy Sheriff Deputy Weitzman, who only saw the rifle at a glance and did not handle it, thought the weapon looked like a 7.65 Mauser bolt-action rifle. (WCR, p. 81)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0053a.htm
Quote off
And:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0130a.gif
For example, the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building was initially identified as a Mauser 7.65 rather than a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 because a deputy constable who was one of the first to see it thought it looked like a Mauser. (WCR, p. 235)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0130a.htm
Quote off
And:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0335a.gif
Speculation.—The rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository was identified as a Mauser 7.65 by the man who found it, Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman.
Commission finding.—Wietzman, the ORIGINAL SOURCE OF THE SPECULATION that the rifle was a Mauser, and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone found the weapon. Weitzman did not handle the rifle and did not examine it as close range. He had little more than a GLIMPSE of it and thought it was a Mauser, a German bolt-action rifle similar in appearance to the Mannlicher-Carcano…(WCR, p. 645) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0335a.htm
Quote off
They said he made this mistake because he only got a “glance” or a “glimpse” at/of the weapon and “thought it looked like a Mauser.” Did he only got a glance or glimpse of it? Let’s look at this WC testimony where he FULLY describes the weapon he saw on November 22, 1963.
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.
This alone defies the claim of him only “glancing” or “glimpsing” the rifle to me, but this is not good enough for the WC defenders, so let’s give them something extra to show ONCE AND FOR ALL WEITZMAN DID NOT GET JUST A QUICK LOOK AT THE RIFLE initially found in the TSBD.
Quote on
Mr. Weitzman described the rifle which was found as a 7.65 caliber Mauser bolt action rifle, which loads from a five shot clip which is locked on the underside of the receiver forward of the trigger guard.
The metal parts of this rifle were of a gun metal color, gray or blue, and the rear portion of the bolt was visibly worn. The wooden portions of this rifle were dark brown in color and of rough wood, having been used or damaged to considerable extent. This rifle was equipped with a four power 18 scope of apparent Japanese manufacture. It was also equipped with a thick brown-black bandolier-type leather sling.
AFTER HE HAD OBSERVED THE RIFLE TO THE EXTENT DESCRIBED ABOVE, Capt. Fritz appeared and took the rifle from him."
(FBI reports of 11/23/63 and designated as HSCA files 180-101115-10327 and 180-10086-10049)
Quote off
This clearly sinks the claims the WC made regarding this issue as it shows Weitzman FULLY VIEWED the rifle before Captain Fritz took it from him. This makes sense in regards to the full description he gave the WC and others about the rifle. Notice what he said about the sling too. He said it was a thick brown-black BANDOLIER-type leather SLING. Let’s get a definition for the word bandolier.
Quote on
A bandolier or a bandoleer is a pocketed belt for holding ammunition. It was usually slung sash-style over the shoulder, with the ammunition pockets across the midriff and chest.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandolier
Quote off
Obviously they have updated this in some countries to include sewn in pockets on the uniform to hold extra clips and ammunition, but this is a general use for the bandolier. Another example could be the holster of a western cowboy as they had a belt that could hold ammunition in for a quick and easy way to have ammunition handy.
Compare these with how FBI Agent Robert Frazier described the sling seen on CE 139 (alleged murder weapon).
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you examined the sling on Commission Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, I did.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you feel that this is--that this sling was originally manufactured as a rifle sling?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it is not in any way similar to a normal sling for a rifle. It appears to be a sling from some carrying case, camera bag, musical instrument strap, or something of that nature.
We have made attempts to identify it, with no success.
Mr. EISENBERG - Apart from the addition of this sling and mounting of the telescopic sight, have any modifications been made in the C-139 rifle--- in the Commission Exhibit 139 rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
This shows us he does NOT mention a bandolier at all. He said it was NOT the original sling that would have come with the rifle and that it looked like it came from a carrying case, camera bag, or musical instrument strap. He also said they “could NOT identify it” it either. Surely, if it was a bandolier it would be obvious to him. Someone put this makeshift sling on it to either make it look like that was all Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) could afford or that was all that was handy to them.
We see again the claims of the WC, and its current day defenders, are erroneous and based on the evidence that was/is available to them we can’t call them anything but lies as the evidence shows they are FALSE. And yet, year after year they keep making them as if they were true.