Post by Rob Caprio on Jun 8, 2019 16:36:35 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/2e1a000f06.gif
A Warren Commission (WC) defender is claiming the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) confirmed the rifle depicted in the Backyard Photographs (BYPs) is the SAME one that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on 11/22/63.
Let's see if this is correct in this post.
*************************************
As previously shown FBI expert Shaneyfelt said you could NOT show via positive identification that the rifle seen in the BYPs is the same one that was found in the TSBD.
Quote on
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
Quote off
And yet, the HSCA, and Tony Marsh, claim they were the same rifle. Here is what the HSCA wrote on page 50 of their Report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0040b.gif
The rifle Boone found, a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C), was analyzed by the FBI in 1963-64 and by the committee’s firearms panel in 1978, as was the other firearms evidence that was recovered. It was determined in both investigations that the bullet found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital (PH) had been fired from the rifle found in the depository, as were two fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine. Further, the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the depository were found to have been fired in the Mannlicher-Carcano. (HSCAR, p. 50)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0040b.htm
Quote off
This paragraph is loaded with information that shows nothing. First of all, as seen in numerous posts in the "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series there is ample evidence showing the first weapon found was a 7.65 mm Mauser, NOT the M-C. Secondly, the paragraph mentions the one that was found in the TSBD being analyzed, but it does NOT show this was the SAME rifle SEEN in the BYPs as Tony is claiming. Thirdly, the bullet found in Parkland Hospital (PH) and the two fragments found 10-12 hours later in Washington D.C., after the limousine was ILLEGALLY taken from the area with jurisdiction, being in the presidential limousine and being from the rifle in question does NOT mean it is the same rifle or that it was actually fired at John F. Kennedy (JFK). None of this evidence was ever tied to JFK or Governor John B. Connally (JBC), although the HSCA will try and do that in the next paragraph. Finally, the same thing goes for the three spent cartridge cases as they too do NOT show the bullets in them were fired at JFK.
Here is what the next paragraph says about the fragments and the body of JFK.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0040b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0041a.gif
Through neutron activation analysis, the committee found that the firearms evidence could be even more directly linked to the wounds suffered by the President and Governor Connally. It is highly likely that the bullet found on the stretcher was the one that passed through Governor Connally’s wrist, leaving tiny particles behind, and the fragments retrieved from the limousine came from the same bullet as the fragments taken from President Kennedy’s brain. (HSCAR, pp. 50-51)
Quote off
This paragraph is loaded with falsehoods. There is no other way to say it since the evidence in the case provided by the WC does NOT support a single statement/claim the HSCA made. We know Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) is a fraud so using it at all is worthless and shows us nothing of value. They claim it is “highly likely that the bullet found on the stretcher was the one that passed through Governor Connally’s wrist” and this too is a falsehood and worthless. The evidence shows us there was MORE lead in JBC’s wrist alone than what was missing from CE 399 (alleged stretcher bullet) so this is an IMPOSSIBILITY, let alone “highly likely” as the HSCA claims. There is much more evidence showing the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) is just bunk too.
They finish with the claim that the two fragments found in the limousine match fragments taken from JFK’s brain. First of all, did they NOT read the testimony of Secret Service (SS) Agent Kellerman gave as he said numerous times in his WC testimony that he saw NO fragments at his feet as claimed! How did this happen? Secondly, what fragments were found in the President’s brain? I don’t know of any fragments that came from JFK’s brain that are in the evidence so what are they referring to? Finally, notice the trick of the “same bullet” in the last sentence. It was NOT possible to even prove both limousine fragments came from the SAME bullet, but here they NOT only claim they did, but that the invisible (to us anyway) fragments found in JFK’s brain also came from this same bullet.
Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.
Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
FBI expert Robert Frazier CANNOT say the two alleged limousine fragments came from the SAME bullet, but obviously the HSCA can 14 years later. It is chicanery like this that makes one NOT believe in the findings of the WC or the HSCA on the whole (true, the HSCA said a “probable conspiracy existed to kill JFK, but even that is a lie as there is NOTHING probable about it -- there was a definite conspiracy involved in the murder of JFK). Clearly, to write this paragraph the HSCA had to IGNORE the evidence in this case and what it really showed.
The HSCA also concluded that both fragments allegedly found in the limousine had been in JFK’s head, but how did they prove this? Who knows since Frazier admitted to tampering with evidence by wiping off blood from the two fragments!
Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Here Frazier admits to TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE (i.e. removal of blood and tissue that should have been tested to see if they matched blood and tissue from JFK) and the WC has NO problem with it! He would have done the same to CE 399 if it had been needed to!
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just, in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Frazier totally either misreads the first question or he is telling the truth that they would have ALTERED the evidence IF it was needed! Why would you “want to change” the evidence again? Can any WC defender explain this comment to me?
He further confirms NO testing was done on anything found on the bullet and fragments.
Mr. EISENBERG - You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, there was no test made of the materials.
And yet, we are to believe the WC got it right with thoroughness like this. This was blatant tampering with evidence and it has to make you wonder why they did NOT test the blood and tissue IF they truly believed their own claims. NOT testing it only makes one believe they KNEW it was NOT from JFK so, why bother?
Now, back to Tony Marsh’s latest claim.
“The HSCA's photographic experts said that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same as the rifle in the backyard photos and the same as the one in the National Archives with the serial number that was sent to Oswald.”—Tony Marsh
If we go back to page 51 of the HSCA Report we will NOT even see the BYPs as a source for rifle identification as claimed by Tony Marsh.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0041a.gif
To resolve the controversy, the committee assembled a wide range of photographs of the rifle: a police photograph taken where it was found in the depository; a motion picture film taken by a television station showing the rifle when it was found by the police; a series of photographs of a police officer carrying the rifle from the depository; photographs of the rifle as it was carried through the halls of Dallas Police Department; and photographs taken later by the FBI and Dallas Police Department.
The examination by committee photographic consultants determined that all photographs were of the same rifle.(HSCAR, p. 51)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0041a.htm
Quote off
It does NOT mention the BYPs as being used at all as Tony claims, but does get into this later in the Report. On page 55 we see this said about the rifle and the BYPs.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0043a.gif
Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the same panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the stored rifle at the National Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963. Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (i.e., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification. (HSCAR, p. 55)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0043a.htm
Quote off
It’s sole basis for the claim they made, and Tony is relying on, is some random MARK, but as we saw in the beginning of this post the FBI expert Shaneyfelt saw NO mark in 1963/64 as he said it was NOT possible to claim the rifle in the BYPs was the same as the one found in the TSBD! Why should we believe some consultants over an expert? Why was this mark NOT seen by Shaneyfelt if it indeed did exist as claimed?
Notice too how the HSCA used the correct phrase of “alleged assassination rifle” as it has NEVER been supported, let alone proven, that CE 139 was in fact the murder weapon. And yet, the WC and HSCA went out of their way trying to prove it was LHO’s and that it is seen in the BYPs and is the same one found and in the National Archives (NA). Why bother when it has NO real value in solving this case?
The HSCA itself gave us troubling news when it wrote a note on page 50 that said the following:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0040b.gif
The committee firearms panel determined that the evidence stored in the National Archives ballistically matched the bullets fired by the FBI in 1964 tests from the Mannlicher-Carcano found by Deputy Boone. Since the rifle had been test fired numerous times since 1963, its barrel had been altered by wear, and bullets the panel fired from the rifle did NOT match either the FBI test cartridges or those found on the sixth floor of the depository or that (sic) found on the stretcher. (emphasis added) (HSCAR, p. 50, note 8)
Quote off
Read this paragraph carefully and multiple times IF needed. What it is basically saying is that the evidence stored in the NA matched test bullets fired by the FBI in 1964, BUT IT DID NOT MATCH ANY BALLISTIC EVIDENCE FROM THE ACTUAL CASE! It says the following were not matched to the rifle in the NA:
1) Test cartridges fired by the FBI in 1964;
2) Cartridges found on the sixth floor of the depository; and,
3) CE 399!
Oops. Thus, the rifle in the NA is NOT a match for anything in this case so how can we say it is the SAME rifle seen in the BYPs? The excuse of barrel wear is a joke as how many shots could have been fired? If even 50 rounds changed the barrel that much what kind of rifle was this? Aren’t rifles meant to fire many rounds in combat? Based on this how do we even know their comment is true about the bullets matching the 1964 FBI tests when clearly, they had a DIFFERENT rifle to examine? Or did the FBI use a different rifle from CE 139 in 1964? IF so, why?
Clearly, this is NOT the same rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, and ostensibly, it is NOT the same rifle depicted in the BYPs either. We see both the HSCA and Tony Marsh are telling falsehoods and misrepresenting what the evidence shows us to cover up the fact the rifle in the NA has NO connection to LHO or the case. Also, since the rifle in the NA is clearly NOT the same rifle seen in the photographs they examined and the BYPs, and is clearly NOT the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, what unique mark are they talking about again? It seems they just made this up and that is why Shaneyfelt saw NO such mark in 1963/64.
What happened to CE 139 (NOT that I believe it had anything to do with the case either)?
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/2e1a000f06.gif
A Warren Commission (WC) defender is claiming the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) confirmed the rifle depicted in the Backyard Photographs (BYPs) is the SAME one that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) on 11/22/63.
Let's see if this is correct in this post.
*************************************
As previously shown FBI expert Shaneyfelt said you could NOT show via positive identification that the rifle seen in the BYPs is the same one that was found in the TSBD.
Quote on
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Shaneyfelt, based upon Exhibit 133A, upon your reproductions of Exhibit 133A, consisting of the Exhibits Nos. 746 A through E; and upon your photograph of the rifle, Exhibit 747, and your simulation of 133A, Exhibit 748---have you formed an opinion concerning whether Exhibit 139, the rifle used in the assassination, is the same or similar to the rifle pictured in Exhibit 133A?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us that opinion?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I compared the actual rifle with the photograph, Exhibit 133A, and with the photographs that I prepared from Exhibit 133A, as well as the other simulated photograph and the photograph of the rifle, attempting to establish whether or not it could be determined whether it was or was not the same.
I found it to be the same general configuration. All appearances were the same. I found no differences. **I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.**
I did find one notch in the stock at this point that appears very faintly in the photograph, **but it is not sufficient to warrant positive identification.**
Quote off
And yet, the HSCA, and Tony Marsh, claim they were the same rifle. Here is what the HSCA wrote on page 50 of their Report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0040b.gif
The rifle Boone found, a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C), was analyzed by the FBI in 1963-64 and by the committee’s firearms panel in 1978, as was the other firearms evidence that was recovered. It was determined in both investigations that the bullet found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital (PH) had been fired from the rifle found in the depository, as were two fragments recovered from the Presidential limousine. Further, the three cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the depository were found to have been fired in the Mannlicher-Carcano. (HSCAR, p. 50)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0040b.htm
Quote off
This paragraph is loaded with information that shows nothing. First of all, as seen in numerous posts in the "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series there is ample evidence showing the first weapon found was a 7.65 mm Mauser, NOT the M-C. Secondly, the paragraph mentions the one that was found in the TSBD being analyzed, but it does NOT show this was the SAME rifle SEEN in the BYPs as Tony is claiming. Thirdly, the bullet found in Parkland Hospital (PH) and the two fragments found 10-12 hours later in Washington D.C., after the limousine was ILLEGALLY taken from the area with jurisdiction, being in the presidential limousine and being from the rifle in question does NOT mean it is the same rifle or that it was actually fired at John F. Kennedy (JFK). None of this evidence was ever tied to JFK or Governor John B. Connally (JBC), although the HSCA will try and do that in the next paragraph. Finally, the same thing goes for the three spent cartridge cases as they too do NOT show the bullets in them were fired at JFK.
Here is what the next paragraph says about the fragments and the body of JFK.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0040b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0041a.gif
Through neutron activation analysis, the committee found that the firearms evidence could be even more directly linked to the wounds suffered by the President and Governor Connally. It is highly likely that the bullet found on the stretcher was the one that passed through Governor Connally’s wrist, leaving tiny particles behind, and the fragments retrieved from the limousine came from the same bullet as the fragments taken from President Kennedy’s brain. (HSCAR, pp. 50-51)
Quote off
This paragraph is loaded with falsehoods. There is no other way to say it since the evidence in the case provided by the WC does NOT support a single statement/claim the HSCA made. We know Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) is a fraud so using it at all is worthless and shows us nothing of value. They claim it is “highly likely that the bullet found on the stretcher was the one that passed through Governor Connally’s wrist” and this too is a falsehood and worthless. The evidence shows us there was MORE lead in JBC’s wrist alone than what was missing from CE 399 (alleged stretcher bullet) so this is an IMPOSSIBILITY, let alone “highly likely” as the HSCA claims. There is much more evidence showing the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) is just bunk too.
They finish with the claim that the two fragments found in the limousine match fragments taken from JFK’s brain. First of all, did they NOT read the testimony of Secret Service (SS) Agent Kellerman gave as he said numerous times in his WC testimony that he saw NO fragments at his feet as claimed! How did this happen? Secondly, what fragments were found in the President’s brain? I don’t know of any fragments that came from JFK’s brain that are in the evidence so what are they referring to? Finally, notice the trick of the “same bullet” in the last sentence. It was NOT possible to even prove both limousine fragments came from the SAME bullet, but here they NOT only claim they did, but that the invisible (to us anyway) fragments found in JFK’s brain also came from this same bullet.
Mr. McCLOY - From your examination of the actual bullets that you have been told were fired on the day of the assassination from this rifle, and from your--how many separate bullets do you identify?
Mr. FRAZIER - Two, at the maximum--possibly three, if these two jacket fragments came from different bullets. If they came from one bullet, then there would be a maximum of the whole bullet 399 and this bullet in two parts.
Mr. McCLOY - And you cannot tell whether these two particles came from one bullet or two separate ones?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
FBI expert Robert Frazier CANNOT say the two alleged limousine fragments came from the SAME bullet, but obviously the HSCA can 14 years later. It is chicanery like this that makes one NOT believe in the findings of the WC or the HSCA on the whole (true, the HSCA said a “probable conspiracy existed to kill JFK, but even that is a lie as there is NOTHING probable about it -- there was a definite conspiracy involved in the murder of JFK). Clearly, to write this paragraph the HSCA had to IGNORE the evidence in this case and what it really showed.
The HSCA also concluded that both fragments allegedly found in the limousine had been in JFK’s head, but how did they prove this? Who knows since Frazier admitted to tampering with evidence by wiping off blood from the two fragments!
Mr. EISENBERG - Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr. Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Here Frazier admits to TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE (i.e. removal of blood and tissue that should have been tested to see if they matched blood and tissue from JFK) and the WC has NO problem with it! He would have done the same to CE 399 if it had been needed to!
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way.
Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just, in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.
Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this exhibit to determine whether it had been fired in Exhibit 139?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Frazier totally either misreads the first question or he is telling the truth that they would have ALTERED the evidence IF it was needed! Why would you “want to change” the evidence again? Can any WC defender explain this comment to me?
He further confirms NO testing was done on anything found on the bullet and fragments.
Mr. EISENBERG - You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, there was no test made of the materials.
And yet, we are to believe the WC got it right with thoroughness like this. This was blatant tampering with evidence and it has to make you wonder why they did NOT test the blood and tissue IF they truly believed their own claims. NOT testing it only makes one believe they KNEW it was NOT from JFK so, why bother?
Now, back to Tony Marsh’s latest claim.
“The HSCA's photographic experts said that the rifle found in the TSBD is the same as the rifle in the backyard photos and the same as the one in the National Archives with the serial number that was sent to Oswald.”—Tony Marsh
If we go back to page 51 of the HSCA Report we will NOT even see the BYPs as a source for rifle identification as claimed by Tony Marsh.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0041a.gif
To resolve the controversy, the committee assembled a wide range of photographs of the rifle: a police photograph taken where it was found in the depository; a motion picture film taken by a television station showing the rifle when it was found by the police; a series of photographs of a police officer carrying the rifle from the depository; photographs of the rifle as it was carried through the halls of Dallas Police Department; and photographs taken later by the FBI and Dallas Police Department.
The examination by committee photographic consultants determined that all photographs were of the same rifle.(HSCAR, p. 51)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0041a.htm
Quote off
It does NOT mention the BYPs as being used at all as Tony claims, but does get into this later in the Report. On page 55 we see this said about the rifle and the BYPs.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0043a.gif
Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the same panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the stored rifle at the National Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963. Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (i.e., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification. (HSCAR, p. 55)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0043a.htm
Quote off
It’s sole basis for the claim they made, and Tony is relying on, is some random MARK, but as we saw in the beginning of this post the FBI expert Shaneyfelt saw NO mark in 1963/64 as he said it was NOT possible to claim the rifle in the BYPs was the same as the one found in the TSBD! Why should we believe some consultants over an expert? Why was this mark NOT seen by Shaneyfelt if it indeed did exist as claimed?
Notice too how the HSCA used the correct phrase of “alleged assassination rifle” as it has NEVER been supported, let alone proven, that CE 139 was in fact the murder weapon. And yet, the WC and HSCA went out of their way trying to prove it was LHO’s and that it is seen in the BYPs and is the same one found and in the National Archives (NA). Why bother when it has NO real value in solving this case?
The HSCA itself gave us troubling news when it wrote a note on page 50 that said the following:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0040b.gif
The committee firearms panel determined that the evidence stored in the National Archives ballistically matched the bullets fired by the FBI in 1964 tests from the Mannlicher-Carcano found by Deputy Boone. Since the rifle had been test fired numerous times since 1963, its barrel had been altered by wear, and bullets the panel fired from the rifle did NOT match either the FBI test cartridges or those found on the sixth floor of the depository or that (sic) found on the stretcher. (emphasis added) (HSCAR, p. 50, note 8)
Quote off
Read this paragraph carefully and multiple times IF needed. What it is basically saying is that the evidence stored in the NA matched test bullets fired by the FBI in 1964, BUT IT DID NOT MATCH ANY BALLISTIC EVIDENCE FROM THE ACTUAL CASE! It says the following were not matched to the rifle in the NA:
1) Test cartridges fired by the FBI in 1964;
2) Cartridges found on the sixth floor of the depository; and,
3) CE 399!
Oops. Thus, the rifle in the NA is NOT a match for anything in this case so how can we say it is the SAME rifle seen in the BYPs? The excuse of barrel wear is a joke as how many shots could have been fired? If even 50 rounds changed the barrel that much what kind of rifle was this? Aren’t rifles meant to fire many rounds in combat? Based on this how do we even know their comment is true about the bullets matching the 1964 FBI tests when clearly, they had a DIFFERENT rifle to examine? Or did the FBI use a different rifle from CE 139 in 1964? IF so, why?
Clearly, this is NOT the same rifle found in the TSBD on November 22, 1963, and ostensibly, it is NOT the same rifle depicted in the BYPs either. We see both the HSCA and Tony Marsh are telling falsehoods and misrepresenting what the evidence shows us to cover up the fact the rifle in the NA has NO connection to LHO or the case. Also, since the rifle in the NA is clearly NOT the same rifle seen in the photographs they examined and the BYPs, and is clearly NOT the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, what unique mark are they talking about again? It seems they just made this up and that is why Shaneyfelt saw NO such mark in 1963/64.
What happened to CE 139 (NOT that I believe it had anything to do with the case either)?
