OK, this is Benevides sworn testimony. I suggest the OP read the WC testimony, it's all over the place. Pay careful attention to the part about his age and the following timeline chronicling his experience and corresponding years. Also pay attention in detail about the alleged event he claims to have witnessed (Tippit murder) http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0227b.htm Here is the video of his story, neither account mentions the perp shooting Tippit in the head after he was down, yet he may have been the person the closest to incident when it occured. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbcnV9cPL_w"]JFK assassination JD Tippit murder witness interviews - YouTube[/ame] How is it he missed this part?
There is a good reason why I do not accept videos as "evidence". That is because you can make a video show anything you want. Want to show that dinosaurs lived in houses? Make a video. Want to show that pigs really fly when nobody is looking at them? Make a video. Want to ensure that I will ignore your 20 minute long presentation where I will not ignore a 20 page reliable reference? Make a video. In short, I learned long ago that video reference are normally not worth anything. Unless they are clips from a properly referenced and verified source, I have no interest in any of them. Because 95% are coprolite ramblings, the same as 95% of the conspiracy websites I have seen about any topic.
Now why would Police Officers be experts in rifles? Sure, they had all fired them. They knew how they worked. But that does not make them experts in identifying specific models. I am sure that all of us are experts in cars. I mean, we all drive them or see them on an almost daily basis, right? Well, let me take 10 cars that are 50+ years old, and you name each of them purely by looking at the body. Because that is essentially what you are asking here. Sure, there are real "car nuts" that could probably do it. I am an expert in rifles also, it goes with my profession. And I handle them much more then any police officer ever would (outside of a SWAT team member). And I have some knowledge of antique firearms, having also been involved in gun sales. But as I said, even I could not have named each of those rifles I showed other then the last one. And I have handled 2 of the other ones myself. That does not mean I can recognize and name them.
Anyone who has experience with firearms, I am not talking about someone who has shot their grandpas gun 2 times, I am talking about someone who has years of experience handling, firing, cleaning and possibly modifying and reloading ammo for, does 2 things with a firearm that they have never handled or are able to indentify from sight. One, they check to see that the weapon is unloaded, 2nd is to look for an indentifying mark stamped on the weapon during manufacturing. This indentifyer typically has the name of the manufacturer, the caliber, location and date.
Dude, I grew up firing guns, starting when I was 10 in 1975. And I have done it professionally since 1983. But there are tens of thousands of different kinds of rifles. You are just grasping at straws here, and not giving any kind of hard evidence. However, I probably have more experience at guns then 95% of cops, and even I could not name them all. Unless you have some kind of proof that the cop in question is a real fanatic and could identify hundreds of different models of rifle accurately with only a momentary glance, you have nothing here.
And how many in 1963? Most WWI and WWII rifles were bolt action. Most were based on the Mauser design. As I pointed out, those who knew weapons from the period, understood the prolifiration of the Mauser design and knew to look for manufacturers stamps to indentify a particular rifle, especially a military design. Oh yeah, I have been shooting since I was 8 (1966), hunting since I was 15, reloading ammo since I was 19, shooting competitively since I was 20. I have never been restricted to any kind of issue weapon, I bought and shot whatever caught my fancy. I would not find it unusual for LEOs to have a look at an indentifying mark to corraborate the findings of fellow officers. It would have been unusual had they just looked away, or shown zero interest
That is true, that almost all rifles from WWI were bolt action. But by WWII, this was no longer the case. The most common German rifle in the war was the Gewehr 41 semi-automatic rifle. Also you had the Gewehr 43. And the US and allies made wide use of the US made M-1. And all armies also made heavy use of submachine guns. From the Sten and Thompson to the German MP line, UK Sterling, and Lanchester, and of course the M3 "Grease Gun". There were very few holdouts that resisted the use of semiautomatic rifles in WWII. Japan and the US Marines being the largest resisters. But they were fighting in a very different kind of battlefield then was seen in WWII. And almost every WWI era rifle was based on the Mauser design. This is why it is frequently used as a generic name for bolt action military rifles. Even the M-1903 Springfield is based on the Mauser. By the 1960's, "Mauser" had become a generic term, like "Kleenex" and "Velcro". And it is not even accurate, since Mauser themselves made over 15 different bolt action rifles. So even accepting the claim as accurate, which Mauser is the observer talking about? And remember, the observer saw the rifle in passing, his own testimony states that. It is not like he went up and said "Excuse me sir, let me look at the housing of that fine looking rifle for the manufacturers marking please".
Let's roll with this for a bit... Assuming that LHO did NOT shoot President Kennedy, then the obvious question is "Where was Oswald during the critical 12:15pm-12:35pm time frame?" If he wasn't in the 6th floor window, then where was he? Now, please keep in mind that Oswald - who was described by all who knew him as an avid political follower - for some strange reason has absolutely NO desire to go see what is arguably the most powerful politican in the world -- and all he has to do is walk out the front door of his place of employment. But during that 20 minute time frame, absolutely NO ONE sees Oswald until the encounter in the lunchroom after the shooting. And after the assassination, what does Oswald do? Does he interact with his fellow co-workers and discuss what they just saw? Or, assuming he was in the lunchroom during the shooting, does he try to learn more about what just happened? To the contrary, he doesn't. Assuming that, in his own words, "There wouldn't be anymore work that day.", he leaves the TSBD and returns to his rooming house in Oak Cliff. Only one man left the TSBD and was unable to be accounted for in the aftermath of the shooting. And strangely enough, it just happens to be the suspected assassin. As I see it, only three possible scenarios -- 1) Oswald was absolutely, totally, completely innocent, and had a bad run of being in the wrong place at the wrong time - much like Schleprock. 2) Oswald was involved in a vast conspiracy, and took the fall to protect the rest of the conspirators. 3) Oswald was the lone assassin. Until somebody proves otherwise, I'll stick with #3.
IIRC, he and others were working on the 5th or 6th floor just before the prez passed. The other workers had gone down stairs to watch the motorcade and Oswald was allegedly left alone. But no one has actually placed him on the 6th floor during the shooting. Either way, if there is no proof, then we can only assume innocence.
Enough with the factoids. There were millions of Mauser bolt guns made, and only hundeds of 1000s of the semi autos. This discussion is not about subguns, assualt rifles, machine guns or pistols On the contrary, any officer in the course of an investigation involving other officers would certainly confirm any findings by other officers, within their immediate areas. This confirmation solidifies the investigation of any incident involving law enforcement and the judicial system. The way Deputy Craig described the search, the find and handling of the weapon, IMO as the most likely way it happened. If an officer is handling the weapon, reads and then points out the indentifying marks on the weapon, then any officer standing in proximity would with high probability take a look to confirm.
There is no need to place Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting - there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to reasonably presume Oswald's guilt. Consider Oswald's actions the day before the assassination, as well as his actions in the hour after the shooting - a tremendous amount of circumstantial evidence clearly points to one man, and one man only, as being the assassin.
Notice, I have also not even mentioned the earlier assassination attempt he made against General Edwin Walker.
He was murdered before he got a fair trial We don't know what would have happened had he gone to trial.
No, we don't know what would have happened had Lee Harvey lived to stand trial. But, consider all the evidence against him - not only the physical evidence (his rifle, his pistol), and the evidence that links him to the crimes (where he worked, his arrest in the Texas Theater, the purchase of the rifle and the pistol.), but also consider all the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing circumstantial evidence (his actions prior to and immediately after the assassination). Here is Mark Lane's defense brief that was published December 19th, 1963. He raises some interesting points about the possibility of Oswald being innocent. But was Oswald innocent or guilty? We'll never know for sure. But in my lowly opinion, after reading numerous books about the assassination, I believe that beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that he was guilty.
translation-yes,I wont address the points in that video or the facts you brought up in that link because I know I am defeated and all I can do is ramble on like my handlers pay me to. Okay-nice to see you admit it when you are defeated and that you run away when you know you are. typical of the way lone nut theorists debates.no surprise,happens everytime. you ignored where craig said he SAW where it said Mauser on the rifle which again those other officers said it was as well.How convient for you that you ignore these little items since it proves you wrong.
Now you have SERIOUSLY lost your credibility in how to debate saying police officers would not be experts in rifles. That is pathetic.even other lone nut theorists have tried to avoid that fact by lying saying only a newsmen misidentified it so thats why the word of a mauser got out cause at least THEY know that police officers are credible people so they avoid mentioning Craig and the others.That is also a PATHETIC comparison if i ever saw one,thats comparing apples to oranges. Soup must have emailed you to come here to try and get someone to help him since he constantly gets his rear end handed to him on a platter here everyday and needed someone to try and back him up.thats the only thing that makes sense with your incoherant ramblings and the way that just like him,you evade facts and dodge evidence. Best for you to quit while you can before you advertise to everybody that you are just here to troll like soupnazi does. No surprise,I gave you your chance to try and refute those points and just like soup,you ran off with your tail between your legs when you knew you were defeated.I asked you not to do that but you ignored my request so you have declared yourself the loser even though you will come back and deny it. You just committed what you dont do in a debate,run away and not even try and refute what they are saying.In a court of law,the judge would say to you-well Mushroom,dont you have anything to say,any rebuttal,arent you going to try and address what he said? you would be laughed out of the court.you should go back to where you came from.You should be best friends with soupnazi if you already arent,just like him,you have no debating skills at all.come back here sometime when you are ready to not run away and refuse a challenge.
Even Jesse curry as i talked about earlier and they of course ignored,changed his mind about oswald and told the media in 69-we can not place oswald in the sixth floor window.oswald handled boxes so of COURSE his handprints are going to be on the boxes,that was his rifle so of course his palm print would be on the rifle,the testimony of the two girls going down the stairs the same time oswald did and then they said the warren commission altered their testimony proves alone oswald could not have done it,and like i said,other witnesses said they altered their testimonys as well which itself is a crime the commission should have gone to jail for.yep no coverup,the shills can only sling crap in defeat.
Ummm... which Mauser rifle are we talking about - the Mauser that the Mannlicher-Carcano was swapped for, or the Mauser that Craig claims was found on the roof of the TSBD? March 1968 Los Angeles Free Press interview with Roger Craig (("FP" is the Los Angeles Free Press, "RC" is Roger Craig, and "PJ" is Penn Jones) -- Roger Craig -- "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles, I know it was foreign made, and you loaded it downward into a built-in clip. The ID man took it and ejected one live round from it. The scope was facing north, the bolt facing upwards and the trigger south. But there was another rifle, a Mauser, found up on the roof of the depository that afternoon." "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles..." I believe this is what Shakespeare referred to Hamlet about "Hoist with his own petard".
No, you do not get it at all. I do not accept claims based on videos because 90% of them are pure coprolite. No substantiating evidence, no verifyable proof, nothing. Just more of the same of garbage that has been spewed out before. Oh, and it goes for me both ways. I as a general rule reject the evidence from both sides, unless it is first hand documentation of the actual evidence involved. A 60 minute video on why Roswell is real? Gee, that's nice. Got any video in there of flying saucers? Nope? Well, I am not wasting my time then. This is the case of almost every video I have been prompted to see. It is generally 10% information, surrounded with 90% coprolite. And generally a complete waste of time.
Well, how about this then. I am and have been in the military for over 14 years now. And for 10 of that I was in the Infantry. Does that make me an expert in rifles? I have fired over 20 different military rifles from all over the world, does that make me an expert? I sold rifles and handguns for 4 years. Does that make me an expert in rifles? Tell me what makes you think would make a police officer an expert in identifying a rifle, beyond giving a general description? In fact, go up to your standard cop and ask him what kind of action a Carcano rifle has. And phrase it exactly like that, do not tell him when it was used. Now please do this. Go and ask 10 cops this question. Then tell me how many even know what a Carcano rifle is, who made it, and what calibre round it fired. If more then 1 or 2 know the answer, I would be surprised. I have said this before, let me say this again. My job frequently requires me to be out of communication for a week or more at a time. So if I do not respond for a day or so, it is because I am simply unable to respond. I am sorry, but my life does not revolve around answering people in here.
Oh, those of us from LA are very familiar with the Free Press. It is a weekly throw-away rag that is given away on street corners. Until the last few years, the back half was all ads for massage parlors and escorts. Now the back half is all ads for pot clinics. Not exactly a source of reputable journalism.
It's not whether or not it's a source of reputable journalism, it's that Roger Craig is on record - with Penn Jones present on record at the interview - stating that there were two Mauser rifles found at the TSBD that afternoon.
Yes, and you can fill books with the stories that Robert Craig has told over the years. His own story has changed many times over the years, and has not gotten any better over time. Why not drag up the "appearing-dissapearing .45" while you are at it. In 1963, he claimed to have searched the area for any bullets or fragments, and did not find anything. Then in an interview in the 1970's, he claims he found a .45 with pieces of President Kennedy's skull attached to it. Oh, and his story about the Mauser? it changed again in his own book: Lt. Day inspected the rifle briefly, then handed it to Capt. Fritz who had a puzzled look on his face. Seymour Weitzman, a deputy constable, was standing beside me at the time. Weitzman was an expert on weapons. He had been in the sporting goods business for many years and was familiar with all domestic and foreign weapons. Capt. Fritz asked if anyone knew what kind of rifle it was. Weitzman asked to see it. After a close examination (much longer than Fritz or Day's examination) Weitzman declared that it was a 7.65 German Mauser. Fritz agreed with him. Apparently, someone at the Dallas Police Department also loses things but, at least, they are more conscientious. They did replace it even if the replacement was made in a different country. (See Warren Report for Italian Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 Caliber). This guy is a publicity hound, who would spin a yarn for anybody that would listen. Nothing more, nothing less.
My point exactly! Then when you start reading the accounts from some of the other eyewitnesses that day, you begin to realize that maybe they didn't see what the claim to have, that maybe, just maybe, they could be wrong. For example, the Lady in Red - Jean Hill. Hill has repeatedly changed her account of that day over the years, while photographic evidence doesn't bear out her account of what she did immediately prior to and after the assassination. Even Mary Moorman - who was standing next to Hill at the time of the assassination - states that Hill's recollection of events isn't correct as she remembers. But Hill is repeatedly touted as a "credible" witness by the theorists.
The Carcano allegedly found in the book depository and the Carcano oswald is shown holding in his yard are different weapons The sling attachments are different, and the photo evidence is overwhelming http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html
