WWI USMC Scope Case...

[cplnorton]

I have never seen the actual contract

This is the only correct statement you have said on this post. But you will tell anyone you know what the Winchester rifles were and where they went.

Without seeing the actual contract?

You have been making stuff up for years Jim.

[Kaliman]

I have no dog in the fight regards to Sniper Rifles, but I do happen to know something about research, ethics, etc.

We have one party, calling themselves a "good researcher", who hasn't provided any documents because he believes traits and pictures are more important.

A document is just that, a piece of paper

Ignoring physical documentation of contracts and correspondance of the Marine Corps using the 6 looped cases, uses a logical fallacy as a point. It's like trying to prove God doesn't exist.

Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

Then, when pictures are posted, claims they are staged (with no evidence at all to suggest that). I mean, it was captioned as France. This is getting to conspiracy levels of denial.

First of all, I have never seen one shred of evidence that photo was taken in France in late 1917. If you have it, produce it, otherwise it is just a BS claim on your part.

Then there's the plain conjecture. How are you going to say "your opinion carries no weight, I BELIEVE..."

Your opinion, like mine, carries no weight. Let's stick to documents, photos, and existing equipment and forget supposition. I believe

Surely something like this could be documented in a correspondence from the 4th Marine Brigade, or AARs, no? Or more conjecture?

Remember, the Marines had all the sniper rifles they would ever need by the end of 1917. Probably more, since organized combat use of snipers by the Marines in WWi is a bit sketchy, particularly after Belleau Woods. Trench warfare was a heaven for snipers, but after Belleau Woods, the type of walking assaults the Marines used to take enemy positions did not lend itself to hidden snipers supporting the troops. The Marine assaults were so fast a sniper would have to shoot on the run.

I thought this was supposed to be rock hard research?

I believe my eyes over any document

I think the letter is published in Senich.

I don't know didly about those shipments, other than the destination of one particular shipment. I don't even know its point of origin

So which is it???

Do you really believe they sent 500 sniper rifles to France for two regiments? That is just silly.

The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade

The post who made this claim has posted absolutely nothing however, ironic.

but you avoid publishing items like the contracts and shipping documents you claim to possess

Why can't you have a discussion without being rude?

if you believe Norton's fantasy.

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

The best part of this is Post #47 where this researcher POSTS SOMEONE ELSES RESEARCH WITHOUT PERMISSION. Very ethical research there.

I don't claim to know much of anything about sniper rifles. But I know some seriously flawed research and arguments when I see them.

[cplnorton]

By the way to everyone else who is reading this post. This is WRA contract 25900, which were the only 500 rifles that WRA mounted A5's on Marine rifles for the war.

Anyone who has the actual Marine documents has the companion document with the detailed description that accompanies this.

Also Winchester actually took pics of these rifles in WW1 and they are in a private archives I found. So yes I have the companion doc to this and have the actual WRA detailed factory pics of the rifles.

The Army copied the contract 25900 in WRA contact R315 which was ordered on Jan 15th 1918 and delivered by March 19th 1918. These were the identical rifles in everyway as contract 25900.

And that was not the only Army contract of mounted rifles from WRA. The Army had more Marine mount A5's from WRA than the Marines

Every one including Jim has mistaken R315 as Marine. That is why their timetables are always off on what really happened.

Jim will be on shortly and say I don't know what he means and he has evidence thst proves me wrong but he will never post it.

But he can't prove me wrong on this. He's never seen the documents.

[cplnorton]

Thank you Kaliman. I greatly appreciate your response.

[cplnorton]

I'm not going to argue with Jim anymore. I will publish my research soon and it will speak for itself. He's a lost cause anyways. He has made up his mind and even if I showed him irrefutable proof. He would still argue it.

If Jim makes any statements or makes claims of knowledge. I would ask for proof. I wouldn't believe anything He said unless I can see it in black and white

Also there are are many of who research this stuff and have lots of info that we would share. But it costs a considerable amount of money and time to find it. And many of us publish this info in magazines. Including myself.

A lot of us would share more but people like Jim are dishonest and will post it implying it is there's. In some vain attempt to prove they are an expert. Which makes the rest of us not want to share our info in public and makes us keep our info private. Which is sad.

We should be policing our own on this. It's dishonest. And there would be so much more willingness to share research if we confront this when it happens.

It's unacceptable to me.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

It means you have now admitted what I already have know since the first week I researched the A5's. That you have never seen the actual real documents from the Winchester Sniper program. But for years you have claimed to be the expert on this forum and have detailed you knew all about them. But you have always posted info thst was false.

Anyone who has the real documents from the Marines or WRA has the companion document to this contract 25900 that is detailed.

You just outed yourself Jim. You have been making claims for years without any real documents to back them up.

From now on guys when Jim posts somehting ask him for proof. If he doesn't provide it you know what is going on.

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

As for your accusations, I swear I didn't kill Kennedy, as I was no where near Dallas that day.

Norton, I have been on this forum for years, and I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. If you had bothered to read my posts, I have repeatedly stated I didn't have a copy of the contract. To be honest, I have never had to deal with someone like you. For whatever reason, you will make the most absurd accusations without hesitation. You also make claims we all know to be false (you have a Copyright on a document which, according to you, Cody already has a Copyright?). Most of the members of this forum have lived long useful lives, and can spot a wanna-be in a heartbeat. You had the opportunity to be of great value to this forum, but chose an alternate path instead.

I do have one question. Why did you tell my Cody researcher the documents I was looking for (the very contracts we are discussing) weren't in the Cody files? If you deny it, I will post his email. Why would you lower yourself by lying to the man? Does all this mean that much to you? I see you posting on every forum I know of, and some of it is accurate, but I see you making claims I know you can't back up. I am yet to see you post any document that definitively backs up your side of this issue. I seriously believe you have misinterpreted the documents you have. Maybe not. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

As for posting what I have, not too long ago I decided to post everything I had, and started the process. I stated I would provide anything I had that anyone wanted to see. I started posting my information, but after days of posting, or preparing posts, I had not a single inquiry for any backup data for what I was posting. Not a word or a question from you. I decided I was doing a lot of work for nothing. That deal is now off the table. So please tell me what part of that series of posts you had seen before on or in any venue.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

[cplnorton]

I spent thousands and six months of my life finding the Cody documents. You couldn't find thrm and you wanted me to tell you the exact locations whee I found them while at the same time trashing me on this forum saying I know nothing. And you had already stole some of my research at that time and posted it as yours.

I'm not giving you any research anymore. What did you expect me to tell you where to find it, when you couldn't?

You tell me all the time what a great Researcher you are and I'm a beginner. So I figured you could find it yourself. I certainly did.

And I didn't lie. I told your researcher the documents you really want are at the archives. Which they are

[Kaliman]

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

As for your accusations, I swear I didn't kill Kennedy, as I was no where near Dallas that day.

be false (you have a Copyright on a document which, according to you, Cody already has a Copyright?). Most of the members of this forum have lived long useful lives, and can spot a wanna-be in a heartbeat. You had the opportunity to be of great value to this forum, but chose an alternate path instead.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

Man Jim, you really get nasty when you're cornered. You got found out to be fraudenty using other people's research so you have to make it personal to cover your tracks. Sad really.

I'll State once again that for a self proclaimed prolific researcher, you would be laughed out of academia not only for your lack of research ethics, but also your obvious immaturity.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I spent thousands and six months of my life finding the Cody documents. You couldn't find thrm and you wanted me to tell you the exact locations whee I found them while at the same time trashing me on this forum saying I know nothing. And you had already stole some of my research at that time and posted it as yours.

Whoa, dude. I offered to split the cost from the beginning and you refused (still got the emails). So I hired my own researcher who spent a week doing gosh knows what and then you tell him that the documents I am searching for aren't at Cody and he quits and bills me $1000. The ledger entry I posted came from Cody. You told me you used a female employee as a researcher and now you are claiming to have found them yourself?

Please enlighten everyone as to what research of yours I have posted and claimed to have found myself, as well as the post where I claim you know nothing.

You might get some people to believe your wild accusations, but people who have been reading these posts all along know better.

I'm not giving you any research anymore. What did you expect me to tell you where to find it, when you couldn't?

What research have you given me? Do you have me confused with someone else or have you lost your mind?

You tell me all the time what a great Researcher you are and I'm a beginner. So I figured you could find it yourself. I certainly did.

Produce one single example of where I made such a statement. And in case you are still on this planet, neither one of us had found anything in the archives. We pay others to do it for us.

And I didn't lie. I told your researcher the documents you really want are at the archives. Which they are

Are you telling me that ledger entry came from the DC archives when you just posted that they came from Cody?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Man Jim, you really get nasty when you're cornered. You got found out to be fraudenty using other people's research so you have to make it personal to cover your tracks. Sad really.

Who might you be? If you are referring to the ledger entry, I got that from JB, not Norton, and I haven't used it for anything. Covering what tracks? You obviously have not been reading the posts.

I'll State once again that for a self proclaimed prolific researcher, you would be laughed out of academia not only for your lack of research ethics, but also your obvious immaturity.

I haven't seen any of your statements previously. Since it is obvious you are talking nonsense, I presume you are a friend of Norton's. You need to learn to spell before you start making goofy claims. Research is defined by the use of other people's efforts. You ever read a technical paper? Unfortunately, nothing Norton has ever posted has been any use to me, since my sole goal is the serial numbers of Niedner's rifles. So tell me what research Norton has done to further that goal?

Making wild claims does not enhance one's credibility. If you are going to attack me, be specific for the sake of the other forum members.