Did Lee Harvey Oswald Order The Rifle? The Answer Is Yes

[David Von Pein]

David J.,

You're looking back at a very early Executive Session of the WC, right? (It was a January Exec. Session, correct?)

Well, at that time, no witnesses had been called to testify, and some things still needed to be ironed out and cleared up (quite naturally). That was the reason the Warren Commission was formed in the first place---to get the facts and find out what the truth was.

But as of that Jan. '64 Exec. Session you're quoting from, the WC was still confused about the remarks of Dr. Malcolm Perry, who said in his public conference at Parkland on 11/22/63 that the wound in the throat looked like an entry wound to him. So that's undoubtedly why Mr. Rankin was still appearing a bit undecided and confused about the throat wound. It was still very early in the WC's investigation. Perry hadn't been called to testify yet. Nor had anybody else. Rankin and the other Commission members were just thinking out loud. They didn't have any concrete answers or conclusions at that point in time in JANUARY.

Isn't that obvious, David? It is to me.

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Bruce Fernandez]

I was concerned about that, as well, but came down on the side of "mount". Still troublesome since the sling doesn't appear to be attached to it in that photo.

The other issue is the sling itself, way different, not similar to the evidence sling in any of the extant BYPs, looks like a rope or narrow leather, no buckles. Not arguing it couldn't have been changed, just that if so, changing the sling itself needs to be part of the discussion.

If I were going to use the gun as proposed, I probably would have wanted to change out what I see in the photos. I would not, however, have gone to a sling with the shoulder protector seen in the evidence weapon, it'd just get in the way, so I'd have at least removed it. That get's into the whole issue of he practiced with it so that he would know the best configuration for accuracy.

There's also the issue that McLeer brings up about serial #s. I don't know him or of him so can't go there, yet.

Rope knots' position on the upper mount also seems to indicate bottom mounting to some, based on the photographs.

David, what's you're motivation? If you don't want it shown on the forum, e-mail me at Bruce_Fernandez@msn.com.

Don't worry, the feds are already watching me!

[David Von Pein]

I was concerned about that, as well, but came down on the side of "mount". Still troublesome since the sling doesn't appear to be attached to it in that photo.

Good point, Bruce.

I had never even thought of that point you just brought up. If the "thingie"/"object" that CTers claim is a "sling mount" in the backyard photo is really a MOUNT for a SLING, then why isn't Oswald's SLING attached to that SLING MOUNT in the picture? It sure doesn't look like it is. And part of the sling is certainly visible in the photo too....

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

David, what's you're motivation?

Already answered. See Post 207.

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

What mathematics were needed to observe that the wound was 45 to 60 degrees downwards?

Well, he'd have to know the difference between 17 degrees and "45 to 60 degrees". And, quite obviously, Humes didn't.

Plus, the mere fact that Humes' guesstimate included a huge, wide range of angles -- from 45 to 60 degrees (that's a pretty big range of angles) -- suggests that Dr. Humes really wasn't sure at all about the angle of declination of the bullet through JFK's upper back.

It would have been better if Humes hadn't guessed about the angle at all. Because a "45 to 60 degree" guesstimate is not worth very much.

If Humes made a "wild guess"[,] what other wild guesses did he make during the autopsy?

The position of the head wound?

Good thing we have photos to prove Humes was wrong on that one, huh?

The direction of the throat wound?

That was a "guess" on Humes' behalf, true. But, as mentioned, it's the only possible REASONABLE guess given the 5 variables I laid out in Post 211 above.

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

What mathematics were needed to observe that the wound was 45 to 60 degrees downwards?

Well, he'd have to know the difference between 17 degrees and "45 to 60 degrees". And, quite obviously, Humes didn't.

Plus, the mere fact that Humes' guesstimate included a huge, wide range of angles -- from 45 to 60 degrees (that's a pretty big range of angles) -- suggests that Dr. Humes really wasn't sure at all about the angle of declination of the bullet through JFK's upper back.

It would have been better if Humes hadn't guessed about the angle at all. Because a "45 to 60 degree" guesstimate is not worth very much.

If Humes made a "wild guess"[,] what other wild guesses did he make during the autopsy?

The position of the head wound?

Good thing we have photos to prove Humes was wrong on that one, huh?

The direction of the throat wound?

That was a "guess" on Humes' behalf, true. But, as mentioned, it's the only possible REASONABLE guess given the 5 variables I laid out in Post 211 above.

Do you believe in Santa Claus, as well, David?

[David Von Pein]

Do you believe in Santa Claus, as well, David?

Great comeback, Ray. (And so original too.)

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

So you simply have nothing to say and no way to confuse the issue regarding the questions I asked Dave?

Regarding the BYP - 133-C. How does the DPd know to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose if that photo is not seen until 1977?

Stop the side show and address the questions posed Dave...

Why is what Rankin says is in the autopsy report - is NOT in the report? What were they referring to Dave?

WCD298 - where did the info on the "5 feet from 5+00" come from so that the FBI could show a shot hitting JFK at Z375?

Try to stay focused Dave... this is what the evidence shows... not what I say or they say or we think... this is the Evidence

and the Evidence IS the Conspiracy.

Good luck with all that...

(you're obvious avoidance is transparent Dave... "Change the subject" is a tactic, not a solution.)

"So you simply have nothing to say and no way to confuse the issue regarding the questions I asked Dave?

That's DVP's standardized format. Comes in, makes a lot of statements of "fact" presents none, because the Nutters don't have any. Gets the CTers to discussing 'his' facts, which as he knows is all smoke and mirrors while he then presents his 'proof' which is usually totally unrelated to what it's supposed to prove then goes on to the next 'new fact'. An example, he says I am trying to say that JFK was shot with a handgun. Clearly anyone that read my statement knows that's not true. My statement clearly only said that 'there is no proof that he was shot with a rifle'. And, of course, there is no 'proof' that he was shot with a 'rifle'. No bullet from JFK's body has ever been proven to have been fired from 'any specific' weapon. NONE. It is easy for me to prove my statements, because no one can prove they are not correct. Not one person has ever been linked, by evidence, to the shooting. No gun is associated with the shooting. The location of any shots has ever been proven. The number of shots has never been proven. Yes, DVP will state the obvious, but my proof is easier. When I say 'no gun is associated with the shooting' to disprove that someone would have to prove that a specific gun 'has been' and since none have, then they can't do that.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

Why did you feel the need to bring up the subject of 'the' rifle ownership again anyway? Seems, on reflection, to have been pretty well hashed out over the last several years.

And yet there are still very few Internet CTers who seem to want to accept the obvious truth regarding Oswald's rifle purchase. We still have people insisting Oswald never ordered any rifle at all from Klein's. This thread is in response to that 50-year myth. I posted it to set the record straight and to show that Oswald definitely DID order a rifle from Klein's in 1963. And only someone who is desperate to disregard all kinds of proof of that rifle transaction could possibly believe LHO did not order that rifle.

David, what's your motivation? Second time asking that question.

I'll repeat something I said to James Gordon in a private message last month....

"Yes, my opinion is pretty firm on the "LN" and "WC" side of things, but that's because I believe ALL of the physical evidence supports Oswald's guilt (and supports the SBT as well). And when someone decides to (IMO) misrepresent things...then I think I should call them on it and point out those misrepresentations (and/or errors in their thinking). And most of the "LNer vs. CTer" debates, IMO, really DO come down to pointing out and correcting the misrepresentations made over and over again by the CTers on forums. I see it all the time---on Edu. Forum, on Facebook, on Duncan MacRae's forum, on McAdams' newsgroup, on IMDB---everywhere. CTers perpetuate myth after myth, year after year, and that's a big reason I post on forums today---to give the other side to anyone who cares to absorb it. Most CTers, of course, think that it's I who "misrepresent" the facts. I feel strongly otherwise. So there's the perpetual stalemate --- Who's right? Who's wrong? That debate will likely never end." -- David Von Pein; May 16, 2015

"And yet there are still very few Internet CTers who seem to want to accept the obvious truth regarding Oswald's rifle purchase. We still have people insisting Oswald never ordered any rifle at all from Klein's. This thread is in response to that 50-year myth. I posted it to set the record straight and to show that Oswald definitely DID order a rifle from Klein's in 1963." All total BS. 'obvious truth'? what is an 'obvious truth'. And why do we still have people insisting Oswald never ordered any rifle at all from Klein's? Why? Because NO ONE has evered shown ANY proof that he did. NONE. It's not a MYTH, it's a FACT. So let's give you one more chance to prove it 'absolutely'. Don't show us anything that someone has to make a judgment on or decide who did or whatever, lay it out in blackl and white where there IS NO DOUBT. Don't try to prove to us that A HIDELL ordered it and 'everyone knows' that A HIDELL is LHO. NO WE DON'T, there is not now and never has been any proof that A HIDELL and LHO are the same person.

[Kenneth Drew]

David Josephs,

I think when J. Lee Rankin said a "fragment" came out of JFK's neck, he undoubtedly meant "bullet" -- as in the WHOLE BULLET that the autopsy doctors determined DID come out the front of the neck.

I think it's quite obvious that Rankin's "fragment" is the same as the "whole" bullet.

Surely, you're not suggesting that Rankin thought that BOTH a "fragment" AND a whole bullet exited JFK's throat, are you?

This is the very same kind of loose talk regarding the words "fragments" and "missile" that surrounds the Sibert/O'Neill report too. Only it's reversed from the S&O report. The corpsman who wrote the memo for the Sibert report wrote "missile" when it should have said "fragments". While Rankin appears to have used the wrong word ("fragment") instead of the correct word ("bullet").

I think you're drowning in semantics there, David. Nothing more.

"The corpsman who wrote the memo for the Sibert report wrote "missile" when it should have said "fragments"." Really? Where is your absolute proof?

"While Rankin appears to have used the wrong word ("fragment") instead of the correct word ("bullet")." Really? So Rankin was just throwing out random words thinking no one would care if he were right about it being a 'fragment' vs a 'bullet', what the hell, they're interchangeable, right?

Let's see, I think I've got DVP partially figured out here. If a CTer questions something it's because they're wrong. But if a Nutter questions it, it's because it's something that 'didn't really matter', After all why would Rankin be concerned whether he used the word fragment vs bullet, it's all one and the same. Right?

I'm sure that 'the only time' that anyone writing on the WCR thought that it didn't 'really matter', it's only semantics we're drowning in, it's not as it's lies or something.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kenneth Drew]

Did the autopsy doctors dissect the neck/throat in order to examine the wound and therefore determine that a bullet passed through JFK's body? If not, how did they determine that this happened?

1.) Bullet hole of entry in the upper back.

2.) Bullet hole of either entry or exit in the front of JFK's neck.

3.) No bullets inside JFK's body at all.

4.) No bullet FRAGMENTS inside JFK's neck/back either.

5.) Very little damage to any internal structures of JFK's upper back and neck.

Logical conclusion (and the only possible reasonable conclusion that Humes & Company could have arrived at)....

The bullet that entered JFK's upper back had to have exited through the OTHER bullet hole on the opposite side of his body (in the lower throat).

What OTHER conclusion should the autopsists have come to (given the above set of facts), Ian?

"What OTHER conclusion should the autopsists have come to" maybe the correct one?

[Kenneth Drew]

David J.,

You're looking back at a very early Executive Session of the WC, right? (It was a January Exec. Session, correct?)

Well, at that time, no witnesses had been called to testify, and some things still needed to be ironed out and cleared up (quite naturally). That was the reason the Warren Commission was formed in the first place---to get the facts and find out what the truth was.

But as of that Jan. '64 Exec. Session you're quoting from, the WC was still confused about the remarks of Dr. Malcolm Perry, who said in his public conference at Parkland on 11/22/63 that the wound in the throat looked like an entry wound to him. So that's undoubtedly why Mr. Rankin was still appearing a bit undecided and confused about the throat wound. It was still very early in the WC's investigation. Perry hadn't been called to testify yet. Nor had anybody else. Rankin and the other Commission members were just thinking out loud. They didn't have any concrete answers or conclusions at that point in time in JANUARY.

Isn't that obvious, David? It is to me.

"That was the reason the Warren Commission was formed in the first place---to get the facts and find out what the truth was." Not true DVP:

the reason the Warren Commission was formed in the first place---to get the facts and figure out how to make them fit our truth. Now we got it right.

[Kenneth Drew]

I was concerned about that, as well, but came down on the side of "mount". Still troublesome since the sling doesn't appear to be attached to it in that photo.

Good point, Bruce.

I had never even thought of that point you just brought up. If the "thingie"/"object" that CTers claim is a "sling mount" in the backyard photo is really a MOUNT for a SLING, then why isn't Oswald's SLING attached to that SLING MOUNT in the picture? It sure doesn't look like it is. And part of the sling is certainly visible in the photo too....

It is connected to it. Look at your larger photo, you can see the strap run to alongside the stock to the mount.

[David Von Pein]

It is connected to it. Look at your larger photo, you can see the strap run to alongside the stock to the mount.

Sorry, I can't see what you're seeing, Ken. I see no sign of the strap meeting up with the alleged "sling mount".

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

He [DVP] says I am trying to say that JFK was shot with a handgun. Clearly anyone that read my statement knows that's not true.

Looks like Ken is suffering from another bout of his "false memory" again. He doesn't seem to recall much of anything he has written--even stuff he wrote yesterday. Just a little more than 24 hours ago, Kenneth Drew said the following in this Education Forum post....

"Certainly could have been with a handgun." -- K. Drew

My post in response to Ken's absurd "handgun" speculation is, therefore, a perfectly accurate summary of what Ken had said....

"To show just how pathetic and miserable the case for conspiracy is at this forum, Ken Drew is running around trying to pretend that just maybe JFK was killed by a pistol shot--or a handgun of some type. Even with CE567/569 staring him in the face (assuming he even knows what those are). The case for "denying the evidence" doesn't get much stronger than that." -- DVP

My statement clearly said that 'there is no proof that he was shot with a rifle'.

And that statement--all by itself--ranks as one of the dumbest statements ever written on any JFK forum since the invention of this great thing called "The Internet". Congrats.

And, of course, there is no 'proof' that he was shot with a 'rifle'.

Take another look at CE567 and CE569 again, Kenneth. How do you think those two bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle managed to get into the front seat of the President's limousine?

Just take a wild, off-the-wall guess.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

Not one person has ever been linked, by evidence, to the shooting.

I think you just might have topped yourself in the "Dumbest Statements" category, Ken. Nice job.

No gun is associated with the shooting.

A hat trick! Three incredibly dumb statements in just one single post. Not easy to accomplish, but Ken makes it look easy.

Ken thinks the C2766 Carcano rifle can't be "associated" with the JFK shooting. Even though the following items exist in the evidence pile....

...Three bullet shells from the C2766 rifle.

...Two large bullet fragments from the C2766 rifle.

...The stretcher bullet (CE399) from the C2766 rifle. (And as much as Ken and all other conspiracy theorists hate that CE399 bullet, it's still there in the JFK assassination evidence pile nonetheless. And it always will be.)

...And then there's the C2766 rifle itself, which I guess Ken wants to pretend really WASN'T found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building at all.

Isn't it embarrassing to be THIS wrong about everything, Kenneth? I would think it would be.

Edited June 3, 2015 by David Von Pein