Jump to content
The Education Forum

10 REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THE "OSWALD RIFLE" ISN'T OSWALD'S


Gil Jesus

Recommended Posts

By Gil Jesus ( 2010 )

Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE

SERIAL NUMBER C2766

The 40" rifle currently in evidence is not the only 6.5 Mannlicher-

Carcano with the serial number of C2766. On page 250 of his book,

Kennedy and Lincoln, the late Dr. John K. Lattimer said the following:

"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments

using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine,

model 91-38, serial number C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics

Company four power telescope exactly like Oswald's."

http://i45.tinypic.com/2hmingh.jpg

But Lattimer's wasn't the only 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano with serial

number C2766.

Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN

RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766

In volume 11, page 205 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Louis

Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms, in a sworn affidavit to the

Commission, claimed that he was contacted by the FBI on the evening of

November 22, 1963. They requested that he check his files to see if he

had any records concerning the sale of an Italian-made 6.5 mm. rifle

with the serial number C2766. When he checked, he found that he had

records indicating the rifle was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods on

June 18, 1962. This information of the 6.5 rifle with the serial

number C2766, he said, was conveyed to the FBI on the evening of

November 22, 1963 and all records of the purchase, sale and

transportation of the weapon were given to the FBI.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol11_0108a.htm

In their tracing of the shipping records of the C 2766 rifle, however,

the FBI makes no mention of the June 1962 sale. They cite, instead,

the February, 1963 sale of 100 rifles from the same dealer, Crescent

Firearms, to Klein's. In that shipment is a list of the rifles' serial

numbers. Included in the list is a 6.5 rifle serial number C 2766.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0361b.htm

But thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that

Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June

1962 and the other in February 1963.

I'll get back to the June 1962 rifle later. Right now I'd like to

concentrate on the February, 1963 rifle.

Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT

THE 40" RIFLE.

The FBI traced the sale of the 40" C2766 rifle backward and claimed

that it was a part of a shipment of 100 rifles weighing 750 lbs. that

was sent to Klein's from Crescent Firearms in February, 1963.

But one researcher found evidence that the shipment was for 36" rifles

ONLY.

In researching for her excellent article on the Oswald rifle, JFK

assassination researcher Martha Moyer checked on wooden shipping

containers used in transporting weapons, and found that all the

containers weighed between 16 and 20 pounds. The 36-inch weapon

allegedly ordered by "Hidell" was advertised as weighing 5 1/2 pounds.

The total weight of 100 such weapons would be 550 pounds. Added to the

weight range of ten wooden shipping containers the result would be a

total of between 710 and 750 pounds.

The delivery receipt from Lifschultz Fast Freight listed the freight

as 10 crates/cartons of guns/rifles and listed the weight at 750 lbs.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0359a.htm

Had the shipment been of the 40" rifles, at 7 lbs. each, the total

weight including 160-200 lbs. for the crates would have been in the

860-900 lb. range.

Instead, the 750 lbs. consisted of 10 crates at 20 lbs each ( 200 )

and 100 rifles at 5.5 lbs. each ( 550 ) In other words, the shipment

received by Klein's in February, 1963 was indeed a shipment of 36-inch

weapons.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Waldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to

order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the

February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald

ordered catalog # C20-T750,

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0364b.htm

which is the 36" rifle as advertised.

http://i46.tinypic.com/15p0k7k.jpg

One can also see that the 40" rifle had a different catalog number,

C20-750.

http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg

Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS

SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Waldman Exhibit 7 is the copy of the shipping manifest that

accompanies the rifle when shipped. It clearly states that the catalog

number of the shipped item is C20-T750 and not C20-750.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0364a.htm

The ONLY difference in the catalog numbers is the difference between

the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle.

http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg

How important was the catalog number to the folks doing the shipping ?

William Waldman, VP of Klein's Sporting Goods, told the WC that the

catalog numbers for rifles ordered with scopes were different than for

the same rifle without a scope and that the different number described

"the rifle, scope and mount". ( 7 H 362-363 )

Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING

WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.

The shipping cost is noted in two places, where it says "PP=1.50" for

the cost of Parcel Post, and again in the handwritten column where it

says 150. This is exactly the amount sent by "Hidell" to ship the 36 "

rifle.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0364a.htm

Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER,

1963

Klein's 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream

from January, 1962 through November, 1963.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf

Which means, folks, that Klein's hadn't run out of them at the time of

the "Hidell" order.

Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL,

1963

No 40" Italian rifle was advertised by Klein's in The American

Rifleman magazine from October 1962 through February 1963. According

to assassination researcher/author and former detective Ian Griggs,

the 40" "carbine" began to be advertised in The American Rifleman in

April, 1963. Field and Stream did not begin advertising the 40-inch

Italian weapon until September, 1963. It was from the November issue

that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes submitted his exhibit # 2 as

a "duplicate" to the ad "Hidell" ordered from . ( 20 H 174 )

Many of the Warren Commission apologists contend that Klein's shipped

a 40" rifle in lieu of the advertised rifle because they had run out

of the 36's. But the evidence so far indicates otherwise. In order to

believe that the 40" rifle was shipped to "A. Hidell", you must

believe ALL of the following:

a.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle without notifying the

customer that the rifle he ordered was out of stock.

b.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered without giving

the customer the option of a refund.

c.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered and used the

wrong catalog number.

d.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that was 40% heavier for the same

price as the rifle ordered and absorbed any additional shipping

charges and

e.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet

for sale and continued to advertise a rifle that they no longer had.

In my opinion, that's quite a stretch.

Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE

The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on

the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on

Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36

inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78)

The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp,

their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the

package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market

the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)

http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html

In addition, FBI expert Robert Frazier testified to the WC that in

order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the

rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and

then had to tell Klein's where on the frame to mount the scope.

Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago,

and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar

rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this

type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In

this connection, WE DID INFORM THEM THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD BE IN

APPROXIMATELY THIS POSITION ON THE FRAME OF THE WEAPON.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position,"

so that the record is clear could you--

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is,

approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver

ring.

( 3 H 396 )

So the FBI told Klein's what "position on the frame" "the scope should

be in". Information that Klein's would not have needed had they

normally mounted "scopes of this type on these rifles".

It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with

a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted

"in-house".

Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME

AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO

If the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the

rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas

School Book Depository is not. The reason is that the rifle in CE 134

( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling

mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with

side sling mounts.

http://i42.tinypic.com/25z4g3k.jpg

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

The subject is covered on my youtube channel in a video entitled, "One

Rifle or Two ?"

CONCLUSIONS:

There was more than one 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano with serial number

C2766. Besides John Lattimer's rifle, there's evidence that Klein's

bought two C2766's from Crescent Firearms, one in June 1962 and the

other in February, 1963.

I've discussed fully the February 1963 rifle. It is my conclusion that

the February 1963 shipment of rifles to Klein's was of the 36" rifle

and that one of those, serial number C2766 was shipped to "A.Hidell".

I base this on the evidence of the weight of the rifles and their

crates and the list of the serial numbers in the shipment. I also

conclude that "A.Hidell" ordered a 36" rifle and that he was shipped a

36" rifle. I base that conclusion on the fact that the catalog number

"Hidell" ordered was the same as the catalog number of the 36" rifle

with the scope, that the shipping manifest indicated that the catalog

number shipped was the same as the 36" rifle with the scope, and that

the cost of the shipping was the same as the 36" rifle.

I have found no evidence in the shipping documentation or in the

testimony that would lead me to conclude that "Hidell" was ever

shipped a 40" rifle or a rifle that weighed 7 lbs, 11 1/4 oz.

In fact, I have found no evidence that any other rifle was shipped to

"Hidell" than the rifle he ordered.

And now for the June 1962 C2766. What follows next is my own opinion,

it is speculative because the evidence that would prove or disprove

what I have to say no longer exists.

I believe that the 40" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano now in evidence is a

stage prop. I believe that this is the C2766 rifle that was sold to

Klein's in June, 1962, the rifle whose records were turned over to the

FBI on November 22, 1963, only to disappear (like much of the evidence

that didn't support the offical version disappeared ) into thin air.

I believe that the records of this weapon would have indicated who

purchased it and as such, would have revealed the identity of the

person or persons who framed Oswald. And because of this, these

records would never see the light of day.

In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing

Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political

views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FBI informant DA - T7, Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes (Terminal Annex, overlooking the assassination (prob through the window he'd been staring through for years) (who ''found'' ads re rifle on the day) and associates, in the DPD and agencies, may qualify.

Though if my memory is correct, he first ''found'' a wrong ad. Then he was instrumental in tracking down receipts, destroying evidence, lying to the WC etc like delaying the transfer til, coincidenitaly, Jack Ruby was getting near.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the

rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas

School Book Depository is not.

The reason is that the rifle in CE 134

( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling

mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with

side sling mounts.

Thank you for this article Gil.

Do you have a theory as to what became of the rifle shown in the backyard photos?

Link to post
Share on other sites
By Gil Jesus ( 2010 )

Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE

SERIAL NUMBER C2766

Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN

RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766

Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT

THE 40" RIFLE.

Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS

SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING

WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.

Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER,

1963

Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL,

1963

Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE

Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME

AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO

Hi, Mr. Jesus,

Thank you for this post. I agree with nearly all of your reasons and I do agree with your overall conclusion.

However, for the sake of correctness I would like to point out that the sling mount discrepancy, your reason #10 has been debunked by Tom Purvis who purchased several Carcanos and researched this particular aspect:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...purvis&st=0

(Starting with post #42)

(It should be noted that Mr. Purvis agreed as well with your overall conclusion.)

Of course, you are free to disagree with Mr. Purvis's conclusions, and unfortunately, his photo attachments are now gone from the thread. But I found his argument compelling.

But of course, as you well point out, there is ample other evidence that the rifle ordered by "Hidell" is not the TSBD weapon.

Link to post
Share on other sites
By Gil Jesus ( 2010 )

Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE

SERIAL NUMBER C2766

Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN

RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766

Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT

THE 40" RIFLE.

Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS

SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE

Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING

WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.

Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER,

1963

Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL,

1963

Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE

Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME

AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO

Hi, Mr. Jesus,

Thank you for this post. I agree with nearly all of your reasons and I do agree with your overall conclusion.

However, for the sake of correctness I would like to point out that the sling mount discrepancy, your reason #10 has been debunked by Tom Purvis who purchased several Carcanos and researched this particular aspect:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...purvis&st=0

(Starting with post #42)

(It should be noted that Mr. Purvis agreed as well with your overall conclusion.)

Of course, you are free to disagree with Mr. Purvis's conclusions, and unfortunately, his photo attachments are now gone from the thread. But I found his argument compelling.

But of course, as you well point out, there is ample other evidence that the rifle ordered by "Hidell" is not the TSBD weapon.

Mr. Fordiani...I must disagree with you about the sling ring. And I must laugh about your

quoting Mr. Purvis on this subject. There are MANY reasons that the backyard rifle

is not the depository rifle, INCLUDING the difference in sling rings.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I must laugh about your quoting Mr. Purvis on this subject.

Jack

Hi, Mr. White,

I'm glad I could provide you with a laugh today. We could all use a little laughter in our lives.

Rather than getting a laugh, Mr. Carroll seemed unhappy with me the other day for invoking the name of Mr. Purvis.

And while certainly I would have disagreements with some of the ideas of Mr. Purvis.

And while I am quite sure that Mr. Purvis would make fun of me for believing in "body snatchers."

And while I'm sure that we could agree that Mr. Purvis was sometimes less than kind to those who did not share his views.

However! (get the Purvis joke)

As to Carcano rifles, I think that Mr. Purvis did much credible first-hand research.

Since we have never corresponded before, please let me thank you for your years of effort in this case.

ALF

Link to post
Share on other sites
And I must laugh about your quoting Mr. Purvis on this subject.

Jack

Hi, Mr. White,

I'm glad I could provide you with a laugh today. We could all use a little laughter in our lives.

Rather than getting a laugh, Mr. Carroll seemed unhappy with me the other day for invoking the name of Mr. Purvis.

And while certainly I would have disagreements with some of the ideas of Mr. Purvis.

And while I am quite sure that Mr. Purvis would make fun of me for believing in "body snatchers."

And while I'm sure that we could agree that Mr. Purvis was sometimes less than kind to those who did not share his views.

However! (get the Purvis joke)

As to Carcano rifles, I think that Mr. Purvis did much credible first-hand research.

Since we have never corresponded before, please let me thank you for your years of effort in this case.

ALF

Purvis seems to have vanished. Few of his ideas survived him. Most were erroneous.

Alf (I like that)...provide us the specific info from Purvis for evaluation. I studied the

Carcano in evidence for many years, and testified to the HSCA about it. I know it

pretty well. I would like to know what Purvis said which I disagree with. Thanks.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff, Gil, as always. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly recommend

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

...which I provided several graphics for.

Jack

And that site contributed to my conclusion. Jerry McLeer displays TWO Mannlicher Carcanos with serial number C2766 and PROVES they are different rifles by examining the script of the Letter "C" and the number "2". It's obvious tot he naked eye that the "C" on one rifle has a serif while the "C" in the other does not.

Also, the WC requested that the FBI trace the shipping records for a 6.5 M-C bearing serial number 2766. The FBI did so and the results are in CE 2562.

That means that there were at least FOUR rifles with the serial number 2766 in existance: Lattimer's rifle, the 2766 rifle and two sold to Klein's. And three of them had the "C" prefix.

Now ask yourself this: How many more 2766 rifles were out there and how difficult would it have been to add a C to the front of any of those 2766 serial numbers ?

That COULD explain the difference in script.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know what Purvis said which I disagree with. Thanks.

Jack

Hi, Jack,

If you have the inclination, you can read the entire thread referenced above, titled "The Rifle," for Mr. Purvis's take on the sling mount (and other things -- including the conclusion, reiterated here by Mr. Jesus, that there are numerous Carcanos with C2766 stamped on the barrell).

But since my guess is that you've probably got better things to do, let me summarize: Mr. Purvis discovered that the sling mount is adjustable and can mount in different ways. With the sling mounted on the right side of the weapon and with the weapon held at the angle in which it is held in the backyard photos, this leads to the impression in those backyard photos that the sling is mounted on the bottom of the weapon. Mr. Purvis demonstrated this effect (pursuasively in my opinion) in the original post using his own photographs of his own 91/38 weapon. Unfortunately, those photos are no longer part of the thread, having been deleted, I would presume, for Mr. Purvis to create space for himself to post other attachments in other threads.

You contemporaneously posted your disagreements with Mr. Purvis in the original thread. So I seriously doubt that my summary here will sway you now.

Again, I point this out to Mr. Jesus not to contradict his overall conclusion, for I believe there is ample other evidence that the Carcano in evidence is not the weapon ordered by "Hidell."

ALF

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would like to know what Purvis said which I disagree with. Thanks.

Jack

Hi, Jack,

If you have the inclination, you can read the entire thread referenced above, titled "The Rifle," for Mr. Purvis's take on the sling mount (and other things -- including the conclusion, reiterated here by Mr. Jesus, that there are numerous Carcanos with C2766 stamped on the barrell).

But since my guess is that you've probably got better things to do, let me summarize: Mr. Purvis discovered that the sling mount is adjustable and can mount in different ways. With the sling mounted on the right side of the weapon and with the weapon held at the angle in which it is held in the backyard photos, this leads to the impression in those backyard photos that the sling is mounted on the bottom of the weapon. Mr. Purvis demonstrated this effect (pursuasively in my opinion) in the original post using his own photographs of his own 91/38 weapon. Unfortunately, those photos are no longer part of the thread, having been deleted, I would presume, for Mr. Purvis to create space for himself to post other attachments in other threads.

You contemporaneously posted your disagreements with Mr. Purvis in the original thread. So I seriously doubt that my summary here will sway you now.

Again, I point this out to Mr. Jesus not to contradict his overall conclusion, for I believe there is ample other evidence that the Carcano in evidence is not the weapon ordered by "Hidell."

ALF

I would respectfully disagree.

I don't know what photographs Purvis used to "prove" the mount was adjustable. The rifles with bottom sling mounts had the sling mounts on the bottom front and rear. The rifles with the side sling mounts had the mounts on the side front and rear. The is obvious in comparing the Depsoitory Carcano with the below photo of a MC with bottom mounts.

Did Purvis adjust the front mount or both the front and rear mounts ?

Here is a comparison of the front mount, one on the bottom and one on the side. Note also that the rifle with the front bottom mount has a bottom mount in the rear, unlike the Depository Carcano, which has the rear mount on the side.

http://i49.tinypic.com/205qlbq.jpg

The front mounts don't even match, no matter how much you turn them. In one, the ring would go through a hole, in the other, the ring is permanently attached to the mount.

IMO, they're not the same mount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil - "In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing

Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political

views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information." - you mean like someone or a facility who/that had a record of his address, could, for example. read his mail, monitor his mail etc?

Harry and a SAIC or SS (can't remember) set about to get the ad and they and secretaries looked through various ads. They found ''it''. Later they found ''it'' again. They also tracked down the receipts etc.

Which of the ads is shown in the image posted? What did the other ad show?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gil - "In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing

Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political

views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information." - you mean like someone or a facility who/that had a record of his address, could, for example. read his mail, monitor his mail etc?

Harry and a SAIC or SS (can't remember) set about to get the ad and they and secretaries looked through various ads. They found ''it''. Later they found ''it'' again. They also tracked down the receipts etc.

Which of the ads is shown in the image posted? What did the other ad show?

Yes I am very suspicious in the role that the Dallas Post Office played in the framing of Oswald.

When Holmes presented the "ad" to the Warren Commission, he presented the ad for the 40" rifle that was displayed in the November 1963 issue of Guns & Ammo ( Holmes Ex. 2, 20H 174 ) .

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol20_0097b.htm

And he presented it as a "replica" ad, something it was clearly not. It was a different length and carried a different catalog number.

Notice also that Oswald uses the wrong address for his application for PO Box 6225 on November 1, 1963:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol20_0096b.htm

I believe that Oswald may have suspected that he was being stalked through the Post Office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

Harry had too much lee way imo. He was allowed to present copies and retain originals (as Ian Griggs points out in Four Faces of Harry Holmes). He, contrary to PO regulations, which he lied about, destroyed evidence, and, as you point out, presented false evidence. (Apart from that he was significantly instrumental in delaying the last Oswald interview, to which he was invited by Fritz. He imo was much more than a Postal Inspector, and his freedom of movement through the DPD was unquestioned, like he could log out the key from evidence, and was intimate with various agencies, and they with him. Plus there's much more, like his involvement in various films, him wandering about the Plaza, picking up and discarding a bone fragment, which to an ex dentist student who should be able to recognise bone and its significance is odd, which begs the question what he was looking for, and for this and more he slipped through the cracks for decades. He had a very good memory but conveniently forgot important things for which there seem no reason for him to forget, except to hide something, and his dishonesty is a clearly established fact as is his strange untouchability and deference to in the Presidential Comission (otherwise referred to as the Warren Comission) hearings).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...