Jack White Posted January 30, 2010 Share Posted January 30, 2010 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 Contrary to Purvis, photos show that the sling rings CANNOT be mounted different ways. I do not have time right not to show you photos that show that side mounts and bottom mounts are completely DIFFERENT, but you can research it yourself like I did. Thanks for your opinion. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 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 Contrary to Purvis, photos show that the sling rings CANNOT be mounted different ways. I do not have time right not to show you photos that show that side mounts and bottom mounts are completely DIFFERENT, but you can research it yourself like I did. Thanks for your opinion. Jack Jack, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.....but the side mounts are on the LEFT side of the rifle, meaning that if Oswald were holding the rifle in such a position as to allow the side mount to appear to be on the bottom of the rifle, the front sight at the end of the barrel would have to be facing toward Oswald's rear and thus would not visible to the camera. Yet we see the front sight in CE 133-A and CE 134 . http://i47.tinypic.com/2dux9pu.jpg Also, the relationship between the rifle and Oswald's hand indicates that Oswald is holding the rifle with the wide side toward the camera, rather than "sideways" as he would have to do in order for the side mount ring to hang below the rifle. I agree with you, the mounts are COMPLETELY different. http://i49.tinypic.com/205qlbq.jpg Even in CE 133-B we see the rope sling attached to a bottom sling mount: http://i31.tinypic.com/ohrb4m.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) 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. I find this all very interesting. But am confused by the big picture. Are you speculating that those framing Oswald obtained a 40 inch M/C rifle in 62, and then somehow arranged for Oswald to buy a 36 inch in 63 with the same number, so they could later switch them? And that the 40 inch, not even sighted in, was used in the assassination? I mean, why go to the trouble? Why not just use Oswald's rifle, ignored for months in an unlocked garage? Or are you trying to claim neither rifle was used in the assassination, but that the 40 inch was planted, since they couldn't find Oswald's rifle or a 36 inch model with the same number as the rifle Oswald had purchased? I suspect you're onto something, but I just can't put it together in a way that makes sense. Edited January 31, 2010 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 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. I find this all very interesting. But am confused by the big picture. Are you speculating that those framing Oswald obtained a 40 inch M/C rifle in 62, and then somehow arranged for Oswald to buy a 36 inch in 63 with the same number, so they could later switch them? And that the 40 inch, not even sighted in, was used in the assassination? I mean, why go to the trouble? Why not just use Oswald's rifle, ignored for months in an unlocked garage? Or are you trying to claim neither rifle was used in the assassination, but that the 40 inch was planted, since they couldn't find Oswald's rifle or a 36 inch model with the same number as the rifle Oswald had purchased? I suspect you're onto something, but I just can't put it together in a way that makes sense. NO Manlicher Carcano rifle was used in the assassination. LHO did not order, own, transport to the TSBD, or fire an MC rifle. No MC rifle can be connected to LHO in any way. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Jesus Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 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. I find this all very interesting. But am confused by the big picture. Are you speculating that those framing Oswald obtained a 40 inch M/C rifle in 62, and then somehow arranged for Oswald to buy a 36 inch in 63 with the same number, so they could later switch them? And that the 40 inch, not even sighted in, was used in the assassination? I mean, why go to the trouble? Why not just use Oswald's rifle, ignored for months in an unlocked garage? Or are you trying to claim neither rifle was used in the assassination, but that the 40 inch was planted, since they couldn't find Oswald's rifle or a 36 inch model with the same number as the rifle Oswald had purchased? I suspect you're onto something, but I just can't put it together in a way that makes sense. I'll give you my opinion: Neither rifle was used in the assassination. The 40" rifle was planted. It was seen on the morning of the assassination being unloaded from a truck by Julia Ann Mercer. The records for the 40" rifle were turned over to the FBI and disappeared. The FBI then used the records for the 36" rifle, which had the same serial number as the 40" rifle as the "official" record. The reason why the 36" rifle wasn't planted may have been that they either couldn't get Oswald to take it into the building or that it was not Oswald's at the time of the murder. Pat, it wasn't necessary for them to arrange for Oswald to buy a rifle in 1963 with the same SN as the 1962 rifle. There were different rifles with the same SN. When the FBI requested that Crescent Firearms provide them with the records of C2766, Crescent gave them the records of the 1962 rifle. That rifle could have been sold by Klein's anytime from June 1962 until the assassination. Thanks to the FBI, we'll never know when or to whom it was sold. Klein's did a lot of mail order firearm business. They were also under investigation by the US Government at about the time Oswald allegedly ordered his rifle. After Oswald's purchase was made, could a Federal Investigator walk into Klein's under the pretense of that investigation and "confiscate" a 40" C2766 rifle and it's records ? It seems to me that obtaining a rifle with the same SN as the one allegedly ordered by Oswald would have been easy for anyone in officialdom either before or after the assassination. On the condition that they knew the serial number. Where they screwed up was that they planted a weapon that was different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 (edited) I think that's a very credible hypothesis. Another comes to mind, triggered by the last sentence. If one takes a wide perspective the the Kennedy assassination was just another step in the process. This being an across the board application of standard techniques such as divide and rule, create smoke, drive the chain of events, the startegy of tension which allowed for the aftermath, where those in charge merely acted as the fabled asian silver fox, a shape shifter, continually consolidating power. So, such obvious obfuscation is within the Presidential Comissions 27 volumes. Perhaps it shouldn't be judged so harshly. I see it as a war with Kennedys men and women on one side... Where they screwd up was with the fist edition 1964 Presidential Comission being distributed world wide. Therefore we know this, and can apply various logic sets to it. Basically they screwed up, period. Why? EDIT ADD : Is there any indication that Oswald was so knowlegeable about weaponry he could perform remarkable results with the MC, and versatile that he could execute a Law officer with a mix of shells in a saw down wwii sidearm - lots and up close and personal. The signs of a professional hit...and then off to the movies we go. Oswald couldn't even get Walker in incredibly favourable conditions. He remains only a suspect in that shooting. But it was certainly a nail in the coffin. Which brings one to what did Oswald and Walker have in common? Why couldn't he do it? Did he do all of it, or did he do none of it? Edited January 31, 2010 by John Dolva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now