Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
David Von Pein

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

Recommended Posts

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

There is an exhibit which shows a photo of the microfilm which had the envelope and orders from which they were supposedly printed.

That roll of microfilm is not longer in the archives... even though it was indeed deposited there back when. There was alos a matter of who had it - in one report Waldman gives it to the FBI, in another he places it in a safe from where it is removed and provided later...

There is of course a little problem of Authentication David... if there is no original to look at there is no way to confirm they are the same other than taking someone's word for it. The FBI's word - which has a terrible record of messing with evidence.

If they hadn't been manufactured there would be no need to lose the originals. Kinda like losing the negqative to 133-A. It was found, recorded and inventoried at the DPD - and then disappears either before it gets to the FBI or after... but it disappears as did the Kleins microfilm.

That you can't see a legal problem with not having originals to authenticate the copies is par for the course Dave...

And without a shred of June 1962 shipment evidence, how does Chapman know the serial number is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP, you don't really believe that anyone has authenticated the back yard fake photos do you?

Of course I do. The HSCA did a great amount of work on the photos and they found, as I quoted previously, "no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials".

Go to HSCA Volume 6 (linked below) and learn a few things, Ken....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0072b.htm

I mean, when you can look at the photos and see what's in the background through the body on the photo, you know the image is layed [sic] on over the background.

All I can do here is look bewildered and shrug incessantly at the odd statement Ken just uttered.

~incessant shrug commencing~~

They didn't get the heads aligned correctly and they didn't get the shadows lined up correctly.

Watch the video at the webpage below....and then come back here and tell me that the shadows are all messed up....

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html

Even a complete novice could tell those photos are fake within a couple minutes of looking. But you're telling us that you buy it hook line and sinker. You can tell, without any doubt whatsoever, but for some reason you can't see any differences in that rifle and the TSBD rifle?

That's why the HSCA hired a panel of several "experts" in the field of photography. They were hired to examine the backyard pictures in order to determine whether they were fake or not. And they did make a determination --- "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials."

You just don't like that conclusion, Ken. So, therefore, you have decided that YOU are a much better photo expert and analyst than the 20 members of the House Select Committee's Photographic Panel. Pardon me if I go with the true experts in this field, however.

We know that Marina only said that she took a photo after they told her she was booked on a flight to Russia, but if she remembered taking the photos, they could cancel her travel plans.

More pure bunk from Mr. Kenneth Drew's keyboard.

You really don't have a clue about the actual evidence in this case, do you, Ken? (Either that, or you have decided on your own to just totally dismiss ALL of the evidence as fake and phony. Right?)

Anyway, you should know that it was proven that Oswald's camera (and ONLY that camera) could have taken one of the backyard pictures (the one in which the negative still exists). Therefore, we know that LHO's own Imperial-Reflex camera took one of those pictures. Do you think the plotters stole Oswald's camera too? Or do you think the Warren Commission and the FBI lied through their collective teeth (yet again) when they said that Oswald's camera was the only camera on Earth that could have captured one of those backyard images?

A good hunk of advice for you, Ken, IMO, is this....

Stop the myths. And stop pretending every single piece of evidence pointing to Oswald is counterfeit.

That's good advice for any CTer, in fact. Too bad more of them don't take it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63."

Kenneth, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but, there is only one group of Mausers chambered for the 7.65mm cartridge, and they are universally known as Argentine Mausers. No one had to mention the word "Argentine", as soon as they said 7.65mm, the only thing it could be was an Argentine Mauser.

Very good Robert, except I didn't say that they said 7.65 Mauser. Only "mauser" yes, I realize that later versions of Roger Craig being asked, he did say 7.65, but not back in 1963. From what I recall, I don't remember anyone discussing back in 63, how many classes of Mauser there were. I know that I had heard of German Mausers since back in WWII and never have equated Mauser's with Argentina. If you want to give us all a history lesson on Mauser's, tell us what the Mauser's used by the German's during WWII were. I guess I don't see how me saying that I never heard anyone say Argentine Mauser implies that it really was one since someone thought it was a 7.65. but recall, I never heard them say 7.65 either. But I see you're at least in agreement that the rifle they were looking at was identified as a Mauser.

My only problem with all this discussion is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the assassination of JFK. We don't know any details at all about what weapon was fired, by who, or where from. But discussion about a rifle that we know absolutely had no part in it is completely a smoke screen by the Nutters.

Germany made a 7.92mm Mauser for its troops during WW II. The original 7mm Mauser was discontinued prior to the commencement of WW I.

As the 7.65mm Mauser was not nearly as well known as the 8(7.92)mm Mauser, what led Weitzman to ID this rifle as a 7.65mm?

What led him to identify it as a 7.65? I have no clue. What led him to ID it as a Mauser? I would guess that reading the word Mauser off of the rifle had something to do with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

We're not in a court of law where a strict "chain of possession" for every last thing that you CTers think is mandatory needs to be produced. So why pretend we are in such a court?

You know, as do I, that there's no GOOD ENOUGH reason to actually think somebody was running around forging and faking all the documents associated with LHO's rifle purchase. It's frankly dumb, IMO, to even begin to consider such an outlandish idea regarding the rifle paperwork.

Plus, you also know, as do I, that there was no good reason for the FBI to have wanted to examine a whole bunch of OTHER unrelated Klein's orders, just to prove that the Oswald order was legit. The FBI undoubtedly didn't have that frame of mind. And I doubt the FBI has such a frame of mind about similar evidence even today.

As I mentioned to you in another discussion on a related matter that seems to concern you so much (although I've never heard of anyone else who has expressed the slightest bit of concern over this issue) —— all other Klein's orders were completely irrelevant to the FBI on 11/22 and 11/23/63. They were searching for the paperwork connected with ONE particular rifle---the one with the "C2766" stamped on it. No other Klein's order mattered. And why should it have mattered? Those OTHER non-C2766 Klein's sales weren't of any importance to anyone on Nov. 22. But they sure are important things to David Josephs in 2015....and that's because he's a conspiracy hobbyist who loves to invent new (and more) reasons to pretend Oswald never fired a shot, plus new ways to pretend the FBI was incompetent.

But, as I've said many times, the things a JFK conspiracy theorist believes couldn't possibly matter less in the long run. Lee Harvey Oswald will be forever identified (and rightly so) as President Kennedy's lone assassin by reasonable men and women everywhere --- even without ever seeing a single other Klein's order for the Italian carbine that Oswald made so famous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're (BYPs) real ... not the same MC as found in TSBD... he only ever owned one ... not him

If they're bogus ... he's being patsied before or after the fact ... conspiracy

David says they're (or at least one) real

LHO didn't have possession of the gun found in the TSBD

Thanks, David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP.

Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was.

Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made.

The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Gary,

You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald?

I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office).

If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45.

But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know.

Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning.

Thanks.

GARY MACK SAID:

I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days.

The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.

Wow, that post is so full of 'if's' 'ands' and 'butts' that I'm surprised you have one left to sit on. Gary Mack said: "Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was." Really? No one would be interested in finding out if there might have been more than one weapon with the same serial number? or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're nitpicking, Ken. You said that you saw Weitzman on TV on 11/22/63 and that Weitzman himself said the rifle was a Mauser (whether it be a "7.65" Mauser or some other caliber, who cares). And that just simply did not happen. Therefore, you could not possibly have seen it on TV in 1963.

Nitpicking? Are you the same character that lectured me a few days ago about 'quoting someone'? So do you think that you can change a quote I made and then say that someone didn't say 'what you said they said'. Typical Nutter.

But, how do you know it 'did not happen'. You are telling me that you know what was broadcast on a tv station in Jacksonville, Fla on 11/22/63 without any possibility that you are incorrect. When you can assure the world that you have a copy of every minute of every film broadcast in Jacksonville, Fla that day, then you can make that statement. You might want to recall your own words about 'quoting someone correctly'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, how do you know it 'did not happen'[?]

I know it didn't happen because the rifle you inaccurately claimed Weitzman said on TV was a "Mauser" (via Weitzman himself seeing a "Mauser" stamp on the weapon) wasn't really a Mauser at all --- it was Oswald's C2766 Italian Carcano. Even Weitzman himself in 1967 (in a real TV broadcast this time, not just one that your false memory has invented) said that the rifle he saw was not a Mauser.

Therefore, Weitzman had no opportunity to see the word "Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle, since there was no "Mauser" found in the TSBD that day for Weitzman to see.

Simple.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike you DVP, I can't give you any advice. Any nutter that believes the WCR hook, line and sinker is far beyond any reasonable help and should just go ahead and sign in at the Nut house. Yes, they have special places for Nutters. Why would anyone consult anything from the WCR as being authentic? Sure, there are actually some true things in the WCR, but only things that support their foregone conclusion. But the information is so useless that it is only beneficial for Nutters to use as their guidebook.

Does that incessant shrugging come from your years in the Pigpen?

Just to humor you, I viewed that video of the 'expert' attempting to duplicate the photo. First the photo he used is not one of the 3 regularly shown, it is an altered one. Then in the 'recreation', the actor is standing further to the left, his shadow is further to the right. In short, nothing he said is proof of anything except that he was trying to make someone happy.

Then this quote: " "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials.""

why was that statement made as it was? We already know that words mean something, so why did they add the word 'materials' onto that sentence. Why do they distinguish the materials from the photos? The photos are fake, but at least they used non-fake materials to make them. Strange.

"(Either that, or you have decided on your own to just totally dismiss ALL of the evidence as fake and phony. Right?)" No, only the fake and phone evidence is taken that way. As opposed to someone who swallows every lie, hook line and sinker? I know of not one single piece of evidence that you are anyone, anywhere that is linked to 'who shot John" and what he was shot with. No one has ever produced anything, so you can't possibly have any evidence.

So even if you accept that really is LHO in that BYP and that they're not faked, then you still don't have anything because the rifle in it is not the rifle that you would like to believe is the one the FBI produced on 11/23/63 which has never been tied to any shots ever fired at anyone. So It is strange that you put so much effort into trying to make a case that you just simply can't make. You DO NOT HAVE ONE SINGLE PROVABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, how do you know it 'did not happen'[?]

I know it didn't happen because the rifle you inaccurately claimed Weitzman said on TV was a "Mauser" (via Weitzman himself seeing a "Mauser" stamp on the weapon) wasn't really a Mauser at all --- it was Oswald's C2766 Italian Carcano. Even Weitzman himself in 1967 (in a real TV broadcast this time, not just one that your false memory has invented) said that the rifle he saw was not a Mauser.

Therefore, Weitzman had no opportunity to see the word "Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle, since there was no "Mauser" found in the TSBD that day for Weitzman to see.

Simple.

And the price of eggs in China today is what? Do you think a policeman holding a rifle in his hands, looking at the print on the rifle and saying that it is a Mauser and showing that to other officers there at the scene, then going to the office and signing a sworn affidavit is going to 'get it wrong'. Roger Craig refused to bow to play their games and see what it got him. You notice that Weitzman said something entirely different in '63, are you assuming he doesn't have a faulty memory as you attribute to me? Weitzman was apparently not willing to go against 'better judgment', as in, he preferred to live a few more years. I suspect that had Weitzman continue to say it was a Mauser, he likely would not have survived as many years as he did. 'see Roger Craig'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

We're not in a court of law where a strict "chain of possession" for every last thing that you CTers think is mandatory needs to be produced. So why pretend we are in such a court?

You know, as do I, that there's no GOOD ENOUGH reason to actually think somebody was running around forging and faking all the documents associated with LHO's rifle purchase. It's frankly dumb, IMO, to even begin to consider such an outlandish idea regarding the rifle paperwork.

Plus, you also know, as do I, that there was no good reason for the FBI to have wanted to examine a whole bunch of OTHER unrelated Klein's orders, just to prove that the Oswald order was legit. The FBI undoubtedly didn't have that frame of mind. And I doubt the FBI has such a frame of mind about similar evidence even today.

As I mentioned to you in another discussion on a related matter that seems to concern you so much (although I've never heard of anyone else who has expressed the slightest bit of concern over this issue) —— all other Klein's orders were completely irrelevant to the FBI on 11/22 and 11/23/63. They were searching for the paperwork connected with ONE particular rifle---the one with the "C2766" stamped on it. No other Klein's order mattered. And why should it have mattered? Those OTHER non-C2766 Klein's sales weren't of any importance to anyone on Nov. 22. But they sure are important things to David Josephs in 2015....and that's because he's a conspiracy hobbyist who loves to invent new (and more) reasons to pretend Oswald never fired a shot, plus new ways to pretend the FBI was incompetent.

But, as I've said many times, the things a JFK conspiracy theorist believes couldn't possibly matter less in the long run. Lee Harvey Oswald will be forever identified (and rightly so) as President Kennedy's lone assassin by reasonable men and women everywhere --- even without ever seeing a single other Klein's order for the Italian carbine that Oswald made so famous.

"because he's a conspiracy hobbyist who loves to invent new (and more) reasons to pretend Oswald never fired a shot, plus new ways to pretend the FBI was incompetent."

Pretend? If it's such an open and shut case DVP why can't anyone prove LHO ever fired a rifle in Dallas? Very few people that I know have ever accepted that LHO was actually the one that killed JFK, he's always been considered to be the "patsy". I find it strange for someone to make such a statement and yet can not provide even one single piece of evidence or one single fact that points to ANYONE, much less LHO. There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the snipers nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero. Just because you choose to believe what you choose to believe has zip to do with 'who shot John'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few people that I know have ever accepted that LHO was actually the one that killed JFK...

You're confusing Internet CT clowns (such as yourself; and it becomes a much easier task to label Kenneth Drew a "clown" after reading all of the stupid things he says in the quote below) with the average man on the street who has an opinion on the case. Maybe you should check out the 2003 ABC News poll.

Hardly anybody thinks "Lee shot John", eh? Think again....

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?":

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%

ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%

OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%

NO OPINION ------------- 10%

http://PollingReport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the snipers nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero.

Good gosh Almighty, you really do reside in Fantasy Land, don't you?

Why not just pretend JFK wasn't killed at all?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I've read that before. It is, however, IMO, not the same rifle ... repeating the point ... at a minimum the sling and sling mounts are dramatically different (you would be correct to say they could have been changed ... forward sling mount from bottom to side not so easily, however) ... now we need to question the competency of the advisors to and the HSCA. Why would they make that statement and not acknowledge and explain the differences that can be so clearly seen? I don't take any of the government pronouncements at face value, especially when we have photographic evidence to evaluate ourselves. Again I think really shoddy patsying, planting a different rifle (and a slug from that rifle that is so pristine as to be questioned by most observers ... ie: SBT is long dead.)

"Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing" Exactly ... agreed ... inexplicable except maybe they tried to do too much in a short time.

And have one with the figure cut out show up in the (DPD?) years later. Weird

The forward sling mount ring is the only outstanding difference between the BYP rifle and the 6th floor rifle. While the M91/38 was manufactured with side mounted rings, both on the forestock and the buttstock, it is unusual in the extreme to see an M91/38 with a bottom mounted forward sling ring, but not unheard of. I have read through a Carcano registry, and the odd M91/38 is registered as having bottom mounted rings on the forestock.

I believe these exist due to the condition of many of the Carcanos sold as surplus by the Italian government, following WW II. These were a mixed bag of carbines, short rifles and long rifles, and both the long rifles and most of the carbines were made with bottom mounted sling rings. Some carbines had both bottom AND side rings. As a good percentage of these rifles were in pieces and various states of disrepair, it was often necessary to rob parts from rifles beyond repair to make complete rifles of other rifles. There would have been nothing stopping a gunsmith from robbing a bottom mounted sling ring from a carbine to replace the missing side mounted ring on an M91/38.

There was also nothing stopping someone from replacing the bottom mounted ring with a side mounted ring after the BYP's were taken but before the rifle arrived on the 6th floor.

Robert is is interesting that you state that the rifle in the BYP and TSBD are identical but then state that forward sling mount is different on the two rifles. Maybe the word identical means something different to you than I think the recognized defintion means. Doesn't identical mean 'no different', not well only one thing is different? I think it would be hard to locate a gunsmith that had robbed a part from one Carcano to put on this rifle just to make it identical to the TSBD rifle. How would he have known which ring to change to match the photo? I think it is pretty well accepted that the rifles are different rifles and for the most part, only nutters tend to maintain the fiction that they are the same rifle.

You really do have comprehension difficulties. If you would clean your glasses and read my posts again, you would see that I said both rifles were most definitely the same model of Carcano, that being the M91/38 short rifle, but not necessarily the same rifle.

I did offer the opinion, though, that it would be a bit dumb for the conspirators not to plant the same rifle that was used in the back yard photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I've read that before. It is, however, IMO, not the same rifle ... repeating the point ... at a minimum the sling and sling mounts are dramatically different (you would be correct to say they could have been changed ... forward sling mount from bottom to side not so easily, however) ... now we need to question the competency of the advisors to and the HSCA. Why would they make that statement and not acknowledge and explain the differences that can be so clearly seen? I don't take any of the government pronouncements at face value, especially when we have photographic evidence to evaluate ourselves. Again I think really shoddy patsying, planting a different rifle (and a slug from that rifle that is so pristine as to be questioned by most observers ... ie: SBT is long dead.)

"Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing" Exactly ... agreed ... inexplicable except maybe they tried to do too much in a short time.

And have one with the figure cut out show up in the (DPD?) years later. Weird

The forward sling mount ring is the only outstanding difference between the BYP rifle and the 6th floor rifle. While the M91/38 was manufactured with side mounted rings, both on the forestock and the buttstock, it is unusual in the extreme to see an M91/38 with a bottom mounted forward sling ring, but not unheard of. I have read through a Carcano registry, and the odd M91/38 is registered as having bottom mounted rings on the forestock.

I believe these exist due to the condition of many of the Carcanos sold as surplus by the Italian government, following WW II. These were a mixed bag of carbines, short rifles and long rifles, and both the long rifles and most of the carbines were made with bottom mounted sling rings. Some carbines had both bottom AND side rings. As a good percentage of these rifles were in pieces and various states of disrepair, it was often necessary to rob parts from rifles beyond repair to make complete rifles of other rifles. There would have been nothing stopping a gunsmith from robbing a bottom mounted sling ring from a carbine to replace the missing side mounted ring on an M91/38.

There was also nothing stopping someone from replacing the bottom mounted ring with a side mounted ring after the BYP's were taken but before the rifle arrived on the 6th floor.

Robert is is interesting that you state that the rifle in the BYP and TSBD are identical but then state that forward sling mount is different on the two rifles. Maybe the word identical means something different to you than I think the recognized defintion means. Doesn't identical mean 'no different', not well only one thing is different? I think it would be hard to locate a gunsmith that had robbed a part from one Carcano to put on this rifle just to make it identical to the TSBD rifle. How would he have known which ring to change to match the photo? I think it is pretty well accepted that the rifles are different rifles and for the most part, only nutters tend to maintain the fiction that they are the same rifle.

You really do have comprehension difficulties. If you would clean your glasses and read my posts again, you would see that I said both rifles were most definitely the same model of Carcano, that being the M91/38 short rifle, but not necessarily the same rifle.

I did offer the opinion, though, that it would be a bit dumb for the conspirators not to plant the same rifle that was used in the back yard photos.

"You really do have comprehension difficulties. If you would clean your glasses and read my posts again, you would see that I said both rifles were most definitely the same model of Carcano, that being the M91/38 short rifle, but not necessarily the same rifle."

Well, you got me there Robert. I was reading what you were saying as 'the byp rifle and the TSBD rifle were the same rifle', not that you were saying they were the same model of rifle. I even went back and looked and couldn't find an obvious place where you said the models were the same. But now we're in agreement that the rifles were both MC's of the same model,but not the 'same' MC rifle. And by TSBD MC rifle I'm referring to the one that turned up after they had taken the Mauser away from the SBD and produced the MC that later became the one they have tried to claim was mailed to a PO Box in Dallas. Maybe they had bought several of the rifles just in case they had to use a different scenario. Accept my apology for interpreting you incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP.

Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was.

Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made.

The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Gary,

You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald?

I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office).

If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45.

But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know.

Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning.

Thanks.

GARY MACK SAID:

I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping.

Gary

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days.

The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.

Wow, that post is so full of 'if's' 'ands' and 'butts' that I'm surprised you have one left to sit on. Gary Mack said: "Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was." Really? No one would be interested in finding out if there might have been more than one weapon with the same serial number? or something else?

Most Carcanos were manufactured at the Terni and Brescia Arsenals, with oter manufacturers, such as Gardone Val Trompia, Beretta, Roma, Armaguerra Cremona, etc. manufacturing varying amounts of Carcanos over the years. While each rifle received a serial number that was stamped on the base of the barrel, the name of the arsenal was also stamped on the base of the barrel. Therefore, two rifles might end up with the same serial number, such as C2766, but while the one we are concerned with also bears the stamp of "TERNI", I can guarantee you another Carcano bearing C2766 would bear the stamp of a different arsenal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×