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

[Bruce Fernandez]

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

[David Josephs]

Let's try this from a different POV

Waldman here tells us that the FBI knows the serial number of the rifle C2766 and that it was shipped from Crescent to Kleins.

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, were you ever contacted by any law enforcement agency about the disposition of this Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that had the serial number C-2766 on it?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; on the night of November 22, 1963, the FBI contacted our company in an effort to determine whether the gun had been in our possession and, if so, what disposition we had made of it.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know how the FBI happened to contact you or your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. The FBI had a record of a gun of this type and with this serial number having been shipped to us by Crescent Firearms.
Mr. BELIN. Do you mean that Crescent Firearms gave the FBI this information?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I--I must assume that's the case. I don't know it for a fact.

The only place this information is offered is on one of the 10 packing slips. "38 E" is the international designation for the rifle and has no direct relationship to the rifles Rupp sends to Kleins which are "T-38" - also non-indicative of the model or length.

There is no evidence that DVP can produce that shows Rupp and carton 3376 were ever associated.

Waldman also tells us that these slips were sent as memos after the fact and not with the shipment of rifles.

Therefore, the information about: “C” 2766 in carton #3376 on packing slip #3620 on November 22, 1963 can have only come from Feldsott who in turn specifically states they were from evidence related to the JUNE 18, 1962 shipment . https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45#relPageId=215&tab=page

On p10 of WCD881 Waldman tells us he provides these to the FBI in March 1964

p3 of WCD790 tells us that Feldsott gave the FBI these 10 slips when interviewed on Nov 22nd.

Both men cannot give the same exact slips, becoming Waldman exhibit #3 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htm

There could not be a June 1962 shipment without Rupp removing cartons from Harborside prior to August 1962... so where did Crescent/Rupp get these rifles to begin with?

Furthermore, SA Chapman tells us that while Kleins' ORDER records state "C" 2766, the Kleins shipment RECEIPT records show two close but different rifles were rec'd. In essence, there are no records that Kleins ever rec'd "C" 2766 as we've been saying all along. and the FBI knew if that evening as well...

Conclusion: The FBI took the June 1962 evidence provided by Feldsott and claimed the packing slip information from Crescent to Kleins (Waldman #3) was for the Feb 1963 delivery. We do not know what Feldsott provided related to the June shipment but it was surely not these 10 slips which are the original slips from Italy with the international Item # "38 E". We are once again pressed with the problem that not a single rifle is crossed out as replaced by Rupp - this reinforces these cannot be packing slips related to an "in USA" shipment of these rifles and also makes it possible that both Feldsott and Waldman provide packing slips to the FBI.

The only other item of evidence with #3376 listed is the Crescent to Kleins document "Via Lifschultz" where #3376 is the only carton not checked off.

So unless DVP can offer a different source for the SERIAL # info the FBI has at Kleins that night, the entire Kleins evidence trail is connecting a Feb order to a batch of Italian packing slips possibly provided by Feldsott relating a completely different shipment.

Unless of course he can show any direct connection betwen the evidence discussed

[Robert Prudhomme]

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.

[David Josephs]

and no, the rifles are not the same

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.

And, I will stress again, unless William Waldman of Klein's was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his Warren Commission testimony at 7 H 366.


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.

Edited June 1, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

and no, the rifles are not the same

Dave

Do you see the metal forestock cap just below the number 3 in the upper photo, and the two fasteners holding it to the forestock? If you look closely, you can see the same two fasteners in the lower photo. The M91/38 short rifle was the only Carcano to use this unique cap with the two fasteners.

Another feature unique to the M91/38, seen in both rifles above, is the wooden top piece of the stock, located just ahead of the rear sight. As seen in the photos above, this piece stops several inches short of the forward end of the forestock. This feature is completely absent on every other model of Carcano.

This site will show what I am referring to:

http://candrsenal.com/terminology-a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-carcano-rifle-models/

Edited June 2, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Kenneth Drew]

AT NO TIME did I say that he said it was a 7.65 Mauser.

You most certainly did. You said this....

"It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser." -- K. Drew

Your false memory is about the worst I've ever seen. You don't even remember what you've said just minutes after you've said it. And I'm supposed to believe you can recall intricate details about the TV coverage from 52 years ago? Yeah, sure.

Show me, in that quoted sentence, where the '7.65 Mauser' is located. If you can point out the 7.65 in my sentence then you are a magician. Maybe you were just 'misremembering' what I had said. But since you can't even read a sentence correctly within the last hour, why should anyone believe you can correctly interpret anything?

[David Von Pein]

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.

Edited June 1, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

"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.

[Kenneth Drew]

WAIT Uh Oh ... We've suddenly found bogus back yard photos of LHO holding some other similar weapon! Why were these created and by whom, not Marina? REALLY bad patsying? When precisely were these created and for what purpose? Nothing at all to do with the lone nut. Maybe Roscoe White's body? Marina didn't take the photos. Different rifle. What's going on here? Why do we have them at all?

But Bruce, the backyard photos have been authenticated as genuine. They are NOT fake pictures. Why are you continuing to believe in the "Fake Backyard Pictures" myth?

The HSCA authenticated the BY pics:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

And Marina Oswald has always maintained that she took the photos. She doesn't recall exactly how many she took, but she recalls taking SOME pictures in the Neely St. backyard while Lee was holding guns and was dressed all in black--just like the things we see in the photos you are assuming are fakes.

In addition, I would still like a good (i.e., reasonable) answer to a question I've been asking for years....

Why on Earth would anyone want to fake multiple pictures that are depicting the exact same thing (Oswald with guns and newspapers in the Neely backyard)?

It makes no sense for any "plotters" to even WANT to fake more than just one such photograph. The chances of the fakery being exposed is only multiplied by the number of fake pictures being created. And why wouldn't just ONE such photo suffice for the patsy framers? Obviously, one photo would have sufficed. One picture is just as good as having three or four. And a lot less risky.

So, IMO, the NUMBER of backyard photos that exist is another thing that (circumstantially) suggests that those photos are genuine. Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing. It's just a dumb idea to begin with.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

DVP, you don't really believe that anyone has authenticated the back yard fake photos do you? 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 on over the background. They didn't get the heads aligned correctly and they didn't get the shadows lined up correctly. 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? So that means your identification system is all discretionary. It can only see fakery that you believe in, but not real fakery? 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.

[Robert Prudhomme]

"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?

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

[Bruce Fernandez]

Kenneth

I agree that the discussion does not directly relate to the assassination of JFK, however, the topic relates to LHO and whether he ordered (the rifle found in the TSBD, presumed to be the murder weapon). I maintain that the BYPs introduce serious question as to whether he did, and therefore as to his participation and/or guilt.

If they're (BYPs) real ... not the same gun ... he only ever owned one ... not him

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

Simple to me ... draw the logic tree with all the potential facts and situations ... for me it comes to the same place

[David Josephs]

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?

[David Von Pein]

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 June 1, 2015 by David Von Pein