Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

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

Recommended Posts

One thing we should keep in mind is that C2766 was an infantry rifle. While the basic rifle parts were manufactured the same in every M91/38 short rifle, soldiers came in all different shapes and sizes, and while one rifle stock may be perfect for one soldier, it might be too long or too short for the next soldier. For this reason, infantry rifles come with varying lengths of stocks. The 40.2 inch measurement assigned to the M91/38 would be a measurement for the most common length of rifle, made for a man of average stature, but there would be many M91/38's longer or shorter than this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Everyone in the world that was watching television on 11/22 saw the Mauser being held up with the 7.65 Mauser stamped on it."

Not really trying to help DVP out here but, the truth of the matter is, no 7.65mm Argentine Mauser (not the military issue, anyways) ever had the calibre stamped on it anywhere.

Thanks for your comment, but who said anything about Argentine? The picture above that DVP shows is not of the Mauser. Everyone in the civilized world knows that there were two rifles found inside the TSBD that day, one Mauser (Roger Craig) and One MC( not c2766) and one mauser without a scope was found on the roof of the TSBD. I can't say that I could actually read the words or numbers one the rifle that was held up, but I could see him (Constable Wietzman) point to them and read them off the weapon itself. I actually saw that on TV in 1963, I don't need to see a picture of it now to remind me. It is available on youtube if you want to see it.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenneth Drew,

Your post #17 goes to the fact that everyone in the U.S. wants a quick, clean end to the story. The news media lead the charge; no loose ends allowed. The government doesn't want loose ends. The American people are taught to eat Chef Boyardee, not loose ends. Loose ends are for long hairs, hippies, and the like. Marginal people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...one mauser without a scope was found on the roof of the TSBD.

1993 audio clip with Tom Alyea (the man who filmed the video I posted earlier).....

http://box.com/Alyea Clip

"There was no rifle on the roof. We looked everywhere." -- Tom Alyea; Nov. 20, 1993

More interviews:

Journalists Remember The JFK Assassination

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two of the rifles found in the TSBD on 11/22 were Mausers...

Great. Now we've got TWO make-believe "Mausers" (plural) being found in the Depository.

I guess the plotters were trying to frame that schnook Oswald by planting two rifles in the building. Did they figure Lee would be holding a gun in each hand simultaneously as he shot Kennedy?

...and there certainly is no evidence of anyone anywhere ever ordering a Mauser associated with this case.

And yet your goofy patsy-framers arranged so that TWO Mausers would be left inside the Depository, eh?

Brilliant work!

Everyone in the world that was watching television on 11/22 saw the Mauser being held up with the 7.65 Mauser stamped on it.

It might be nice if you stopped making things up, Ken.

FYI, here's the film showing the rifle in the TSBD. It's a Carcano. Not a Mauser....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/alyea-film.html

DVP, there are several youtube lnks that show Weitzman identifying the Mauser, is there a particular reason you chose one of the only ones that do not include him pointing to it and identifying it? Is there a reason that they had the rifle in their possession, with multiple sworn statements that it was a Mauser for more than 24 hours before someone changed the id to an MC? And only after it had been sent to DC, geez, couldn't anyone in Dallas read the info off the rifle? Well, other than Weitzman or Craig? got anymore Smoke and Mirrors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...one mauser without a scope was found on the roof of the TSBD.

1993 audio clip with Tom Alyea (the man who filmed the video I posted earlier).....

http://box.com/Alyea Clip

"There was no rifle on the roof. We looked everywhere." -- Tom Alyea; Nov. 20, 1993

More interviews:

Journalists Remember The JFK Assassination

Geez, I wouldn't expect them to find one there in 1993, that was about 30 years after the one that was found and shown in the film by the Dallas Cinema Associates as mentioned by Jim Garrison. That rifle was found in 1963. Maybe they shouldn't have spent their time looking 'everywhere' and concentrated on the fire escape where it was brought down from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Earth to Kenneth!.....

In my above audio clip, Alyea was speaking in 1993, yes. But he was talking about the things that happened in 1963, not 1993.

(Is it even possible that it was actually necessary for me to type out that last sentence? I guess so, because Ken is here. Incredible.)

And the DCA film shows a shotgun, not a Mauser rifle. It's no doubt a shotgun owned by the DPD.

And Weitzman has repeatedly said his initial IDing of the rifle as a Mauser was an "honest mistake".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G04azA5NFoo

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is half baked researchers shooting their mouths off with nothing more than a couple of Youtube videos to back them up.

In infantry rifles of the world, there were three main calibres of Mausers; the 7.65mm, the 7mm and the 7.92mm (8mm). The 7mm and 8mm were the calibres employed by German infantry rifles, although the 7mm was mostly abandoned by the time WW I began. The 8mm Mauser served the German infantry during two world wars.

The 7.65x53mm Mauser became known as the Argentine Mauser, for the simple fact it was adopted by the armies of almost every country in South America, plus the armies of Turkey and Belgium. It is less commonly known as the 7.65mm Belgian Mauser.

Roger Craig was either seriously deluded, or outright lying. The simple fact of the matter is that Mauser never stamped the calibre of the 7.65mm Mauser anywhere on the barrel, or the receiver, for that matter.

Let me tell you a secret, Kenneth. Just because you see something in a Youtube video, does not necessarily mean it is true.

" Everyone in the world that was watching television on 11/22 saw the Mauser being held up with the 7.65 Mauser stamped on it."

Not really trying to help DVP out here but, the truth of the matter is, no 7.65mm Argentine Mauser (not the military issue, anyways) ever had the calibre stamped on it anywhere.

Thanks for your comment, but who said anything about Argentine? The picture above that DVP shows is not of the Mauser. Everyone in the civilized world knows that there were two rifles found inside the TSBD that day, one Mauser (Roger Craig) and One MC( not c2766) and one mauser without a scope was found on the roof of the TSBD. I can't say that I could actually read the words or numbers one the rifle that was held up, but I could see him (Constable Wietzman) point to them and read them off the weapon itself. I actually saw that on TV in 1963, I don't need to see a picture of it now to remind me. It is available on youtube if you want to see it.

Perhaps you could post a link to this video showing Weitzman pointing to identifying marks on a rifle. If he is pointing to the base of the barrel of a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser, I'm afraid I have bad news for you. This is what he would have been pointing to:

argentima-1909-n-crest-copia1.jpg

No calibre stamp, only a crest. On the side of the receiver, he would have seen this:

007-2.jpg

Still think anyone read the calibre off of this rifle?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

Why are you trying to jam the word "Argentine" into Kenneth Drew's mouth and posts? Kenneth never said anything about his TWO make-believe "Mausers" specifically being "Argentine" Mausers. He just said Mauser, period.

And in most of the early Nov. 22 reports on TV and radio, the commentators are calling the TSBD rifle a "German Mauser". (Except for a couple of references made by Ron Reiland and Bob Clark, who call it an "Argentine Mauser" at one point.)

It's true that one of the Dallas deputies who first saw the gun on the sixth floor on Nov. 22, Seymour Weitzman, said in his affidavit on Nov. 23 that the rifle was a "7.65 Mauser".....

Seymour-Weitzman-Affidavit

But Weitzman, of course, was incorrect about the type of gun it was, and he later said he was mistaken, as everyone can hear him say for themselves in the 1967 video I presented earlier, which includes a statement by Weitzman that a large number of conspiracy theorists have completely ignored. And the CTers who haven't ignored it usually say that Weitzman was lying in that 1967 interview with CBS. The CTers can see the shiftiness in Weitzman's eyes. But the things a CTer can "see" don't usually have any relation to reality at all.

More Mauser Talk (And Roger Craig Talk Too):
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-803.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, this question is off topic, but it's a sentiment I wanted to share after reading post after post started by you about Oswald or physical evidence, and I don't want to start a new topic. Most of the topics you start are ones that revolve around basic physical evidence and have been debated for decades. And even being a CTer, I find myself agreeing with a great deal of what you say. That being said, they are 'safe' positions for you to defend. But have you ever tried reaching out for the other side, in the words of Bread, to start debate with CTers with things more challenging to defend? For example, have you read Someone Would Have Talked or Nexus by Larry Hancock? I do have respect for your convictions and would honestly like to see you debate this kind of content rather than with CTers who have a rather predictable position and continually bicker about areas like physics or forensics which they have no professional expertise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian,

No, I have not read Larry Hancock's books. In fact, I haven't read very many conspiracy books at all. But that doesn't mean I don't know what many of their arguments and theories are. I've been exposed to a whole lot of the "CT theories" on the Internet. Just about all of them, in fact. And I've discussed many different theories with various CTers in the last several years online. And I think many of those discussions go beyond merely the "safe" topics you alluded to previously....

assorted-jfk-assassination-arguments.blogspot.com

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html

But just for curiosity sake, Brian, what specific sub-topic in Mr. Hancock's books did you have in mind in your last post?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily disagree with you that a cursory internet search can discover a lot of themes behind popular conspiracy theories. However, I think in doing so you fall into the same trap as Bugliosi of broadly and crudely dismissing all evidence of conspiracy. There are some authors like Hancock who lay out an intricate and nuanced argument for conspiracy based on demonstrable evidence. In discounting this merely because it points to conspiracy, it undermines your credibility, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some authors like Hancock who lay out an intricate and nuanced argument for conspiracy based on demonstrable evidence.

Can you point me to any of this "demonstrable evidence" of conspiracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEBUNKING THE "OSWALD NEVER ORDERED THE RIFLE" MYTH....

======================

Here's a real doozy of a conspiracy myth:

Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered any rifle at all from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of 1963.

Now, given the overwhelming evidence in this case that proves Lee Oswald definitely did order the rifle that ultimately ended up being the weapon that killed John F. Kennedy, the above theory/myth is totally preposterous and should be downright embarrassing to any conspiracy theorist who suggests such a thing.

And it's certainly not a new allegation either. In one of the first books ever written on the JFK assassination in 1966, "Rush To Judgment", lawyer and first-generation Warren Commission critic Mark Lane strongly suggested that there could have been something sinister going on with respect to the rifle and the way it was ordered through the mail. Lane also seemed to suggest the possibility that Oswald and A.J. Hidell (Oswald's alias) just might have been two different persons, which is an utterly implausible notion. Here's what Lane said in his book:

"It is of course possible that Oswald or Hidell or someone else ordered a rifle from the February issue of The American Rifleman and that Klein's sent a different but similar weapon by mistake. Without a suitable explanation, however, the chain of evidence relating Oswald, or Hidell, to the weapon appears damaged. The Commission failed to explore this possibility and thereby closed its mind to an important aspect of the investigation." -- Page 138 of "Rush To Judgment"

But, in reality, the "chain of evidence relating Oswald to the weapon" is not "damaged" at all, because the trail of evidence that tells any reasonable person that Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 (Commission Exhibit 139) was ordered, paid for, and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") is so extensive and complete and ironclad that it would take a person who has his head completely buried in conspiracy sand to believe that Oswald did not receive that exact rifle in the mail in late March 1963.

THE RIFLE FACTS:

1.) It has been proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did, in fact, order a mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods Company in Chicago in March of 1963. The handwriting on all of the documents connected with the Klein's transaction is that of Oswald's, which proves beyond all doubt that it was Oswald (and no other person) who ordered and paid for Carcano rifle #C2766 that was shipped to Oswald/Hidell by Klein's in March 1963 [Warren Report, p.118-122]. (But, of course, many conspiracy buffs no longer think any handwriting analysis is worth a hill of beans. Which would mean that all of the various handwriting experts who testified over the years that it was positively Oswald's writing on the multiple documents associated with the rifle purchase must have all been dead wrong--or they all simply lied.)

2.) Regardless of the fact that Oswald technically did order a 36-inch Italian carbine, per the words written in the February 1963 American Rifleman magazine ad that Oswald used to order the rifle (pictured below), Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped a 40-inch rifle with serial number C2766 on it to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963.

Kleins-Rifle-Ad-February-1963.jpg

The internal paperwork generated by Klein's at the time in March of 1963 (see Waldman Exhibit No. 7 and the Warren Commission testimony of William J. Waldman, beginning at 7 H 360) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766").

Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg

The likely explanation for why Oswald received a 40-inch rifle instead of the 36-inch model that he ordered via the Klein's mail-order coupon is pretty simple and logical, and it is this: Klein's very likely ran out of the 36-inch model shortly before receiving Oswald's order, and hence shipped a very similar (but slightly lengthier) gun instead.

In August 2010, Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza provided this writer with some detailed information concerning the advertisements that Klein's was running in American Rifleman magazine throughout the calendar year of 1963. Mr. Mack's research revealed the fact that the February '63 Klein's ad was very likely the last time during the year 1963 that Klein's advertised the 36-inch Italian carbine. All other ads for that year that Mack was able to find indicate that the 40-inch rifle was being advertised. Here's the breakdown of the Klein's ads for that year in American Rifleman magazine:

Jan 63 -- p. 61 -- 36-inch 6.5 Italian Carbine -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)

Feb 63 -- p. 65 -- Same ad as above

Mar 63 -- No ad

Apr 63 -- p. 55 -- 40-inch 6.5 Italian Carbine -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)

May 63 -- Missing pp. 63-66

Jun 63 -- p. 59 -- 40-inch 6.5 Italian Carbine -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)

Jul 63 -- p. 67 -- 40-inch 6.5 Italian Carbine -- $12.78 -- $19.95 (with scope)

Aug 63 -- p. 79 -- Same ad as above

Sep 63 -- p. 89 -- Same ad as above

Oct 63 -- p. 85 -- Same ad as above

Nov 63 -- No ad

Dec 63 -- No ad

[source: E-mail to David Von Pein from Gary Mack, August 18, 2010.]

In that same e-mail, Gary Mack went on to say this:

"Oswald ordered the 36-inch rifle but, probably due to Klein's running out of stock, he received the 40-inch model instead. The price remained the same, so Klein's may have just sent him the newly available model instead. They would certainly accept a return if he didn't want it.

The [sixth Floor] Museum's copy of the May 1963 issue is missing four pages and, since Klein's ads normally ran in the back half of the magazine, it was likely on one of those pages. But as you can see, the ad for the months before and after May showed the exact same 40-inch rifle.

I don't know when the American Rifleman normally went to press, but I would think they'd want the new issue to appear on the newsstands and in subscribers' mailboxes at or shortly before the beginning of each month. That would mean all ad copy must be ready and in the hands of the publisher at least 30 days ahead of time, maybe more.

If Klein's ran out of 36-inch rifles in January, they might not even have enough time to get a corrected ad in by the March deadline. Maybe that's why there was no ad in the March issue. Perhaps Klein's sold out of the Carcano and other weapons and just couldn't update their new ad before the deadline."

3.) A palmprint belonging to that of Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered on a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the serial number C2766 on it after the gun was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

Conspiracy theorists can gripe and moan about how this palmprint of Oswald's never really existed at all, but we're still left with the official record in this case, and that record shows us that a palmprint of Oswald's was, in fact, lifted off of rifle C2766 by Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C. Day on 11/22/63, shortly before the weapon was turned over to the FBI late that night [see 4 H 261 and 4 H 24 and this 11/23/63 FBI memo].

4.) In the early 1990s, fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice, by utilizing different methods of fingerprint photo comparison, was able to find well over a dozen points of identity linking the previously unidentified fingerprints on the trigger housing of the C2766 Carcano rifle to Lee Harvey Oswald's comparison prints. [see Part 3 of the 1993 PBS-TV documentary, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?"]

To any reasonable person who evaluates this evidence concerning the fingerprints found near the rifle's trigger, this shows that it's very likely that the last person who touched rifle C2766 prior to its being found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was Lee Harvey Oswald.

5.) Just days after Klein's shipped rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell, Lee Oswald asked his wife, Marina, to take some pictures of him in the backyard of their small Neely Street apartment in Dallas [1 H 15-16].

As near as can be determined, those backyard pictures were taken by Marina Oswald on March 31, 1963. Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald/Hidell on March 20th. So the timing is just about perfect in that regard. In other words, there was time for the rifle to reach Oswald's Dallas post office box in that 11-day interim.

Oswald-Backyard-Photos.jpg

6.) Photographic experts for the House Select Committee on Assassinations determined that the rifle that Oswald is holding in the backyard photos is "the same weapon" [6 HSCA 66] that was found by police on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

The HSCA determined, therefore, that the rifle being held by Lee Harvey Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the very same rifle that was determined to be the weapon used to assassinate John F. Kennedy:

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." [6 HSCA 66]

Now, given all of the above evidence (plus adding in just a small amount of common sense to go with it), can any reasonable person really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 in the year 1963?

I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.

Author Vincent Bugliosi made an excellent observation about some conspiracy theorists when he said this in his book "Reclaiming History", which is a quote that fits in nicely when discussing the topic of Oswald's rifle purchase:

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; ...treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained."

--------------

For additional discussions concerning Oswald's rifle purchase and the controversy surrounding the documents related to that gun purchase, check out the Internet weblinks located HERE and HERE.

And also see pages 62-69 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On".

David Von Pein

August 2010

February 2013

December 2014

I don't really see what difference it made who ordered a rifle from a mail order house. In this case you're alledging that LHO did, but can supply no proof whatsoever. But suppose you could, what difference does that make since there is no evidence that anyone ever used the weapon in question for any known purpose. Or that the person you alledge ordered the weapon ever used the weapon. So, boiling it all down, you alledge that A Hidell ordered the weapon, that A Hidell is really LHO, That LHO used the rifle to pose for some pictures, that LHO used the weapon to shoot JFK from the snipers nest. But you're only falling short on the little matter of proving any of it. To do this, you cite a card in a wallet that LHO has never seen as proof of who A Hidell really is. Then you offer some faked photos to show that LHO had possession of A rifle, though there is no way to prove that it is THE weapon. Then there is absolutely no proof that the MC was ever fired at anyone. No proof at all. Certainly no proof that LHO ever fired ANY weapon. No gun shot residue in the parrafin test on his cheek when everyone that test fired the weapon had gs residue. No fingerprints. To sum it all up, you don't even have a circumstantial case. No proof of ANYTHING. DVP, all smoke and mirrors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brian and David, perhaps I can simplify matters by outlining a couple of premises for my work. Personally I think a case can be made that a through, open ended investigation of leads that would have pointed to individuals beyond Lee Oswald was aborted within 48-72 hours - for national security purposes. The corollary to that being that both information and evidence was managed to keep such leads and any suggestive evidence or conspiracy out of the official record - the result being exactly what the FBI itself was directed to do, prepare a difficult report presenting Lee Oswald as the sole individual involved in the crime. The Warren Commission operated with essentially that approach, I do think there were a number of loose ends left during that process, and a considerable amount of suggestive information withheld from the official investigation. I see that as sufficient to drive debate over criminal evidence and investigative practices far beyond my life time.

Given that as an assumption I turn to leads and in particular individuals which offer indications of a broader conspiracy. To do that I'm willing to go further with particular individuals, both individually and with associations, than is generally accepted by the sorts of treatments you find on John McAdam's web site. At that point you have to make a decision and accept my analysis and estimates or John's; I suspect David would find John's more palatable. The the basic quandary that any jury would face, one side presents witnesses and the other tears them apart. I've made my assessment so I'm perfectly happy to let others accept or reject what they find in my books. I make no pretense that a good deal of what I cover is both subjective and circumstantial; given my starting premises as stated I don't see how it could be any other way.

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

×
×
  • Create New...