Jump to content
The Education Forum

SouthPaw


Recommended Posts

Tom,

This somewhat confirms what I had wondered about, but not conclusively. While I have no reason to doubt Mr. Ayoob, in all fairness one would still have to consider his "testimony" about LHO's right- or left-handed shooting tendancies to be mere heresay, and, as they said on the old Perry Mason TV show, inadmissable. Now, if we could come up with evidence that Oswald actually fired his rifle from a left-handed position--perhaps a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle in his normal firing position, perhaps corroborating testimony of someone who served with Oswald and who witnessed Oswald's actual use of a rifle, then I'd say you have something more than a theory.

But for now, it's looking like a pretty good theory, and one that could explain the reason that right-handed shooters had such difficulty using the scope in the manner it was mounted on Mannlicher-Carcano C2766.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

This somewhat confirms what I had wondered about, but not conclusively. While I have no reason to doubt Mr. Ayoob, in all fairness one would still have to consider his "testimony" about LHO's right- or left-handed shooting tendancies to be mere heresay, and, as they said on the old Perry Mason TV show, inadmissable. Now, if we could come up with evidence that Oswald actually fired his rifle from a left-handed position--perhaps a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle in his normal firing position, perhaps corroborating testimony of someone who served with Oswald and who witnessed Oswald's actual use of a rifle, then I'd say you have something more than a theory.

But for now, it's looking like a pretty good theory, and one that could explain the reason that right-handed shooters had such difficulty using the scope in the manner it was mounted on Mannlicher-Carcano C2766.

Mark, does this help?

LHO_training.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Denis, thanks for that photo. It appears to me that the photo shows a certain Marine in a right-handed shooting position. Does anyone have any real evidence that Oswald ever shot left-handed? If so, I'd love to see it. While I tend to side with Tom Purvis' explanation of many other aspects of the JFK shooting, I still haven't seen evidence to support the contention that Oswald ever fired a bolt-action rifle left-handed. And while that explanation WOULD explain the orientation of the scope on C2766, supporting evidence aside from heresay is simply lacking, at least at this time.

I would agree that Oswald had the skills necessary to make three shots at 100 yards or less in 8-9 seconds. But as Bill points out, we still can't prove that Oswald was the triggerman.

And even Mr. Purvis mentioned that a shot from a building on another corner of the Elm and Houston intersection couldn't be absolutely ruled out.

SO...much as I'd like to believe that Oswald shot the M-C left-handed, and put the seeming incongruities of the rifle and scope to rest, I'm still looking for the evidence to allow us to do that.

"...and maybe the real assassin was left handed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

This somewhat confirms what I had wondered about, but not conclusively. While I have no reason to doubt Mr. Ayoob, in all fairness one would still have to consider his "testimony" about LHO's right- or left-handed shooting tendancies to be mere heresay, and, as they said on the old Perry Mason TV show, inadmissable. Now, if we could come up with evidence that Oswald actually fired his rifle from a left-handed position--perhaps a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle in his normal firing position, perhaps corroborating testimony of someone who served with Oswald and who witnessed Oswald's actual use of a rifle, then I'd say you have something more than a theory.

But for now, it's looking like a pretty good theory, and one that could explain the reason that right-handed shooters had such difficulty using the scope in the manner it was mounted on Mannlicher-Carcano C2766.

For your information:

Gary;

I am of course aware of the photograph(s) which demonstrate LHO holding the rigle and firing from the right shoulder.

Which merely means that a photo was taken of him being properly positioned by the Gunnery/Firing Range Instructor.

It neither indicates/confirms that LHO was right handed, nor does it provide sufficient evidentiary fact to establish eye dominance.

And, as I long ago stated, many "Southpaw" shooter were required to fire the M-1 Garand right handed, even though they may in fact be left handed.

This was due to the ejection pattern of the M-1 in which a left handed shooter could end up with a hot, empty shell casing being ejected out of the rifle and into the right eye of the shooter.

There exists more than sufficient evidence to indicate that LHO was at least, ambidextrous, and quite possibly fully "Left eye Dominant".

Now!

What has not as of yet been gotten around to is the simple fact that a "right-handed" person, who may happen to be "left-eye-dominant", can actually fire the Carcano (or any similar bolt action rifle mounted with scope), easier and faster than can most fully "right-sided" persons.

This decrease in firing time is due primarily to a considerably easier target acquisition with the left-side mounted scope.

In "normal" best case with a right handed person, the scope is mounted directly over center of the rifle, in direct alignment with the existing fixed sights.

Therefore, when a right-dominant shooter places his cheek to the rilfle stock and establishes his spot-weld and sight alignment, then the right eye is considerably more in directl alignment with the center of the stock, and therefore the center of the rifle sights ans scope.

For a "left-eye dominant person who fires right handed, they must either lean their check/face/spot weld far over the stock in order to obtain eye to sight alignment (if firing right handed), or else affect considerably adjustment to the sights in order to compensate for the considerable "offset" difference between the two eyes.

(much the same as a camera lense parallax and what it sees).

HOWEVER!

For a person who is, or can shoot right handed, yet is in fact "left-eye-dominant", then the left of center mounted scope makes it much easier to acquire the proper sighting/target acquisition through the scope.

The reason being that when one takes up the right-handed firing position with the proper spot weld of right cheek to the weapon stock, then the left eye is in fact slightly off-set to the left of the weapon, in direct parallel with the rifle barrell.

Thusly, a left-side mounted scope which is slightly left of center of the rifle barrel, happens to be in almost perfect alignment with utilization of the left eye for sighting, when firing from the right handed position.

A fully "right-handed/right eye dominant" person would have to take additional time in learning to acquire some semblance of proper check to stock spot weld, as well as adjust for the offset scope in sighting with the right eye.

Therefore, the time in which a fully right-handed person would take to operate the bolt of the rifle would be the same as that for a right-handed/left-eye domimant shooter.

The difference in time being that the left eye dominant person can, under most normal shooting sequences, acquire the sighting faster through the left-sided mounted scope ans the moment that he places his cheek to the stock, then his left eye is in alignment with the left-side mounted scope.

Thereby saving valuable time in actual sighting/target acquisition of the weapon.

Too bad some of all of these great shooters have not taken the time to fully explain the potential of a right-handed shooter who is left-eye dominant, shooting a weapon with a left-of center-mounted scope.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I agree with your assessment. I just haven't seen anyone produce conclusive evidence, beyond heresay, that Oswald was left-eye dominant. But it WOULD explain why the scope on C2766 was mounted the way it was.

At this point, though, I've seen no onw who would've been in a position to have known state unequivocably that LHO either fired left-handed, or was left-eye dominant.

The scope on C2766 was set up for a left-eye dominant shooter; that's pretty clear. I just want to determine conclusively that the shooter it was set up for, was LHO. Haven't seen that evidence yet. [And I'm still having doubts about the Klein's evidence...still some fishy stuff there, like the money order serial number being out-of-sequence, IMHO, that makes the "official" story of LHO's rifle procurement hard to believe.]

For the most part, I'm with you, Tom...just seeking the evidence to prove you're right. I'm hoping that if anyone has photos [of LHO firing a rifle left-handed, for example] or can cite actual evidence, this thread might prod them to come forward with it.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I agree with your assessment. I just haven't seen anyone produce conclusive evidence, beyond heresay, that Oswald was left-eye dominant. But it WOULD explain why the scope on C2766 was mounted the way it was.

At this point, though, I've seen no onw who would've been in a position to have known state unequivocably that LHO either fired left-handed, or was left-eye dominant.

The scope on C2766 was set up for a left-eye dominant shooter; that's pretty clear. I just want to determine conclusively that the shooter it was set up for, was LHO. Haven't seen that evidence yet. [And I'm still having doubts about the Klein's evidence...still some fishy stuff there, like the money order serial number being out-of-sequence, IMHO, that makes the "official" story of LHO's rifle procurement hard to believe.]

For the most part, I'm with you, Tom...just seeking the evidence to prove you're right. I'm hoping that if anyone has photos [of LHO firing a rifle left-handed, for example] or can cite actual evidence, this thread might prod them to come forward with it.

I agree with your assessment. I just haven't seen anyone produce conclusive evidence, beyond heresay, that Oswald was left-eye dominant. But it WOULD explain why the scope on C2766 was mounted the way it was.

Left hand side of weapon is the only place to mount the scope!

But just may help to explain as to exactly why the crosshairs were "run-out" to pretty much their maximum adjustment in order to accurately correlate cross-hair alignment with bullet impact point.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_10_64_AM.htm

Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, Robert says nothing. I have tried to contact Robert for important matters, and Robert will not talk.

Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. And I wanted to know if Lee shot left handed. Because on Lee's leaves, as I stated, they live out in the country, and Robert goes squirrel hunting, and all kinds of hunting. And on leaves from the Marines, Lee has gone out to this farmhouse, to Robert's family house, and he and his brother have gone squirrel hunting. And so Robert would know if Lee shot left handed, and he would not give me the information, gentlemen.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Robert left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Robert is left handed. I am left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Is John Pic left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, John is not.

Mr. RANKIN. But you are?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Now, I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand.

But Lee was more left handed than I am.

I write left handed, but I do everything else with my right hand. But Lee was left handed.

Mr. RANKIN. Was Lee Oswald's father left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. That I do not remember, Mr. Rankin. No--I am the left handed one. I would say no.

Mrs. OSWALD. About Robert knowing about the gun--I have already said that. About Lee being left handed, and he and Robert going squirrel hunting.

Mr. RANKIN. You said there was another gun matter.

Mrs. OSWALD. That is a long, long story.

The CHAIRMAN. I think she has gotten to the point----

Mrs. OSWALD. I got to the point I finished this story, really, don't you think--about the gun?

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know.

Mrs. OSWALD. I think about Robert knowing Lee was left handed.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/2_12_64_AM.htm

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, will you examine Exhibits 244 through 250, both inclusive, and tell us whether or not those are photostatic copies of communications of your son that you recognize the handwriting on of the originals?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOYLE. If you do not on any one of them, announce the number.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is one I would believe that I have stated--if he wrote it, he wrote it very careful. It is not scribbled like he usually does.

Mr. DOYLE. That is 246.

Mr. Rankin. Can you tell whether or not that is his signature on the second page of Exhibit 246?

Mrs. OSWALD. It is just a little different. That could be forged. Just a little difference. We write left handed, and we have a trend.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir.. 255. This looks like Lee's handwriting--a lot of misspelling, and his signature. 256.

Now his Russian handwriting I know only from return addresses. However, I do have two brown papers with Russian writing on, from gifts that were sent to me. But I don't know if Lee addressed them or not.

And this is Lee's handwriting with a very fine pen. Isn't this handwriting backwards for a left hand? It seems when I looked at "my," it should be going this way--because I write like Lee, left handed.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us whether your husband was right handed or left handed?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, he was right handed..

His brother writes with his left hand and so does--his brother and mother both write with their left hand.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm

Mr. JENNER. I notice when you are smoking that you hold the cigarette in your left hand. Are you left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I am left handed when I write and eat.

Mr. JENNER. And you are right handed otherwise?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Throwing a baseball?

Mr. OSWALD. Throwing a baseball.

At one time I could handle it with both hands especially a football better than a baseball. But I have returned to my right hand on that. I was more accurate with my right hand than with my left hand, in throwing things. I kick footballs right footed and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. What about your father? Was he right handed or left handed?

Mr. OSWALD. This I do not know, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Your mother?

Mr. OSWALD. My mother is left handed.

Mr. JENNER. And your brother Lee?

Mr. OSWALD. He was right handed.

Representative FORD. Was there ever a time that he appeared to be left handed, as far as you recollect?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. I have never known him to handle anything--throw a baseball, football, et cetera, fire a rifle, or do anything, left handed.

Mr. JENNER. In order to be certain of the details in this respect, when he wrote, did he write with his right or his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Right handed.

Mr. JENNER. Right handed?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you in fact have seen him write with his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I have.

Mr. JENNER. During your youth?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever--was there ever an occasion when you saw him write or attempt to write with his left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen him at any time, on any occasion, ever attempt to write or do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. You really covered my next question, but I would like to ask it anyhow.

There are men in athletics who are either right handed or left handed, but who throw or bat or do something from the other side.

Did he ever throw left handed or in any athletic endeavor employ his left hand predominantly as against his right hand?

Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not to my knowledge, he never did.

Mr. JENNER. From your many years of experience with him, being associated with him, as his brother, was he a predominantly right-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; he most certainly was.

Representative FORD. And you personally saw him throw, kick, or do anything athletic over the years, and saw him use his right hand exclusively?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. I would say without qualification--I might be repeating myself here at no time did I ever know him to do anything left handed, to the extent that it would be predominant. Of course his hands worked together, and so forth. But I have never known him to do anything left handed.

Mr. JENNER. From your long acquaintance with him, and your intimate knowledge of his physical characteristics in that respect, do you have an opinion as to whether he was instinctively right-handed or instinctively a left-handed person?

Mr. OSWALD. I would say he was instinctively a right-handed person.

Mr. JENNER. In all the years you were with him, you had opportunity to see him react instantaneously without having time to think about using his right hand or left hand?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you observe him on many occasions?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes. I have never known him to use his left hand in any manner when an occasion would require that he use either hand--instinctively went to his right hand.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a coordinated person in the use of his right hand? Some are not coordinated athletically.

Mr. OSWALD. My opinion of this, sir, would be that he was coordinated to the extent that looking at myself and many, I would compare us as two peas in a pod. Quite fast, well coordinated.

Mr. JENNER. He was dextrous?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And well coordinated?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you had an opportunity over the years to see him engage in athletics, did you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. During your youth, as a young man, in any event, did you and your brother John and Lee have an interest in guns, rifles, pistols, cap guns, firearms generally?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we certainly did. I would say this.

Mr. JENNER. Now, this includes all three of you?

Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I understand that.

Of course John and I, when we attended military school, we had more of an opportunity to become acquainted with firearms. We certainly played with cap pistols, rubber guns, et cetera, when we were young. Lee did the same thing.

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

NOTE: The WC does not do this much "fishing" unless they are looking for something specific!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_j.htm

Mr. JENNER - By the way, are you right handed?

Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER - Is your brother Lee right or left handed?

Mr. PIC - I think he was right handed, sir. I think we were all right handed, Robert had tendencies toward the left hand and I think my mother made him change.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/murret_c.htm

Mr. JENNER - What are your boys, right handed or left handed?

Mr. MURRET - They are all right handed.

Mr. JENNER - Did they ever loan their equipment, particularly gloves, to Lee Oswald?

Mr. MURRET - Not to my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER - Not that you know of?

Mr. MURRET - That's right.

Mr. JENNER - Well, I think it's no secret that Mrs. Murret, your wife, did lend one of their gloves to Lee Harvey Oswald one time to play ball when he was in high school; did you know that?

Mr. MURRET - Well, she could have.

Mr. JENNER - She could have, and you wouldn't have known about it?

Mr. MURRET - That's right.

Mr. JENNER - But all of those gloves would have been gloves for boys who are right handers then, isn't that right, since all three of your boys are right handed?

Mr. MURRET - Yes, that's right. They are all right handers.

Mr. JENNER - Then the gloves were for the left hand, is that correct?

Mr. MURRET - Yes, that's correct, the left hand.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/murretl2.htm

Mr. JENNER - Does it look like what you recall his handwriting was?

Mrs. MURRET - Well, if it's anything, it's even a little better than I knew him to write, I might say. I never thought he wrote very well for his age, and he was 14 then, you know. Of course, a lot of boys don't write good. Girls, you will find, are better at penmanship than boys. You ought to see my son's writing. He graduated from law school, and he don't write good either. Now, I think he was left handed.

Mr. JENNER - I believe you said during the course of this discussion that you thought Lee was left handed. What led you to say that?

Mrs. MURRET - Well, as a child, when he was a small child, I knew he ate with his left hand, and I always thought that he did things with his left hand. Now, whether he used both hands or not, I don't know, but he did use his left hand as a child. I remember that.

Mr. JENNER - In fact, children are often ambidextrous, aren't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - They eat with either hand, don't they?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; they do. I have known of cases where children have started out eating with their left hands, and they switch over as they grow older to their right hands, but then there are some children who never use their right hand, I don't think.

Mr. JENNER - This was an impression you had of him as a very small boy though, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did you ever see Lee write left handed?

Mrs. MURRET - When?

Mr. JENNER - After he reached, say, high school age?

Mrs. MURRET - No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER - You never noticed it one way or the other?

Mrs. MURRET - No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER - When he was living with you during those 2 weeks, when they came back from New York, did you ever see him use his left hand?

Mrs. MURRET - I never noticed really.

Mr. JENNER - Your boys are all right handed, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Oh, yes.

Mr. JENNER - I remember you told me earlier today that Lee wanted to go out and play ball, and perhaps get on some team, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - And you gave him, you said, a glove that belonged to one of your boys, is that right?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Well, wasn't that glove for a right-handed player, if it belonged to one of your boys, and they were all right handed?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes; that's right.

Mr. JENNER - It was one of your boy's gloves, wasn't it?

Mrs. MURRET - Yes.

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

And I'm still having doubts about the Klein's evidence...still some fishy stuff there, like the money order serial number being out-of-sequence, IMHO, that makes the "official" story of LHO's rifle procurement hard to believe.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/alba.htm

Mr. LIEBELER - What did Oswald say about this particular Japanese rifle?

Mr. ALBA - Nothing other than his desire to possess the gun, or to purchase the gun from me.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you recall being interviewed by an agent of the FBI?

Mr. ALBA - Yes; I do.

Mr. ALBA - Twice, I believe. Let me retract that--the FBI came to the office, I think, three different times. I was never up in their office or contacted----

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you discuss this Japanese rifle with them?

Mr. ALBA - Yes; I did.

Mr. LIEBELER - And do you recall telling them that Oswald was interested in the number of inches that had been cut from the barrel of the gun?

Mr. ALBA - I believe I did; yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you recall what Oswald said, about that?

Mr. ALBA - No; not other than a general discussion of the trajectory and the feet per second, and et cetera, and the general accuracy elimination--I mean elimination of the accuracy of the gun cutting the barrel off.

Mr. LIEBELER - What is the effect of cutting the barrel?

Mr. ALBA - On the accuracy of a rifle; none.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you tell Oswald that?

Mr. LIEBELER - Did he seem surprised?

Mr. ALBA - Not that my memory would--if my memory-would serve me correctly; no.

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

Well! As was previously indicated, the Klein's "Carbine" were actually old Long Rifles which had been "cut-down" in barrel length to make the Carbine, and were for all practical purposes (accuracy wise) worthless.

And, since LHO apparantly knew such things, then one must assume that in event that he ordered such a weapon (which the documents support that he did), then he merely wanted the weapon for the "Scope".

A "Klein's Scope" mounted on most any serial# C2766 Carcano, would appear to have actually come from Klein's, would it not?

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

Nothing so much fun as "pointing the finger" at a CIA Front Company and thereafter watching everyone as in "Incoming, run for cover"!

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

Sometimes, the unknowing, have no idea and/or concept as to exactly what they may have accidently uncovered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To summarize my understanding of the testimony cited, Marguerite Oswald and Mrs. Murrett say that LHO was left-handed...while Robert Oswald, John Pic, and Marina insist that LHO was right-handed...and Mr. Murrett never paid enough attention to know one way or the other.

And I like where you're headed with the info on Klein's and the Klein's-acquired Carcano. Obviously, a "carbine" acquired from Klein's, with a cut-off barrel, wouldn't be accurate enough to do what is alleged to have been done...so you're implying that LHO had a source for a SECOND Carcano, a "true" carbine, that just "happened" to carry the same serial number as the Klein's rifle?

Hmmm...wonder what that "second source" might've been...and how many Carcanos this second source must've had, in order to have one on which the serial numbers match. [Maybe the same source where LHO acquired the USMC-ordered ammo for the Carcano?]

The plot thickens...

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom-

I have several random questions and comments, so I will number them for your ease in responding.

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself.

2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish.

3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter?

4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me.

Chris

Edited by Christopher Hall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To summarize my understanding of the testimony cited, Marguerite Oswald and Mrs. Murrett say that LHO was left-handed...while Robert Oswald, John Pic, and Marina insist that LHO was right-handed...and Mr. Murrett never paid enough attention to know one way or the other.

And I like where you're headed with the info on Klein's and the Klein's-acquired Carcano. Obviously, a "carbine" acquired from Klein's, with a cut-off barrel, wouldn't be accurate enough to do what is alleged to have been done...so you're implying that LHO had a source for a SECOND Carcano, a "true" carbine, that just "happened" to carry the same serial number as the Klein's rifle?

Hmmm...wonder what that "second source" might've been...and how many Carcanos this second source must've had, in order to have one on which the serial numbers match. [Maybe the same source where LHO acquired the USMC-ordered ammo for the Carcano?]

The plot thickens...

so you're implying that LHO had a source for a SECOND Carcano, a "true" carbine, that just "happened" to carry the same serial number as the Klein's rifle?

When one is questioning someone else in regards to the effect on accuracy that cutting off some 4 to 6 inches of the barrel has on the weapon accuracy, then they are certainly knowledgeable about something which many are not aware of.

Especially with the "progressive twist" rifling which the old Carcano rifles (which were coverted to carbines) had.

Accuracy ability with these weapons is destroyed!

Secondly, even the true/unaltered "Carbine" was not a weapon of that great of accuracy, simply due to the short barrel.

The "Short Rifle" is a completely nother story, as it was an extremely accurate weapon!

Since "Serial Numbers" are in fact worthless on these items, the two "key's" which tie the assassination weapon to Klein's are the serial number and the scope.

So! Why order the "junker" Carbine/Long Rifle cut down to be made into an inaccurate weapon?

SCOPE!

Why have your picture taken with the Short Rifle!

Proof that you owned a Short Rifle which purportedly was received (a Carbine) from Klein's!

LHO acquired the USMC-ordered ammo for the Carcano?]

Personally, I would not place too large of a bet on exactly who purportedly ordered/paid for the Western 6.5mm Carcano Ammo.

LHO had a source for a SECOND Carcano, a "true" carbine, that just "happened" to carry the same serial number as the Klein's rifle?

In the event that one receives an old Model 91/24 Carbine (Long Rifle-cut down) with the Serial# C2766, then it is merely a search for an identical serial# weapon in the Model 91/38 Short Rifle, ; changing an existing serial number to match C2766 (by adding prefix and/or numbers); or finding a "blank" barrel which would not have any serial number stamped on it and thus making oneself a C2766 serial number.

Ordering of the "Carbine" from Klein's merely "pointed the finger" at an CIA front company which was in the arms business.

No doubt, someone (whoever thought up this idea) knew what would come of such an action, as well as probably got a good laugh out of it.

P.S. Ammunition made for true covert operations does not carry little slips of paper in each box with some "DA" Ordnance manufacture code, and it does not carry the headstamp of the manufacturer on the base of the cartridge.

(Think! Pink Elephant in Wal Mart parking lot.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom-

I have several random questions and comments, so I will number them for your ease in responding.

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself.

2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish.

3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter?

4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me.

Chris

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself.

Although Massad Ayoob is certainly a "Weapons Instructor", he was not one of the "Southpaws" who managed to operate and fire the Carcano in less than 1.6 seconds.

The "Second Chance Shoot" is/was an annual event, and the Carcano experiment held in 1992 was open to volunteers at the event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_(body_armor)

The event was begun by Richard Davis of the above.

Multitudes of persons have operated and fired the Carcano in less time than the WC's 2.3/2.4 seconds of time.

To include JFK researcher & Chiropracter by profession, Chad Zimmerman.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.

2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish.

It would be assumed that you are familiar with the left-handed bolt action rifles which are made by a few manufacturer's for the strictly left-handed/left eyed shooters.

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/rifles-42/14725...bolt-rifle.html

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?p=401847

The advantages of the "left-side" mounted scope for a right-handed/left eye dominant shooter, is something which has been known by those who instruct rifle accuracy, for many years.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews/1916bs...mount/index.asp

3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter?

It was mounted in the exact same position as Klein's mounts their scopes, it was not "off center".

However, those who attempted to shoot (right-handed/right-eyed), had trouble getting the crosshairs to align on target.

Guess What?

4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me.

1. Since of the shots fired, two of the bullets have been ballistically matched to the Carcano found on the sixth floor, then one can chase mythological "planted" weapons if they so desire.

2. Secondly, the Carcano is in fact a model of the Mauser, and is in fact known as the Italian Mauser.

3. Lastly, the recovered weapon was a Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle, and none of the barrel had been cut off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I apologize for my improper use of the term "carbine" when I most definitely meant "short rifle." Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, about something you mentioned in post #8:

CE 1331

And, since LHO apparantly knew such things, then one must assume that in event that he ordered such a weapon (which the documents support that he did), then he merely wanted the weapon for the "Scope".

A "Klein's Scope" mounted on most any serial# C2766 Carcano, would appear to have actually come from Klein's, would it not?

Note what CE 1331 says...that the scope itself could be acquired right in Dallas, at Dave's House of Guns, 2544 Elm...which is how many blocks on Elm from the TSBD ?? So I would suppose that LHO may have ordered the Carcano from Klein's (1) because he knew where he could obtain either a short rifle, or a barrel for a short rifle; AND/OR (2) because he wanted the scope MOUNT, not necessarily the scope itself.

A personal story re: scopes and mounts...When Dad died, one of the his guns I acquired was his Marlin 39A .22 LA. Over the years of plinking and squirrel hunting, Dad had lost the rear sight ramp. So the gun had remained a closet dust collector for me for a number of years. Then, as my eyesight started getting a bit poorer, I decided that the 4X scope that had been mounted on another gun of mine might make the 39A a potent squirrel gun again. But none of the local gun shops carried a Weaver-style scope mount for an older [c. 1950] 39A. Finally found the mount in stock when a Bass Pro Shop opened near me, and I had a local gunsmith mount the scope. And now I have a reliably accurate squirrel gun that's been in the family since new.

The point I'm attempting to make is that, in 1963, the MC wasn't exactly the most popular ex-mil rifle around...which would make the availability of accessory items fairly scarce. But since the scope itself could be found in Dallas--within blocks of where LHO was eventually to work--perhaps it was the scope MOUNT that sent LHO to Klein's...and the CIA running for cover, after-the-fact.

Make sense?

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom-

I have several random questions and comments, so I will number them for your ease in responding.

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself.

2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish.

3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter?

4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me.

Chris

1. The fact that a weapons instructor can pull of rapid working of a carcano bolt action and re-sighting for the next shot doesn't mean that most of us mortals can, at least not without a lot of practice. I have never attempted this, because I don't own a bolt action rifle, but I will borrow one sometime and give it a try. It may be easy, I just don't know, but I have seen expert marksmen pull off amazing displays of rapid fire shooting which are beyond someone like myself.

Although Massad Ayoob is certainly a "Weapons Instructor", he was not one of the "Southpaws" who managed to operate and fire the Carcano in less than 1.6 seconds.

The "Second Chance Shoot" is/was an annual event, and the Carcano experiment held in 1992 was open to volunteers at the event.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chance_(body_armor)

The event was begun by Richard Davis of the above.

Multitudes of persons have operated and fired the Carcano in less time than the WC's 2.3/2.4 seconds of time.

To include JFK researcher & Chiropracter by profession, Chad Zimmerman. I have heard about this.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Specialist Miller used 4.6 seconds on his first attempt, 5.15 seconds in his second attempt, and 4.45 seconds in his exercise using the iron sight.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.

Tom- Were any of these people right eye dominant, left handed?

2. I have never heard of a scope mounted to the left side to accomodate a right handed, left eye dominant shooters. As someone who is severely afflicted with this curse, I have shot semi-auto rifles with my left eye closed, albeit with modest success. Even if a shooter is right handed, left eye dominant, however, I think that learning to shoot a bolt action rifle (as opposed to an AR-15, for example) with a scope and with the left eye closed would not be difficult to accomplish.

It would be assumed that you are familiar with the left-handed bolt action rifles which are made by a few manufacturer's for the strictly left-handed/left eyed shooters. I am familier with these, but they don't interest me.

http://www.pafoa.org/forum/rifles-42/14725...bolt-rifle.html

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?p=401847

The advantages of the "left-side" mounted scope for a right-handed/left eye dominant shooter, is something which has been known by those who instruct rifle accuracy, for many years. This sounds intriguing. Thanks for the article.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews/1916bs...mount/index.asp

3. Was the scope on the Carcano just a little off center and to the left, or did it appear to be fitted to a left eye dominant right handed shooter?

It was mounted in the exact same position as Klein's mounts their scopes, it was not "off center". Thanks.

However, those who attempted to shoot (right-handed/right-eyed), had trouble getting the crosshairs to align on target.

Guess What?

4. What was the barrel length on the Carcano recovered from (or planted at) the scene? The pictures that I have scene of the rifle appear to have the barrel sawed off, to some extent, as you have noted in the WC transcript, but what was the actual sawed off length? The reason that I ask is that I perceive the barrel length of a Mauser K-98 (740 mm) to be considerably longer than that of the rifle taken into evidence from the 6th floor of TSBD. If I am correct, then it seems implausible to me that one or more law enforcement personnel mistakenly describe a chopped down Carcano as a Mauser. They may have the same or a similar bolt action (since the Mauser K98 action is copied even today), but they sure don't look the same to me.

1. Since of the shots fired, two of the bullets have been ballistically matched to the Carcano found on the sixth floor, then one can chase mythological "planted" weapons if they so desire.

2. Secondly, the Carcano is in fact a model of the Mauser, and is in fact known as the Italian Mauser. I know the Carcano is a Mauser copy, as are many bolt action guns manufactured since 1898 (e.g. the Springfield 1903 A3). I just don't hear the copies referred to as Mausers.

3. Lastly, the recovered weapon was a Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle, and none of the barrel had been cut off. How many inches was the barrel on the recovered rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I apologize for my improper use of the term "carbine" when I most definitely meant "short rifle." Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, about something you mentioned in post #8:

CE 1331

And, since LHO apparantly knew such things, then one must assume that in event that he ordered such a weapon (which the documents support that he did), then he merely wanted the weapon for the "Scope".

A "Klein's Scope" mounted on most any serial# C2766 Carcano, would appear to have actually come from Klein's, would it not?

Note what CE 1331 says...that the scope itself could be acquired right in Dallas, at Dave's House of Guns, 2544 Elm...which is how many blocks on Elm from the TSBD ?? So I would suppose that LHO may have ordered the Carcano from Klein's (1) because he knew where he could obtain either a short rifle, or a barrel for a short rifle; AND/OR (2) because he wanted the scope MOUNT, not necessarily the scope itself.

A personal story re: scopes and mounts...When Dad died, one of the his guns I acquired was his Marlin 39A .22 LA. Over the years of plinking and squirrel hunting, Dad had lost the rear sight ramp. So the gun had remained a closet dust collector for me for a number of years. Then, as my eyesight started getting a bit poorer, I decided that the 4X scope that had been mounted on another gun of mine might make the 39A a potent squirrel gun again. But none of the local gun shops carried a Weaver-style scope mount for an older [c. 1950] 39A. Finally found the mount in stock when a Bass Pro Shop opened near me, and I had a local gunsmith mount the scope. And now I have a reliably accurate squirrel gun that's been in the family since new.

The point I'm attempting to make is that, in 1963, the MC wasn't exactly the most popular ex-mil rifle around...which would make the availability of accessory items fairly scarce. But since the scope itself could be found in Dallas--within blocks of where LHO was eventually to work--perhaps it was the scope MOUNT that sent LHO to Klein's...and the CIA running for cover, after-the-fact.

Make sense?

1) because he knew where he could obtain either a short rifle, or a barrel for a short rifle;

Although one could exchange virtually any barrel with the receiver of any model, a "Short Rifle" barrel on a pure carbine stock would not work out due to the differences in forearm grip as well as the specific "tapered" bayonet mounting lug mount and front nosecap.

Therefore!

In event that LHO actually ordered and received the 36-inch Carbine and/or (Short Rifle cut to Carbine Length) with serial C2766, then someone who had a supply of Carcano's and/or parts, managed to provide him with a Short Rifle which bore the exact same serial number.

Which, with all things considered, would not be that difficult.

The point I'm attempting to make is that, in 1963, the MC wasn't exactly the most popular ex-mil rifle around...which would make the availability of accessory items fairly scarce. But since the scope itself could be found in Dallas--within blocks of where LHO was eventually to work--perhaps it was the scope MOUNT that sent LHO to Klein's...and the CIA running for cover, after-the-fact.

Make sense?

Yep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...