Jump to content
The Education Forum

Proof that the Depository Carcano wasn't Oswald's


Gil Jesus
 Share

Recommended Posts

CE 134 is an enlargement of CE133-A.

I invite everyone to look at it and see the mounting and ring on the bottom of the rifle.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0267b.htm

Likewise, the rifle advertised in the ad ( February 1963 ) that Oswald ordered the rifle from was clearly equipped for a bottom mounted sling:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=222208

Oswald ordered and was photographed with a rifle that was equipped for a a bottom mounted sling.

But the Depository Carcano was not.

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/...p5Fd3Ig=/large/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 134 is an enlargement of CE133-A.

I invite everyone to look at it and see the mounting and ring on the bottom of the rifle.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0267b.htm

Likewise, the rifle advertised in the ad ( February 1963 ) that Oswald ordered the rifle from was clearly equipped for a bottom mounted sling:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=222208

Oswald ordered and was photographed with a rifle that was equipped for a a bottom mounted sling.

But the Depository Carcano was not.

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/...p5Fd3Ig=/large/

Forget it!

Long ago demonstrated as to why the ring "appears" to come from the bottom of the weapon.

Not only that, in addition to those photo's that I provided, other similar photo's have been long available which demonstrates the exact same thing.

Clailms such as this is why David Von Pein actually has any credibility.

What will we be hearing about next and again? The infamous "six-groove" non-existant bullet?

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 134 is an enlargement of CE133-A.

I invite everyone to look at it and see the mounting and ring on the bottom of the rifle.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0267b.htm

Likewise, the rifle advertised in the ad ( February 1963 ) that Oswald ordered the rifle from was clearly equipped for a bottom mounted sling:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=222208

Oswald ordered and was photographed with a rifle that was equipped for a a bottom mounted sling.

But the Depository Carcano was not.

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/...p5Fd3Ig=/large/

Forget it!

Long ago demonstrated as to why the ring "appears" to come from the bottom of the weapon.

Not only that, in addition to those photo's that I provided, other similar photo's have been long available which demonstrates the exact same thing.

Clailms such as this is why David Von Pein actually has any credibility.

What will we be hearing about next and again? The infamous "six-groove" non-existant bullet?

____________________

"Photos" is possessive?? No, Tommy. Time to refer back to your McGuffey's Reader...

____________________

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CE 134 is an enlargement of CE133-A.

I invite everyone to look at it and see the mounting and ring on the bottom of the rifle.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0267b.htm

Likewise, the rifle advertised in the ad ( February 1963 ) that Oswald ordered the rifle from was clearly equipped for a bottom mounted sling:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=222208

Oswald ordered and was photographed with a rifle that was equipped for a a bottom mounted sling.

But the Depository Carcano was not.

http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/...p5Fd3Ig=/large/

Forget it!

Long ago demonstrated as to why the ring "appears" to come from the bottom of the weapon.

Not only that, in addition to those photo's that I provided, other similar photo's have been long available which demonstrates the exact same thing.

Clailms such as this is why David Von Pein actually has any credibility.

What will we be hearing about next and again? The infamous "six-groove" non-existant bullet?

____________________

"Photos" is possessive?? No, Tommy. Time to refer back to your McGuffey's Reader...

____________________

Provided previously were multiple photographs (photo's) which were generated by myself and which were my property as well as being in my possession.

Would that make them "multiply possessive"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's okay to talk down to people when you know everything.

The "myth" of the bottom sling swivel mount was long ago "debunked" here, complete with posting of my own personal photographs.

Were it that you were a true researcher (as opposed to one who is of the erroneous assumption that one can look at some vague photograph and resolve the issues), then you too would own several models of the Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle and thereafter conduct your own proper research prior to indicating to us all exactly how little that you know by a continuation of posting of this easily resolved "enigma".

Such completely asinine statements with absolultely no proof other than some highly vague photograph, are exactly why few rational persons accept or believe anything which contradicts the WC's multiple lies.

So, be my guest and continue to provide "stupidity bullets" to the likes of David Von Pein in order that he can continue to shoot you as well as anyone else who is in fact attempting to resolve the facts of the assassination of JFK by conducting proper empirical research into the various conflicts of evidence.

I certainly do not "know it all"!

However, I most assuredly know more than do you on the subject matter, along with more than a tad bit of experience in the proper means of research protocal.

Which oftens assists one in not inserting foot into mouth about something of which they apparantly know nothing.

The "Backyard Photo" may, or may not show a bottom mounted sling swivel.

One most assuredly can not state as fact that it does, due to the simple fact that the side mount sling swivel can easily appear as if it extends out the bottom of the forearm grip.

Just as one can not look at the photo and utilize it as proof that the weapon being held is either 6.5mm or 7.35mm caliber, along with exactly what the serial number of the weapon actually is.

Find something which is absolutely factual, and which can be demonstrated as factual and I will be more than glad to applaud you.

Otherwise, such BS as the "sling swivel" and the "six-groove bullet" does far more harm than good and makes us all appear not unlike the "kooks" which DVP is so fond of calling anyone who states that the WC was a lile.

Or, we can merely revert back to being the "Lack of Education Forum"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I've asked this question on another thread, I haven't seen it yet.

Is there a closeup photograph of the sling/rope/? whatever it is that is being utilized as a sling in the backyard photographs?

Is it a rope that's attached to the swivel mount?

Thanks,

BK

The best photo which I have seen was that in Lattimer's book.

And not unlike other items of the photograph, one can truly only seculate that it is in fact a rope.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I would like to draw your attention for a moment to this sling on Exhibit 139, and I would like to state for the record that this sling is not thought to be actually a rifle sling, but some type of homemade sling, that is, the firearms expert has so

Does this sling appear in either Commission Exhibits 133A or 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it does not. Commission Exhibit 133A has such a small portion of the sling showing that it--you cannot establish that it is or is not the same sling that is presently on the,

However, Commission Exhibit 133B does show the sling, since it shows the bottom of the rifle, and I find it to be different from the sling that is presently on the rifle. It has the appearance of being a piece of rope that is tied at both ends, rather than a leather sling, and it is my opinion that it is a different sling than is presently on the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Just again a homemade simulated sling, is that it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It has that appearance, yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. You testified that you have a much smaller view of the sling, or what passes for a sling, on 133A than on 133B. Is the sling or simulated sling on 133A, that portion of it which is visible, consistent with the sling on 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is entirely consistent.

Truthfully, nothing can be factually determined in regards to the sling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I've asked this question on another thread, I haven't seen it yet.

Is there a closeup photograph of the sling/rope/? whatever it is that is being utilized as a sling in the backyard photographs?

Is it a rope that's attached to the swivel mount?

Thanks,

BK

Don't know if this helps...

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Warren Commission talked in circles about the Carcano, and unfortunately it fooled a lot of people. But the truth is, based upon the records the WC used, LHO ordered, and Klein's Sporting Goods shipped, a model 91/24 Carcano. This rifle had a shortened barrel which removed the majority of its progressive-twist rifling, rendering the rifling ineffective, and thus the 91/24 was an inaccurate weapon. However, the rifle recovered in the TSBD was a model 91/38, for which there is NO paper trail of LHO ordering or receiving [from Klein's or anywhere else], and which was designed as a short-barreled rifle and was a HIGHLY accurate weapon.

The fraud, the lie, the scam, is that the WC passed off the 91/24 that Oswald ordered, Kleins shipped, and Oswald received, as the same 91/38 that was recovered in the TSBD.

As far as I can determine, the 91/24 either was never recovered by authorities, or if it was recovered, its recovery was covered up.

In modern guns, confusing the 91/24 and the 91/38 would be similar to confusing a Maverick Model 88 pump shotgun equipped with the 18-inch cylinder-bore barrel and the same Maverick Model 88 pump with a 24" rifled [slug] barrel...except there would only be one Maverick with any particular serial number, which is definitely not the case with a Carcano.

So...Gil...without getting into the sling/sling swivel issue, it can certainly be proved that the Depository Carcano wasn't the rifle that can be proved to have been received by Oswald. Whether the recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be determined by the evidence we have available...so I tend to believe it wasn't Oswalds, as THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Warren Commission talked in circles about the Carcano, and unfortunately it fooled a lot of people. But the truth is, based upon the records the WC used, LHO ordered, and Klein's Sporting Goods shipped, a model 91/24 Carcano. This rifle had a shortened barrel which removed the majority of its progressive-twist rifling, rendering the rifling ineffective, and thus the 91/24 was an inaccurate weapon. However, the rifle recovered in the TSBD was a model 91/38, for which there is NO paper trail of LHO ordering or receiving [from Klein's or anywhere else], and which was designed as a short-barreled rifle and was a HIGHLY accurate weapon.

The fraud, the lie, the scam, is that the WC passed off the 91/24 that Oswald ordered, Kleins shipped, and Oswald received, as the same 91/38 that was recovered in the TSBD.

As far as I can determine, the 91/24 either was never recovered by authorities, or if it was recovered, its recovery was covered up.

In modern guns, confusing the 91/24 and the 91/38 would be similar to confusing a Maverick Model 88 pump shotgun equipped with the 18-inch cylinder-bore barrel and the same Maverick Model 88 pump with a 24" rifled [slug] barrel...except there would only be one Maverick with any particular serial number, which is definitely not the case with a Carcano.

So...Gil...without getting into the sling/sling swivel issue, it can certainly be proved that the Depository Carcano wasn't the rifle that can be proved to have been received by Oswald. Whether the recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be determined by the evidence we have available...so I tend to believe it wasn't Oswalds, as THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38.

Nice recap, Mark -- This above information is worthy of television and certainly would spark interest in competent television producers concerned with accuracy regarding the JFK's assassination. Matters certainly equal to, or superior to, any HBO/Tom Hanks-Vince Bugliosi production could come up with. Which I'm sure will be the same old rehash of WCR crappola.

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I've asked this question on another thread, I haven't seen it yet.

Is there a closeup photograph of the sling/rope/? whatever it is that is being utilized as a sling in the backyard photographs?

Is it a rope that's attached to the swivel mount?

Thanks,

BK

Don't know if this helps...

- lee

Thank's Lee, that says a lot.

That's not the sling that's attached to the rifle found at the TSBD, right?

This one is thinner, and doesn't seem to have the shoulder strap.

In addition, it appears to have adjustible metal clips.

And it's certainly not a rope.

Where did this contraption come from, and what happened to it?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it's okay to talk down to people when you know everything.

The "myth" of the bottom sling swivel mount was long ago "debunked" here, complete with posting of my own personal photographs.

Were it that you were a true researcher (as opposed to one who is of the erroneous assumption that one can look at some vague photograph and resolve the issues), then you too would own several models of the Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle and thereafter conduct your own proper research prior to indicating to us all exactly how little that you know by a continuation of posting of this easily resolved "enigma".

Such completely asinine statements with absolultely no proof other than some highly vague photograph, are exactly why few rational persons accept or believe anything which contradicts the WC's multiple lies.

So, be my guest and continue to provide "stupidity bullets" to the likes of David Von Pein in order that he can continue to shoot you as well as anyone else who is in fact attempting to resolve the facts of the assassination of JFK by conducting proper empirical research into the various conflicts of evidence.

I certainly do not "know it all"!

However, I most assuredly know more than do you on the subject matter, along with more than a tad bit of experience in the proper means of research protocal.

Which oftens assists one in not inserting foot into mouth about something of which they apparantly know nothing.

The "Backyard Photo" may, or may not show a bottom mounted sling swivel.

One most assuredly can not state as fact that it does, due to the simple fact that the side mount sling swivel can easily appear as if it extends out the bottom of the forearm grip.

Just as one can not look at the photo and utilize it as proof that the weapon being held is either 6.5mm or 7.35mm caliber, along with exactly what the serial number of the weapon actually is.

Find something which is absolutely factual, and which can be demonstrated as factual and I will be more than glad to applaud you.

Otherwise, such BS as the "sling swivel" and the "six-groove bullet" does far more harm than good and makes us all appear not unlike the "kooks" which DVP is so fond of calling anyone who states that the WC was a lile.

Or, we can merely revert back to being the "Lack of Education Forum"!

Dug out for the final time:

A true TS Carbine with the bottom mount sling swivel, which swivel is in fact identical to those old ones found on the Long Rifles, as well as those old Long Rifles which were cut down and made into the Model 91/24 Carbine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Model 91/38 Short Rifle in which the sling swivel band had been taken off the weapon, turned around, and thereafter re-installed onto the weapon.

Which places the sling keeper onto the right-hand side of the forearm stock.

Thereafter, the sling keeper has been slid down to it's lowest position and the rifle has been slightly "rolled" forward, which makes it appear as if the sling keeper extends from the bottom of the forearm stock.

Truly that difficult to resolve?

Nope!

However, if I have nothing better to do in life and do not wish to occupy my time with factual research, then I can just make up any story I see fit, from some vague photograph, and then yell "The Sky is Falling".

There are more than sufficient lies and misrepresentations within the WC's presentation of evidence without having to make up totally unsupported claims which have ZERO basis in factual research.

And, which "Stupid Claims" only detract from the factual evidence and continue to cast doubt on anyone who actually questions the WC's lies.

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...