David Josephs Posted December 29, 2012 Share Posted December 29, 2012 (edited) On 12/28/2012 at 6:33 AM, Len Colby said: On 12/27/2012 at 11:42 AM, David Josephs said: The rifle ordered was a C20-T750 - which, as listed in the FEB issue of the magazine - was the M91/38 TS... they simply wrote 5.5lbs instead of 6.5 lbs but all the other descriptions of the rifle matches the TS... 92.7cms = 36.5 inches. In APRIL 1063, Kleins replaces the TS with the FC in their ads for C20-T750.... An interesting question remains... the C20-T750 was on ad from Aubust 1962 thru Feb 1963 as a 36" TS. Since Kleins NEVER rec'd the TS rifles (the order they cancelled) It was my understanding they simply ran out of the shorter rifles not that they never had them. Ozzie seems to have ordered just around the time they ran out. And I don't think many people would complain about receiving a $20 product instead of a $ 13 one. Well Len... rather than going with your understanding... how about just going and looking into it? Kleins orders 400 36" TS rifles (Waldman 1) on January 15,1962 from Crescent Firearms On April 13th 1962 Waldman claims they CHANGED the order to the 40" FC rifle (by Mitchell Westra) The FIRST ORDER of FC rifles supposedly arrives at Kleins on Feb 21, 1963... AFTER the Feb Ad for a 36" 5.5lb C20-T750 is already out Kleins advertised the 36" C20-T750 with scope for $19.95 since August 1962. (Which rifle was shipped for orders placed between August and Feb?) The microfilm that had the HIDELL order as well as hundred of orders PRIOR to HIDELL was used to print ONLY the HIDELL order and then was taken by the FBI and becomes a WC exhibit. Except when Armstrong went to the Archives in 1995, that Microfilm container was empty... there is no way to see what the orders prior to Oswalds ON THAT FILM were shipped and how they were processed. I went thru the packing lists of the rifle that arrived WITH C2766 and found the corresponding VC # asigned by Kleins (Waldman) - attached. We have not a single record of what happened to any one of the other 99 rifles from that shipment... If they were shipped in place of C20-T750 - as you say - then any single order showing that occurred would be proof in support of Kleins sending a different rifle for C20-T750 orders prior to and after HIDELL. Can you think of any reason NOT to print these corroborating orders, that would be right there on the microfilm with the HIDELL ORDER other than they did NOT process them that way? So back to our story..... You say they simply ran out of the shorter rifle... they never GOT the shorter rifle... unless you can produce something showing Kleins EVER getting 36" M91/38TS rifles from ANYONE They cancelled that order Len... 5 months before they started selling them as a scoped, packaged bundle. So between January 1962 and February 22, 1963 there is no record of a shipment of TS "short" rifles to Kleins... what were they shipping for orders as they did not get the 40" model until Feb 1963 So again... If I sent in a coupon for a C20-T750 in say OCTOBER 1962... what do you THINK Kleins sent? Why don't we know EXACTLY what they sent and what the orders looked like...? I mean they HAD the microfilm (attached) If one of the 99 other rifles were sold, the serial # and VC # would be on the order just like HIDELL's. it would show a C20-T750 ordered just like Waldman 7 Without a single piece of evidence we are supposed to take for granted that Kleins was shipping a replacement rifle or a rifle THEY NEVER ORDERED OR RECEIVED in place of the advertised one? To your final sentence... agreed, no on e would complain, unless they WANTED the 36" rifle NOT the 40" one... In that same wein, if YOU irdered a 36"TS and got the same model as the rifle that killed JFK - you think we'd have heard about at least ONE of them? Where ARE those other 99 rifles Len? or did they even exist in the first place? DJ Edited May 23, 2017 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 So David do you think it reasonable Klein's would advertise an item it had been out of for months? Other researchers have claimed the exact opposite that based on the shipping weights the received the 36" models not the 40" inch ones. If YOU are correct that would totally undermine the claim LHO's receipt of the 'wrong' rifle is suspicious, if they had the latter but not the former it makes sense they would have substituted one for the other and in fact the catalogue # of the 40" replaced that of the 36" around the time of the shipment. The microfilm that had the HIDELL order as well as hundred of orders PRIOR to HIDELL was used to print ONLY the HIDELL order and then was taken by the FBI and becomes a WC exhibit. Except when Armstrong went to the Archives in 1995, that Microfilm container was empty... there is no way to see what the orders prior to Oswalds ON THAT FILM were shipped and how they were processed. I don't trust Armstrong, did anyone else confirm this? Can you think of any reason NOT to print these corroborating orders, that would be right there on the microfilm with the HIDELL ORDER other than they did NOT process them that way? Who do you think should have printed this? The WC? I don't think this issue came up till after the report was published. Another reason no to make them public is the privacy of the other customers. And what do you think happened to the rifle from the Hidel order? And a more general question how could a group plotters so incompetent have pulled off such a complex plot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 "Reasonable" is not in play here Len.... The ad was placed and ran since August 1962. C20-T750 - in the AD - was a scoped 36" rifle, the TS. Orders came into Kleins FROM THESE COUPONS - agreed? Kleins shipped customers SOMETHING for Item # C20-T750 between August and March HIDELL was supposedly shipped a 40" FC rifle - yet there is nothing to prove it was ever delivered - for a Feb 1963 order I've argued that the 100 rilfes marked "38 E" on all 10 packing slips were TS rifles based on the weights shipped and some simple logic (100 6.5lb rifles, 100 1lb packing cartons, 10 master shippers each holding 10 packed rifles = about 750 lbs, the shipment weight Railway charged for.... 100 7.5lbs rifles plus packing would be 100 lbs OVER... simple math.) and NO ONE has come forward knowing what "38 E" stands for or where one - ANY ONE OF 99 OTHER RIFLES wound up.\ Not ONE Len.... Is it really possible to get 100 rifles on 2/22/63 and only sell ONE OF THEM? Is it REASONABLE to believe that the FBI did not print a SINGLE other order as the information on those orders would contradict the story being told about C2766? That's ALL WE KNOW, Len. We also know that the FBI had microfilm with copies of ALL THESE ORDERS... so finding out exactly what was shipped, to whom and when was EASY on 11/23/63. ONE INSTANCE does not constitute a business practice of shipping a larger heavier more expensive item for one ordered without informing customers... without CHANGING THE AD in August 1962 if they had no more of these rifles.... The evidence as it now stands highly suggests that the pencil written C2766 and VC836 where AFTER THE FACT... until we see another VC # shipped from that 100 rifle lot there is NOTHING to corroborate Kleins shipping HIDELL C2766 at any time. DJ So David do you think it reasonable Klein's would advertise an item it had been out of for months? Other researchers have claimed the exact opposite that based on the shipping weights the received the 36" models not the 40" inch ones. If YOU are correct that would totally undermine the claim LHO's receipt of the 'wrong' rifle is suspicious, if they had the latter but not the former it makes sense they would have substituted one for the other and in fact the catalogue # of the 40" replaced that of the 36" around the time of the shipment. The microfilm that had the HIDELL order as well as hundred of orders PRIOR to HIDELL was used to print ONLY the HIDELL order and then was taken by the FBI and becomes a WC exhibit. Except when Armstrong went to the Archives in 1995, that Microfilm container was empty... there is no way to see what the orders prior to Oswalds ON THAT FILM were shipped and how they were processed. I don't trust Armstrong, did anyone else confirm this? Can you think of any reason NOT to print these corroborating orders, that would be right there on the microfilm with the HIDELL ORDER other than they did NOT process them that way? Who do you think should have printed this? The WC? I don't think this issue came up till after the report was published. Another reason no to make them public is the privacy of the other customers. And what do you think happened to the rifle from the Hidel order? And a more general question how could a group plotters so incompetent have pulled off such a complex plot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 "Reasonable" is not in play here Len.... Ironic because you've used “Does that sound reasonable to you?” as a rhetorical device a few times in this thread, you even used it in your latest post. Why would Klein's advertise, for several months, an item that they didn't have and had no intention of ordering? They weren't some fly by night company, they'd been in the mail order business since at least the mid-1940s. The logical assumption is that they had both models and phased out the shorter one eventually running out right around the time the Hidell order came in the previous ad contained both but the next only the 40” with the item # that used to be assigned to 36”. Now you know there is quite a bit of lead time between an ad being prepared and appearing in print and that US magazines normally hit the streets before their official date. So Klein's must have had the April ad ready when the Hidel order came in thus C20-T750 equaled the 40” especially if they no longer had the shorter model. In your previous post you made an issue of no one being aware of anyone who received the longer MC in lieu of the shorter one, but by the same token we don't know of anyone who ordered a 36” MC and got one nor of anyone who had their order canceled, nor of anyone who got stiffed. The ad was placed and ran since August 1962. C20-T750 - in the AD - was a scoped 3 6" rifle, the TS. Orders came into Kleins FROM THESE COUPONS - agreed? Kleins shipped customers SOMETHING for Item # C20-T750 between August and March And yet you claim they did not have the item, so this undermines your theory. So does the fact that the same item #, C20-T750, represented the 40” model. HIDELL was supposedly shipped a 40" FC rifle - yet there is nothing to prove it was ever delivered - for a Feb 1963 order. What sort of proof do you want? Didn't the WC get the shipping documents which were authenticated by people from Klein’s? I've argued that the 100 rilfes marked "38 E" on all 10 packing slips were TS rifles based on the weights shipped and some simple logic (100 6.5lb rifles, 100 1lb packing cartons, 10 master shippers each holding 10 packed rifles = about 750 lbs, the shipment weight Railway charged for.... 100 7.5lbs rifles plus packing would be 100 lbs OVER... simple math.) I'm not sure if it was this order or another but other researchers, on this very forum, have argued the exact opposite, that based on the shipping weights the rifles must have bee the 36” models. and NO ONE has come forward knowing what "38 E" stands for or where one - ANY ONE OF 99 OTHER RIFLES wound up.\ Not ONE Len.... Is it really possible to get 100 rifles on 2/22/63 and only sell ONE OF THEM? Is it REASONABLE to believe that the FBI did not print a SINGLE other order as the information on those orders would contradict the story being told about C2766? LOL so "is it reasonable" is a one way street!? What happened to the other rifles was not really relevant and the order # “discrepancy” only seems to noticed years after the WCR was released. If you have evidence anyone brought this up before don't be shy about sharing. I've said this before but I'll wrap my post up with it, if you are correct and Klein's ran out of the 36” months before the “Hidel” order that totally neuters the argument he ordered that model but inexplicably the weapon found in the TSBD 40”. The logical inference would be they sent him the longer weapon especially since around the time his order was received the item # of the former was switched to the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Len, There were no TS rifle ever delivered for them to PHASE OUT... unless you can show they EVER rec'd 36" M91 TS rilfes from someone. I do not think you can conclude an ongoing business practice with only ONE example Len. Don't you suppose if there were other C20-T750 orders in the 6 previous months AND they were shipped a 40" FC rifle in it's place, the FBI would LOVE to have that extra corroboration? "See everyone, Kleins did this all the time" Don't you find it suspect that only the Hidell order was printed and the rest of the microfilm is now GONE? And still you do not answer my question Len.... What rifle did Kleins ship customers for C20-T750 orders between August 1962 and Feb 1963? Produce any single piece of evidence that C20-T750 customers rec'd the same rifle as Hidell was supposedly shipped. btw - I AM saying the 38 E rifles were the TS 36" model... and that the handwritten "C2766" and VC# we after the fact to connect Hidell to C2766... (that you did not "get" the tongue in cheek capitalizations of REASONABLE is too bad.... I was being satirical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bennett Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) Back to the original question...in the documentary Evidence of Revision (part 1), there is some rare footage that I had never seen before of some cops in the TSBD picking up a scoped rifle bub the strap to examine it. And in the same camera shot you can clearly see a second rifle leaned against a box next to them. To my knowledge, none of the police brought rifles in with them, only shotguns later. Two rifles sounds like two rifles to me. -Chris Edited March 15, 2013 by Chris Bennett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin White Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 From memory the very first reports concerning the rifle claimed it was a British Enfield. Two networks were broadcasting this around 2pm that afternoon. It isn't a coincidence that Buell Wesley Frazier owned one and it's one reason why I don't believe any aspect of the "official" BWF story. As far as I can make out the Irving and Dallas Police were looking for Frazier quite soon after the assassination and it's likely that it was them who approached Linnie Mae Randle that afternoon rather than the official narrative's claim that Randle approached them. I believe this is why Randle sent the Irving Police to the wrong hospital when they said they wanted him for questioning. For me, the Enfield reports provided incredible leverage against Frazier once the police caught hold of him. Lee, Whilst it seems indisputable that Frazier was "leaned on" for whatever reason, if his story was fabricated why would be he continue to say that the paper bag was too short to contain the rifle, and that Oswald carried it cupped under his armpit? Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 NBC Announces Enfield .303 Rifle Found on TSBD.6th http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Scans/WBAP-TV.txt b.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) David; you may be interested in this..fwiw.... When Mark Lane testified before the WC, he requested to see the alleged assassination rifle on March 4, 1964. This was denied. When on July 2, 1964, he testified again it was only on the condition that he be allowed to see the rifle. "Rush To Judgment", page.... 115 When Mark Lane looked at it, on July 2, 1964, he read aloud to the WC members the inscription that was on it.... stating...... "MADE ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5." (WCH V p. 561) His purpose was to support Officer Weitzman's affidavit........ arguing that he doubted any Police Officer would have made such a mistaken identitification...and related Mauser in error.. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds.html THE GUN THAT DIDN'T SMOKE ''The Warren Commission reported, however, that when the rifle was found, .... NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303. ... KRLD radio announced that the rifle was "presumed to be a .25 caliber high powered Army or ... had even seen a Mauser at the TSBD in the possession of their supervisor, Roy Truly'' Edited March 15, 2013 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Nicely done Bernice.... I had seen the "Mauser" stamp on rifles but never the 7.65 - which again is rare since the 7.62mm was more popular. Add to these rifles the CIA report from Italy stating it was 7.35 caliber model 91 rifle, and "the description of a 'Mannlicher Carcano' is in error"... and finally... how did they get another rifle out of the TSBD??? What, pray tell, is Monty gripping that is holding up the bag? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) Nicely done Bernice.... I had seen the "Mauser" stamp on rifles but never the 7.65 - which again is rare since the 7.62mm was more popular. Add to these rifles the CIA report from Italy stating it was 7.35 caliber model 91 rifle, and "the description of a 'Mannlicher Carcano' is in error"... and finally... how did they get another rifle out of the TSBD??? What, pray tell, is Monty gripping that is holding up the bag? I read of late but..duh gone now..that there was a stick within the bag...here is the CIA report..re rifle you mention....take care b Edited March 15, 2013 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 FYI... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13845 CLAYTON WHEAT, N.R.A. Director, Shooting Recreation ? b.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Nicely done Bernice.... I had seen the "Mauser" stamp on rifles but never the 7.65 - which again is rare since the 7.62mm was more popular. Add to these rifles the CIA report from Italy stating it was 7.35 caliber model 91 rifle, and "the description of a 'Mannlicher Carcano' is in error"... and finally... how did they get another rifle out of the TSBD??? What, pray tell, is Monty gripping that is holding up the bag? I read of late but..duh gone now..that there was a stick within the bag...here is the CIA report..re rifle you mention....take care b Thanks again Bernice According to Monty it was actually a venetian blind, if you can believe that.... Point remains... There is still no understandable reason for Boone and Weitzman to have SPECIFIED 7.65mm and Mauser when "a rifle" written in the AFFIDAVITS would have sufficed. the overall LACK of descriptive terms in some cases and then the unnecessary minute details in other cases - usually of insignificant items - has always amazed me as one looks thru the inventory listings... Why state and SIGN an AFFIDAVIT the NEXT DAY, to the 7.65mm fact, when the rifle so plainly says 6.5 & Made in Italy ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernice Moore Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 (edited) thanks David, it was all like a nickel and dime rodeo show in some ways, others the investigation should have been written up for an everlasting example for new criminal investigators in training, as the ''What not to do '' subtitled,'' the worse in history'', seems either all were told previously before relating any info, what to or not to report, bet the land lines were very busy, between such.makes one wonder....thanks...carry on carrying on... b..below from gil jesus... Edited March 15, 2013 by Bernice Moore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted March 15, 2013 Share Posted March 15, 2013 Dave you still haven't told us why Klein's would repeatedly advertise an item they didn't have and hadn't ordered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now