Jump to content
The Education Forum

How many rifles were found on the 6th floor?


Recommended Posts

Len… I am terribly sorry you are having such a difficult time with this…I’ve tried explaining a number of ways yet you simply will not budge off your incorrectly stated questions.

The LONGER MC is not of any consequence here Len… If you have an issue between Aug 1962 and Feb 1963 with a coupon advertising a SCOPED 40” rifle… post it.

Do you even BOTHER to look at the documentation? Take a few minutes and REVIEW THE KLEINS and Crescent and Adams Consolidated paperwork

On April 13, 1962 Klein’s supposedly CHANGED their order for 400, 36” TS rifles to 40” FC rifles (there is no such thing as “EFF” which actually means “Effective” Prior to August 1962 Kleins began mounting a scope on 36” TS rifles per the gunsmith…

Which 36” rifles was the gunsmith outfitting with a scope Len? The ONLY 40” coupon with a scoped rifle BEGAN in APRIL 1963… AFTER “HIDELL”’s order was supposedly rec’d and processed…

In Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec ’62, Jan, Feb ’63… Kleins advertised a SCOPED 36” Rifle C20-T750.

On Feb 22, 1963 – according to the documentation… Kleins rec’d a shipment of 100 rifles from Italy in 10 cartons with packing slips. The order was placed APRIL 21, 1962… 10 month turnaround… ok.

If you are saying these were the 40” FC rifles.. PROVE IT. I am saying the weight of the shipment was TOO LIGHT to be the FC rifle… but that discussion is not conclusive, only a discussion.

Now FOLLOW Len…. Kleins advertised a 36” TS Scoped rifle starting in Aug 1962 and did so until Feb 1963. There is NO DOCUMENTATION OFFERED that shows Kleins EVER rec’d TS rifles… There is NOT DOCUMENTATION OFFERED that shows a single C20-T750 ordered rec’d and filled OTHER than the HIDELL order. There has not been a SINGLE PERSON who has EVER said they ordered C20-T750 and got a C2766-like rifle… one of the other 99 in that shipment. There is NO DOCUMENTATION OFFERED that shows what an order that shipped one of these OTHER 99 rifles looked like….

In APRIL 1963, Kleins changes their ad that had been running for 6 months using THE SAME STOCK # as the HIDELL order, the SAME STOCK # that had been advertising a 36” 5.5lb M91TS rifle yet it was not advertising the SAME RIFLE as C2766… And you of course see nothing wrong with this sudden change or the fact the WCR uses anything BUT the Feb Ad… to show what HIDELL ordered… They try other magazines, then the NOV 63 issue…. Just not the actual magazine and ad HIDELL used (Dept 358)

So LEN, Why would Kleins advertise a rifle – the 36” Scoped TS – they did not have?

Why would the gunsmith tell us they only mounted scoped on the TS rifle and sold it as is.. with an offer of ammo if he was outfitting 40” rifles? Why is there documentation that an OSWALD had holes drilled into a rifle yet the wrong number of holes is recorded for C2766.

Finally Len… THERE MUST have been orders for C20-T750 prior to HIDELL’s… agree? Why do you suppose, if Kleins was shipping the FC 40” rifle for all those months, that the FBI wouldn’t simply print out the other C20-T750 orders and SHOW US that Kleins did indeed send the bigger rifle in its place?

Wouldn’t that go a long way to prove that the HIDELL order was treated like all the other orders for C20-T750… or do you suppose the FBI did NOT find that to be the case… and only printed what incriminated HIDELL/OSWALD?

I have not refused to address anything Len… you are simply playing the low IQ game..

you aint gonna learn what you don’t wanna know… and you simply do NOT want to know that Kleins and the FBI created and planted evidence against HIDELL/OSWALD in order to frame the patsy for the crime. And the documentation for the revolver is even worse…

I can’t make it any more plain than that Len… You’re on your own here on out… I don’t have the patience to keep explaining this to you… nor do you seem to have the desire to understand it…

Dave you still haven't told us why Klein's would repeatedly advertise an item they didn't have and hadn't ordered.

There is no proof one way or ther other Len... I am saying they DID have 36" rifles and the gunsmith DID mount scopes on 36" rifles as he said he did and that Kleins DID sell C20-T750 as a scoped 36" rifle, the M91 TS.... and you have nothing to post or claim they didn't.

[...]

If this was sent Parcel Post, for $1.50... just produce the records that shows the item picked up and the shipping charges rec'd from PP. (You will have the same problem with Railways receipt of the shipping charges for the revolver as well... another set of BS documents framing Oswald)

For now I want to focus just on this one specific issue, one which you keep refusing to address, Klein's offered the longer MC for several months during the period you claim they did not have it in stock or even on order. Why would they do such a thing? Look at the ad Bernice posted, it shows both.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dave,

In the April ad (not the one Ozzie used of course) CT-750 was the 40" sold with a scope, I think former US Marine LHO could have handled mounting it himself, the fact it was misaligned suggests the person who installed it was not a pro.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

In the April ad (not the one Ozzie used of course) CT-750 was the 40" sold with a scope, I think former US Marine LHO could have handled mounting it himself, the fact it was misaligned suggests the person who installed it was not a pro.

Len,

Couldn't it have been knocked out of alignment (by being bumped against a full box of books, etc) after it was fired?

Just an idea.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave,

In the April ad (not the one Ozzie used of course) CT-750 was the 40" sold with a scope, I think former US Marine LHO could have handled mounting it himself, the fact it was misaligned suggests the person who installed it was not a pro.

CT-750?? The rifle ordered was C20-T750. It arrived on March 27th or so according to the WCR BS. It was ordered from the FEB magazine.... iow the April ad is worthless here. Marina says she took the photos at the end of February... if you want to get technical about it.

From how you are approaching this it is obvious to me you have very little awareness of the evidence related to the rifle, Kleins, Crescent, Rupp and the rest.... Go do your homework first and then come argue with me about the rifle's history... I've been doing this too long and posted these answers numerous times to be dicking around with you on this... Try Moyers' paper of the rifle and Gil's work with the documentation and their problems...

You evade the real questions I asked you with the LNer song and dance and then talk about OSWALD having the rifle drilled for scope holes - and you obviously have little recollection about that incident.

Come back when you know what you're talking about Len.... this is one area where your lack of knowledge is too obvious - that you feel you can discuss and defend you POV without having an understanding of the evidence is SSDD... just google my name and c2766... you'll have more to read and digest that you'll know what to do with...

Thanks for playing... but this is like talking about color with a blind man

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes David C20-T750 you can harp on about an irrelevant error. In the Feb. issue it was for the 36" and in the April issue the 40" (there was no ad in March) one which suggests Klein's phased out one in favor of the other and since magazines normally hit the streets before their official date the more recent issue was probably out when LHO sent in his order and also certainly had gone to the printers. Please elaborate on you claim that " there documentation that an OSWALD had holes drilled into a rifle yet the wrong number of holes is recorded for C2766"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Len...

Your tactics are obvious... your feigned stupidity is obvious...

What did Kleins send for C20-T750 orders from ads placed in Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov and Dec 1962?

They did not receive ANY shipments from Crescent until Feb 22, 1963... Where did they get the rifles for THOSE ads?

Simple question... it needs a simple answer and supporting evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David and Bernice - what was the dp officer named Monty holding? I can't make out the photo, but if Monty said it was a venetian blind that sounds like 'curtain rods' to my ears.

Assuming Oswald really did own a MC rifle but did not take it with him to work, a MC had to have been taken from the Paine's garage after Oswald was taken into custody. Is that even possible?

It does raise another possibility. All the 'evidence' about Oswald and the rifle exists from before the Walker shooting. Mentions of it after that only state that it was wrapped in a blanket in the Paines garage. I recall someone, maybe Marina, saying that Oswald was practicing at home with a firing mechanism or something. Sorry to ask, but does anyone recall this better?

Oswald was supposed to have ditched his rifle after the Walker incident and walked home. Wouldn't that leave the rifle in the weeds somewhere for some length of time? What if Walker recovered that rifle and used it to frame Oswald later?

Link to post
Share on other sites

David and Bernice - what was the dp officer named Monty holding? I can't make out the photo, but if Monty said it was a venetian blind that sounds like 'curtain rods' to my ears.

Assuming Oswald really did own a MC rifle but did not take it with him to work, a MC had to have been taken from the Paine's garage after Oswald was taken into custody. Is that even possible?

It does raise another possibility. All the 'evidence' about Oswald and the rifle exists from before the Walker shooting. Mentions of it after that only state that it was wrapped in a blanket in the Paines garage. I recall someone, maybe Marina, saying that Oswald was practicing at home with a firing mechanism or something. Sorry to ask, but does anyone recall this better?

Oswald was supposed to have ditched his rifle after the Walker incident and walked home. Wouldn't that leave the rifle in the weeds somewhere for some length of time? What if Walker recovered that rifle and used it to frame Oswald later?

Interesting questions Paul... I hope I can do it some justice

Montgomery comes out of the building and is photographed holding a paper bag.... this bag if fully extended yet from all appearances there should have been NOTHING in that bag...

Again - it supposedly was folded up in the floor in the SE corner of the 6th floor. there was NOTHING inside as it was described laying on the floor.... and there would be no reason for Montgomery to putanything INSIDE the evidence as it was assumed it carried the unassembled rifle... why contaminate the evidence?

GMACK from Monty's oral history tells us that a venetian blind was in the bag... which blind and from where, no one has an answer.

"ALL THE EVIDENCE" about the rifle is from before Walker... what "evidence"? The Klein's documentation? the Photo? Marina's testimony?

Could you please spell out what you refer to here so I have an understanding of what you are questioning.

Neither Ruth nor Michael state that they EVER saw a rifle at thier home.

Mr. JENNER - I 'don't wish to be persistent, but was there anything that you saw about the duffelbags that lead you at that time to even think for an instant that there was anything long, slim and hard like a pole?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Or a gun, a rifle?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - No? Nothing?

Mrs. PAINE - Nothing. I did not move these bags.

Mr. JENNER - To the extent you saw them is all I am inquiring about. You did not touch them, you did not lift them, but you saw them.

Mrs. PAINE - I did.

Mr. JENNER - There appeared--the entire circumference of these bags which you could see was smooth?

Mrs. PAINE - Well, smooth, bumpy, but irregular.

Mr. JENNER - But no stick, no hard surface. Now, what about the diameter of these bags, these duffelbags, what would you say it was?

Mrs. PAINE - About like this, 15, 18, 20 inches across.

Mr. JENNER - Eighteen, twenty inches across?

Mrs. PAINE - Probably more than that.

Mr. JENNER - This is 15 inches.

Mrs. PAINE - About like this; a little more than 15, probably.

Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.

Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?

Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.

Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?

Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever observe or hear prior to the assassination that Lee Oswald had been practicing with a rifle?

Mr. PAINE - No, I didn't know prior to the assassination, we didn't know he had a rifle. I had supposed from my conversation with him back on Neely Street that he would like to have a rifle but I didn't gather that he did.

Mr. LIEBELER - Aside from whether or not you knew that he had a rifle, did you ever hear or observe him practicing with a rifle?

Mr. PAINE - No, I did not.

========== Marina says he buried the rifle.... yet he had no cleaning supplies and there is no indication of that ever happening.========

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?"

He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know---I am not a criminologist.

I think it's important to note that you've stated some conclusions about the rifle that really doesn't follow the evidence...

Interesting conversation.... very enjoyable...

DJ

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites

David and Bernice - what was the dp officer named Monty holding? I can't make out the photo, but if Monty said it was a venetian blind that sounds like 'curtain rods' to my ears.

Assuming Oswald really did own a MC rifle but did not take it with him to work, a MC had to have been taken from the Paine's garage after Oswald was taken into custody. Is that even possible?

It does raise another possibility. All the 'evidence' about Oswald and the rifle exists from before the Walker shooting. Mentions of it after that only state that it was wrapped in a blanket in the Paines garage. I recall someone, maybe Marina, saying that Oswald was practicing at home with a firing mechanism or something. Sorry to ask, but does anyone recall this better?

Oswald was supposed to have ditched his rifle after the Walker incident and walked home. Wouldn't that leave the rifle in the weeds somewhere for some length of time? What if Walker recovered that rifle and used it to frame Oswald later?

Interesting questions Paul... I hope I can do it some justice

Montgomery comes out of the building and is photographed holding a paper bag.... this bag if fully extended yet from all appearances there should have been NOTHING in that bag...

Again - it supposedly was folded up in the floor in the SE corner of the 6th floor. there was NOTHING inside as it was described laying on the floor.... and there would be no reason for Montgomery to putanything INSIDE the evidence as it was assumed it carried the unassembled rifle... why contaminate the evidence?

GMACK from Monty's oral history tells us that a venetian blind was in the bag... which blind and from where, no one has an answer.

"ALL THE EVIDENCE" about the rifle is from before Walker... what "evidence"? The Klein's documentation? the Photo? Marina's testimony?

Could you please spell out what you refer to here so I have an understanding of what you are questioning.

Neither Ruth nor Michael state that they EVER saw a rifle at thier home.

Mr. JENNER - I 'don't wish to be persistent, but was there anything that you saw about the duffelbags that lead you at that time to even think for an instant that there was anything long, slim and hard like a pole?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Or a gun, a rifle?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - No? Nothing?

Mrs. PAINE - Nothing. I did not move these bags.

Mr. JENNER - To the extent you saw them is all I am inquiring about. You did not touch them, you did not lift them, but you saw them.

Mrs. PAINE - I did.

Mr. JENNER - There appeared--the entire circumference of these bags which you could see was smooth?

Mrs. PAINE - Well, smooth, bumpy, but irregular.

Mr. JENNER - But no stick, no hard surface. Now, what about the diameter of these bags, these duffelbags, what would you say it was?

Mrs. PAINE - About like this, 15, 18, 20 inches across.

Mr. JENNER - Eighteen, twenty inches across?

Mrs. PAINE - Probably more than that.

Mr. JENNER - This is 15 inches.

Mrs. PAINE - About like this; a little more than 15, probably.

Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.

Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?

Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.

Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?

Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever observe or hear prior to the assassination that Lee Oswald had been practicing with a rifle?

Mr. PAINE - No, I didn't know prior to the assassination, we didn't know he had a rifle. I had supposed from my conversation with him back on Neely Street that he would like to have a rifle but I didn't gather that he did.

Mr. LIEBELER - Aside from whether or not you knew that he had a rifle, did you ever hear or observe him practicing with a rifle?

Mr. PAINE - No, I did not.

========== Marina says he buried the rifle.... yet he had no cleaning supplies and there is no indication of that ever happening.========

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say any more than that about the shooting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course in the morning I told him that I was worried, and that we can have a lot of trouble, and I asked him, "Where is the rifle? What did you do with it?"

He said, that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don't know---I am not a criminologist.

I think it's important to note that you've stated some conclusions about the rifle that really doesn't follow the evidence...

Interesting conversation.... very enjoyable...

DJ

Yes , very interesting thread, thank you fellas, Monty said a venetian blind was inside.??....at Mary Farrel's site, there is information that they did eventually find blinds in the TSBD later, but not upon their first search, perhaps the blinds, curtain rods that LHO never took into the TSBD ??? ...........Paul, Marina mentions i believe Lee practicing the firing mechanism, but in New Orleans in the screened in sun room.. if memory serves me...b the DPD officer was...http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/montgom1.htm

TESTIMONY OF L. D. MONTGOMERY

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

David - I should have put the word evidence in quotes. I agree with you about the flimsiness of the evidence that Oswald bought a mail order rifle and picked it up at the mail station in Dallas. But I am not so sure that the backyard photos are fakes. I am not an expert at all, but they look real to me. So what I mean to say is that there is some reason to think he had a rifle leading up to the backyard photos and the attempt on Walker. Soon thereafter he went to New Orleans. I asked about the story of Oswald practicing with something that Marina thought was a firing mechanism, but I have not checked on this, and Bernice seems to think this was during his sojourn in NO. Simply put, there is more 'evidence' that he owned a rifle prior to the Walker incident than there is after, and since he said he hid it in the bushes, and there is no further mention anywhere of his retrieving it and cleaning it up etc., it occurred to me that maybe he never did recover it, and someone else did. I was thinking out loud. I am not sure how relevant any of my speculations are. But I do think the story of venetian blinds being held by a DPD officer recovered from the TSBD, which I had never heard before, really suggestive. Putting it all together, he really did carry something to work that day, but it wasn't a rifle, and he no longer had possession of the rifle from the backyard photos. Lots of what ifs in this theory.

David - you have spent a lot of time researching the mail order purchase and have concluded that the MC in evidence was not purchased by Oswald from Kleins. What about the revolver? Is that also a flimsy case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, my memory did click in...lol.......the information i recall comes in Harold Weisbergs book,about LHO in new orleans...i found the following it may be helpful...b..

http://www.maebrussell.com/The%20Warren%20Commission/Outline%20of%20Marina%20Oswald's%20testimony%202-3-64.html

''Lee had a rifle when they lived in New Orleans.

•He would sit on the porch at night with his rifle, with a scope on it..''

Harold's books have been reprinted, and are reasonably priced at Mary Farrel's...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/MFF_Store

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

David - I should have put the word evidence in quotes. I agree with you about the flimsiness of the evidence that Oswald bought a mail order rifle and picked it up at the mail station in Dallas. But I am not so sure that the backyard photos are fakes. I am not an expert at all, but they look real to me. So what I mean to say is that there is some reason to think he had a rifle leading up to the backyard photos and the attempt on Walker. Soon thereafter he went to New Orleans. I asked about the story of Oswald practicing with something that Marina thought was a firing mechanism, but I have not checked on this, and Bernice seems to think this was during his sojourn in NO. Simply put, there is more 'evidence' that he owned a rifle prior to the Walker incident than there is after, and since he said he hid it in the bushes, and there is no further mention anywhere of his retrieving it and cleaning it up etc., it occurred to me that maybe he never did recover it, and someone else did. I was thinking out loud. I am not sure how relevant any of my speculations are. But I do think the story of venetian blinds being held by a DPD officer recovered from the TSBD, which I had never heard before, really suggestive. Putting it all together, he really did carry something to work that day, but it wasn't a rifle, and he no longer had possession of the rifle from the backyard photos. Lots of what ifs in this theory.

David - you have spent a lot of time researching the mail order purchase and have concluded that the MC in evidence was not purchased by Oswald from Kleins. What about the revolver? Is that also a flimsy case?

These are his hands from the day of arrest and from the BYP.... regardless of photogrammetry.. the hands simply do not match. IMO Wesley and his sister made the entire story up about the bag... if anything it was a small lunch sack.

I have to run at the moment but will address the revolver - which is MCH WORSE than the rifle in terms of the documentation... Seach on this forum and you will find my and many others' thoughts on the matter...

Talk soon

DJ

Oswaldsrighthandcomparison_zpsc371fc23.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee,

Also to note is this: there were reports of three different models of rifle being the murder weapon.

The first was a British Enfield. This type of rifle linked to Buell Wesley Frazier.

Nancy Perrin Rich said that she attended a meeting also attended by Jack Ruby.

Gun running was discussed.

The guns being discussed were British Enfields.

Steve Thomas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve... and very true... Didn't the Dodd people also order Carcanos from Kleins right around this time?

http://educationforu...er

Paul... the above is a link to a discussion about the revolver

and a post of mine in a different thread that sums it up, thanks to great work from Gil Jesus....

This is it... the sum total of ALL the evidence related to the purchase of the supposed murder weapon of JD Tippit.

Serial # hadwritten on the order... sounds familiar

No records related to the $10 cash deposit or the envelope that and the coupon arrive in

No records of the $1.27 Railway collects

No record of the $19.95 forwarded from Railway

No record of anyone at Railway picking up the carton

No record of another Money Order or cash rec'd to pay the COD balance for the pistol

No record of when Seaport recieves the coupon although it is at least 6 weeks before they process it

(if 1/2 or 1/27 is the date on the coupon) and yet both weapons are shipped to the PO Box on the same day...)

but other than that... a perfectly legit transaction... blink.gif

Thanks Gil...

DJ

http://educationforu...=15#entry248196

Below is a collection of evidence related to the revolver. One should remember that even in 1963 businesses paid taxes and kept records of their transactions....

As I state above... none of the standard records of business are availble to substantiate any portion of this lie.... the $10 deposit, the $19.95 sent from Railway, the $1.27 cod collected by railway, or anyone picking up and paying the $19.95 + $1.27 cod to release the weapon.

Mr. BALL. And it was shipped to you by the Empire Wholesale Sporting Goods, Ltd., on what date?

Mr. MICHAELIS. It went---it was on 10/19/62, in St. Albans, Vt., and from then on it was directed to our place of business, which was at that time 1225 South Grand Avenue. However, the merchandise in question did not arrive before January 3, 1963.

Mr. BALL. Is that the date it did arrive?

Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes. It was received January 3, 1963.

Mr. BALL. Off the record.

(Discussion held off the record.)

The order is dated either 1/2 or 1/27 1963. They have in their possession 500 of these revolvers as of Jan 3, 1963. They shorten the barrel and wait until March 20th to ship it?

Mr. BALL. Now, this particular mail order, did you have anything to do with filling that order?

Mr. MICHAELIS. No.

Mr. BALL. Then what would have happened?

Mr. MICHAELIS. She (Emma Vaughn) would have processed the order in writing up invoice No. 5371. After 1 week she gave out the order to the order filler and packer.

And yet again... does it not make sense that we see the orders prior to and after this order to establish its time and place in the process? Michaelis Ex 1 is a mishmosh of order dates and seriel numbers http://www.history-m...Vol20_0318a.htm you will notice that "Seaport" also ships inv # 3344 and #5056 on the 21st.. now unless there are three seperate invoice books what is going on here?

Mr. BALL. And it shows deposit, $10. Balance c.o.d., $19.95. What is the significance of that?

Mr. MICHAELIS. We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash. Since the sales price is $29.95, the merchandise was shipped with a c.o.d for the balance of $19.95.

Mr. BALL. Does this invoice show the date it was shipped?

Mr. MICHAELIS. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What was that?

Mr. MICHAELIS. March 20.

Mr. MICHAELIS. This document is required in addition by the Railway Express Agency for all c.o.d. shipments, and indicates again the name of the consignee, his address, and lists our invoice number which is, in this case, No. 5371. It directs the Railway Express Agency to remit the amount to be collected to Seaport Traders, Inc. The amount of the c.o.d. is $19.95, and the service charge has to be collected from the consignee.

Seaport38shipment-allevidence.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Len...

Your tactics are obvious... your feigned stupidity is obvious...

Sorry Dave you quite mistaken I really am that stupid. You see I've drunk fluoridated water most of my life and one of the forum's most illustrious members tells us this causes retardation.

What did Kleins send for C20-T750 orders from ads placed in Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov and Dec 1962?

Presumably the 36” model since that is what they advertised.

They did not receive ANY shipments from Crescent until Feb 22, 1963... Where did they get the rifles for THOSE ads?

Simple question... it needs a simple answer and supporting evidence.

Why are you so obsessed with such minutiae? Next you'll be asking about the color of Waldman's socks were. Where did they get the rifles? Assuming you were correct about them not having “ receive[d] ANY shipments from Crescent until Feb 22, 1963” (though you've not produced any evidence that was the case) obviously another distributor. Why isn't there documentation regarding Klein's previous orders? Might be because they were irrelevant. So in the last ad before Feb. 22, and several previous ones they only offered the 36” and in the next and several subsequent ones they only offered the 40” and used the same item #, doesn't all this reenforce the notion Klein's received the 40” models and not the 36” ones and substituted the latter with the former?

Hilarious that you demand “supporting evidence” but offer none yourself.

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...