Robert Prudhomme Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Roger Craig did an interview, in which he is seen telling the interviewer that, with Fritz holding the rifle, Craig was about 8 inches away from the barrel, and read the words "7.65 Mauser" that were stamped on the barrel. The most likely candidate to be confused with a 6.5mm Carcano is the Model 1891 7.65 Argentine Mauser carbine, seen below: It has a box magazine similar to the Carcano, and I believe this is how the confusion began. Unfortunately for Craig, there is nothing stamped on the barrel of this rifle regarding calibre, or anywhere else on this rifle. The only information stamped on this rifle is on the side of the receiver, reading "Mauser Modelo Argentino 1891". Later models of the 7.65 Argentine Mauser did not have the protruding box magazine. They also did not have "7.65 Arg. Mauser" or even "7.65 Mauser" stamped anywhere on them. I'm not saying Roger Craig was lying, I'm just saying it would have been impossible to do what he claimed he did. Edited April 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Thanks for correcting me, Mark. I did indeed confuse those two very similar names. I would still take Craig's word on these two very important aspects of the case, as in both instances he was corroborated by multiple witnesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Robert, Mark Lane asked for the Carcano placed into the record to be handed to him during his Warren Commission testimony. He pointed out that the words "Made Italy" were clearly stamped on the barrel. Since no one on the Warren Commission countered him by saying, "Mr. Lane, that is not printed on the barrel," I have to assume he was correct. Here is a transcript of his testimony, where you can read for yourself that he was allowed to examine the rifle: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 (edited) Robert, Mark Lane asked for the Carcano placed into the record to be handed to him during his Warren Commission testimony. He pointed out that the words "Made Italy" were clearly stamped on the barrel. Since no one on the Warren Commission countered him by saying, "Mr. Lane, that is not printed on the barrel," I have to assume he was correct. Here is a transcript of his testimony, where you can read for yourself that he was allowed to examine the rifle: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm Hi Don Yes, I have seen this before. It is just recently that it has dawned on me that, of all the 6.5mm Carcanos I have seen, I have yet to see "MADE ITALY" stamped on any of the barrel of these rifles, or anywhere else on these rifles. If it was stamped on C2766, it would be a rare and unique thing yet, when I look at photos of C2766, I can plainly see "CAL 6.5" stamped on the rear sight, but nowhere do I see "MADE ITALY" stamped on the barrel, rear sight OR the receiver. If Mr. Lane was pulling a fast one on us, it was very effective. Edited March 6, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 The way his testimony reads, Lane is pointing out the words on the rifle to the Commission. Certainly, if they weren't stamped there, the members of the Commission would have noted that in the record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) Hi Don Okay, I found it. Someone enlarged one of the photos from CE 541, and "MADE ITALY" can just be seen on the top of the base of the barrel. I've looked at that photo so many times, not realizing all it took was a little enlargement to see the stamping. That being said, this is an extremely rare thing to see stamped on a Carcano. Rare, too (actually, unheard of) is to see the date, 1940, stamped on the barrel, without the Fascist date stamped immediately after it in Roman numerals, as seen in the example in the inset photo - 1940-XVIII. Strange how everything on C2766 looks like it was done in white paint. For example, compare the date stamping seen in the inset with the "CAL" on C2766. All other Carcanos are clearly stamped with number and letter punches. What I wouldn't give to be able to hold and examine C2766. Edited May 1, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) BUMP Edited May 1, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) Therefore, David J., you think KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS of Chicago, Illinois, played a large part in the "plot" to frame Lee Oswald. Is that correct? You do realize how goofy that accusation is, don't you David? Classic Von Pein... Can you or anyone prove what we see printed as that order was what was actually on the microfilm - now that the cannister remains yet the film is gone? Do you understand that the only thing that relates THAT rifle to THAT order is Waldman's own pencil writing in of the VC # and Seriel #.? Kleins does not need to be part of the "plot" at all... they just needed to have given the FBI the evidence before it was authenticated. We also have the VP of the bank of Chicago stating that the MO deposited on this order would have been sent to and processed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago... as we all know, there are no processing mark or stamps on the Money Order, only the stamp Waldman THINKS is the same as the one they use... It's close, but not the same stamp... and as we can see, this is a KLEINS stamp. The Banking processes were never performed on this piece of paper. Let's see what else Waldman has to say.... So basically, before we have any idea what is actually on this roll of film, the FBI has it in their possession. We do not know anything about the state of Klein's inventory of C20-T750's as of March 1963. There is no way to connect C2766 from Riva in Italy to this order. Feldsott already told us about C2766 from an order shipped to Kleins in June 1962, not Feb 1963. The microfilm with this and any other order form which can be used to compare SOP at this time is no longer in the Archives... the cannister is empty. As to Waldman being the "proper individual" from Kleins... Mr. BELIN. Do you know who the person is that filled out this order? Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; his initials are so indicated as "M.W." Mr. BELIN. Would that be the name at the lower lefthand corner of Exhibit 1? Mr. WALDMAN. It is. Mr. BELIN. And that is who? Mr. WALDMAN. Mitchell W. Westra. Mr. BELIN. At that time was he an employee of your company? Mr. WALDMAN. He was. Mr. BELIN. Was he under your jurisdiction and supervision? Mr. WALDMAN. He was not under my direct supervision, no. He was under the supervision of Sam Kasper Westra nor Kasper were interviewed... the man who filled the order and his boss were not consulted... Waldman was. And Waldman does not know his own inventory as evidenced by this stated regarding a non-existent Model 91/38EFF Mr. WALDMAN. As for example, the different manufacturers making the Springfield rifle. Basically, the weapons were of the same general design, but as I say, there were details that were different. We originally had ordered one style of Carcano rifle, one that was known as the Model 91TS. As time went on, we changed to another model known as the Model 91/38EFF, this on April 13, 1962. Waldman testified on May 20, 1964. The microfilm in question had been in the possession of the FBI since the day they took it, Nov 23, 1963. Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number. Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is? Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope The TS rifle was a 36" scoped carbine The FC was not. C20-T750 had been advertised as a 36" carbine with a scope for $19.95 since March 1962. It was waht the Hidell Order refers to. Even the Secret Service told us the rifle found was a TS carbine. So the question remains. All the evidence points to the rifle ordered and shipped on the microfilm receipt as a 36" scoped carbine 91/38TS rifle. LNers like you claim that Kleins was shipping the larger rifle yet you provide nothing to support such a speculation. That a 40" FC rifle is found on the 6th floor does not equate to this having anything at all to do with that Hidell order unless you can show it was standard practice to replace one rifle with another... simply done too - just so us one other C20-T750 order and call it a day. But you can't give us anything but excuses for WHY we would need to do that in the first palce. Why on Earth would the FBI care about other orders in the Klein's files other than the paperwork connected with the purchase of one particular rifle with the serial number C2766 on it (which was purchased by Oswald, of course)? Because, as BA posted, it would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the order for C20-T750 was either the ONLY one where a different rifle was shipped, or was part of many 40" FC rifles shipped for that order number... That Kleins had been selling the C20-T750 since March 1962 and was on ad every month until Feb 1963... unchanged as to description for all those months - a 36" scoped TS carbine. Yet you are trying to get us to believe that not a single other C20-T750 was ordered during that entire year. Which would also be proven if we could see the other orders from that film or ANY of the Kleins film. The entire point von Pein is to see other orders with one of the other 99 seriel numbers on it. There are 100 rifles listed here... does the FBI show us that any one of these is a 40" FC rifle? Does Kleins offer any evidence related to these 99 OTHER rifles? Of course not because they like we know these are from the June 1962 shipment of 36" rifles We know that Riva removed the seriel number of all the rifles he worked on - except, says the FBI, this one batch... but they offer no proof of a single other rifle. At the end of the day von Pein, the evidence you and the WCR uses to implicate a man of murder is woefully inadequate and terribly inauthentic. We have breaks in the custody at an agency known for altering, creqating and destroying evidence when it suited them. (the entirety of the Mexico evidence was created with the help of an FBI asset named Ochoa) So it is really left up to you to connect the dots... and again - the evidence you choose to use falls terribly short and in reality shows the conspiracy of evidence thru the FBI that permeated this case... If the WCR/FBi could convict using real evidence that said what it intended we have to assume they would have. Instead we constantly see the FBI bending in every conceivable way to get the evidence to conform to the accusation and conclusions... while never offereing corroboration or authentication of said evidence. The man was dead - they just needed to make their case. The silence within the "investigation" of the assassination on the discrepancy between the rifle length as advertised and that found in the TSBD is deafening!!!... Mr Von Pein (and, probably, Mr Mack) will undoubtedly assure us that when Klein's exhausted their stock of advertised rifles, they just sent out whatever they happened to have in stock in the absence of that advertised and ordered, assuming that the customer will be happy enough (I've been here before!!) - as if we, duh, wouldn't have known that!?!?! Hmmmm... Well well well... Gary Mack has sent you a new personal conversation entitled "Six Things Made To Order For Lee Harvey Oswald". Gary Mack said: ====================================================================== Well, Ian, indeed the record indicates Klein's may have run out of 36" Carcanos and shipped "Hidell" the 40" model instead. Their monthly advertisements did change at the precise time "Hidell" placed the order. Here's what the ads show (as I wrote to Dave von Pein five years ago): https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/-T9y2K5oOq4/SMyT9S_onnEJ (https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/-T9y2K5oOq4/SMyT9S_onnEJ) I'm not aware of any evidence or reason to think that Klein's, to save a sale, would not have done so. They may have enclosed a note explaining the change and offering to exchange the rifle and pay for it's return or issue a refund if "Hidell" preferred. Gary Mack Edit: Still doesn't explain why the question was never asked, especially if there was such a simple explanation... Edited May 1, 2015 by Ian Lloyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Here is the copy of the advertisement from American Rifleman furnished to the SS by the FBI: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=79&tab=page Very useful. I can't find the original FBI copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) Why not accept Gerry Patrick Hemming's confession to A.J. Weberman, namely, that he telephoned Lee Harvey OSWALD from Miami on 11/21/1963 and offered OSWALD double the market price of his rifle if only he would bring it to work at the TSBD on Friday, and stow it on the 6th floor for his underground contact to retrieve? I find that story credible. Hemming is a link between Guy Banister and Edwin Walker. This move best explains, IMHO, how the Dallas Police "found" OSWALD's rifle in the TSBD -- and still allows us to regard OSWALD as ultimately innocent in the murder of JFK. I find Hemming's Confession crucial to explain exactly how OSWALD was framed (or set-up) to be blamed for the murder of JFK. Once this act was done, it was clear that OSWALD would be guilty in the eyes of the law. Yet Hoover saw that one person could not do this shooting -- so he knew there was a conspiracy -- and yet the circumstances required a fast, immediate response. So, Hoover's FBI and the Warren Commission would double-down on OSWALD -- not as an FPCC Director -- but as a "Lone Nut" -- in the interest of National Security. The arguments here seem to wish to make OSWALD innocent of even *possessing* a rifle. I think that's the wrong direction. The question of framing or setting-up OSWALD only requires that OSWALD be tricked into trusting his betrayers. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 1, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Paul, the answer would be that many of us who have studied Hemming extensively simply cannot take anything he said as being valid unless independently corroborated. He has been proven to have circulated misinformation, his brother is on record as saying that Hemming intentionally circulated conflicting and misleading stories and that he did so frustrate and obfuscate. Although I consider him a brilliant individual I arrive at the conclusion that I certainly could not separate wheat from chaff in regard to his information, especially in certain areas such as his remarks about Hall whom is mistrusted and may have tried to cast blame on to get him out of Hemming's own hair and away from his contributors. I do think he may have come close to expressing some truths to Twyman but then pulled back when he had a chance to think about it and simply stirred to pot further. I know you use certain information developed by Joan Mellon, you might want to ask her how she came to feel about getting "help" from Hemming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) Paul, the answer would be that many of us who have studied Hemming extensively simply cannot take anything he said as being valid unless independently corroborated. He has been proven to have circulated misinformation, his brother is on record as saying that Hemming intentionally circulated conflicting and misleading stories and that he did so frustrate and obfuscate. Although I consider him a brilliant individual I arrive at the conclusion that I certainly could not separate wheat from chaff in regard to his information, especially in certain areas such as his remarks about Hall whom is mistrusted and may have tried to cast blame on to get him out of Hemming's own hair and away from his contributors. I do think he may have come close to expressing some truths to Twyman but then pulled back when he had a chance to think about it and simply stirred to pot further. I know you use certain information developed by Joan Mellon, you might want to ask her how she came to feel about getting "help" from Hemming. Fair enough, Larry, yet without Gerry Patrick Hemming -- whom A.J. Weberman considered the very key to unlocking the JFK murder mystery -- we seem to be at an impasse. Insofar as Weberman may be right, and Hemming was a direct eye-witness to multiple stages of the JFK murder plot, from Miami to New Orleans to Dallas -- with interactions with all of the players that Gaeton Fonzi (for only one example) thought to be central to the players on the JFK Kill-Team, then if we exclude Hemming from our formulas, we place ourselves at a serious disadvantage. From another angle -- if we believe we can sift through the wheat and chaff in arcane CIA documents, then perhaps we might try one more time to sift through Hemming's years and years of material -- granting that Hemming was playing cat and mouse much of the time (as one might expect from the man who knew all the answers, while everybody else had all the questions). A unified field theory of the JFK murder cannot be complete, IMHO, without the input of Gerry Patrick Hemming, due to his intricate relationships with David Morales, Frank Sturgis, Guy Banister, Edwin Walker, Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- and the actual street-crew of the JFK murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 1, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Sifting through the Hemming documents again is a fine idea. I did that for both Hemming and Sturgis and others like Howard, Hargraves et all several years ago but there could likely be a more documents available now. I did review all of Hemming's contact documents with the CIA, especially for the brief period in which he was a provisional informant after his return to Cuba. I also looked at a whole series of contact reports with the FBI. He and several others of his crew did that somewhat routinely, apparently just to establish some sort of relationship - albeit one way. Its really educational, even if there turns out not to be much new. Its also very useful to compare what is in the reports to what he was saying to the media at the same time or commented later in his extended online time. I'm presuming you have the Twyman book so you could also compare his remarks to Twyman to the rest. I should be clear in that I do think that Hemming did hear certain talk and gossip about the plot both before and after and he may have - as he told Twyman - just decided not to get on that train and stay. Having some knowledge would put him at risk, explaining his brothers remark that he needed to become essentially "unreliable" just to protect himself. However on the point you mentioned, could you give us at least a brief set of points showing that Hemming did have personal contact with Morales and Bannister. That would be helpful. Its probably also important to remember that Hemming actively accused Sturgis of being a "snitch", which he indeed was circa 1963, actively providing a broad range of info to his CIA handler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 (edited) Why not accept Gerry Patrick Hemming's confession to A.J. Weberman, namely, that he telephoned Lee Harvey OSWALD from Miami on 11/21/1963 and offered OSWALD double the market price of his rifle if only he would bring it to work at the TSBD on Friday, and stow it on the 6th floor for his underground contact to retrieve? I dunno. I'm not out to knock Paul T. or anyone else on this point, but this either makes Oswald dumb as hell, or complicit in the assassination, given the timing. If he made this move on Hemming's say-so, then his "innocent" movements and alibis after the assassination become suspect. Unless, of course, he was an intelligence agent. Then all bets are off. Do we take Oswald to be "innocent" with the implication that he was also "dumb as hell"? Needed $40, or so, that bad so as to hide a rifle along tomorrow's parade route, in the building where he, a "defector," worked? Was Hemming a tempting "key" that has opened too few locks? I'm not baiting people - I've had my moments with Hemming, too. Edited May 1, 2015 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Schmidt Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Good post, David. It might be controversial, but I've always regarded Hemming as full of it in terms of his 'revelations' to the research community. While some of the background information he provided is undoubtedly true and valuable, he was definitely making a lot of crap up. 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