Jump to content
The Education Forum

More Phoney Rifle Documents--Proof!

Recommended Posts

We went through this for hours on end.

We sure did. And you just simply IGNORED the File Locator Number.

Plus, the "bleed thru" thing has also been explained in a non-sinister fashion. I suppose you have totally ignored that fact too. Because, you see, that's who Jim DiEugenio is. He's a conspiracy zealot and he doesn't care if things have been explained in reasonable non-conspiratorial ways or not.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I never said anything about bleed through.

Secondly, there is nothing about the file locator number superseding the validation of the money order, from either the documents or the bank supervisors.

In fact, the documents found by Sandy and David indicate the opposite is the case.

If you have evidence to the contrary, what is it?

Meanwhile you will ignore the latest discovery right? That is of two dates for the original purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But James, you forget that the presence of the File Locator Number proves that the PMO was processed, and thus the PMO is authentic.

Just like the postal stamps prove that the the PMO was purchased, and the handwriting proves it was purchased by Oswald.

Just like the bank stamps prove.... um, just like the lack of bank stamps proves they weren't required!


P.S. My FIRST and LAST sentences above, combined, were precisely Lance Payette's argument back when we debated this.

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile you will ignore the latest discovery right? That is of two dates for the original purchase.

Huh? Point me to the info about this "latest discovery" regarding "two dates". I don't recall hearing that argument before.

EDIT: I now realize that DiEugenio is probably referring to the June 1962 (Feldsott) vs. February 1963 (Waldman) date discrepancy for when Klein's gained possession of Rifle C2766. That's hardly anything new, however. I have no definitive answer for the date discrepancy, but I laid it all on the table and talked about it at my own website several years ago, when I said this:


Obviously Lee Harvey Oswald ordered that bolt-action Carcano rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods on March 12, 1963. All of the documents are in Oswald's very own handwriting. How anyone can believe he did not order that weapon HIMSELF is beyond my imagination. [see Commission Exhibits 773, 788, and 789.]

And the same goes for the Smith & Wesson revolver that Oswald also ordered in early 1963. That order form, too, was filled out in Oswald's handwriting, without doubt [CE790].

And, btw, as a side note here -- I don't believe there is any proof that Oswald MAILED that order form for the revolver in January. He filled out the order form itself with a late January date, but that doesn't mean he put it in the mail in January.

Given the fact that both the rifle and the revolver were shipped from the two mail-order firms on the same day--March 20--it seems reasonable to me to think that Oswald might very well have mailed both order forms--for the rifle and the revolver--at the same time in March of '63.

In any event, all of the paperwork in evidence proves that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka: A.J. Hidell) ordered and paid for the two murder weapons -- both the rifle and the revolver.

And one of the best documents that proves Oswald ordered Carcano Rifle C2766 is Waldman Exhibit No. 7.


The C2766 serial number, btw, is a serial number that nobody in the world has ever seen duplicated on any other Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even though Jim DiEugenio thinks that Thomas H. Purvis and Dr. John K. Lattimer have owned Carcanos with that exact same serial number on them. But Jim is wrong about that.

Lattimer told researcher John A. Canal in April 2004 that the "C2766" number that appears in Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln" was an error. And the error couldn't be corrected before the book went to press.

And Tom Purvis hasn't produced any other "C2766" Carcano either. [...]

So, Jim, were Klein's Sporting Goods and all of the various handwriting experts for both the Warren Commission and the HSCA part of an elaborate post-assassination cover-up too?

Plus -- There's William Waldman's Warren Commission testimony, wherein he confirmed that on the evening of 11/22/63, Klein's had been contacted by the FBI about Klein's searching through its records for information about the C2766 rifle. The FBI had obtained information from the rifle wholesaler (Crescent Firearms of New York City) that C2766 had been included in a bulk shipment of Carcano rifles that was originally received by Klein's Sporting Goods in February 1963:

"We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and...we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us." -- William J. Waldman; Vice President of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. [at 7 H 364-365]

There is a discrepancy as to the exact date when Klein's received this shipment of guns from Crescent. Louis Feldsott, the President of Crescent Firearms, signed an affidavit [at 11 H 205] saying that the rifles were shipped on June 18, 1962, which conflicts with the paperwork that can be seen in Waldman Exhibit No. 5. But keep in mind that Waldman Exhibit 5 is a document that was generated by CRESCENT FIREARMS, not Klein's.

So, the paper trail is complete -- from Crescent Firearms, to Klein's, to Hidell/Oswald. And it's not reasonable to believe that all of this detailed paperwork regarding the disposition and sale of Rifle C2766 has (or could have been) faked or manufactured, particularly in such a lightning-quick fashion within hours of the assassination, and also involving more than one company (Crescent and Klein's).

Plus: The whole idea of a SERIAL NUMBER is to provide a SINGULARLY UNIQUE number for a SINGLE item--such as a rifle, or an electronic appliance, or an automobile, or whatever the product might be.

And to believe, as some theorists actually do (such as Thomas H. Purvis) that there are up to "30 to 50" (Purvis' quote) Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles with the EXACT same serial number on them of C2766 is a belief that defies all logic--and it defies the literal definition and PURPOSE of a "serial number" in the first place. Such a belief is nuts. And particularly with respect to FIREARMS, which are items that are frequently used in crimes, which means that law enforcement agencies often need to trace specific serial numbers to specific alleged criminals.

And, as I said, as of this date, not a single person on the planet has produced for public inspection a single additional Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 rifle with the serial number C2766 affixed to it. And I doubt anybody ever will--because, IMO, no other such rifle exists or was ever manufactured to begin with.

And there's something else that nobody has ever been able to do, and that is to produce two Mannlicher-Carcano rifles with the same serial number--period. Not necessarily C2766. But ANY number.

Can anyone produce two MC rifles that have the same number on them--let's say serial number G1519? Any number would do, as long as we could see two MC rifles bearing the exact same number. That at least would prove that the factories making the Carcanos did, indeed, produce multiple rifles with the same number. But that has never been proven either, as far as I know.

But even if someone does eventually come forward and show the world two MC rifles with the very same serial number, it really wouldn't mean very much at all.


Because there's only ONE Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the whole world, regardless of serial number, that killed John F. Kennedy, and that weapon was the one found inside the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.

So even if someone produces 25 more Carcanos with the serial number C2766 on them, it wouldn't suddenly make the C2766 rifle found in the Depository CEASE being the Kennedy murder weapon. Nothing can ever do that. Not even a thousand more "C2766" rifles."

David Von Pein

June 2010 and March 2012


Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....So, the paper trail is complete -- from Crescent Firearms, to Klein's, to Hidell/Oswald. And it's not reasonable to believe that all of this detailed paperwork regarding the disposition and sale of Rifle C2766 has (or could have been) faked or manufactured, particularly in such a lightning-quick fashion within hours of the assassination, and also involving more than one company (Crescent and Klein's). ....

I think everybody would agree with the point I highlighted in red.

But some of the paperwork could have been fabricated beforehand, and some afterword.

I've wondered just exactly which of the documents were made public soon after the assassination. Anything made public later could have been fabricated after-the-fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what Vince Bugliosi had to say about the Feldsott/Waldman date conflict:

"Consistent with the unavoidable errors and discrepancies that so frequently accompany monetary transactions involved in the sale of products, Louis Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms in New York City, told the Warren Commission he sold Oswald’s Carcano, serial number C2766, to Klein’s in Chicago on June 18, 1962 (11 H 205, WC affidavit of Louis Feldsott), yet William Waldman, vice president of Klein’s, said the subject Carcano was part of a shipment of one hundred rifles sent to them by Crescent on February 15, 1963 (over eight months after it was sold to Klein’s?), and received by Klein’s on February 21, 1963 (7 H 363; Waldman Exhibit No. 2, 21 H 693).

Since we don’t have the Crescent Firearms document Feldsott based his affidavit on, we can rely on the aforementioned document we do have from Crescent showing the Carcano being part of a February 15, 1963, shipment by Crescent that was received by Klein’s on February 21, 1963 (Waldman Exhibit No. 2, 21 H 693; see also Waldman Exhibit No. 3, 21 H 698).

So either Feldsott’s affidavit was incorrect, or Crescent actually shipped the hundred rifles to Klein’s more than eight months after it sold the rifles to Klein’s." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 392 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a bunch of utter baloney at number 20 by Davey.

No matter how much evidence you use, his neurons are impenetrable by evidence, logic, sense, testimony, exhibits.

If the WC said it, well in Davey's world it must be true. (Even though Jerry Ford later said they screwed up.)

1. No one knows if or when Oswald sent in the revolver order. Period. That is nothing but a blatant assumption on your part.

2. The paper trail for the revolver is simply full of gaps. We went through this before and you tried to say that somehow the USPS left a certain drawer for REA clients who came there and kept their checks and then gave them to REA. :news

As crazy as that sounds, I swear on a stack of Bibles Davey argued this for about two days with me. I told him how crazy it was to even muse about such an insane idea.

Then he went over to Dale Myers site and stole the idea that REA left a card there at his PO box to go and get the revolver at their office.

​Problem 1: There is no evidence in the record that this happened.

Problem 2: There is no evidence the FBI ever went to REA to certify the transfer.

So what does Davy say: Well, they found the gun on him, so they didn't need to. :stupid

Uh Davy,whatever revolver was found on LHO, and whatever revolver killed Tippit, there had to be a chain of possession established throughout. You know, the bullets, the shells, any prints, purchase of ammo, purchase and possession of the revolver. Because, as everyone knows, that supporting evidence is very questionable in the TIppit case.

If that transfer was not made, and there is no proof that it was, then with all the other variables, you have a hard time proving Oswald's culpability.

What I think happened is that the FBI learned the hard way. With the rifle--they just tossed out evidence and never examined it for constancy and corroboration. Hoping no one else would find the problems.

With the revolver, they gave out a paucity of evidence hoping no one would notice the vacuum. Take a look at the interviews--not even with the right people.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jimmy D. doesn't seem to care how ridiculous he looks on the topic of Oswald's revolver purchase. Jim apparently enjoys wallowing in the egg that resides perpetually on his face concerning this matter, year after year....




Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Addendum re: Louis Feldsott and the "C2766" serial number....


But thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June 1962 and the other in February 1963.


If that was the case (which it obviously isn't), then I wonder why Louis Feldsott didn't ALSO report to the Warren Commission about having sold Klein's a SECOND rifle with the serial number C2766?

Did Feldsott stop looking?

Since all reasonable people know, of course, that there is only ONE MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE that was ever stamped with the unique serial number of C2766, then we must conclude that Feldsott was incorrect about the date of the shipment of the C2766 rifle to Klein's. It wasn't June of 1962; it was February of 1963 (per the verified records we can currently find in Warren Commission Volume 21).

For all their efforts, the conspiracy theorists who are desperate to take the JFK murder weapon out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands still have failed to come up with any proof that ANY TWO Carcano rifles were ever stamped with the exact same serial number--C2766 or any other number.

You'd think after searching for all these years for a duplicate "C2766" MC, the CTers might be able to show the world one of these duplicate guns (especially since Thomas H. Purvis once claimed that there might be somewhere between 30 and 50 MC rifles with the same C2766 number on them)!

And yet, to date, not a single C2766 has surfaced--except Commission Exhibit No. 139.

But even if 100 additional Carcano rifles were discovered tomorrow with the same C2766 serial number on them -- who cares? So what?

Would the discovery of several more "C2766" MC rifles suddenly make Oswald's C2766 rifle CEASE BEING THE WEAPON THAT KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY? Of course it wouldn't; and that's because Oswald's C2766 gun (CE139) has unique barrel rifling marks that set it apart from all other rifles--including any other Carcano rifles that the CTers think are also stamped with the serial number C2766.

So, in reality, the argument that conspiracists continue to dredge up regarding potential duplicate C2766 serial numbers is a worthless argument in the first place. Because the "C2766" gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD (with OSWALD'S prints on it) is the one and only gun that killed JFK.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Davey keeps out of the record.

As anyone who did any research on this subject--which automatically excludes Davey-- knows, during World War 2, Mussolini commissioned the mass manufacture of the MC rifle. It was made in more than one city. And as an affidavit in the WC notes, there was no rigor or system done with the serial numbers.

The stamp would read a letter, and then a number. The letter would be for the city, and then the order of the rifle manufacture would be the number.

Now, even Bugliosi notes in his end notes, that there is evidence from a weapons dealer who was familiar with the MC numbering system, that the serial numbers would repeat. But he tries to get out of this by saying well, the FBI said different.

Sorry Vince, Frazier never produced anywhere near the required evidence to prove that point. And in fact Sylvia Meagher impeached him with his own evidence. (Meagher, p. 105 ) And this hidden report said it was not true that each rifle had a letter prefix. Some did and some did not.( (ibid) As she concluded, the WC and Frazier chose to suppress facts around this important issue.

Armstrong went further, he deduced that there were at least three million of the rifles built. Many of them were then sold after the war.

Davey knows all this, since Tom Purvis cleaned up on him with this issue more than once. But he never gets tired of bringing up these already decided issues. Like McAdams he leaves out certain key info in order to snooker ingenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armstrong...deduced that there were at least three million of the rifles built. Many of them were then sold after the war.

And have you, Jimmy, yet seen ANY TWO of those weapons that have the exact same serial number on them?

Has anyone in the whole world come up with two separate Carcano 91/38 rifles that have the exact same serial number stamped on them?

The answer to that last question is, AFAIK, a resounding NO, they have not.

But, Jimmy, if it makes you happy, keep on pretending that Tom Purvis was right when he made this outlandish statement in 2008:

"Considering all known variables (excluding re-barrelling) there were between 30 to 50 weapons produced which could have had the exact "C2766" serial number." -- Thomas Purvis (aka "Brokedad"); September 11, 2008

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1938 and beyond:

1. The Model 38 was first put out in the 7.35mm caliber.
2. Later, the caliber was changed to the 6.5mm caliber and became known as the Model 91/38.*

* With this change, multiple "ORIGINAL" weapons were created which would have had the serial# C2766, as the weapon was produced at multiple arms manufacturing plants.


You are talking Powerball odds that Crescent firearms or Klein's would have two Carcano rifles with the same serial number. A person spending his whole life might find two Carcanos with the same serial number. Note that when Klein's inventoried the boxes of Carcanos [Click Here], they didn't even bother with the letter prefix in front of the serial number, knowing full well how unlikely it would be to get two rifles with just the same numbers.


The weapon has been specifically identified with four different plant manufacturing stamps on it. Therefore, at minimum, there could be as many as 4 of the weapons which were originally produced with the C2766 serial number.


Even if true, which isn't shown, the chance of any other C2766 ending up in America is slim. The chance of two such rifles ending up in Crescent or Klein's inventories is mindbogglingly remote. Hard to imagine even with effort, with an intent to frame, that someone could find the necessary rifle with the matching serial number to do such a thing.


And this is a very strange argument for Mr. Purvis to be making in the first place. Purvis thinks that CE139 is the real murder weapon of JFK. He doesn't think there was anything underhanded about the way Oswald obtained Rifle C2766 from Klein's.

At least I don't think he thinks there is anything covert or underhanded about it. But, then again, with so many theories flying around loose like confetti in a tornado...who knows?

Perhaps I'm wrong and Purvis thinks that somebody miraculously got ahold of a second MC 91/38 rifle with #C2766 on it and then did a switcheroo of some kind. And maybe somebody also faked Waldman Exhibit No. 7, to boot.

Or, maybe Purvis is just spitting out impossibly complicated C2766 rifle scenarios just for the heck of it, and/or just for the sake of pumping his own chest with respect to his vast knowledge about these Italian-made firearms....even though the entire topic is a completely moot one.

Ya think?

(I do.)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one, repeat, no one censors the information at his site like Davey does.

In fact, in that regard he even surpasses McAdams, which I thought would be impossible.

We already have evidence that there were duplicates because Sucher bought thousands of them! And he was an eyewitness to the numbering system.

Purvis proved by comparing two rifles that the numbering system did repeat itself.

At one point Lattimer said he had a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald's

But then one of the zealots got to him and he changed his story. (Which is what usually happens on their side, as with Jean Davison saying today Oswald did not know Russian when he got to USSR. This is changed from her book.)

But let me tell you where this will all lead, from my past experience with Davey.

He will now say it does not matter anyway, just like he once said back and to the left doesn't matter.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Purvis proved by comparing two rifles that the numbering system did repeat itself.

Purvis didn't "prove" anything of the kind.

Here's what I said to DiEugenio in 2008:

"Two more examples of Mr. DiEugenio playing fast and loose with the

facts of the case with respect to the "rifle/serial number" issue are

illustrated below:

1.) DiEugenio states in his "Von Pein: Still Cheerleading" article:


"Tom Purvis has proved there was at least one of those [36-inch

Model 38 Carcanos] stamped with that serial number [C2766]." -- James D.

Of course, Purvis "proved" no such thing at all. Not even

close to it, in fact. Jim just THINKS that Purvis has "proved" the

existence of such a second "C2766" Carcano.

Mr. Purvis apparently owns (or owned) a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle

with a serial number that began with "C5XXX" (I can't recall the

exact number, but the first number after the "C" was a "5", which

is the important part).

And therefore, per Purvis' way of assessing the situation, this has to

mean (undeniably) that a rifle with "C2766" on it must have also been

produced at that exact Carcano factory (wherever it was, I can't

recall, but it doesn't matter) at some point prior to his "C5XXX" being

manufactured, given the presumed progressive numbering system for

such things.

But Purvis hasn't proven that these various Carcano plants that were

manufacturing the MC rifles many years ago didn't have some kind of

inventory system in place that would ensure that no two rifles of the

same make and model would end up with the same identical serial


I happen to believe that some kind of inventory system for serial

numbers WAS probably being used at those various Carcano factories

(even years ago, before the computer age and more efficient inventory

systems being in place, etc.).

Because the whole point of stamping an item with a SERIAL NUMBER is to

make that item UNIQUE when compared to all others. Right? Of course

it's right. And it stands to reason that the Carcano plants of the

world were adhering to that basic type of "unique" policy with respect

to serial numbers on their products, even back in the early 1900s.

Yes, I suppose it's possible that a second rifle with the number C2766

on it might have slipped through the cracks at one of the plants who

made those weapons years ago. I can't deny that possibility.

But to believe, as Mr. Purvis seems to believe, that as many as "30 to

50" MC 91/38 rifles could have been stamped with that same C2766

number is, IMO, just simply ludicrous.

Plus: To repeat, where is the proof that ANY other MC 91/38 rifle

(besides CE139) was ever stamped with the number "C2766"? To date, no

such proof exists (even via the late Dr. John K. Lattimer; see the

following comments on that).

2.) Jim DiEugenio also said this:

"As I reported, Dr. [John] Lattimer had one [Carcano rifle] of

the 40 inch variety with the C 2766 serial number." -- James D.

Jim evidently hasn't seen the following comments made by Dr. Lattimer

himself (in 2004) regarding the confusing matter that appears in

Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln", in which he stated that he

did, indeed, own a Carcano 91/38 rifle with the number C2766 stamped

on it.

But, when we do a little leg work regarding this Lattimer rifle (as

John Canal did, by writing to Lattimer himself), the mystery of Dr.

Lattimer's duplicate "C2766" rifle is cleared up in just a few

words....these words:

"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the

notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he

used for his tests was C-2766 (the same [serial number] as the

Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and

today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It

was [an] error: "...the book was printed before we noticed the error

and it was too late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004

To re-emphasize Dr. Lattimer's quote within John Canal's post above:

"The book [Kennedy And Lincoln] was printed before we noticed

the error and it was too late to correct it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer;

April 2004

Sorry, Jim. There's another C2766 theory down the drain.

So, we're still left at the end of this day (like all other days since

November 22, 1963) with no proof whatsoever that any other Mannlicher-

Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (other than CE139) was ever stamped with the

specific serial number C2766.

David Von Pein

October 2008


Edited by David Von Pein
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

  • Create New...