Klein's didn't start selling the 40" rifle until August, 1963

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

This is a good point. The problem I see is that with the specific part number on the Hidell order and department number that references a specific ad, it seems doubtful that Klein’s would ship out a 40” rifle and turn less of a profit unless they were completely out of stock of 36” rifles. 

Klein’s ordered 400 36” rifles from Crescent with a requested delivery date of October ‘62. The first removal of rifles from Harborside Terminal by Fred Rupp in August ‘62 was a bunch of cartons of 36” rifles - most likely to fill that order. 
Crescent shipped out 50 36” rifles in Dec ‘62 and another 50 in Feb 63”.  Was this part of a staged delivery plan for the order of 400? Were they separate orders? Did those rifles even go to Klein’s?

The WC did not use Fred Rupp’s shipping book (that reflects these shipments of 36” rifles) as an Exhibit. Also, on the WC copy of the Klein’s order form, Waldman Exhibit 1, the Oct ‘62 requested delivery date for the order of 400 is completely illegible. 

The WC did not ask Waldman or Scibor a single question about their stock or sales volume, or anything about 36 vs. 40” rifles. The bank statement provided by Klein’s reflects only about 10 possible Carcanos sold in the previous month. 

Basically, there is reason to doubt that Klein’s was out of stock of 36” rifles, and the WC avoided the issue like the plague.  

Can anyone read the first word of cursive handwriting in the column referencing the order of 400? This is the FBI copy of Waldman Exhibit 1 where the Oct. ‘62 delivery date is visible by the way. It says “net” or “vet” or something before “60 days” and I’m awful at reading cursive apparently:

https://digitalcollections-baylor.quartexcollections.com/Documents/Detail/rifle-info-kleins-order/717415?item=717419

I think I saw earlier in this thread that Klein's advertised the 36" rifle for months before and after selling Oswald the rifle. This can be taken as an indication they had the rifle in stock when they shipped Oswald the 40". I've worked in warehouses. For a time I worked as an order checker. Where I worked, however, I didn't check the order item by item. I looked at the items supposedly out of stock on the order form and verified whether or not they were out of stock. In other words, it was my business to know the stock levels. But nobody double-checked the order item by item. In any event, the reality is that order pullers make lots of mistakes. They are low paid and often not of a very high intellect. They are quite often newbies, who know little about where the stock is stored. It is totally reasonable to assume that in this case, some newbie saw a crate of a new shipment of 40" M/C rifles and didn't realize they were different than the rifle on the order form. And shipped the wrong rifle. This kinda thing happens all the time.

 

 

[Gary Murr]

On 8/16/2022 at 11:01 AM, Pat Speer said:

While this is true, we can suspect it is accurate, until proven otherwise. Someone needs to acquire the American Rifleman magazine and double-check what Gary once told David. It's possible it's incorrect. But in the meantime we can suspect otherwise. 

Pat et al

As part of my research into the distribution availability of 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois, I acquired over several years  400+ issues of various "gun" and sporting men's magazines for the 1950s and 1960s, including Guns, American Rifleman, Field and Stream to name but three. I can indicate to you that the information that Gary Mack gave to David is accurate. I am affixing the cover page  of the April 1963 issue of AR as well as an enlargement of the Klein's ad from page 55 of that issue, an ad that shows the 40" rifle.

Gary Murr

 

 

Edited February 6 by Gary Murr

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Gary Murr said:

Pat et al

As part of my research into the distribution availability of 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois, I acquired over several years  400+ issues of various "gun" and sporting men's magazines for the 1950s and 1960s, including Guns, American Rifleman, Field and Stream to name but three. I can indicate to you that the information that Gary Mack gave to David is accurate. I am affixing the cover page  of the April 1963 issue of AR as well as an enlargement of the Klein's ad from page 55 of that issue, an ad that shows the 40" rifle.

Gary Murr

Thanks, Gary. Your thorough research is, as always, much appreciated. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I think I saw earlier in this thread that Klein's advertised the 36" rifle for months before and after selling Oswald the rifle. This can be taken as an indication they had the rifle in stock when they shipped Oswald the 40". I've worked in warehouses. For a time I worked as an order checker. Where I worked, however, I didn't check the order item by item. I looked at the items supposedly out of stock on the order form and verified whether or not they were out of stock. In other words, it was my business to know the stock levels. But nobody double-checked the order item by item. In any event, the reality is that order pullers make lots of mistakes. They are low paid and often not of a very high intellect. They are quite often newbies, who know little about where the stock is stored. It is totally reasonable to assume that in this case, some newbie saw a crate of a new shipment of 40" M/C rifles and didn't realize they were different than the rifle on the order form. And shipped the wrong rifle. This kinda thing happens all the time.

 

 

I agree that that might be what happened. However, if the scenario you propose is true, the WC could have figured it out with zero effort. They could have asked Waldman or Scibor why a 40" rifle was shipped on a 36" rifle order, got the answer that it was likely a mistake by a warehouse worker, and moved on. That they didn't ask such an obvious question, ask any questions at all about the order filling process, or interview the actual order fillers (whose initials are on the order form) is negligent at best, and bordering on suspicious, IMO. The FBI did interview the order fillers in March '64, but also failed to ask a single question about matching up part numbers and/or 36 vs. 40" rifles. 

That said, Waldman Exhibit 1 actually provides a mechanism for the type of mistake you suggest. The exact same part number, C20-T749, is listed for both 36" and 40" rifles, so the 40" rifles coming in on that order form would have been tagged identically to the 36" rifles. This might have been a company-wide screw up, since the part number for the 40" rifle after the April advertisements was changed to something different (if I recall the "T" designation was eventually removed). Again though, this should have been incredibly simple for the FBI and WC to figure out, so why didn't they? 

The rifle investigation in general is so ridiculously awful and so full of contradictions that I think it is totally reasonable to ask questions. The timeline of the shipping-receiving document discoveries and subsequent lies under oath, and Lou Feldsott's bizarre affidavit in particular suggest at the very least that someone in the FBI (Martin Greely is a prime suspect) made a very bad mistake, and later tried to cover it up. In addition, the FBI's handling of the Century Arms angle was so bad that even the WC got suspicious. I'm not convinced that there was anything conspiratorial going on - but the evidence is ambiguous and contradictory enough that the possibility of fabricated documents, etc. cannot be completely ruled out. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mark:

I just gave you two examples which indicate the serial numbers repeated.

The idea that say me, or Gil would have the ability to track down all the other ones, that is pure Von Peinism. How could an individual citizen, by himself, without any of the proper investigative power and aids do such a thing?  Its like asking, OK, if you think there was a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, dig him up and show it to us.  That is just nonsense.  As per Latimer, Gil showed you the quote from his own book.  When his fellow Oswald did it fanatics alerted him to the fact that he was hurting their case, he changed his story.

The reason Gil and also myself have Von Pein on ignore is very simple.  Its due to our repeated exposure, year after year after year, to his silly arguments, which he never alters.  Because they are not based on evidence but on a position.

Many years ago, he tried to defend Bugliosi's book.  I pointed out that Vince was lying in his introduction. DVP did not know what I was talking about, which showed i knew that book better than he did.  I quoted him the part where Vince said he would make the critics' arguments as they wanted them made before neutralizing them.  This was pure Bugliosian BS.  And I proved it with 25 examples from the book, where VInce had to have known he was being dishonest.  Since the better and more convincing evidence was right in the same place.

When you can do that 25 times, I think its time for you to call it a day.  What does DVP say, "Well, if you want to call him a l--r, OK."  I just proved with 25 examples from his own book that he had done just that.

So what is the point in arguing with someone like that?  And let us not forget, when DVP got thrown out of Lancer.  He recommended books on psychiatry for everyone else to cure them of their maladies.  This from a guy who would cover up 25 instances of blatant prevarication from his favorite writer.

BTW, I once met an attorney friend of Bugliosi's in Dallas.  He sat me down and explained how he had talked to VInce about the book before it was published.  VInce had admitted to him that he had an agenda going in and it was to demonize and marginalize the critics as much as he could.  This form a guy who deliberately misrepresents the evidence 25 times in order to do so.  This is not writing and research.  Its having an agenda a mile wide to serve your own interests.

This is pure Machiavelli. And its from the horse's mouth. It makes not one iota of difference to DVP.  And if  that does not make any difference, then what does? If you agree with that, let us know so we understand in advance who you are and where you are coming from and can save us a lot of time and trouble.

FWIW, DVP posted the links to dozens of Bugliosi's speeches from his book tour, and I tracked down some more by myself. And I even met the guy once. And, at least in person, he never pretended he began writing his book with no agenda. His claim was that when he began preparing for the TV mock trial, he had no personal agenda, but that as he developed the case for Oswald's guilt, he became convinced of his guilt, and that this made him angry. Oswald's guilt was so clear (at least to him) that it made him wonder why so many continued to doubt his guilt. He then set out to demonstrate, for the benefit of history, just how wrong so many were to doubt Oswald's guilt. 

Well, this is why he did so little investigation himself. His goal was not to add to the evidence. It was to take the evidence available and re-argue it in such a way that he thought any reasonable person would be con-VINCEd. (Pretty clever, eh?) 

In any event, he demonstrated a tremendous lack of self-awareness in the process. Somewhere along the line I read about some tests performed on law students. Bugliosi would presumably have been aware of these tests. Law professors would randomly assign some students to argue for the guilt of a made-up suspect, and others to argue for his innocence. (To be clear, the evidence against this made-up suspect was designed to be inconclusive.) In any event, after the conclusion of the mock trial of this subject, these students would be asked what they personally, not professionally, had concluded about the suspect. Did he do the crime or not? Well, as I recall, roughly 85% of those randomly assigned to argue for his guilt said he'd committed the crime, and 85% of those randomly assigned to argue for his innocence said he did not commit the crime. Arguing a case affects one's judgment. The vast majority of the time. 

It follows, then, that if Bugliosi was actually interested in pursuing the truth (as opposed to indulging in an ego trip) he would have shared drafts of his book with a number of prominent CTs, and addressed their input. He would also have reached out to numerous experts outside those who'd already planted their flag (i.e. Baden, Spitz). That he did not suggests the truth about his book: it was a non-brief (to be kind) prosecutor's brief. 

[Gil Jesus]

1 hour ago, Gary Murr said:

Pat et al

As part of my research into the distribution availability of 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano ammunition manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company of East Alton, Illinois, I acquired over several years  400+ issues of various "gun" and sporting men's magazines for the 1950s and 1960s, including Guns, American Rifleman, Field and Stream to name but three. I can indicate to you that the information that Gary Mack gave to David is accurate. I am affixing the cover page  of the April 1963 issue of AR as well as an enlargement of the Klein's ad from page 55 of that issue, an ad that shows the 40" rifle.

Gary Murr

That's all well and good but the Depository rifle wasn't purchased in March and it wasn't purchased by Oswald.

The phony money order proved that and the phony Klein's deposit documentation proved that as well.

[James DiEugenio]

Pat,

In a talk I had with Vince, prior to the book's publication, I asked him, "How will you explain the 10 mm migration of the rear skull wound from the EOP to the cowlick area? How does that happen post-mortem?"

He said something like this: Oh you mean that four inch thing.  Well, it's one of those things that since we know Oswald did it, it doesn't really matter.

 

It was after this that I realized his book was going to be a put up job.  And I also realized that someone was going to have demonstrate the hackery piece by piece. 

And if no one else did, I would.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, Tom O'Neill, the author of Chaos. about Bugliosi and the Tate/LaBianca case got in contact with me a few weeks ago.

A pretty big name director is interested in doing a documentary based on his book, and exposing what Vince did in that case also.  Which is something I dealt with in my book.

[Pat Speer]

45 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat,

In a talk I had with Vince, prior to the book's publication, I asked him, "How will you explain the 10 mm migration of the rear skull wound from the EOP to the cowlick area? How does that happen post-mortem?"

He said something like this: Oh you mean that four inch thing.  Well, it's one of those things that since we know Oswald did it, it doesn't really matter.

 

It was after this that I realized his book was going to be a put up job.  And I also realized that someone was going to have demonstrate the hackery piece by piece. 

And if no one else did, I would.

And I thank you for that. I wrote a long piece on his mis-representation of witnesses, and also wrote about his inconsistencies regarding the wounds and shooting scenario, but you went through the whole book. 

I view that book as a tragedy. Bugliosi had the brains, rep, and connections to push the case forward. As you know, he had long questioned the official story about RFK's death. It's hard to understand why he refused to use that independence when writing Reclaiming History. I mean, I would have been satisfied if he'd ended up claiming Oswald did it, as long as he presented the case as a complex case, and acknowledged wrong-doing on the part of the DPD, FBI, and WC. But he doubled-down on stupid. Lt. Day, Earl Warren, Arlen Specter and Michael Baden et al were all dedicated servants to the truth, while the best CTs were badly mistaken and short-sighted, and the worst CTs total crackpots. I mean, if I recall, he didn't even acknowledge that Lattimer's depiction of the SBT trajectory was deceptive beyond words, and completely destroyed by the HSCA Pathology Panel. 

P.S. It's now a bit of a blur, but I know I wrote Bugliosi's law office and asked them to forward him some info he should put into his book. I remember printing out some images--I believe these were the images of Michael Baden testifying before the HSCA with the mystery photo upside down, where he completely misrepresented the nature of Kennedy's large head wound. In any event, I sent Bugliosi this stuff and beseeched him not to rely upon Baden or other members of the HSCA Pathology Panel. My envelope and evidence was returned like a month later, with the flap re-taped. (This confused me. Did he read it? Or reject it? And, if so, why not put a note in the envelope saying thanks but no thanks?) Well, his book came out two years later. There was no mention of Baden's mistake. Instead, he presented Baden and Spitz as trusted experts on the case. I wanted to throw up. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I don't know whether or not Gil has you on Ignore Dave, but what you posted isn't really evidence. It is hearsay of hearsay.

So, are you implying that Gary Mack lied to me in 2010 in his e-mail regarding the 40-inch rifle appearing in the April '63 issue of American Rifleman?

[James DiEugenio]

That is odd.

He opened it and did not reply at all when returning it.

Why return it at all then?  Was that supposed to be a kind of disguised middle finger to you?

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

So, are you implying that Gary Mack lied to me in 2010 in his e-mail regarding the 40-inch rifle appearing in the April '63 issue of American Rifleman?

 

I don't have much respect for, or confidence in, people who switch from being a CTer to being an LNer.

That said, I thought that Gil should be shown evidence for your side given that he had shown evidence for his side.

 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The phony money order....

~sigh~

And here we go again with "phony" stuff. And "It's Phony" continues to be the CT mantra with respect to Oswald's Postal Money Order even after Lance Payette, at this very forum in 2015, proved that that money order (CE788) has the File Locator Number on it which proves that it was processed at a Federal Reserve Bank facility.

But evidence like this never fazes a staunch Anybody-But-Oswald CTer. When confronted with such proof of processing, the CTers just turn to something else they think looks suspicious. (Or: they'll simply say, as many have done since Lance's 2015 discovery, "Well, that FLN must have been added by the conspirators after Nov. 22.")

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/The Hidell Money Order

Look no further than Gil Jesus' latest post in this thread to prove my prior point about CTers turning to something else that they feel is suspicious after having one of their pet theories debunked (and Gil's "Klein's Didn't Start Selling The 40-Inch Rifle Until August 1963" pet theory has most certainly been debunked in this very thread):

"That's all well and good but the Depository rifle wasn't purchased in March and it wasn't purchased by Oswald." -- G. Jesus

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Lance Payette, at this very forum in 2015, proved that that money order (CE788) has the File Locator Number on it which proves that it was processed at a Federal Reserve Bank facility.

 

That's like saying that a signature on a check proves that the check is legitimate. Anybody could have printed the File Location Number on the postal money order (PMO). It means nothing.

There were no bank stamps on the PMO. Yet banks were required by federal law to be stamp PMOs when depositing them to a Federal Reserve Bank. And all PMOs had to be deposited to a Federal Reserve Bank.

 

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Many years ago, he [DVP] tried to defend Bugliosi's book.  I pointed out that Vince was lying in his introduction.  DVP did not know what I was talking about, which showed I knew that book better than he did.  I quoted him the part where Vince said he would make the critics' arguments as they wanted them made before neutralizing them.  This was pure Bugliosian BS.  And I proved it with 25 examples from the book, where Vince had to have known he was being dishonest.  Since the better and more convincing evidence was right in the same place.

Here's what I said to Jim D. about this topic back in 2015.....

[Quote On:]

"In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case as the critics of the Warren Commission would present it, Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case.

A statement like Vince made -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity" [see the complete quote in the image below] -- is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a li@r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way I think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a li@r.

It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("the way they, not I, want them to be set forth"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it." -- DVP; July 2015

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[But please also note the precise words that Bugliosi used in his book -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments..."

A key word there is the word "main".

Let me also add this important quote from Vince Bugliosi's book (regarding "wheat" and "chaff"):

"One of my very biggest tasks for you, the reader, was to separate the wheat from the chaff out of the virtually endless allegations, controversies, and issues surrounding the case. I believe I have done this, and it is this wheat, as it were, that constitutes this very long book." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xlv of "Reclaiming History"]
 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by David Von Pein