The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution

[Gerry Down]

27 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

This is getting pretty far into the weeds, but I have always been puzzled by Oswald supposedly asking for a "plunger." This is certainly not a term the women would've invented. I've never heard it, and I've owned numerous rifles. Apparently it is part of the firing pin safety:

What does the firing pin safety plunger do?

This is commonly referred to as the plunger or firing pin block. The firing pin safety is a small cylindrical part that internally blocks the forward movement of the firing pin until the trigger is pulled. This safety is automatically deactivated by the vertical extension on the trigger bar as the trigger is pulled.

I was always sternly warned about dry-firing without an empty shell in the chamber because it could damage the firing pin. Oswald reportedly did a great deal of dry-firing. A minor point, but the need for a plunger might further suggest this really was Oswald. I have a difficult time believing an imposter would be instructed to "go in and ask for a plunger."

And again I say: It seems to me the fact that Oswald's joyride turned into a search for a gunsmith might well have provided a motive for Ruth or Michael to distance themselves from the use of the car..

It looks bad from Marinas perspective too that she was out with Lee getting the rifle repaired just 11 days before it was used to shoot JFK. 

I wonder if June Oswald remembers this incident?

[Guest]

On 1/19/2023 at 6:56 PM, Lance Payette said:

This is getting pretty far into the weeds, but I have always been puzzled by Oswald supposedly asking for a "plunger." This is certainly not a term the women would've invented. I've never heard it, and I've owned numerous rifles. Apparently it is part of the firing pin safety:

What does the firing pin safety plunger do?

This is commonly referred to as the plunger or firing pin block. The firing pin safety is a small cylindrical part that internally blocks the forward movement of the firing pin until the trigger is pulled. This safety is automatically deactivated by the vertical extension on the trigger bar as the trigger is pulled.

I was always sternly warned about dry-firing without an empty shell in the chamber because it could damage the firing pin. Oswald reportedly did a great deal of dry-firing. A minor point, but the need for a plunger might further suggest this really was Oswald. I have a difficult time believing an imposter would be instructed to "go in and ask for a plunger."

And again I say: It seems to me the fact that Oswald's joyride turned into a search for a gunsmith might well have provided a motive for Ruth or Michael to distance themselves from the use of the car..

Now, if the "plunger" had to be fixed it's ikely it would have to be replaced, not a repair, as I was told the safety on the MC is of a rather unique design, when the safety is "on" the plunger sits upward and blocks the sight.  Even replacing it would require some fine-tuning IMO, not something that could be fixed on the spot

The name plunger is typically for it going up and down, not only to be used as a safety swith, but ALSO each time when using the bold to re-charge

About half-way this page you can see the action in a nice GIF :

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/28/reconsidering-carcano/

  

 

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

On 1/18/2023 at 6:24 AM, Michael Griffith said:

In his 1967 book Oswald: The Truth, I think German journalist Joachim Joesten made some good points about the Oswald impersonation at the Furniture Mart:

          Despite this stern, and unwarranted, slap at Dial R. Ryder, the Commission isn’t quite sure that this man is really a perjurer and forger, as the next item on its agenda shows: 

          "Possible corroboration for Ryder’s story is provided by two women, Mrs. Edith Whitworth, who operates the Furniture Mart, a furniture store located about one and a half blocks from the Irving Sports Shop, and Mrs. Gertrude Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth. They testified that in early November of 1963, a man who they later came to believe was Oswald drove up to the Furniture Mart in a two-tone blue and white 1937 Ford automobile, entered the store and asked about a part for a gun, presumably because of a sign that appeared in the building advertising a gunsmith shop that had formerly occupied part of the premises. When he found that he could not obtain the part, the man allegedly returned to his car and then came back into the store with a woman and two young children to look at furniture, remaining in the store for about thirty to forty minutes. 

          "Upon confronting Marina Oswald, both women identified her as the woman whom they had seen in the store on the occasion in question, although Mrs. Hunter could not identify a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and Mrs. Whitworth identified some pictures of Oswald but not others. Mrs. Hunter purported to identify Marina Oswald by her eyes, and did not observe the fact that Marina Oswald had a front tooth missing at the time she supposedly saw her. After a thorough inspection of the Furniture Mart, Marina Oswald testified that she had never been on the premises before."

          This story is extremely revealing of the elaborate arrangements that went into the frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald. Not only does "Oswald" here again appear on the scene, but Marina and her two children also get into the act. Evidently, the plotters had at their disposal a young woman who looked even more like Marina than her "husband" looked like Lee Harvey. (History, since then, has tragically revealed the identity of this hapless woman, but this is a matter of such consequence that I propose to explore it in another book at a later date.) On no other assumption can it be explained that both these witnesses identified Marina as the woman they had seen while the Oswalds clearly were not involved. The fact that Lee Harvey at no time owned a car and couldn’t even drive, as well as Marina’s missing front tooth, which both women failed to see, affords sufficient proof of that. 

          Observe also the elaborate frame-up technique. A man goes into a furniture store to ask for a gun part on the flimsy pretext that there had once been a gunsmith shop in the same building. This action was clearly designed to fix this incident in the mind of the store owner who would not easily forget such a foolish query. When told that there were no gun parts for sale in this place, the customer comes back with a woman who strikingly resembles, but is not, Marina Oswald and with two young children who might easily be mistaken for Rachel and June. They stay in the store thirty to forty minutes without buying anything —much longer than ordinary customers normally would do, evidently for the purpose of creating a strong and lasting impression of a family not to be mistaken for another. To the recollection of a young man interested in guns thus is added, in the minds of the two witnesses, the picture of a family not yet in a position to buy furniture but which will soon be able to. Thus an instinctive association of ideas is created between shooting and monetary gain. 

          The Report goes on: "The circumstances surrounding the testimony of the two women are helpful in evaluating the weight to be given to their testimony, and the extent to which they lend support to Ryder’s evidence. [The implication: if Whitworth and Hunter aren’t to be believed, Ryder is finished for good - J. J.] The women previously told newspaper reporters that the part for which the man was looking was a 'plunger,' which the Commission has been advised is a colloquial term used to describe a firing pin. This work was completely different from the work covered by Ryder’s repair tag, and the firing pin of the assassination weapon does not appear to have been recently replaced. At the time of their depositions, neither woman was able to recall the type of work which the man wanted done." 

          What does it matter? If, as every circumstance of this episode suggests, this was merely another item in a well-planned frame-up campaign, the purpose of that man's visit to the Furniture Mart was simply to have a few more witnesses attest to Oswald’s concern with guns and to his financial prospects about to improve substantially. Now comes a most revealing item: 

          "Mrs. Whitworth related to the FBI that the man told her that the younger child with him was born on October 20, 1963, which was in fact Rachel Oswald’s birthday. In her testimony before the Commission, however, Mrs. Whitworth could not state that the man had told her the child’s birthdate was October 20, 1963, and in fact expressed uncertainty about the birthday of her own grandchild, which she had previously used as a guide to remembering the birthdate of the younger child in the shop." 

          This paragraph again demonstrates the deep-rooted bias of the Commission and its total unwillingness to pursue any clues pointing toward conspiracy or frame-up. For it would indeed be too much to assume that mere coincidence was at stake here. The mention of that birthdate, on that occasion, is cogent evidence that the man in question either was Lee Harvey Oswald, or somebody exceptionally familiar with Oswald’s circumstances. If it was not Oswald-and the Commission arrived at the firm conclusion that it was not - then this incident is hard evidence of frame-up. 

          On the other hand, note how the Commission, again most unfairly, tries to create the impression that Mrs. Whitworth is a poor old soul who just doesn’t know what she is talking about. Why, in her testimony before the Commission "she could not state" what she had previously told the FBI. Why couldn’t she? Obviously because, in the meantime, she, too, had been subjected to some of that pressure and harassment which practically all witnesses whose testimony in some way ran counter to the official version have experenced. Or she was simply overawed by the Commission and got bewildered. Who could blame her? But she did tell the FBI and that’s in the record. 

          What the Commission has to say about the circumstances that preclude the couple in question having been the Oswalds makes more sense: 

          "Mrs. Hunter thought that the man she and Mrs. Whitworth believed was Oswald drove the car to and from the store:  however, Lee Harvey Oswald apparently was not able to drive an automobile by himself and does not appear to have had access to a car. 

          "The two women claimed that Oswald was in the Furniture Mart on a weekday, and in midafternoon. However, Oswald had reported to work at the Texas School Book Depository on the dates referred to by the women and there is no evidence that he left his job during business hours. In addition, Ruth Paine has stated that she always accompanied Marina Oswald whenever Marina left the house with her children and that they never went to the Furniture Mart, either with or without Lee Harvey Oswald, at any time during October or November of 1963. There is nothing to indicate that in November the Oswalds were interested in buying furniture."

          In spite of the somewhat cagey wording used by the Commission--as though it wanted to leave a possible way out for itself in another seemingly inexplicable incident--the incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the visitors to the Furniture Mart on that day cannot have been Oswald and family, for the records of the Book Depository prove that Lee Harvey was on the job every weekday during the period in question. Inevitably, then, somebody else, or rather two other persons, had been impersonating Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald on this occasion--unless Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter, dreaming in unison in broad daylight, just had imagined the whole thing. And so the Commission, in sheer desperation, snatches at this straw and clings to it for dear life: 

          "Finally, investigation has produced reason to question the credibility of Mrs. Hunter as a witness. Mrs. Hunter stated that one of the reasons she remembers the description of the car in which Oswald supposedly drove to the furniture store was that she was awaiting the arrival of a friend from Houston, who drove a similar automobile. However, the friend in Houston has advised that in November 1963, she never visited or planned to visit Dallas, and that she told no one that she intended to make such a trip. Moreover, the friend added, according to the FBI interview report, that Mrs. Hunter has 'a strange obsession for attempting to inject herself into any big event which comes to her attention' and that she 'is likely to claim some personal knowledge of any major crime which receives much publicity.' She concluded that 'the entire family is aware of these tall tales Mrs. Hunter tells and they normally pay no attention to her.'"

          Here the Warren Commission really goes the limit in unfair treatment of a witness that cannot even be described as hostile but who merely wants to tell the truth as she experienced it. On the say-so of an unidentified "friend" in another city, without at least confronting Mrs. Hunter with these disparaging remarks, without even remembering the corroborating evidence of Mrs. Whitworth, the Commission concludes that this witness is given to spinning tall tales and that, therefore, the whole episode related above presumably did not take place. And, in the process, poor Ryder is also relegated to limbo. (pp. 78-83)

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/19/2023 at 12:14 PM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Now, if the "plunger" had to be fixed it would have to be a replaced, not a repair, as I was told the safety on the MC is of a rather unique design, when the safety is "on" the plunger sits upward and blocks the sight.

Even replacing it would require some fine-tuning IMO, not something that could be fixed on the spot

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Greg Doudna]

The "plunger"

On the ROKC site, Greg Parker has made an argument that the "plunger" which according to Mrs. Hunter she heard Oswald ask for at the Furniture Mart was not a firearms part but was a spring-loaded crib spring latch called a "plunger" for their baby's crib which Marina had put together (description and illustration of the "plunger" crib item here: https://servimg.com/view/19740706/263).

This alternative "plunger" explanation suggestion is of possible interest. My comments that follow reflect my possible synthesis of the proposal; for Greg Parker's interpretation which is different see at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2678-lee-goes-plunger-shopping-the-actual-solution-to-the-gerty-hunter-conundrum.

A problem with the "plunger" firearm part request of Lee at the Furniture Mart has been that there was no known "plunger" problem in either of the firearms associated with Oswald. The rifle, no known such problem. The revolver was found by the FBI lab to be in excellent working condition, nothing wrong with it. At Oswald's next stop after the Furniture Mart, the Irving Sports Shop where Mrs. Whitworth directed him, a job ticket tells what Oswald had done there: he had a scope installed, nothing to do with a plunger. The package Oswald was holding when he entered the Furniture Mart store was of dimensions of a scope, the known work that Oswald had done when he did get to a gunsmith. Mrs. Whitworth had no idea what the object was wrapped in paper in Oswald's hand but said its dimensions were 15-18" x 2-3", which is not the size of a rifle plunger or crib spring latch plunger but is the size of a scope. And at the Sports Shop, Dial Ryder confirmed his customer of his Oswald work order had brought in his own scope with him for Ryder to install.

(In my analysis it was Oswald and the Mannlicher-Carcano at the Sports Shop of the Oswald job ticket, despite denials by Dial Ryder and the Warren Commission that Dial Ryder had worked on the assassination Mannlicher-Carcano; the scope Oswald had installed at the Sports Shop was the same scope that had come with the Mannlicher-Carcano shipped from Klein's; Oswald had taken off that scope but was now wanting it put back on, but he was unable to do so himself with a screwdriver because the threads were stripped, therefore the need for a gunsmith to drill and tap new slightly larger screw holes over the existing ones. Since Oswald was not using the rifle at that time, evidently had not liked the scope since he had taken it off, and could have been under pressure from Marina to get rid of the rifle, the scope repair and reinstallation could reflect Oswald preparing the rifle for a resale, not for his own use, restoring it to the condition in which it was received, in that Mon Nov 11 trip to the Furniture Mart and Sports Shop. I believe Ryder was working the front counter himself and the only one in the store that day, Veterans Day, Nov 11, because the woman who normally was at the front counter was off for the holiday; that Ryder did it on the spot as a cash job and put the cash in his pocket rather than run it through the cash register as was supposed to be done; that Ryder quoted and wrote up the job ticket for three drill-and-taps based on seeing three screw holes in the base mount that came with the scope from Klein's even though only two drill-and-taps were actually done to install the scope; and that the Warren Commission was just flat wrong in, with Dial Ryder, rejecting that Dial Ryder had worked on the Mannlicher-Carcano of Oswald, and even going so far as to suggest Dial Ryder forged the job ticket which is totally baseless. It was just obviously Lee Oswald, who had been sent there by Mrs. Whitworth, and it was obviously the Mannlicher-Carcano, the only rifle Oswald was ever associated with, and Dial Ryder's original memory to the FBI of Nov 25 that he remembered the Oswald rifle as having been "Argentine made", that is a Mauser, simply reflects the identical mistake in identification, of the same rifle, made by four law enforcement officers of the TSBD 6th floor who also first said it was a Mauser.) 

The point being, the idea that Oswald asked for a "plunger" as a rifle part is a puzzle in not fitting the other indicators or information as to what was needed or done by Oswald on the rifle that day. Therefore is it possible Greg Parker could be right on the crib spring latch "plunger" suggestion? I don't know, but if so the possibility I see might run something like this: Oswald comes in the store, scope in hand, expecting to find the gunsmith inside indicated by a sign outside, while Marina and children wait in the car outside. Oswald is informed by Mrs. Whitworth there is no gunsmith there and referred to the Irving Sports Shop for that purpose. Oswald then adjusts to the furniture store he happens to be in and opportunistically asks about a furniture-related item which perhaps Marina had mentioned and needed, the part for the crib. Or maybe Marina seeing they were at a furniture store asked Lee going in the door if he would ask about a plunger for the crib too. Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter misunderstand Lee's request, Mrs. Whitworth thinking he's asking about a firearms part since it immediately followed a "where is your gunsmith?" first question. Since the Mrs. Whitworth/Oswald exchange was the two women's memories from a little over two weeks later at their earliest (to a visiting reporter from London who found Mrs. Whitworth), the specifics of the exchange could be unclear (and this is assuming the sole source of hearing Oswald say the word "plunger", Mrs. Hunter, had that right in the first place). If Oswald after asking for the gunsmith asked if Mrs. Whitworth had a "plunger" meaning the crib part and Mrs. Whitworth unthinkingly answered no thinking he was asking for a gun part and she had no gun parts, could that be a possible explanation of that particular detail?

Edited January 22, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Gerry Down]

Is it possible Oswald thought the device for rethreading screw heads was called a "plunger"?

https://www.amazon.com/Remover-Plunger-Watch，Watchmaker-Presser-Fitting/dp/B07NQLVRJS

[Gerry Down]

At the below link there is some mention of a "plunger" in relation to mounting a scope. Not sure what it is referring to.

http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?84510-Bausch-amp-Lomb-Scope-Mount-how-to-attach-the-scope

[Guest]

On 1/22/2023 at 1:42 PM, Gerry Down said:

At the below link there is some mention of a "plunger" in relation to mounting a scope. Not sure what it is referring to.

http://benchrest.com/showthread.php?84510-Bausch-amp-Lomb-Scope-Mount-how-to-attach-the-scope

The TSBD Manl.-Carc. had on offset side-mount scope (a Japan No2 mount) , it did not use plungers (basically a springloaded pin to keep a bolt in place*).  In relation to that rifle the only plunger I can think of is the one used for the safety as discussed before. 

If you take a look at this webpage under Offset, there a good explanation for the different types, including a nice explanation for the offset-mounts : 

https://hi-luxoptics.com/pages/malcolm-use-and-compatibility 

*the other method is like a split-ring between nut (or baseplate incl thread) and bolt (kinda...). 

The plunger is like the safety explanation on the rifle: a "spring-loaded-push-and-turn-thing".   

AND, indeed, so it's the same idea/system behind it as the crib safety that Greg described.

But I'm afraid my English isn't good enough for these technical explanations, sorry about that.  I had to call my brother-in-law (he is a hunter and has all that stuff...) and ask about it.  

So, by the looks of it the Japan no2 mount with the X4 18mm scope did not have plungers, but I'm not betting the farm on it... 

It's a pretty basic screw-on type, and the 2 setting-dials-knobs are on the mount itself (Horiz./Vert.), if these setting- dial-knobs don't go far enough, one has to use spacers or washers  were needed).   All in all a very basic/cheap construction with very limited adjusting options 

Anyway, looking at the above web page helped me out...

 

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Now, something else, I think I have read somewhere they said the scope was aligned for a left-handed person ?

Implying it wouldn't work for LHO because he was right-handed ?  That is not always true. 

Yes, some 2/3 of the people have their dominant eye on the same side as their dominant arm.  But for others (approx. 1 out of 3 !) it is the opposite (e.g. right-handed with a left dominant eye or vice versa).  

If LHO was cross-eyed dominant (as 1/3 of the population, as am I) the scope would be perfect...

But there are o/c solutions

If you want to do the test for your self :

https://www.primos.com/expert-advice/bu-blog-what-is-cross-eyeddominance-how-to-solve-it.html

 

 

   

[Matthew Koch]

I'm sharing this video just because it just came out and pertains to the topic. Seems like a lot to swallow for this to be really Oswald, why was Oswald pretending he couldn't drive? Ruth Paine gave him lessons, why was Oswald doing this if he really could drive? Why would he pretend to not drive and test drive a car? 

FWIW To me, Occums razor points to impersonation..

 

[Guest]

On 1/22/2023 at 11:02 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Now, something else, I think I have read somewhere they said the scope was aligned for a left-handed person ?

Implying it wouldn't work for LHO because he was right-handed ?  That is not always true. 

Yes, some 2/3 of the people have their dominant eye on the same side as their dominant arm.  But for others (approx. 1 out of 3 !) it is the opposite (e.g. right-handed with a left dominant eye or vice versa).  

If LHO was cross-eyed dominant (as 1/3 of the population, as am I) the scope would be perfect...

But there are o/c solutions

If you want to do the test for your self :

https://www.primos.com/expert-advice/bu-blog-what-is-cross-eyeddominance-how-to-solve-it.html

 

 

   

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

On 1/22/2023 at 12:06 PM, Matthew Koch said:

I'm sharing this video just because it just came out and pertains to the topic. Seems like a lot to swallow for this to be really Oswald, why was Oswald pretending he couldn't drive? Ruth Paine gave him lessons, why was Oswald doing this if he really could drive? Why would he pretend to not drive and test drive a car? 

FWIW To me, Occums razor points to impersonation..

 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

I am Exhibit A for this. I'm right-handed but extremely left-eye-dominant. I can only shoot a rifle lefthanded and also putt lefthanded. It took me years to recognize this problem. Photos show Oswald shooting right-handed, but perhaps he figured this out as well.

By far the most common use of the term "plunger" throughout my youth was a toilet plunger. If we're going to go so far as to suggest obscure parts of baby cribs, perhaps we should consider this. How likely is it that Oswald would have known the term plunger in reference to rifles or baby cribs?

Actually, I think Gerry probably has the solution. Something to do with the scope occurred to me as well, but I didn't find what Gerry did. Now I see that "plunger-type mount" is indeed a common term relating to rifle scopes. The package Oswald was carrying sounds scope-sized. Due to the sign out front, he may have assumed at first that Mrs. Whitworth knew something about guns.

Oswald's rifle had a metal mount that allowed it to be mounted on the side. JFK Ordnance Optics Carcano Oswald Rifle Scope and Mount (gunsinternational.com) It's possible he wanted it modified to use a plunger mount. Ryder said he drilled three holes and mounted a telescopic site - bingo, it would seem, except that I don't think the sixth floor rifle had a plunger-mounted scope.

Or... perhaps he wanted a plunger-mount-type scope..., but they only had available the Japan No2 mount 😃 

[Gerry Down]

3 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Or... perhaps he wanted a plunger-mount-type scope..., but they only had available the Japan No2 mount 😃 

Which was cheaper? If LHO was going to sell this rifle you'd think he would put on a cheap scope.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

Which was cheaper? If LHO was going to sell this rifle you'd think he would put on a cheap scope.

The Japan No2 mount was cheap -  IMO - I'm not even sure there actually was another mount directly available for the M/C.  It was never intended to be a sniper rifle, it had no factory provisions for a scope (that's why one needed to drill holes in it).  And it had to be a side-mount or you couldn't feed the magazine-clip.  He could have fitted a better scope in that mount (would also be more expensive).  Klein's apparently made this certain combination for whatever (commercial...) reason.  

Actually, I think the scope only gave it a sniper "look", someone pimped it, but in a cheap way...  It may look nice, but doesn't really serve a purpose.  Up to 200 m they say the M/C works just fine with the fixed iron sight...

I have been reading all day about the M/C and it really isn't that bad it seems, just this scope is no good, and the safety mechanism is "odd"