Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Rifle


Recommended Posts

In a post somewhere up the page, Tom Purvis said:

"Lastly, in event that you want to know why Klein's ceased to order to Model 91/24 (junk) carbines which LHO ordered, and which Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to him,"...

SO...apparently Tom's saying that, according to Klein's paperwork, LHO was shipped a 91/24.

THEN...in the most recent post, Tom tells us that C2766 was a 91/38 of some sort, a rifle with a fixed rear sight...not the 91/24 that "Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to [Oswald]", which had an adjustable rear sight...

So tell us straight out, Tom: Was C2766--apparently a 91/38, by your most recent post--shipped to Oswald? If so, where's the paper trail? How did he pay for it? To what address was it sent?

To me, it's beginning to sound like you're talking in circles, Tom. Either the 91/38 can be tracked to Oswald, or it can't. From the evidence I've seen, it can't. The evidence demonstrates that Oswald ordered, and "Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to him," a 91/24. There is no information IN EVIDENCE which indicates that Klein's shipped more than one rifle to Oswald at ANY address. I'm not saying they didn't ship a second rifle, the 91/38, to Oswald; I'm just saying there is NO EVIDENCE showing that Klein's shipped a 91/38 to Oswald, and NO EVIDENCE that Oswald received any other rifle than the 91/24 from Klein's.

Am I wrong here, Tom? Is there any evidence, any paperwork or other records that indicate that Oswald received a second rifle from Klein's? Or are you backing up on the assertion that, as the evidence shows, Oswald ordered, and Klein's shipped, a 91/24? Just when I think I know what you're saying about the rifle, and which one Oswald ordered, Klein's shipped, and Oswald received from Klein's...then it begins to sound like you're reversing your position. Can't you just come out and say what you mean? Or have you talked in circles so far that you've managed to confuse even yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a post somewhere up the page, Tom Purvis said:

"Lastly, in event that you want to know why Klein's ceased to order to Model 91/24 (junk) carbines which LHO ordered, and which Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to him,"...

SO...apparently Tom's saying that, according to Klein's paperwork, LHO was shipped a 91/24.

THEN...in the most recent post, Tom tells us that C2766 was a 91/38 of some sort, a rifle with a fixed rear sight...not the 91/24 that "Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to [Oswald]", which had an adjustable rear sight...

So tell us straight out, Tom: Was C2766--apparently a 91/38, by your most recent post--shipped to Oswald? If so, where's the paper trail? How did he pay for it? To what address was it sent?

To me, it's beginning to sound like you're talking in circles, Tom. Either the 91/38 can be tracked to Oswald, or it can't. From the evidence I've seen, it can't. The evidence demonstrates that Oswald ordered, and "Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to him," a 91/24. There is no information IN EVIDENCE which indicates that Klein's shipped more than one rifle to Oswald at ANY address. I'm not saying they didn't ship a second rifle, the 91/38, to Oswald; I'm just saying there is NO EVIDENCE showing that Klein's shipped a 91/38 to Oswald, and NO EVIDENCE that Oswald received any other rifle than the 91/24 from Klein's.

Am I wrong here, Tom? Is there any evidence, any paperwork or other records that indicate that Oswald received a second rifle from Klein's? Or are you backing up on the assertion that, as the evidence shows, Oswald ordered, and Klein's shipped, a 91/24? Just when I think I know what you're saying about the rifle, and which one Oswald ordered, Klein's shipped, and Oswald received from Klein's...then it begins to sound like you're reversing your position. Can't you just come out and say what you mean? Or have you talked in circles so far that you've managed to confuse even yourself?

THEN...in the most recent post, Tom tells us that C2766 was a 91/38 of some sort, a rifle with a fixed rear sight...not the 91/24 that "Klein's paperwork demonstrates was sent to [Oswald]", which had an adjustable rear sight...

So tell us straight out, Tom: Was C2766--apparently a 91/38, by your most recent post--shipped to Oswald? If so, where's the paper trail? How did he pay for it? To what address was it sent?

To me, it's beginning to sound like you're talking in circles, Tom. Either the 91/38 can be tracked to Oswald, or it can't.

It can't!

1. The Klein's ad was for a "36-inch length" Carbine.

2. The photograph in the Klein's add shows the sorry version of the Model 91/24 Carbine, which is in fact the old Long Rifle cut down in length

3. It would appear that for "Truth in Advertising", Klein's has shown the "Worst Case" weapon which one may receive by ordering the 36-inch length Carbine.

4. However, if one actually "talks" the Carbine, then they could reference the true old Model 91/or the Model 91/24/or the Model 91/28.

All of which met the 36-inch length and in which there existed only minor differences such as the rear sight range adjustment capability (cut down long rifle sight vs. normal Carbine sight) and changes to the nose cap and/or sling swivel.

5. Therefore, when some large quantity of Model "91" Carbines were purchased in Italy, they would have included a mixed grouping of all of the above weapons as we had not gotten into the full classifications of the Italian Weapons at that time, and since all of the weapons were of the 6.5mm caliber, they were merely referred to as a "Model 91" Carbine.

6. The term "T38" as utilized by the WC as well as the weapons purchase, is a completely misleading term in identification of the Carcano, as no such weapon designation exists.

7. 1938 is the year in which the fixed rear sight became standard issue on all makes and models with the exception of the Long Rifle which kept the long range adjustable sight.

8. Anything which merely had the "38", such as TS 38 (Truppe Special, 36-inch length Carbine, fixed rear sight), actually meant that the weapon was a 7.35mm caliber.

The same held for the Short Rifle/aka Fucille Corto 38, and the Cavalry Carbine/aka Moschetto Cavalleri 38.

Therefore any mere reference to a "38" and or such non-existant item as a "T38", would by all standards be referencing to a weapon of the 7.35mm caliber, which went into production in the year 1938, with the newly designed fixed rear sight.

9. When the primary weapon caliber was changed back to the standard 6.5mm caliber later in the war, all weapons which were now being produced with the fixed rear sight, and were not re-introduced into production with the 6.5mm Caliber, now gained the prefix "91", merely to indicate that they were of the old original 6.5mm caliber.

Therefore, the prefix "91" was added to all weapons which had been produced with the fixed rear sight (in 1938) and the new issue weapons became:

Moschetto Cavalleri Model 91/38 (Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm caliber with fixed rear sight)

Moschetto Truppe Special/TS Carbine Model 91/38(Standard Carbine in the 6.5mm caliber with fixed rear sight)

Fucille Corto Model 91/38 (Short Rifle in the 6.5mm Caliber with fixed rear sight)

*No such weapon as the "T38" Carbine has ever existed.

=================

In the event that one ordered from Kleins, the exact same order as did LHO, then one should expect to get one of the "Model 91" weapons.

Which could be either a true "Model 91 TS Carbine", or a "Model 91/24 Carbine" (Long Rifle cut down to Carbine Length), or the "Model 91/28 TS Carbine", as all met the qualification for having been a "Model 91" 36-inch length Carbine.

Next up! The "T38" order!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't!

1. The Klein's ad was for a "36-inch length" Carbine.

2. The photograph in the Klein's add shows the sorry version of the Model 91/24 Carbine, which is in fact the old Long Rifle cut down in length

3. It would appear that for "Truth in Advertising", Klein's has shown the "Worst Case" weapon which one may receive by ordering the 36-inch length Carbine.

4. However, if one actually "talks" the Carbine, then they could reference the true old Model 91/or the Model 91/24/or the Model 91/28.

All of which met the 36-inch length and in which there existed only minor differences such as the rear sight range adjustment capability (cut down long rifle sight vs. normal Carbine sight) and changes to the nose cap and/or sling swivel.

5. Therefore, when some large quantity of Model "91" Carbines were purchased in Italy, they would have included a mixed grouping of all of the above weapons as we had not gotten into the full classifications of the Italian Weapons at that time, and since all of the weapons were of the 6.5mm caliber, they were merely referred to as a "Model 91" Carbine.

6. The term "T38" as utilized by the WC as well as the weapons purchase, is a completely misleading term in identification of the Carcano, as no such weapon designation exists.

7. 1938 is the year in which the fixed rear sight became standard issue on all makes and models with the exception of the Long Rifle which kept the long range adjustable sight.

8. Anything which merely had the "38", such as TS 38 (Truppe Special, 36-inch length Carbine, fixed rear sight), actually meant that the weapon was a 7.35mm caliber.

The same held for the Short Rifle/aka Fucille Corto 38, and the Cavalry Carbine/aka Moschetto Cavalleri 38.

Therefore any mere reference to a "38" and or such non-existant item as a "T38", would by all standards be referencing to a weapon of the 7.35mm caliber, which went into production in the year 1938, with the newly designed fixed rear sight.

9. When the primary weapon caliber was changed back to the standard 6.5mm caliber later in the war, all weapons which were now being produced with the fixed rear sight, and were not re-introduced into production with the 6.5mm Caliber, now gained the prefix "91", merely to indicate that they were of the old original 6.5mm caliber.

Therefore, the prefix "91" was added to all weapons which had been produced with the fixed rear sight (in 1938) and the new issue weapons became:

Moschetto Cavalleri Model 91/38 (Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm caliber with fixed rear sight)

Moschetto Truppe Special/TS Carbine Model 91/38(Standard Carbine in the 6.5mm caliber with fixed rear sight)

Fucille Corto Model 91/38 (Short Rifle in the 6.5mm Caliber with fixed rear sight)

*No such weapon as the "T38" Carbine has ever existed.

=================

In the event that one ordered from Kleins, the exact same order as did LHO, then one should expect to get one of the "Model 91" weapons.

Which could be either a true "Model 91 TS Carbine", or a "Model 91/24 Carbine" (Long Rifle cut down to Carbine Length), or the "Model 91/28 TS Carbine", as all met the qualification for having been a "Model 91" 36-inch length Carbine.

Next up! The "T38" order!

Tom, Just to clarify, you're suggesting Oswald was probably sent the 91/38 and not the 91/24 as documented. And the 91/38 carbine was the rifle found in the TSBD, right? So this being the case we are pretty much back to square one are we not? The murder weapon, the 91/38 found in the TSBD can, with at least a degree of probability, be traced directly to Oswald via Kleins. Is this what your saying?

Edited by Denis Pointing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can't!

1. The Klein's ad was for a "36-inch length" Carbine.

2. The photograph in the Klein's add shows the sorry version of the Model 91/24 Carbine, which is in fact the old Long Rifle cut down in length

3. It would appear that for "Truth in Advertising", Klein's has shown the "Worst Case" weapon which one may receive by ordering the 36-inch length Carbine.

4. However, if one actually "talks" the Carbine, then they could reference the true old Model 91/or the Model 91/24/or the Model 91/28.

All of which met the 36-inch length and in which there existed only minor differences such as the rear sight range adjustment capability (cut down long rifle sight vs. normal Carbine sight) and changes to the nose cap and/or sling swivel.

5. Therefore, when some large quantity of Model "91" Carbines were purchased in Italy, they would have included a mixed grouping of all of the above weapons as we had not gotten into the full classifications of the Italian Weapons at that time, and since all of the weapons were of the 6.5mm caliber, they were merely referred to as a "Model 91" Carbine.

6. The term "T38" as utilized by the WC as well as the weapons purchase, is a completely misleading term in identification of the Carcano, as no such weapon designation exists.

7. 1938 is the year in which the fixed rear sight became standard issue on all makes and models with the exception of the Long Rifle which kept the long range adjustable sight.

8. Anything which merely had the "38", such as TS 38 (Truppe Special, 36-inch length Carbine, fixed rear sight), actually meant that the weapon was a 7.35mm caliber.

The same held for the Short Rifle/aka Fucille Corto 38, and the Cavalry Carbine/aka Moschetto Cavalleri 38.

Therefore any mere reference to a "38" and or such non-existant item as a "T38", would by all standards be referencing to a weapon of the 7.35mm caliber, which went into production in the year 1938, with the newly designed fixed rear sight.

9. When the primary weapon caliber was changed back to the standard 6.5mm caliber later in the war, all weapons which were now being produced with the fixed rear sight, and were not re-introduced into production with the 6.5mm Caliber, now gained the prefix "91", merely to indicate that they were of the old original 6.5mm caliber.

Therefore, the prefix "91" was added to all weapons which had been produced with the fixed rear sight (in 1938) and the new issue weapons became:

Moschetto Cavalleri Model 91/38 (Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm caliber with fixed rear sight)

Moschetto Truppe Special/TS Carbine Model 91/38(Standard Carbine in the 6.5mm caliber with fixed rear sight)

Fucille Corto Model 91/38 (Short Rifle in the 6.5mm Caliber with fixed rear sight)

*No such weapon as the "T38" Carbine has ever existed.

=================

In the event that one ordered from Kleins, the exact same order as did LHO, then one should expect to get one of the "Model 91" weapons.

Which could be either a true "Model 91 TS Carbine", or a "Model 91/24 Carbine" (Long Rifle cut down to Carbine Length), or the "Model 91/28 TS Carbine", as all met the qualification for having been a "Model 91" 36-inch length Carbine.

Next up! The "T38" order!

Tom, just to clarify, your suggesting Oswald was probably sent the 91/38 and not the 91/24 as documented. And the 91/38 carbine was the rifle found in the TSBD, right? So this being the case we are pretty much back to square one are we not? The murder weapon, the 91/38 found in the TSBD can, with at least a degree of probobility, be traced directly to Oswald via Kleins. Is this what your saying?

Tom, just to clarify, your suggesting Oswald was probably sent the 91/38 and not the 91/24 as documented.

NOPE!

I am stating that LHO ordered a 36-inch length carbine from an ad which showed a photograph of a Model 91/24 Carbine (Long Rifle cut down to 36-inch length), and that the original order from Italy included 3,500 "Model 91" Carbines, which in all probability included Model 91's; Model 91/24's; as well as Model 91/28, all of which are referred to as "Model 91 Carbines".

By the order form, LHO should have received one of these 36-inch length weapons.

Yet, the WC, as well as other documentation, attempts to present that LHO was shipped a Model 91/38 Short Rifle, when in fact there exists absoutely no definitive evidence that this model weapon was ever shipped to Klein's in their order.

In addition to the ordered 3,500 Model 91 Carbines which Adam Consolidated purportedly ordered form Italy, the order also had included an additional amount of 1,700 "Model 38" weapons in the 6.5mm caliber as well.

These weapons became referred to as the "T38" weapons, of which the C2766 serial number was one of those which was later shipped to Klein's. However, "T38" is a complete misnomer and does not identify the true model of the weapon shipped.

Merely, that the weapon was made on/or after the year 1938 and that it had a fixed rear sight.

===============================================================================

One could, as has the WC and others, make the case that the "Model 38" aka/ "T38" weapons were in fact Model 91/38's and that Kleins, through error, sent one of these to LHO rather than the 36-inch length Carbine.

Especially since we have paperwork from Klein's which serves to indicate this.

However, a "paperwork" trail is not fact! It is merely paperwork which can be easily made up at any time by anyone.

And in that regards, when I begin to see virtually "perfectly" filled out paperwork, I get highly suspicious.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol21_0358b.htm

Especially when that paperwork makes reference to EXACT models of weapons such as the Model 91TS and the Model 91/38, when in fact no such reference to these weapons by their true Model number designations has ever existed prior to this.

To include the complete stupidity of stating that the weapons were to be of the "Beretta Terni" manufacture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Especially when that paperwork makes reference to EXACT models of weapons such as the Model 91TS and the Model 91/38, when in fact no such reference to these weapons by their true Model number designations has ever existed prior to this.

To include the complete stupidity of stating that the weapons were to be of the "Beretta Terni" manufacture.

There is a memo from J.Edgar Hoover somewhere ( it is mentioned in Henry Hurt's book) that more than one M-C rifle could carry the same serial no. as Oswald's rifle. Does that tie in to your dissertation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Under the general assumption that any serious researcher is aware of the facts related to the Carbine/Short Rifle controversy of the assassination rifle, the simple facts are:

1. All documents, to include the order form and stock identification number serve to indicate that LHO ordered the 36-inch long Carcano Carbine, commonly referred to as the TS (Truppe Speciale) Carbine.

2. The Rifle with which JFK was assassinated, and which was found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, is the 40-inch long Short Rifle (Fucile Corto).

An attempt has been made to indicate that this is just some clerical/administrative error in which LHO was shipped the 40-inch Short Rifle due to Kleins Sporting Goods having acquired these rifles in lieu of the 36-inch Carbines.

To support this, The WC & Kleins gave us an order form in which this original order of 91TS Carcano Rifles (36-inch long Carbines) was later changed to reflect an order for Beretta Terni M91/38 Carcano rifles.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol21_0358b.jpg

Which is all well and good with the exception:

1. Exactly when was the last time that anyone saw such an order as this which was filled out so nice and neatly with perfect block letter printing?

2. Exactly what type order is it that in the same document ordered 400 of the 91 TS Carbines, yet in and on the same order form changes this to 100 supposedly different rifles.

3. According to the order form, Kleins was to pay the sum of $7.50 per rifle for the 91 TS Carbines.

Production of these rifles began in 1898 and continued up and until the change of 1938. Therefore, Crescent Firearms could have supplied rifles which were of an extreme age in compliance with this order.

Yet, the supposed change in this order, now specified that the rifles were in fact those rifles made in 1938 or thereafter, which in fact represented the newest of the last Carcano rifles produced, and yet the cost of these newer rifles was only $1.00 more than the older 91 TS Carbines.

So, for this additional $1.00 cost, Kleins Sporting goods not only supposedly received a much newer rifle, they also received the 40-inch Short Rifle, which is a much better gun than the 36-inch length TS Carbine which was the supposed original order.

4. In addition to receiving this much better and much newer Short Rifle, according to the order form, it specified that these weapons had to be from the "Beretta Terni" plant.

This error in completion of the "new" order form gives away the lack of knowledge on the part of the person who filled out the form.

The Beretta Plant at Terni was merely one of several plants which made the Carcano rifle in many different variants of it's models.

To state that one is ordering "only" those weapons made at the "Beretta Terni" plant, would mean that whoever is shipping the rifles would be required to look through each and every rifle and thereafter "cull" out any of those identical models which were made at other arms plants throughout Italy.

After all, I am in possession of a "Beretta Gardon" 1940 6.5mm TS Carcano, which is certainly as good as a "Beretta Terni" identical rifle.

And, since Beretta merely was the owner of these two specific plants, and this stamp is merely on the rifle barrel and does not constitute where each of the various parts of the rifle may have been made, to specify on an order form that the rifles must come from a specific plant of manufacture is completely asinine.

Whoever completed this apparantly "after the fact" order form, made the mistake of having read "Beretta Terni" off the rifle which was removed from the sixth floor of the TSDB. This error was thereafter transposed onto the new order form as if anyone would even attempt to comply with such a request.

5. The order form, (change) effectively says to ignore our previous order for 400 of the 36-inch long 91 TS Carbines (pre-1938) and change this order to 100 of the Beretta Terni 91/38 Carcano's.

What is a 91/38 Carcano (M91/38)?

In 1938, the Italian Government began to produce the Carcano in a caliber of 7.35mm. (This is also the beginning of the fixed rear site on the weapon)

The Carcano was produced in this caliber in each of various models which includes:

a. The Cavalry Carbine(M38)

b. The 36-inch long TS Carbine(M38)

c. The 40-inch long Short Rifle (M38)

The 7.35 mm TS Carbine was known to have been manufactured at two separate plants.

The 7.35 mm Short Rifle was known to have been manufactured at 4 seperate plants.

After start of WWII, the Italian Government decided against the change in rifle caliber and most of these weapons were thereafter refitted with new barrells in the 6.5mm calliber.

With the cease in production of the 7.35mm caliber rifles (actually only rifle barrells), The Italian government produced only 6.5mm caliber weapons for it's use in the war.

Those weapons, of the 6.5mm caliber, which were produced after the reversion from the temporary 7.35mm change, are referred to as the Model 91/38 weapons.

In this regard, there is:

a. M91/38 Cavalry Carbine in 6.5mm.

b. M91/38 TS (36-inch length) Carbine in the 6.5mm.

c. M91/38 Short Rifle (40-inch length) in the 6.5mm.

Therefore, when one refers to a M91/38, they refer only to those 6.5mm caliber weapons which were produced after the change from 7.35mm caliber, back to the original 6.5mm caliber which the weapon first came out with when production approval began in 1891.

The "change" in the Kleins/Crescent Firearms order form merely states M91/38.

It DOES NOT state that this supposed change was for deletion of an order for 400 of the model 91 TS Carbines, and to change this order to 100 M91/38 Short Rifles.

As another point, many of the true Model 91/38's, be they of the Cavalry Carbine; the TS Carbine, or the Short Rifle, still have the matching serial numbers on the rifle stock, which identically match the serial number of the rifle barrel.

This is of course not always the case as some barrells obviously got changed out.

In the case of those M38 (7.35 mm versions), when produced, these weapons also had matching serial numbers on the stock and barrells. When the weapons were changed to the 6.5mm versions, this "original" status was lost.

Collectors of military rifles such as the Carcano are extremely happy when they find an original condition weapon which has the same serial number on the stock as on the rifle barrel.

One of the six various weapons which I acquired for research is an "original" M91/38 TS Carbine which contains the serial number C 5522 on the barrell and the same C 5522 stamped into the stock.

It was manufactured in 1940 at the Beretta Gardone plant.

However, my 1939 Beretta Terni 6.5mm Short Rifle does not have the same serial numbers on the stock and barrell.

This serves to indicate that the weapon is most probably one of the early Model 38 7.35mm caliber rifles which was converted back to the 6.5mm caliber after start of the war.

In conclusion, the Kleins Sporting Goods/Crescent Firearms order form provides absolutely no proof that this order changed an order for the 36-inch length TS Carbine to an order for the 40-inch Short Rifle.

Taken as written, the form merely states that Kleins no longer wanted the older model TS Carbines, and wanted the newer model which had the fixed rear sight.

There is absolutely no reference to this which would serve to indicate that anyone would take this to represent a change in the actual model of the rifle ordered.

M91/38 is merely a 6.5mm caliber weapon which was produced after reversion back to this caliber from the 1938 M38 change to the 7.35mm caliber weapons.

And, whoever completed this document had severe cerebral rectal inversion by indicating that they wanted ONLY weapons which were produced by the Beretta Plant at Terni, Italy.

Mark;

As you are of course aware, there are still conflicts in regards to the "rifle" problem of what LHO purportedly ordered, what he may or may not have received, and the Model 91/38 Short Rifle which was utilized in the assassination.

I am assuming that you would wish to continue to discuss this subject matter as well?

Tom

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol21_0358b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume correctly, Tom.

I'm of the opinion that Oswald ordered, and most likely received, the 36-inch rifle...most likely a 91/24 cut-down Long Rifle. [Went to gunbroker.com the other day, and was astounded by the asking prices of even the 91/24 "shortened" Long Rifle!]. Yet as far as can be determined, the 91/38 found in the TSBD cannot positively be traced to Oswald...from ANY particular source.

I'm interested in how LHO obtained the ammo for the rifle--providing it was his rifle--since he apparently never ordered any from anywhere, and the WC doesn't allow any spare cash in his finances for him to purchase any ammo...ESPECIALLY that WCC ammo that was ordered under a USMC purchase order. [Did somebody shout "INCOMING!!!" ?]

I'm thinking that, even if LHO was a patsy, he had to be a credible patsy. As far as his marksmanship...check. As far as him ordering "A" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle...check. As far as him ordering the rifle found in the TSBD...not so good. As far as him accessing ammunition for ANY 6.5mm rifle...not so good. By choosing a rifle that was relatively unknown to sportsmen--as opposed to the Mauser or Enfield, which were "sporterized" in large numbers--maybe the plotters thought they could slide one by the public, and "substitute" the 91/38 found in the TSBD for the 91/24 that LHO ordered [and presuambly received]. Only some sort of pesky "gun nut" would've figured out the difference, and let the cat out of the bag.

But if you have something else of a different nature to reveal, I'm still interested.

BTW...about that specification on that purchase order for a "six shot" rifle...wouldn't the capacity of the "stripper clip" determine whether the rifle was a five-shot or a six-shot...and not any other particular characteristic of the rifle itself? Sure makes me think the form is bogus, as well as the information about the "Beretta Terni" origin of the rifle.

My experience with purchase orders, has been in an auto parts setting. BUT...it's entirely unlikely, in my experience, that the April change memo on the PO would've been in exactly the same handwriting as the January original. Usually, PO's consist of the original, usually sent to the vendor [the original to the vendor because it's the copy least likely to be smudged]; an accounting copy, which is attached to the invoice before the invoice is processed for payment; and a file copy. Since NCR [no-carbon-required] forms weren't common in 1963, it's entirely likely that the purchase order was a snap-apart carbon form, or it might possibly be a 3[or more]-part carbon form from a bound book of perforated forms. In any case, the PO in the exhibit--ostensibly from Klein's files--appears to be an original, rather than a carbon copy, based upon the clarity of the handwriting throughout...which is what, in MY mind, casts the most doubt upon the possibility of the April change memo being valid.

As I say, your mileage may vary.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume correctly, Tom.

I'm of the opinion that Oswald ordered, and most likely received, the 36-inch rifle...most likely a 91/24 cut-down Long Rifle. [Went to gunbroker.com the other day, and was astounded by the asking prices of even the 91/24 "shortened" Long Rifle!]. Yet as far as can be determined, the 91/38 found in the TSBD cannot positively be traced to Oswald...from ANY particular source.

I'm interested in how LHO obtained the ammo for the rifle--providing it was his rifle--since he apparently never ordered any from anywhere, and the WC doesn't allow any spare cash in his finances for him to purchase any ammo...ESPECIALLY that WCC ammo that was ordered under a USMC purchase order. [Did somebody shout "INCOMING!!!" ?]

I'm thinking that, even if LHO was a patsy, he had to be a credible patsy. As far as his marksmanship...check. As far as him ordering "A" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle...check. As far as him ordering the rifle found in the TSBD...not so good. As far as him accessing ammunition for ANY 6.5mm rifle...not so good. By choosing a rifle that was relatively unknown to sportsmen--as opposed to the Mauser or Enfield, which were "sporterized" in large numbers--maybe the plotters thought they could slide one by the public, and "substitute" the 91/38 found in the TSBD for the 91/24 that LHO ordered [and presuambly received]. Only some sort of pesky "gun nut" would've figured out the difference, and let the cat out of the bag.

But if you have something else of a different nature to reveal, I'm still interested.

BTW...about that specification on that purchase order for a "six shot" rifle...wouldn't the capacity of the "stripper clip" determine whether the rifle was a five-shot or a six-shot...and not any other particular characteristic of the rifle itself? Sure makes me think the form is bogus, as well as the information about the "Beretta Terni" origin of the rifle.

My experience with purchase orders, has been in an auto parts setting. BUT...it's entirely unlikely, in my experience, that the April change memo on the PO would've been in exactly the same handwriting as the January original. Usually, PO's consist of the original, usually sent to the vendor [the original to the vendor because it's the copy least likely to be smudged]; an accounting copy, which is attached to the invoice before the invoice is processed for payment; and a file copy. Since NCR [no-carbon-required] forms weren't common in 1963, it's entirely likely that the purchase order was a snap-apart carbon form, or it might possibly be a 3[or more]-part carbon form from a bound book of perforated forms. In any case, the PO in the exhibit--ostensibly from Klein's files--appears to be an original, rather than a carbon copy, based upon the clarity of the handwriting throughout...which is what, in MY mind, casts the most doubt upon the possibility of the April change memo being valid.

As I say, your mileage may vary.

You assume correctly, Tom.

Well, I may be somewhat "hard-headed" as well as stubborn (which is an obvious understatement of the facts), but I am neither dumb nor stupid. So, even I had this figured out.

Note: Personally, I preference the "tenacious" which the Oklahoma State Medical Examiner utilized.

Anyway, a simple statement of the facts demonstrates that the Model 91/38 Short Rifle is an extremely accurate weapon:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/simmons.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Do I understand your testimony to be that this rifle is as accurate as the current American military rifles?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes. As far as we can determine from bench-rest firing.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you consider that to be a high degree of accuracy?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes, the weapon is quite accurate. For most small arms, we discover that the round- to-round dispersion is of the order of three-tenths of a mil. We have run into some unusual ones, however, which give us higher values, but very few which give us smaller values, except in selected lots of ammunition.

Mr. McCLOY. You are talking about the present military rifle--will you designate it?

Mr. SIMMONS. The M-14.

LHO, during his USMC Rangefire training fully exhibited that when firing an accurate rifle from a fixed position at targets of less than 300 yards, under rapid-fire conditions, shot in what would be considered the upper percentile ranges of EXPERT.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0346a.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm

Major ANDERSON - I have been working in marksmanship training for approximately 18 years. I am a distinguished rifle shot in the Marine Corps, master rifle shot, National Rifle Association of America.

Mr. SPECTER - I now hand you a document which has heretofore been introduced into evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 239.

Major ANDERSON - I would say that as compared to other Marines receiving the same type of training, that Oswald was a good shot, somewhat better than or equal to--better than the average let us say. As compared to a civilian who had not received this intensive training, he would be considered as a good to excellent shot.

====================

"all the rounds fired but one hit the bulls eye"

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0142-001.gif

Which indicates that LHO was a relatively good shot with the Carcano in his possession at this time. And, as most who have listened to this radio show should be aware, such a shooting event is not likely with a Model 91/24 Carcano Carbine which is in fact a "cut-down" Long Rifle.

In fact, such a shot grouping would be fairly difficult to achieve even with a true quality TS Carbine in which the accuracy had not been affected by removal of several inches of the forward end of the rifle barrel (as is the Model 91/24 which is shown in the Klein's ad from which LHO purportedly ordered his weapon).

Now, with that stated, and assuming that LHO was an excellent shot who was in possession of an excellent weapon at the Rifle Range, one must take a close look at exactly what are the potential variables which may have caused the missing of the shot at General Walker.

(to be continued)

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You assume correctly, Tom.

I'm of the opinion that Oswald ordered, and most likely received, the 36-inch rifle...most likely a 91/24 cut-down Long Rifle. [Went to gunbroker.com the other day, and was astounded by the asking prices of even the 91/24 "shortened" Long Rifle!]. Yet as far as can be determined, the 91/38 found in the TSBD cannot positively be traced to Oswald...from ANY particular source.

I'm interested in how LHO obtained the ammo for the rifle--providing it was his rifle--since he apparently never ordered any from anywhere, and the WC doesn't allow any spare cash in his finances for him to purchase any ammo...ESPECIALLY that WCC ammo that was ordered under a USMC purchase order. [Did somebody shout "INCOMING!!!" ?]

I'm thinking that, even if LHO was a patsy, he had to be a credible patsy. As far as his marksmanship...check. As far as him ordering "A" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle...check. As far as him ordering the rifle found in the TSBD...not so good. As far as him accessing ammunition for ANY 6.5mm rifle...not so good. By choosing a rifle that was relatively unknown to sportsmen--as opposed to the Mauser or Enfield, which were "sporterized" in large numbers--maybe the plotters thought they could slide one by the public, and "substitute" the 91/38 found in the TSBD for the 91/24 that LHO ordered [and presuambly received]. Only some sort of pesky "gun nut" would've figured out the difference, and let the cat out of the bag.

But if you have something else of a different nature to reveal, I'm still interested.

BTW...about that specification on that purchase order for a "six shot" rifle...wouldn't the capacity of the "stripper clip" determine whether the rifle was a five-shot or a six-shot...and not any other particular characteristic of the rifle itself? Sure makes me think the form is bogus, as well as the information about the "Beretta Terni" origin of the rifle.

My experience with purchase orders, has been in an auto parts setting. BUT...it's entirely unlikely, in my experience, that the April change memo on the PO would've been in exactly the same handwriting as the January original. Usually, PO's consist of the original, usually sent to the vendor [the original to the vendor because it's the copy least likely to be smudged]; an accounting copy, which is attached to the invoice before the invoice is processed for payment; and a file copy. Since NCR [no-carbon-required] forms weren't common in 1963, it's entirely likely that the purchase order was a snap-apart carbon form, or it might possibly be a 3[or more]-part carbon form from a bound book of perforated forms. In any case, the PO in the exhibit--ostensibly from Klein's files--appears to be an original, rather than a carbon copy, based upon the clarity of the handwriting throughout...which is what, in MY mind, casts the most doubt upon the possibility of the April change memo being valid.

As I say, your mileage may vary.

Short version refresher:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspir...5d4d?hl=en&

> > Perhaps I'm slow in the uptake, but are you suggesting that there are

> > two Carcanos with serial number C2766 in evidence? Please explain.

> The Carcano weapon was produced at a variety of different

> manufacturing plants in a variety of different models.

> Each "Model" had it's own consecutive serial number issue and each

> manufacture plant also had it's own consecutive assignment of serial

> numbers to those specific weapons produced at the plant.

> The Principal identification lies in one having to state the specific

> weapon Model; the specific Plant of manufacture, and then the serial

> number.

> As example:

> Literally millions of the old Model 91 Long Rifle was produced at a

> variety of plants. Being it's own specific 'Model" each plant

> assigned serial numbers, and as provable by the existing records,

> serial numbers were duplicated with the only identifying difference

> being the Plant of manufacture stamp.

> Then, various plants produced the Model 91 TS Carbine (36-inch length

> Carbine) in much the same manner, and being a completely different

> "Model", it too had the same duplication problems as did the Long

> Rifle.

> Then, in 1924, the Italian Government took a few million of the old

> left over WWI Long Rifles, and cut the barrel length down to make them

> into Carbines. These are identified as the Model 91/24 Carbine, and

> this now added to the potential for "duplicated" serial numbers within

> the ranks of the 36-inch length Carbine inventories.

> Then, in 1938 when the Italian Government again changed the "Model" )

> and it became known as the Model 91/38) to the fixed rear sight, they

> again issued serial numbers which actually duplicated existing serial

> numbers within the previous old Model 91 series weapons.

> http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carc...tabase/m91.html

> 91 Moschetto Cav.

> C3329

> C3329

> Brescia

> +++++++++++++++++++++++++

> 91 Moschetto Cav.

> Sporterized

> 6.5x52 Carcano (?)

> C5385

> R.E. Terni

> ++++++++++++

> 91/24 Moschetto T.S.

> Sporterized

> 6.5x52 Carcano

> C6016

> Roma

> +++++++++++++

> 91/38 Moschetto T.S.

> 6.5x52 Carcano

> C1565

> C1565

> Beretta

> +++++++++++++++++

> 91/38 Moschetto T.S.

> 6.5x52 Carcano

> C6453

> None

> FNA Brescia

> ++++++++++++++++

> Now, add to this morass the fact that the "Cavalry Carbine" was a

> totally seperate Model which was also produced by a variety of plants

> in the Model 91 as well as 6.5mm Model 91/38, and which weapon has the

> exact same (interchangable barrel) with the Model 91 TS Carbine, the

> Model 91/24 Carbine; the Model 91/38 TS Carbine, and then one begins

> to come to an appreciation as to exactly how worthless attempting to

> track any of these weapons merely by serial number alone, is.

> Hope the above examples and explanation provides some of the answer

> which you asked.

> Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(Robert Howard @ Jun 26 2008, 09:44 PM)

An Unfounded Observation about Lee Oswald?

SOURCE: HSCA Report 65.6 KERTZ, CHARLIE, Oswald witness; founder of the New Orleans Charlie's Saints Marching Band. Kertz was the deputy constable who, in 1963, evicted Oswald from his apartment at 4907 Magazine Street. Kertz said to New Orleans Times-Picayune columnist Angus Lind in 1991. "It was a Friday afternoon, and it was very unusual to evict someone on a Friday afternoon.” According to Lind, "Kertz said he confronted Oswald with the order to evict, showed him his credentials and told him to get his personal belongings out of the furnished apartment; otherwise they would be placed on the sidewalk, routine eviction procedure." "The guy was so weird," said Kertz. "He didn't say a word. There was a woman with him who had a child. He came down the steps, took a right, and headed toward Audubon Park." After that, Kertz never saw him again. According to Lind, "[Kertz] and another constable went in, put a baby bed and some clothes on the sidewalk, then opened a closet and found three rifles. They unloaded them and put them out on the sidewalk. They then removed about 30 paperbacks from the closet. . . .and underneath them were two handguns, which they unloaded and put under the mattress of the baby bed. Kertz said he figured Oswald was “some kind of hunter.” Neighbors of Oswald’s when he lived at the Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans remember him as an odd duck. There are reports Oswald was often seen walking backwards.

Re the above there are 0 hits when searching Charlie Kertz, at NARA same goes for Angus Lind at NARA

Re the above there are 80 hits when searching New Orleans Times Picayune at NARA see below

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/27884/jfksnew.txt

If the above statement is true, then it certainly blows a hole in the WC's contention that Oswald only had one rifle and one pistol. But it might go a long way toward explaining how the 91/24 Carcano "morphed" into a 91/38 between April and November of 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...
QUOTE(Robert Howard @ Jun 26 2008, 09:44 PM)

An Unfounded Observation about Lee Oswald?

SOURCE: HSCA Report 65.6 KERTZ, CHARLIE, Oswald witness; founder of the New Orleans Charlie's Saints Marching Band. Kertz was the deputy constable who, in 1963, evicted Oswald from his apartment at 4907 Magazine Street. Kertz said to New Orleans Times-Picayune columnist Angus Lind in 1991. "It was a Friday afternoon, and it was very unusual to evict someone on a Friday afternoon.” According to Lind, "Kertz said he confronted Oswald with the order to evict, showed him his credentials and told him to get his personal belongings out of the furnished apartment; otherwise they would be placed on the sidewalk, routine eviction procedure." "The guy was so weird," said Kertz. "He didn't say a word. There was a woman with him who had a child. He came down the steps, took a right, and headed toward Audubon Park." After that, Kertz never saw him again. According to Lind, "[Kertz] and another constable went in, put a baby bed and some clothes on the sidewalk, then opened a closet and found three rifles. They unloaded them and put them out on the sidewalk. They then removed about 30 paperbacks from the closet. . . .and underneath them were two handguns, which they unloaded and put under the mattress of the baby bed. Kertz said he figured Oswald was “some kind of hunter.” Neighbors of Oswald’s when he lived at the Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans remember him as an odd duck. There are reports Oswald was often seen walking backwards.

Re the above there are 0 hits when searching Charlie Kertz, at NARA same goes for Angus Lind at NARA

Re the above there are 80 hits when searching New Orleans Times Picayune at NARA see below

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/27884/jfksnew.txt

If the above statement is true, then it certainly blows a hole in the WC's contention that Oswald only had one rifle and one pistol. But it might go a long way toward explaining how the 91/24 Carcano "morphed" into a 91/38 between April and November of 1963.

Mark;

Prior to proceeding with "The Rifle", one just may want to consider the actual credibility of such claims as above.

In event that it can not pass the "common sense" test, then it certainly can not pass the "credibility" test.

Kertz was the deputy constable

Assuming that whoever this preson actually is, that he was in fact an Deputy Constable who actually served some legitimate eviction notice:

1. LHO did not reside at 4907 Magazine St. He actually resided at what was listed as 4905 Magazine St., which was part of the same building as was 4907.

Mr. LIEBELER - Mrs. Doris E. Earner?

Mrs. GARNER - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - She lives at 4907 Magazine Street?

Mrs. GARNER - Yes; right next to Oswald's apartment, in other words, and their kitchen windows was even to each other, across from each other.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did Oswald get any mail that you know of while he lived in the apartment 4907 or 4905 Magazine Street?

2. There is no record of LHO having ever been "evicted". Actually, he more or less snuck out, owing rent.

Mr. LIEBELER - He left owing rent for the period from September 9 until the time he left?

Mrs. GARNER - The 24th or 23d, whatever date it was.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you know Mr. Louis N. Rico?

Mr. LIEBELER - I believe you said Oswald actually owed you about 2 weeks' rent when they left. Is that right?

Mrs. GARNER - Fifteen days, something like that, 2 or 3 weeks. I think it was 3 weeks' rent, because the last time when I sent my husband to see about the rent, I told him it was going to be 3 weeks, and, "You know he isn't going to catch up with that and pay another month's rent and stay here by himself."

3. Mrs. Jessee Garner, who along with her husband, managed the apartment which LHO rented, testified to having observed the primary personal belongings of LHO (& Marina) being loaded up into the station wagon of Ruth Paine.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/garner_j.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/garner_m.htm

===========================

Mr. LIEBELER - And you never saw what kind of luggage they were packing in the station wagon?

Mrs. GARNER - I saw boxes, but I never did see any luggage. I saw boxes, and baby beds and playpens and stuff like that.

===========================

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/w...H23_CE_1799.pdf

4. Mrs. Garner was under the impression that LHO was going to remain in the apartment after Marina had left with Ruth Paine.

Mr. LIEBELER - As far as you know, Oswald intended to stay on in the apartment, at least that is what he had told your husband?

Mrs. GARNER - That's what I figured all the time, and every time I passed he was sitting on the porch, or either sitting by the lamp inside of the living room when it was dark, reading.

5. Exactly when was the last time that you ever heard of anyone (especially a law enforcement officer) leaving weapons (rifles as well as pistols) out on the street for any and/or all to freely take off with??????

6. Lastly, one would think that if an eviction notice was served, and multiple weapons were removed to the sidewalk, then someone would have seen them. Especially the landlord/landlady.

Mrs. GARNER - No; I never knew about that, never saw anything looked like a gun or anything like that.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/garner_sh.htm

Q: Now, Mrs. Garner, the premises which you occupy, are there several apartments there?

A: Yes, there is.

Q: And what would be the addresses of the entire structure?

A: Well, one is 4907, one is 4905, and there is two back apartments, 4905 1/2.

Q: I see. You say you were living there during the summer of 1963?

A: I was.

Q: Now, in what capacity were you and Mr. Garner living in that place? Did you own it or were you managing it, or what?

A: No, we don't own it, we just managed if for a friend of ours.

Q: Now, Mrs. Garner, do you know when Mrs. Oswald left the home that you had rented to her, that is, Marina Oswald?

A: I don't -- she left about the middle part of September, it was between the 21st, about the middle part of September, it was between the 21st and the 23rd.

Q: I see. Now, at the time that she left, did Lee Harvey Oswald leave too or did he stay there?

A: He did not leave right away, he left that night.

Q: Was it the same night?

A: The same night.

Q: And did you ever see him again after that?

A: No, I did not.

Q: Mrs. Garner, after Lee Oswald left, did you have occasion to go into the apartment?

A: Well, after he left, I was sure that he was not coming back, I went in.

Q: And what was the condition of the apartment?

A: Dirty.

Q: In what respects?

A: Well, everything was broken, the icebox door was broken, the mattress was all messed up, the stove was broke, stuff like that.

Q: Was it in a generally dirty condition?

A: Well, it was clean when he got it.

Q: No, when you went in after he left, was it in a generally dirty condition?

A: It was dirty, plenty dirt.

Q: One question. Mrs. Garner, did Lee Harvey Oswald pay his rent promptly?

A: The first month he did and after that I had to go after him

======================================================================

Do not believe that I personally would expend too much time and effort chasing the "Kertz" claim.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With that hopefully out of the way!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11672

Post #7

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Known calibers for the Carcano are as follows;

1. 6.5 X 52mm Italian

2. 7.35 X 51 mm Italian

3. 6.5 X 50 mm Jap (Carcano manufactured by Italy for the Japanese Army)

4. 6.5 X 54 mm Greek (Standard Carcano which was re-chambered to accept the 54mm length standard Mannlicher-Schoener Greek round.

5. 7.92 X 57 mm Mauser/aka 8mm X57nn (Carcano modified to accept the standard 7.92mm Mauser round.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html

Calibers

As previously mentioned, the Carcano rifle was produced in 4 calibers, and also "typically" found in a 5th caliber:

6,5x52 Carcano (M91's, and the submodels M91/24, M91/28, M91/38, M91/41))

7,35x51 Carcano (M38 only)

7,92x57 IS Mauser (M38 S and German Army Conversions)

6,5x50 Japanese (Tipo I only)

6,5x54 MS Greek (Austrian rechambered WW I capture guns)

The caliber of a Carcano, actually just the bore diameter, can be found imprinted either on the Mod. 38 and Mod. 91/38 fixed rear sight, or as a later proof mark on the barrel's muzzle end (United Kingdom proof) or breech end (German proof). In the case of 7,35x51 Carcano chambered guns, the left side of the buttstock should also be imprinted with a large-lettered "CAL. 7,35", unless the gun has been re-fitted with a M91/38 stock.

http://www.riflesnguns.com/node/761

============================================================================

Post #6

No Mark,,,, ALL Carcano MODEL 38 WERE 7.35 caliber.

Then the production was rebarreled to 6.5

Not the contrary.

C2766 is a 91/38, that means a model 1938 (7.35) reconverted to 1891 model (6.5).

Although most probably merely a "language barrier" problem:

1. The absolute first "Short Rifle"/aka Model 38 Short Rifle, was originally made in the 7.35mm caliber.

2. By 1940, all production of the 7.35mm Short Rifles had ceased. Thereafter, the weapon was only produced in

the 6.5mm caliber with the weapon being designated the Model 91/38. (Model 91 representing the 6.5mm caliber and the "38" representing the fixed rear sight change which had taken place in 1938 with introduction of the weapon)

3. This is readily verifiable by the number of "original" serial numbered weapons in the 6.5mm version in which the weapons have the exact matching serial numbers stamped into the stock as well.

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carc...ase/m91_38.html

Just as did most of the original production Model 38's (7.35mm) also have their matching serial number stocks with the weapon itself:

http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carc...tabase/m38.html

=============================================================================

C2766 was at one time a Model 38 Short Rifle, Serial Number unknown*

Robert Frazier/aka the FBI could have easily informed us as to what serial number weapon (Model 38) the stock was originally made for as this serial number is also clearly impressed into the stock itself.

Nevertheless, this too is most likely irrelevant as so many of these Model 38/7.35mm weapons were re-barrelled with the new production 6.5mm Short Rifle barrels that it would be virtually impossible to trace the previous history of this weapon.

At some point, this weapon was re-barreled with a 6.5mm Short Rifle barrel which was produced at the Terni Arms Factory in 1940.

This "re-barreling" could have been easily accomplished by the Italian Government; any qualified armorer; or those in the arms industry who purchase large quantities of weapons and surplus parts and then assemble weapons for sale to the general public.

Lastly!

After the Italian Armed Forces had changed to more modern weapons, various versions of the 6.5mm Carcano were given to the Italian Police Force and continued to be utilized as one of their primary weapons until the 1980's.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Carcano

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9d.htm

McKeown told Fonzi that on a Saturday morning at his home in Bay Cliff, Tex. in September or August 1963, two men visited his house. One man identified himself as Lee Oswald; the other man was called Hernandez. McKeown said that a friend of his, Sam Neill, was also present. After introducing themselves, McKeown said that Oswald wanted McKeown to furnish arms for a revolution in San Salvador. McKeown refused to cooperate, and the men departed, only to return in a few minutes. This time Oswald asked McKeown to provide four high-powered automatic rifles with telescopic lens, specifically .300 Savage automatics. Oswald said he was willing to pay up to $10,000. McKeown stated he realized this man was the Lee Harvey Oswald who allegedly shot President Kennedy upon witnessing the murder of Oswald. McKeown also said that Sam Neill called him immediately after this event and told him that he also recognized Oswald as the man who had visited the house.

Illegal Activities

As mentioned earlier, in a letter from Hoover to Rankin on April 17, 1964, the FBI informed the W. arren Commission that McKeown was one of the persons "in an extensive investigation conducted by the Bureau since 1952 concerning the activities of Carlos Prio Socarras."(1701) The FBI said that Prio, along with others including McKeown, was engaged in assisting Castro in his revolutionary pursuit against Batista.

================================================================================

=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9d.htm

McKeown told Fonzi that on a Saturday morning at his home in Bay Cliff, Tex. in September or August 1963, two men visited his house. One man identified himself as Lee Oswald; the other man was called Hernandez. McKeown said that a friend of his, Sam Neill, was also present. After introducing themselves, McKeown said that Oswald wanted McKeown to furnish arms for a revolution in San Salvador. McKeown refused to cooperate, and the men departed, only to return in a few minutes. This time Oswald asked McKeown to provide four high-powered automatic rifles with telescopic lens, specifically .300 Savage automatics. Oswald said he was willing to pay up to $10,000. McKeown stated he realized this man was the Lee Harvey Oswald who allegedly shot President Kennedy upon witnessing the murder of Oswald. McKeown also said that Sam Neill called him immediately after this event and told him that he also recognized Oswald as the man who had visited the house.

Illegal Activities

As mentioned earlier, in a letter from Hoover to Rankin on April 17, 1964, the FBI informed the W. arren Commission that McKeown was one of the persons "in an extensive investigation conducted by the Bureau since 1952 concerning the activities of Carlos Prio Socarras."(1701) The FBI said that Prio, along with others including McKeown, was engaged in assisting Castro in his revolutionary pursuit against Batista.

================================================================================

=

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/alba.htm

Mr. ALBA - He pursued the issue of ordering guns, and how many guns had I ever ordered, and how long did it take to get them, and where had I ordered guns from----

Mr. LIEBELER - Go ahead. What did you tell him? Just tell us the conversation that you had with him.

Mr. ALBA - I told him that I had a gun on' order at the present time, a U.S. .3 caliber carbine, and he asked had I received the gun, on several occasions, after that. "I told him no at I hadn't. And he ask me Would I consider selling him the gun and when I got it. I told him no.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did he ever express any interest in any rifle that you indicated that you had, other than this M-1 carbine that you told him you had order?

Mr. ALBA - One 30.06 Springfield rifle that I had.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have that?

Mr. ALBA - I was in the process of sporterizing that at the garage at the time----

Mr. LIEBELER - What did he say about that particular weapon?

Mr. ALBA - He said what was it worth to me, and I told him it was worth over $100 to me. There was no followup on that.

Mr. LIEBELER - Was this particular rifle that you have referred to, a Japanese rifle?

Mr. ALBA - No it wasn't. I had a Japanese rifle down there that was not for sale, an he was more partial to the Japanese rifle than the Springfield and the carbine put together.

Mr. LIEBELER - He was really interested----

Mr. ALBA - He was more interested in the Japanese rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER - What did Oswald say about this particular Japanese rifle?

Mr. ALBA - Nothing other than his desire to possess the gun, or to purchase the gun from me.

Mr. LIEBELER - In connection with this carbine that you had ordered from the National Rifle Association, you indicated that he had expressed an interest in buying that weapon from you? Is that correct?

Mr. ALBA - He had an interest very much, and after I told him that I wouldn't sell the gun, and I had mentioned that I was getting the gun for approximately $35 through the N.R.A. and that this same gun on the market would sell from $75 to $100, and he had made the expression that if and when "you get the carbine, should you decide to sell it, I would make it worthwhile for you to sell the gun."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk9/hscv9d.htm

McKeown told Fonzi that on a Saturday morning at his home in Bay Cliff, Tex. in September or August 1963, two men visited his house. One man identified himself as Lee Oswald; the other man was called Hernandez. McKeown said that a friend of his, Sam Neill, was also present. After introducing themselves, McKeown said that Oswald wanted McKeown to furnish arms for a revolution in San Salvador. McKeown refused to cooperate, and the men departed, only to return in a few minutes. This time Oswald asked McKeown to provide four high-powered automatic rifles with telescopic lens, specifically .300 Savage automatics. Oswald said he was willing to pay up to $10,000. McKeown stated he realized this man was the Lee Harvey Oswald who allegedly shot President Kennedy upon witnessing the murder of Oswald. McKeown also said that Sam Neill called him immediately after this event and told him that he also recognized Oswald as the man who had visited the house.

Illegal Activities

As mentioned earlier, in a letter from Hoover to Rankin on April 17, 1964, the FBI informed the W. arren Commission that McKeown was one of the persons "in an extensive investigation conducted by the Bureau since 1952 concerning the activities of Carlos Prio Socarras."(1701) The FBI said that Prio, along with others including McKeown, was engaged in assisting Castro in his revolutionary pursuit against Batista.

================================================================================

=

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/alba.htm

Mr. ALBA - He pursued the issue of ordering guns, and how many guns had I ever ordered, and how long did it take to get them, and where had I ordered guns from----

Mr. LIEBELER - Go ahead. What did you tell him? Just tell us the conversation that you had with him.

Mr. ALBA - I told him that I had a gun on' order at the present time, a U.S. .3 caliber carbine, and he asked had I received the gun, on several occasions, after that. "I told him no at I hadn't. And he ask me Would I consider selling him the gun and when I got it. I told him no.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did he ever express any interest in any rifle that you indicated that you had, other than this M-1 carbine that you told him you had order?

Mr. ALBA - One 30.06 Springfield rifle that I had.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you have that?

Mr. ALBA - I was in the process of sporterizing that at the garage at the time----

Mr. LIEBELER - What did he say about that particular weapon?

Mr. ALBA - He said what was it worth to me, and I told him it was worth over $100 to me. There was no followup on that.

Mr. LIEBELER - Was this particular rifle that you have referred to, a Japanese rifle?

Mr. ALBA - No it wasn't. I had a Japanese rifle down there that was not for sale, an he was more partial to the Japanese rifle than the Springfield and the carbine put together.

Mr. LIEBELER - He was really interested----

Mr. ALBA - He was more interested in the Japanese rifle.

Mr. LIEBELER - What did Oswald say about this particular Japanese rifle?

Mr. ALBA - Nothing other than his desire to possess the gun, or to purchase the gun from me.

Mr. LIEBELER - In connection with this carbine that you had ordered from the National Rifle Association, you indicated that he had expressed an interest in buying that weapon from you? Is that correct?

Mr. ALBA - He had an interest very much, and after I told him that I wouldn't sell the gun, and I had mentioned that I was getting the gun for approximately $35 through the N.R.A. and that this same gun on the market would sell from $75 to $100, and he had made the expression that if and when "you get the carbine, should you decide to sell it, I would make it worthwhile for you to sell the gun."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/alba.htm

Mr. LIEBELER - I understand that you are a gun enthusiast, is that correct?

Mr. ALBA - That is correct.

Mr. LIEBELER - And that you kept in your office in the garage various magazines relating to outdoor life and guns?

Mr. ALBA - Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER - Do you remember any other conversations that you and Oswald had about rifles or weapons?

Mr. ALBA - None other than he asking permission to borrow some magazines from time to time. And as far as I knew, they were all returned.

Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of magazines were these?

Mr. ALBA - Outdoor Life and Field and Stream, Argosy, and hunting and fishing magazines, and National Rifle Association magazines. And guns and ammo magazines.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

+

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...