View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JFK 50TH Anniversary

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 May 2014, 23:00

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
This one bullet, known as CE399, is said to have gone through 15 layers of clothing, a necktie knot, 7 layers of skin, and 15 inches of tissue, shattering 4 inches of rib and a wrist bone. Do you think that is possible?[/b][/size] y/

Absolutely that is possible! Forensics have PROVEN that it is not only possible, but probable.

lol
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24






Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 May 2014, 23:01

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Three aimed shots are not probable in a Carcano within six seconds, so the Warren Commission concluded that the damage done to the car occupants had to be from the impacts of only two bullets.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Who said they needed to be within 6 seconds? Try more like 9 seconds from first to third bullet. Please Syd, don't misrepresent the facts.

I dunno. That's just what everybody else says.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 25 May 2014, 23:11

Apart from all the other evidence that has been presented that you have ignored, you skipped over this bit:

In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was "inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton [Louisiana] in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,"[20] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana "established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination".[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_Shaw


This is a minimal subset of Jim Garrison's complete findings and suspicions. So at least 3 people were probably involved. Apart from the Secret Service stand-down, highly irregular and illegal autopsy proceedings using non-expert doctors, no real forensics being done, evidence suggesting bullets were fired from other locations, including where JFK's skull ended up in a direct line from the grassy knoll, fingerprint of a known murderer on the sniper's nest, other evidence of collusion throughout govt agencies, and so on. The gun itself was found to have a rusty barrel, a bent firing pin, and a misaligned scope, meaning that a full reading of the evidence makes LHO being the only shooter or a shooter at all completely impossible. I mean, Wag conveniently overlooks the whole Guy Banister CIA handler connection, the associations and ownerships of the businesses where LHO worked, LHO's murky intelligence background, and so on. Apparently LHO also knew Jack Ruby from childhood. And tons of other circumstantial evidence and the very low likelihood of the Warren Commission version of events being true, such as altered testimony about LHO's Coke and so on. Anyhow it's all been laid out here, in some places 2 and 3 times, so I'm not going to discuss it any more.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 26 May 2014, 21:09

SydneyPSIder wrote: I mean, Wag conveniently overlooks the whole Guy Banister CIA handler connection, the associations and ownerships of the businesses where LHO worked, LHO's murky intelligence background, and so on. Apparently LHO also knew Jack Ruby from childhood. And tons of other circumstantial evidence and the very low likelihood of the Warren Commission version of events being true, such as altered testimony about LHO's Coke and so on. Anyhow it's all been laid out here, in some places 2 and 3 times, so I'm not going to discuss it any more.

Syd, I'm not overlooking anything. One minute you're posting dozens of videos about everyone who is claimed to have shot JFK except LHO and even attempting to post info contrary to LHO doing any of the shooting (i.e. framed) and the next post you're saying LHO is involved in the killing through Guy Banister, Clay Show, and/or the CIA. You countered my "fact" that LHO brought the weapon into the TSBD in a paper bag which suggests that you don't think LHO was involved in the shooting at all! For the love of god Syd, how about picking a theory and going with just one. All you're doing is making yourself look you don't have a clue.
I don't believe I have ever once said that I know that LHO acted alone (though I do believe that), but he very well could have had guidance from other people. My belief is nestled in the evidence that LHO was the lone assassin in Dealey Plaza. If you want to discuss LHO's acquaintances, then by all means we can go that route. But if you're saying LHO wasn't involved at all, then what difference does it make who the hell he knew when he lived in New Orleans?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 May 2014, 14:11

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote: I mean, Wag conveniently overlooks the whole Guy Banister CIA handler connection, the associations and ownerships of the businesses where LHO worked, LHO's murky intelligence background, and so on. Apparently LHO also knew Jack Ruby from childhood. And tons of other circumstantial evidence and the very low likelihood of the Warren Commission version of events being true, such as altered testimony about LHO's Coke and so on. Anyhow it's all been laid out here, in some places 2 and 3 times, so I'm not going to discuss it any more.

Syd, I'm not overlooking anything. One minute you're posting dozens of videos about everyone who is claimed to have shot JFK except LHO and even attempting to post info contrary to LHO doing any of the shooting (i.e. framed) and the next post you're saying LHO is involved in the killing through Guy Banister, Clay Show, and/or the CIA. You countered my "fact" that LHO brought the weapon into the TSBD in a paper bag which suggests that you don't think LHO was involved in the shooting at all! For the love of god Syd, how about picking a theory and going with just one. All you're doing is making yourself look you don't have a clue.
I don't believe I have ever once said that I know that LHO acted alone (though I do believe that), but he very well could have had guidance from other people. My belief is nestled in the evidence that LHO was the lone assassin in Dealey Plaza. If you want to discuss LHO's acquaintances, then by all means we can go that route. But if you're saying LHO wasn't involved at all, then what difference does it make who the hell he knew when he lived in New Orleans?

Sorry, Prof, you're lying and misrepresenting again. It's tantamount to deliberate trolling.

There is no hard evidence LHO brought a disassembled rifle into the TSBD at all. Those rifles were ex-Italian WWII rifles, by the way, and were sold at a dime a dozen in bins in gun stores -- literally for $10 apiece. It's a pretty easy throw-down gun to come by, except that particular one was rusty, had a bent firing pin, and a misaligned scope.

The story and explanation is consistent throughout, except for some grey areas where people just cannot know what happened, short of the conspirators confessing all, which isn't going to happen.

Evidence has been presented throughout that LHO was involved in something, the conspirators didn't just pick a random patsy off the street and frame him, they were known to each other, however LHO hadn't realised he was going to be the patsy until the event had happened. He believed he was an important intelligence operator doing something of great significance for his country somehow. His ex-lover Judyth Baker claims he knew there was going to be an attempt but he was attempting to stymie it or withdraw from his role. There is a belief in some quarters that he had been instructed by his handler to go to the theatre after the Dealey Plaza event (blindly 'acting on orders' again in his bizarre form of patriotic belief at the time) where he was intended to be killed as an 'escapee' from the scene and thus promptly silenced but still eminently frameable, of course, once his backstory as a Castro sympathiser and 'Communist defector' could be brought out as evidence. Once he realised after a day or so that he had been framed and that was the sum total of the role he had been ordained to play, nothing more, he started announcing to the world he was a patsy -- requiring sending Jack Ruby to finish him off -- although the Mafia-connected Ruby knew him from childhood it turns out. (See http://rechtiskrom.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... er-tippit/ for one possible scenario of how the theatre arrest was supposed to play out.)

He was simply placed from job to job in the Dallas area, and had been used in the past as an attempted Russian defector plant, an occasional bodyguard, then as both a pro- and anti-Castro agitator (where he was bailed up in the street by a Cuban on one occasion for 'switching sides' and obviously being insincere), and so on. This was a form of sheep-dipping. In the end, they decided to use him up as a patsy. The CIA has a number of such irregular 'intelligence assets' on their books to be put to a number of uses.

The lack of LHO's genuine fingerprints on the Carcano rifle and the likelihood of it being at least inaccurate if not more likely completely unusable due to rust, a defective firing pin, and misaligned sights, suggests he did not fire it, as well as his appearance on another floor at almost the same time not the least out of breath or flustered. Expert snipers (quoted above) have examined the location and said that the American people have been sold a lie by the Warren Commission and there is no way LHO could have done it in the way portrayed, regardless of lack of convincing physical evidence such as fingerprints all over the rifle.

Then there is the low level of likelihood of an undamaged bullet just appearing on Senator Connally's stretcher in the hospital as a consequence of being fired on by LHO with the Carcano. It just dropped out of a wound, apparently, completely undamaged, after travelling through "15 layers of clothing, a necktie knot, 7 layers of skin, and 15 inches of tissue, shattering 4 inches of rib and a wrist bone". Profwag above has actually said this is plausible!

Then there is all the other flawed autopsy work (cannot be dignified as 'forensics') that ProfWag keeps hiding from and not addressing. Profwag also cannot explain the Secret Service stand-down convincingly that day, so he runs away from that as well. Nor can he explain the implausibility of the 'magic bullet' or 'single bullet' explanation of how a bullet changed direction several times doing major damage all the way -- then finally dropping out undamaged on a hospital stretcher in a public area -- to keep to the official '3 bullet' story -- to make it seem more plausible that LHO fired all 3 shots by himself, a necessary part of the 'crazed lone gunman' scenario.

Then numerous eyewitnesses who have pointed out the interconnections between the players over many years who knew them all personally. LBJ's own lover at the time has said LBJ was aware of the plot beforehand. (And of course there is a belief that he masterminded the plot in collusion with sympathetic characters in the CIA, FBI etc -- the paramilitary 'government within the government'.)

ProfWag seems to stick to a kind of bastardised story that, well, there may have been a conspiracy involving LBJ, the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, Mafia, oil cronies, etc etc, but he is sure LHO is the only one who was tapped on the shoulder to fire shots that day, and by gum he was a successful assassin, so didn't they choose well. So he is having a bet each way -- if you press him, sure there may have been a conspiracy right to the very top, or even just a few wacko locals, but his point is just that he thinks LHO did the whole deed with a rifle. So he shrinks to a position that he just KNOWS somehow that LHO fired the fatal shots, and that's he's really been arguing factually all along -- but he uses this minimal and sophistical position to attempt to persuade and portray to the world the Warren Commission conclusions that the whole thing was just a lone gunman from beginning to end. I'm not sure what name this sort of cover-up and fallacy goes by, but the Warren Commission used it, as Profwag is using it now.

The lone gunman scenario appears very unlikely on the evidence, on the witness statements, and the common sense appraisal that a concerted effort to kill the President would not have relied on a character like LHO firing from where he was. Apart from the fact that the ammunition used is mismatched and up the putt, that the shots came from the front and front right of the President and appeared to use a frangible bullet, that other shots may have come from the other end of the TSBD or the Dal-Tex building next door, and even possibly from the storm water drain recess on the street. A Senator confided a couple of years later that there's no way LHO could have produced that result from that angle with that gun, as have professional snipers. A number of eyewitnesses said they saw one thing and testified another so as to be left alone personally and to help put the whole thing to bed.

A very similar scenario was set up for the London Underground bombings of 7/7, by the way, where a few dispensable guys from Leeds were set up as patsies, and the plan went pretty much wrong, requiring the faking of evidence and the cold-blooded shooting of two of them at Canary Wharf in front of civilian witnesses.

Profwag has deliberately twisted the story and evidence being presented in a most unfair way -- continually just attacking the evidence in a mixture of illogic and ad hominem attacks -- but of course he appears to have some unnamed agenda of his own, and it may not just be being the living embodiment of a pseudoscep or taking personal pride in his perversity.

Then Profwag was completely wrong on his analysis of gunsmoke from modern weapons, so in response and personal ego defence he seems to have turned to his usual curious mixture of sophistry, illogic, smears and nonsense as his best form of argumentation.

So, in short, Profwag just seems to be trolling to get a kick out of the site.

Here's some interesting thoughts and testimony from James Files, a claimed assassin, to close out with:

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/jail.htm

and:

http://rechtiskrom.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... er-tippit/

and even:

http://rechtiskrom.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... s-to-grow/

and another David Ferrie / LHO / Frank Sturgis (CIA) connection caught on film:

http://rechtiskrom.wordpress.com/2011/1 ... k-sturgis/
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 28 May 2014, 08:36

SydneyPSIder wrote:
There is no hard evidence LHO brought a disassembled rifle into the TSBD at all. Those rifles were ex-Italian WWII rifles, by the way, and were sold at a dime a dozen in bins in gun stores -- literally for $10 apiece. It's a pretty easy throw-down gun to come by, except that particular one was rusty, had a bent firing pin, and a misaligned scope.

True Syd! The rifle he brought in could have already been assembled! Of course, there is no other hard evidence except for the witnesses to the bag of "curtain rods," and that the gun found inside the TSBD was the one that Oswald ordered (under an assumed name), and the same weapon his wife noted was missing from the garage.
Yes, the gun used was mass produced by the Italians during WWII and were standard issue. Sooooooo, what about it? Tells me they were sufficient to shoot only a few years earlier.
The information you stated concerning the reliability of the gun is inconsistent with the evidence presented to the Warren Commission. Here is the reference if you want to read the fact, Syd:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archi ... PageId=218
Again, it would sure help if you posted facts instead of a "conspiracy wish list."
Next up on this thread? Another extremely long post from Syd that doesn't say a damn thing that's useful.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 28 May 2014, 14:02

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:
There is no hard evidence LHO brought a disassembled rifle into the TSBD at all. Those rifles were ex-Italian WWII rifles, by the way, and were sold at a dime a dozen in bins in gun stores -- literally for $10 apiece. It's a pretty easy throw-down gun to come by, except that particular one was rusty, had a bent firing pin, and a misaligned scope.

True Syd! The rifle he brought in could have already been assembled! Of course, there is no other hard evidence except for the witnesses to the bag of "curtain rods," and that the gun found inside the TSBD was the one that Oswald ordered (under an assumed name), and the same weapon his wife noted was missing from the garage.
Yes, the gun used was mass produced by the Italians during WWII and were standard issue. Sooooooo, what about it? Tells me they were sufficient to shoot only a few years earlier.
The information you stated concerning the reliability of the gun is inconsistent with the evidence presented to the Warren Commission. Here is the reference if you want to read the fact, Syd:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archi ... PageId=218
Again, it would sure help if you posted facts instead of a "conspiracy wish list."
Next up on this thread? Another extremely long post from Syd that doesn't say a damn thing that's useful.

Lots of things are inconsistent with the Warren Commission, because it's a snow job on top of a deliberately botched Dallas PD/FBI investigation snow job, where people were told how to testify and conflicting testimony was ignored.

e.g. they appointed Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission, JFK's bitterest enemy who had just been sacked by JFK, who had been deeply suspicious of the activities of the CIA. Then Gerald Ford, a Republican, was also on the WC, and funnily enough was made US President on Nixon's sacking, so he was unelected (also unelected as VP), and promptly instated GHW Bush as head of the CIA -- a supposed outsider who was an 'independent Texan oil man' rather than the strong suspicion that he was a long-standing CIA operative high up in the organisation, joining on graduation from Harvard. A supposed cleanskin who knew nothing about how govt OR the CIA worked, and yet was supremely qualified for the job, somehow, over all other possible candidates. He then maneuvered his way onto Ronald Reagan's ticket as VP, against Reagan's wishes, then nearly became POTUS in the same way as LBJ when another 'crazed assassin' (known personally to the Bush family as a friend) attempted to kill Reagan. He finally became POTUS via election (possibly rigged, as many US elections are).

The Carcanos may have been good to shoot a few years earlier, but that assumes it was well maintained, which this one wasn't, according to the FBI armourer who inspected it. The record is in the public domain. They are actually quite an accurate rifle when set up properly, but very cumbersome to reload. This one had rust in the barrel, rust in the bolt, firing pin and spring, where they feared the pin would break on a test firing, and a misaligned scope, making LHO's startling success with the rifle very improbable indeed. Further, the vendor of the rifle was not fitting scopes to the 40" barrel Carcano that was found in the TSBD, only 36" barrel models. In fact, LHO allegedly ordered the 36" model from a mail order catalogue, but somehow a 40" model was discovered in the TSBD, which would have required a gunsmith to mount a scope after purchasing the cheap nasty old rusted out WWII relic for ten bucks by mail order.

As the FBI gun experts point out, rust on the pin and in the barrel would have been removed if a single shot had been fired from it, let alone three. Therefore, with the amount of rust present, the gun could not have been fired for quite some time. Further, wouldn't an assassin with military training in the Marines think to maintain their gun and fire a few test rounds to retest their marksmanship well before the assassination attempt? And use something a bit better than a $10 WWII Carcano from the sale bin?

Your arguments are full of holes, wag, and well you know it.

This article and investigation traces the provenance of the alleged weapon LHO allegedly bought and allegedly used, including an examination of the FBI investigation of the gun itself. It turns out there are huge holes in the chain of custody, that LHO could not have processed the alleged mail order he allegedly purchased the alleged weapon with, and so on. Nor was LHO's handwriting on any of the paperwork, and there is evidence that LHO was at work with a full diary made out for the day the mail order was supposedly made up and sent, that it was sent from another part of Dallas miles from where he worked, and that the rifle is not the same one as in the famous 'back yard' shot.

There is absolutely no evidence that LHO ever practised his marksmanship beforehand, ever fired any rifle beforehand after leaving the Marines years earlier, either the one in his backyard photos or the Carcano planted in the TSBD, nor that he ever maintained the rifle he is holding in the backyard shot. However, we DO know that he was fraternising with the likely JFK assassination conspirators for some time according to various eyewitness statements and photographic and film evidence, as determined also by the 1979 House Committee into Assasssinations (specifically, JFK's), already cited twice above.

".....if Oswald did it with this weapon.....it was an absolute miracle, because no one who knew anything about rifles would have chosen such a decrepit, worthless rifle as this Italian carbine, manufactured in 1938, for which there is such poor ammunition."

(Testimony of Mark Lane in 2 H 51)

EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT FIRED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 

Normally, an investigator examining a weapon to determine if it has been fired, will look first at the outside of the weapon. A visual examination of the condition of the weapon, including an examination of the condition of the firing pin. Next, he examines the inside of the weapon, checking the inside of the barrel and examining the inside of the operating mechanism, the bolt and its parts.

In his testimony, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was "roughened from corrosion", then connected the "corrosion" to rust with his comment that "if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust."

So how could the barrel have surface rust after THREE rounds had been fired through it ?

 

The Rusted Barrel

Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.

( 3 H 394 )

Frazier was then asked to be more specific on the condition of the rifle barrel when he first got it for inspection.

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

( 3 H 395 )

Frazier KNEW when he visually inspected the rifle that rust in the barrel meant that the rifle had not been fired, because just one round fired through it would have removed all rust. The fact that he visually saw rust in the barrel made it clear to him that there was no need to conduct a "swab test" to test for metal shavings and fouling in the barrel.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

( ibid. )

Had Frazier visually examined the barrel and found no rust, it would have been standard procedure to next do the "swab test" to determine if there was no rust because the barrel was clean or because a bullet had passed through it. The "swab test" would have detected any metal shavings from the bullet's jacket and gunpowder residue ( fouling ). A clean swab from a barrel with no rust would have proven the rifle had not been fired, while a swab with residue would have proven that it had.

The ONLY thing that would have prevented Frazier from doing the swab test would have been if his visual inspection had revealed that the inside of the barrel was rusted and thus that no bullet had passed through the barrel in the last 24 hours.

If there is any question as to whether or not the inside of the barrel was susceptible to rust, that question was answered by the Firearms Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970's. The Panel examined the C2766 rifle before it did any test firing and reported the rifle's condition:

"A visual examination of the rifle revealed pitting, rust and copper oxidation to test-firing, which the panel believed should be removed prior to test-firing. Accordingly, a dry cloth patch was pushed through the bore.

( 7 HSCA 365 )

So the inside of the barrel ( "the bore" ) showed "pitting, rust and copper oxidation" as a result of the rifle having not been fired since the last "test-firing", some 13 years previously. This is what happened to this barrel from non-use --- it rusted. But it wasn't the only part of the rifle which contained rust.

 

The Rusted Bolt

Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also rusted:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.

( 3 H 447 )

The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes BEFORE he began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.

(ibid.)

They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from its rust. The bolt was so rusted that operating it tended to move the rifle off target. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from it becomes and the faster the elapsed times are for the shooters.

Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.

( 3 H 449 )

 

The rusted firing pin, & spring

 

Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and its spring for someone to have oiled it:

".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further, THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN AND ITS SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )



CE 2974 states that there was rust on the firing pin of the rifle and "This rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed...". What the FBI was saying is that there was "undisturbed rust" on the firing pin. That rust would have been disturbed if the firing pin had moved in the previous 24 hours.

So how is there "undisturbed" rust on a firing pin that has been used three times in the last 24 hours ?

This document also states that not only was "the firing pin and spring of this weapon well oiled", the rust "must have formed prior to the oiling of these parts."

Rust could not have formed on the rifle AFTER the assassination. Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

( 3 H 395 )



Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that the two were both rusted ?

If the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then NOT A SINGLE ROUND HAD BEEN FIRED FROM IT IN THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS.

Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder weapon.

Now you know why the FBI never did a "swab test" of the inside of the barrel to determine if the rifle had been fired. A swab test would have detected copper fouling in the barrel. With a rusted barrel and undisturbed rust on the firing pin, there was no need to check to see if the rifle had been fired recently.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

( ibid. )

Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel and rust on the firing pin and spring, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling.

They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.

The ease of operation of the bolt was essential in their attempts to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether it was Oswald or one of the rifle "experts" else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.

Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were "well" oiled indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had been applied rather recently. The point is, that if oil was added to the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.

It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police.



EVIDENCE THAT THE SCOPE ON THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT MOUNTED BY KLEIN'S



As I've already shown above, the ad that the Commission says Hidell/Oswald ordered his rifle from was for the 36 inch length MC that was offered with the scope. The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that during March 1963, Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC.



The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was Bill Sharp, their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed to the HSCA what Westra told them: the March 1963 package deal with the scope was for the 36 inch MC ONLY.



Confirmation that Klein's did not mount scopes on the 40" rifle came in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, who told the Warren Commission that when the FBI ordered a duplicate rifle to the Depository rifle from Klein's, they had to tell them where to put the mount for the scope:

Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.

( 3 H 396 )

Why would the FBI have to tell Klein's where to mount the scope if Klein's normally mounted scopes on these rifles ?

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 28 May 2014, 23:18

SydneyPSIder wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Next up on this thread? Another extremely long post from Syd that doesn't say a damn thing that's useful.

Lots of things are inconsistent with the Warren Commission, because it's a snow job on top of a deliberately botched Dallas PD/FBI investigation snow job, where people were told how to testify and conflicting testimony was ignored.

e.g. they appointed Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission, JFK's bitterest enemy who had just been sacked by JFK, who had been deeply suspicious of the activities of the CIA. Then Gerald Ford, a Republican, was also on the WC, and funnily enough was made US President on Nixon's sacking, so he was unelected (also unelected as VP), and promptly instated GHW Bush as head of the CIA -- a supposed outsider who was an 'independent Texan oil man' rather than the strong suspicion that he was a long-standing CIA operative high up in the organisation, joining on graduation from Harvard. A supposed cleanskin who knew nothing about how govt OR the CIA worked, and yet was supremely qualified for the job, somehow, over all other possible candidates. He then maneuvered his way onto Ronald Reagan's ticket as VP, against Reagan's wishes, then nearly became POTUS in the same way as LBJ when another 'crazed assassin' (known personally to the Bush family as a friend) attempted to kill Reagan. He finally became POTUS via election (possibly rigged, as many US elections are).

The Carcanos may have been good to shoot a few years earlier, but that assumes it was well maintained, which this one wasn't, according to the FBI armourer who inspected it. The record is in the public domain. They are actually quite an accurate rifle when set up properly, but very cumbersome to reload. This one had rust in the barrel, rust in the bolt, firing pin and spring, where they feared the pin would break on a test firing, and a misaligned scope, making LHO's startling success with the rifle very improbable indeed. Further, the vendor of the rifle was not fitting scopes to the 40" barrel Carcano that was found in the TSBD, only 36" barrel models. In fact, LHO allegedly ordered the 36" model from a mail order catalogue, but somehow a 40" model was discovered in the TSBD, which would have required a gunsmith to mount a scope after purchasing the cheap nasty old rusted out WWII relic for ten bucks by mail order.

As the FBI gun experts point out, rust on the pin and in the barrel would have been removed if a single shot had been fired from it, let alone three. Therefore, with the amount of rust present, the gun could not have been fired for quite some time. Further, wouldn't an assassin with military training in the Marines think to maintain their gun and fire a few test rounds to retest their marksmanship well before the assassination attempt? And use something a bit better than a $10 WWII Carcano from the sale bin?

Your arguments are full of holes, wag, and well you know it.

This article and investigation traces the provenance of the alleged weapon LHO allegedly bought and allegedly used, including an examination of the FBI investigation of the gun itself. It turns out there are huge holes in the chain of custody, that LHO could not have processed the alleged mail order he allegedly purchased the alleged weapon with, and so on. Nor was LHO's handwriting on any of the paperwork, and there is evidence that LHO was at work with a full diary made out for the day the mail order was supposedly made up and sent, that it was sent from another part of Dallas miles from where he worked, and that the rifle is not the same one as in the famous 'back yard' shot.

There is absolutely no evidence that LHO ever practised his marksmanship beforehand, ever fired any rifle beforehand after leaving the Marines years earlier, either the one in his backyard photos or the Carcano planted in the TSBD, nor that he ever maintained the rifle he is holding in the backyard shot. However, we DO know that he was fraternising with the likely JFK assassination conspirators for some time according to various eyewitness statements and photographic and film evidence, as determined also by the 1979 House Committee into Assasssinations (specifically, JFK's), already cited twice above.

".....if Oswald did it with this weapon.....it was an absolute miracle, because no one who knew anything about rifles would have chosen such a decrepit, worthless rifle as this Italian carbine, manufactured in 1938, for which there is such poor ammunition."

(Testimony of Mark Lane in 2 H 51)

EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT FIRED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963 

Normally, an investigator examining a weapon to determine if it has been fired, will look first at the outside of the weapon. A visual examination of the condition of the weapon, including an examination of the condition of the firing pin. Next, he examines the inside of the weapon, checking the inside of the barrel and examining the inside of the operating mechanism, the bolt and its parts.

In his testimony, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was "roughened from corrosion", then connected the "corrosion" to rust with his comment that "if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust."

So how could the barrel have surface rust after THREE rounds had been fired through it ?

 

The Rusted Barrel

Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has. had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.

( 3 H 394 )

Frazier was then asked to be more specific on the condition of the rifle barrel when he first got it for inspection.

Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.

Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?

Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.

( 3 H 395 )

Frazier KNEW when he visually inspected the rifle that rust in the barrel meant that the rifle had not been fired, because just one round fired through it would have removed all rust. The fact that he visually saw rust in the barrel made it clear to him that there was no need to conduct a "swab test" to test for metal shavings and fouling in the barrel.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?

Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

( ibid. )

Had Frazier visually examined the barrel and found no rust, it would have been standard procedure to next do the "swab test" to determine if there was no rust because the barrel was clean or because a bullet had passed through it. The "swab test" would have detected any metal shavings from the bullet's jacket and gunpowder residue ( fouling ). A clean swab from a barrel with no rust would have proven the rifle had not been fired, while a swab with residue would have proven that it had.

The ONLY thing that would have prevented Frazier from doing the swab test would have been if his visual inspection had revealed that the inside of the barrel was rusted and thus that no bullet had passed through the barrel in the last 24 hours.

If there is any question as to whether or not the inside of the barrel was susceptible to rust, that question was answered by the Firearms Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970's. The Panel examined the C2766 rifle before it did any test firing and reported the rifle's condition:

"A visual examination of the rifle revealed pitting, rust and copper oxidation to test-firing, which the panel believed should be removed prior to test-firing. Accordingly, a dry cloth patch was pushed through the bore.

( 7 HSCA 365 )

So the inside of the barrel ( "the bore" ) showed "pitting, rust and copper oxidation" as a result of the rifle having not been fired since the last "test-firing", some 13 years previously. This is what happened to this barrel from non-use --- it rusted. But it wasn't the only part of the rifle which contained rust.

 

The Rusted Bolt

Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also rusted:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.

( 3 H 447 )

The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes BEFORE he began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break.

Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?

Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?

Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.

(ibid.)

They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from its rust. The bolt was so rusted that operating it tended to move the rifle off target. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from it becomes and the faster the elapsed times are for the shooters.

Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?

Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.

( 3 H 449 )

 

The rusted firing pin, & spring

 

Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and its spring for someone to have oiled it:

".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further, THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN AND ITS SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )



CE 2974 states that there was rust on the firing pin of the rifle and "This rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed...". What the FBI was saying is that there was "undisturbed rust" on the firing pin. That rust would have been disturbed if the firing pin had moved in the previous 24 hours.

So how is there "undisturbed" rust on a firing pin that has been used three times in the last 24 hours ?

This document also states that not only was "the firing pin and spring of this weapon well oiled", the rust "must have formed prior to the oiling of these parts."

Rust could not have formed on the rifle AFTER the assassination. Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in:

Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?

Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.

Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?

Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.

( 3 H 395 )



Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that the two were both rusted ?

If the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then NOT A SINGLE ROUND HAD BEEN FIRED FROM IT IN THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS.

Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder weapon.

Now you know why the FBI never did a "swab test" of the inside of the barrel to determine if the rifle had been fired. A swab test would have detected copper fouling in the barrel. With a rusted barrel and undisturbed rust on the firing pin, there was no need to check to see if the rifle had been fired recently.

Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.

( ibid. )

Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel and rust on the firing pin and spring, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling.

They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police.

Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.

The ease of operation of the bolt was essential in their attempts to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether it was Oswald or one of the rifle "experts" else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.

Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were "well" oiled indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had been applied rather recently. The point is, that if oil was added to the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.

It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police.



EVIDENCE THAT THE SCOPE ON THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT MOUNTED BY KLEIN'S



As I've already shown above, the ad that the Commission says Hidell/Oswald ordered his rifle from was for the 36 inch length MC that was offered with the scope. The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that during March 1963, Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC.



The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was Bill Sharp, their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed to the HSCA what Westra told them: the March 1963 package deal with the scope was for the 36 inch MC ONLY.



Confirmation that Klein's did not mount scopes on the 40" rifle came in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier, who told the Warren Commission that when the FBI ordered a duplicate rifle to the Depository rifle from Klein's, they had to tell them where to put the mount for the scope:

Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination.
In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.

( 3 H 396 )

Why would the FBI have to tell Klein's where to mount the scope if Klein's normally mounted scopes on these rifles ?

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm

Bet you all never thought this skeptic was psychic...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 29 May 2014, 04:40

OK then, I've got more... Given the above more or less proves that LHO's gun was not usable, shredding profwag's arguments, I'm sure the readership will be most interested in a few more facts, given that wag has crumbled and collapsed back to his usual pseudoscep slurs and ad homs in lieu of any kind of convincing argument. Question mark from the FBI investigation of who actually ordered the gun, many breaches of post office protocol on keeping records which points to destruction of records, LHO's timesheet that shows he was at work minute by minute when supposedly a mail order was made out by him elsewhere. This is the sort of detailed investigation wag doesn't want people to see or think about, as it upsets his oversimplified thesis and exposes the actions of other parties in the conspiracy. Once again he runs from any detailed investigation of the evidence because the facts don't fit his theories.

EVIDENCE THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT PART OF THE FEBRUARY SHIPMENT TO KLEIN'S

TRACKING THE RIFLE

In 1958, Crescent Firearms ( under the name Adam Consolidated Industries ) purchased 500,000 rifles from the Italian Government. The final shipment of those rifles ( 520 cartons ) left Italy's port of Genoa after being identified as lot number 91594 and arrived in the New York via the steamer Elettra Fassio on October 25, 1960. The 520 cartons were removed and trucked by the Waterfront Transfer Company to the Harborside Terminal, a bonded warehouse in New Jersey.

As one can see, the CARTON NUMBERS are listed on the manifest. For example, "3086/3094" means that all cartons numbered from 3086 thru 3094 inclusive were on this shipment. The third entry down, 3305/3436, means that all cartons bearing numbers in that range were part of this shipment, including the carton 3376, which allegedly contained a rifle with serial number C2766, the same serial number as the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

The shipment was placed in storage and remained there for the next two years.

This is where the paper trail for carton 3376 ends.

Fred Rupp was a federally-licensed gun dealer who had a contract with Crescent Firearms to pick up rifles at the Harborside Warehouse and inspect, clean, test-fire, repack and ship them to Crescent's retail customers. Klein's purchase order of 1/15/62 requested that 400 model 91TS rifles ( 36" troop specials ) be delivered.

According to Harborside delivery order # 89138, Rupp removed the first 170 cartons on August 29, 1962.
A list of the numbers of the cartons removed was on the manifest. CARTON 3376 WAS NOT AMONG THEM.

Importers of rifles and gun dealers were required BY LAW to maintain a list of SERIAL NUMBERS of the rifles they imported. Rupp was required by law to keep a list of the serial numbers he removed from the warehouse ( which he did on the 8/29/62 manifest ) and the name of the retail customer he shipped them to. And Klein's was required to keep the serial numbers of rifle they sold to retail customers. ( 7 H 371 )

During the month of October, 1962, Rupp removed 264 more rifles from lot 91594.

90 on October 4th
70 on October 16
64 on October 24
and the last 40 on October 31

On all of the subsequent shipping manifests of the rifles removed from Harborside Warehouse by Fred Rupp, THE LIST OF CARTON NUMBERS IS ABSENT, even though on the 10/24 manifest, it is clearly marked "list numbers of cases shipped".

Rupp removed a total of 434 Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifles in the month of October 1962 from the lot of 520 rifles ( 91594 ) belonging to Crescent Firearms. He told the FBI that he kept no record of the carton numbers or serial numbers of the rifles he removed from Harborside. ( CD 7, pg. 180 ) In other words, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CARTON 3376 WAS AMONG the 434 rifles removed by Rupp, even though the FBI said it was.

The Warren Commission used two documents to "prove" that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein's Sporting Goods.

The first one is Crescent Firearms invoice # 3178.

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you.......is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3?

Mr. WALDMAN. The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C-2766 was included in that shipment. ( 7 H 368 )

Of course, it shows no such thing.

Because if you look closely at invoice # 3178, you'll see that ALL OF THE CARTON NUMBERS HAVE LITTLE CHECKS ABOVE THEM EXCEPT CARTON NUMBER 3376.

Which means that in verifying the carton numbers in that shipment, 3376 was never verified as being a part of that shipment.

The FBI's " tracking of the rifle " included unsigned and undated documents and manifests.

One such undated and unsigned example of document was Waldman Exhibit 3, the second document the Warren Commission used to "prove" that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein's.

Waldman Exhibit 3 is an undated and unsigned list of ten carton slips which allegedly made up the February shipment from Crescent to Klein's. Listed on each of the ten carton slips are the serial numbers of the 10 rifles in each carton, including carton 3376. Since there are no dates on any of the slips in Waldman Exhibit 3, it serves no purpose in proving that carton 3376 and thus the C2766 rifle was part of the February shipment.

In fact, the ten carton slips, including slip 3620 which contained the list of rifles in carton 3376, could have been filled out at any time. If one looks at the slip numbers, which are pre-printed at the bottom of each slip, one will see that the numbers are not in sequence, which one would expect them to be if they were created at the same time by the same person and for the same shipment.

The slip numbers are 3672, 3504, 4376, 3813, 3789, 3661, 3762, 3544, 3620 and 3770.

The Klein's Witness

William Waldman was anything but an expert. He knew so little about the M-C rifle, that when he was shown the order form from his company to Crescent Firearms, ( Waldman Exhibit 1 ) he testified that the order had been changed from a 91TS to a 91/38EFF:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I notice on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. I a date well, I might read everything under the column of description; it says Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, Model 91TS, bolt action 6-shot rifle; and then cal.--that's for caliber--6.5, and then there is an "X" and 52 mm Italian-select, clean, and test-fired, changed to Beretta Terni M19, then a slash line 38 EFF, and then the date of 4/16/62. Explain that date and that description.

Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; this general style of rifle was made by a number of different manufacturers over a period of time and there were minor modifications made by---developed by each of the manufacturers.

Mr. BELIN. Would this be similar to a number of manufacturers making the Springfield rifle in this country?

Mr. WALDMAN. As for example, the different manufacturers making the Springfield rifle. Basically, the weapons were of the same general design, but as I say, there were details that were different. We originally had ordered one style of Carcano rifle, one that was known as the Model 91TS. As time went on, we changed to another model known as the Model 91/38EFF, this on April 13, 1962. ( 7 H 362 )

The problem is, that there is no such thing as a 91/38EFF. The "EFF" on the form was short for the word "effective" followed by the date 4/13/62.

Waldman not only had no knowledge of the model of rifle his company handled, he had no knowledge of the language used on shipping forms. Waldman didn't fill out those slips. He didn't fill out the order for the rifles. He didn't accept the shipment of the rifles, yet he was the one who gave testimony. The people at Klein's whose responsibility it was to handle such measures were never called to testify to the origin of the documents.

He never should have been called as a witness in regard to the processing of the rifle sale.

In fact, the Commission even had him giving testimony about documents that were clearly from Crescent Firearms.

Why would they do that ?

Because at Crescent Firearms there WAS someone familiar with rifle sales. But Louis Feldsott was never called to give live testimony before the Commission and only gave a sworn affidavit. In that affidavit, however, Feldsott swore that Crescent's records showed that rifle C2766 was sold to Klein's on June 18, 1962, not in February 1963.

Why would that have been a problem ?

BECAUSE PRIOR TO 4/13/62, KLEIN'S RIFLE ORDER WAS FOR THE 91/38 TS, WHICH ONLY CAME IN 36" LENGTHS. There's no way that Fred Rupp could have prepared a shipment between 4/13 and 6/18. That's only two months. The February 1963 shipment took him five months to prepare.

That means that if rifle C2766 was sold to Klein's as part of a shipment on 6/18/62 in response to their 1/15/62 order, Rupp would have had to have started preparing the shipment right after the order, and that means that the rifles in that order would have been 36" rifles. Because the order change didn't go into effect until 4/13/62, it would have been much too late to have altered a shipment that had already been started and would be delivered on 6/18.

In addition, Rupp told the FBI that the rifle bearing serial number C2766 which he serviced was a 36" rifle. ( Armstrong, Harvey & Lee, pg. 446 )

This information is significant, I believe, because it proves that there was more than one rifle, in this case a 36" rifle and a 40.2" rifle, bearing the serial number C2766.

The rifle serial number

It was imperative for the Commission to show that the Depository rifle was the only one with the serial number C2766 in order to establish that that was the rifle shipped to "A. Hidell" at Box 2915 in Dallas.

In its report, the Commission said that, "Information received from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service has established that this particular rifle was the only rifle of its type bearing serial number C2766." ( Chap.4 , pg. 119 ) The Commission went on to say that, "the number "C2766" is the serial number of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that serial number" ( Appendix X, pg. 554 ). The FBI also told the Commission that although rifles might have the same serial number sequence, some were preceded by a letter and some were not ( i.e. 2766 vs. C2766 ). ( 3 H 393 )

The problem I have is that in 1940, there were three different types of 91/38 rifles in 6.5mm. The Fucile Corto ( short rifle), the Cavalry rifle and the Troop Special ( TS ) .

The 40.2" Fucile Corto ( short rifle ) was produced at the Beretta, Brescia, Gardone VT and Terni plants. The 36" Cavalry rifle was produced at the Beretta, Brescia and Gardone VT plants. The 36" Troop Special was produced at the Beretta and Brescia plants only.

Which means that in 1940, four different plants produced a total of 9 versions of the three different types of 91/38 rifle. Four produced the short rifle, three produced the Cavalry rifle and two produced the Troop Special.

Perhaps the 40.2" rifle removed from the TSBD was the only short rifle with the serial number C2766. But the evidence indicates that more than one type of 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bore serial number C2766.

Such evidence comes from the most unlikeliest of sources, Warren Commission supporter the late John K. Lattimer. In his book Kennedy & Lincoln ( 1980 ) , on page 250 he alludes to an experiment he did with his sons back in the 70's using a Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifle with a serial number of C2766.

In March of 1964, the FBI interviewed William Sucher, the owner of International Firearms Limited in Montreal, Canada. Sucher was interviewed because of his vast dealings with overseas purchases of weapons. The FBI reported that Sucher purchased "hundreds of thousands" of rifles from the Italian government as surplus, usually in "very poor" condition. Sucher told the FBI that in the 1930's, Mussolini had ordered all of the arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. He further stated that "since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern."

In other words, since many ( four that I've named ) of the factories were manufacturing the 91/38 rifle, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one factory. That means that the C2766 serial number could appear on anywhere from 3 to 9 weapons. Some Warren Commission apologists will argue that the next sentence in this report "some bear a letter prefix and some do not" is relative to the serial number being the same. I do not believe that. I believe that the FBI is making a matter-of-fact statement. For if a serial number does not bear the letter prefix, it's not the same serial number as the one that does. The serial number 2766, for example, is not the same serial number as C2766. Sucher stated that the rifles had the SAME serial number, meaning that the serial numbers were exactly the same.

In fact, when the FBI stated that "some have a letter prefix and some do not", they were downplaying the diversity in the numbers. Some rifles had TWO letter prefixes, some had a single letter, others had a number and a letter. Some serial numbers were only four digits long, others were six. A look at Waldman Exhibit 3 shows a list of the serial numbers of the rifles received by Klein's Sporting Goods in February, 1963.

The red arrow points out one rifle serial number whose prefix was a number then a letter. Many of the rifles in this list had TWO letter prefixes.

Additional evidence indicating that there may have been one or more 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifles with the serial number C 2766 comes from the very documents the government used to try to prove that Oswald ordered the rifle. The order blank and the order form both contained catalog numbers that indicated that a 36" rifle was ordered by an "A.Hidell" and a 36" rifle with serial number C 2766 was shipped.

PURCHASING THE RIFLE

The Order Blank and the Order Form

The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias "A. Hidell", ordered the 40.2" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Sheriff's Deputies shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. He did this, it said, using an order blank from the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. The FBI traced the dept. number on the order blank, 358, to that particular magazine.

The problem with the examination of the handwriting on the order blank will be discussed later on this page.

Below is Cadigan Exhibit 3-A, a copy of the envelope and order blank that Oswald allegedly used to order the rifle. It is a copy of a copy, in essence, a copy allegedly made from Klein's microfilm copy.

The issue I have with the order form and the order blank below has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders.

So one would have to wonder why the documentation indicates that the order was for a 36" rifle and the order was processed for a 36" rifle but the serial number was of a 40" rifle ?

In light of the fact that NONE of the Klein's employees who were responsible for filling the orders or shipping and receiving the weapons were ever called to give testimony to the Commission, how is it possible that a 36" rifle was allegedly ordered, shipped and turned into a 40.2" rifle ?

The Commission never asked.

And when you ask the Warren Commission apologists for evidence a 40.2" rifle was shipped, they call you a kook.

The Commission also never thoroughly looked into the destruction of the third part of Oswald's application for a post office box, the same post office box the rifle was allegedly shipped to.

Post Office Box 2915 and the Application

The application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business ( if applicable ). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.

So the question is whether or not "A.Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.

When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application ( Holmes Exhibit 3 ). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations. Holmes further went on to say that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation by keeping part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city. ( 7 H 527 )

In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.

"In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963." ( Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121 )

That was a lie. The postal regulation required that the box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

Of course, this revelation alone makes a liar out of Harry Holmes. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT.

As if that wasn't bad enough, Holmes also lied about how mail addressed to persons whose names were NOT on the post office box application was handled. He told the Commission that when the post office received mail or a package addressed to someone NOT on the application, a notice would be put in the box REGARDLESS OF WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE MAIL and when someone came to the desk with the notice, they got the mail/package, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE.

( 7 H 527-528 )

In order to show how ridiculously absurd such a procedure is, the Post Office regulation is clear.

In response to Mr. Galanor's second question, regarding mail addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3, the post office replied that regulation 355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked "addressee unknown" and returned to sender.

In other words, if "Hidell's" name is not on the box application part 3, he CANNOT receive mail in a box assigned to Oswald.

As if questions about the rifle's serial number and the suspicious destruction of part 3 of Oswald's Post Office box application weren't enough, the Commission completely ignored evidence that proved that Oswald was at work when the money order for the rifle was purchased and mailed.

EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS AT WORK WHEN THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE WAS PURCHASED AND THE ENVELOPE MAILED

Buying and Mailing the Money Order

The next problem with the purchasing of the rifle is that at the date & time Oswald was alleged to have purchased the money order he allegedly used to pay for it and mailed the envelope containing it, he was at work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. The money order was stamped that it had been purchased on March 12, 1963 and the envelope it was allegedly mailed in had a postmarked time of 10:30 am, meaning that IF Oswald bought he money order, filled it out and mailed it, he had to have accomplished it between the time the Post Office opened and the postmarked time.

The problem comes in when we examine Oswald's work timesheet from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for March 12, 1963, the date the money order was allegedly purchased. Below is Commission Exhibit 1855 and it shows that DURING THE TIME OSWALD SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASING, FILLING OUT AND MAILING THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE, HE WAS AT WORK. ( red box )

In fact, the document shows that excluding Oswald's lunch break from 12:15-12:45pm, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF OSWALD'S DAY IS ACCOUNTED FOR FROM 8:00am THROUGH 5:15pm. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald was late for work that day. In fact, according to his boss at JCS, he was "very punctual".

Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?

Mr. GRAEF. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?

Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.

( 10 H 184 )

There is also NO EVIDENCE that Oswald received a ride to work that day from a co-worker. There IS EVIDENCE from testimony, however, that when co-workers offered rides to Oswald, he declined.

Mr. OFSTEIN. ..............he was also offered rides by Mr. Graef, and I offered him a ride a couple of times either to his home or wherever he wanted to catch a bus, and I know that he always declined my offer of a ride.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. OFSTEIN. He said; no, he would go ahead and walk, and usually in the evening when he would leave he would say, "I am going up to the post office to pick up my mail, and a couple of times I would offer to give him a ride up this way, as it wasn't much out of my way and I have to come in this direction anyway to Live Oak before I turn, which is only about a block difference, and he always declined to ride and would walk.

( 10 H 205 )

Amazingly, not one single witness was ever called to testify about Commission Exhibit 1855 and there is NO MENTION of this document in ANY of the 15 volumes of testimony. In addition, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Main Post Office opened before 8am, allowing Oswald to make his purchase prior to going to work.

In fact, this document found in Box 50 of the HSCA Segregated CIA files shows that the post office window opened at 8:00 am:

The document states that Oswald "probably lied" when he signed in on his timesheet and cautions that the "time sheets should be used with caution".

PROBABLY lied ?

"Probably" is one of those "buzz words" people use when they don't have any evidence. Like "could be", "maybe" and "possibly".

The fact is there's no evidence that Oswald lied on his timesheet.

There's no evidence that Oswald was late for work on March 12th.

And there's no evidence that Oswald was at the post office at 8:00 am.

We know the post office window opened at 8:00 am and the record shows that Oswald was at work at 8:00 am. The burden of proof is on Oswald's accusers: if they can prove that Oswald was not at work and at the post office at 8 am on March 12, 1963.

Let's see their evidence.

Then there's the problem of the absence of postal form 6001, the applications for money orders that would have had to have been filled out by "A. Hidell" for each of the weapons he allegedly ordered. Where are they ?

The Commission never asked.

Another problem the Commission failed to address is that the money order was not mailed at the post office from where it was purchased, but it was mailed instead THREE POSTAL ZONES AWAY. An examination of the postmark on the envelope indicates that it was mailed in postal zone 12 ( yellow arrow ) , when Oswald worked and allegedly purchased the money order in postal zone 1. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald gave the envelope to someone else to mail.

And if there was no evidence that Oswald purchased or mailed the money order for the rifle, the money order itself made a strange and abnormal journey through the processing system.

Another question the Commission should have asked was who in the Dallas Post Office issued the money order.

On the front of the money order, there is clearly a line marked "initial of issuing authority". And it's clearly initialed. Why didn't the Commission determine whose initials these were and why wasn't that person called to give testimony ?

Processing the Money Order

Another problem, this one of the money order itself ( CE 788, below ) is that it contained no stamp from any financial institution. The only stamp on it was a stamp on the back from Klein's Sporting Goods for deposit into its account ( number 50-91144 ) in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( red arrows below )

Bank stamps were used on postal money orders in those days as is evidenced by the referral to same ( "bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements" ) on the back of the money order.

The single stamp on the back was identified in testimony as the stamp of Klein's.

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.

Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc."

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order?

Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.

( 7 H 367 )

The stamp wasn't an endorsement from a bank. It was the endorsement stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods transferring the funds into its bank account. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Had the money order been processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, the bank would have put its DATED stamp on it.

Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item. Without the stamp, there's no proof that the money was actually paid by the bank and credited to the customer's account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases. This money order should have had on it the DATED stamps of all financial institutions that handled the document.

The fact that it doesn't is proof that it never passed through the Federal Reserve System. 

Postal Money Orders received by the First National Bank of Chicago, were then sent to the Federal Reserve Bank, also in Chicago. The First National Bank did NOT microfilm money orders. To confound the tracking of the money order, the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago kept records of money orders for only six months, which means that it too had no record of this particular money order. At the time the money order would have been processed, 75% of money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C. and the other 25 % were being sent to Kansas City, Missouri. Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago provided the FBI with the addresses of both locations. ( CD 7, pg. 193 )

So far, in tracking the money order, this is what we have:

The money order with a stamp for Klein's Sporting Goods for deposit into its account into the First National Bank of Chicago.

No evidence that it was received by the bank.

No evidence that it was received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

No evidence that it was received by any financial institution in either Kansas City or Washington, D.C.

And yet, this "magic money order" is able to find its way through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT ANY ENDORSEMENTS from the financial institutions which handled it.

Not surprisingly, this money order without bank stamps becomes part of a deposit which never included it.

EVIDENCE THAT THE "$ 21.45" ENTRY ON KLEIN'S BANK STATEMENT WAS NOT THE "HIDELL" MONEY ORDER

The Klein's deposit & its deposit slip 

Still another problem with the purchasing of the rifle involves the alleged deposit of the "Hidell" money order by Klein's Sporting Goods. Waldman 10 shows that the $13,000 deposit had a deposit slip of 2/15/63. If you look at that exhibit, you'll see that the date at the bottom of the bulk statement is the date "3-13"63". I believe that these two documents represent a deposit which was made on 2/15/63, the bulk list being a bank statement of account action for the period ending 3/13/63.

Before the naysayers respond that the deposit slip could have been in an honest mistake, I would like to point out that BOTH the month AND the day are wrong ( if you buy the deposit being made on 3/13/63 ). I could see an error on the month at the beginning of the month, but an error on the MONTH AND DAY in the MIDDLE of a month ?

IMO, it's pretty hard to believe it's an honest mistake.

From the evidence I've seen, the FBI apparently used a 2/15/63 deposit of an American Express Money Order and tried to pass it off as a 3/13/63 deposit of a postal money order.

Let me explain why I believe that.

I believe that we're looking at TWO documents, dated a month apart, for the SAME deposit. the first is the February 15, 1963 deposit slip with a total of $ 13,827.98 in deposits from Klein's sporting goods to be deposited into their account in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( 21 H 706 )

The second ( the bulk statement ) appears to me to be a bank statement, mailed to Klein's ONE MONTH LATER, dated March 13, 1963 and listing all of the checks and money orders deposited on 2/15 and part of that exhibit ( Waldman 10 ) includes one other separate deposit of $ 2,116.91 , date unknown ( below ). If Klein's bank statements were tallied as of the 13th of the month, then a deposit on the 15th of February would not show up until March 13th's statement.

Unfortunately, the date for this second "deposit" is cut off, making it impossible to determine its exact date.

That is, I believe, why the "deposit" has two different dates. One is for the actual deposit and the other is for the bank statement received by Klein's the following month. If true, then the FBI took a bank deposit for February 15th, 1963 that included TWO items for $ 21.45 and tried to pass one of them off as a deposit of the "Hidell" money order, using the date of the statement as a date of deposit.

Again, my opinion is that they couldn't have used an actual March deposit slip because that one would have included a bank statement dated the middle of April.

It seems to me, looking at the evidence, that Klein's never had a deposit of $ 21.45 in March of 1963 but had 2 in February.

The problem with a February deposit, obviously, was that neither of the deposits could have been a "Hidell" postal money order with a postal stamp of 3/12. So the FBI took the bank statement dated 3/13/63, which was actually for the 2/15 deposit, and claimed that it was all part of a 3/13 deposit.

Again, that's my opinion, based on what I've seen.

Absent the dated stamp of the bank, it was IMPOSSIBLE to say when and IF the money order had been deposited. It was particularly difficult for Waldman in his testimony to nail down the WHEN.

Mr. WALDMAN. ..... Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the XEROX COPY OF OUR DEPOSIT SLIP marked, or IDENTIFIED by--AS WALDMAN DEPOSITION EXHIBIT No. 10.

Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?

Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct ?

Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

( 7 H 367-368 )

We know that the $ 21.45 deposit they are referring to is an American Express Money Order and NOT the "Hidell" postal order because it is described IN DETAIL by Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago, Klein's bank. His description is so precise that he described the entries listed before and after the "$ 21.45" in Waldman 10 to their exact penny.

That's pretty credible to me.

Needless to say, Robert Wilmouth never appeared on the FBI's witness list to testify before the Commission and identify the "Hidell" money order as having passed through his bank, either in live testimony or by deposition.

If the deposit was made in February, as I suggest, then the $ 21.45 in Waldman 10's deposit of $ 13.827.98 couldn't possibly be the "Hidell" money order . And there's evidence showing that it wasn't.

In Commission Document 7, pg. 192 ( below ) , Wilmouth told the FBI that there were TWO deposits of $ 21.45 and the one in the $ 13,827.98 deposit ( Waldman 10 ) was an American Express money order, NOT the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell". He said that "the item appeared on a tape between an item of $ 15.08 and an item of $ 14.36, precisely where David Belin put a mark on Waldman 10.

Wilmouth was specific in his identification of the AmEx money order. He said that it was on a tape between deposits of $ 15.03 and $ 14.36, precisely the deposit that the WC said was the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell".

Finding the money order 

HARRY HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT THE MONEY ORDER STUB WAS FOUND AT 12:10 PM ON 11/23/63:

Mr. HOLMES. I didn't have any luck, so along about 11 o'clock in the morning, Saturday, I had my boys call the postal inspector. ( 11 AM )

Mr. HOLMES. ....So I had my postal inspector in charge call our Chicago office and suggested that he get an inspector out to Klein's Sporting Goods and recheck it for accuracy, that if our looking at the right gun in the magazine, they were looking for the wrong money order.

Mr. BELIN. So what happened?

Mr. HOLMES. So in about an hour Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95---$21.45 excuse me, and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20.
( 12 NOON )

So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub.... I relayed this information to them and ....within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount.....( 12:10 PM )

( 7 H 294-295 )

BUT ALTHOUGH THEY HAD THE MONEY ORDER NUMBER, THE DATE, & KNEW THE AMOUNT AND RELAYED THAT INFO TO WASHINGTON "IMMEDIATELY" after 12:10pm, IT TOOK AN IBM COMPUTER ANOTHER SEVEN HOURS TO FIND IT

Mr. BELIN. .....Then what did you do?

Mr. HOLMES. I gave that information to my boss by telephone. He called Washington immediately. Of course this information included the money order number. This number was transmitted by phone to the chief inspector in Washington, who immediately got the money order center at Washington to begin a search, which they use IBM equipment to kick out this money order, and about 7 o'clock Saturday night they did kick out the original money order....and it turned out....to be the correct money order.

( 7 H 295-296 )

Using only manual labor and the money order amount as a guide, they found the stub in ten minutes, but it took a computer 7 hours with the number, amount and date info to find the money order ?

There's no way they could have done a computer search for that money order because the money order was never processed.

RECEIVING THE RIFLE

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 said that "Nobody is permitted to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition to any person, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a fugitive or is under indictment for, or was convicted of a crime of violence."

In order to prove that a weapons customer wasn't a fugitive or violent criminal, Texas law REQUIRED that a "certificate of character" be issued by a judge in the county of residence of the purchaser of a firearm. ( University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1950 )

No "certificate of character" exists for the sale of the rifle.

In addition, no clerk in the Dallas Post Office has ever come forward admitting that they handed a long package to Oswald in March of 1963.

In other words, there's no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

http://www.giljesus.com/jfk/rifle.htm
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 29 May 2014, 06:53

ProfWag wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that LHO ever practised his marksmanship beforehand, ever fired any rifle beforehand after leaving the Marines years earlier, either the one in his backyard photos or the Carcano planted in the TSBD, nor that he ever maintained the rifle he is holding in the backyard shot. However, we DO know that he was fraternising with the likely JFK assassination conspirators for some time according to various eyewitness statements and photographic and film evidence, as determined also by the 1979 House Committee into Assasssinations (specifically, JFK's), already cited twice above.

Unlike you, Syd, I'll try to keep this brief. First, I love this comment: "we DO know that he was fraternizing with the likely JFK assassination..." (emphasis mine) So, you "know" he was with "likely." Syd, do you know what an oxymoron is?

Second, your statement "There is absolutely no evidence that LHO ever practiced his marksmanship beforehand..."
Please read the following interview with his wife Marina:

"Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. I hadn't paid any attention initially.
I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention.
I hope you understand. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. That for a man to have a rifle since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business.
If I had known these were such dangerous toys of course you understand that I thought that Lee had changed in that direction, and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him, just playing around.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures."
Entire interview here:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testim ... ald_m1.htm
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby Misha » 29 May 2014, 22:30

Don't Be Fooled By 'Conspiracy Theory' Smears Washington's Blog:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/ ... mears.html
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 May 2014, 11:49

Misha wrote:Don't Be Fooled By 'Conspiracy Theory' Smears Washington's Blog:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/ ... mears.html

A timely interjection, Misha.

My suggestions follow the spirit of the Justice Integrity Project’s JFK Assassination “Readers Guide” last fall. That 11-part series began with a catalog of books, archives, reports and videos. Then it proceeded to assess various theories of President Kennedy’s 1963 murder.

By now, we know from declassified documents that the CIA undertook a massive secret campaign to smear critics of the Warren Commission with the label “conspiracy theorist.”

The campaign used members of mainstream media friendly to the CIA, for example, to discredit New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, shown below. Garrison was prosecuting New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw in what Garrison alleged was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Shaw, an OSS liaison to high-ranking British officials during World War II, founded a major regional trade mart in New Orleans shortly after the war. Garrison alleged that Shaw met with rightist opponents of JFK to plan the death.

A 50-page CIA memo, known as “CIA Dispatch 1035-960,” instructed agents to contact their media contacts and disparage those, like Garrison, criticizing the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. The 1967 document is here in the original, and here in reformatted text of its summary.

Minutes of CIA meeting that same year indicated fear that Garrison would win a conviction.

Who's to say ProfWag isn't some part of that same project, working quietly in the background, either for money or out of a misguided sense of 'patriotism' (meaning pandering to corrupt big business and Washington power interests).

Part of this seems to be the clandestine control of American politics by the Bush dynasty working in close collusion with an inner secret core of interests in the CIA and elsewhere, loosely correlated with the Republican Party and its interests.

It's the manifestation of 1984 and 'Big Brother' by other means, which is really what George Orwell was writing about anyway. NSA snooping is another part of this picture, and it's also become apparent to me that a nauseating number of American citizens are working for the CIA in DC and elsewhere on a number of nauseating projects such as this one and others -- including their many connections to insiders in the US media and business to keep the US hegemony project going. It's a network effectively equal to the East German STASI.

"The difference between a patriot and a terrorist
is whose side of the fence you are on."
James Files, gunman on the grassy knoll
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 30 May 2014, 16:08, edited 3 times in total.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby SydneyPSIder » 30 May 2014, 12:30

ProfWag wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
There is absolutely no evidence that LHO ever practised his marksmanship beforehand, ever fired any rifle beforehand after leaving the Marines years earlier, either the one in his backyard photos or the Carcano planted in the TSBD, nor that he ever maintained the rifle he is holding in the backyard shot. However, we DO know that he was fraternising with the likely JFK assassination conspirators for some time according to various eyewitness statements and photographic and film evidence, as determined also by the 1979 House Committee into Assasssinations (specifically, JFK's), already cited twice above.

Unlike you, Syd, I'll try to keep this brief. First, I love this comment: "we DO know that he was fraternizing with the likely JFK assassination..." (emphasis mine) So, you "know" he was with "likely." Syd, do you know what an oxymoron is?

Second, your statement "There is absolutely no evidence that LHO ever practiced his marksmanship beforehand..."
Please read the following interview with his wife Marina:

"Mr. RANKIN. When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know where he practiced with [a] rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.
Mr. RANKIN. Would that be at the airport---Love Field?
Mrs. OSWALD. Love Field.
Mr. RANKIN. So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall seeing [a] rifle when [a] telescopic lens was on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. I hadn't paid any attention initially.
I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention.
I hope you understand. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any objection to having [a] rifle around?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to that?
Mrs. OSWALD. That for a man to have a rifle since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business. [Acting on his handler's instructions to take that picture? That's how they set up the 7/7 alleged 'terrorists' (patsies), it's a common intelligence stunt.]
If I had known these were such dangerous toys of course you understand that I thought that Lee had changed in that direction, and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him, just playing around.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with [a] rifle and [a] pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures."
Entire interview here:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testim ... ald_m1.htm


There, fixed it for you.

So Mrs Oswald 'thinks' he was practising in an open area (to remain undetected) rather than a rifle range, but never witnessed it firsthand. It's quite possible he did, that he went with his fellow conspirators, and that the fellow conspirators and handlers had gee'd him up once again into thinking he was doing something important, telling him he had to improve his marksmanship, then the next stage of the mission will be revealed to him, etc etc. I also believe they instructed him to take those stupid pictures with a rifle and a pistol in order to set him up with a backstory as the patsy role they were planning -- this happened to the Leeds guys set up for the 7/7 London Underground bombing as a false flag UK intelligence exercise to drum up support for invading the middle east and oppressing and suppressing middle eastern ethnic communities in the UK. False flag operations are all upside.

You'll note Mrs Oswald has absolutely no recollection of whether the rifle at LHO's house had a scope fitted or not, so her testimony is fairly useless in attempting to understand why there were 2 rifles involved. Note also that the firm that supposedly sold the rifle to LHO was only fitting scopes to the 36" model, not the 40" model found in the TSBD, and that the gunsmith at Klein's (the supposed supplier) had to be instructed by the FBI where to fit the scope on a second sample 40" rifle. This suggests that the rifle was not obtained from Klein's, that it was not purchased by LHO, and that someone else fitted a scope to the 40" Carcano that was found in the TSBD, and that it was not a simple mail order purchase at all. The batch of rifles and serial numbers including the discovered 40" model in the TSBD seems to have gone somehow "missing" in the supply chain to Klein's. Further, witnesses called to testify about the supply chain were unreliable and uninformed and not directly involved in the handling of any of the weapons, and could not even correctly decipher the paperwork or ordering events.

It's clear on an examination of the photographic evidence that the gun in LHO's earlier photos is not the Carcano, and it's also clear that Officer Tippitt was shot by 3 guys trying to escape in a white station wagon who had exited out the back of the TSBD, using a different revolver with different ammo to the revolver in LHO's possession. Once again, it is pretty obvious LHO was an 'intelligence asset' who believed he was somehow involved in some sort of important intelligence work, but was used up as a patsy by the conspirators, the conspirators including his CIA handlers -- with a line of enquiry that goes all the way back to GHW Bush, a supposed 'independent Texas oilman' who was in the CIA since graduating from Harvard. James Files also mentions he knows GHW Bush was in the CIA at least as early as 1961. Bush phoned in a bizarre alibi to the FBI on the day of JFK's murder attempting to place him further away from the scene, even naming one of his workers as a suspect -- that named worker later worked on various Bush election campaigns, after kindly being 'shopped to the FBI' by 'Poppy Bush'. Further, a 'George Bush' was mentioned in CIA correspondence as one of their workers in the public domain, and Bush and his handlers have been prevaricating and dissembling about it ever since -- an investigation does not reveal any other George Bush who were suitable. While running 'Zapato Off-Shore Drilling' in conjunction with an ex-CIA pal, he also planned operations attacking Cuba interestingly called Operation Zapata and code-named a ship Barbara after his wife.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 30 May 2014, 19:09

Yes, yes, yes, Syd. It's very typical of a conspiracy theorist to alter the evidence to suit their beliefs. Instead, people should look at the facts. Marina also noted that she witnessed him cleaning his rifle on several occasions which wouldn't have been done without firing. Getting back to the point you made that there was no evidence that he ever fired the weapon. I have shown that there is evidence. Again, the conspiracy theory is invalid. Care to discuss another point? (Notice I said "point" and not "points." The best way to discuss a topic is point by point rather than a barrage of different topics that have no hope of discussion.)
And I don't know where the hell you came up with three people shooting Tippit when the witnesses all pointed the finger at Oswald alone. Again, it appears you're attempting to alter the evidence.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK 50TH Anniversary

Postby ProfWag » 30 May 2014, 19:18

SydneyPSIder wrote:It's clear on an examination of the photographic evidence that the gun in LHO's earlier photos is not the Carcano,

Another misrepresentation or flat out lie from the conspiracy theorists:

"After subjecting these original photographic materials and the camera alleged to have taken the pictures to sophisticated analytical techniques, the photographic evidence panel concluded that it could find no evidence of fakery.(102)

Of equal significance, a detailed scientific photographic analysis was conducted by the panel to determine whether the rifle held by Oswald in the backyard photographs was, in fact, the rifle stored at the National Archives. The panel found a unique identifying mark present on the weapon in the Archives that correlated with a mark visible on the rifle in the Oswald backyard photographs, as well as on the alleged assassination rifle as it appeared in photographs taken after the assassination in 1963.(103) Because this mark was considered to be a unique random pattern (ie., caused by wear and tear through use), it was considered sufficient to warrant the making of a positive identification. "
From the HSCA and found here: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/se ... l#backyard
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron