 |
- show quoted text -
point, that's fine. But watch your mouth otherwise. I treat you without
insult and I follow the Golden Rule in the form of 'don't do anything to
anyone if they don't do anything to you'. And be very careful of giving
out orders as if you were the moderator. I will apply truth to anything I
choose, and you won't have any control over that whatsoever.
Now, as to your comment that the SportsDrome event had nothing to do
with Oswald, I agree, and have agreed with that for a long, long time.
As to the ownership od the rifle, there are facts that you don't seem
aware of that suggest that he was indeed the owner of the MC rifle, and
bought it for a purpose, which was to impress someone. He did not buy
ammunition for it, and he didn't do any practice anywhere because if he
had, he would have discovered the faults in the rifle and had them fixed.
I believe he had NO intention of shooting anyone with the rifle, so we can
agree on that much.
Facts have come to light that Oswald was seen in the lunchroom at about
12:15pm, and about that time 2 men with a gun were seen in the 6th floor
window, so that let's Oswald off as far as being in the window and
shooting at the motorcade.
Chris
Ralph Cinque:
Chris, don't ever make the mistake of trying to tell me what to do. Bad idea.
The Sports Drome event is what I was talking about in which Oswald supposedly shot at other people's targets just to be an instigator, an incitor, an asshole. It never happened, and he was never there. End of story.
Now: Oswald owned no rifle. HE SAID he owned no rifle. If he had brought a rifle to work and knew that Buell Frazier saw him bring a rifle to work- where the two of them and the rifle were in the car together- why would he deny it? What would be the point?
And wouldn't his fingerprints be on the rifle in that case? Or, are you suggesting that even though he only brought the rifle to work to show it to someone that he wiped it down?
And why lie about any of this? It's not a crime to show someone a rifle. Doesn't it make you look guilty when you lie to the police? So, why lie about a non-crime?
And why would he hide his rifle where it was supposedly found?
And, you are apparently unaware that Buell Frazier went to the Dallas Police in 2013 to try to get them to amend the police record to clearly show that he never said that the bag was big enough to contain a rifle, that he denied that Oswald brought any rifle to work.
Another thing, Chris, is that you're not paying enough attention to Jesus. And I mean Gil Jesus. Here, he lays out 10 reasons why the Oswald rifle wasn't Oswald's:
10 REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THE "OSWALD RIFLE" ISN'T OSWALD'S
Started by Gil Jesus, Jan 20 2010 06:58 PM
- Members
- 578 posts
Posted 20 January 2010 - 06:58 PM
By Gil Jesus ( 2010 )
Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE
SERIAL NUMBER C2766
The 40" rifle currently in evidence is not the only 6.5 Mannlicher-
Carcano with the serial number of C2766. On page 250 of his book,
Kennedy and Lincoln, the late Dr. John K. Lattimer said the following:
"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine,
model 91-38, serial number C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics
Company four power telescope exactly like Oswald's."
http://i45.tinypic.com/2hmingh.jpg
But Lattimer's wasn't the only 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano with serial
number C2766.
Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN
RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766
In volume 11, page 205 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Louis
Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms, in a sworn affidavit to the
Commission, claimed that he was contacted by the FBI on the evening of
November 22, 1963. They requested that he check his files to see if he
had any records concerning the sale of an Italian-made 6.5 mm. rifle
with the serial number C2766. When he checked, he found that he had
records indicating the rifle was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods on
June 18, 1962. This information of the 6.5 rifle with the serial
number C2766, he said, was conveyed to the FBI on the evening of
November 22, 1963 and all records of the purchase, sale and
transportation of the weapon were given to the FBI.
http://www.history-m...Vol11_0108a.htm
In their tracing of the shipping records of the C 2766 rifle, however,
the FBI makes no mention of the June 1962 sale. They cite, instead,
the February, 1963 sale of 100 rifles from the same dealer, Crescent
Firearms, to Klein's. In that shipment is a list of the rifles' serial
numbers. Included in the list is a 6.5 rifle serial number C 2766.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0361b.htm
But thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that
Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June
1962 and the other in February 1963.
I'll get back to the June 1962 rifle later. Right now I'd like to
concentrate on the February, 1963 rifle.
Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT
THE 40" RIFLE.
The FBI traced the sale of the 40" C2766 rifle backward and claimed
that it was a part of a shipment of 100 rifles weighing 750 lbs. that
was sent to Klein's from Crescent Firearms in February, 1963.
But one researcher found evidence that the shipment was for 36" rifles
ONLY.
In researching for her excellent article on the Oswald rifle, JFK
assassination researcher Martha Moyer checked on wooden shipping
containers used in transporting weapons, and found that all the
containers weighed between 16 and 20 pounds. The 36-inch weapon
allegedly ordered by "Hidell" was advertised as weighing 5 1/2 pounds.
The total weight of 100 such weapons would be 550 pounds. Added to the
weight range of ten wooden shipping containers the result would be a
total of between 710 and 750 pounds.
The delivery receipt from Lifschultz Fast Freight listed the freight
as 10 crates/cartons of guns/rifles and listed the weight at 750 lbs.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0359a.htm
Had the shipment been of the 40" rifles, at 7 lbs. each, the total
weight including 160-200 lbs. for the crates would have been in the
860-900 lb. range.
Instead, the 750 lbs. consisted of 10 crates at 20 lbs each ( 200 )
and 100 rifles at 5.5 lbs. each ( 550 ) In other words, the shipment
received by Klein's in February, 1963 was indeed a shipment of 36-inch
weapons.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf
Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE
Waldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to
order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the
February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald
ordered catalog # C20-T750,
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364b.htm
which is the 36" rifle as advertised.
http://i46.tinypic.com/15p0k7k.jpg
One can also see that the 40" rifle had a different catalog number,
C20-750.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg
Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS
SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE
Waldman Exhibit 7 is the copy of the shipping manifest that
accompanies the rifle when shipped. It clearly states that the catalog
number of the shipped item is C20-T750 and not C20-750.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364a.htm
The ONLY difference in the catalog numbers is the difference between
the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg
How important was the catalog number to the folks doing the shipping ?
William Waldman, VP of Klein's Sporting Goods, told the WC that the
catalog numbers for rifles ordered with scopes were different than for
the same rifle without a scope and that the different number described
"the rifle, scope and mount". ( 7 H 362-363 )
Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING
WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.
The shipping cost is noted in two places, where it says "PP=1.50" for
the cost of Parcel Post, and again in the handwritten column where it
says 150. This is exactly the amount sent by "Hidell" to ship the 36 "
rifle.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364a.htm
Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER,
1963
Klein's 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream
from January, 1962 through November, 1963.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf
Which means, folks, that Klein's hadn't run out of them at the time of
the "Hidell" order.
Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL,
1963
No 40" Italian rifle was advertised by Klein's in The American
Rifleman magazine from October 1962 through February 1963. According
to assassination researcher/author and former detective Ian Griggs,
the 40" "carbine" began to be advertised in The American Rifleman in
April, 1963. Field and Stream did not begin advertising the 40-inch
Italian weapon until September, 1963. It was from the November issue
that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes submitted his exhibit # 2 as
a "duplicate" to the ad "Hidell" ordered from . ( 20 H 174 )
Many of the Warren Commission apologists contend that Klein's shipped
a 40" rifle in lieu of the advertised rifle because they had run out
of the 36's. But the evidence so far indicates otherwise. In order to
believe that the 40" rifle was shipped to "A. Hidell", you must
believe ALL of the following:
a.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle without notifying the
customer that the rifle he ordered was out of stock.
b.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered without giving
the customer the option of a refund.
c.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered and used the
wrong catalog number.
d.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that was 40% heavier for the same
price as the rifle ordered and absorbed any additional shipping
charges and
e.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet
for sale and continued to advertise a rifle that they no longer had.
In my opinion, that's quite a stretch.
Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE
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 Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36
inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78)
The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp,
their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the
package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market
the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)
http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
In addition, FBI expert Robert Frazier testified to the WC that in
order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the
rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and
then had to tell Klein's where on the frame to mount 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 )
So the FBI told Klein's what "position on the frame" "the scope should
be in". Information that Klein's would not have needed had they
normally mounted "scopes of this type on these rifles".
It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with
a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted
"in-house".
Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME
AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO
If the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the
rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas
School Book Depository is not. The reason is that the rifle in CE 134
( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling
mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with
side sling mounts.
http://i42.tinypic.com/25z4g3k.jpg
http://jfkresearch.f....com/c2766.html
The subject is covered on my youtube channel in a video entitled, "One
Rifle or Two ?"
CONCLUSIONS:
There was more than one 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano with serial number
C2766. Besides John Lattimer's rifle, there's evidence that Klein's
bought two C2766's from Crescent Firearms, one in June 1962 and the
other in February, 1963.
I've discussed fully the February 1963 rifle. It is my conclusion that
the February 1963 shipment of rifles to Klein's was of the 36" rifle
and that one of those, serial number C2766 was shipped to "A.Hidell".
I base this on the evidence of the weight of the rifles and their
crates and the list of the serial numbers in the shipment. I also
conclude that "A.Hidell" ordered a 36" rifle and that he was shipped a
36" rifle. I base that conclusion on the fact that the catalog number
"Hidell" ordered was the same as the catalog number of the 36" rifle
with the scope, that the shipping manifest indicated that the catalog
number shipped was the same as the 36" rifle with the scope, and that
the cost of the shipping was the same as the 36" rifle.
I have found no evidence in the shipping documentation or in the
testimony that would lead me to conclude that "Hidell" was ever
shipped a 40" rifle or a rifle that weighed 7 lbs, 11 1/4 oz.
In fact, I have found no evidence that any other rifle was shipped to
"Hidell" than the rifle he ordered.
And now for the June 1962 C2766. What follows next is my own opinion,
it is speculative because the evidence that would prove or disprove
what I have to say no longer exists.
I believe that the 40" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano now in evidence is a
stage prop. I believe that this is the C2766 rifle that was sold to
Klein's in June, 1962, the rifle whose records were turned over to the
FBI on November 22, 1963, only to disappear (like much of the evidence
that didn't support the offical version disappeared ) into thin air.
I believe that the records of this weapon would have indicated who
purchased it and as such, would have revealed the identity of the
person or persons who framed Oswald. And because of this, these
records would never see the light of day.
In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing
Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political
views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information.
Reason #1: MORE THAN ONE 6.5 MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE EXISTED WITH THE
SERIAL NUMBER C2766
The 40" rifle currently in evidence is not the only 6.5 Mannlicher-
Carcano with the serial number of C2766. On page 250 of his book,
Kennedy and Lincoln, the late Dr. John K. Lattimer said the following:
"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine,
model 91-38, serial number C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics
Company four power telescope exactly like Oswald's."
http://i45.tinypic.com/2hmingh.jpg
But Lattimer's wasn't the only 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano with serial
number C2766.
Reason #2. KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS BOUGHT MORE THAN ONE 6.5 ITALIAN
RIFLE WITH THE SERIAL NUMBER C2766
In volume 11, page 205 of the Warren Commission Hearings, Louis
Feldsott, president of Crescent Firearms, in a sworn affidavit to the
Commission, claimed that he was contacted by the FBI on the evening of
November 22, 1963. They requested that he check his files to see if he
had any records concerning the sale of an Italian-made 6.5 mm. rifle
with the serial number C2766. When he checked, he found that he had
records indicating the rifle was sold to Klein's Sporting Goods on
June 18, 1962. This information of the 6.5 rifle with the serial
number C2766, he said, was conveyed to the FBI on the evening of
November 22, 1963 and all records of the purchase, sale and
transportation of the weapon were given to the FBI.
http://www.history-m...Vol11_0108a.htm
In their tracing of the shipping records of the C 2766 rifle, however,
the FBI makes no mention of the June 1962 sale. They cite, instead,
the February, 1963 sale of 100 rifles from the same dealer, Crescent
Firearms, to Klein's. In that shipment is a list of the rifles' serial
numbers. Included in the list is a 6.5 rifle serial number C 2766.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0361b.htm
But thanks to the affidavit of Louis Feldsott, we have evidence that
Klein's bought two C 2766 rifles from Crescent Firearms: one in June
1962 and the other in February 1963.
I'll get back to the June 1962 rifle later. Right now I'd like to
concentrate on the February, 1963 rifle.
Reason #3. THE FEBRUARY 1963 RIFLE SHIPMENT WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE, NOT
THE 40" RIFLE.
The FBI traced the sale of the 40" C2766 rifle backward and claimed
that it was a part of a shipment of 100 rifles weighing 750 lbs. that
was sent to Klein's from Crescent Firearms in February, 1963.
But one researcher found evidence that the shipment was for 36" rifles
ONLY.
In researching for her excellent article on the Oswald rifle, JFK
assassination researcher Martha Moyer checked on wooden shipping
containers used in transporting weapons, and found that all the
containers weighed between 16 and 20 pounds. The 36-inch weapon
allegedly ordered by "Hidell" was advertised as weighing 5 1/2 pounds.
The total weight of 100 such weapons would be 550 pounds. Added to the
weight range of ten wooden shipping containers the result would be a
total of between 710 and 750 pounds.
The delivery receipt from Lifschultz Fast Freight listed the freight
as 10 crates/cartons of guns/rifles and listed the weight at 750 lbs.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0359a.htm
Had the shipment been of the 40" rifles, at 7 lbs. each, the total
weight including 160-200 lbs. for the crates would have been in the
860-900 lb. range.
Instead, the 750 lbs. consisted of 10 crates at 20 lbs each ( 200 )
and 100 rifles at 5.5 lbs. each ( 550 ) In other words, the shipment
received by Klein's in February, 1963 was indeed a shipment of 36-inch
weapons.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf
Reason #4. THE RIFLE "HIDELL" ORDERED WAS THE 36" RIFLE
Waldman Exhibit 8 is a copy of the order blank used by "A.Hidell " to
order the rifle from Klein's. On that order form, taken from the
February, 1963 edition of American Rifleman, one can see that Oswald
ordered catalog # C20-T750,
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364b.htm
which is the 36" rifle as advertised.
http://i46.tinypic.com/15p0k7k.jpg
One can also see that the 40" rifle had a different catalog number,
C20-750.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg
Reason #5. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE RIFLE THAT WAS
SHIPPED TO "HIDELL" WAS THE 36" RIFLE
Waldman Exhibit 7 is the copy of the shipping manifest that
accompanies the rifle when shipped. It clearly states that the catalog
number of the shipped item is C20-T750 and not C20-750.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364a.htm
The ONLY difference in the catalog numbers is the difference between
the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle.
http://i45.tinypic.com/1z6gjnb.jpg
How important was the catalog number to the folks doing the shipping ?
William Waldman, VP of Klein's Sporting Goods, told the WC that the
catalog numbers for rifles ordered with scopes were different than for
the same rifle without a scope and that the different number described
"the rifle, scope and mount". ( 7 H 362-363 )
Reason #6. THE SHIPPING MANIFEST INDICATED THAT THE COST FOR SHIPPING
WAS FOR THE 36" RIFLE.
The shipping cost is noted in two places, where it says "PP=1.50" for
the cost of Parcel Post, and again in the handwritten column where it
says 150. This is exactly the amount sent by "Hidell" to ship the 36 "
rifle.
http://www.history-m...Vol21_0364a.htm
Reason #7. KLEIN'S DIDN'T RUN OUT OF THE 36" RIFLE UNTIL NOVEMBER,
1963
Klein's 36-inch Italian "carbine" was advertised in Field and Stream
from January, 1962 through November, 1963.
http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/moyer.pdf
Which means, folks, that Klein's hadn't run out of them at the time of
the "Hidell" order.
Reason # 8. KLEIN'S DIDN'T START SELLING THE 40" RIFLE UNTIL APRIL,
1963
No 40" Italian rifle was advertised by Klein's in The American
Rifleman magazine from October 1962 through February 1963. According
to assassination researcher/author and former detective Ian Griggs,
the 40" "carbine" began to be advertised in The American Rifleman in
April, 1963. Field and Stream did not begin advertising the 40-inch
Italian weapon until September, 1963. It was from the November issue
that Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes submitted his exhibit # 2 as
a "duplicate" to the ad "Hidell" ordered from . ( 20 H 174 )
Many of the Warren Commission apologists contend that Klein's shipped
a 40" rifle in lieu of the advertised rifle because they had run out
of the 36's. But the evidence so far indicates otherwise. In order to
believe that the 40" rifle was shipped to "A. Hidell", you must
believe ALL of the following:
a.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle without notifying the
customer that the rifle he ordered was out of stock.
b.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered without giving
the customer the option of a refund.
c.) That Klein's shipped a different rifle than ordered and used the
wrong catalog number.
d.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that was 40% heavier for the same
price as the rifle ordered and absorbed any additional shipping
charges and
e.) That Klein's shipped a rifle that had not yet been advertised yet
for sale and continued to advertise a rifle that they no longer had.
In my opinion, that's quite a stretch.
Reason #9. KLEIN'S NEVER MOUNTED SCOPES ON THE 40 " RIFLE
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 Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36
inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78)
The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp,
their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the
package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market
the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)
http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
In addition, FBI expert Robert Frazier testified to the WC that in
order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the
rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and
then had to tell Klein's where on the frame to mount 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 )
So the FBI told Klein's what "position on the frame" "the scope should
be in". Information that Klein's would not have needed had they
normally mounted "scopes of this type on these rifles".
It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with
a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted
"in-house".
Reason #10. THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE "BACKYARD" RIFLE ARE NOT THE SAME
AS THE SLING MOUNTS ON THE DEPOSITORY CARCANO
If the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs" is the
rifle that "A.Hidell" ordered, then the rifle removed from the Texas
School Book Depository is not. The reason is that the rifle in CE 134
( an enlargement of CE 133-A ) shows a rifle with a front bottom sling
mount, whereas the rifle removed from the Depository is a rifle with
side sling mounts.
http://i42.tinypic.com/25z4g3k.jpg
http://jfkresearch.f....com/c2766.html
The subject is covered on my youtube channel in a video entitled, "One
Rifle or Two ?"
CONCLUSIONS:
There was more than one 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano with serial number
C2766. Besides John Lattimer's rifle, there's evidence that Klein's
bought two C2766's from Crescent Firearms, one in June 1962 and the
other in February, 1963.
I've discussed fully the February 1963 rifle. It is my conclusion that
the February 1963 shipment of rifles to Klein's was of the 36" rifle
and that one of those, serial number C2766 was shipped to "A.Hidell".
I base this on the evidence of the weight of the rifles and their
crates and the list of the serial numbers in the shipment. I also
conclude that "A.Hidell" ordered a 36" rifle and that he was shipped a
36" rifle. I base that conclusion on the fact that the catalog number
"Hidell" ordered was the same as the catalog number of the 36" rifle
with the scope, that the shipping manifest indicated that the catalog
number shipped was the same as the 36" rifle with the scope, and that
the cost of the shipping was the same as the 36" rifle.
I have found no evidence in the shipping documentation or in the
testimony that would lead me to conclude that "Hidell" was ever
shipped a 40" rifle or a rifle that weighed 7 lbs, 11 1/4 oz.
In fact, I have found no evidence that any other rifle was shipped to
"Hidell" than the rifle he ordered.
And now for the June 1962 C2766. What follows next is my own opinion,
it is speculative because the evidence that would prove or disprove
what I have to say no longer exists.
I believe that the 40" 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano now in evidence is a
stage prop. I believe that this is the C2766 rifle that was sold to
Klein's in June, 1962, the rifle whose records were turned over to the
FBI on November 22, 1963, only to disappear (like much of the evidence
that didn't support the offical version disappeared ) into thin air.
I believe that the records of this weapon would have indicated who
purchased it and as such, would have revealed the identity of the
person or persons who framed Oswald. And because of this, these
records would never see the light of day.
In my opinion, the person or persons who were responsible for framing
Oswald would have had to know where he was living, his political
views, his weapons purchases and other pertinent information.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.