Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano
David Von Pein
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13471&view=findpost&p=154939
MARK KNIGHT (AT "THE EDUCATION FORUM") WROTE:
>>> "...It can certainly be proved that the Depository Carcano wasn't the
rifle that can be proved to have been received by Oswald. Whether the
recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be determined by the evidence
we have available...so I tend to believe it wasn't Oswalds, as THERE IS NO
CREDIBLE EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
It takes a person who is either an outright kook or totally blind or
completely unreasonable or DESPERATE to have Lee Oswald innocent of
murdering President Kennedy to utter the above ridiculous statement that I
just quoted from the e-lips of one Mark Knight of John Simkin's Education
Forum.
Why?
Because the trail of evidence that tells any REASONABLE human being that
Rifle #C2766 (aka "CE139") was owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald
(aka Alek James Hidell) is so extensive and complete and ironclad that it
would take a person who has his head completely buried in "conspiracy
sand" to make a foolish statement like this one---
"Whether the recovered rifle was Oswald's or not cannot be
determined by the evidence we have available. .... THERE IS NO CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that LHO ever possessed the 91/38."
Let's perform a "Rifle Reality Check":
1.) Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman magazine
from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e., "36 inches"
vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's shipped a rifle
with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963.
The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman
Exhibit No. 7 linked below) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an
Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766"):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
2.) A palmprint belonging to that of Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered on a
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the serial number C2766 on it after the gun
was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
Conspiracy theorists can gripe and moan all day long about how this
palmprint of Oswald's never really existed at all, or about how it was not
really found on the rifle. But we're still left with the official record
in this case, and that record shows us that a palmprint of Oswald's was,
in fact, lifted off of Rifle C2766 by DPD's Lieutenant J.C. Day on
11/22/63, shortly before the weapon was turned over to the FBI late that
night. CE637 represents that palmprint. ....
CE637:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
3.) Vincent Scalice, many years later, via different methods of
fingerprint photo comparison, was able to find well over a dozen "points
of identity" linking the previously-unidentified fingerprints on the
trigger housing to Lee Harvey Oswald's comparison prints.
To any reasonable person who examines this evidence, this shows that it's
very likely that the LAST PERSON who touched Rifle C2766 prior to its
being found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was Lee Harvey
Oswald.
4.) We know, beyond all doubt, that Lee Oswald did, in fact, order a rifle
through the mail (via Klein's in Chicago). The handwriting on all of the
documents connected with this Klein's transaction is that of Lee H.
Oswald's, which proves beyond all doubt that it was Oswald (and no other
person on Earth) who ordered and paid for Rifle #C2766 that was shipped to
Oswald/Hidell by Klein's Sporting Goods in March 1963.
5.) Just days after Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell, Lee
Oswald asked his wife, Marina, to take some pictures of him in the
backyard of their small Neely Street apartment in Dallas.
As near as can be determined, those backyard pictures were taken by Marina
on March 31, 1963. Klein's, remember, shipped the rifle to Oswald/Hidell
on March 20th. So the timing is just about perfect in that regard. In
other words, there was time for the rifle to reach Oswald's Dallas P.O.
box in that 11-day interim.
6.) Photographic experts for the HSCA determined that the rifle that
Oswald is holding in the backyard photos matches Rifle C2766 (CE139) in
various different respects. Several points of identity were found on the
rifle in the backyard pics, matching up to near-perfection to Rifle C2766.
The HSCA determined, therefore, that the rifle being held by Lee Oswald in
the backyard photographs was, in fact, the very same rifle that was
determined to be the weapon used to assassinate John F. Kennedy (CE139):
"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged
assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding
parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs
taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are
entirely consistent. .... A comparison of identifying marks that exist on
the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in
photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is
the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and
the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various
postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0036b.htm
In addition, the House Select Committee's photographic panel also
concluded the following (with respect to the backyard photographs):
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0076b.htm
Now, given all of the above evidence (plus adding in just a small amount
of common sense to go with it), can any reasonable person really come to a
conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766
(CE139) in the year 1963?
I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.
burgundy
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13471&view=find...
>
> 2.) A palmprint belonging to that of Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered on a
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the serial number C2766 on it after the gun
> was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
>
> Conspiracy theorists can gripe and moan all day long about how this
> palmprint of Oswald's never really existed at all, or about how it was not
> really found on the rifle. But we're still left with the official record
> in this case, and that record shows us that a palmprint of Oswald's was,
> in fact, lifted off of Rifle C2766 by DPD's Lieutenant J.C. Day on
> 11/22/63, shortly before the weapon was turned over to the FBI late that
> night. CE637 represents that palmprint. ....
>
>
> In addition, the House Select Committee's photographic panel also
> concluded the following (with respect to the backyard photographs):
>
> "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
> picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146
>
>
> Now, given all of the above evidence (plus adding in just a small amount
> of common sense to go with it), can any reasonable person really come to a
> conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766
> (CE139) in the year 1963?
>
> I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Sounds like a perfect setup to me. Why order a rifle with a fake id you
are carrying (or planted with --- twice, once at the Tippit shooting,
again in your back pocket) when you could just go down the street
anywhere. anytime in 1963 Dallas and get one? Or have someone buy it for
you?
David Von Pein
<shakes head back & forth in disbelief at the lengths CTers will go in
order to avoid the evidence>
Anthony Marsh
I am not sure what your point is. Oswald did not want to buy the rifle
locally and risk being followed or identified. That is why he used an
alias and ordered it via mail order.
Anthony Marsh
Very close, but Oswald ordered a CARBINE and they sent him a rifle.
> The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman
> Exhibit No. 7 linked below) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an
> Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766"):
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
>
>
> 2.) A palmprint belonging to that of Lee Harvey Oswald was discovered on a
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the serial number C2766 on it after the gun
> was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.
>
> Conspiracy theorists can gripe and moan all day long about how this
> palmprint of Oswald's never really existed at all, or about how it was not
> really found on the rifle. But we're still left with the official record
> in this case, and that record shows us that a palmprint of Oswald's was,
> in fact, lifted off of Rifle C2766 by DPD's Lieutenant J.C. Day on
> 11/22/63, shortly before the weapon was turned over to the FBI late that
> night. CE637 represents that palmprint. ....
>
> CE637:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
>
>
>
> 3.) Vincent Scalice, many years later, via different methods of
> fingerprint photo comparison, was able to find well over a dozen "points
> of identity" linking the previously-unidentified fingerprints on the
> trigger housing to Lee Harvey Oswald's comparison prints.
>
> To any reasonable person who examines this evidence, this shows that it's
> very likely that the LAST PERSON who touched Rifle C2766 prior to its
> being found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository was Lee Harvey
> Oswald.
>
Wrong. It says nothing about the last person to handle the rifle.
Were any police fingerprints found on the rifle?
The stock was too rough to get good prints off.
How can you prove that he still owned it that day? I had a rifle stolen
once that could have been used by someone else to commit a crime. I did
not learn about the theft for three days.
>
> www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
>
>
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Oswald ordered a CARBINE and they sent him a rifle." <<<
Of course, a "carbine" is a "rifle". Duh.
"CARBINE:
2 : a light short-barreled repeating rifle that is used as a
supplementary military arm or for hunting in dense brush."
Anthony Marsh
Try to stay awake. Klein's advertised the carbine. They sent him the
short rifle. Don't try to play semantics.
There is a legal difference between a carbine and a rifle.
David Von Pein
>>> "There is a legal difference between a carbine and a rifle." <<<
<chuckle>
Tony thinks that Klein's was concerned about the "legal difference"
between a "carbine" and a mere "rifle" when they substituted a
slightly-different type of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the one that
Oswald technically ordered through the American Rifleman magazine in
early 1963.
<a second chuckle>
My guess is this:
After receiving his gun in the mail in late March 1963, Lee Oswald
couldn't have cared less about the "91/38" substitution....and, in
fact, he probably never even noticed the (four-inch) difference at
all.
>>> "Don't try to play semantics." <<<
That's funny....that's exactly what I thought CTers are doing each
time they dredge up this silly and wholly-irrelevant "Carbine Vs.
Rifle" topic.
<chuckle hat trick>
Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> "There is a legal difference between a carbine and a rifle." <<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Tony thinks that Klein's was concerned about the "legal difference"
> between a "carbine" and a mere "rifle" when they substituted a
> slightly-different type of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for the one that
> Oswald technically ordered through the American Rifleman magazine in
> early 1963.
>
Again you make up false allegations about what I believe. My point was
nothing like the straw man you made up.
They certainly weren't concerned about substituting new stock for old
stock. And again, Oswald did not order the RIFLE. He ordered the CARBINE.
If YOU can't even tell the difference, how can we expect Oswald to know
the difference?
> <a second chuckle>
>
> My guess is this:
>
> After receiving his gun in the mail in late March 1963, Lee Oswald
> couldn't have cared less about the "91/38" substitution....and, in
> fact, he probably never even noticed the (four-inch) difference at
> all.
>
Why should he even care?
>
>
>>>> "Don't try to play semantics." <<<
>
>
> That's funny....that's exactly what I thought CTers are doing each
> time they dredge up this silly and wholly-irrelevant "Carbine Vs.
> Rifle" topic.
>
It depends on what point they are trying to make about the difference. I
always criticize those who claim the backyard photo shows a carbine
instead of a rifle or a different rifle. You come to this late.
> <chuckle hat trick>
>