Rob Speaks Out
Walt
support.
Yes you are making unsupported claims. Rob regarding what kind of
rifle was sent to PO Box 2915 in Dallas. There is very little to
support your contention that a 36 inch Mannlicher Carcano carbine was
sent to Dallas. Everybody is aware that the ad advertised a 36 inch
carbine while the illustration showed a 40 inch Short rifle. When the
evidence is examined it appears that a 7.5 pound Model 91/38
Mannlicher Carcano Short rifle was the rifle that was sent to
Dallas.
robcap...@netscape.com
And I have comprehension issues! LOL!! Walt, I am claiming NO weapon
was ever sent to LHO's P.O. box, period. My point is the "evidence"
the WC put forth illustrates LHO was ordering a 36 inch Carbine if he
really ordered any rifle. Which he did NOT do. The catalog number
and the amount of the money order matches a 36 inch Carbine with a
scope plus S&H. This is the beauty of the official theory, and why
you have refused to see this is beyond me, they claimed he used a 40.2
inch rifle but all their "evidence" alludes to him purchasing a 36
inch Carbine!
The only evidence you provided last year was from the WC and this is
ridiculous as they were FRAMING LHO, so to accept this one aspect at
face value when you claim they lie everywhere else makes NO sense to
me. Why it is important to you to have LHO purchase a 40 inch short
rifle is something only you know, but I will need to see some proof.
Walt
wrote:
Rob.... It's important to establish FACTS. That's why it's important
to me.
The EVIDENCE seems to indicate that the rifle that was sent to Dallas
was a 7 1/2 pound model
91 / 38, 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano short rifle.
robcap...@netscape.com
Please just show this EVIDENCE to me then, that is ALL I've been
asking for.
Walt
No Rob.... You've got yer head in yer ass and refuse to pull it out.
I've presented the evidence that SUPPORTS the contention that the
rifle that was sent to PO Box 2915 in Dallas was a 7 1/2 pound 40 inch
long model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
I really wish that you'd stop making a fool of yourself, I take no
pleasure in having to show that you're a pig headed fool. Why can't
you simply acknowledge FACTS and move on??
Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
NO?? Why should any LNer ever show you proof again if you are going to
take this stance? You have shown NO proof outside what the WC
asserted, and just like that does NOT cut it for LNers, it doesn't cut
it for you. So you are going on and on about this theory and yet you
can't produce ANY credible evidence to support it? Hmmm. Where have
I seen this tactic before? My head is firmly on my head, your
inabilty to support your theory is the problem.
> I really wish that you'd stop making a fool of yourself, I take no
> pleasure in having to show that you're a pig headed fool. Why can't
> you simply acknowledge FACTS and move on??
I am NOT making a fool of myself Walt, perhaps no one wants to piss
you off but you are the one way off base. Anyone is free to post
evidence that LHO ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and had it sent to his
P.O. box anytime they want. Perhaps someone will do the very thing
you have failed to do. Your reasoning is NOT FACT, when are you going
to learn that?
How is asking or proof being "pig headed?" I thought you argued that
no one should just take someone's word for it?
Walt
Rob, Yer a real screwball..... If you discard ALL of the information
available WHAT do you have left to work with?? Are you so paranoid
that you reject everything that passed through the hands of the Warren
Commission?? Do you think they faked the bill of lading for the
rifles??
You have shown NO proof outside what the WC
> asserted, and just like that does NOT cut it for LNers, it doesn't cut
> it for you. So you are going on and on about this theory and yet you
> can't produce ANY credible evidence to support it? Hmmm. Where have
> I seen this tactic before? My head is firmly on my head, your
> inabilty to support your theory is the problem.
>
> > I really wish that you'd stop making a fool of yourself, I take no
> > pleasure in having to show that you're a pig headed fool. Why can't
> > you simply acknowledge FACTS and move on??
>
> I am NOT making a fool of myself Walt,
No?.... Let's take a poll......
perhaps no one wants to piss
> you off but you are the one way off base. Anyone is free to post
> evidence that LHO ordered a 40.2 inch rifle and had it sent to his
> P.O. box anytime they want. Perhaps someone will do the very thing
> you have failed to do. Your reasoning is NOT FACT, when are you going
> to learn that?
>
> How is asking or proof being "pig headed?" I thought you argued that
> no one should just take someone's word for it?- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Insults will get you NOWHERE! You need to do real research on this as
you seem unaware of the fact that Klein's sold only ONE type of rifle
at a time. From Feb. '62 to Mar. '63 they ONLY SOLD the 36 inch
version. In fact, Crescent's President, Louis Feldsott, provided the
FBI with documentation that showed C2766 was purchased by Klein's on
June 18, 1962 (provided FBI agents in New York with shipping form
#3620 - 1 of 10), they then lied to the WC and us by claiming the
weapon was purchased by Klein's on 2/7/63. This proves the bill of
ladings were faked as the original date of purchase was nearly 8
months earlier than what we were told it was.
Why do you believe anything the WC put forth when you know their
report is full of lies? How many times does someone have to lie to
you before you doubt anything the say? And I'm the "screwball." Go
figure.
> You have shown NO proof outside what the WC
>
> > asserted, and just like that does NOT cut it for LNers, it doesn't cut
> > it for you. So you are going on and on about this theory and yet you
> > can't produce ANY credible evidence to support it? Hmmm. Where have
> > I seen this tactic before? My head is firmly on my head, your
> > inabilty to support your theory is the problem.
>
> > > I really wish that you'd stop making a fool of yourself, I take no
> > > pleasure in having to show that you're a pig headed fool. Why can't
> > > you simply acknowledge FACTS and move on??
>
> > I am NOT making a fool of myself Walt,
>
> No?.... Let's take a poll......
Fine with me. Go ahead, all I ask is anyone who agree with you
provide REAL proof for that position.
robcap...@netscape.com
> > > > > > > > > >He wanted to know what the picture was of, it was NOT the Carbine
> > > > > > > > > >model, I said this, but what does it prove?
>
> > > > > > > Hey Rob.... CE 139 (C2766) was one of a number of rifles in a crate or
> > > > > > > carton. How many rifles were in that crate? How much real research
> > > > > > > have you done regarding the rifle that Kleine's sent to PO box 2915 in
> > > > > > > Dallas?? I'm talkin about your OWN research, not what someone else
> > > > > > > has written?
> > > > > > > What did the shipment of rifles weigh that Kleines received? Do you
> > > > > > > know what "TARE" weight is?
>
> > > > > > Walt, we went over this last year, the tare weight matched a carton of
> > > > > > 36 inch carbines,
> > > > > Rob wrote: "Walt, we went over this last year, the tare weight
>
> > > > > matched a carton of
> > > > > 36 inch carbines,"
> > > > >No, Rob,..... the tare weight matched the 7.5
> > > > > pound model 91/38 Mannlicher Caracno. This is a good example of how
> > > > > you get yourself in trouble. You BELIEVE that you know something and
> > > > > refuse to admit that you erred. ( Actually you don't do your own
> > > > > research, you read something and and accept it as fact without
> > > > > checking for yourself.) I urge you to check the information given on
> > > > > the bill of lading. It would be great if you could just once admit
> > > > > that you were wrong.
>
> > > > Blah, blah, blah, where is YOUR research on this? The tare weight was
> > > > 750 pounds, in your example the box and packing material weighed
> > > > NOTHING!!!!! (100 rifles x 7.5 lbs)
>
> > > This is just not correct as boxes
>
> > From everything I have read over the years this is correct, you will
> > need to show me something that proves your thinking.
>
> > > > and packing material weighed from 16-20 pounds and this matches the 36
> > > > inch 5.5 pound carbine almost exactly. I have admitted I'm wrong
> > > > quite a few times on here, I have NEVER seen you do the same. You are
> > > > off base here and for reasons only you know you won't accept the
> > > > truth. Tell me why LHO had to order a short 40 inch rifle in your
> > > > mind.
>
> > > > > Incidentally ....You again didn't answer the question asked..... What
> > > > > is "TARE" weight??
>
> > > Ha. ha, ha, ha, ROTFLMAO!!..... Apparently you really do have a
> > > problem comprehending what you read. I didn't ask you for the weight
> > > of the carton.....I asked for a DEFINITION of TARE weight.
>
> > I understand what tare weight is, it is the allowance of the weight of
> > the packaging/container to be deducted. My questions is where did we
> > get the weight of 750 pounds from?
>
> Duh!.... 100 X 7.5 = 750. What was the TARE weight of the carton of
> rifles, Rob?
This got me thinking, so I went and looked up the LifSchultz
transportation slip, and guess what I saw? The overall weight is 750
pounds but the TARE weight is 527!!!!! 36 inch carbines weighed 5.5
pounds so this is very close to this weight minus the packaging. Why
does the Crescent Firearm's order slip say just T38 instead of what
you say (M91/38)?
> If you can bring yourself to admit that the tare weight was 750 pounds
> then that means each rifle weighed 7 1/2 pounds. THAT is the weight
> of a 40 inch long, model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano (as seen in the
> illustration)
This is NOT what the transportation slip says, the gross weight was
750 by the tare weight was 527. You should look it up for yourself.
Walt
wrote:
Rob, since you looked up the bill of lading.....Would it be too much
trouble for you to post a link to that document?
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:ae53417d-f66f-4998...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All you folks need to do is tell me the Volume/Page where that Proof is
located & I'll scan it & post it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:8937ebe6-5ecb-45b0...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Have Rob tell me what volume/page & I'll post it.
muc...@gmail.com
wrote:
Are you referring to this doc?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11277&relPageId=39
(Bill of lading #3041342)
You seem to be misinterpreting the numbers. 527 doesn't refer to tare
weight.
a) 750 represents weight (in pounds)
b) 527 represents freight rate (in ¢ per 100 pounds)
c) 3953 represents freight charge (in ¢)
You'll realize this when you do the math:
(750 pounds) * ($0.0527 / pound) = $39.53.
-Mark
Walt
>
> (Bill of lading #3041342)
>
> You seem to be misinterpreting the numbers. 527 doesn't refer to tare
> weight.
>
> a) 750 represents weight (in pounds)
> b) 527 represents freight rate (in ¢ per 100 pounds)
> c) 3953 represents freight charge (in ¢)
>
> You'll realize this when you do the math:
>
> (750 pounds) * ($0.0527 / pound) = $39.53.
Thank you, Mark..... I was waiting for Rob to provide a link to the
document so I could point out what you just posted. I wanted to show
him what a pig headed fool he is. I'm curious if he'll be man enough
to now admit that the rifles that Klein received were 40 inch long,
model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcanos..... Or will he allow is ego to make
a bigger fool of him.
>
> -Mark- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Tom would you post a link to the page in Lattimer's book where he sats
he owns a rifle with the serial number C2766? I'd like to know if it
was a printing error as Lattimer said after the book was published.
Please post it on the thread... Rifle #C2766
Thank you
Walt
Rob wrote:....." I simply see things the way I do, I'm not going to
change thoughts I have developed over 20 years to please you,
especially when you give me the government's "evidence" to make your
point. I don't care what you think or Ben thinks or anyone else. I
try to put forth things I have learned over 20 years and that I have
read in many places."
THAT is being "pig headed"
I wouldn't expect you to cange your mind "to please me" or anybody
else. But when evidence is presented that shows that you are mistaken
about something .......I'd expect you to acknowledge your error so
others will know the FACTS and not be mislead by BS.
I thought you argued that
> no one should just take someone's word for it?- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:ff6853e9-71b1-4f33...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> (Bill of lading #3041342)
>
> You seem to be misinterpreting the numbers. 527 doesn't refer to tare
> weight.
>
> a) 750 represents weight (in pounds)
> b) 527 represents freight rate (in ¢ per 100 pounds)
> c) 3953 represents freight charge (in ¢)
>
> You'll realize this when you do the math:
>
> (750 pounds) * ($0.0527 / pound) = $39.53.
Mark, I blew this up in PDF and I could not tell for sure if it said
"tare" or "rate" as some idiot typed the delivery date over the column
header, but I do disagree with something you wrote above. Show me
where it is says $39.53. From what I am reading it simply says 3953.
I'm not saying you aren't correct, but it seems they would use a
period if this is really money oriented as I would have a fit if they
wrote 3953 (which could mean thirty-nine HUNDRED and fifty-three) if I
only owed $39.53. Please clarify this for me.
Thanks!
robcap...@netscape.com
When are you going to catch on Walt, this is about me being pig-
headed, it is about what the "evidence" put forth by the Commission
shows. You have provided NO proof LHO ordered ANY rifle and yet you
won't ceast and desist, in fact, you are going around beating your
chest like you have prooved something. As I have said numerous times
we are debating things that the WC provided, and I am very skeptical
about that.
ALL the reasearch I have read over the years (Lane, Marrs, Salandria,
Livingstone, Weisberg, Meagher, Griffith, to name a few) all say the
same thing - there IS NO PROOF LHO ORDERED ANY RIFLE!!! You better
produce some or get off your high horse. You may know more about the
details of a M-C than me, but this has NOTHING to do with the rifle in
those terms, it simply has to do with LHO allegedly ordering one.
Why you insist he did is beyond me as you are falling right into the
trap of the LNers. IF he did not order one, and the real evidence
shows this, he is NOT guilty based on this one fact.
The ONLY one here with a BIG ego is you and you continue to push a
crazy (dare I say a LNer) position while providing NO real proof (I
don't accept WC stuff). Once again I say, put up or shut up!
robcap...@netscape.com
NO, believing in things there is NO proof or evidence for is being PIG
HEADED!
Walt
Rob presents an excellent example of the old adage ...."figures don't
lie.......but liars do figure"
First off...... there is no Mannlicher Carcano carbine that weighs
only 5 1/2 pounds. The lightest weight Carcano carbine I could find
was a 6 pound 6 ounce Truppe Special. ( an indication that Klein's
weren't totally honest and accurate in their advertising)
So Rob uses a inaccurate figure as base and then further reduces that
5 lb, 8 oz figure to 5 lb, 4 oz
and claims that 100 rifles would weigh 527 pounds. The Tare weight on
the bill of lading is 750 pounds but since Rob doesn't understand what
tare weight is he thinks that there was 100 superlight Mannlicher
Carcano carbines in a box that weighed a whooping ....223 pounds.!!!!
Rob this is a perfect example of how you let yer pig headed ego make a
fool of you.
If you had only listened to me when I asked you for the definition of
"tare weight" you could have avoided making a fool of yourself.
>
> > If you can bring yourself to admit that the tare weight was 750 pounds
> > then that means each rifle weighed 7 1/2 pounds. THAT is the weight
> > of a 40 inch long, model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano (as seen in the
> > illustration)
>
> This is NOT what the transportation slip says, the gross weight was
> 750 by the tare weight was 527. You should look it up for yourself.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> FOR WALT
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you Tom..... I didn't know that you had already provided a link
on the original thread.
I wanted to read EXACTLY what Dr. Lattiliar wrote. He clearly
attempted to lead the reader into believing that he was using a
Carcano IDENTICAL to the TSBD rifle..... (right down to the same
serial number) He later claimed the serial number was a "printing
error" but when one reds what he wrote it's quite clear that he was
lying....He DID specify the rifle had the same serial number.
Here's an intriguing thought..... He said that he and his sons were
using a Mannlicher Carcano CARBINE with the serial number C2788. The
FBI had a Mannlicher Carcano CARBINE with the serial number 2766. If
Dr Lattiliar had a 36" CARBINE and not a 40" SHORT RIFLE with the
serial number 2766 ........ WHERE did he get it?????
robcap...@netscape.com
> lie.......but liars do figure"
> First off...... there is no Mannlicher Carcano carbine that weighs
> only 5 1/2 pounds. The lightest weight Carcano carbine I could find
> was a 6 pound 6 ounce Truppe Special. ( an indication that Klein's
> weren't totally honest and accurate in their advertising)
This is all besides the point, you know M-C's well, but so what? It
has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing is, which again is
simply whether LHO ordered a rifle or not. Blame the add for listing
it as 5.5 pounds, not me. Highly respected researchers, whose work
has stood the test of time, have looked into this and they all came to
the same two conclusions - in one camp NO rifle was ordered, and in
the other camp a 36 inch would have been the only rifle Klein's could
have sent as this is the only rifle type they had in stock. They were
trying to get rid of them and they did NOT sell 40 inch rifles until
April 1963. This is why the WC used a November ad from a TOTALLY
different magazine! This has been proven, you refuse to accept for
some reason ony you know.
> So Rob uses a inaccurate figure as base and then further reduces that
> 5 lb, 8 oz figure to 5 lb, 4 oz
> and claims that 100 rifles would weigh 527 pounds. The Tare weight on
> the bill of lading is 750 pounds but since Rob doesn't understand what
> tare weight is he thinks that there was 100 superlight Mannlicher
> Carcano carbines in a box that weighed a whooping ....223 pounds.!!!!
More nonsense that DOES NOT prove his assertion that LHO ordered a 40
inch M-C. Why is it so hard to produce if it happened?
> Rob this is a perfect example of how you let yer pig headed ego make a
> fool of you.
I think the shoe is on the other foot. You are so full of yourself and
NEED to be right you are dragging this on and on, all the while
providing NO proof. I don't have to be right as you assert, I simply
side with the side with the most evidence. You are siding with the
side with NO evidence and can't bring yourself to admit.
> If you had only listened to me when I asked you for the definition of
> "tare weight" you could have avoided making a fool of yourself.
This from a man who CAN'T provide any proof to support his assertion!
Where's the proof Walt? Why won't you post any? Why is your whole
case based on weight numbers from faked slips? Why do you want LHO to
have ordered a rifle? You are not even aware of the fact that some
researchers began to say Marina is the person who filled out the money
order years ago. Perhaps LHO told her to do it, but since we know the
number of the money order was not sequentially used for years by the
P.O. we can safely assume this was written out post assassination by
her. Harry Holmes even knew the time of the money order (10:30 am)
even though he was NOT shown it during his WC testimony. Hmmm. How did
he know the exact time? Even if he had cut it, which I doubt since he
never said he did, how does one remember so well 8 months later?
Walt
wrote:
OK Rob..... You want me to keep hammering on you..... I'll oblige,
though I'd rather not.
Believe me 98% of the readers of this exchange know that you are being
foolish. Won't you please reconsider.......
muc...@gmail.com
Rob, the last two letters of the column header appears to be TE, and
the relationship between the numbers is also a very strong indicator.
There's also the matter of the following interpretation offered by the
VP of Klein's.
"He noted that at the bottom of the Purchase Order is noted a
receiving record bearing date February 21, 1963, showing that ten
packages which comprised this shipment of 100 rifles was received on
that date via Lifschultz Freight weighing 750 pounds and utilizing
bill of lading #3041342. Freight charges are shown as $39.53." (CD
1066)
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11462&relPageId=91
Mr. Waldman seems to be talking about a slightly different document, a
purchase order, but one that utilizes the same bill of lading
(#3041342) as the one I linked to the other day:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11277&relPageId=39
I hope this clears it up(?)
-Mark
Walt
> > lie.......but liars do figure"
>
> Blah, blah, blah. Where is the proof of what you say?
>
> > First off...... there is no Mannlicher Carcano carbine that weighs
> > only 5 1/2 pounds. The lightest weight Carcano carbine I could find
> > was a 6 pound 6 ounce Truppe Special. ( an indication that Klein's
> > weren't totally honest and accurate in their advertising)
>
> This is all besides the point, you know M-C's well, but so what? It
> has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing is, which again is
> simply whether LHO ordered a rifle or not. Blame the add for listing
> it as 5.5 pounds, not me. Highly respected researchers, whose work
> has stood the test of time, have looked into this and they all came to
> the same two conclusions - in one camp NO rifle was ordered, and in
> the other camp a 36 inch would have been the only rifle Klein's could
> have sent as this is the only rifle type they had in stock. They were
> trying to get rid of them and they did NOT sell 40 inch rifles until
> April 1963. This is why the WC used a November ad from a TOTALLY
> different magazine! This has been proven, you refuse to accept for
> some reason ony you know.
Rob wrote:...."This is why the WC used a November ad from a TOTALLY
different magazine! This has been proven, you refuse to accept for
some reason ony you know."
Rob would you mind clarifying the above sentence? You seem to be
saying that I know that the Warren Commission received a page torn
from the November 1963 issue of "Gun & Ammo" magazine.....But I don't
accept that fact. Is that what you intended to say?
Beware..... This was one of the things that made me a confirmed
CT. I'm well aware of the Klein ads in many sporting magazines and I
know how to identify which order blank came from what magazine. I
KNOW the DPD created phoney evidence to frame Oswald.....and one of
those pieces of phoney evidence is the ad from the November issue of
Guns & Ammo. that they gave to the Warren Commission.
The LNer's often like to crow that the conspirators couldn't have made
stupid mistakes...but this is a golden example of their stupidity.
The DPD claimed that they had found the ad in Oswald's room.
The ad had the Carcano rifle and the SW revolver circled when they
found the ad. They claimed that this was the ad that Oswald had used
to order the guns. The problem of course was ....The ad was from the
November 1963 issue of Guns & Ammo but the guns had been ordered 9
months BEFORE that magazine was on the newsstands.
The Warren Commission wasn't aware of the conundrum created by the DPD
until after they had accepted the Guns and Ammo ad into evidence and
assigned it a CE number. When they became aware that the DPD had
gave them phoney evidence they simply swept it aside and glossed over
the truth.
I have many of the issues of several gun magazines from 1961 through
1964 so I KNOW quite a bit about their ads.
Incidentally you stuck your foot in your mouth once again when you
made the claim that Klein's never sold the 40 inch long, model 91 /38,
Mannlicher Carcano before April of 1963. I can show you Klein ads
from two years before April of 1963 in which they advertised the Model
91/38.
Walt
The first two letters are "R" - "A".... The complete word is "RATE".
Shipping rates are normally stated in c-wt ( hundred weight) In
other words this package was shipped at the rate of $5.27 per hundred
weight. Since the hundred weight was 7.5, it's simply a matter of
multiplying 7.5 X 5.27 to find that the shipping charge was $39.53.
(rounded up to the next penny)
The buyer pays for ONLY the TARE weight of the merchandise and NOT the
total or gross weight which includes the shipping box. If you'll
look over to the left on the same line that has the shipping date to
where it says " number of packages and description" (partially
obscured) you'll see the date the driver picked up the packages (2 /
15) and the TOTAL or GROSS weight of the shipment.
It appears that the GROSS weight was 795 pounds, and the TARE weight
was 750 pounds. Which means the cardboard boxes weighed about 45
pounds. 45 pounds for ten boxes seems entirely reasonable.
The only reason I felt compelled to expand on your post was because
Rob constantly says that I offer no proof to back up my statements.
Here is a good strong indication that the rifles being sold by Kleins
were in FACT the 7 1/2 pound, 40 inch long, model 91 /38. An
irrational person might argue that the Bill of Lading created by
Lipshultz for billing purposes is a fake, in which case none of the
above amounts to a "hill of beans"..... but I believe most rational
people will see the truth about the Mannlicher carcano that was sent
to PO Box 2915 in Dallas.
and
> the relationship between the numbers is also a very strong indicator.
> There's also the matter of the following interpretation offered by the
> VP of Klein's.
>
> "He noted that at the bottom of the Purchase Order is noted a
> receiving record bearing date February 21, 1963, showing that ten
> packages which comprised this shipment of 100 rifles was received on
> that date via Lifschultz Freight weighing 750 pounds and utilizing
> bill of lading #3041342. Freight charges are shown as $39.53." (CD
> 1066)
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=114...
>
> Mr. Waldman seems to be talking about a slightly different document, a
> purchase order, but one that utilizes the same bill of lading
> (#3041342) as the one I linked to the other day:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=112...
>
> I hope this clears it up(?)
>
> -Mark- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
PROVE IT! All I have asked for from the beginning is proof for your
theory of LHO ordering a 40 inch rifle because DeMohrenschildt told
him to. You then claim he shot at Gen. Walker (something you failed to
prove), posed for a picture with his weapons (again you failed to
prove this) and said he was going to Cuba with NO proof. You even
have him in Mexico City when everyone knows he was impersonated
there!!! Come on. In all these ridiculous claims you have provided
NO proof or evidence, we are just supposed to say "Walt is right" and
accept it according to you.
Why you must "hammer on me" instead of providing proof is beyond me as
this is the tactic of LNers. IF 98% of the readers side with you then
the CT group has wasted nearly 45 years and the work of all the
prestigious researchers I mentioned was a waste of time. There is NO
solid proof LHO ordered ANY rifle let alone a 40 inch version.
robcap...@netscape.com
What I am saying is they USED AN AD FROM THE 11/63 ISSUE OF "FIELD &
STREAM" when they CLAIMED he ordered a rifle from the February
"American Rifleman" magazine. I never mentioned "Guns and Ammo", you
did.
> Beware..... This was one of the things that made me a confirmed
> CT. I'm well aware of the Klein ads in many sporting magazines and I
> know how to identify which order blank came from what magazine. I
> KNOW the DPD created phoney evidence to frame Oswald.....and one of
> those pieces of phoney evidence is the ad from the November issue of
> Guns & Ammo. that they gave to the Warren Commission.
The evidence by the WC reflects an ad from a 11/63 issue of "Field &
Stream" magazine. I know the FBI rounded up a "Guns & Ammo" from the
garage in New Orleans but this is NOT the one they entered into
evidence for their theory.
> The LNer's often like to crow that the conspirators couldn't have made
> stupid mistakes...but this is a golden example of their stupidity.
> The DPD claimed that they had found the ad in Oswald's room.
> The ad had the Carcano rifle and the SW revolver circled when they
> found the ad. They claimed that this was the ad that Oswald had used
> to order the guns. The problem of course was ....The ad was from the
> November 1963 issue of Guns & Ammo but the guns had been ordered 9
> months BEFORE that magazine was on the newsstands.
I had read that Curry and Livingstone claimed the "Guns & Ammo" ad was
found in the Paine's garage and they never turned it over to the FBI.
Livingstone would claim it came fromt the "American Rifleman" but it
clearly says "Guns & Ammo" on the facing page. Again, we have the
president of Crescent Firearms saying the C2766 rifle was sold to
Klein's on 6/18/62, NOT in February. Ian Griggs learned that "Field &
Stream" did NOT advertise the 40 inch M-C until 9/63 (then again in
Oct. and Nov.) and Holmes turned in the November ad.
> The Warren Commission wasn't aware of the conundrum created by the DPD
> until after they had accepted the Guns and Ammo ad into evidence and
> assigned it a CE number. When they became aware that the DPD had
> gave them phoney evidence they simply swept it aside and glossed over
> the truth.
>
> I have many of the issues of several gun magazines from 1961 through
> 1964 so I KNOW quite a bit about their ads.
>
> Incidentally you stuck your foot in your mouth once again when you
> made the claim that Klein's never sold the 40 inch long, model 91 /38,
> Mannlicher Carcano before April of 1963. I can show you Klein ads
> from two years before April of 1963 in which they advertised the Model
> 91/38.
You just "stuck your foot in your mouth" when you said the WC used a
"Guns & Ammo" ad for their evidence, when in FACT they used a "Field &
Stream" ad. I NEVER said they NEVER sold a 40 inch M-C, I said they
sold one model at a time and from 2/62 to 3/63 they sold the 36 inch
conclusively. NOW post your ads, and if you are right I will
congratulate you, but I also will wonder why you have NOT made these
available to researchers over the years if they are correct.
> > never said he did, how does one remember so well 8 months later?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Everybody remember Walt is calling WC "evidence" "good,strong proof"
the next time he calls me or anyone else a LNer. You are also
"irrational" if you think the WC may have "faked something" right
Walt? I guess the extant Z-film is accurate then, right? I guess the
autopsy photos are accurate, right? I guess the autopsy X-rays are
accurate, right? I guess the ballistic tests are accurate, right? I
guess the SBT scenario is accurate, right? I guess all those who say
the limo stopped or almost stopped are wrong, right? I guess all
those who said shots came from the Grassy Knoll are wrong, right? I
guess JFK was shot at the base of the neck and the bullet exited
through the throat and went into JBC, right? I could go on and on,
but why bother? Walt thinks the WC's "evidence" is "good, solid
proof!"
> > the relationship between the numbers is also a very strong indicator.
> > There's also the matter of the following interpretation offered by the
> > VP of Klein's.
>
> > "He noted that at the bottom of the Purchase Order is noted a
> > receiving record bearing date February 21, 1963, showing that ten
> > packages which comprised this shipment of 100 rifles was received on
> > that date via Lifschultz Freight weighing 750 pounds and utilizing
> > bill of lading #3041342. Freight charges are shown as $39.53." (CD
> > 1066)
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=114...
>
> > Mr. Waldman seems to be talking about a slightly different document, a
> > purchase order, but one that utilizes the same bill of lading
> > (#3041342) as the one I linked to the other day:
>
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=112...
>
> > I hope this clears it up(?)
>
> > -Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
wrote:
WHAT would you accept as proof that LHO ordered the rifle??
Incidentally please try focusing on one aspect at a time. Here's a
list of items that seem to indicate that he did order a rifle NINE
MONTHS before the assassination.
The envelope sent to Kleins seems to be in his handwriting.
The money order seems to have his hand writing on it
The return address was to a PO Box that he had rented.
Kleins records indicate that they sent a rifle with the serial number
C2766 to PO box 2915
Lipshultz freight company produced records that indicate they
delivered to Kleins, ten cartons of rifles that weighed 7 1/2 pound
each ( the weight of a model 91/38 MC.) on the day that the rifle
bearing the serial number C2766 was received by Kleins.
The documents that accompanied the shipment show that C2766 was one of
those 100 rifles.
A rational person would conclude that Oswald ordered the rifle.....
HOWEVER that does not mean that he received the rifle, nor does it
mean that he didn't order it at the behest of another person.
robcap...@netscape.com
You are the one jumping all over the place. I have been consistent in
my belief he ordered NO rifle, but that the evidence put forth by the
WC shows a 36 inch version would have been ordered. Anything that
would show LHO purchased a 40 inch M-C will do (beyond WC stuff
because they showed he would have ordered a 36 inch version).
> The envelope sent to Kleins seems to be in his handwriting.
Seems to be and definitely is are TWO different things. The writing
sample is just too small to say for sure. We had a much larger sample
in the Hunt letter and LNers claimed it was faked when it was not.
> The money order seems to have his hand writing on it
Again, too small of a sample to say conclusively. Also, the number is
a not a 1963 sequential number. Also, the catalog number and amount
match a 36 inch M-C with scope plus S&H. Nothing about this proves he
ordered a 40 inch version.
> The return address was to a PO Box that he had rented.
This proves NOTHING by itself as the question of whether the money
order is legitimate and written by LHO are in doubt. Furthermore,
this lends nothing to the issue of the 40 inch version being ordered.
> Kleins records indicate that they sent a rifle with the serial number
> C2766 to PO box 2915
Again, this is not proof by itself as the fact of the rifle NEVER
going there and being picked up by LHO are in evidence already.
Furthermore, again, this does NOT prove a 40 inch was sent over a 36
inch rifle. I have not even gotten into all the stuff about LHO
listing NO alias for his Dallas P.O. box on page 3 of his postal
application.
> Lipshultz freight company produced records that indicate they
> delivered to Kleins, ten cartons of rifles that weighed 7 1/2 pound
> each ( the weight of a model 91/38 MC.) on the day that the rifle
> bearing the serial number C2766 was received by Kleins.
> The documents that accompanied the shipment show that C2766 was one of
> those 100 rifles.
This document's validity is very much in question as the president of
the company selling the rifles, Crescent Firearms, says the C2766
rifle was actually part of a sale in 6/62 to Klein's. The weapon
could NOT have been sold twice, and the WC never touched this issue
let alone clear it up. NOTHING on the paperwork says explicitly that
it was a 40 inch rifle, does it? You are going by weight listed when
the documents whole validity was NEVER proven. These were handwritten
documents that could have been faked after 11/22/63. Prove their
genuine and then I'll agree with. The WC couldn't, and this would have
been a HUGE issue at trial.
> A rational person would conclude that Oswald ordered the rifle.....
> HOWEVER that does not mean that he received the rifle, nor does it
> mean that he didn't order it at the behest of another person.
Walt, your definition of a "rational person" is starting to sound like
Dave Von Pein's, that is scary. I have not even touched on the Dodd
Commission as there is ample, better proof they ordered the weapon to
frame LHO with. You have provided NO real proof with a legitimate
chain of custody behind it. Sorry, this doesn't cut it with me.
Perhaps you could explain why you insist LHO ordered a rifle to give
me more background.
Walt
LISTEN!!...ya moron.... I have NOT insisted that LHO ordered
arifle. I've said the weight of the evidence indicates that he
did. I want the truth ....and THAT'S what's important to me.
There are some things that can be mathematically or physically proven
to be true, like 2+2= 4 or it is physically impossible to fire a bolt
action Carcano so the reports sound... like Boom............bang,
bang...as virtually all of the witnesses said. They said that the
last two shots were nearly superimposed on one another, and it is
physically inpossible to fire a Carcano that fast.
But a rational person knows that there are some things that can't be
mathmatically proven, beyond any doubt. HOWEVER.....In those
instances where a person can't be 100% certain the evidence must be
weighed. Such is the aspect of the case regarding the ordering of the
rifle. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Oswald
ordered the rifle. Does that mean Oswald was the lone killer?....HELL
NO!!... In FACT the preponderance of the evidence indicates that
another older, and heavier man, who was handling a hunting rifle,
while dressed in light colored clothes fired from the floor where he'd
hidden a Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number C2766.
I think I've finally figured out why you're such a screwball...... You
haven't done any research for yourself, and therefore EVERYTHING you
believe is someone else idea. You are full of doubt about the
conspiracy and have found NOTHING that proves it was a conspiracy, You
have FAITH that there was a conspiracy behind the murder of President
Kennedy, but that FAITH is not rooted in anything that is positive and
concrete, therefore you cling to THEORIES.
I, on the other hand have done my homework, and I'm POSITIVE that
Oswald was NOT GUILTY and he was framed. Since I know that I don't
worry about evidence that "seems" to be incriminating. I'm secure in
my knowledge. So what if the rifle was ordered by Oswald NINE MONTHS
before the assassination???? That doesn't mean he ever received it
OR that it was his rifle.
Rob, I've had it with you.... You are an insecure screwball, who
should be ashamed of himself for arguing against mathematical FACTS
like the data given on Lipshultz Bill of Lading. You have claimed the
document is a fake....but then DEMONSTRATED that you are quite willing
to twist the numbers on the document around to make them loosely fit
your screwball ideas. THAT my screwball friend is PROOF that you are a
liar.
You done the same thing on numerous other ocassions.... Like the way a
Mannlicher Carcano is DESIGNED. They are DESIGNED to allow the clip
to simply drop out of the bottom of the rifle once the last round is
stripped from the clip by the forward stroke of the closing bolt....
Yet you have argued that dozens of other "researchers" have said that
the clip is EJECTED.
You can reply and try to defend yourself.... but don't expect a reply
from me. I'm seeking FACTS and you are completely devoid of any
useful information because you are a screwball liar. I'm not wasting
anymore time arguing with you.
robcap...@netscape.com
Back to name calling, we all know when LNers start this tactic, don't
we? That's right, when they have NO proof or evidence supporting
them.
>I have NOT insisted that LHO ordered
> arifle.
You sure could fool me, I think you have stated he ordered the 40 inch
version about 1,000 times since I joined here, and what is worse, you
have attacked anyone who didn't agree with you in this assertion.
> I've said the weight of the evidence indicates that he
> did.
And what "weight of evidence" is this? I mean everything you just
posted does NOT prove your assertion, so is there more you have NOT
posted?
> I want the truth ....and THAT'S what's important to me.
So do I, that is why I believe LHO ordered NO rifle as there is simply
NO proof or evidence he ever did. You claim to want the truth, but
you are supporting something that is unsubstantiated by any proof.
Seems kinda odd to me.
> There are some things that can be mathematically or physically proven
> to be true, like 2+2= 4 or it is physically impossible to fire a bolt
> action Carcano so the reports sound... like Boom............bang,
> bang...as virtually all of the witnesses said. They said that the
> last two shots were nearly superimposed on one another, and it is
> physically inpossible to fire a Carcano that fast.
Agreed, but I do NOT believe a Carcano was used at all, it was 3-4
gunmen involved and they knew better than to use a Carcano with a
fusty firing pin and a loose scope. This point does NOT prove LHO
ordered a 40 inch Carcano as you claim though, does it?
> But a rational person knows that there are some things that can't be
> mathmatically proven, beyond any doubt.
I agree, but whether LHO ordered a 40 inch Carcano or not is NOT a
mathematical problem, it is simply a matter of evidence. There is
NONE to show he did this action, yet you continue to insist he did.
Why?
> HOWEVER.....In those
> instances where a person can't be 100% certain the evidence must be
> weighed.
You have NONE to be weighed.
> Such is the aspect of the case regarding the ordering of the
> rifle. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that Oswald
> ordered the rifle.
Boy, is this Dave? Sure sounds like him. Dave offers NO proof or
evidence but then acts like he did. Where was your "proponderance of
evidence" again?
> Does that mean Oswald was the lone killer?....HELL
> NO!!...
Now Dave, er I mean Walt, has LHO "one of the killers", but just not
the lone killer. Where is the proof and evidence LHO fired any shots
on 11/22/63 again?
> In FACT the preponderance of the evidence indicates that
> another older, and heavier man, who was handling a hunting rifle,
> while dressed in light colored clothes fired from the floor where he'd
> hidden a Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number C2766.
There were multiple gunmen and NONE of them was LHO, he could have
been guilty, but he was NOT a shooter, this is what the evidence
says.
> I think I've finally figured out why you're such a screwball...... You
> haven't done any research for yourself, and therefore EVERYTHING you
> believe is someone else idea.
I have figured out why your are so clueless, BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE
RESEARCH BY YOURSELF!!! You are the most misguided CTer I have ever
met, or you are a plant. All the things I am saying have been agreed
to by many, many researchers, if you think they all work for the
government you need to prove it then. These are some highly respected
researchers and writers, and if you think I am going to ignore all of
them and believe your wacky take on things, I WOULD BE A SCREWBALL!!
Walt has to use the head in the butt, your a moron, you're a
screwball, and worse because he CAN'T provide any proof for his
assertions. Now where have we seen this tactic before?
> You are full of doubt about the
> conspiracy and have found NOTHING that proves it was a conspiracy, You
> have FAITH that there was a conspiracy behind the murder of President
> Kennedy, but that FAITH is not rooted in anything that is positive and
> concrete, therefore you cling to THEORIES.
You are way off base. How does agreeing LHO ordered a 40 inch M-C
when there is NO evidence or proof make me "more firmly rooted in
conspiracy?" Notice how Walt is rambling but providing NO proof. Who
uses this tactic day in and day out on this forum? He is now Sigmund
Freud.
> I, on the other hand have done my homework, and I'm POSITIVE that
> Oswald was NOT GUILTY and he was framed.
You could sure fool me. You have him ordering the alleged murder
weapon, you have him stupidly posing with it for Marina to snap his
picture to make sure the cops know he is the killer, you have firing
at Gen. Walker, you have him like "James Bond" sneaking into Cuba and
you have him in Mexico City when there is NOT a shred of evidence of
him EVER being there. If this is on his side, I think he would tell
you to GET OFF HIS SIDE!
> Since I know that I don't
> worry about evidence that "seems" to be incriminating. I'm secure in
> my knowledge. So what if the rifle was ordered by Oswald NINE MONTHS
> before the assassination???? That doesn't mean he ever received it
> OR that it was his rifle.
So what???? There is NO evidence that is real and could stand up in a
court of law that shows he ordred a 40 inch M-C (really any rifle) and
you say so what??? This is your idea of going by the evidence? LOL!!
> Rob, I've had it with you....
Of course you have, Dave does to when he can't produce ANY evidence to
back up his crazy assertions either.
> You are an insecure screwball, who
> should be ashamed of himself for arguing against mathematical FACTS
> like the data given on Lipshultz Bill of Lading.
LOL!!!! You are the insecure person who NEEDS to be RIGHT even when
the evidence proves otherwise. I should be ashamed of myself for NOT
BELIEVING the evidence the WC put forth. Walt, you are a laugh
riot!!! IT GETS BETTER AND BETTER EACH POSTS!
> You have claimed the
> document is a fake....but then DEMONSTRATED that you are quite willing
> to twist the numbers on the document around to make them loosely fit
> your screwball ideas. THAT my screwball friend is PROOF that you are a
> liar.
I did not twist anything, the second column looks like it could say
tare to me, and from what I have heard there is NO real proof it
doesn't. Either way the document by itself proves nothing, and the
sad fact you are clinging to it like a man in the ocean clings to any
thing floating shows you have NO proof for your theory. You are
basing all your thoughts on a bill of lading provided by the WC.
> You done the same thing on numerous other ocassions.... Like the way a
> Mannlicher Carcano is DESIGNED. They are DESIGNED to allow the clip
> to simply drop out of the bottom of the rifle once the last round is
> stripped from the clip by the forward stroke of the closing bolt....
> Yet you have argued that dozens of other "researchers" have said that
> the clip is EJECTED.
I fell into this trap last year when I thought all CTers were working
together, but after learning you have your own wacky thoughts and
assertions it doesn't work anymore. The clip's method of leaving the
rifle does NOT prove LHO ordered a 40 inch Carcano, nor does it prove
a clip was IN the rifle when it was found. All you can offer up is
photos of the rifle leaving the building hours after it was found.
Obviously they could have went and got one!
> You can reply and try to defend yourself....
Nice try at making it seem like I have to defend myself!!! You are
master at pinning the blame on others, but it won't work anymore. I
was worried about being respectful when I first came here but you and
some others were quite rude, and made it clear it HAS TO BE YOUR WAY
OR NO WAY! Sorry, that doesn't work anymore, either provide proof or
shut up! SO far you have provided NOTHING, but that was expected
since there is NONE to provide.
> but don't expect a reply
> from me.
Why would I? You are full of crap, you are spouting nonesense and
when called on it you can't do anything but attack me like a LNer.
Why would I expect a response?
> I'm seeking FACTS and you are completely devoid of any
> useful information because you are a screwball liar. I'm not wasting
> anymore time arguing with you.
This is the funniest quote I have ever seen by you (and that is saying
a lot!) as seeking "the facts" seems like the last thing you are doing
to me. You have worked out a crazy scenario, a script if you will, and
you are making everything fit into your "screenplay" whether it fits
or not, or whether it is provable or not.
I am the one who has wasted time as I sincerely asked you to provide
evidence because I am OPEN to new ideas if the proof is there, but you
took like 50 posts to list any evidence, and then when you did we all
saw it was worthless. You are basing things on your beliefs, NOT
proof. The sad part is I didn't see it as an "arguement", but rather
a discussion, but you can only take or behave in one way - as a bully.
tims...@gmail.com
Say, looks like ol' Walt Cakebread is talking a bit of sense, lately.
Didn't he recently agree that Oswald was in Mexico City?
Walt is speaking some sense. RobCap doesn't like it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 12, 5:01 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> Say, looks like ol' Walt Cakebread is talking a bit of sense, lately.
Thank you for the compliment, I've always talked sensibly, but I'm
surprised that a LNer would recognize common sense...... Commonsense
is not one of the characteristics of a LNer. Commonsense is primarily
on the CT's side of the coin. Given the fact that LNer's position is
based on one of the most preposterous lies ever. Anybody with an
iota of common sense wouldn't believe LBJ's Warren Commission.
Incidently.... I've always talked sensibly.... That you haven't
recognized that fact is an example of how two people can view the same
coin, but will not admit that one person is looking at the "heads"
side of the coin while the other is looking at the "tails" side of the
coin. They ar both viewing the same coin but see it differently. I
like to work with FACTUAL information. False or inaccurate data will
only lead to false or erroneous conclusions. Only a liar and moron
would want to work with false data. Do you know that it would have
been physically impossible for CE 399 to have remained in nearly
pristine condition after traveling through the bodies of two men as
LBJ's Warren Commission claimed???
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 13 Sep, 00:03, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
>> TOP POST
>>
>> Say, looks like ol' Walt Cakebread is talking a bit of sense, lately.
>
>Thank you for the compliment, I've always talked sensibly, but I'm
>surprised that a LNer would recognize common sense...... Commonsense
>is not one of the characteristics of a LNer. Commonsense is primarily
>on the CT's side of the coin. Given the fact that LNer's position is
>based on one of the most preposterous lies ever. Anybody with an
>iota of common sense wouldn't believe LBJ's Warren Commission.
>
>Incidently.... I've always talked sensibly.... That you haven't
>recognized that fact is an example of how two people can view the same
>coin, but will not admit that one person is looking at the "heads"
>side of the coin while the other is looking at the "tails" side of the
>coin. They ar both viewing the same coin but see it differently. I
>like to work with FACTUAL information. False or inaccurate data will
>only lead to false or erroneous conclusions. Only a liar and moron
>would want to work with false data. Do you know that it would have
>been physically impossible for CE 399 to have remained in nearly
>pristine condition after traveling through the bodies of two men as
>LBJ's Warren Commission claimed???
Or for all the prosectors & radiologists to have missed the 6.5mm virtually
round object in the AP X-ray...
Or for a person struck in bone to wait a few seconds before reacting...
Or for Altgen's to show a scene in contradiction to the extant Z-film.
Or for Nix to contradict the Z-film, as it does...
And although clearly not impossible, it was completely unnecessary for the WC
and HSCA to simply lie about their evidence if their theory was true.
There are many impossible and improbable events in the WCR's theory - and
LNT'ers are just kooks for believing them.
>> Didn't he recently agree that Oswald was in Mexico City?
>>
>> Walt is speaking some sense. RobCap doesn't like it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Tim Brennan
>> Sydney, Australia
>> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
>>
>> On Sep 12, 5:01=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 10:51=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 11 Sep, 04:35, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 10 Sep., 20:55, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Sep 10, 2:20=A0am, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On 10 Sep., 03:24, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape=
>.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Sep 9, 5:27 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >He wanted to know what the picture was of,=
> it was NOT the Carbine
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >model, I said this, but what does it prove=
>?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey Rob.... CE 139 (C2766) was one of a number =
>of rifles in a crate or
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > carton. How many rifles were in that crate? =A0=
>How much real research
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have you done regarding the rifle that Kleine's=
> sent to PO box 2915 in
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dallas?? =A0 =A0I'm talkin about your OWN resea=
>rch, not what someone else
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > has written?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What did the shipment of rifles weigh that Klei=
>nes received? =A0 Do you
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > know what "TARE" weight is?
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > Walt, we went over this last year, the tare weigh=
>t matched a carton of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > > 36 inch carbines,
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Rob wrote: =A0"Walt, we went over this last year, t=
>he tare weight
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > matched a carton of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > 36 inch carbines,"
>> > > > > > > > > > > >No, Rob,..... the tare weight matched the 7.5
>> > > > > > > > > > > > pound model 91/38 Mannlicher Caracno. =A0 =A0This i=
>s a good example of how
>> > > > > > > > > > > > you get yourself in trouble. You BELIEVE that you k=
>now something and
>> > > > > > > > > > > > refuse to admit that you erred. ( Actually you don'=
>t do your own
>> > > > > > > > > > > > research, you read something and and accept it as f=
>act without
>> > > > > > > > > > > > checking for yourself.) =A0I urge you to check the =
>information given on
>> > > > > > > > > > > > the bill of lading. =A0 It would be great if you co=
>uld just once admit
>> > > > > > > > > > > > that you were wrong.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > Blah, blah, blah, where is YOUR research on this? =A0=
>The tare weight was
>> > > > > > > > > > > 750 pounds, in your example the box and packing mater=
>ial weighed
>> > > > > > > > > > > NOTHING!!!!! (100 rifles x 7.5 lbs)
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > This is just not correct as boxes
>>
>> > > > > > > > > From everything I have read over the years this is correc=
>t, you will
>> > > > > > > > > need to show me something that proves your thinking.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > and packing material weighed from 16-20 pounds and th=
>is matches the 36
>> > > > > > > > > > > inch 5.5 pound carbine almost exactly. =A0I have admi=
>tted I'm wrong
>> > > > > > > > > > > quite a few times on here, I have NEVER seen you do t=
>he same. =A0You are
>> > > > > > > > > > > off base here and for reasons only you know you won't=
> accept the
>> > > > > > > > > > > truth. =A0Tell me why LHO had to order a short 40 inc=
>h rifle in your
>> > > > > > > > > > > mind.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Incidentally ....You again didn't answer the questi=
>on asked..... What
>> > > > > > > > > > > > is "TARE" weight??
>>
>> > > > > > > > > > Ha. ha, ha, ha, ROTFLMAO!!..... =A0 =A0 Apparently you =
>really do have a
>> > > > > > > > > > problem comprehending what you read. =A0 I didn't ask y=
>ou for the weight
>> > > > > > > > > > of the carton.....I asked for a DEFINITION of TARE weig=
>ht.
>>
>> > > > > > > > > I understand what tare weight is, it is the allowance of =
>the weight of
>> > > > > > > > > the packaging/container to be deducted. =A0My questions i=
>s where did we
>> > > > > > > > > get the weight of 750 pounds from?
>>
>> > > > > > > > Duh!.... 100 X 7.5 =3D 750. =A0 What was the TARE weight of=
> the carton of
>> > > > > > > > rifles, Rob?
>>
>> > > > > > > This got me thinking, so I went and looked up the LifSchultz
>> > > > > > > transportation slip, and guess what I saw? =A0The overall wei=
>ght is 750
>> > > > > > > pounds but the TARE weight is 527!!!!! =A036 inch carbines we=
>ighed 5.5
>> > > > > > > pounds so this is very close to this weight minus the packagi=
>ng. =A0Why
>> > > > > > > does the Crescent Firearm's order slip say just T38 instead o=
>f what
>> > > > > > > you say (M91/38)?
>>
>> > > > > > > > If you can bring yourself to admit that the tare weight was=
> 750 pounds
>> > > > > > > > then that means each rifle weighed 7 1/2 pounds. =A0 THAT i=
>s the weight
>> > > > > > > > of a 40 inch long, model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano (as seen =
>in the
>> > > > > > > > illustration)
>>
>> > > > > > > This is NOT what the transportation slip says, the gross weig=
>ht was
>> > > > > > > 750 by the tare weight was 527. =A0You should look it up for =
>yourself.
>>
>> > > > > > Are you referring to this doc?
>>
>> > > > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docI=
>d=3D112...
>>
>> > > > > > (Bill of lading #3041342)
>>
>> > > > > > You seem to be misinterpreting the numbers. 527 doesn't refer t=
>o tare
>> > > > > > weight.
>>
>> > > > > > a) 750 represents weight (in pounds)
>> > > > > > b) 527 represents freight rate (in =A2 per 100 pounds)
>> > > > > > c) 3953 represents freight charge (in =A2)
>>
>> > > > > > You'll realize this when you do the math:
>>
>> > > > > > (750 pounds) * ($0.0527 / pound) =3D $39.53.
>>
>> > > > > Mark, I blew this up in PDF and I could not tell for sure if it s=
>aid
>> > > > > "tare" or "rate" as some idiot typed the delivery date over the c=
>olumn
>> > > > > header, but I do disagree with something you wrote above. =A0Show=
> me
>> > > > > where it is says $39.53. =A0From what I am reading it simply says=
> 3953.
>> > > > > I'm not saying you aren't correct, but it seems they would use a
>> > > > > period if this is really money oriented as I would have a fit if =
>they
>> > > > > wrote 3953 (which could mean thirty-nine HUNDRED and fifty-three)=
> if I
>> > > > > only owed $39.53. =A0Please clarify this for me.
>>
>> > > > > Thanks!
>>
>> > > > Rob, the last two letters of the column header appears to be TE,
>>
>> > > The first two letters are "R" - "A".... The complete word is "RATE".
>> > > Shipping rates are normally stated in c-wt ( hundred weight) =A0 In
>> > > other words this package was shipped at the rate of $5.27 per hundred
>> > > weight. =A0Since the hundred weight was 7.5, it's simply a matter of
>> > > multiplying 7.5 X 5.27 to find that the shipping charge was $39.53.
>> > > (rounded up to the next penny)
>>
>> > > The buyer pays for ONLY the TARE weight of the merchandise and NOT th=
>e
>> > > total or gross weight which includes the shipping box. =A0 If you'll
>> > > look over to the left on the same line that has the shipping date to
>> > > where it says " number of packages and description" (partially
>> > > obscured) you'll see the date the driver picked up the packages (2 /
>> > > 15) and the TOTAL or GROSS weight of the shipment.
>> > > It appears that the GROSS weight was 795 pounds, and the TARE weight
>> > > was 750 pounds. =A0Which means the cardboard boxes weighed about 45
>> > > pounds. 45 pounds for ten boxes seems entirely reasonable.
>>
>> > > =A0The only reason I felt compelled to expand on your post was becaus=
>e
>> > > Rob constantly says that I offer no proof to back up my statements.
>> > > Here is a good strong indication that the rifles being sold by Kleins
>> > > were in FACT the 7 1/2 pound, 40 inch long, model 91 /38. =A0An
>> > > irrational person might argue that the Bill of Lading created by
>> > > Lipshultz for billing purposes =A0is a fake, in which case none of th=
>e
>> > > above amounts to a "hill of beans"..... but I believe most rational
>> > > people will see the truth about the Mannlicher carcano that was sent
>> > > to PO Box 2915 in Dallas.
>>
>> > Everybody remember Walt is calling WC "evidence" "good,strong proof"
>> > the next time he calls me or anyone else a LNer. You are also
>> > "irrational" if you think the WC may have "faked something" right
>> > Walt? I guess the extant Z-film is accurate then, right? =A0I guess the
>> > autopsy photos are accurate, right? =A0I guess the autopsy X-rays are
>> > accurate, right? =A0I guess the ballistic tests are accurate, right? =
>=A0I
>> > guess the SBT scenario is accurate, right? =A0I guess all those who say
>> > the limo stopped or almost stopped are wrong, right? =A0I guess all
>> > those who said shots came from the Grassy Knoll are wrong, right? =A0I
>> > guess JFK was shot at the base of the neck and the bullet exited
>> > through the throat and went into JBC, right? =A0I could go on and on,
>> > but why bother? =A0Walt thinks the WC's "evidence" is "good, solid
>> > proof!"
>>
>> > > > the relationship between the numbers is also a very strong indicato=
>r.
>> > > > There's also the matter of the following interpretation offered by =
>the
>> > > > VP of Klein's.
>>
>> > > > "He noted that at the bottom of the Purchase Order is noted a
>> > > > receiving record bearing date February 21, 1963, showing that ten
>> > > > packages which comprised this shipment of 100 rifles was received o=
>n
>> > > > that date via Lifschultz Freight weighing 750 pounds and utilizing
>> > > > bill of lading #3041342. Freight charges are shown as $39.53." (CD
>> > > > 1066)
>>
>> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D=
>114...
>>
>> > > > Mr. Waldman seems to be talking about a slightly different document=
>, a
>> > > > purchase order, but one that utilizes the same bill of lading
>> > > > (#3041342) as the one I linked to the other day:
>>
>> > > >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3D=