Purvis aka Brokedad even loses at Simkins Forum.
YoHarvey
this NG onto the Simkin Forum in a thread he created about DVP. Now,
here's the cool part. Even though the Simkin Forum is totally
dedicated to conspiracy, his thread has not provoked even one comment
from other posters on the UN-Educated Forum.
Apparently the CT's there have as little respect for Purvis's "keen
insights" as we do here roflmao.
Purvis's theory of JFK being hit twice in the head, despite NO
evidence once again shows us that after 45 years, it's the same old BS
from the CT's. They never learn. Of course, that's what make them so
entertaining.
Brokedad
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13867&pid=160647&st=0&
Post #3
For any who may have interest, applications are now being accepted for
the 2009 'BONEHEAD of the YEAR" award.
First applicant: Mr. "YoHarvey"
YoHarvey
> On Dec 31, 9:41 am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas Purvis aka Brokedad is now copying and pasting comments from
> > this NG onto the Simkin Forum in a thread he created about DVP. Now,
> > here's the cool part. Even though the Simkin Forum is totally
> > dedicated to conspiracy, his thread has not provoked even one comment
> > from other posters on the UN-Educated Forum.
>
> > Apparently the CT's there have as little respect for Purvis's "keen
> > insights" as we do here roflmao.
>
> > Purvis's theory of JFK being hit twice in the head, despite NO
> > evidence once again shows us that after 45 years, it's the same old BS
> > from the CT's. They never learn. Of course, that's what make them so
> > entertaining.
>
>
> Post #3
>
> For any who may have interest, applications are now being accepted for
> the 2009 'BONEHEAD of the YEAR" award.
>
> First applicant: Mr. "YoHarvey"
Purvis? Don't believe for a moment that because you are laughed at on
the Simkin Forum that your ideas won't be laughed at here. You're a
hoot!
aeffects
> On Dec 31, 9:41 am, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thomas Purvis aka Brokedad is now copying and pasting comments from
> > this NG onto the Simkin Forum in a thread he created about DVP. Now,
> > here's the cool part. Even though the Simkin Forum is totally
> > dedicated to conspiracy, his thread has not provoked even one comment
> > from other posters on the UN-Educated Forum.
>
> > Apparently the CT's there have as little respect for Purvis's "keen
> > insights" as we do here roflmao.
>
> > Purvis's theory of JFK being hit twice in the head, despite NO
> > evidence once again shows us that after 45 years, it's the same old BS
> > from the CT's. They never learn. Of course, that's what make them so
> > entertaining.
>
>
> Post #3
>
> For any who may have interest, applications are now being accepted for
> the 2009 'BONEHEAD of the YEAR" award.
>
> First applicant: Mr. "YoHarvey"
ya give the Vietnam Vet impersonator (ONI dont'cha know) way too much
credit.....
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wow! The two posters from the Simkin Forum that are laughed at the
most.....Healy and Purvis appearing together on our newsgroup. Man,
this is comparable to having a visit from Abbott and Costello!!!!
Brokedad
>
> - Show quoted text -
The question being:
Is giving credit for being generally gullible and stupid, actuallly a
credit which one would want to be awarded?
I also notice that Mr. "YoHarvey" is so proud of his claims that he
appears to not want any of us to know who he actually is.
Probably have to "terminate relationship with extreme prejudice" were
it to get out who he actually is.
Do you suppose that he could terminate us through the application of
"osmosis of ignorance"?
As to me, I am going into hiding. Parrots have been known to fly over
and drop PS all over persons who are merely walking along minding
their own business.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah Purvis, an ego run amuck. Run back to Simkin. You belong amongst
more established kooks. Stupidity is not a virtue Purvis, nor is
narcism.
aeffects
we love you turd face -- scared to step on Simkin's turf, ya wee-
willie-wonker.... ROTFLMFAO!
aeffects
gird those loins turd-face..... smooooches
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Great question Healy. I'll respond appropriately. The Simkin Forum
is composed of die hard conspiricists who take themselves entirely to
seriously. It's not fun! Fun is the best thing to have. No forum
that would allow the likes of you, Purvis, Dankbaar to espouse the
crap you do in seriousness can't be enjoyable. Healy? Know why
you're laughed at on the Simkin Forum? I mean, other than being YOU?
Because at times you can be entertaining. Simkin doesn't want
entertainment. He's a communist. He's serious damnit lol.
David Von Pein
>>> "Apparently the CT's there [at "The Education Forum"] have as little respect for [Thomas H.] Purvis's "keen insights" as we do here." <<<
You're exactly right, YoHarvey.
And that's (mainly) because Purvis believes Oswald acted alone. Nobody
in the Simkin warehouse of kooks believes anything CLOSE to that
scenario. So it doesn't surprise me that nobody there jumps in to aid
Purvis. They simply don't care. They apparently don't even care enough
to toss in the occasional throwaway "Get lost, Purvis!" type of post.
Purvis has done this before, btw (i.e., he's copied posts from here
and stuck them on the Edu. Forum boards). This happened the last time
he got energetic, which was regarding the "Mannlicher-Carcano" topic,
with Purvis claiming that he's absolutely positive (beyond all doubt)
that there could be "up to 50" different MC rifles floating around
with the exact same serial number as Oswald's rifle ("C2766").
Of course, we've never, ever seen EVEN ONE such additional C2766
weapon come into the light of day...but Purvis KNOWS there are dozens
of them out there--somewhere--in some city--in some country.
>>> "Purvis's theory of JFK being hit twice in the head, despite NO evidence once again shows us that after 45 years, it's the same old BS from the CT's." <<<
If Purvis believed (as Cyril Wecht does) that JFK was hit in the head
by two bullets--one from the rear and one from the FRONT (and a good-
sized number of CTers do believe this)--then Purvis wouldn't be
alienating so many of his fellow kooks.
But Purvis, instead, believes in something that absolutely NOBODY who
has studied the assassination evidence believes -- he thinks that
Kennedy was hit in the head by TWO REAR HEAD SHOTS, both from Oswald's
rifle.
That is, indeed, a new one on me.
BTW, Purvis doesn't seem to care that there's an additional "timing"
type of problem with his crazy "2 Rear Head Shots" theory.....and
that's because he's got the first rear head shot coming from Oswald's
Carcano at Z313, with the second head shot from that same rifle
occurring at approx. Z353. That's a mere 40 frames apart, or 2.185
seconds.
Now, I don't deny that such a scenario is physically possible (given
the revised data brought forth by the HSCA in the '70s, which
indicates that LHO's rifle could be fired faster than the 2.3 seconds
between shots determined by the WC, with the HSCA saying that if the
iron sights were used, instead of the 4x scope, the time between shots
could be reduced to 1.66 seconds).
But you've got to wonder about the likelihood of Oswald being able to
get off two PERFECT head shots within 2.185 seconds of each other.
Plus: Given the fact that Oswald effectively killed the President with
a bullet to his head at Z313....why would he even WANT to fire that
last shot (per Purvis' unique theory) at Z353 at all?
Couldn't Oswald tell that he'd hit JFK in the head 2.2 seconds
earlier? Why not use those precious seconds to start his escape from
the Floor Of Death....instead of trying to kill the President a SECOND
time?
Of course, Purvis will disagree about all these points (naturally),
because he's got a unique theory to peddle. And NOTHING will stop him
from peddling it to as many people who will listen.
Not even the real evidence and real common sense will sway him. It's
always this way with kooks who put in a lot of time crafting a unique
theory all their own. Take Walt The Cakebread Kook for another prime
example on these boards. Walt's put too many keystrokes into his "JFK
WAS HIT FROM THE FRONT AND THE CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT" theory and his
"BRENNAN *DESCRIBED* THE WEST-END WINDOW, NOT THE EAST-END WINDOW"
theory to stop peddling them now.
Nothing will ever make him believe the truth regarding Howard
Brennan's WC testimony (with that truth being, of course: Brennan was
only talking about the east-end window of the TSBD during his entire
WC session).
As YoHarvey is about to say (quoted below) -- "They never learn."
>>> "They never learn. Of course, that's what make them so entertaining." <<<
Absolutely correct.
A day without kooks is....well....a day when Hell must have frozen
over.
Brokedad
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
with Purvis claiming that he's absolutely positive (beyond all doubt)
that there could be "up to 50" different MC rifles floating around
with the exact same serial number as Oswald's rifle ("C2766").
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An excellent indicator as to exactly why you fell for and believed
"THE SHOT THAT MISSED"
One must have the advanced capability of reading as well as
comprehension if they are to understand the JFK assassination and
subsequent obfuscation of the simple facts by the WC.
So, whereas Parrothead and his merry men can not seem to comprehend
the facts related to the serial number on Carcano weapons:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4781&st=30
Jack;
Thanks for the information.
Certainly a well researched item, and, not unlike most of the
evidence, a book which deals with only "THE RIFLE" could be, and
should be undertaken by someone.
I am familiar with a portion of this writing as someone long ago sent
me that portion which deals with the importation of the weapons and
the formation of Adams Consolidated/Folsom Arms/Crescent, etc;
This was done to ask what knowledge I may have of this operation.
The work by Armstrong in relationship to two items related to the
Carcano is of prime importance.
The shipping weights, and the rifle serial numbers.
Regarding rifle serial numbers, the following additional information
may add to what Armstrong has indicated.
1. Carcano Carbines. (pre-1938)
a. Manufactured at multiple factories.
c. Manufactured in two seperate versions. (Cavalry Carbine & TS
Carbine)
d. Barrell length for each model is the same and barells can be
interchanged.
2. Each plant that manufactured the Carcano (in any version of the
weapon) issued it's own serial numbers.
The only distinction between other plants being that of the stamp mark
of the actual plant of assembly.
With the TS Carbine, we could conceiveably have:
a. Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91)
b. Serial# C2766 made at the Terni plant (M91/28)
c. Serial# C2766 made at the Beretta plant (M91/28)
d. Serial# C2766 made at the Brescia plant (M91/28)
e. Serial# C2766 made at the Gardone plant (M9128)
f. ??Two additional plants are listed, however there is no actual
record of these plants having produced any weapons, and this appears
to possibly be the plants at which the modifications to the Model
91/28 were made which added the grenade launcher to this model of the
weapon.
3. In addition to actual production of the TS Carbine, various plants
also manufactured the Cavalry Carbine.
This weapon is entirely different in design from the TS Carbine and is
a completely separate model identification. However, this weapon
utilized the exact same 17.7 inch length barrel as that utilized in
the TS Carbine, and the barrels are completely interchangeable.
Therefore, we could have the following additional carbine barrels with
the C2766 serial number on them:
a. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Brescia
b. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Gardone
c. Serial# C2766---M91 Cavalry Carbine produced at Terni
With this, the potential for 17.7 inch length carbine rifle barrels
which bear the same C2766 serial number has now increased to 8
barrels. And, in fact, some of these barrels could in fact bear the
identical plant of manufacture stamp as some of them were made for the
TS Carbine, and others were made for the Cavalry Carbine, which
actually constituted different models of the rifle.
4. To add additional confusion to the serial number issue, we can
interject what is referred to as the Model 91/24TS Carbine.
As indicated previously, this weapon was not originally a carbine. It
was in fact originally a 50.8 inch long rifle with a 30.7 inch length
barrell.
The Italian Government, in needing more TS Carbines, embarked on
"cutting down" many of the old long rifles and conversion of these
weapons to the exact same length as the TS Carbine.
Since the "RIFLE" was in fact a totally separate model identification,
then it too could, and would have issues from the various plants which
could easily bear the serial# C2766.
Therefore, one could add in the potential of:
a. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Beretta
b. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Brescia
c. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Mida-
Brescia
d. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Roma
e. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Terni
f. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torino
g. Serial# C2766 rifle barrel modified to 91/24 Carbine-----Torre
Annunzio
Obviously, one can not assume that each and every M91 rifle which may
have carried the serial number C2766 was ultimately cut down and made
into 36-inch length Carbines, Model 91/24.
This however demonstrates the potential of how many pre-1938 "Carbine"
rifle barrels could exist which bear the serial number C2766.
And, this does not take into consideration the numbers of Rifles &
Carbines produced which would contain a variation of the C2766 serial
number, which could easily be made to match this exact number. IE:
a. C 276------with an additional "6" added
b. 276------with a "C" and an additional "6" added
c. 2766-----With a "C" added.
Nor, does this take into consideration those weapons produced,
beginning in 1938, which will be discussed next.
[snapback]38207[/snapback]
In 1938, the Italian Government embarked on a major caliber change for
the Carcano.
Production of the weapon in a 7.35mm caliber was instituted, and the
following weapons were produced in this new and larger size.
a. Cavalry Carbine
b. TS Carbine
c. Short Rifle*
*The Short Rifle was a new design weapon which had not been produced
prior to this.
These weapons, in the 7.35mm caliber, are referred to as the Model 38.
In addition to this larger caliber, the old fold-up/long range rear
sight of the weapons was deleted and a fixed rear sight was installed
and became an identifying characteristic of those weapons produced
begining in 1938.
**It is noted that production of the Rifle (long rifle) in the 7.35mm
was not done.
This weapon remained in the 6.5mm caliber.
A further discussion of the 7.35mm caliber will be forthcoming after
discussion of the post-1938 6.5mm weapons.
___________________________________________________________________
Within a short time of having converted to the 7.35mm calliber, the
Italian Government decided not to proceed with this major design
change as WWII was starting. Therefore, a change back to production of
only 6.5mm weapons was begun.
With this came the Model 91/38 production in the following rifle
designs.
a. Cavalry Carbine
b. TS Carbine
c. Short Rifle.
The new Cavalry Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:
a. Beretta
b. Brescia
c. Gardone
The new TS Carbine in the 6.5mm version was produced at:
a. Beretta
b. Brescia
With this new design production, the possiibility of a Carbine rifle
barrel which contained the serial number C2766 now has an additional
five more barrels added to the already large number from the pre-1938
weapons.
This of course also adds to the numbers of those variations of "C2766"
which could be made into that number by merely adding additional
stamping.
Lastly, of course this new design production also included the new
"Short Rifle" in the 6.5mm caliber as well.
Records indicate that this weapon was produced at:
a. Beretta
b. Brescia
c. Gardone
d. Terni
Which should serve to indicate that even with the Carcano M91/38
(6.5mm), Short Rifle, there exists the possibility of having four
virtually identical weapons which bear the serial number C2766, with
the only identifiable difference being the plant stamp of manufacture/
assembly.
[snapback]38261[/snapback]
Now, the Italian Government has come full circle back to production of
only 6.5mm rifles for it's forces.
However, there also exists a considerable supply of Cavalry Carbines;
TS Carbines; and Short Rifles, which were produced in the 7.35mm
version.
Thereafter, many of these weapons were recalled into the Italian
Armament plants and the weapons were modified back to the 6.5mm
version.
Since this was a originally a totally separate model and caliber
weapon, it's serial number issue was separate as well.
Therefore, there could have easily been serial# C2766 weapons issued
in each of the three versions of weapons by each of the separate
plants which produced these rifles.
It is unknown as to what serial numbering system was utilized when
these weapons were returned and re-conditioned to the 6.5mm caliber.
To date, I have found only three indicators as a means to determine
which of the M91/38 6.5mm Short Rifles may be originally produced as
this, as opposed to formerly 7.35mm versions which were converted back
to the 6.5mm versions.
These are:
a. Serial number on the weapon stock. If the serial number on the
weapon stock does not match that of the actual rifle barrel, then to a
relative high probability, the weapon was a 7.35mm which was converted
back.
b. "Double" barrel alignment marks. On the bottom/underside of the
barrel, at the juncture where the barrel screws up tight against the
frame/breech, the barrel has a slightly flat surface area.
This area was utilized to install "alignment" marks on the weapon once
the barrel was fully seated and tested, at the factory.
After which, a mark was made with a form of chisel, which created a
mark on the barrel as well as a corresponding mark on the receiver.
These marks remain in alignment and can be readily observed when the
weapon is disassembled.
In the event there has been a barrel change on the weapon, the
receiver will generally bear two indications of alignment markings.
One mark from the original barrel alignment and one mark from the new
alignment, which should correspond to/align with the marking on the
current barrel.
In event the receiver has two of these alignment markings, then to a
relative high degree of probability, this is as a result of having a
previous barrel installed, prior to the current weapon barrel.
C. "Crown" & "TNI" mark. Those weapons which have exibited a barrel
change that I have observed, also had stamped onto the receiver,
markings which were not observed on "original" weapons.
This marking consists of an extremely small oval/circle with the
inside of the circle bearing a "Crown" and "TNI", which appears to be
for the Terni plant where the modifications to the weapon was done.
Although adequate verification of this marking and reasons for the
marking are still speculative, the one "changeout" Short Rifle in my
possession has this marking, with a "Terni" barrel installed, as well
as the dual barrel alignment marks and separate serial numbers on the
stock as opposed to the barrel.
Oddly enough, this weapon also has a "39" stamped into the underside
of the frame, whereas the barrel has the "1940 XVIII" mark.
With the inadequate information available relative to the changeout of
the 7.35mm version back to the 6.5mm version of the Short Rifle, there
is no way to verify, or disprove that the serial number C2677 was or
was not installed on the new 6.5mm barrels when these weapons were
changed back.*
*The entire topic of the "changeout" of the Carcano is still an item
of dispute.
Some persons contend that no confirmed records exists which would
prove that any of the 7.35mm versions were converted back to the 6.5mm
versions.
The contradictory serial numbers on the stocks, as opposed to the
actual weapon provide no substantive proof that this occurred, as this
change could have easily occurred at any stage in the life of the
weapon.
The singly most indicative evidence that this actually occurred is the
barrel alignment marks on the underside of the barrel and weapon
frame, which frequently serves to indicate barrel changes.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
Mr. EISENBERG - Have you been able to confirm that the serial number
on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would appear that we have a difference of opinions!
So, lets look for a "third party" to break the tie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol25_0419b.htm
"William Sucher on March 12, 1964, advised he has bought hundreds of
thousands of rifles overseas as Italian Government Surplus."
"Sucher advised the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was manufactured in Italy
from 1891 to 1941 however in the 1930"s Mussolini ordered all arms
factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano.
Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same
serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one
concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission Exhibit 2562
Pages 14 & 15
Imagine that! Serial numbers on these weapons mean NOTHING!
I would suppose that the FBI neglected to inform Frazier of this
finding.
Lastly!
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/
Anyone with half-a-brain can review that limited information gathered
by Richard Hobbs and readily see that the Carcano weapon was produced
in an extremely large varieties of which the prefix letter "C" is the
beginning of the serial number.
Post #58
And, as I indicated in Post#58:
The bottom photo is a 6.5mm Model 38 (fixed rear sight) Truppe Special
(TS) 36-inch length Carbine.
The Carbine also bears the "Beretta Gardone" stamp for place of
manufacture, the year mark "1940 XVII", and more importantly, the
serial number C5522.*
*This one is most assuredly a "keeper" as it is completely original
and the stock also bears the original serial number C5522 stamped into
it as well.
Perhaps "Parrot" & "Son of Parrot" are to dense to recognize that in
the numerical production of weapons, in order to get to C5522, one
generally produces a C2766 first.
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/m91_38.html
91/38 Moschetto T.S.
6.5x52 Carcano
C1565
C1565
Beretta
1940
XVIII
+++++++++
91/38 Moschetto T.S.
6.5x52 Carcano
C5901
C5901
Beretta Gardone
1940
XVIII
Purchased at Dallas, Tx. Gun Show (Market Hall) about 1988.
I liked the fact it was a Beretta and only 65 dollars.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
91/38 Moschetto T.S.
6.5x52 Carcano
C8532
C8532
Beretta Gardone
1940
XVIII
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
91/38 Moschetto T.S.
6.5x52 Carcano
C6453
None
FNA Brescia
1942
XX
=======================================================================
Now, perhaps in 10 words or less, Parrothead & Partner can tell us all
that they know about the Carcano rifle; it's multitudes of manufacture
plants and variations, and why everyone who knows anything about them
is fully aware that the serial number alone on these weapons has
absolutely no validity for tracebility.
Might also explain to those who do not know any diffferent as to why
the US requires the serial number to be a part of the receiver of the
weapon.
Barrells are easily changed!
muc...@gmail.com
>
> It would appear that we have a difference of opinions!
> So, lets look for a "third party" to break the tie.
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol25_0419b.htm
>
> "William Sucher on March 12, 1964, advised he has bought hundreds of
> thousands of rifles overseas as Italian Government Surplus."
>
> "Sucher advised the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was manufactured in Italy
> from 1891 to 1941 however in the 1930"s Mussolini ordered all arms
> factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano.
> Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same
> serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one
> concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not."
Perhaps I'm slow in the uptake, but are you suggesting that there are
two Carcanos with serial number C2766 in evidence? Please explain.
Brokedad
> ~sigh~
>
> I had to open my big mouth, didn't I?
>
> Now this Carcano crap has to be recycled.
>
> But at the end of today (like all days that preceded it), we're still
> going to be left with ZERO other Mannlicher-Carcano rifles to look at
> with "C2766" stamped on them (other than CE139), even though a kook
> named Thomas thinks there are "30 to 50" other MC guns with that exact
> number adhered to them.
>
> And at the end of today (like all other post-1964 days), we're still
> going to be left with these words from the main FBI expert being
> relied on to investigate these matters by the WC:
>
> MEL EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the
> placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined
> to one weapon of a given type?"
>
> ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign
> weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of
> numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed
> before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number,
> consisting of a letter."
>
> EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on
> this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
>
> =========================
>
> BTW, here's what Thomas H. Purvis said about Bob Frazier on September
> 11th, 2008:
>
> � � � "Tom Purvis KNOWS that Frazier is a liar as he has been caught
> in lies to me personally." -- T. Purvis; 09/11/08
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30e83f75484baee4
>
> =========================
>
> Naturally, Tommy thinks of Big Bad Bob Frazier as "a liar". He pretty
> much has no choice BUT to think of him as "a liar".
>
> Such is the way with kooks who think they know far more than the
> people who were responsible for investigating the JFK case.
>
> I wonder if Thomas Purvis frisked his family members for weapons and
> had them fingerprinted before they sat down to Christmas dinner at his
> house last week. I wouldn't be surprised.
>
> After all, you can't afford to take any chances. The crooked CIA and
> the crooked Feds are everywhere.
>
> Right, Purv-Kook?
>
> Regarding the "Carcano/C2766" matter, I'll replay this post of mine:
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> � � � "Does Purv [The Kook] seem peeved this morning? I can understand
> that, I suppose. For years and years he's been unable to convince a
> single person of his nuttiness re. JFK's head wounds. That must be
> rather discouraging, seeing as how he's tried to convince everyone of
> it for quite a while now. ....
>
> � � � "The C2766 argument, of course, is nothing but a
> sideshow...i.e., totally unimportant...but certain kooks want to think
> that if a second or third or fourth gun with "C2766" on it can be
> discovered, then somehow that actually means something significant
> with regard to this murder case. Of course, it doesn't. But they'll go
> on & on about it anyway. [James] DiEugenio being a good recent example
> of this.
>
> � � � "IOW -- To a kook, Chaff Trumps Wheat....each and every day of
> the week.
>
> � � � "Also: Amazingly, not only hasn't a second or third "C2766" gun
> been discovered....but there hasn't been a single example of a
> duplicate set of serial numbers on MC 91/38s of ANY serial number
> (that I am aware of). And "C2766" is not the same as "2766" (as
> revealed in CE2562). The "C" makes it a totally-unique number on the
> gun.
>
> � � � "My guess is that no two MC 91/38s were EVER produced with
> IDENTICAL 5-character serial numbers. There was more-than-likely a
> system in place at all of those MC factories mentioned by The Purv-man
> above whereby no two guns would end up with the exact same serial
> number. Otherwise, what's the point of a DISTINCT SERIAL NUMBER being
> stamped on a gun (or on anything) in the first place?
>
> � � � "Anyone thinking that there might be up to "30 to 50" MC 91/38
> rifles that all possessed the exact same serial number is just flat-
> out idiotic.
>
> � � � "Again, if there are "30 to 50" MC guns with "C2766" on them,
> why on Earth hasn't some crackerjack conspiracy-seeking person come up
> with even ONE additional example of a "C2766" in 45 years? Not a ONE
> has been unearthed, even with many people (undoubtedly) trying to find
> one too." -- DVP; 09/11/08
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/77904f2069b7e7fa
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Tom Purvis KNOWS that Frazier is a liar as he has been caught
in lies to me personally." -- T. Purvis; 09/11/08
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You got it!
And, at last count, Frazier was still living, yet "Tom Purvis" is not
afraid to openly call him a liar on the internet.
Would you like his home telephone number and mailing address to point
it out to him?
Tell you something Parrothead?
Had you either ever bothered questioning Frazier about anything
worthwhile, (and you actually knew anything about the facts of the
obfuscation of the evidence) then you too could join the select
grouping of those who have caught Frazier in a lie.
Trouble being that you are neither sufficiently intelligent to
understand either the evidence, or the obfuscation of that evidence by
select members of the FBI in cooperation with the WC's slicky boys.
But then again, I have never actually observed an intelligent version
of the parrot!
David Von Pein
~sigh~
I had to open my big mouth, didn't I?
Now this Carcano crap has to be recycled.
But at the end of today (like all days that preceded it), we're still
going to be left with ZERO other Mannlicher-Carcano rifles to look at
with "C2766" stamped on them (other than CE139), even though a kook
named Thomas thinks there are "30 to 50" other MC guns with that exact
number adhered to them.
And at the end of today (like all other post-1964 days), we're still
going to be left with these words from the main FBI expert being
relied on to investigate these matters by the WC:
MEL EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the
placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined
to one weapon of a given type?"
ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign
weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of
numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed
before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number,
consisting of a letter."
EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on
this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
=========================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/30e83f75484baee4
=========================
Right, Purv-Kook?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/77904f2069b7e7fa
~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's also this from Vince Bugliosi:
"No other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has
ever surfaced, although one with a serial number of 2766 without any
prefix did. That Carcano was sold by a Montreal firm to a firm in St.
Albans, Vermont, which in turn sold it on July 5, 1962, to a firm
called Aldens in Chicago. The weapon’s history beyond this point was
not determined by the FBI because Alden’s records were not available.
(CE 2562, 25 H 801–803, 807–811)
"However, even if another Mannlicher-Carcano did surface with
the same serial number as Oswald’s, C2766, it would be irrelevant
since we know one with that serial number was sold and sent to Oswald,
was found in the sniper’s nest,* and was proved to be the murder
weapon." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 340 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming
History" (c.2007)
* = Oops. An error there by VB. He obviously meant to say that the
rifle was either "found near the sniper's nest" or "found on the sixth
floor", because Vince knows full well where Oswald's gun was found,
and it wasn't "in the sniper's nest" itself.
Brokedad
The Carcano weapon was produced at a variety of different
manufacturing plants in a variety of different models.
Each "Model" had it's own consecutive serial number issue and each
manufacture plant also had it's own consecutive assignment of serial
numbers to those specific weapons produced at the plant.
The Principal identification lies in one having to state the specific
weapon Model; the specific Plant of manufacture, and then the serial
number.
As example:
Literally millions of the old Model 91 Long Rifle was produced at a
variety of plants. Being it's own specific 'Model" each plant
assigned serial numbers, and as provable by the existing records,
serial numbers were duplicated with the only identifying difference
being the Plant of manufacture stamp.
Then, various plants produced the Model 91 TS Carbine (36-inch length
Carbine) in much the same manner, and being a completely different
"Model", it too had the same duplication problems as did the Long
Rifle.
Then, in 1924, the Italian Government took a few million of the old
left over WWI Long Rifles, and cut the barrel length down to make them
into Carbines. These are identified as the Model 91/24 Carbine, and
this now added to the potential for "duplicated" serial numbers within
the ranks of the 36-inch length Carbine inventories.
Then, in 1938 when the Italian Government again changed the "Model" )
and it became known as the Model 91/38) to the fixed rear sight, they
again issued serial numbers which actually duplicated existing serial
numbers within the previous old Model 91 series weapons.
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/m91.html
91 Moschetto Cav.
C3329
C3329
Brescia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
91 Moschetto Cav.
Sporterized
6.5x52 Carcano (?)
C5385
R.E. Terni
++++++++++++
91/24 Moschetto T.S.
Sporterized
6.5x52 Carcano
C6016
Roma
+++++++++++++
91/38 Moschetto T.S.
6.5x52 Carcano
C1565
C1565
Beretta
+++++++++++++++++
91/38 Moschetto T.S.
6.5x52 Carcano
C6453
None
FNA Brescia
++++++++++++++++
Now, add to this morass the fact that the "Cavalry Carbine" was a
totally seperate Model which was also produced by a variety of plants
in the Model 91 as well as 6.5mm Model 91/38, and which weapon has the
exact same (interchangable barrel) with the Model 91 TS Carbine, the
Model 91/24 Carbine; the Model 91/38 TS Carbine, and then one begins
to come to an appreciation as to exactly how worthless attempting to
track any of these weapons merely by serial number alone, is.
Hope the above examples and explanation provides some of the answer
which you asked.
Tom
David Von Pein
>>> "Purvis is not afraid to openly call him [Robert A. Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation] a liar on the internet. .... You too could join the select grouping of those who have caught Frazier in a lie. Trouble being that you are neither sufficiently intelligent to understand either the evidence, or the obfuscation of that evidence by select members of the FBI in cooperation with the WC's slicky boys." <<<
$64K Question.......
Why does Frazier need to lie about ANYTHING in this case, Mr. Purv-
Kook?
Just...why? What for?
You think that Frazier and the WC knew the "truth" (aka: "The Purvis
Truth") re. the true shooting scenario...and you think that Oswald did
it alone with 3 shots from the TSBD.
So....why was there ANY need for anybody in officialdom to start lying
about that "truth"?
Did they lie merely so they could peddle a DIFFERENT "Oswald Did It
All By Himself" scenario to the world?
Is that what you actually want to believe, Mr. Purv-Kook?
Is it truly possible for ANYBODY to actually believe such nonsense? Is
it?
muc...@gmail.com
Not sure, but thanks anyway. I thought you were implying that there
were more than one Carcano with serial number C2766 in evidence (and
not just potentially floating around somewhere).
aeffects
your not only slow, your a fucking moron who knows nothing, nada, nil
about case evidence and research concerning the same, take the rest of
the year off asshole!
Brokedad
==================================================================
So....why was there ANY need for anybody in officialdom to start lying
> about that "truth"?
>
> Did they lie merely so they could peddle a DIFFERENT "Oswald Did It
> All By Himself" scenario to the world?
================================================================
That you have no conceptual idea that there are reasons to lie other
than your incorrect assessment that absolutely no "conspiracy"
existed, is neither my fault nor my problem.
Just as with your gullibility and ignorance in falling for and
apparantly believing the WC's "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", it would appear
that it is one of those "Nature v. Nurture" problems which you must
attempt to overcome.
And since that is quite possibly above your level of understanding:
I have no idea as to whether or not you were born ignorant and
gullible
, or merely developed to that extent due to the environment in which
you were raised.
P.S. Exactly when was it that you and your "butt-buddy" were going to
get around to an explanation as to which of the TWO reported entrance
wounds into JFK's head it is that is correct.
Was it:
A. The entrance wound which ALL THREE autopsy Dr.'s have stated
struck JFK at the lower edge of the hairline at the base of the neck
and thereafter "tunnelled" through the sof tissue of the neck to
ultimately strike the skull in the EOP region at a point which was
higher in elevation* (*as one is sitting in the vertical position)
than the entry wound through the scalp, and which entry the FBI as
well as SS observed during the course of the autopsy, and which the
autopsy surgeons physically measured and reported as having been some
15mm in length through the skull.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound,
right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the
right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
B: That location in the "Cowlick" area of the top rear high portion of
the head which the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA Panel determined
was the actual entry location as determined from a full review of the
autopsy X-rays and photographs, and which entry they claimed was some
4-inches higher on the head than the penetration through the skull as
reported by the autopsy surgeons, and was in fact some 5 to 6 inches
higher on the head than the scalp entry as reported by the autopsy
surgeons.
Now, for those who are neither sufficiently gullible and stupid enough
to fall for the WC's "THE SHOT THAT MISSED", the correct answer is:
C. Both of the above!
The "Cowlick" entry is that impact to the top/right/rear of the head
in which the bullet went across the upper lobe of the brain and
severely fragmented primarily due to the manner in which the bullet
was attempting to exit the skull against the parallel resistence
created by the skull bone.
The "EOP" entry is that entry which occurred when JFK was some 30-feet
farther down Elm St, directly in front of James Altgens location, when
JFK was leaned forward and to the left, with his head down and turned
to the right.
The bullet penetrated through the coat, striking at the lowere edge of
the coat collar and passed through the coat & liner on an oblique
angle due to the position of JFK.
Thereafter exiting the coat to strike JFK in the lower edge of the
hairline and "tunnel" downwards through the soft tissue of the neck to
strike the skull in the vicinity of the EOP, penetrate the skull and
create that damage within the brain of JFK which runs from the tip of
the occipital lobe laterally, through the mid-brain of JFK, and
exiting in the forward area of the brain.
Might I also state that any idiot (especially those who claim to know
something about the evaluation of physical, forensic; pathological
evidence) would recognize the "angle of attack" which the bullet had
to strike, merely by recognition of the 15mm length of the EOP entry
wound, and would therefore know fully well that based on the "upward"
path of this projectile, that either a midget was hiding in the trunk
of the car and shot JFK on an upward angle, or else JFK was leaning
well forward with the back of his head in an almost horizontal plane
at the time of impact.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0036a.htm
Lastly, part of the key to understanding of this evidence lies in the
obfuscation of examination of the clothing of JFK in which all
evidence is in fact "Hearsay" in which absolutely none of the actual
FBI Laboratory Reports were entered into evidence to support what is
presented; the person giving the testimony (FBI Agent Frazier)
conducted absolutely none of this testing (and was not even qualified
to do so), and which testimony is in direct conflict with the actual
Laboratory Notes and examination results as completed by FBI Agent
Henry Heiberger who was the only FBI Agent to conduct any examination
of the clothing of JFK.
David Von Pein
>>> "Exactly when was it that you and your "butt-buddy" were going to get around to an explanation as to which of the TWO reported entrance wounds into JFK's head it is that is correct[?]" <<<
It couldn't be more obvious that the red spot near JFK's cowlick is
the one and only bullet wound of entrance, as seen here:
"And that area [near the cowlick]...is in the central portion of
the picture, as if that's what's being looked at by the camera." --
DR. MICHAEL BADEN; 03/12/78 (LINK BELOW)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmeVDFKMNLs&fmt=18
ADDENDUM.......
Answer this question for me, Thomas H. Purvis:
If the red spot near President Kennedy's cowlick ISN'T the one and
only wound of entrance, then what was photographer John Stringer
focusing on and CENTERING his camera on when he snapped this picture?:
Stringer certainly wasn't centering on the white dab of dried brain
tissue near the hairline.
So, per a kook named Purvis, what WAS the purpose of taking the above
picture on November 22nd, 1963? And what is that picture mainly
FOCUSING ON?