NO 40" RIFLE WAS EVER SHIPPED TO BOX 2915 IN DALLAS
Gil Jesus
mucher1
> http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
The statement
(quote) Had a 40" rifle been substituted for the 36", the catalog # of
the 40" rifle would have been on the manifest, instead of the 36's.
(unquote)
is just an assumption of yours, correct?
Walt
Gil, You're doomed to continue to run around in circles...endlessly
"chasing your tail", and never advancing further toward the truth.
You'll never reach the final chapter because you're stuck on chapter
one, simply refuse to advance any further. Common sense would
dictate that when ALL of the evidence is evaluated.... the rifle that
was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas, under the name of AJ Hidell,
was in fact a 40 inch long Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short
rifle. There is NO EVIDENCE that a 36 inch long MC CARBINE was
shipped to PO Box 2915.....and there IS visual evidence ( Marina's BY
photo CE 133A) and Klein's documents which prove the rifle was a 40
inch long Mannlicher Carcano with bottom sling swivels.
ALL of this bullshit is irrelevant, because JFK was NOT killed by a
6.5mm full metal jacketed bullet from the rifle (C2766) that was found
where it had been CAREFULLY HIDDEN beneath those boxes of books.
Gil your stuck in a rut....
mucher1
Oh? Please explain.
> Gil your stuck in a rut....
As are you, it seems :)
curtjester1
It's obvious that they made too much haste in their quick paper trail
project's processing. To be expected, really with all that there is
in the rifle process. It's easier to look for ALL the necessary
proofs needed to establish any rifle credibility when one assumes that
NO rifles 40" or 36" were ever sent to the assumed P.O. Box in Dallas.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
Nice diagram Gil. The MAIN POINT is there is NO evidence showing LHO
ever picked up ANY rifle at the P.O. Box! The evidence in the records
points to a 36" Carbine. It does NOT matter if this rifle was used or
not, one cannot lie about the evidence and NOT have it pointed out!
End of story!
Walt
CJ...I belive that you are the epitome of...The Babbling Idiot.....
Walt
Oh, I think not..... I'm on the road to the truth.... However....
Why do you think people like Gill continue to buy one book after an
another looking for the answer??
It's because they WILL NOT apply their own God given brain and
THINK!! They accept some bullshit as fact and cling to that bullshit
as if it was the gospel. All of those who refuse to use their God
given brains, be they CT, or LN, are dooming themselves.... They will
NEVER know the truth.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
curtjester1
You're trying to authenticate something of importance than CANNOT be
verified. If they LIED about MOST of the paperwork, it stands that
they would fabricate all of it and any signature would be easy to
insert at any time.
CJ
Walt
That's true.....But if you had any commonsense you'd understand what
an impossibly complex conspiracy you're dreaming about. If you had
any common sense you'd understand that just about everybody in the
country would have had to been involved in some aspect of the
conspiracy. But you don't have any commonsense...you're just a
babbling idiot.
>
> CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Don't have to speculate on a Grand Conspiracy of millions. Hoover,
FBI, Dulles and Angleton CIA and upper echelon movers and shakers, LBJ
for Dallas with DeM, H.L. Hunt. Byrd, David Atlee Phillips....which
would easily tie in to N.O. Just people with an axe and a lot to lose
in prestige and money. The rifle was just many things and loose ends
they took care of. Now for the rifle, if you don't go for actual
evidence, it makes no sense.
CJ
Walt
Here, You demonstrate once again....that you're a babbling idiot.
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!! He thinks faking paper work would require "just about everybody
in the country"! LOL!! This sums up Walt perfectly, doesn't it?
Walt
wrote:
Oh fer christ sake..... Why don't you spend a dollar and go buy
yerself an ounce of brains?? The conspiracy you envision includes
every employee at Kleins for the company president to the loading dock
workers. Not to mention hundreds of other people who had contact with
any of the Oswald's.... You don't have the brains of a common garden
slug.
LOL!! This sums up Walt perfectly, doesn't it?- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This thread shows just where the members of the Cuckoo's Nest are at
in their knowledge of the JFK assassination. Giltardo and robocrap are
in kindergarten, CJ is in first grade, and Walt is the brains of the
lot. He has progressed to second grade.
Gil Jesus
My argument isn't that the paperwork is faked. My argument is that the
paperwork indicates that the rifle "shipped" was catalog # C20-T750
which was the 36" rifle and not # C20-750, the 40" rifle. Idiots who
claim that the "T" in the catalog number was insignificant must also
explain WHY the two different sized rifles were not "lumped" into one
catalog number and instead contained two different ones. There was
definitely enough difference between the two to merit their having
different catalog numbers and on that basis, the catalog number of the
rifle "shipped" indicated that it was NOT the 40" Depository Carcano.
curtjester1
I know Gil, and I agree, if it wasn't faked, there is documentation
for another rifle besides the 40"er.
CJ
curtjester1
Walt, you have no idea of what a Conspiracy might take to do a Coup D'
Etat, nor do you understand evidence and what evidence must be covered
up.
CJ
Walt
I'd urge you to reexamine the evidence WITH YOU EYES OPEN. Look at
ALL of the evidence and don't just focus on one tiny aspect that in my
opinion was simply an error in the ad. 90% of the evidence supports
the contention that Kleins shipped a 40 inch long Model 91/38
Mannlicher Carcano Short Rifle to Po Box 2915 in Dallas. There is
possibly 10% of the evidence that casts some doubt on that
contention. USE YOUR HEAD!
Walt
CJ, you're a babbling idiot.
timstter
Er, well then why is Oswald holding the depository Carcano in the
backyard photos then, Verm ol' fella?
Curious Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
timstter
> http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
LOL! What PATHETIC evidence, especially when you consider that the
rifle shipped to Hidell/Oswald bore the very same serial number as the
rifle smothered with Oswald's prints found at the murder scene.
Say, Gil, if Oswald NEVER received any rifle, as you seem to claim,
why did his wife repeatedly see him with a rifle during 1963?
Skeptical Regards,
curtjester1
Where ya been...takin' a powder again?
CJ
Walt
> On Aug 16, 1:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
>
> LOL! What PATHETIC evidence, especially when you consider that the
> rifle shipped to Hidell/Oswald bore the very same serial number as the
> rifle smothered with Oswald's prints found at the murder scene.
Ya know if you actually looked at the evidence as it really is,
perhaps you'd start to see the falsity of the Warren report. Open
your eyes and LOOK at the evidence as presented to the Warren
Commission by the FBI. THERE WERE NO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS FOUND ON
THAT RIFLE BY THE FBI!!!
robcap...@netscape.com
There goes Walt PUTTING WORDS INTO OTHER PEOPLES' MOUTHS AGAIN! Why
don't you quote me saying it would require EVERY EMPLOYEE of Klein's
for this to happen? I double dare you!
Walt has to lie about what people really say and then he slanders them
to boot! What a garden variety WC shill "slug" we have here, huh?
robcap...@netscape.com
Notice how "Bigcon" puts his fellow WC shill at the top of the list
(Walt)? Good one Bigcon!
YOUR not real obvious about it either.
robcap...@netscape.com
You are absolutely correct here Gil! This has been my contention for
years and the other side has to take you down such a long path of
fantasies to try and counter the truth it is NOT funny!
This one issue is what has tipped me to folks on here who are NOT real
CTers as they claim since they insist LHO ordered a 40" Carcano with
NO evidence showing this.
YOUR photo arrangement that Miles used was great too, but sadly even
pictures have not gotten through to them!
robcap...@netscape.com
See?? To paraphrase Strother Martin in "Cool Hand Luke" (airing
Saturday night on TCM @ 10:15 PM est.) --
"What we got here is a failure to convince anyone he is really a
CTer!"
Walt is a WC shill and there is NO doubt about that! I even USED MY
HEAD TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION!
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!! Tim is using highly questionable evidence to make his point!
LOL! By the way Tim, even IF it was LHO in the BY photos, and it was
not, how does that prove he ORDERED the rifle he is posing with again?
David Von Pein
FROM THE EDU. FORUM:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=135&p=202169&#entry202169
Gary Mack didn't ask me to post his e-mail, Dean [Hagerman]. I did it
on my own.
And, of course, whatever you do, Dean, make sure you COMPLETELY IGNORE
Gary's valuable input on the "40-inch vs. 36-inch" Carcano topic. It's
always best if CTers ignore this evidence about the Klein's ads, so
that they can continue to pretend that Oswald couldn't possibly in a
million years have been sent a 40-inch Carcano from Klein's in late
March of 1963:
"I looked up the Klein's ads for 1963 and found that the next
issue after February 1963 and all the issues afterward showed the 40"
rifle. I don't have my notes here at the house, so the April 1963
issue, which would have mailed in mid-March so the ad had to have been
changed prior to that, may be the first with the 40" weapon. So that
is exactly what must have happened. Klein's ran out of 36" rifles very
quickly and substituted the longer weapon. They may have notified
customers ahead of time, but there's no record of that happening." --
Gary Mack; 8/17/10
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> Gary Mack didn't ask me to post his e-mail, Dean [Hagerman]. I did it
> on my own.
>
> And, of course, whatever you do, Dean, make sure you COMPLETELY IGNORE
> Gary's valuable input on the "40-inch vs. 36-inch" Carcano topic. It's
> always best if CTers ignore this evidence about the Klein's ads, so
> that they can continue to pretend that Oswald couldn't possibly in a
> million years have been sent a 40-inch Carcano from Klein's in late
> March of 1963:
>
> "I looked up the Klein's ads for 1963 and found that the next
> issue after February 1963 and all the issues afterward showed the 40"
> rifle.
Showing and having in stock are TWO DIFFERENT things! Can you or Gary
show they had a 40" model in stock in March 1963 to ship by "accident"
to LHO?
> I don't have my notes here at the house, so the April 1963
> issue, which would have mailed in mid-March so the ad had to have been
> changed prior to that, may be the first with the 40" weapon.
Other people's evidence shows the first mentioning in print of a 40"
model did NOT occur until much later in the year! IF what Gary says
is true why did the WC use a November 1963 ad then?
> So that
> is exactly what must have happened.
So Gary's SPECULATION is evidence, huh Dave?
> Klein's ran out of 36" rifles very
> quickly and substituted the longer weapon.
LOL!! NO company does this! They would have charged him for the
difference NOT just send him a more expensive model!
> They may have notified
> customers ahead of time, but there's no record of that happening." --
> Gary Mack; 8/17/10
Of course not! Just more speculation. Too bad for you folks you have
NO evidence to support your speculation, huh?
David Von Pein
>>> "LOL!! NO company does this! They would have charged him for the difference NOT just send him a more expensive model!" <<<
More kookshit from Kaprio. Oswald would have paid exactly the same
amount for the RIFLE WITH SCOPE in November as he did in March --
$19.95 plus S&H.
The Nov. '63 ad shows the EXACT SAME PRICE for that item--$19.95.
Plus, if the ads between Feb. and Nov. were the same as the Nov. ad,
then the price of the rifle ONLY would actually have been 10 cents
LESS than what Oswald's rifle (alone) cost in the Feb. ad. It was
advertised for $12.88 in Feb.; and $12.78 in Nov.
And yet Caprio the Kook thinks Oswald would have owed KLEIN'S money,
even though Klein's was selling the 40-inch rifle for a dime LESS in
the Nov. ad.
David Von Pein
>>> "IF what Gary [Mack] says is true why did the WC use a November 1963 ad then?" <<<
Maybe because NOVEMBER was the CURRENT MONTH and the CURRENT ISSUE of
a magazine that the FBI checked for Klein's ads.
You're a moron, Robby.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that today isn't the first time that Gary Mack's
research regarding the 40-inch rifles has been mentioned here at the
asylum (newsgroups). I recall this exact same thing coming up in the
past, with Gary Mack (yet again) supplying the exact same useful
information concerning the post-February Klein's advertisements.
Naturally, all CT-kooks ignored Gary Mack back then....and they'll
ignore him today too.
Retards all.
Walt
wrote:
> On Aug 17, 11:09 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > FROM THE EDU. FORUM:
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=135&p=...
>
> > Gary Mack didn't ask me to post his e-mail, Dean [Hagerman]. I did it
> > on my own.
>
> > And, of course, whatever you do, Dean, make sure you COMPLETELY IGNORE
> > Gary's valuable input on the "40-inch vs. 36-inch" Carcano topic. It's
> > always best if CTers ignore this evidence about the Klein's ads, so
> > that they can continue to pretend that Oswald couldn't possibly in a
> > million years have been sent a 40-inch Carcano from Klein's in late
> > March of 1963:
>
> > "I looked up the Klein's ads for 1963 and found that the next
> > issue after February 1963 and all the issues afterward showed the 40"
> > rifle.
>
> Showing and having in stock are TWO DIFFERENT things!
Hey, You Mule Head..... You've been shown repeatedly that Klein's
had the 7.5 lb, 40 inch long, Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano, Short
Rifle, in stock at the time that AJ Hidell placed an order for one.
If they didn't have any, as you believe,..... HOW did they take a
photo of one to use in their ad???
Can you or Gary
> show they had a 40" model in stock in March 1963 to ship by "accident"
> to LHO?
>
> > I don't have my notes here at the house, so the April 1963
> > issue, which would have mailed in mid-March so the ad had to have been
> > changed prior to that, may be the first with the 40" weapon.
>
> Other people's evidence shows the first mentioning in print of a 40"
> model did NOT occur until much later in the year! IF what Gary says
> is true why did the WC use a November 1963 ad then?
>
> > So that
> > is exactly what must have happened.
>
> So Gary's SPECULATION is evidence, huh Dave?
>
> > Klein's ran out of 36" rifles very
> > quickly and substituted the longer weapon.
>
> LOL!! NO company does this! They would have charged him for the
> difference NOT just send him a more expensive model!
>
> > They may have notified
> > customers ahead of time, but there's no record of that happening." --
> > Gary Mack; 8/17/10
>
> Of course not! Just more speculation. Too bad for you folks you have
> NO evidence to support your speculation, huh?- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Gary Mack presents a plausible explanation.....However I doubt that
his explanation is totally accurate..... I believe the reason the ad
lists a NON EXISTANT gun, (There never was a Mannlicher Carcano that
weighed a mere 5 1/2 pounds.) is because the Advertising Department
manager was either sloppy, or dishonest. The illustration clearly
shows a 40 inch long Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano with BOTTOM sling
swivels. ( Which proves that Kleins had them in stock) The text
describes a NON EXISTANT rifle....The add appears to be slightly
misleading and dishonest, in an effort to make the rifle a bit more
appealing to the customer. ( A light weight short gun is highly
desirable for certain hunting condition.)
Whatever is the truth.....It doesn't take a genius to evaluate ALL of
the evidence and reach the reasonable conclusion that a 40 inch long
Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano with the serial number C2766, was sent
to PO Box 2915 in Dallas. And it doesn't take a genius to understand
that the conspirators would have wanted a Mannlicher Carcano with a
serial number of C 2766 stamped on it as a KEY piece of evidence in
the framing of Oswald.
aeffects
> On Aug 17, 8:11 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > CJ:
>
> > My argument isn't that the paperwork is faked. My argument is that the
> > paperwork indicates that the rifle "shipped" was catalog # C20-T750
> > which was the 36" rifle and not # C20-750, the 40" rifle. Idiots who
> > claim that the "T" in the catalog number was insignificant must also
> > explain WHY the two different sized rifles were not "lumped" into one
> > catalog number and instead contained two different ones. There was
> > definitely enough difference between the two to merit their having
> > different catalog numbers and on that basis, the catalog number of the
> > rifle "shipped" indicated that it was NOT the 40" Depository Carcano.
>
> Er, well then why is Oswald holding the depository Carcano in the
> backyard photos
simple fats... someone wanted to make him appear guilty, LHO fired
nothing in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963... get your shit together boyo!
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not really, as the workers on the floor told the whole story. They
only wanted to deal with the higher managment who knew nothing, but
was swayed to go along with the strong armed tactics. The people who
mattered were the ones before Klein's got them, a man named Rupp, who
oiled and boxed the weapons knew they were 36" Carbines.
Irrefutable. The people who knew scopes were the ones that did in
the charade that Walt loves to go along with. Charming, man, huh?
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
BigDog still is going on the baseball field without permission and
licking the mustard off the hot dog wrappers again.
CJ
Walt
So a lowly warehouse worker who "oiled and boxed" the guns being
shipped was an expert??? Do you think he whipped out his trusty tape
measure and measured every Mauser, Enfield, Springfield, Arisaka, and
Carcano before he put in the shipping box???.....IDIOT!
The people who knew scopes were the ones that did in
> the charade that Walt loves to go along with. Charming, man, huh?
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> The people who
> mattered were the ones before Klein's got them, a man named Rupp, who
> oiled and boxed the weapons knew they were 36" Carbines.
> Irrefutable. The people who knew scopes were the ones that did in
> the charade that Walt loves to go along with. Charming, man, huh?
>
The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on
the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on
Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36
inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78) The man who actually
mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp, their in-house
gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the package deal with
the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market the 36 inch MC.
(HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)
http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
This evidence is supported by FBI expert Robert Frazier, who testified
to the WC that in order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted
the scope on the rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle
with a scope and then HAD TO TELL KLEIN'S WHERE ON THE FRAME TO MOUNT
THE SCOPE.
Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago,
and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar
rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this
type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In
this connection, WE DID INFORM THEM THAT THE SCOPE SHOULD BE IN
APPROXIMATELY THIS POSITION ON THE FRAME OF THE WEAPON.
Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position,"
so that the record is clear could you--
Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is,
approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver
ring. ( 3 H 396 )
This is information that Klein's would not have needed had they
normally mounted scopes on the 40" rifle.
It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with
a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted
by Klein's.
mucher1
Who says the info was "needed"? All we know is that it was provided.
> It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with
> a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted
> by Klein's.
Silly.
Walt
> On Aug 17, 8:25 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The people who
> > mattered were the ones before Klein's got them, a man named Rupp, who
> > oiled and boxed the weapons knew they were 36" Carbines.
> > Irrefutable. The people who knew scopes were the ones that did in
> > the charade that Walt loves to go along with. Charming, man, huh?
>
> > CJ-
>
> The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on
> the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on
> Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36
> inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78) The man who actually
> mounted the scopes for Klein's was William Sharp, their in-house
> gunsmith. He confirmed what Westra testified to: the package deal with
> the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market the 36 inch MC.
> (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78)
Oh really???.... Then Why do ALL of the ads .....ALL OF THE ADS....
show a 40 inch long Model 91/38...and there isn't A SINGLE ad showing
a 36 inch carbine with a scope mounted on it???
First off.... It's rather silly to mount a scope on a 36 inch
carbine. Scopes are a shooting aid for LONG range rifles, and long
range rifles have LONG barrels. In makes no sense to mount a scope on
carbine with a short barrel. ( 17.7") In fact a scope on a scope is
a hinderance to quick aiming and firing, which the primary reason the
military uses carbines. (Close quarter combat)
>
> http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
>
> This evidence is supported by FBI expert Robert Frazier,
Frazier was NOT an expert on the Mannlicher Carcano.....He testified
that Carcano can be used as a single shot rifle....It CANNOT!!!
who testified
> to the WC that in order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted
> the scope on the rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle
> with a scope and then HAD TO TELL KLEIN'S WHERE ON THE FRAME TO MOUNT
> THE SCOPE.
What a inane argument!!..... You obviously don't know that the
"frame" ( receiver ) is EXACTLY the same on ALL Mannlicer Carcanos.
ALL carcanos are built around the same receiver. It makes no
difference whether the rifle is a 50 inch long Model 91, a 45 inch
Model 41, a 40 inch Model 91/38 or a 36inch carbine...they ALL use the
same receiver.
Gil Jesus
shipped to "A. Hidell" bore item number C20-T750, which was th 36"
rifle.
Left page:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0419a.htm
Gil Jesus
Highlighted:
http://i35.tinypic.com/103xslx.jpg
The FBI said the same thing I've been saying: that the manifest
indicates that the rifle shipped was item # C20-T750 and NOT item #
C20-750.
http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
Now if any of you Warren Commission apologists and nutcases wanna
produce documentation that the rifle shipped to box 2915 was item
C20-750, go right ahead.
Otherwise, I'll get the tissue and let's let the crying commence.
mucher1
I hate to nitpick, but the rifle itself doesn't "bear" any such
number. It's not in dispute, however, that Oswald technically ordered
a 36 inch rifle (catalog number C20-T750). CE 2562 refers to the usual
Waldman exhibits, by the way, so there's nothing new in that.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "LOL!! NO company does this! They would have charged him for the difference NOT just send him a more expensive model!" <<<
>
> More kookshit from Kaprio.
Dave would love to say this on other boards, but alas, he can't so he
hides!
> Oswald would have paid exactly the same
> amount for the RIFLE WITH SCOPE in November as he did in March --
> $19.95 plus S&H.
That was NOT the point you dummy, the point was there were NO 40"
Carcanos to sell and send until much later in the year!
> The Nov. '63 ad shows the EXACT SAME PRICE for that item--$19.95.
That has NOTHING to do with my point Dave, and you know it. Where did
I mention the price again in reference to the November ad?
> Plus, if the ads between Feb. and Nov. were the same as the Nov. ad,
> then the price of the rifle ONLY would actually have been 10 cents
> LESS than what Oswald's rifle (alone) cost in the Feb. ad. It was
> advertised for $12.88 in Feb.; and $12.78 in Nov.
OF course Dave forgets to tell everyone that the NOVEMBER AD APPEARED
IN A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MAGAZINE! Why are you making sound like we are
discussing one magazine here Dave?
> And yet Caprio the Kook thinks Oswald would have owed KLEIN'S money,
> even though Klein's was selling the 40-inch rifle for a dime LESS in
> the Nov. ad.
Using an ad from another magazine nine months later is not going to
help your cause Dave. The irony here is that the ad the WC got from
Harry Holmes (the November 1963 ad from the "Field & Stream" magazine)
has a 36" Carbine with scope listed as $19.95 too! LOL!
Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his
P.O. Box in Dallas. Give up this lame excuse already.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "IF what Gary [Mack] says is true why did the WC use a November 1963 ad then?" <<<
>
> Maybe because NOVEMBER was the CURRENT MONTH and the CURRENT ISSUE of
> a magazine that the FBI checked for Klein's ads.
>
> You're a moron, Robby.
LOL!! With this kind of logic I wonder why EVERY criminal in the
country is not out on technicalities! The claim was LHO allegedly
ordered the rifle in the February 1963 "Amerian Rifleman" magazine,
thus the ad FROM THAT MAGAZINE WAS WHAT WAS NEEDED!
YOUR reasoning is the most ridiculous on here besides Walt's! LOL!!
And yet I'm the "moron!" Go figure!
> BTW, I'm pretty sure that today isn't the first time that Gary Mack's
> research regarding the 40-inch rifles has been mentioned here at the
> asylum (newsgroups). I recall this exact same thing coming up in the
> past, with Gary Mack (yet again) supplying the exact same useful
> information concerning the post-February Klein's advertisements.
Gary Mack is full of excuses and speculation like YOU are.
> Naturally, all CT-kooks ignored Gary Mack back then....and they'll
> ignore him today too.
Who is ignoring him? That is the whole point to your reply above as I
did respond to his speculation! Why must you lie all the time Von
Pein?
> Retards all.
I'm glad you said it as I wouldn't call you and him that!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 17, 10:26 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 11:09 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > FROM THE EDU. FORUM:
>
> > >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=135&p=...
>
> > > Gary Mack didn't ask me to post his e-mail, Dean [Hagerman]. I did it
> > > on my own.
>
> > > And, of course, whatever you do, Dean, make sure you COMPLETELY IGNORE
> > > Gary's valuable input on the "40-inch vs. 36-inch" Carcano topic. It's
> > > always best if CTers ignore this evidence about the Klein's ads, so
> > > that they can continue to pretend that Oswald couldn't possibly in a
> > > million years have been sent a 40-inch Carcano from Klein's in late
> > > March of 1963:
>
> > > "I looked up the Klein's ads for 1963 and found that the next
> > > issue after February 1963 and all the issues afterward showed the 40"
> > > rifle.
>
> > Showing and having in stock are TWO DIFFERENT things!
>
> Hey, You Mule Head..... You've been shown repeatedly that Klein's
> had the 7.5 lb, 40 inch long, Model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano, Short
> Rifle, in stock at the time that AJ Hidell placed an order for one.
> If they didn't have any, as you believe,..... HOW did they take a
> photo of one to use in their ad???
I have been?? When?? Well, you can put a link to where you showed me
this then, right?
My guess is he won't ever do this as he is a liar. It's good to see
Walt and Von Pein are still on the SAME SIDE as the CT side does NOT
need liars like these two on it.
>
> Can you or Gary
>
>
>
> > show they had a 40" model in stock in March 1963 to ship by "accident"
> > to LHO?
>
> > > I don't have my notes here at the house, so the April 1963
> > > issue, which would have mailed in mid-March so the ad had to have been
> > > changed prior to that, may be the first with the 40" weapon.
>
> > Other people's evidence shows the first mentioning in print of a 40"
> > model did NOT occur until much later in the year! IF what Gary says
> > is true why did the WC use a November 1963 ad then?
>
> > > So that
> > > is exactly what must have happened.
>
> > So Gary's SPECULATION is evidence, huh Dave?
>
> > > Klein's ran out of 36" rifles very
> > > quickly and substituted the longer weapon.
>
> > LOL!! NO company does this! They would have charged him for the
> > difference NOT just send him a more expensive model!
>
> > > They may have notified
> > > customers ahead of time, but there's no record of that happening." --
> > > Gary Mack; 8/17/10
>
> > Of course not! Just more speculation. Too bad for you folks you have
> > NO evidence to support your speculation, huh?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Does anyone else see an ALL OF A SUDDEN improvement in grammer in this
post by Walt? Hmm. The Walt I am used to makes a lot of mistakes but
this one is pristine of mistakes save for the word "hindrance" as he
added an extra e and the word Mannlicher as he left the h out.
The use of the word "inane" is very unsual too! Hmm.
mucher1
> On Aug 18, 8:57 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Commission Exhibit 2562 ( 25 H 807 ) confirms that the rifle that was
> > shipped to "A. Hidell" bore item number C20-T750, which was th 36"
> > rifle.
>
> > Left page:
>
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol...
>
> Highlighted:
>
> http://i35.tinypic.com/103xslx.jpg
>
> The FBI said the same thing I've been saying: that the manifest
> indicates that the rifle shipped was item # C20-T750 and NOT item #
> C20-750.
>
> http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
Do you always need the FBI to do your reading for you?
> Now if any of you Warren Commission apologists and nutcases wanna
> produce documentation that the rifle shipped to box 2915 was item
> C20-750, go right ahead.
>
> Otherwise, I'll get the tissue and let's let the crying commence.
Why? No one is disputing that the catalog number printed on the "Order
Blank" (or shipping manifest as you prefer to call it) is C20-T750.
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
That "proves" no such thing! The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it. End of story!
Blaming me for your TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE is not going to win any
points for you either!
curtjester1
wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
Walt, Ben, or DVP?
CJ
David Von Pein
The rifle that was sent by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell (#C2766) is the
exact same rifle that was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it
on Nov. 22.
To all reasonable people, this is the "link" that shows Oswald
received and possessed that exact rifle (#C2766).
To a retard named Rob, however, the word "reasonable" isn't part of
his vocabulary.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Aug 18, 2:10=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his=
> P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>>
>> I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
>> evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
>> Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>>
>> It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>>
>> http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
>That "proves" no such thing!
"Evidence" doesn't have to "prove" anything.
It's pretty embarrassing when a slimy troll like DVP can force you into telling
lies.
>The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
>or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>
>YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
>was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it. End of story!
>
>Blaming me for your TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE is not going to win any
>points for you either!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
aeffects
> In article <d801f9e4-aa78-48e6-91dd-0b9e728f3...@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Aug 18, 2:10=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his=
> > P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> >> I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> >> evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> >> Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> >> It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> >>http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> >That "proves" no such thing!
>
> "Evidence" doesn't have to "prove" anything.
>
> It's pretty embarrassing when a slimy troll like DVP can force you into telling
> lies.
greasy is the appropriate term, after all KFC isn't known as true
*Fine Dining*... LMFAO!
Walt
wrote:
> On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> >http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> That "proves" no such thing! The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
> or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>
> YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
> was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it.
If Oswald didn't receive the rifle.....How do you explain the
testimonies of Jeanne and George de Morhenschildt, Marina, and Dennis
Ofstein/ They all reported that they had seen the rifle in Oswald's
possession. Marina even took a photo of lee holding the rifle......
Are you crazy? Only a crazy man would deny that Oswald never receive
the mannlicher Carcano.
Walt
> The rifle that was sent by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell (#C2766) is the
> exact same rifle that was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it
> on Nov. 22.
Hey Von Pea Brain..... Did the FBI find ANY identifiable prints on
that rifle???
aeffects
holy smoke.... non, and I mean **N-O-N-E** of you lone nut lunatics
can dance, much let alone deal with case evidence... It's time for us
to develope a bit of PITY for you lone nut shitheads....
timstter
> On Aug 17, 5:41 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 16, 1:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
>
> > LOL! What PATHETIC evidence, especially when you consider that the
> > rifle shipped to Hidell/Oswald bore the very same serial number as the
> > rifle smothered with Oswald's prints found at the murder scene.
>
> Ya know if you actually looked at the evidence as it really is,
> perhaps you'd start to see the falsity of the Warren report. Open
> your eyes and LOOK at the evidence as presented to the Warren
> Commission by the FBI. THERE WERE NO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS FOUND ON
> THAT RIFLE BY THE FBI!!!
>
>
>
> > Say, Gil, if Oswald NEVER received any rifle, as you seem to claim,
> > why did his wife repeatedly see him with a rifle during 1963?
>
> > Skeptical Regards,
>
> > Tim Brennan
> > Sydney, Australia
> > *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
So what? Scalice found identifiable prints that were developed by the
DPD.
Oswald's prints are on Oswald's rifle, Walt.
timstter
wrote:
> On Aug 17, 6:33 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 8:11 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > CJ:
>
> > > My argument isn't that the paperwork is faked. My argument is that the
> > > paperwork indicates that the rifle "shipped" was catalog # C20-T750
> > > which was the 36" rifle and not # C20-750, the 40" rifle. Idiots who
> > > claim that the "T" in the catalog number was insignificant must also
> > > explain WHY the two different sized rifles were not "lumped" into one
> > > catalog number and instead contained two different ones. There was
> > > definitely enough difference between the two to merit their having
> > > different catalog numbers and on that basis, the catalog number of the
> > > rifle "shipped" indicated that it was NOT the 40" Depository Carcano.
>
> > Er, well then why is Oswald holding the depository Carcano in the
>
> LOL!! Tim is using highly questionable evidence to make his point!
> LOL! By the way Tim, even IF it was LHO in the BY photos, and it was
> not, how does that prove he ORDERED the rifle he is posing with again?
Say, Rob, any chance you will be backing up your claim that it is NOT
Oswald in the back yard photos?
As to your other question, well, in response to his order, Klein's
shipped a rifle to his PO Box, serial # C 2766, and the rifle he is
posing with in the backyard (and was also rash enough to alos sign a
picture of himself holding) was identified as the same rifle that was
carried out of the TSBD with his fingerprints on it and had the very
same serial number, C 2766, as the one shipped to his PO Box, a box
held in his name, fulfilling an order made in known alias of his, A
Hidell.
So you see, Rob, it isn't really very hard to conclude the Oswald
ordered and received the rofle from Kleins. Only an abject cretin
would be positing he never received any rifle. Or a serial
disinformation artist like Jim DiEugenio, leading his supporters,
lemming like, over the nearest credibility cliff.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Walt
When you have to lie in supporting your contention.....you WEAKEN your
argument. And you are lying about Oswald's finger prints being
found on that rifle.
The FBI examined it and they were unable to find any IDENTIFIABLE
prints. You know that this is the truth.....
and had the very
> same serial number, C 2766, as the one shipped to his PO Box, a box
> held in his name, fulfilling an order made in known alias of his, A
> Hidell.
>
> So you see, Rob, it isn't really very hard to conclude the Oswald
> ordered and received the rofle from Kleins. Only an abject cretin
> would be positing he never received any rifle. Or a serial
> disinformation artist like Jim DiEugenio, leading his supporters,
> lemming like, over the nearest credibility cliff.
>
> I hope this clarifies matters.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
Walt
So you're just like Rob Caprio.....Lying through your teeth in an
effort to support a lie.
It you even had the brains of a common garden slug you'd be able to
understand that the FBI examined the rifle within 20 hours of the
shooting..... any prints would have been much more detectable at that
time than any prints detected many years latyer. The FBI found NO
IDENTIFABLE prints on the rifle....Period!!
>
> Oswald's prints are on Oswald's rifle, Walt.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 18, 12:20=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d801f9e4-aa78-48e6-91dd-0b9e728f3...@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 18, 2:10=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at =
>his=3D
>> > P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>>
>> >> I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
>> >> evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
>> >> Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>>
>> >> It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>>
>.
>>
>> >That "proves" no such thing!
>>
>> "Evidence" doesn't have to "prove" anything.
>>
>> It's pretty embarrassing when a slimy troll like DVP can force you
>> into telling lies.
>
>greasy is the appropriate term, after all KFC isn't known as true
>*Fine Dining*... LMFAO!
And ironically enough, I drove past a KFC just a few days ago, and was almost
tempted to go in and see what they have. I've not eaten at a KFC in probably 20
years. (although I eat chicken often - I usually do so at home)
Speaking of chicken, here's a favorite recipe of mine... Take a bag of pork
rinds, run 'em through a blender with a good helping of "Mrs Dash" (I prefer
seasonings with no salt). Take two paper plates, pour some virgin olive oil in
one, and the blended up pork rind/seasoning on the other plate. I use chicken
legs... smother them in the olive oil, then roll 'em in the pork rind/seasoning.
Place in the oven at 350 for one hour. Add some veggies, and there you have it,
a great, non-KFC meal.
Now, undoubtedly, the kook will label this fine recipe as a lie...
curtjester1
> The rifle that was sent by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell (#C2766) is the
> exact same rifle that was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it
> on Nov. 22.
>
Mantra)...Unfortunately you are before the court and must provide
proof for your attempt at evidence. The judge has admonished you to
provide 7 Points of Contention to present your case.
Page 123
possible fingerprints. He applied fingerprint powder to the side of
the metal housing near the trigger, and noticed traces of two prints.
46 At 11:45 p.m. on November 22, the rifle was released to the FBI and
forwarded to Washington where it was examined on the morning of
November 23 by Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the Latent
Fingerprint Section of the FBI's Identification Division.47
In his testimony before the Commission, Latona stated that when he
received the rifle, the area where prints were visible was protected
by cellophane.48 He examined these prints, as well as photographs of
them which the Dallas police had made, and concluded that:
...the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were
insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a
determination that the print was not identical with the prints of
people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints
which were there were of no value.49
Latona then processed the complete weapon but developed no
identifiable prints.50 He stated that the poor quality of the wood and
the metal would cause the rifle to absorb moisture from the skin,
thereby making a clear print unlikely. 51
> To all reasonable people, this is the "link" that shows Oswald
> received and possessed that exact rifle (#C2766).
>
The 'reasonableness' is that not only was that 1) there was no trail
of any evidentiary value 2) quite the contrary, and 3) a flow of
paperwork that was fabricated to support their quest for evidence.
> To a retard named Rob, however, the word "reasonable" isn't part of
> his vocabulary.
To the LNT'er retard and reasonable are their words they use for
evidence, and so far the judge concludes they are retarded in all
reasonableness.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Total doofus. The only people that are heavily suspected of being
either involved in the Conspiracy...DeM's = Dallas Petroleum Club with
Byrd, David Atlee Phillips, Bush, H.L Hunt..etc etc...and one wife who
has had ties in ways to Soviet Intelligence and who had everything to
lose by not going along with the program with deportation facing them,
if not worse.
CJ
curtjester1
> In article <b392cf50-19bd-4615-8a83-5cd480eef...@q22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
that Oswald ordered a 40" rifle (or anyone).?
CJ
> Now, undoubtedly, the kook will label this fine recipe as a lie...
>
> >> >The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
> >> >or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>
> >> >YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
> >> >was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it. End of story!
>
> >> >Blaming me for your TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE is not going to win any
> >> >points for you either!
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
timstter
It might be time for you to brush up on your spelling as well, Dave!
Helpful Regards,
Walt
When you can't reasonably deny the substance of a message....nitpick
at the structure of the merssage.... look for errors in grammer, or
spelling.
>
> Helpful Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
timstter
Grammer? LOL! KUTGW, Walt! :-)
LMFAO Regards,
Walt
How did I know that I'd getta response from you??
>
> LMFAO Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:> On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> > > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> > > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> > > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> > > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> Who's the biggest retard on this rifle issue on this forum, Rob?
> Walt, Ben, or DVP?
>
> CJ
Good question CJ -- I think it is a DEAD HEAT!
P.S. They all get their info from the same place -- THE WC!
LOL!
robcap...@netscape.com
> The rifle that was sent by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell (#C2766) is the
> exact same rifle that was found in the TSBD with Oswald's prints on it
> on Nov. 22.
List the evidence that supports this Dave! Why can't you or anyone
ever do this? IF you could you win a lot of supporters for this
point, but my guess is you can't because the WC never provided any in
1964 for us.
> To all reasonable people, this is the "link" that shows Oswald
> received and possessed that exact rifle (#C2766).
Well "reasonable" has taken on a new context then I guess as anyone
with any logic or thinking ability can look at the available evidence
and see NO link between the alleged murder weapon and LHO.
That is the truth Dave. I am not saying that because LHO has to be
innocent as you claim, but rather because that is what the evidence
shows us.
> To a retard named Rob, however, the word "reasonable" isn't part of
> his vocabulary.
YOUR definition of the word is NOT part of my vocabulary as you
distort the meaning of the word. Reasonable is NOT to claim things
the EVIDENCE PROVIDED DOES NOT SUPPORT! That is lunacy and dishonesty
on YOUR part Dave.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d801f9e4-aa78-48e6-91dd-0b9e728f3...@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >On Aug 18, 2:10=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his=
> > P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> >> I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> >> evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> >> Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> >> It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> >>http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> >That "proves" no such thing!
>
> "Evidence" doesn't have to "prove" anything.
John has reading problems as Dave is the one that USED THE WORD PROVE
first! See this John:
Quote on
I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
Quote off
I was simply responding to HIM, YOUR minion John! Learn to read!
> It's pretty embarrassing when a slimy troll like DVP can force you into telling
> lies.
LOL!! Nice one John! He is slamming his own employee to make us think
he is a CTer! Good one!
LOL!!
There is NO evidence that shows LHO ordered and received the 40"
Carcano in question John and NO matter how many times you lie and
claim there is that won't change the truth!
Is anyone surprised "Ben" sided with DVP?
robcap...@netscape.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> > > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> > > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> > > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> > > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> > >http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> > That "proves" no such thing! The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
> > or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>
> > YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
> > was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it.
>
> If Oswald didn't receive the rifle.....How do you explain the
> testimonies of Jeanne and George de Morhenschildt, Marina, and Dennis
> Ofstein/ They all reported that they had seen the rifle in Oswald's
It is called LYING Walt, you should be familiar with that word.
> Marina even took a photo of lee holding the rifle......
Too bad you have offered NO WC evidence that supported this claim,
huh?
> Are you crazy?
LOL! I think we know you are the crazy one Walt as you play with guns
and build cardboard models!
> Only a crazy man would deny that Oswald never receive
> the mannlicher Carcano.
NICE try liar, but ONLY a lying WC shill like yourself would claim
LHO ordered and received (and posed) with a 40" Carcano!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 18, 12:36 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 6:33 am, timstter <timst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 17, 8:11 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > CJ:
>
> > > > My argument isn't that the paperwork is faked. My argument is that the
> > > > paperwork indicates that the rifle "shipped" was catalog # C20-T750
> > > > which was the 36" rifle and not # C20-750, the 40" rifle. Idiots who
> > > > claim that the "T" in the catalog number was insignificant must also
> > > > explain WHY the two different sized rifles were not "lumped" into one
> > > > catalog number and instead contained two different ones. There was
> > > > definitely enough difference between the two to merit their having
> > > > different catalog numbers and on that basis, the catalog number of the
> > > > rifle "shipped" indicated that it was NOT the 40" Depository Carcano.
>
> > > Er, well then why is Oswald holding the depository Carcano in the
> > > backyard photos then, Verm ol' fella?
>
> > LOL!! Tim is using highly questionable evidence to make his point!
> > LOL! By the way Tim, even IF it was LHO in the BY photos, and it was
> > not, how does that prove he ORDERED the rifle he is posing with again?
>
> Say, Rob, any chance you will be backing up your claim that it is NOT
> Oswald in the back yard photos?
Already have, but let's do it again, okay?
Let's start with the chin Tim. Explain the square chin for us.
The junk the HSCA gave us (a waterspot) is NOT the truth, so maybe you
can come up with something more valid.
> As to your other question, well, in response to his order, Klein's
> shipped a rifle to his PO Box, serial # C 2766,
Yet all the WC evidence presented is for a 36" Carbine Tim! How do
you explain this?
> and the rifle he is
> posing with in the backyard (and was also rash enough to alos sign a
> picture of himself holding) was identified as the same rifle that was
> carried out of the TSBD with his fingerprints on it and had the very
> same serial number, C 2766, as the one shipped to his PO Box, a box
> held in his name, fulfilling an order made in known alias of his, A
> Hidell.
First of all, you need to show he received ANY rifle at this P.O.
Box. Secondly, you need to show the BY photos are genuine and as far
as I can tell YOU can't do this Tim.
Thirdly, you need to show us that the rifle in the BY photos and the
rifle in the TSBD are the same rifle!
Fourthly, you need to show us that the rifle in the BY photos was the
rifle LHO ordered and received.
Finally, you need to show us how posing with a rifle, IF he did (and
he didn't according to the evidence), EQUATES WITH SHOOTING THE
PRESIDENT!
> So you see, Rob, it isn't really very hard to conclude the Oswald
> ordered and received the rofle from Kleins.
LOL!! Don't you love how these guys all skip the evidence? They never
cite it because it hangs them so they leap to the conclusion they want
to reach!
> Only an abject cretin
> would be positing he never received any rifle.
So the fact there is NO evidence showing us he did receive a rifle is
irrelevant to you?
> Or a serial
> disinformation artist like Jim DiEugenio, leading his supporters,
> lemming like, over the nearest credibility cliff.
>
> I hope this clarifies matters.
I have beleived this fact long before I ever heard of Jim DiEugenio
with all due respect as I began studying this case in 1988. Jim does
great work, but unlike you led around by the nose LNers I don't need
others to think for me.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Aug 18, 2:25 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 2:12 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:> On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his
>>P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>>
>> > > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
>> > > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
>> > > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>>
>> > > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>>
>> Who's the biggest retard on this rifle issue on this forum, Rob?
>> Walt, Ben, or DVP?
>>
>> CJ
>
>Good question CJ -- I think it is a DEAD HEAT!
>
>P.S. They all get their info from the same place -- THE WC!
>
>LOL!
Of course, I've challenged this kook before on such an inane comment. *MOST* of
the evidence in this case comes from the volumes compiled by the WC.
So the kook gets *HIS* information from the same place.
That makes him a hypocrite.
>> > >http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>>
>> > That "proves" no such thing! The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
>> > or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>>
>> > YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
>> > was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it. End of story!
>>
>> > Blaming me for your TOTAL LACK OF EVIDENCE is not going to win any
>> > points for you either!
>
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Aug 18, 3:20=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d801f9e4-aa78-48e6-91dd-0b9e728f3...@p7g2000yqa.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Aug 18, 2:10=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at =
>his=3D
>> > P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>>
>> >> I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
>> >> evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
>> >> Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>>
>> >> It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>>
>.
>>
>> >That "proves" no such thing!
>>
>> "Evidence" doesn't have to "prove" anything.
>
>John has reading problems as Dave is the one that USED THE WORD PROVE
>first! See this John:
>
>Quote on
>
>I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
>evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
>Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
>Quote off
>
>I was simply responding to HIM, YOUR minion John! Learn to read!
Then all you have to do, stupid, is state for the record that "Evidence isn't
required to 'prove' anything in order to be evidence".
But you can't do it.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Aug 18, 3:47=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 18, 1:12=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 18, 2:10=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at=
> his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>>
>> > > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
>> > > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
>> > > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>>
>> > > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>>
>..
>>
>> > That "proves" no such thing! =A0The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
>> > or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>>
>> > YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
>> > was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it.
>>
>> If Oswald didn't receive the rifle.....How do you explain the
>> testimonies of Jeanne and George de Morhenschildt, Marina, and Dennis
>> Ofstein/ They all reported that they had seen the rifle in Oswald's
>> possession. \
>
>It is called LYING Walt, you should be familiar with that word.
>
>
>Too bad you have offered NO WC evidence that supported this claim,
>huh?
Testimony taken under oath is, by very definition, "evidence".
>> Are you crazy? =A0
>
>LOL! I think we know you are the crazy one Walt as you play with guns
>and build cardboard models!
>
>> Only a crazy man would deny that Oswald never receive
>> the mannlicher Carcano.
>
>NICE try liar, but ONLY a lying WC shill like yourself would claim
>LHO ordered and received (and posed) with a 40" Carcano!
timstter
So? I'm talking about prints the DPD found that Vincent Scalice later
determined were Oswald's. Ya gotta keep up, Walt. Look at ALL the
sources of evidence; not go and hide behind the WC when it suits your
purpose.
QUOTE ON:
Mr. SCALICE: There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
it.
QUOTE OFF
Helpful Regards,
Walt
Duh.....Ya gotta keep up ... The DPD gave those PARTIAL PRINTS to the
FBI along with the other evidence at midnight. FBI examined those
PARTIAL PRINTS and said they were useless for identification
purposes. When you have to lie to attempt to support your
argument , you WEAKEN your case. ( and you didn't have a very strong
case to begin with)
Ya gotta keep up, Walt. Look at ALL the
> sources of evidence; not go and hide behind the WC when it suits your
> purpose.
>
> QUOTE ON:
>
> Mr. SCALICE: There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
> began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
> them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
> exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
> photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
> found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
> was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
> another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
> contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
> of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
> breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
> time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
> Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
> it.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> Helpful Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
Walt
wrote:
> On Aug 18, 3:47 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 1:12 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> > > > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> > > > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> > > > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> > > > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> > > >http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> > > That "proves" no such thing! The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
> > > or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>
> > > YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
> > > was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it.
>
> > If Oswald didn't receive the rifle.....How do you explain the
> > testimonies of Jeanne and George de Morhenschildt, Marina, and Dennis
> > Ofstein/ They all reported that they had seen the rifle in Oswald's
> > possession. \
>
> It is called LYING Walt, you should be familiar with that word.
So, In your opinion EVERYBODY lied..... All of the Klein employees,
Marina, Jeanne and George De M, Dennis Ofstein....The Kleins sales/
shipping form is a fake, The backyard photo is a fake, All of the
Warren commissioners were liars..... It seems to me that if you
really believe this stuff....You should be in a mental ward.
>
> > Marina even took a photo of lee holding the rifle......
>
> Too bad you have offered NO WC evidence that supported this claim,
> huh?
>
> > Are you crazy?
>
> LOL! I think we know you are the crazy one Walt as you play with guns
> and build cardboard models!
>
> > Only a crazy man would deny that Oswald never receive
> > the mannlicher Carcano.
>
> NICE try liar, but ONLY a lying WC shill like yourself would claim
> LHO ordered and received (and posed) with a 40" Carcano!- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Aug 19, 12:09 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 3:47 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 18, 1:12 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 18, 2:10 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> "Dave, you have NO evidence a 40" Carcano was ever sent to LHO at his P.O. Box in Dallas." <<<
>
> > > > > I've only provided that evidence about 100 times before today. That
> > > > > evidence being: Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which PROVES that a FORTY-INCH
> > > > > Carcano (#C2766) was shipped to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas.
>
> > > > > It's not my fault you're retarded, Rob.
>
> > > > >http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS...
>
> > > > That "proves" no such thing! The LACK OF EVIDENCE showing any rifle
> > > > or package came to LHO's box is the PROOF we need!
>
> > > > YOU can't list one piece of evidence that shows a rifle/long package
> > > > was delivered to LHO's box and that he received it.
>
> > > If Oswald didn't receive the rifle.....How do you explain the
> > > testimonies of Jeanne and George de Morhenschildt, Marina, and Dennis
> > > Ofstein/ They all reported that they had seen the rifle in Oswald's
> > > possession. \
>
> > It is called LYING Walt, you should be familiar with that word.
>
> So, In your opinion EVERYBODY lied..... All of the Klein employees,
Walt is a master at putting words into other people's mouths! Who
ever said ALL Klein's employees were involved in this Walt? I know I
did NOT, so why are inferring that is what I said?
> Marina,
Marina did lie and even the WC admitted this!
> Jeanne and George De M,
Again, I don't remember discussing Jeanne with you! As for George, IF
you bothered to ever read his testimony you would know he said HE
NEVER SAW THE RIFLE but rather heard about it second-hand from his
wife who saw it in the closet!
How do you know what she saw Walt?
> Dennis Ofstein....The Kleins sales/
> shipping form is a fake,
More words inserted into my mouth -- you should be glad I am not sick
like your boss or you would be paying for it now!
I have said the form DOES NOT SHOW WHAT YOU CLAIM (AND THE WC BY THE
WAY) IT SHOWS! That is not the same as saying it is fake!
When you have to lie about what others say Walt you lose all
credibility! But cheer up, YOU had NONE anyway!
> The backyard photo is a fake,
All of them are fake and there are 20 reasons why!
> All of the
> Warren commissioners were liars.....
Never said that, in fact, there is much in the WC's volumes and
Executive Sessions that show they knew much of what they were saying
was false. In fact, over time I believe 4 of them would say there was
a conspiracy!
YOU seem to be once again on the LN side here Walt, I wonder why? LOL!
> It seems to me that if you
> really believe this stuff....You should be in a mental ward.
I wish John would put you on a long rest as you are one of the more
dumb assests he has!
timstter
Because I was replying to a message from you that you presumably put
up seeking a response?
timstter
Huh? Well it's simply a difference of opinion between the FBI expert
and Scalice then, isn't it, Walt? The same DPD materials are being
examined.
BTW, why would it be at all surprising to you that Oswald's
fingerprints were found on his rifle when you say he is holding it in
CE 133A?
Walt
I've said it many times....But I'll say it again because you are
rather slow.......IF IF the rifle that was found CAREFULLY HIDDEN by
burying it beneath boxes of books was in fact the same rifle that
Kleins sent to Oswald's PO Box and Oswald actually handled that rifle
then it is possible that his finger prints would be ALL OVER that
rifle. HOWEVER.....I don't believe the TSBD rifle is in fact the same
rifle that was sent to Oswald's PO Box. It's rather strange that
IF Oswald was the owner of that rifle that there were NO IDENTIFIABLE
prints found on that rifle.
But the argument is irrelevant ....because the TSBD rifle was never
fired that day....It was HIDDEN beneath boxes of books at the time of
the shooting.
Gil Jesus
> http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it
shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office
Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number
VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a
total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this
number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog
number.
Now was C20-T750 the catalog number of the 36" rifle, or the 40"
rifle ?
http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
Mr. WALDMAN. The number C20-T749 describes a rifle only, whereas the
catalog No. C20-T750 describes the Italian carbine rifle with a four-
power scope, which is sold as a package unit.
Does anyone see the catalog # C20-T749 in any of these ads ?
Walt
The stock numbers are irrelevant ...... Anybody with a ounce of
common sense can understand what Mr. Waldman meant. What Waldman
meant was; Kleins offered the SAME rifle for sale as two different
items. They offered the rifle only ( w/o scope) for $12.88.... and
they offered the very same rifle equipped with a scope for $19.95.
The illustration accompanying the ad shows a 40 inch long Mannlicher
Carcano rifle.
robcap...@netscape.com
Don't you love how LNers like Walt have to use "common sense" all the
time INSTEAD of evidence?
He has NONE for his claims so he just gives us his "common sense"!
Walt
wrote:
Who are you talking to?.... Do you think that you have a huge fan
club that agrees with everything you write?? psssst Rob ....I doubt
that there are more than three (including your mother) people who take
you seriously..... Almost everybody knows that you're a real
screwball.
>
> He has NONE for his claims so he just gives us his "common sense"!- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
You have me confused with you Walt as you believe folks are hanging on
to your every word. Hopefully they are paying attention to all of YOUR
lies.
> psssst Rob ....I doubt
> that there are more than three (including your mother) people who take
> you seriously..... Almost everybody knows that you're a real
> screwball.
Considering the vast majority of the people on here are working for
John I will take that as a compliment! Thanks!
Walt
Hey asshole..... You obviously want others to believe that you are the
greatest .......What other reason would you have for giving yourself
five stars on every post? What a gargantuan egotistical liar you
are.....
>
> > psssst Rob ....I doubt
> > that there are more than three (including your mother) people who take
> > you seriously..... Almost everybody knows that you're a real
> > screwball.
>
> Considering the vast majority of the people on here are working for
> John I will take that as a compliment! Thanks!- Hide quoted text -
timstter
No but you've hardly supplied a comprehensive link to the gun ads,
have you?
Let's face it. This place was a mail order gun disposal place. Do you
REALLY believe that their ads are going to be 100% correct when
they're cranking out rifle-and-scope kits for $21.45? LOL! It's a
budget operation, Gil. Only a complete crackpot is going to be basing
their entire theory on what is or isn't in the Klein's ads.
robcap...@netscape.com
MORE words put into my mouth by this pathological liar...can he quote
me saying this?
> What other reason would you have for giving yourself
> five stars on every post? What a gargantuan egotistical liar you
> are.....
I do that so I am NOT only getting one star by all the LNers like
you! Funny, DVP and the other LNers had an issue with this too! LOL!
Thanks for once again proving for us what you are!
Walt
Recently a petty politician was taken to court for claiming he was a
Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, when in reality he'd never
even served in the military. The judge ruled that it wasn't illegal
for him to claim the nations highest award even though it hadn't been
awarded to him. ( screwball judge) Illegal or not.... it's simply
disgusting that a coward who never even served would aggrandize
himself by claiming to deserve the same honors that true heroes are
awarded by OTHERS who recognize that they deserve to be recognized and
honored for their valor.
You Craprio are in the same disgusting group..... Nobody would ever
award you five stars, so you award yourself five stars. On the
second thought.... you do deserve five stars for one aspect of your
character.... You are a five star LIAR.
>
> Thanks for once again proving for us what you are!- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Seems like I hit a sore spot for OLD Walt, huh? LOL!!
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Aug 23, 10:27=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 12:31=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 22, 10:20=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 21, 2:27=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 21, 12:13=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape=
>.com>
>> > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Aug 21, 10:10=A0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Aug 21, 7:55=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Aug 15, 11:25=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > >http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
>>
>tate who it
>> > > > > > > shows this particular rifle was shipped
>>
> Office
>> > > > > > > Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
>>
>er?
>>
>> > > > > > > Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control=
> number
>> > > > > > > VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
>>
>> > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
>>
>, or a
>> > > > > > > total of $21.45.
>>
> is this
>> > > > > > > number?
>>
>> > > > > > > Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a c=
>atalog
>> > > > > > > number.
>>
>> > > > > > > Now was C20-T750 the catalog number of the 36" rifle, or the =>> > > > > > > Mr. WALDMAN. =A0The number C20-T749 describes a rifle only, w=
>hereas the
>> > > > > > > catalog No. C20-T750 describes the Italian carbine rifle with=
> a four-
>> > > > > > > power scope, which is sold as a package unit.
>>
>> > > > > > > Does anyone see the catalog # C20-T749 in any of these ads ?
>>
>e of
>> > > > > > common sense can understand what Mr. Waldman meant. =A0 What Wa=
>ldman
>> > > > > > meant was; Kleins offered the SAME rifle for sale as two differ=
>ent
>> > > > > > items. =A0They offered the rifle only ( w/o scope) for $12.88..=
>.. =A0 and
>> > > > > > they offered the very same rifle equipped with a scope for $19.=
>95.
>> > > > > > The illustration accompanying the ad shows a 40 inch long Mannl=
>icher
>> > > > > > Carcano rifle.
>>
>> > > > > Don't you love how LNers like Walt have to use "common sense" all=
> the
>> > > > > time INSTEAD of evidence?
>>
>n
>> > > > club that agrees with everything you write??
>>
>n
>> > > to your every word. Hopefully they are paying attention to all of YOU=
>R
>> > > lies.
>>
>> > Hey asshole..... You obviously want others to believe that you are the
>> > greatest .......
>>
>> MORE words put into my mouth by this pathological liar...can he quote
>> me saying this?
>>
>> > What other reason would you have for giving yourself
>> > are.....
>>
>> I do that so I am NOT only getting one star by all the LNers like
>!
>
>Recently a petty politician was taken to court for claiming he was a
>Congressional Medal of Honor recipient,
I actually met one onetime. I was at Camp Pendleton, and I'd gone to the MP's
shack in the 2400 area to install a phone, and there was a Gunny, in his Charlie
uniform, with that little blue & white star ribbon... I just about came to
attention... (I think I was probably a Corporal at the time). My SgtMaj told me
the story, he'd won it in Vietnam, but it's been too many years - and I don't
recall the circumstances now...
But it made an impact on me, actually meeting someone who won the Medal of
Honor, and lived to continue to serve...
I think it's disgusting when someone claims such honor untruthfully.
>when in reality he'd never
>even served in the military. The judge ruled that it wasn't illegal
>for him to claim the nations highest award even though it hadn't been
>awarded to him. ( screwball judge) Illegal or not.... it's simply
>disgusting that a coward who never even served would aggrandize
>himself by claiming to deserve the same honors that true heroes are
>awarded by OTHERS who recognize that they deserve to be recognized and
>honored for their valor.
>
>You Craprio are in the same disgusting group..... Nobody would ever
>award you five stars, so you award yourself five stars. On the
>second thought.... you do deserve five stars for one aspect of your
>character.... You are a five star LIAR.
>
>
>
>>
>> Thanks for once again proving for us what you are!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Walt
> In article <1b36a2e8-63cb-4331-bb72-c9a090017...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
The lowlife who would fraudulently claim to be a Medal of Honor
recipient is the same type of lowlife who would award himself five
stars with every post.
>
>
>
>
>
> >when in reality he'd never
> >even served in the military. The judge ruled that it wasn't illegal
> >for him to claim the nations highest award even though it hadn't been
> >awarded to him. ( screwball judge) Illegal or not.... it's simply
> >disgusting that a coward who never even served would aggrandize
> >himself by claiming to deserve the same honors that true heroes are
> >awarded by OTHERS who recognize that they deserve to be recognized and
> >honored for their valor.
>
> >You Craprio are in the same disgusting group..... Nobody would ever
> >award you five stars, so you award yourself five stars. On the
> >second thought.... you do deserve five stars for one aspect of your
> >character.... You are a five star LIAR.
>
> >> Thanks for once again proving for us what you are!- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Aug 23, 4:46=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1b36a2e8-63cb-4331-bb72-c9a090017...@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On Aug 23, 10:27=3DA0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Aug 22, 12:31=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Aug 22, 10:20=3DA0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscap=
>e.com=3D
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Aug 21, 2:27=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Aug 21, 12:13=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@net=
>scape=3D
>> >.com>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Aug 21, 10:10=3DA0am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wro=
>te:
>>
>> >> > > > > > On Aug 21, 7:55=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > On Aug 15, 11:25=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > >http://i34.tinypic.com/24kz0qe.jpg
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. =3DA0And on the microfilm record, would you ple=
>ase s=3D
>> >tate who it
>> >> > > > > > > shows this particular rifle was shipped
>>
>ost=3D
>> > Office
>> >> > > > > > > Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
>>
>umb=3D
>> >er?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our cont=
>rol=3D
>> > number
>> >> > > > > > > VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
>>
>ing=3D
>> >, or a
>> >> > > > > > > total of $21.45.
>>
> What=3D
>> > is this
>> >> > > > > > > number?
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is =
>a c=3D
>> >atalog
>> >> > > > > > > number.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Now was C20-T750 the catalog number of the 36" rifle, or t=
>he =3D>> >> > > > > > > Mr. WALDMAN. =3DA0The number C20-T749 describes a rifle on=
>ly, w=3D
>> >hereas the
>> >> > > > > > > catalog No. C20-T750 describes the Italian carbine rifle w=
>ith=3D
>> > a four-
>> >> > > > > > > power scope, which is sold as a package unit.
>>
> ?
>>
>> >> > > > > > The stock numbers are irrelevant ...... =3DA0 Anybody with a=
> ounc=3D
>> >e of
>> >> > > > > > common sense can understand what Mr. Waldman meant. =3DA0 Wh=
>at Wa=3D
>> >ldman
>> >> > > > > > meant was; Kleins offered the SAME rifle for sale as two dif=
>fer=3D
>> >ent
>> >> > > > > > items. =3DA0They offered the rifle only ( w/o scope) for $12=
>.88..=3D
>> >.. =3DA0 and
>> >> > > > > > they offered the very same rifle equipped with a scope for $=
>19.=3D
>> >95.
>> >> > > > > > The illustration accompanying the ad shows a 40 inch long Ma=
>nnl=3D
>> >icher
>> >> > > > > > Carcano rifle.
>>
>> >> > > > > Don't you love how LNers like Walt have to use "common sense" =
>all=3D
>> > the
>> >> > > > > time INSTEAD of evidence?
>>
>ge fa=3D
>> >n
>> >> > > > club that agrees with everything you write??
>>
>g o=3D
>> >n
>> >> > > to your every word. Hopefully they are paying attention to all of =
>YOU=3D
>> >R
>> >> > > lies.
>>
>> >> > Hey asshole..... You obviously want others to believe that you are t=
>he
>> >> > greatest .......
>>
>> >> MORE words put into my mouth by this pathological liar...can he quote
>> >> me saying this?
>>
>> >> > What other reason would you have for giving yourself
>u
>> >> > are.....
>>
>> >> I do that so I am NOT only getting one star by all the LNers like
>=3DA0LOL=3D
>> >!
>>
>> >Recently a petty politician was taken to court for claiming he was a
>> >Congressional Medal of Honor recipient,
>>
>MP's
>> shack in the 2400 area to install a phone, and there was a Gunny, in his =
>Charlie
>> uniform, with that little blue & white star ribbon... I just about came t=
>o
>> attention... (I think I was probably a Corporal at the time). My SgtMaj t=
>old me
>> the story, he'd won it in Vietnam, but it's been too many years - and I d=
>on't
>> recall the circumstances now...
>>
>f
>> Honor, and lived to continue to serve...
>>
>> I think it's disgusting when someone claims such honor untruthfully.
>
>The lowlife who would fraudulently claim to be a Medal of Honor
>recipient is the same type of lowlife who would award himself five
>stars with every post.
Or claimed to have served in the military, but refuse to provide even so much as
the branch of service, or any details that can be verified.
>> >when in reality he'd never
>> >even served in the military. =A0The judge ruled that it wasn't illegal
>> >for him to claim the nations highest award even though it hadn't been
>> >awarded to him. ( screwball judge) =A0Illegal or not.... it's simply
>> >disgusting that a coward who never even served would aggrandize
>> >himself by claiming to deserve the same honors that true heroes are
>> >awarded by OTHERS who recognize that they deserve to be recognized and
>> >honored for their valor.
>>
>> >You Craprio are in the same disgusting group..... Nobody would ever
>> >award you five stars, so you award yourself five stars. =A0 On the
>> >second thought.... you do deserve five stars for one aspect of your
>> >character.... =A0 You are a five star LIAR.
>>
>> >> Thanks for once again proving for us what you are!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quo=
>ted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
aeffects
son, as fucking dumb as you are you can't get under anyones skin
around here.... YOU are pitied, douche-bag! But, you keep coming back
troll... we need you representing the best of lone nutter(ISM)....
ROTFLMFAO! ! ! ! !