RIFLE NUMBER "C2766"
David Von Pein
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
I've taken a look at James DiEugenio's lengthy review of Vincent
Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book, "Reclaiming History". And although I
completely disagree with almost everything Jim has written in his
review, I must say that I did enjoy reading it.
DiEugenio is 100% wrong about a whole bunch of conclusions he has
reached with respect to the way John Kennedy died in 1963. There can
be no doubt about that fact.
Jim, possibly, could best be categorized as a "hair-splitter". And
then, to borrow a phrase from my favorite of all authors (Mr.
Bugliosi, of course), after Jim has split each hair, he then proceeds
to "split the split hairs", until the end result is a great-big mess
of unanswerable questions and totally-incoherent plots and reasoning.
(IMHO, that is.)
And here's just one of several examples of this (again, IMO, that is):
In his critique of Vince Bugliosi's book, Mr. DiEugenio seems to imply
that many, many different Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles (like
Lee Harvey Oswald's) were manufactured with the exact same serial
number (C2766)....which, according to Robert Frazier of the FBI (via
his Warren Commission testimony) is not the case at all.*
* = And by way of footnote, when ordinary common sense is applied to
this topic (i.e., the main REASON for "serial numbers" to be stamped
on rifles--or ANY piece of merchandise for that matter) it seems
fairly obvious to me that Frazier would be correct when it comes to
the fact that Oswald's "C2766" MC 91/38 rifle was the ONLY weapon of
that exact TYPE and MODEL to have been stamped at ANY factory with
that unique serial number.
Because, isn't the #1 reason to put specific serial numbers on
products this one: So that the product in question has its own UNIQUE
identifying mark on it for later easy tracing and/or identification?
If that's not the main reason for all of the long serial numbers I see
on a lot of products I own...then what is the #1 reason to have serial
numbers on these things? ....
SERIAL NUMBER (Merriam-Webster definition) -- "A number indicating
place in a series and used as a means of identification."
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serial%20number
SERIAL NUMBER (Wikipedia) -- "...A unique number assigned for
identification which varies from its successor or predecessor by a
fixed discrete integer value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_number
But, let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several
different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of
"C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence
in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one:
So what?
Since we know beyond every speck of a doubt that the major pieces of
bullet evidence in the JFK case (CE399, CE567, CE569, and the three
shells found under the Depository's 6th-Floor window) can be
irrevocably tied and linked to CE139 (i.e., the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle that is in evidence in this case with serial number C2766 on it,
and with Oswald's prints on it, to boot), what difference does it
really make if OTHER rifles of the same make and model also sported
the exact same serial number?
Do the conspiracy theorists who like to occasionally bring up this
argument about possible "other rifles with the same serial number"
somehow think that any of those OTHER rifles bearing a "C2766"
identifier (which, btw, nobody has ever produced, at least as far as I
know) would have had the EXACT SAME RIFLING/STRIATION MARKS that the
barrel of CE139 possesses?
It's really a huge non-issue in the first place.
Also:
The theorists who think there might be something "conspiratorial" or
"shady" connected with the issue of the Carcano serial numbers have a
pretty big "How Did They Do This, And When?" hurdle to climb (it seems
to me) when it comes to the detailed documentation of the "C2766"
rifle that was shipped by Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago to "A.
Hidell" of "P.O. Box 2915; Dallas, Texas" on March 20, 1963.
Do some CTers actually think that Klein's shipped a DIFFERENT rifle
with the serial number "C2766" to "Hidell"/Oswald?
In other words, via this make-believe "conspiratorial" episode I'm
concocting here just for the sake of concocting it, Klein's would have
shipped a rifle with the number C2766 on it to Oswald in March 1963
(which we know they did, via the internal Klein's document linked
below), but the rifle that ended up in evidence in the JFK murder case
(CE139) is a DIFFERENT rifle from the one that Klein's mailed to
Hidell/LHO....but they both JUST HAPPENED to have the exact same
serial number on them.
Because, lacking the above type of "coincidental" scenario, where can
the CTers take this type of argument at all? I guess they'd have to
believe that Klein's was "in" on a cover-up involving the rifle too.
And, apparently, the document shown below (Waldman Exhibit No. 7) is a
total "fake" of some kind, with the "C2766" that appears on this
document being written in after the assassination, in trying to link
the weapon to Oswald:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
But when we get back into the world of "Reality" and "Common Sense",
it's fairly obvious (even to a half-blind individual) that CE139 is,
indeed, the very same "C2766" rifle that Klein's mailed to Lee Harvey
Oswald's post-office box in March of '63.
To believe otherwise is to dive into the bottomless pit of conspiracy-
oriented absurdity....a pit that has been dug by the conspiracy
theorists themselves.
===============================================
Jim DiEugenio discusses Bugliosi's book on "Black Op Radio":
www.blackopradio.com/black389a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black389b.ram
Related links:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d85fa965035f8722
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
===============================================
Gil Jesus
"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number
C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four power telescope
exactly like Oswald's."
John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln (New York:Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, 1980)
pg.250.
Von Pein knows this because this is a book that Von Pein reviewed ar
amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q?ASIN=0151522812
So again, he is caught misleading the readers.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8d7b0a93-3458-47da...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7134b41e-0404-49dd...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Gil The Kook, as usual, wants to misrepresent stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
If Lattimer makes "mistakes" about his own pposessions, just imagine how
many mistakes he makes
about a subject he knows Nothing about! ! ! (JFK Assassination)
Lattimer's a "Pisser" ain't he! ! ! >>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Lattimer's a "Pisser"!!!
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b2b09068-71b5-4b50...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gil The Kook, as usual, wants to misrepresent stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
>
>
> Excerpt from above message:
>
>
> "As I said before, Lattimer's "C2766" remark was obviously an
> error....because (as I shall provide below) Lattimer tells us MULTIPLE
> times elsewhere in his book "Kennedy And Lincoln" that he was NOT
> using Oswald's exact rifle. Heck, even the very page cited by Tom R.
> (Page 250) contains info that contradicts Tom's "C2766" claims.....
>
> ...Exactly like Oswald's. This {scope} was mounted exactly as on
> the rifle from the same lot (Warren Commission Exhibit 139) that was
> demonstrated unequivocally by the Warren Commission to have been used
> to fire both of the bullets..." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 250 of
> "Kennedy And
> Lincoln" (c.1980)
>
> The overall language used on the VERY PAGE TOM R. SAYS PROVES
> LATTIMER IS A LIAR shows a reasonable person that Mr. Lattimer was
> merely in error re. his one "C2766" remark.
>
> And when coupled with the following FOUR additional rifle
> references scattered throughout Lattimer's K&L publication, it's quite
> clear that Lattimer wasn't using Oswald's exact rifle.....
>
> "I used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine of the same model as
> that used by Oswald (model 91-38)..." -- JKL; Page 232
>
> "I had examined Oswald's rifle at the National Archives..." --
> JKL; Page 292
>
> "We had procured four rifles of exactly the same type used by
> Oswald. .... We then selected, from our four sample rifles, the one
> that most closely resembled his {Oswald's}, in both condition and ease
> of operation, for use in our firing tests." -- JKL; Page 295
>
> Although we had to be content with four rifles of the same model
> as used by Oswald, the FBI used his actual rifle, and always with the
> same results: none of the bullets ever tumbled {unless they struck
> something else prior to striking a simulated Connally target}." --
> JKL; Pages 271 &
> 276
David Von Pein
Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
stuff.
Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
Footnote --- The 2006 post above was written mainly in response to Tom
Rossley's idiotic claim made on his ridiculous "Who Killed JFK?"
website, wherein he says this:
"He [Dr. John K. Lattimer] claims that he owns the same rifle
[CE139]. REPEAT..."THE SAME RIFLE"."
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Excerpt from my 2006 message re. "C2766":
================
Additional Footnote --- Mr. DiEugenio, in his review of Bugliosi's
book, uses CE2562 (an April 1964 letter from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee
Rankin concerning rifles that had very similar, but not IDENTICAL,
serial numbers) as partial defense of his argument that there were,
indeed, multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles manufactured
with the exact same "C2766" serial number on them.
But CE2562 really doesn't buttress DiEugenio's argument (or anyone's)
at all in this "Same Serial Number" respect. Because in CE2562, as I
just mentioned above and as we can plainly see spelled out by Mr.
Hoover in his correspondence to Rankin of the WC, Hoover makes
reference to two different rifles with DIFFERENT unique numbers on
them -- one with the number "C2766" on it (which was Oswald's), and a
separate reference to a rifle with just the number "2766" on it
(lacking the "C" prefix).
CE2562 goes on to reveal that the same serial "number" might
occasionally be stamped on different Carcano rifles that were
manufactured at different MC plants, but the key is: These duplicate
serial numbers were not really FULL duplicate serial numbers at all,
because some of these so-called duplicates would have a "letter"
prefix in front of the four-digit number, while others would not have
the prefix.
I have yet to see anyone produce an exact duplicate of a Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle that has the exact same FULL serial number
that was stamped on Lee Oswald's rifle ("C2766").
Has anyone ever seen proof that such a second (or third) gun with that
FULL serial number ("C2766") ever existed?
To date, I have certainly not seen such proof. Nor, I doubt, will I
ever see such proof produced.
CE2562:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0415b.htm
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
And, YOU'RE Stuck with it.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ea9a0a6c-893e-4170...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Gil The Kook, as usual, wants to misrepresent stuff.
> them -- one with the number "C2766" on it (which was Oswald's, and a
> separate reference to a rifle with just the number "2766" on it
> (lacking the "C" prefix).
>
> CE2562 goes on to reveal that the same serial "number" might
> occasionally be stamped on different Carcano rifles that were
> manufactured at different MC plants, but the key is: These duplicate
> serial numbers were not really FULL duplicate serial numbers at all,
> because of the information in CE2562, when referring to these
> duplicate numbers, that some would have the letter prefix, while
tomnln
What proof can you offer that Lattimer made "an innocent error"????
Tell us if Lattimer was an Asshole or a "LIAR"???
This is from Lattimer's own words from his own book>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
To call this "an innocent error" makes YOU an Asshole or a LIAR.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Lattimer's words from his own book!!!
And You're STUCK with it! ! !
No wonder you RUN from issues of the authorities Destroying Evidence>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d2c01e4-15d6-4002...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
Gil Jesus
Of course Von Pein wouldn't KNOW if Lattimer made an error. Did Von
Pein ever examine Lattimer's rifle ?
Can he produce documentation that proves that Lattimer was in error ?
No.
Von Pein describes Lattimer's rifle in his "review" in detail, but
avoids mentioning that the serial number was the same as Oswald's,
even if it is to point out Lattimer's "error".
Typical DVP deception.
Everyone makes mistakes when they post here. But when you post
something that you KNOW is not true, that's a lie.
And when evidence is revealed to you to be the opposite of what you
post and the source is cited, you can be a man and accept it, or you
can be a child and resort to name-calling.
ANY of us could argue that ANY source we don't like is "in error".
Does that make it so ?
Proving it is another matter.
Whatever credibility this dunderhead had before his made this
ridiculous post is damaged, for sure.
Gil Jesus
> Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
> stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
>
Yes Von Pein:
Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do.
So tell us, what is it ?
Gil Jesus
>
> If Lattimer makes "mistakes" about his own pposessions, just imagine how
> many mistakes he makes
> about a subject he knows Nothing about! ! ! � (JFK Assassination)
Agreed Tom. There is a credibility issue here.
Either Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle ( which
would cause one to ask why he bothered to include it in the book if he
never even looked at it ) , or Von Pein is a liar.
I guess it's easier for some people to throw a dead man under the bus
than it is to admit they lied.
But the lurkers know.
Gil Jesus
> HiYa, you old KOOK-SUCKER;
>
> What proof can you offer that Lattimer made "an innocent error"????
>
> Tell us if Lattimer was an Asshole or a "LIAR"???
>
> This is from Lattimer's own words from his own book>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> To call this "an innocent error" makes YOU an Asshole or a LIAR.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> Lattimer's words from his own book!!!
>
> And You're STUCK with it! ! !
>
> No wonder you RUN from issues of the authorities Destroying Evidence>>>
>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Tom, Von Pein would like us to believe that Lattimer
a.) didn't know the serial number of his own rifle.
b.) never looked at the serial number of his rifle.
c.) put the serial number in his book without checking it first.
Boy that Lattimer was some researcher.
cdddraftsman
>
> But when we get back into the world of "Reality" and "Common Sense",
> it's fairly obvious (even to a half-blind individual) that CE139 is,
> indeed, the very same "C2766" rifle that Klein's mailed to Lee Harvey
> Oswald's post-office box in March of '63.
>
> To believe otherwise is to dive into the bottomless pit of conspiracy-
> oriented absurdity....a pit that has been dug by the conspiracy
> theorists themselves.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Jim DiEugenio discusses Bugliosi's book on "Black Op Radio":www.blackopradio.com/black389a.ramwww.blackopradio.com/black389b.ram
>
> Related links:www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d85fa965035f8722www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>
> ===============================================
It's been quite evident for many years that Jim DiEugenio has been a
squack puppet for Conspiracy Apologists for no other reason than he
long ago stuck his foot in his mouth and is now unable to extract it .
Reviewing 'Reclaiming History' and getting a straight evaluation by
the same people who 'Hi-Jacked' it in the beginning is like asking yer
dog 'Fido' if he's sorry for having torn that rag doll into a billion
peices .
It's totally worthless .
Good job DVP !
tl
David Von Pein
>>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
of shit you kooks love to focus on).
For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself
a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's (which,
as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there
aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world
would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that
Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?
=============================================
"William Suchur, the owner of International Firearms Company of
Montreal, informed the FBI on March 12, 1964, per a letter from J.
Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission of April 22, 1964, that “in the
1930’s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. 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” (CE
2562, 25 H 808).
"However, 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 BUGLIOSI; PAGE 340 OF ENDNOTES IN "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (c.2007)
* = Slight error on VB's part here. Vince knows the gun wasn't found
"in the sniper's nest". He obviously meant to say "on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository" instead of "in the sniper's nest".
=============================================
Gil Jesus
Oswald's "C2766" MC 91/38 rifle was the ONLY weapon of that exact TYPE
and MODEL to have been stamped at ANY factory with that unique serial
number.
I responded:
Dr. John K. Lattimer reported he had a "C2766" in his possession:
"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number
C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four power telescope
exactly like Oswald's."
John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln (New York:Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, 1980) pg.250.
Von Pein knows this because this is a book that Von Pein reviewed at
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein
>>> "Dr. John K. Lattimer reported he had a "C2766" in his possession..." <<<
"No other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has
ever surfaced." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
cdddraftsman
pantyweight non-researchers Gildoa and Sack'O'nuts !
Like you said if it weren't for non-issues they'd have no issues at
all !
Good Work !
tl
Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO...WELL, IF BUGLIOSI SAID IT, IT MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT ?
I guess Da Bug is calling Lattimer a liar..
David:
You can't possibly know if Lattimer was "in error" unless you know the
correct serial number, so.....
If Lattimer was "in error" about the serial number on his own weapon,
what is the REAL serial number ?
Gil Jesus
oh good a liar supporting another liar.
Introducing the lies, immaturity and "stewpidity" of cdddraftsman (aka
JLeyden900 -- JGL) :
He imagines that Tom Rossley has a "book" that "tanks" at Amazon.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aacf79056f9a6756
He then imagines a book written by me
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bfce2d51e6179de
He posts a make-believe dialog between RicLand, Rossley and myself.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/075708938537b3fe
Then he makes up a list of names and comments and calls them my
"supporters"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25521ac145f6cea5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ce22f3ba414a25a9
He shows his hatred and why he's against justice for JFK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/370aa4abb01e1163
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6420beb13a5376c1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4bdc285bed3a4def
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1d69f58ab2d019e9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/afd21af2753e983e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0719dfc2770f537a
Then shows his prowess for American History by claiming JFK caused 500
deaths at the Bay of Pigs:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c041bcb3bf033e7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2844c9bc6603c20c
He claims that the famous Al Thomas "wink" at LBJ aboard Air Force One
was because Thomas and Johnson had a game of "tic-tac-toe" on the back
of Lady Bird's coat.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/08c9c6c187dd09b1
He displays his knowledge of Kennedy history by calling Peter Lawford
RFK's "cousin" when in fact he was his brother-in-law:
He posts: "U.S. Attorney General Kennedy was never questioned about
his role and his cousin actor Peter Lawford who "cleaned up" the
murder scene ...."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/332ff3402b4ea17b
-------------------------------------------------------
CDDRAFTSMAN DISPLAYS HIS RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL PREJUDICE:
ON JEWS:
why do you tow the CT line like a Barmitsva gone bad .
Your name sounds Jewish .
" That Jew Scoundrel Mark Lane Who Stole My Thunder "
"Stop posting with a Jewish sounding name , your giving them a bad
rap . Their must be other
ways to assauge your anger at not being born a gentile or even better
yet a Philistine ."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/213701fa7ae1abcd
"the worse has happened , you are A Jew ! .......tl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6efebf398dbebca
ON HISPANICS:
Lying taco bender from wetback mountain mexico
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8aa3349ed746f833
...Mexican has been wannabe taco bender !
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5e1447a090c8955
ON AN AFRICAN AMERICAN AS PRESIDENT:
"Obama is too chocolate faced to be president"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ab5e5f670b49b2ff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, CDDDRAFTSMAN PROVES that he is "JLeyden" by mistakenly
signing one of his "cdddraftsman" posts at the bottom as "JGL".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b24f67146c9fed7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who takes cdddraftsman seriously, this Bud's for you--
cdddraftsman in all his childish "Tom Foolery" glory :
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b96bc6c08e82bb3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a4db9f9728545a27
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/306785ac8468b4e2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/74ff5b4ad65a52b6
Gil Jesus
"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."
J. Edgar Hoover
April 30, 1964
Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix ?
Gil Jesus
> But, let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several
> different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of
> "C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence
> in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one:
>
> So what?
You ARE kidding right ?
I mean, you can't see the significance of evidentiary value in an
exclusive serial number ?
> Do the conspiracy theorists who like to occasionally bring up this
> argument about possible "other rifles with the same serial number"
> somehow think that any of those OTHER rifles bearing a "C2766"
> identifier (which, btw, nobody has ever produced, at least as far as I
> know) would have had the EXACT SAME RIFLING/STRIATION MARKS that the
> barrel of CE139 possesses?
1. You have no PHYSICAL proof that any of the bullet fragments were
fired in Dealey Plaza.
Show us the photographs of the fragments in their locations as found.
2. You have no PHYSICAL proof that CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza.
Show us the traces of bone particles on CE 399.
Show us the clothing fibers from the victims on CE 399
Show us the blood from either victim on CE 399
3. You have no PHYSICAL proof that the rifle was even fired in Dealey
Plaza.
Show us where the rifle was examined to determine if it had been
fired.
Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers
indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and
what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in
this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet.
You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David.
aeffects
more and more questions and comments the Lone Nuts run from, Gil.
Great job!
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68112ac1-892f-4109...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:943bf37f-ff8e-40c6...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
>
>>>> "Dr. John K. Lattimer reported he had a "C2766" in his possession..."
>>>> <<<
>
>
> "No other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has
> ever surfaced." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
BUGLOISI AIN'T TOO SMART
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e610ec6c-e51f-4c02...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Only a Criminal would consider the Destruction of Evidence as a non-Issue.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
>
> Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
> of shit you kooks love to focus on).
When one of their lies blow-up in their faces, then it is "Who
cares?" IT is not a non-issue as the WC and other officials claimed
only one rifle had the same serial number on it. Lattimer stating his
rifle had the same serial # (C2766) exposes this lie.
Riva's contract called for the removal of all ID's and serial numbers
so it is highly unlikely the weapon found at the TSBD was ever worked
on by his shop, thus, the weapon was NOT obtained via Klein's Sporting
Goods.
> For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself
> a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's (which,
> as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there
> aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world
> would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that
> Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?
So you are NOW calling one of your WC defenders a liar? Why would he
lie and say his rifle had the serial number as the alleged murder
weapon? There is NO reason he would do this as it only hurts the
official theory's side. Prove he lied.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:8862c90a-80b0-4af3...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Bud
wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:54 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
>
> > Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
> > of shit you kooks love to focus on).
>
> When one of their lies blow-up in their faces, then it is "Who
> cares?"
When LN see an obvious error, they call it such, and move on. CT
stare at it slack-jawed for decades, never advancing the issue one
iota.
> IT is not a non-issue as the WC and other officials claimed
> only one rifle had the same serial number on it. Lattimer stating his
> rifle had the same serial # (C2766) exposes this lie.
Touching to see you kooks express such confidence in Latimer`s
infallibility. Does that extend to the rest of his book?
> Riva's contract called for the removal of all ID's and serial numbers
> so it is highly unlikely the weapon found at the TSBD was ever worked
> on by his shop, thus, the weapon was NOT obtained via Klein's Sporting
> Goods.
<snicker> Klein`s just happened to have the same serial number in
their records.
> > For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself
> > a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's (which,
> > as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there
> > aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world
> > would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that
> > Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?
>
> So you are NOW calling one of your WC defenders a liar? Why would he
> lie and say his rifle had the serial number as the alleged murder
> weapon? There is NO reason he would do this as it only hurts the
> official theory's side. Prove he lied.
No, you don`t still don`t understand how these things work. That
someone has a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald`s is an
extraordinary claim. You would need to back up such an amazing
occurrence with something more substantial than someone saying this is
so.
Gil Jesus
>
> > >>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
>
> > Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
> > of shit you kooks love to focus on).
>
It IS an issue. You said Lattimer was wrong about the serial number of
his rifle, but you are unable to prove it.
You cannot KNOW if Lattimer was wrong or lied about the serial number
unless you KNOW the correct number. Otherwise, Von Pein, you're
talking out of your ass and making assumptions about Lattimer's serial
number without any factual basis.
That you seem to be avoiding telling us the REAL number of his rifle
indicates that you don't KNOW for a fact what that number was, and
thus, only assume he was in error.
The longer this thread goes on, the more full of sh*t you look.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:5e03d0a1-1df2-4707...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Are you suggesting that Lattimer was in addition to being Stupid, he was
also Blind.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Gil Jesus
> That someone has a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald`s is an
> extraordinary claim. You would need to back up such an amazing
> occurrence with something more substantial than someone saying this is
> so.
Hey Bud:
Gil Jesus
> � �No, you don`t still don`t understand how these things work. That
> someone has a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald`s is an
> extraordinary claim. You would need to back up such an amazing
> occurrence with something more substantial than someone saying this is
> so.
Bud:
Tell us what the serial number of Lattimer's rifle is or sit down.
Bud
Since two rifles having the same number is an extraordinary
occurrence, you should back it up with something more substantial than
a person`s say-so. Do you have anything more substantial?
tomnln
Bud:
The "OWNER" of the rifle said it was.
The OWNER's name was John Lattimer.
robcap...@netscape.com
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
Tom, I realize Lattimer is full of crap, but in this case he presented
something that is a hinderance to DVP, so Dave wants to just throw it
off as a "mistake" or a "lie", so I am asking him to disprove the
statement Lattimer himself claimed.
Bud
This isn`t getting you any closer to establishing as fact that
Lattimer`s rifle had the same serial number as Oswald`s. Perhaps kooks
believe everything they read in books, but LN do not, especially when
it comes to extraordinary claims. Put your tiny brain to work on
this... even if there was another rifle with the same number as
Oswald`s, out of the tens of thousands of this rifle manufactured,
what would be the chances of Lattimer getting one with the same number
as Oswald`s? This is why I can reject the idea that Lattimer had such
a rifle with confidence, leaving only the possibility that he misspoke
the concept (which obviously was that the rifle he had was identical
to C2766).
Bud
David Von Pein
>>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
You're a moron.
Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
involving the murder of JFK.
Let's see if Gil The Mega-Kook can figure out why the above paragraph
is 100% accurate on his own (even though I've already told him the
reason in an earlier post....and so did Vince Bugliosi, via a quote I
provided from his book on this same topic).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
>>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
Walt
> >>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
>
> You're a moron.
>
> Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
> argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
> completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
> involving the murder of JFK.
>
> Let's see if Gil The Mega-Kook can figure out why the above paragraph
> is 100% accurate on his own (even though I've already told him the
> reason in an earlier post....and so did Vince Bugliosi, via a quote I
> provided from his book on this same topic).
>
>
> >>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
>
> You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
> around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
Hey Von Pea brain.... Everybody knows that you're a liar, and you have
zero credibility.... So why do you persist in wasting your time by
attempting to peddle the same old BS that's been rejected by 90% of
the American people. Do you think you're smarter than 90% of the
population?
David Von Pein
>>> " "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." J. Edgar Hoover; April 30, 1964 .... Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix?" <<<
Yes, you're correct here (in a way), Gil. I'll admit that.
I.E.,
The above passage which you quote from CE2562 can, indeed, be
interpreted this way:
The exact same 5-character serial number can appear on multiple
Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at
different plants, which would include the same prefix letter as well
as the same four numbers that follow the prefix letter.
But I also think the above quote from CE2562 can be interpreted
another way, which is probably the correct way of interpreting it,
especially when factoring in two things as a prerequisite:
1.) Hoover's comments to Rankin on Page 1 of that 20-page document
that makes up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2562, wherein Hoover is
telling Rankin about two specific rifles of interest to the
Commission, rifles which bear similar serial numbers, but not serial
numbers that are exactly the same, because one of them doesn't bear
the "C" letter prefix.
And:
2.) The fact that nobody, to date, has produced a single example of
another Model #91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that bears the exact
same 5-character serial number as the one that was shipped by Klein's
to Hidell/Oswald in March 1963. And, as far as I am aware, nobody has
ever come up with ANY two separate MC 91/38 rifles that bear the exact
same 5-character serial number, regardless of whether the number is
"C2766" or some other number.
Given the above two facts, I believe that the above quote that you
cited from CE2562 could reasonably be interpreted in the following
manner:
The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0
through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38
rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very
same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these
rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number,
while the other rifle will not have this prefix.
In my opinion, the above explanation is a reasonable one, given the
comments by J. Edgar Hoover on Page #1 of CE2562. And it's also a very
reasonable explanation when factoring in the following comments
regarding this topic of serial numbers that were made by the FBI's
Robert A. Frazier to the Warren Commission in 1964:
MR. 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?"
MR. 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."
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."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0415b.htm
David Von Pein
An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
"...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
====================
This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably
won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004).
Gil Jesus
Davison.
They both seem to take credit for asking him.
I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing ?
Gil Jesus
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...-
Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
Joey take note.
David Von Pein
>>> "Too bad Lattimer can't tell us himself which one asked him, Canal or Davison. They both seem to take credit for asking him." <<<
You're nuts. They do no such thing.
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
Where in the above short thread does Jean Davison take any "credit"
for having asked John Lattimer herself about the issue regarding the
serial number?
Answer: Nowhere.
When Jean said: "It was I who asked, John...", she was responding to
John Canal's comment in his first post, when John said: "I can't
recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer...". She wasn't
implying that it was she, herself, who had asked John Lattimer any
questions. This is quite obvious when reading the two Canal/Davison
posts back-to-back.
Gil can't even interpret a short three-post thread correctly.
Incredible.
Anyway, this is just another "So what?" issue raised by Gil "Chaff
Always Trumps Wheat" Jesus.
As if the person who initially did the "asking" re. the serial number
on Lattimer's rifle would have changed Dr. Lattimer's response of:
"The book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late
to correct it".
Gil is simply....well....amazing.
>>> "I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing?" <<<
Like I said....he's amazing.
And what did I tell you, folks....just one hour ago:
"This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it
probably won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in
2004)." -- DVP; 09/09/2008; 8:03 PM EDT *
* = IOW -- Somebody said something that a CT-Kook doesn't want to
hear, therefore somebody must be telling tales out of
school....whether it be Lattimer himself, or maybe Canal just made the
whole thing up about asking Dr. Lattimer the question re. the serial
number and then getting a response directly from the doctor.
A new fitting slogan:
"A conspiracy kook's mind is a terrible thing to waste (if it
could only be located in the first place, that is)."
tomnln
Maybe you can scan it & post it here.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:052ce032-1377-46ae...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Excellent find, Bud. Excellent.
>
> This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably
> won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004):
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
>
>
>
> "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
> notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
> used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
> found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
> letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was a error: "...the
> book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late to
David Von Pein
>>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
Just like I said:
"This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it
probably won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in
2004)." -- DVP
REPRISE:
>>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80d0eaac-ecec-4244...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
NOT that I've ever seen.
Maybe this is just Another LN'r "Claim".
BUT;
Does it matter?
Lattimer's own book Destroys his credibility.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
tomnln
If you're so good at telling the future, why don't you explain the
destruction of evidence HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Unless you're just Bullshitting AGAIN! ! ! .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
TRANSLATION:
David Can't produce ! ! !
David Von Pein
As if the serial number on Lattimer's rifle makes a lick of
difference.
You kooks do nothing but spin endlessly in a bottomless pit of
minutiae.
What Rossley really dislikes is the idea of taking down his anti-
Lattimer remarks regarding "C2766" on his crap-filled website, so
he'll continue to argue in favor of Lattimer having a rifle with
"C2766" stamped on it till the cows come a-knockin'.
Pitiable, but to be expected....because we're dealing with conspiracy-
happy retards here at The Asylum.
tomnln
#1 It's from Lattimer's own book.
#2 You still represent only 10% of the American people.
#3 It's YOU who Rejects your ownb evidence/testimony.
#4 That website is filled with YOUR evidence/testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
#5. It's you (The Nutsack) who is a conspiracy-thirsty kook.
Bud
> On 9 Sep, 17:59, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
>
> > You're a moron.
>
> > Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
> > argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
> > completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
> > involving the murder of JFK.
>
> > Let's see if Gil The Mega-Kook can figure out why the above paragraph
> > is 100% accurate on his own (even though I've already told him the
> > reason in an earlier post....and so did Vince Bugliosi, via a quote I
> > provided from his book on this same topic).
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> > >>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
>
> > You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
> > around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
>
> Hey Von Pea brain.... Everybody knows that you're a liar, and you have
> zero credibility....
Says the man who have continuously lies about what witnesses said
for years and years, despite being corrected on these issues on
numerous occasions.
>So why do you persist in wasting your time by
> attempting to peddle the same old BS that's been rejected by 90% of
> the American people. Do you think you're smarter than 90% of the
> population?
DVP has a greater percentage of people believing him than you have
believing the stupid shit you believe, Walt.
Bud
> Too bad Lattimer can''t tell us himself which one asked him, Canal or
> Davison.
Too bad you are an idiot. It`s clear that Canal relayed Jean
Davison`s question to Lattimer. Here is the initial post, where Canal
mentions that he is in correspondence with Lattimer, and Jean (under
the header name "walter.jeffries") asks Canal to ask Lattimer about
this issue...
> They both seem to take credit for asking him.
What a crackerjack researcher you are. Fucking dope.
> I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing ?
Canal says he "received a letter from him".
Bud
> On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
> Joey take note.
Bud
> All ya gotta do is Produce that letter in Lattimer's own handwriting.
Why would you think the letter was handwritten? Would you recognize
Lattimer`s handwriting if you saw it? Best you stick to your squawking
points, and the leave the thinking to those better equipped.
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:80d0eaac-ecec-4244...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
> > that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
>
> > I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
> > posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
> > topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
> > was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
> > Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
> > have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
> > might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
> > about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
> > 2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/63765...
Bud
> An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
> that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
Jean Davison and John Canal get the real credit. When John mentioned
he was in correspondence with Lattimer, Jean pounced on the
opportunity to resolve this issue. That is the difference between LN,
who want the truth, and the kooks who are more than willing to fixate
and build monuments on obvious error. One Jean Davison is worth more
than all these kooks combined. Here is the initial exchange where Jean
(under the name "walter.jeffries") asks John Canal relay her question
to Lattimer...
> I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
> posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
> topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
> was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
> Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
> have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
> might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
> about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
> 2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/63765...
Gil Jesus
>
> � �Canal says he "received a letter from him".
Then you'll have no problem producing the letter.
We'll be waiting to see it.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
>
> What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
That's your standard answer every time you can't produce evidence
"what good would it do ?".
If you want to prove your point, produce the letter.
Otherwise you have no PHYSICAL proof, as usual.
"He tells us that he told him" isn't evidence, it's heresay.
Gil Jesus
>
> > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> � It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
No Bud, that's heresay. Research would be the letter.
So produce it.
muc...@gmail.com
Heresay isn't even a word. Did you mean heresy?
Gil Jesus
> >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
>
> What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
Common sense would dictate that if you produced the letter that you'd
also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity.
Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me.
Gil Jesus
> Heresay isn't even a word. Did you mean heresy?
No I mean hearsay. Geesh, that's the best you got ? A spelling error ?
You're grasping YOYO. A sign of desperation.
Gil Jesus
> > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> � It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as
evidence:
"Most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as
laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines
hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App. See Rule for
Courts-Martial 801, Manual for Court Martial, United States (2005
ed.)."
David Von Pein
>>> "Common sense would dictate that if you produced the letter that you'd also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity. Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me." <<<
So, Gil, you're of the opinion that John Canal just might have been
telling a tall tale when he said he got a letter from Dr. John K.
Lattimer in April of 2004....is that correct, Mister Kook?
The CTers' fictional "Oswald Was A Patsy" cause would be better served
if Gilbert and his fellow Anybody-But-Oz kooks would just keep silent
from now on about this matter regarding Lattimer's obvious "C2766"
serial-number error now that the whole matter has been cleared up.
(And it was cleared up four years ago, as it turns out.)
Because the more you goofs argue about this meaningless minutiae--and
it certainly is meaningless (even if Lattimer's gun WAS stamped
"C2766", which it wasn't)--the more you look like the desperate
conspiracy-seeking kooks that we all know you are.
And Gil's meaningless and chaff-riddled argument for tomorrow will be
--- The "Dial Ryder incident", which will be re-hashed for the 99th
time.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
>
> You're a moron.
Gee, isn't ANYONE who disagrees with you either a moron or a kook ?
> Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
> argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
> completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
> involving the murder of JFK.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
Yeah the receipt really says "this is the only rifle with this serial
number" I think I can see it in code.
> >>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
> You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
> around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
Von Pinhead cannot prove that the rifle was ever fired from the 6th
floor.
1. The rifle was never examined to see if it had been fired.
2. The FBI did NOT find Oswald's prints on the rifle on the night of
the assassination.
3. The Spectrographic Test and the Neutron Activation Analysis of the
bullet fragments were "matched" to CE 399 by using flawed data that
the FBI stopped using in the 90's.
4. The bullet fragments allegedly found in the limousine were never
photographed in their places as discovered.
5. CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and NO BLOOD on
it
from EITHER victim.
6, There is NO CONTINUITY in the evidence and thus there is NO PROOF
that Oswald's rifle was fired from the TSBD.
This is what I mean by "continuity":
You have to put the rifle in the hands of the accused
Next, you have to have a bullet fired from that rifle.
Then you have to prove the bullet hit the victims
But in this case, we have this:
1. The rifle not examined to see if it had been fired
2. Oswald's prints not on the rifle
3. A test of the fragments that was inconclusive
4. No physical proof that the fragments were in the car
5. A bullet that contained no proof that it passed through any human
bodies
Sounds like a pretty solid case, huh ?
Gil Jesus
>
> So, Gil, you're of the opinion that John Canal just might have been
> telling a tall tale when he said he got a letter from Dr. John K.
> Lattimer in April of 2004....is that correct, Mister Kook?
>
> The CTers' fictional "Oswald Was A Patsy" cause would be better served
> if Gilbert and his fellow Anybody-But-Oz kooks would just keep silent
> from now on about this matter regarding Lattimer's obvious "C2766"
> serial-number error now that the whole matter has been cleared up.
> (And it was cleared up four years ago, as it turns out.)
>
> Because the more you goofs argue about this meaningless minutiae--and
> it certainly is meaningless (even if Lattimer's gun WAS stamped
> "C2766", which it wasn't)--the more you look like the desperate
> conspiracy-seeking kooks that we all know you are.
>
> And Gil's meaningless and chaff-riddled argument for tomorrow will be
> --- The "Dial Ryder incident", which will be re-hashed for the 99th
> time.
Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the
letter and prove its authenticity ?
David Von Pein
>>> "No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as evidence..." <<<
Gil thinks we're all in "court" here at The Asylum.
This is just one more reason to know that Gilbert shouldn't be looking
into this case at all. He's not interested in finding out the identity
of JFK's killer (which, of course, couldn't be more obvious if it had
been sky-written by The Lord Jesus Christ Himself on 11/22/63)....Gil
wants to play Judge Judy instead.
====================================
BUGLIOSI FOOTNOTE RE: "ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE" (this doesn't deal
with "hearsay" specifically, but it's a VB quote worth repeating
nonetheless)......
"I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if
Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal
technicality. There is no problem with the chain of custody of much of
the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only
that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of
custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical
evidence in this case would be admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
442 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes (c.2007)
======================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Gee, isn't ANYONE who disagrees with you either a moron or a kook?" <<<
Yes. You're both. I thought I made that clear.
(See what leaving out just one simple word -- "Not" -- will do to you?)
Bud
> On Sep 10, 3:26 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Canal says he "received a letter from him".
>
> Then you'll have no problem producing the letter.
There will be no problem, because I will make no attempt. This
issue shows that when given a choice between two bits of information,
you will cling tenaciously to what you want to believe, and disregard
an obvious truth.
> We'll be waiting to see it.
Try holding your breath. If you had half a brain, you wouldn`t need
a formal explanation from Lattimer, you could figure out that the
passage in his book was in error by yourself. Like I pointed out, even
if there was another rifle with the same number as Oswald`s, the odds
that one, out of all the tens of thousands of this rifle produced,
would happen to fall into the hands of a researcher writing a book
about Oswald`s rifle would be astronomical. Whereas human error is a
common occurrence we see all around us everyday, not the least of
which is the mistake your father made by not pulling out of your
mother in time when you were conceived.
David Von Pein
>>> "Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the letter and prove its authenticity?" <<<
Of course I'm not going to produce John Canal's letter from Lattimer.
You know that. I don't have access to it, Mr. Kook. And I have no
interest in seeing the letter. John's word is perfectly adequate here.
But I guess Judge Judy-Jesus wants to put Mr. Canal on the witness
stand and cross-examine him over this piece of wholly-irrelevant
evidence.
Why not just admit that you and your fellow kooks blew this one, Gil?
Have you ever done that before?
I have. Well, at least partially anyway....when Gary Mack convinced me
that Ruby could have entered the DPD basement via a different route
other than the Main-Street ramp. I still think the ramp is the likely
route for Ruby--but Mr. Mack's scenario and facts are quite solid.
Plus, there was another instance when a CTer (Bill Miller) actually
got me to admit, via some excellent toggling gif clips, that John
Connally's lapel was probably flopping around in the breeze PRIOR to Z-
Film frame 223.
But has Gil ever admitted he was wrong about anything in this case?
Just curious.
I wonder if Tom The Nutsack has ever admitted to a defeat either?
Gil Jesus
You people claim that there's a letter out there somewehere in which
Lattimer writes that he made an error in his book with the claim that
he owned or used a rifle with serial number C2766.
Okay, fine.
All I've done is ask you to see the letter. Show this forum the letter
and provide us with some evidence of autheticity SO THERE IS NO DOUBT
to your claim.
I don't think that is an unreasonable request. Apparently you do.
Anyone's claims are subject to proof, John Canal is no exception.
All I'm asking is for you to convince us and put the issue to rest
once and for all.
My understanding is that you are declining to do so. You'd rather
respond with childish name-calling and insults.
You really are an embarrassment.
Bud
> On Sep 10, 3:28 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> > It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
>
> No Bud, that's heresay.
"hearsay".
> Research would be the letter.
No, idiot, research is what Canal and Davison did. Canal went to the
source, and got the information that Davison requested.
> So produce it.
Why would I do that? This is much better, it is a good illustration
that you kooks are idiots who are not interested in the reality of
things, but are playing a game, clinging to points well after they are
lost. I mean, if you concede this, it might cause a domino effect of
all your precious stupid beliefs, and Tom would have nothing left to
display in his Museum of Stupidity.
Bud
> On Sep 9, 11:40 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
>
> > What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
>
> Common sense would dictate that if you produced the letter that you'd
> also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity.
<snicker> Like what, idiot? Another letter from Lattimer vouching
for the first one`s authenticity?
> Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me.
And Lattimer`s words in his book are what?
David Von Pein
No "letter of confirmation" is even needed. It's so obvious that
Lattimer's "C2766" statement in his 1980 book was a simple error/typo,
that even a CTer like Gil should be able to figure out why.
I'll admit that I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed either,
but I had said many, many times on this forum that Lattimer's C2766
remark was an "obvious error"....and that was years before Bud
confirmed the innocent error yesterday on this forum by digging up
John Canal's 2004 post to verify Lattimer's mistake.
Heck, if I can figure it out on my own (sans any letter of
confirmation)....why can't you CTers?
(Is that a silly question, Bud? Well, maybe so.) <chuckle>
Gil Jesus
> >>> "Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the letter and prove its authenticity?" <<<
>
> Of course I'm not going to produce John Canal's letter from Lattimer.
> You know that. I don't have access to it, Mr. Kook. And I have no
> interest in seeing the letter. John's word is perfectly adequate here.
You obviously, by your own admittance, have damaged your own
credibility. You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims
as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical
evidence.
Unlike the many Dealey Plaza witnesses whose word you WON'T take, even
though they exceed in number this lone witness, Mr. Canal.
I'm done with this thread David, I'm letting you off the hook.
You've proven yourself to be a liar, a con-artist, a deceiver and a
phony. You twist things around and put your own little spin on them.
You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete
evidence. You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without
doing any background research.
The lurkers can see what a fraud you are.
David Von Pein
>>> "I don't care what Bugliosi says." <<<
Of course you don't. Because he makes too much sense. You'd rather
promote the likes of Marrs, Garrison, Fetzer, Armstrong, and Lane.
Bud
> On Sep 10, 3:28 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> > It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
>
> No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as
> evidence:
We aren`t in court, idiot. You may as well be applying NFL drafting
guidelines. We are looking into things is all, an investigation, in
the loosest sense of the word. As usual, it comes down to "what is
reasonable to believe", with kooks clinging to an unreasonable belief.
DVP and myself, and probably many others, were able to come to the
correct conclusion about that passage from the book without Lattimer`s
confirmation. It is much, much more reasonable to believe that it was
an written error than to believe Lattimer somehow got ahold of a rifle
of the same model and serial number as Oswald`s. But you kooks, with
no ability to reason, are stuck once again worshiping an error.
Bud
What would you consider proof of it`s authenticity, Gil?
David Von Pein
>>> "You obviously, by your own admittance, have damaged your own credibility. You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical evidence." <<<
Oh, dear Lord up in heaven! Somebody tell me that I'm dreaming and
that a kook named Gil didn't write the above paragraph?? Because that
paragraph up there from Gil is just too darn deliciously ironic and
hilarious to be believed. Even for Gilbert.
Let's bask in its Pot/Kettle irony once more.....
"You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims as
fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical
evidence."
As Rochester Van Jones was wont to say to Jack Benny -- Yep...he
really did say that! He said it alright!
Gil evidently thinks that he never "absorbs unproven claims as fact".
What about the entire "Oswald As Patsy" claim, Gil?
What about the whole notion of those extra bullets entering JFK & JBC
on 11/22?
What about the whole notion of the huge police and WC "cover-up" that
you kooks believe is 100% true, Gil?
What about those "unproven claims"? (And a hundred more like them.)
Let's see what's next out of this kook's mouth that will undoubtedly
make him look like a bigger idiot.....
>>> "Unlike the many Dealey Plaza witnesses whose word you WON'T take, even though they exceed in number this lone witness, Mr. Canal." <<<
More stupid shit cherry-picked from Gil's own fruit trees, I see.
What about all the Dealey Plaza witnesses that you discard as being
wrong and/or untruthful, Gil? What about Howard Brennan? Do YOU take
his "word" as the truth?
What about Robert Jackson and Mal Couch and Charles Brehm and Jim
Altgens and Harold Norman and Junior Jarman and many others that go
against the "CT grain" in many different ways? Are they to be
discarded?
Gil doesn't practice what he preaches. He types a Pot/Kettle
post...THEN thinks about it afterward (maybe).
>>> "I'm done with this thread David..." <<<
Wanna bet?
>>> "I'm letting you off the hook." <<<
If this post of Gil's gets any funnier, my bladder will not support
the onslaught. (And everybody here knows of its weak status. So, if
you have ANY mercy, Gil, you'll stop pretty soon.)
>>> "You've proven yourself to be a liar, a con-artist, a deceiver and a phony." <<<
You left out: "WC shill", "VB butt-kisser", "CIA disinfo agent", and
"baby-killing psycho".....right?
>>> "You twist things around and put your own little spin on them. You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete evidence. You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without doing any background research." <<<
Oh....my bladder!
Can this "Pot Meets Kettle" post get any more ridiculous? Is that
physically possible at this point?
A CT-Kook is actually telling an LNer these things, folks:
"You twist things around and put your own little spin on them."
"You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete
evidence."
"You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without
doing any background research."
It just can't get any better than this.
If everybody reading this isn't currently laid out on the floor from
laughing so hard, it can only be because they died from laughing at
having seen the first half of Gil's post.
>>> "The lurkers can see what a fraud you are." <<<
Pot...here comes a great-big Kettle (once again).
Now that Gil has stepped several inches deeper into his CT-Kook
Quicksand via this latest post of his, I'd like to thank him for
today's bawdy entertainment here at The Asylum.
My bladder burst several times during Gil's soliloquy, but it was
worth the extra trips to the bathroom.
As for my never doing any "background research" ..... www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
Walt
> >>> "I don't care what Bugliosi says." <<<
>
> Of course you don't. Because he makes too much sense. You'd rather
> promote the likes of Marrs, Garrison, Fetzer, Armstrong, and Lane.
Speaking of promoting liars..... Here's the sentence from lattimer's
book....
In 1974 and 1975 my sons and I conducted a series of experiments using
a 6.5mm Mannlicher Carcano carbine, model 91 /38, serial number C2766,
equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company
scope exactly like Oswald's.
Afterward Lattimer claimed that this sentence was a "printing
error" ..... Do you believe him?.....
He was describing the rifle that he and his sons were using and he
SPECIFIED the serial number.
He lied about that serial number to make it appear that the rifle they
were using was IDENTICAL in all aspects to the TSBD rifle. He was a
fool, and a lying scoundrel..... because no matter how much the rifle
may have APPEARED to be identical it was NOT the TSBD rifle.
side note: Even the rifle that was found in the TSBD (C2766) was NOT
identical to the rifle that the FBI tested several days later. They
cleaned and oiled it before testing and therefore altered the rifle
and it's accuracy.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:26e0e74c-a284-46d5...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> #5. It's you (The Nutsack) who is a conspiracy-thirsty kook.
#6 It's You Nutsack-SUCKERS who don't know destruction of evidence is a
Felony! ! ! !
(keep 'em coming AIDS Distributor; I Love Burying you)
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:43a0b29d-c3a5-4b4c...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 9, 11:43 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> All ya gotta do is Produce that letter in Lattimer's own handwriting.
>
> Why would you think the letter was handwritten? Would you recognize
> Lattimer`s handwriting if you saw it? Best you stick to your squawking
> points, and the leave the thinking to those better equipped.
>
>> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:80d0eaac-ecec-4244...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
>> > that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
>>
>> > I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
>> > posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
>> > topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
>> > was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
>> > Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
>> > have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
>> > might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
>> > about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
>> > 2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
>>
>> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/63765...
>>
>> > "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
>> > notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
>> > used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
>> > found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
>> > letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
>> > "...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
>> > late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
>>
>> > ====================
>>
>> > This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably
>> > won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004).
>>
>> >www.amazon.com/KENNEDY-&-LINCOLN/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q
>
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3004030a-f2be-4025...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 9, 11:40�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it
> >>> here." <<<
>
> What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
That's your standard answer every time you can't produce evidence
"what good would it do ?".
If you want to prove your point, produce the letter.
Otherwise you have no PHYSICAL proof, as usual.
"He tells us that he told him" isn't evidence, it's heresay.
The only thing you'll get from KOOK-SUCKER David is AIDS! ! !
Gil Jesus
That's an interesting take on it Walt. Lattimer lied about the serial
number in an attempt to give his test more validity, then when
questioned about it, claimed it was a "printing error".
According to these boneheads, Lattimer knew about the error but
couldn't fix it becuase the book had already gone to press. Of course,
no one proof reads these books before publication. Lattimer's book was
written in 1980 and yet it never bothered him enough that there was
inaccurate information in it, to print a retraction or publicly note
his "error" until his "letter" to
"John Canal" in 2004.
He never mentioned it in 24 years, but rather let it remain as fact.
You're right Walt. Either he HAD C2766, or he was a liar. No one could
be specific about the serial number and be in error.
Unless he was a lousy researcher.
tomnln
>
>
>>>> "No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as
>>>> evidence..." <<<
>
> Gil thinks we're all in "court" here at The Asylum.
>
> This is just one more reason to know that Gilbert shouldn't be looking
> into this case at all. He's not interested in finding out the identity
> of JFK's killer (which, of course, couldn't be more obvious if it had
> been sky-written by The Lord Jesus Christ Himself on 11/22/63)....Gil
> wants to play Judge Judy instead.
>
> ====================================
>
> BUGLIOSI FOOTNOTE RE: "ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE" (this doesn't deal
> with "hearsay" specifically, but it's a VB quote worth repeating
> nonetheless)......
>
>
> "I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if
> Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal
> technicality. There is no problem with the chain of custody of much of
> the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
> large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
>
> "Courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only
> that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of
> custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical
> evidence in this case would be admissible.
>
> "I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
> at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
> exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
> is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
> admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
> "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
> jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
> 442 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes (c.2007)
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONLY ONLY ONLY AFTER it Passes the "Rules of Evidence".
The Warren Commission SUSPENDED the "Rules of Evidence" in their First
Executive Session.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
>
>
>
>>>> "Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the
>>>> letter and prove its authenticity?" <<<
>
>
> Of course I'm not going to produce John Canal's letter from Lattimer.
> You know that. I don't have access to it, Mr. Kook. And I have no
> interest in seeing the letter. John's word is perfectly adequate here.
>
> But I guess Judge Judy-Jesus wants to put Mr. Canal on the witness
> stand and cross-examine him over this piece of wholly-irrelevant
> evidence.
>
> Why not just admit that you and your fellow kooks blew this one, Gil?
> Have you ever done that before?
>
> I have. Well, at least partially anyway....when Gary Mack convinced me
> that Ruby could have entered the DPD basement via a different route
> other than the Main-Street ramp. I still think the ramp is the likely
> route for Ruby--but Mr. Mack's scenario and facts are quite solid.
>
> Plus, there was another instance when a CTer (Bill Miller) actually
> got me to admit, via some excellent toggling gif clips, that John
> Connally's lapel was probably flopping around in the breeze PRIOR to Z-
> Film frame 223.
>
> But has Gil ever admitted he was wrong about anything in this case?
> Just curious.
>
> I wonder if Tom The Nutsack has ever admitted to a defeat either?
Thanks for Admitting that Lattimer was either Stupid or, Lying.
ps;
We KNEW you wouldn't Produce.
tomnln
> On Sep 10, 5:50 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 3:28 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>>
>> > It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
>>
>> No Bud, that's heresay.
>
> "hearsay".
>
>> Research would be the letter.
>
> No, idiot, research is what Canal and Davison did. Canal went to the
> source, and got the information that Davison requested.
>
>> So produce it.
>
> Why would I do that? This is much better, it is a good illustration
> that you kooks are idiots who are not interested in the reality of
> things, but are playing a game, clinging to points well after they are
> lost. I mean, if you concede this, it might cause a domino effect of
> all your precious stupid beliefs, and Tom would have nothing left to
> display in his Museum of Stupidity.
I could always display your momma's body to show the short-comings of
decades of Incest with You.
tomnln
> On Sep 10, 6:58 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 9, 11:40 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post
>> > >>> it here." <<<
>>
>> > What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
>>
>> also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity.
>
> <snicker> Like what, idiot? Another letter from Lattimer vouching
> for the first one`s authenticity?
>
>> Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me.
>
> And Lattimer`s words in his book are what?
1 his Lies.
2 his Stupidity
3 YOUR Downfall
tomnln
On Sep 10, 7:44�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the
> >>> letter and prove its authenticity?" <<<
>
> Of course I'm not going to produce John Canal's letter from Lattimer.
> You know that. I don't have access to it, Mr. Kook. And I have no
> interest in seeing the letter. John's word is perfectly adequate here.
You obviously, by your own admittance, have damaged your own
credibility. You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims
as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical
evidence.
Unlike the many Dealey Plaza witnesses whose word you WON'T take, even
though they exceed in number this lone witness, Mr. Canal.
I'm done with this thread David, I'm letting you off the hook.
You've proven yourself to be a liar, a con-artist, a deceiver and a
phony. You twist things around and put your own little spin on them.
You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete
evidence. You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without
doing any background research.
The lurkers can see what a fraud you are.
And, He's a KOOK-SUCKER TOO
Gil Jesus
They have no intention to produce Lattimer's letter to Canal. They
feel the request is unreasonable. Why can't we "kooks" just accept
what they say as fact and move on ?
Their "proof" is that some guy said that Lattimer wrote him a letter
saying that his ID of the rifle was in error.
A gun nut who didn't know the serial number of his own rifle.
You and I asked to see the letter. I asked to see it with verification
of authenticity.
All they had to do was to go to Canal and ask him to post it.
They would have convinced a lot of people, including myself.
Instead, they went berserk.
I'm done with these two clowns. (Von Pinhead & Bud )
One quotes himself and the other always wants the last word.
They're a total waste of time.
tomnln
They are BOTH GREAT ways to prove that the LN'r side LIES.
David Von Pein
>>> "Afterward Lattimer claimed that this sentence was a "printing error". Do you believe him?" <<<
Of course. Because it's so obviously the true and correct explanation
for how "C2766" got onto page #250 of his book. I told you that years
ago.....
"The 'C2766' reference in Lattimer's book is quite obviously an
innocent error, because there were not two rifles in existence with
that exact same serial number (as the WC said in its report, which,
naturally, is info that a kook named Tom [The Nutsack] will totally
disregard out of hand)." -- DVP; 11/18/2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5da0e7ed7eea80d2
"As I said before, Lattimer's "C2766" remark was obviously an
error. .... The overall language used on the VERY PAGE TOM R. SAYS
PROVES LATTIMER IS A LIAR shows a reasonable person that Mr. Lattimer
was merely in error re. his one "C2766" remark." -- DVP; 12/21/2006
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
>>> "He was describing the rifle that he and his sons were using and he SPECIFIED the serial number. He lied about that serial number to make it appear that the rifle they were using was IDENTICAL in all aspects to the TSBD rifle." <<<
That must be why he put the following passages in that same book
regarding the rifle he used for his tests, huh?:
"We had procured four rifles of exactly the same type used by
Oswald. .... We then selected, from our four sample rifles, the one
that most closely resembled his [Oswald's], in both condition and ease
of operation, for use in our firing tests. .... Although we had to be
content with four rifles of the same model as used by Oswald, the FBI
used his actual rifle, and always with the same results: none of the
bullets ever tumbled [unless they struck something else prior to
striking a simulated Connally target]." -- John K. Lattimer; Pages
271, 276, and 295 of "Kennedy And Lincoln" (c.1980)
>>> "He [Lattimer] was a fool, and a lying scoundrel....because no matter how much the rifle may have APPEARED to be identical it was NOT the TSBD rifle." <<<
Of course it wasn't the TSBD rifle that Dr. Lattimer used. Everybody
knows that. You just want to argue about meaningless trivial nonsense
(like always).
David Von Pein
Tommy Purvis has a DVP fixation today. I'm so touched and honored.
<barf>
As usual, Purvis The Kook doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about. He's talking out his anal crack (as all CTers are wont to do--
always).
Let's observe......
>>> "Multiple "ORIGINAL" weapons were created which would have had the serial# C2766, as the weapon was produced at multiple arms manufacturing plants. .... At minimum, there could be as many as 4 of the weapons which were originally produced with the C2766 serial number." <<<
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
==============
Let me guess -- Purvis thinks Bob Frazier is a liar?
Right, Purv?
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18509...
Hey, Von Pea brain ....Frazier WAS a liar, no doubt about it. He
proved he was a liar during his WC testimony when he testified about
the how a Mannlicher Carcano operates.
I KNOW how a Carcano operates and I KNOW Frazier lied.
Brokedad
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18509...
>
===================================================================
Let me guess -- Purvis thinks Bob Frazier is a liar?
Right, Purv?
(David Von PinParrothead)
Nope!----Incorrect!
Tom Purvis KNOWS that Frazier is a liar as he has been caught in lies
to me personally.
Don't know what all that he may have told you? You did speak with
him did you not?
Were it not for that County Ordnance against STUPIDITY, which could
get you arrested, then I would state that perhaps you should drive
down here and look at some of my Carcano collection.
Of particular interest would be my Model 91/38 TS Carbine (true 36-
inch length Carbine with fixed rear sight, in the 6.5mm caliber).
Serial# C5522, made at the Beretta Gardone Plant.
Now, would you suppose that in getting to Serial# C5522, that they
just "skipped" that number# C2766?
Now, in event that you could actually read, (as opposed to Parroting)
then you would also know that this weapon was produced at minimum, at:
1. The main Beretta plant (stamped" Beretta")
2. The Beretta plant at Gardone (stamped "Gardone" or "Beretta
Gardone" )
3. The Brescia plant (stamped "Brescia" also stamped "FNA Brescia" or
"FNA B")
4. The Terni plant (stamped "Terni" or " Terni")
*And, this does not even include the exact/same/identical length
barrels which were produced for the Cavalry Carbine, and which is
easily and readily interchangable with any other Carcano receiver
assembly.
Each Plant that manufactured the weapon issued their own Serial
Number.
The only thing which makes a Serial# "unique" on these weapons is when
one identifies the specific MODEL weapon; the specific plant of
manufacture; and then the serial number. And, even then, due to
rebarrelling operations, one is still out on a limb.
Otherwise, about like having four dimes dated 2008 and stating that
all are the same, when in fact one has the "P" (Philidelphia) mint
mark; one had the "D" (Denver) mint mark; and one has the "S" (San
Francisco) mint mark. and one has no way of knowing exactly where the
fourth dime (with no mint mark) was minted as the Mint Mark is stamped
into the "Hub" at the specific Mint and on occassion, they forget to
stamp the mark, thusly producing a dime with no mint mark.
Considering all known variables (excluding re-barrelling) there were
between 30 to 50 weapons produced which could have had the exact
"C2766" serial number.
Now, add in that same amount for those with merely the number "2766"
and one has entered a morass that makes it virtually impossible to
accurately trace a Carcano rifle merely by it's serial number.
P.S. The Model 91/38 TS Carbine, serial# C5522, which is in my
possession, is an "original issue" weapon as it also has the exact
same serial number stamped into the stock as part of it's ID.
Be sure and come back and discuss things when someone has taught you
something which is relatively accurate and which you can "Parrot"
without demonstration of exactly how little you know about the subject
matter of the Carcano.
David Von Pein
The above post of The Purv's can filed in File 13, of course (aka: the
garbage can).
Does Purv 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.
RE: C2766.......
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. 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.
Brokedad
==================================================================================
So! Now you have become a worldwide expert on all of the Carcano
weapons throughout the world.
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/m91.html
91 Moschetto Cav.
C3329
Brescia
1899
-------------------------
91 Moschetto Cav.
Sporterized
6.5x52 Carcano (?)
C5385
R.E. Terni
36
-------------------------
91 Moschetto Balilla
6,5 Ridotto (?)
C0207
Brescia
1931
------------------------
91/24 Moschetto T.S.
Sporterized
6.5x52 Carcano
C6016
Roma
918
--------------------------
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/m38.html
38 Fucile Corto
7.35x51 Carcano
C2931
Terni
Fixed
----------------------------------
38 Fucile Corto
7.35x51 Carcano
C6788
C6788
Terni
1938
XVII
Fixed
---------------------------
38 Fucile Corto
Sporterized
7.35x51 Carcano
C9445
None
RE Terni
1938
XVII
Adjustable
--------------------------
38 Fucile Corto
7.35x51 Carcano
C9696
R7795
Terni
1938
XVII
Fixed
--------------------------------
38 Fucile Corto
7.35x51 Carcano
C8437
C8437
RE Terni
1939
XVII
Fixed
-------------------------------
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/tipo_i.html
(Carcano rifles made for Japan)
Tipo I Fucile
6.5x50 Japanese
C3865
None
Terni
Adjustable
----------------------------------
Tipo I Fucile
6.5x50 Japanese
C8262
None
Adjustable
-----------------------------------
Tipo I Fucile
6.5x50 Japanese
C8472
None
Adjustable
-------------------------------------
Tipo I Fucile
6.5x50 Japanese
C9729
None
Adjustable
=================================
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/m91_38.html
91/38 Fucile Corto
6.5x52 Carcano
C2766
Unknown
Terni
1940
-----------------------------------------
*It is noted that of some 59 weapons which Richard Hobbs has managed
to secure information on, he has no other Model 91/38 Short Rifle/
Fucile Corto which contains the "C" prefix, other than C2766.
However, the data base has several of these weapons in the 7.35mm
caliber with the "C" prefix in the serial number.
So, unless Von Pinhead has a better "data base", then one will just
have to leave it with that.
Whereas, the Model 91/38 TS Carbine (true carbine) is not that
uncommon in the "C" prefix, as even I have one (TS Carbine Serial#
C5522/Beretta Gardone plant of manufacture) that is not recorded in
the Hobbs database.
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
-------------------------------------------
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
Fixed
------------------------------
Which information, to a prudent person, clearly demonstrates that
Serial Numbers on these weapons, without the exact Model
Identification and the specific plant of manufacture, means absolutely
nothing.
Of course, to a Von Pin/Parrothead, it is too difficult to comprehend
and they have to stick with what Frazier tells everyone.
As a prime example of the futility of attempting to trace a Carcano
merely by serial number, here is an example.
1. I possess a true Model 91/38 TS Carbine, (all original) Beretta
Gardone plant of manufacture, 6.5mm caliber,
serial number C5522.
2. I possess a true Model Cavalry Carbine, original serial number RO
1355 (stamped into stock), which has been rebarreled with a serial# UG
4267 Beretta Gardone plant of manufacture, 6.5mm caliber.
The actual barrels on these weapons are identical.
The barrels can be relatively easily switched on these weapons, and I
would thereafter have a TS Carbine with the serial number UG 4267 and
a Cavalry Carbine with the serial number C5522.
Far too confusing for a "Pinhead" to understand the potential
significance of.
Gil Jesus
I'd be interested in hearing you opinion on the following:
The WC wanted Hoover to provide it with documentation on the shipping
of TWO rifles:
a.) an italian carbine serial number 2766
as well as
b.) the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano miltary rifle, serial number
C2766
( CE 2652 )
Any idea why they would want to trace a weapon that supposedly had
nothing to do with the crime ?
I'm curious to know.
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L3z-2Hd2VTsBv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
David Von Pein
>>> "Of course, to a Von Pin/Parrothead, it is too difficult to comprehend and they have to stick with what Frazier tells everyone." <<<
I'd sooner believe Frazier any day of any week vs. believing anything
Purv has to say re. "C2766" (as if it matters in the SLIGHTEST degree
if there were 1, 10, or 10,000 additional rifles with that same serial
number on them).
BTW, for anyone who doesn't know what Purvis' idiotic "The WC Lied"
theory is....here it is in a nutshell:
Purvis believes that Lee Oswald did, indeed, kill JFK with three &
only three shots from the SN of the TSBD.
Purvis thinks that all 3 shots hit JFK's body (2 in the head), vs. one
shot missing entirely.
But Purvis thinks that the Warren Commission (for reasons unknown)
wanted to replace the REAL, TRUE "OSWALD DID IT ALL" scenario (which,
per Purvis includes 3 shots all hitting JFK) with a PHONY scenario
which--get this--leads right back to the VERY SAME OSWALD-DID-IT-ALONE
conclusion.
How's that for needlessly complicating the truth, folks?
Can anyone (except The Purv) think of a single good-enough reason for
the WC to want to lie and make shit up in order to dupe the world into
thinking Lee Oswald did it alone with "3 shots and 2 hits", instead of
telling the world what Purv says is the actual true scenario of:
"Oswald did alone with 3 shots and 3 hits"?
Why on Earth would the WC (or any sane person) even WANT to do
something like that with the evidence, when the end result is exactly
the same?
Purvis cannot possibly answer the above logical question in a
reasonable way....because no such reasonable answer exists for why the
WC would want to lie and do what Purv thinks they did do.
Bud
He also only has one with the "B" prefix. And only one each of the
following... "E", "G", "K", "L", "P", "Q", "V", "AB", "AK, "AM", "AP",
"AV", "AX", "BU', and thats when I lost interest. In other words, it
doesn`t seem unusual that he would only have one rifle with any given
letter (or combination of letters) prefix.
I, myself never thought it was impossible for two Carcanos to have
the same serial number. I thought it extremely unlikely that Lattimer
wouldn`t happen to have one with the same number as Oswald`s.Do any of
the numbers in that database match?
> Of course, to a Von Pin/Parrothead, it is too difficult to comprehend
> and they have to stick with what Frazier tells everyone.
How do you suppose the FBI went about securing information about
the Carcano in 1963, before there was an internet with databases about
the rifle? My guess is, they called the company that manufactured
them, and took whatever they were told for granted. There are
alternatives to "they lied, they lied" every time someone says
something that might not be true.
> As a prime example of the futility of attempting to trace a Carcano
> merely by serial number, here is an example.
>
> 1. I possess a true Model 91/38 TS Carbine, (all original) Beretta
> Gardone plant of manufacture, 6.5mm caliber,
> serial number C5522.
>
> 2. I possess a true Model Cavalry Carbine, original serial number RO
> 1355 (stamped into stock), which has been rebarreled with a serial# UG
> 4267 Beretta Gardone plant of manufacture, 6.5mm caliber.
>
> The actual barrels on these weapons are identical.
>
> The barrels can be relatively easily switched on these weapons, and I
> would thereafter have a TS Carbine with the serial number UG 4267 and
> a Cavalry Carbine with the serial number C5522.
>
> Far too confusing for a "Pinhead" to understand the potential
> significance of.
This case is full of things that are "potentially significant".
They don`t seem to ever reach their potential, though.
David Von Pein
RE: The C2766 Debate......
As I said in an earlier post, it's my belief that the 4 MC
manufacturing plants (or however many there were) had some type of
system in place for assuring that no two MC 91/38s (or whatever type/
model rifle you want to use here as an example) ended up with the
exact same serial number on them.
Stands to reason they would have some kind of system in place of that
nature regarding the serial numbers, even in pre-Internet times.
Otherwise, as I asked previously, what the heck is the use of stamping
the things with unique serial numbers in the first place, if "30 to
50" of the same type rifles (per T. Purvis) could conceivably and very
easily end up with the exact same number? To my way of thinking, that
type of massive duplication of numbers would defeat the whole notion
of "serial numbers".*
* = Especially where FIREARMS are concerned, i.e., an item which could
easily be used to carry out a crime and which very well might require
the police to track down a specific gun at a certain future time. To
place the same exact "identifier" on "30 to 50" rifles is just,
frankly, insane (IMHO). And I, for one, believe Robert A. Frazier when
he said to the WC that there were not two MC 91/38 rifles that
possessed the serial number C2766.
Bud
> RE: The C2766 Debate......
>
> As I said in an earlier post, it's my belief that the 4 MC
> manufacturing plants (or however many there were) had some type of
> system in place for assuring that no two MC 91/38s (or whatever type/
> model rifle you want to use here as an example) ended up with the
> exact same serial number on them.
Yah, it seems there were 3 companies making the 91/38 Fucile in
1940, and one making them 1940-41, according to the chart on this
page...
http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html
> Stands to reason they would have some kind of system in place of that
> nature regarding the serial numbers, even in pre-Internet times.
> Otherwise, as I asked previously, what the heck is the use of stamping
> the things with unique serial numbers in the first place, if "30 to
> 50" of the same type rifles (per T. Purvis) could conceivably and very
> easily end up with the exact same number? To my way of thinking, that
> type of massive duplication of numbers would defeat the whole notion
> of "serial numbers".*
I would imagine that they would assign different manufacturers
different letters, or ranges of letters.
> * = Especially where FIREARMS are concerned, i.e., an item which could
> easily be used to carry out a crime and which very well might require
> the police to track down a specific gun at a certain future time.
I suspect that the numbers were more for inventory purposes, and so
you could have a soldier assigned to, and responsible for, a
particular rifle.
> To
> place the same exact "identifier" on "30 to 50" rifles is just,
> frankly, insane (IMHO).
Yah, I don`t see that as very likely at all. What I see is the
potential for bad communication causing overlap, where some rifles
manufactured at different plants might have the same serial number.
I`m a big fan of human error, especially during wartime, with plants
probably stressed out for production, and plants spread around the
country. If one company is, say, assigned the letters AA to AL, and
another AM to AZ, the first company might mistakenly go past the "AL",
and manufacture rifles with "AM" serial numbers, with the second
company also making rifles with the "AM" series of serial numbers .
You figure that each letter prefix only makes serial numbers for 9,999
rifles, and then I assume they move to the next letter, or combination
prefix.
>And I, for one, believe Robert A. Frazier when
> he said to the WC that there were not two MC 91/38 rifles that
> possessed the serial number C2766.
He has more confidence in human beings than I do. If I had to bet,
I`d bet there was duplication of serial numbers. But, even if there
were some "overlap", the chance of the assassination rifle being one
with a duplicated serial number would be very, very, very slim. That
it would have a duplicated serial number and Lattimer, of all people,
would get the rifle that had the duplicate number just couldn`t
happen.
aeffects
> Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
> stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
[...]
looks like old Tom is kicking your Lone Nut-Kookster ass when it comes
to everything Caracano.... LMAO! How long have you been at this JFK
Assassination stuff, again?
Here, the Education Forum... is there any place left for you to go to
peddle your nonsense?
Brokedad
=====================================================================
First off, let's take a good look at some of Frazier's testimony:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
Mr. FRAZIER - From outward appearances, it could be a 7.35-mm. rifle,
because, basically, that is what it is. But its mechanism has been
rebarreled with a 6.5 mm. barrel. Photographs of the weapons are
similar, unless you make a very particular study of the photographs of
the original model 38 Italian military rifle, which is 7.35 mm.
Early in the Second World War, however, the Italian Government
barreled many of these rifles with a 6.5 mm. barrel, since they had a
quantity of that ammunition on hand. I presume that would be the most
logical way of confusing this weapon with one of a larger caliber.
===================================================
Actually! The first weapons to be produced in the 7.35mm caliber,
were produced utilizing old Model 91, 6.5mm Long Rifle barrels which
were cut down in length with the barrels re-worked and rechambered to
fit the slightly dirrerent 7.35mm cartridge.
Therefore, were one to find the correct "animal", then they could
possibly find a Model 91 Long Rifle in the 6.5mm caliber, and then
find the next consecutively assigned serial number, from the exact
same plant, which was now a 7.35mm Model 38 Short Rifle.
Later, conversion of many of the 7.35mm Model 38 Fucile Corto (Short
Rifle) to the 6.5mm Model 91/38 Short Rifle, was also apparantly
accomplished by taking newer production Long Rifle barrels and cutting
them down to the Model 91/38 length and thereafter utilizing these
excess rifle barrels to produce the Model 91/38 6.5mm weapon.
=======================================================================================
Next:
Mr. EISENBERG - Has the Federal Bureau of Investigation been supplied
with information concerning the meanings and significances of these
various markings?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; we have.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you state the source of that information?
Mr. FRAZIER - This information came to us by mail as a result of an
inquiry of the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service, abbreviated
SIFAR, by letter dated March 26, 1964, through the FBI representative
in Rome, Italy.
This information is classified as secret by the Italian Government,
who have advised that the material may be released to the Commission.
However, they desire the retention of the information in a secret
category.
The CHAIRMAN - Is this essential to the proof?
If it is not, I think we would rather not have it, because the fewer
things We have to keep in secret, the better the situation is for us.
Mr. EISENBERG - Off the record.
=================================================
Last time that I checked history, it indicated that we actually won
the war which defeated Germany, along with Italy.
Therefore, since we quite obviously have a considerable amount of
military intelligence dealing with Italian War Production, which was
left over from WWII, then I would also assume that we have
considerably history of the Italian production of their various small
arms.
To think that anything about the production of a completely outdated
weapon by a country which LOST the war, is completely stupid and
asinine.
We did not have the ability of the internet then, and the WC quite
obviusly did not want it into the public record that production
records of the Carcano would clearly demonstrate that serial numbers
of these weapons are a completely useless unless the exact make;
model; year of manufacture; and manufacturing plant are also
sepcifically identified.
And even then, with the ease of ability in barrel changeout, even an
attempt to trace any specific weapon is questionable.
> I'd be interested in hearing you opinion on the following:
>
> The WC wanted Hoover to provide it with documentation on the shipping
> of TWO rifles:
>
> a.) an italian carbine serial number 2766
> Any idea why they would want to trace a weapon that supposedly had
> nothing to do with the crime ?
>
> I'm curious to know.
======================================================================================
Educated speculation would be about all that I can provide.
=====================================================================================
> as well as
>
> b.) the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano miltary rifle, serial number
> C2766
>
> ( CE 2652 )
=======================================================================================
Obviously, if one is to attempt to prove ownership of a rifle to a
specific individual, then some form of "trail" must be provided.
The primary problem with the "Oswald" trail is that, if one believes
and accepts it, then the FBI began to trace this weapon at it's point
of entry into this country, as opposed to back from Oswald to Klein's,
and then back.
Even though the Dallas Police found copies of Klein's sporting goods
adds in the Payne home, and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes "magically"
came up with a Klein's add for the Model 91/38 Short Rifle from
Kleins, testimonies indicate that the FBI came to Kleins and informed
them that they were shipped the C2766 CARBINE.
There are two seperate and distinctive errors in the manner in which
this occurred.
First off:
1. Absolutely all records indicate that LHO ordered and was shipped a
virtually worthless 36-inch length version of the Carbine.
2. Yet, Harry Holmes, US Postal Inspector, immediately located a
Klein's add for the 40-inch Short Rifle and presented it to the Dallas
authorities as well as to the FBI.
Which makes me think that, as they usually would, the US Postal
Service had "pre-opened" the rifle package from Klein's Sporting
Goods, and had full knowledge of the exact weapon that was shipped.
And, since Klein's was already the subject matter of an investigation
as well as the fact that JEH/the FBI was specifically attempting to
cut down on the unregistered purchase and shipment of these type
weapons throughout the US, then one can safely bet that the US Post
Office/aka the US Government/aka the FBI was fully aware that LHO
received a Model 91/38 Carcano Short Rifle through the mail.
And, since it was already fully known as to who purportedly shipped
this weapon, then it was merely a matter of first determining exactly
who the supplier to Klein's was, and which the US Government as well
as the FBI would have already known.
With that knowledge, the FBI could go directly to the supplier and
request those records which may demonstrate a given serial number
weapon was received, gather the said information, and then go to the
Dealer/Klein's and tell them exactly when they received the stated
weapon.
This WAS NOT the computer days, yet by slightly after midnight of the
23, the FBI had already established sale of a weapon with serial
number C2766 to the Oswald P.O. Box.
================================================
> The WC wanted Hoover to provide it with documentation on the shipping
> of TWO rifles:
>
> a.) an italian carbine serial number 2766
> Any idea why they would want to trace a weapon that supposedly had
> nothing to do with the crime ?
====================================================
Mr. Von Pinhead should make an attempt to read and comprehend!
Mr. 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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Operative Wording being: "which normally will be repeated"!
Meaning that virtually any plant of manufacture may repeat the serial
number.
And, despite what the records may say in regards to actual plant of
manufacture, the Model 91/38 Short Rifle has been found with barrels
which were produced at five different arms factories.
So,
The primary question would first be was the serial number "2766" on an
actual 36-inch length Carbine, or was it on a 40-inch length Short
Rifle.
Of course, virtually anyone could take a rifle barrel which was
stamepd "2766", and with a good set of dies, thereafter stamp a "C" in
front of the number and produce a weapon (whatever the actual model)
which would now appear to bear a serial number "C2766".
Which of course only adds additional confusion to the search for a
Carcano rifle/carbine/TS Carbine/Model 91/28 Carbine/Short Rifle/Long
Rifle barrell that has been cut down into either Carbine Length/Long
Rifle Barrel that has been cut down to Short Rifle Length, problem of
serial numbers with these weapons.
And of course, the"C" in "C2766" as found on the Oswald Short Rifle,
certainly does not match the "C" prefix stamp on the "C5522" Model
91/38 (6.5mm) TS Carbine in my possession which was manufactured in
1940 at the Beretta Gardone factory.
Gil Jesus
First, let me say that this is all very intriguing to me.
Secondly, if I were on the WC and had suspected that a letter prefix had
been added to the serial number, I would have certainly traced not only the
prefixed number, but also the number without the letter prefix.
Thanks for that insight, I appreciate it.
Walt
>
> Educated speculation would be about all that I can provide.
>
> > as well as
>
> > b.) the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano miltary rifle, serial number
> > C2766
>
> > ( CE 2652 )
>
The record is confused ( as they planned it to be) about how the FBI
learned so quickly that Kleins had sent that rifle to PO Box 2915 in
Dallas.
I believe one of the stories is that an FBI agent in New Orleans
phoned FBI headquarters and told them that he'd learned that Oswald
had ordered the rifle from a Chicago mail order house.
Let's just accept that story as the truth for the moment......
Obviously the New Orleans FBI agent had to have heard it from someone
close to Oswald. Who told the New Orleans FBI agent?? Who is on
record as talking to the FBI in New orleans within a couple of hours
after the assassination??
I honestly don't believe that the FBI in New Orleans could have
tracked down any of Oswald's known associates before midnight, and
talked to them. However.... An "ex" FBI agent named Guy Bannister
could easily have called the FBI and told them that he knew that
Oswald had ordered a rifle from a Chicago mail order house.
I strongly suspect that is how the FBI learned so quickly that the
Rifle had been ordered from Kleins.
Of course the FBI dared not reveal who gave them that information,
because the very next question would be: Well How did Bannister learn
that information??..... and a whole new can o worms would have been
opened.
>
> ================================================
>
> > The WC wanted Hoover to provide it with documentation on the shipping
> > of TWO rifles:
>
> > a.) an italian carbine serial number 2766
> > Any idea why they would want to trace a weapon that supposedly had
> > nothing to do with the crime ?
>
> ====================================================
>
> Mr. Von Pinhead should make an attempt to read and comprehend!
>
> Mr. 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.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Operative Wording being: "which normally will be repeated"!
>
> Meaning that virtually any plant of manufacture may repeat the serial
> number.
>
> And, despite what the records may say in regards to actual plant of
> manufacture, the Model 91/38 Short Rifle has been found with barrels
> which were produced at five different arms factories.
>
> So,
>
> The primary question would first be was the serial number "2766" on an
> actual 36-inch length Carbine, or was it on a 40-inch length Short
> Rifle.
>
> Of course, virtually anyone could take a rifle barrel which was
> stamepd "2766", and with a good set of dies, thereafter stamp a "C" in
> front of the number and produce a weapon (whatever the actual model)
> which would now appear to bear a serial number "C2766".
>
> Which of course only adds additional confusion to the search for a
> Carcano rifle/carbine/TS Carbine/Model 91/28 Carbine/Short Rifle/Long
> Rifle barrell that has been cut down into either Carbine Length/Long
> Rifle Barrel that has been cut down to Short Rifle Length, problem of
> serial numbers with these weapons.
>
> And of course, the"C" in "C2766" as found on the Oswald Short Rifle,
> certainly does not match the "C" prefix stamp on the "C5522" Model
> 91/38 (6.5mm) TS Carbine in my possession which was manufactured in
> 1940 at the Beretta Gardone factory.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
close ties with the FBI in New Orleans, specifically Warren DeBrueys.
DeBrueys was the "Oswald expert" in New Orleans similar to Hosty being
the "Oswald expert" in Dallas. After the assassination, DeBrueys was
sent to Dallas to "assist" in the investigation.
When Oswald left New Orleans for Mexico, he didn't bring his rifle
with him. Could he have sold his rifle to DeBrueys or someone else in
New Orleans only to have it brought by DeBrueys to Dallas after the
assassination ?
Interesting questions for sure.
Walt
> Walt, it's been written in more than one place that Bannister had very
> close ties with the FBI in New Orleans, specifically Warren DeBrueys.
I don't think there's much doubt that Bannister was running a private
war against Cuba. He always denied any association with Oswald ( I
doubt that he convinced anybody but that was his position.) Since he
was setting Oswald up to be a patsy, It would have been natural for
him to call his buddy J.Edna Hoover and tell him that Oswald had
ordered a rifle from Kleins in February. In the hours following the
murder of JFK Bannister was overwhelmed with the enormity of the
crime that he had conspiried in..... He was so overwrought that he
beat a long time pal (Jack Martin) with his pistol and put Jack in the
hospital. Of course it never has been revealed how an FBI agent in
New Orleans knew about the rifle being ordered from Kleins. To
reveal that information would have blown the plot wide open.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18509d98ec29334a
>>> "The chances of any other C2766 ending up in America is [sic] slim. The chances of two such rifles ending up in Crescent or Klein`s inventories is [sic] mindbogglingly remote. Hard to imagine even with effort, with an intent to frame, that someone could find the necessary rifle with the matching serial number to do such a thing." <<<
Yes. And this is also a very strange argument for Mr. Purvis to be
making in the first place, IMO. Purvis thinks that CE139 is the real
murder weapon of JFK. He doesn't think there was anything underhanded
about the way Oswald obtained Rifle C2766 from Klein's.
At least I don't think he thinks there is anything covert or
underhanded about it. But, then again, with so many theories flying
around loose like confetti in a tornado...who knows?
Perhaps I'm wrong and Purvis thinks that somebody miraculously got
ahold of a second MC 91/38 rifle with #C2766 on it and then did a
switcheroo of some kind. And maybe somebody also faked Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, to boot:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
Or -- Maybe Purvis is just spitting out impossibly-complicated C2766
rifle scenarios just for the heck of it, and/or just for the sake of
pumping his own chest with respect to his vast knowledge about these
Italian-made firearms (even though the entire topic is a completely-
moot one).
Ya think?
(I do.)
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18509...
>
> >>> "The chances of any other C2766 ending up in America is [sic] slim. The chances of two such rifles ending up in Crescent or Klein`s inventories is [sic] mindbogglingly remote. Hard to imagine even with effort, with an intent to frame, that someone could find the necessary rifle with the matching serial number to do such a thing." <<<
>
> Yes. And this is also a very strange argument for Mr. Purvis to be
> making in the first place, IMO. Purvis thinks that CE139 is the real
> murder weapon of JFK. He doesn't think there was anything underhanded
> about the way Oswald obtained Rifle C2766 from Klein's.
>
> At least I don't think he thinks there is anything covert or
> underhanded about it. But, then again, with so many theories flying
> around loose like confetti in a tornado...who knows?
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong and Purvis thinks that somebody miraculously got
> ahold of a second MC 91/38 rifle with #C2766 on it and then did a
> switcheroo of some kind. And maybe somebody also faked Waldman Exhibit
> No. 7, to boot:
>
>
> Or -- Maybe Purvis is just spitting out impossibly-complicated C2766
> rifle scenarios just for the heck of it, and/or just for the sake of
> pumping his own chest with respect to his vast knowledge about these
> Italian-made firearms (even though the entire topic is a completely-
> moot one).
>
> Ya think?
>
> (I do.)
son, on the Education Forum, presently your lower than whale shit.
Thank your lucky stars for that DVP alias, eh? Although that guy in
Indiana with the same name, might not appreciate your sense of
humor... Carry on, toots-e-roll!
Walt
Gil, I'm not convinced that Oswald ever had a Mannlicher Carcano in
New Orleans.
The only person who testified that he had a rifle in N.O. was
Marina...... and she couldn't distinguish the difference between
Carcano and a Tincano.
It's entirely possible that she could have seen Lee with one of David
Ferrie's or Adrian Alba's rifles. Lee had a Mannlicher Carcano in
his possession in Dallas in March and April of 1963, but he left
Dallas for N.O. on a bus and he had no luggage long enough to contain
a Mannlicher Carcano model 91 /38. I believe that the rifle he had in
Dallas was left in Dallas.
>
> Interesting questions for sure.
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/18509...
>
>
> Yes. And this is also a very strange argument for Mr. Purvis to be
> making in the first place, IMO. Purvis thinks that CE139 is the real
> murder weapon of JFK. He doesn't think there was anything underhanded
> about the way Oswald obtained Rifle C2766 from Klein's.
>
> At least I don't think he thinks there is anything covert or
> underhanded about it. But, then again, with so many theories flying
> around loose like confetti in a tornado...who knows?
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong and Purvis thinks that somebody miraculously got
> ahold of a second MC 91/38 rifle with #C2766 on it and then did a
> switcheroo of some kind. And maybe somebody also faked Waldman Exhibit
> No. 7, to boot:
>
Near the upper right hand corner of the document there is a hand
written number "125". Can anybody tell me what that number
represents? The typed letters in the left side of the box seem to
read "no. packages", but that doesn't seem to make any sense. The
model 91/38 with a scope attached would weigh about 12.5 pounds in a
shipping box. I wonder if the "125" was the weight of the package?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 12 Sep, 14:37, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Walt, it's been written in more than one place that Bannister had very
> > close ties with the FBI in New Orleans, specifically Warren DeBrueys.
> > DeBrueys was the "Oswald expert" in New Orleans similar to Hosty being
> > the "Oswald expert" in Dallas. After the assassination, DeBrueys was
> > sent to Dallas to "assist" in the investigation.
>
> > When Oswald left New Orleans for Mexico, he didn't bring his rifle
> > with him. Could he have sold his rifle to DeBrueys or someone else in
> > New Orleans only to have it brought by DeBrueys to Dallas after the
> > assassination ?
>
> Gil, I'm not convinced that Oswald ever had a Mannlicher Carcano in
> New Orleans.
> The only person who testified that he had a rifle in N.O. was
> Marina...... and she couldn't distinguish the difference between
> Carcano and a Tincano.
I thought she was a reliable witness for you Walt? I mean you took her
word for it when she said LHO shot at Gen. Walker. You took her word
for it that she photographed LHO with the M-C and pistol. Why would
you NOT take her word for this now?
> It's entirely possible that she could have seen Lee with one of David
> Ferrie's or Adrian Alba's rifles. Lee had a Mannlicher Carcano in
> his possession in Dallas in March and April of 1963, but he left
> Dallas for N.O. on a bus and he had no luggage long enough to contain
> a Mannlicher Carcano model 91 /38. I believe that the rifle he had in
> Dallas was left in Dallas.
There is NO proof LHO ever owned a rifle, period. This is all made up
stuff as he had NO rifle in Dallas or New Orleans. A simple question
never answered by LNers is why would he mail-order a rifle in the
first place when he could have purchased one in Texas with NO paper
trail. Also, he was familiar with the M-1, why NOT purchase one of
those? No bolt to deal with and a heck of lot more reliable.
Walt
wrote:
> On Sep 15, 6:42 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Sep, 14:37, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Walt, it's been written in more than one place that Bannister had very
> > > close ties with the FBI in New Orleans, specifically Warren DeBrueys.
> > > DeBrueys was the "Oswald expert" in New Orleans similar to Hosty being
> > > the "Oswald expert" in Dallas. After the assassination, DeBrueys was
> > > sent to Dallas to "assist" in the investigation.
>
> > > When Oswald left New Orleans for Mexico, he didn't bring his rifle
> > > with him. Could he have sold his rifle to DeBrueys or someone else in
> > > New Orleans only to have it brought by DeBrueys to Dallas after the
> > > assassination ?
>
> > Gil, I'm not convinced that Oswald ever had a Mannlicher Carcano in
> > New Orleans.
> > The only person who testified that he had a rifle in N.O. was
> > Marina...... and she couldn't distinguish the difference between
> > Carcano and a Tincano.
>
> I thought she was a reliable witness for you Walt? I mean you took her
> word for it when she said LHO shot at Gen. Walker. You took her word
> for it that she photographed LHO with the M-C and pistol. Why would
> you NOT take her word for this now?
Stupid bastard!.... I did take her word....If you could only read... I
said she could easily have been mistaken about WHAT KIND of rifle she
saw Oswald handling in New Orleans.
>
> > It's entirely possible that she could have seen Lee with one of David
> > Ferrie's or Adrian Alba's rifles. Lee had a Mannlicher Carcano in
> > his possession in Dallas in March and April of 1963, but he left
> > Dallas for N.O. on a bus and he had no luggage long enough to contain
> > a Mannlicher Carcano model 91 /38. I believe that the rifle he had in
> > Dallas was left in Dallas.
>
> There is NO proof LHO ever owned a rifle, period. This is all made up
> stuff as he had NO rifle in Dallas or New Orleans. A simple question
> never answered by LNers is why would he mail-order a rifle in the
> first place when he could have purchased one in Texas with NO paper
> trail. Also, he was familiar with the M-1, why NOT purchase one of
> those? No bolt to deal with and a heck of lot more reliable.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
More rudeness, just like a LNer. I know what you said, and it is
further proof you may be more than you claim to be. You have
consistently put LHO in the mold the WC painted for him. Let's
review:
You claim he orders a 40 inch M-C weapon when there is NO proof to
support this.
You claim he didn't pick it up, but then you have it in his possession
in Dallas anyway.
You claim he stupidly posed for a picture (CE-133A - also why this one
is legit when the other 3 aren't is something you have never really
explained either) with the M-C and .38 so the police could claim he
was the shooter. "See the picture, that is him with the rifle."
You claim he shoots at General Walker, but purposely misses, despite
the ammo being found by the police NOT matching a M-C at all.
You claim he is going to infiltrate Cuba, but really never go into
much detail as to why.
Finally, you claim he was in Mexico City when NO real proof has ever
been put forth on this claim. In fact, Hoover admitted that the phone
call tapes were not of LHO's voice. Furthermore, the picture
presented to be LHO was in NO WAY LHO.
Why you insist on having LHO own a rifle when there is NO proof he
ever did is beyond me, and quite suspicious.
> > > It's entirely possible that she could have seen Lee with one of David
> > > Ferrie's or Adrian Alba's rifles. Lee had a Mannlicher Carcano in
> > > his possession in Dallas in March and April of 1963, but he left
> > > Dallas for N.O. on a bus and he had no luggage long enough to contain
> > > a Mannlicher Carcano model 91 /38. I believe that the rifle he had in
> > > Dallas was left in Dallas.
>
> > There is NO proof LHO ever owned a rifle, period. This is all made up
> > stuff as he had NO rifle in Dallas or New Orleans. A simple question
> > never answered by LNers is why would he mail-order a rifle in the
> > first place when he could have purchased one in Texas with NO paper
> > trail. Also, he was familiar with the M-1, why NOT purchase one of
> > those? No bolt to deal with and a heck of lot more reliable.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "Why you insist on having LHO own a rifle when there is NO proof he ever did is beyond me..." <<<
Yeah....somebody else was using Oswald's handwriting here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm
And somebody else was using Oswald's face here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0267b.htm
And somebody else was using Oswald's palmprint here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
To a kook named Rob, all of the above items, incredibly, add up to "no
proof" of Lee Harvey Oswald ever owning and possessing Rifle #C2766.
Somebody must have Robcap's brain in a jar someplace in
Montana....because it's surely not currently between his ears, that's
a certainty.
If this idiot mangles any more evidence in this case, I'm calling
Guinness....because he's darn close to the world record.
David Von Pein
Plus.......
Rob must totally ignore Marina's testimony about having seen a rifle
in a blanket in the Paine garage....
Plus Rob must ignore Marina's testimony about having seen LHO dry-
firing his rifle on the porch in the summer of '63.
Marina's just a liar, right Rob?
aeffects
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Why you insist on having LHO own a rifle when there is NO proof he ever did is beyond me..." <<<
Here's my point exactly, first Tim and now Dave defending Walt, if
this doesn't make Walt change his mind nothing will.
> Yeah....somebody else was using Oswald's handwriting here:
It was NEVER proven to be LHO's handwritting as the sample is way to
small. Haven't you read anything about this case? There is the
thought of some researchers that it was Marina's writing and the way
the SS sequestered her and threatened her this makes sense to me. If
you remove the testimony of Marina, something NOT allowed in court if
it hurts your spouse, the very weak WC case gets even weaker.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> And somebody else was using Oswald's face here:
Faked photo. We know the cutouts were found in DPD possession. The
police made the forgeries.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...
>
> And somebody else was using Oswald's palmprint here:
You mean the palmprint that came off COMPLETELY when Lt. Day used some
tape? LOL!!!! Why did Latona see NO palmprint? Even if it was
there, which it wasn't, it proves NOTHING in terms of LHO using the
weapon that day. You see, you have NO eyewitnesses placing LHO at the
eastern sixth-floor window of the TSBD.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> To a kook named Rob, all of the above items, incredibly, add up to "no
> proof" of Lee Harvey Oswald ever owning and possessing Rifle #C2766.
Kook=someone who can think for themself and determine when they are
being lied to. You got it, they PROVE nothing because they are faked
or not indicative of guilt. You have NO proof to offer, I know
because I have asked for it for almost a year now.
> Somebody must have Robcap's brain in a jar someplace in
> Montana....because it's surely not currently between his ears, that's
> a certainty.
Sorry, this kind of thinking is limited to you and Walt, to most of us
NO proof means you have NO theory or fact.
> If this idiot mangles any more evidence in this case, I'm calling
> Guinness....because he's darn close to the world record.
What evidence? You have NOT presented any for me to mangle.
robcap...@netscape.com
The lack of evidence to support her forced claims proves her to be.
It is not me calling her a liar, just the evidence of what she claimed
happened.
David Von Pein
>>> "It was NEVER proven to be LHO's handwritting [sic][,] as the sample is way to small." <<<
It was all proven to be Oswald's handwriting -- the mail-in coupon,
the money order, and the envelope. Every last bit of that stuff was
written by L.H. Oswald without a shred of a doubt.
You are an ignorant idiot. Or just a bald-faced liar. Pick one.
>>> "Haven't you read anything about this case?" <<<
Sure have. But you obviously haven't. You might as well be studying
the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping case. The shit you say applies just
about as much to that crime as it does to anything connected to
reality in the JFK murder case.
>>> "There is the thought of some researchers that it was Marina's writing and the way the SS sequestered her and threatened her this makes sense to me." <<<
LOL. Never heard that idiocy before. You hear a new one every day
around here I guess.
And I suppose Marina forged Ozzie's writing on various documents to
frame her own husband for murder....is that it, kook?
>>> "If you remove the testimony of Marina, something NOT allowed in court if it hurts your spouse, the very weak WC case gets even weaker." <<<
Another kook who thinks we're in a Dallas courtroom apparently.
<chuckle>
>>> "Faked photo." <<<
Naturally. If it leads to "P.O." [Patsy Oz], it's "faked".
Good job, Rob.
>>> "We know the cutouts were found in DPD possession. The police made the forgeries." <<<
100% bullshit made up by conspiracy nuts.
Let's see the "cutouts" and provable "forgeries", kook.
>>> "You mean the palmprint that came off COMPLETELY when Lt. Day used some tape?" <<<
That's the one, kook.
Ever try using sticky tape to remove something from a particular
object? It really does work. (Duh.)
>>> "Even if it [the palmprint on C2766] was there, which it wasn't [Rob's an idiot], it proves NOTHING in terms of LHO using the weapon that day." <<<
But it sure as heck destroys a good portion of your "LHO Never Owned
Or Possessed Rifle C2766" argument, doesn't it?
Rob....you are a laughingstock. And, incredibly, you relish the
position.
>>> "You see, you have NO eyewitnesses placing LHO at the eastern sixth-floor window of the TSBD." <<<
This is a lie (of course).
>>> "Kook=someone who can think for themself and determine when they are being lied to." <<<
And you determine that a whole bunch. So much so, in fact, it borders
on the impossible (not to mention the "totally absurd").
But the "THey All Lied" is as good an excuse as any for a kook to toss
out all the evidence I guess. Right?
>>> "You got it, they PROVE nothing because they are faked or not indicative of guilt."
Goodie. More faked stuff. What's not to love about that?
>>> "You have NO proof to offer, I know because I have asked for it for almost a year now." <<<
It's been served to you on an Internet platter a hundred times. You
just prefer "faked" stuff (and chaff) instead of the meat and potatoes
you've been served since October 2007. A typical kook diet.
>>> "What evidence? You have NOT presented any for me to mangle." <<<
The whole world is one big empty space....with nothing in it. This is
the world as Rob The Kook sees it apparently.
Rob, you're a real kick.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "It was NEVER proven to be LHO's handwritting [sic][,] as the sample is way to small." <<<
>
> It was all proven to be Oswald's handwriting -- the mail-in coupon,
> the money order, and the envelope. Every last bit of that stuff was
> written by L.H. Oswald without a shred of a doubt.
NO it WASN'T proven as there was NO court case. Anyone can claim
things, you do ALL THE TIME, but it doesn't make it so. There is NO
proof that has stood the test of a cross to show this was his
handwriting. Furthermore, it was tied to a 36 inch Carbine anyway.
> You are an ignorant idiot. Or just a bald-faced liar. Pick one.
Being called a liar by a liar really means nothing, now does it?
> >>> "Haven't you read anything about this case?" <<<
>
> Sure have. But you obviously haven't. You might as well be studying
> the Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping case. The shit you say applies just
> about as much to that crime as it does to anything connected to
> reality in the JFK murder case.
You could fool me as you make wild claims with NO support. All the
"evidence" the WC put forth was a one-sided affair, they did NOT allow
for a defense, therefore, it is hardly proof of anything.
> >>> "There is the thought of some researchers that it was Marina's writing and the way the SS sequestered her and threatened her this makes sense to me." <<<
>
> LOL. Never heard that idiocy before. You hear a new one every day
> around here I guess.
Prove it wasn't Marina's handwriting. I dare you! The simple fact is
any real, legitimate handwriting expert will tell you they can give an
opinion, but the sample is far too small to say in a court of law it
is LHO's or anyone else's for sure.
This is the real key, the standards of a court of law are far stricter
than a "white paper" theory, thus, the "evidence" the WC put forth
wouldn't have either been admitted in a court or would have quickly
been shown for what it was worth - nothing in terms of guilt.
> And I suppose Marina forged Ozzie's writing on various documents to
> frame her own husband for murder....is that it, kook?
Her husband would have been dead, and she was under an ILLEGAL
sequesting by the SS and threatened with deportation or worse, who
could blame her for forging some documents? In her mind LHO was dead
and she had two small children to worry about. They also had Ruth
Paine to work on her as this traitor had been handling her for some
time.
> >>> "If you remove the testimony of Marina, something NOT allowed
in court if it hurts your spouse, the very weak WC case gets even
weaker." <<<
>
> Another kook who thinks we're in a Dallas courtroom apparently.
Hey, this is still an OPEN murder case bozo, there is NO statute of
limitations on murder, therefore, this case has to be looked at in a
fashion regarding a court of law. You have NO proof so of course you
don't want to view it this way.
> <chuckle>
"Chuckles" the clown always laughs when he is lying.
> >>> "Faked photo." <<<
>
> Naturally. If it leads to "P.O." [Patsy Oz], it's "faked".
You have it backwards, as the need to frame LHO was so great they had
to fake much of the "evidence" to make it appear like he was guilty.
> Good job, Rob.
Why doesn't "Chuckles" ever prove his theory? Why is allegations,
suppositions, lies, and claims are the only things he can come up
with?
> >>> "We know the cutouts were found in DPD possession. The police made the forgeries." <<<
>
> 100% bullshit made up by conspiracy nuts.
Hardly, this story is very real and the fact that two additional
photos were found and introduced many years later shows this forgery
for what it was. These photos were bad fakes that any real expert can
see in a minute. Nice try though.
> Let's see the "cutouts" and provable "forgeries", kook.
Why? You wouldn't believe it anyway. One later picture was found in
Roscoe White's possession by his wife and we know he served some of
his time as a photo technician for the DPD. He also had extensive
photographic experience from his time with the CIA (if he ever left,
remember the lead cops on RFK's murder were CIA while serving on the
LAPD), so he is a likely suspect. Add in the fact that some have
claimed it is White's body in the pictures and this leads us to plent
of reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (besides like 15 other
things Jack White noticed in the pictures themselves).
Again, the onus is on your side as you are claiming these two photos
(CE-133 A & B) are of LHO, but there is more than enough reasonable
doubt to this claim.
> >>> "You mean the palmprint that came off COMPLETELY when Lt. Day used some tape?" <<<
>
> That's the one, kook.
>
> Ever try using sticky tape to remove something from a particular
> object? It really does work. (Duh.)
LOL!!!! Dave thinks "sticky" tape is the same as evidence tape!! I'm
sure the primary purpose of the type of tape the police use is to
prevent the thing Lt. Day claimed happened! This is all moot anyway
as the chain of custody is non-existent for this "print" and it would
NOT have stood up in court. Add in Lt. Day's outright refusal to sign
any document that outlined his claims and we have all the doubt we
need.
> >>> "Even if it [the palmprint on C2766] was there, which it wasn't [Rob's an idiot], it proves NOTHING in terms of LHO using the weapon that day." <<<
>
> But it sure as heck destroys a good portion of your "LHO Never Owned
> Or Possessed Rifle C2766" argument, doesn't it?
Handling a gun does NOT prove ownership! How clueless can one person
be? Someone could have brought it into the TSBD (or anywhere in LHO's
prescence) and showed it to him and said "here hold it". This is a
perfectly normal and reasonable explanation. You're ridiculous claim
that because someone handles a rifle means they fired it at someone is
just insane! Expected, but insane nonetheless.
> Rob....you are a laughingstock. And, incredibly, you relish the
> position.
Only to liars who claim what the evidence does NOT prove! You are
actually wish I wan't here as I point out constantly what a liar and
fraud you are. How can one lie and be a traitor to one's country like
you? How do you look at yourself in the mirror?
> >>> "You see, you have NO eyewitnesses placing LHO at the eastern sixth-floor window of the TSBD." <<<
>
> This is a lie (of course).
Really??? Prove it then.
> >>> "Kook=someone who can think for themself and determine when they are being lied to." <<<
>
> And you determine that a whole bunch. So much so, in fact, it borders
> on the impossible (not to mention the "totally absurd").
You have NO proof and NO evidence, all you have is the government's,
the education system and the media's backing. The real tragedy is how
our kids are taught these, and other junk, lies and told it is the
truth.
> But the "THey All Lied" is as good an excuse as any for a kook to toss
> out all the evidence I guess. Right?
Newsflash: There is NO evidence put forth by the WC to throw out.
They failed to provide any that showed LHO was guilty of the accused
crimes.
> >>> "You got it, they PROVE nothing because they are faked or not indicative of guilt."
>
> Goodie. More faked stuff. What's not to love about that?
Notice how Dave can't prove me wrong? All we get is "goodies" from
"Chuckles."
> >>> "You have NO proof to offer, I know because I have asked for it for almost a year now." <<<
>
> It's been served to you on an Internet platter a hundred times. You
> just prefer "faked" stuff (and chaff) instead of the meat and potatoes
> you've been served since October 2007. A typical kook diet.
Now, you have served lies, accusations, suppositions, allegations and
claims, but NO PROOF! You know this, that is why you are a liar.
> >>> "What evidence? You have NOT presented any for me to mangle." <<<
>
> The whole world is one big empty space....with nothing in it. This is
> the world as Rob The Kook sees it apparently.
>
> Rob, you're a real kick.
Notice how "Chuckles" has to jump to the "whole world" as he can't
disprove anything I said in regards to the JFK case.
