Mounting The Rifle Scope

[David Von Pein]

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on the 40"
model.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't care what Mitchell Westra told the HSCA, it seems quite obvious
from the various 1963 Klein's advertisements pictured below that Klein's
DID mount scopes on the 40-inch carbines they shipped to customers in
1963.

The three Klein's ads shown in the photo below are almost identical when
it comes to the description being used concerning the scope, with one of
the ads (the top one from February 1963 that Lee Oswald used to order his
rifle) indicating a 36-inch carbine, while the other two show a 40-inch
weapon:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s2000/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg

So to say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is
practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's
Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963.

Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer
could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e.,
the scope is attached to the gun itself?

I suppose a conspiracy theorist can always argue that the words "as
illustrated" (or, as is the case with the November 1963 ad, just the word
"illustrated", without the word "as" preceding it) doesn't have to mean
the scope will be attached to the gun itself when Klein's ships it to a
customer. The CTers can always claim that "as illustrated" only refers to
the scope itself, and not its "mounted" status on the gun.

But I think another fair and even more accurate and reasonable
interpretation of those words ("as illustrated") is an interpretation that
I'm guessing a lot of people would have when they read that ad -- and that
is: the scope is going to be mounted on the rifle I'm ordering, because
that's what is "illustrated" in this ad.

But in any event, we can know for certain that Klein's Sporting Goods of
Chicago absolutely, positively DID mount a scope on a forty-inch
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for at least one of its customers in March of
1963 -- and that customer was Lee Harvey Oswald.

SCOPE ADDENDUM:

With respect to the conspiracy theorists' persistent claim that Klein's
Sporting Goods never mounted scopes on their 40-inch Italian Carcano
rifles, the gunsmith who worked in the Klein's warehouse in 1963, William
H. Sharp, was interviewed in 2013 [see link below] and said that he told
his boss right after the assassination in 1963: “It’s my
rifle, I put the scope on it”.

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

David Von Pein
August 2012
February 2014

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1238.html

[mainframetech]

I hate to back up DVP on this, but I've put out that news article many
times, and Sharp did indeed mount scopes on those rifles that Klein's
sold. His attitude helps to understand why the scope was mounted badly on
the MC rifle of Oswald's. And that it was mounted with only 2 screws
instead of the 3 that were required.

Chris

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

Good thing Jim Garrison isn't around to read this. If he read about
"mounting" the rifle scope he probably would have added that to the
perversions that his sex-crazed assassination conspirators engaged in.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/30/2017 11:03 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>
> It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on the 40"
> model.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I don't care what Mitchell Westra told the HSCA, it seems quite obvious
> from the various 1963 Klein's advertisements pictured below that Klein's
> DID mount scopes on the 40-inch carbines they shipped to customers in
> 1963.
>

Silly. Other people also bought the same rifle with the scope attached
and the man who actually attached testified that he mounted the one on
Oswald's model.

> The three Klein's ads shown in the photo below are almost identical when
> it comes to the description being used concerning the scope, with one of
> the ads (the top one from February 1963 that Lee Oswald used to order his
> rifle) indicating a 36-inch carbine, while the other two show a 40-inch
> weapon:
>
> http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s2000/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg
>
> So to say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is
> practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's
> Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963.
>

Well, not to get too picky, but if you can see the scope in the ads
doesn't that alone prove that Klein's mounted scopes on the 40-inch
short rifles? They didn't have Photoshop back then.

> Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer
> could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e.,
> the scope is attached to the gun itself?
>

Ahem, the 40-inch short rifle is NOT a Carbine. Different species.

> I suppose a conspiracy theorist can always argue that the words "as
> illustrated" (or, as is the case with the November 1963 ad, just the word
> "illustrated", without the word "as" preceding it) doesn't have to mean
> the scope will be attached to the gun itself when Klein's ships it to a
> customer. The CTers can always claim that "as illustrated" only refers to
> the scope itself, and not its "mounted" status on the gun.
>

Well, you COULD argue that the gun shown was just a display model and
they never sold it to anyone.

> But I think another fair and even more accurate and reasonable
> interpretation of those words ("as illustrated") is an interpretation that
> I'm guessing a lot of people would have when they read that ad -- and that
> is: the scope is going to be mounted on the rifle I'm ordering, because
> that's what is "illustrated" in this ad.
>
> But in any event, we can know for certain that Klein's Sporting Goods of
> Chicago absolutely, positively DID mount a scope on a forty-inch
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for at least one of its customers in March of
> 1963 -- and that customer was Lee Harvey Oswald.
>

Begging the question. You can show that they routinely mounted scopes to
those models.

> SCOPE ADDENDUM:
>
> With respect to the conspiracy theorists' persistent claim that Klein's
> Sporting Goods never mounted scopes on their 40-inch Italian Carcano
> rifles, the gunsmith who worked in the Klein's warehouse in 1963, William
> H. Sharp, was interviewed in 2013 [see link below] and said that he told
> his boss right after the assassination in 1963: “It’s my
> rifle, I put the scope on it”.
>
> http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html
>
> David Von Pein
> August 2012
> February 2014
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1238.html
>

In sum, I enjoy the idea of you shooting down the kooks, but I cringe
when I see you make rookie errors which give them a way out.

[mainframetech]

You may be interested to know that the MC rifle that they found in the
TSBD was examined by the army and found to have a misaligned scope and an
extremely sticky bolt. It also had a double pull trigger. The scope was
off by a good bit and it wouldn't hit anything probably.

The scope failure and other elements suggested that Oswald was not
interested in shooting anyone. He didn't practice, yet was supposed to be
the shooter of a president. He didn't buy the odd ammunition for the
rifle from the ad where he bought the rifle from Klein's when it was
offered to him. The FBI tried to find where he might have bought ammo for
the rifle, and they found only 2 places in range, and one of them had
reloaded all his MC ammo with lead bullets. The other place was unable to
identify Oswald as a customer. Yet an odd bunch of 4 shells were
available for the rifle. Odd.

Chris

[olde...@gmail.com]

@David Von Pein

I found Mr. Sharp's comments about LHO's rifle possibly experiencing a
'hang fire' intriguing.

David, do you feel LHO's weapon may have experienced at least one hang
fire in the ambush shooting sequence that caused LHO to miss on one of the
3 shots? It certainly would explain why one of the 3 shoots hit way off
the target of JFK.

Sincerely & respectfully,

Brad Milch

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>
> It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on the 40"
> model.

Was that Caprio's entire argument??

Or did you snip the other 99%?

I'm not at all sure that he was correct, but your tactics are
amazing. I know, because you do this to everyone who
disagrees with you, including me.

You cite them out of context or only present a small fraction
of their argument in your blog, where no dissent is
permitted, or attack them in a forum where you know they
don't post.

You have snipped and evaded almost every argument and piece
of evidence I have presented to you on the shot at 285 and
the validity of CE399, for which you pretended that the
argument was about Fritz's initials and claimed "victory",
without even addressing the infinitely more important fact
that CE399 was NOT the bullet that wounded Connally.



Robert Harris

> his boss right after the assassination in 1963: ???It???s my
> rifle, I put the scope on it???.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't even ask about the Glass Plate Special!

[Anthony Marsh]

Wow, another silly goose that knows nothing about rifles.
You don't have to use all three holes. 3 are NOT required.
You don't know enough about rifles to declare what is "REQUIRED."

[David Von Pein]

I suppose that's a possibility, yes. Nobody can know for sure. But I'm
confident in my own mind that Oswald's first shot missed.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html

[David Von Pein]

Not a bad point.

> > Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer
> > could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e.,
> > the scope is attached to the gun itself?
> >
>
> Ahem, the 40-inch short rifle is NOT a Carbine. Different species.
>

Not according to the Klein's ads. Just look....

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s1500/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg

The ads for the FORTY-inch gun clearly say "6.5 Italian CARBINE". Are you
suggesting that Klein's was wrong when they put the word "CARBINE" in
those ads for the 40-inch gun? Was the mail-order company that stupid,
Tony?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1078.html

And the whole "Carbine" vs. "Short rifle" argument is just semantics
anyway. And, IMO, it's an incorrect argument being made by the CTers.
According to several online dictionaries, the literal definition of
"carbine" IS, in fact, "short rifle"....

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/carbine

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:29:32 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > ROB CAPRIO SAID:
> >
> > It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on the 40"
> > model.
>
> Was that Caprio's entire argument??
>
> Or did you snip the other 99%?
>
> I'm not at all sure that he was correct, but your tactics are
> amazing. I know, because you do this to everyone who
> disagrees with you, including me.
>
> You cite them out of context or only present a small fraction
> of their argument in your blog, where no dissent is
> permitted, or attack them in a forum where you know they
> don't post.
>

Anybody who is even remotely familiar with the way I archive the
discussions on my blog site knows that they can access the *full original
discussion* by clicking on the date (or dates) that I provide at the
bottom of the page.

I will always include a source link to the original discussion(s) IF such
a link is still available and is not broken or deleted. And in some
discussions I'll provide additional source links by hyperlinking a
person's original post to the word "Said" (or "Said This") when I transfer
the discussions to my webpages.

In the instance mentioned by Robert Harris above, Rob Caprio's full
comment can easily be accessed by clicking on "August 2, 2012" at the
bottom of the article. Such an action will take you to my first post
within the original discussion. Scrolling up that same page just a tad bit
will take you to Caprio's full post. (If some people think that's just too
much trouble to go to in order to see what DVP has left out of a CTer's
post, well, that's just too bad, because that's the way I've chosen to
archive the original discussions after I transfer them to my own site. The
original source links are there [if available] if anybody wants to see
them.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1238.html

Addendum....

"I hate it when I can't provide a source link (or links) to a particular
discussion, because I *want* visitors to my site to be able to trace back
the ORIGINAL SOURCE of the discussion/debate." -- DVP; February 28, 2017

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-583.html#Accessing-The-Original-Source-Material

> You have snipped and evaded almost every argument and piece
> of evidence I have presented to you on the shot at 285 and
> the validity of CE399, for which you pretended that the
> argument was about Fritz's initials and claimed "victory",
> without even addressing the infinitely more important fact
> that CE399 was NOT the bullet that wounded Connally.
>

~sigh~ I couldn't disagree more strongly with your notion, Bob, that I

have "snipped and evaded almost every argument and piece of evidence I

have presented to you on the shot at 285 and the validity of CE399". And
the think the mere *quantity* of just the posts that I have chosen to
archive at my own site which deal with the issues you mentioned provide
substantial proof to show that I have not "evaded" your arguments over the
years....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=ce399+robert+harris+connally

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2017 10:29 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>
>> It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on the
>> 40"
>> model.
>
> Was that Caprio's entire argument??
>
> Or did you snip the other 99%?
>
> I'm not at all sure that he was correct, but your tactics are amazing. I
> know, because you do this to everyone who disagrees with you, including me.
>
> You cite them out of context or only present a small fraction of their
> argument in your blog, where no dissent is permitted, or attack them in
> a forum where you know they don't post.
>
> You have snipped and evaded almost every argument and piece of evidence
> I have presented to you on the shot at 285 and the validity of CE399,
> for which you pretended that the argument was about Fritz's initials and
> claimed "victory", without even addressing the infinitely more important
> fact that CE399 was NOT the bullet that wounded Connally.
>

That's what the cover-up has to do. They can't allow an open and fair
debate. They would lose.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/31/2017 9:49 PM, olde...@gmail.com wrote:
> @David Von Pein
>
> I found Mr. Sharp's comments about LHO's rifle possibly experiencing a
> 'hang fire' intriguing.
>
> David, do you feel LHO's weapon may have experienced at least one hang
> fire in the ambush shooting sequence that caused LHO to miss on one of the
> 3 shots? It certainly would explain why one of the 3 shoots hit way off
> the target of JFK.

No. Physically impossible. There has never been a misfire of that
ammunition.

[Anthony Marsh]

Probably? False. You could throw it at someone and hit him.

> The scope failure and other elements suggested that Oswald was not
> interested in shooting anyone. He didn't practice, yet was supposed to be

He bought it to shoot Walker. How did that go? Missed him at only 120
feet. Was the scope already damaged? In the mail?

> the shooter of a president. He didn't buy the odd ammunition for the
> rifle from the ad where he bought the rifle from Klein's when it was

But it was cheap!
How much did he pay for one box of the WCC ammo?

> offered to him. The FBI tried to find where he might have bought ammo for
> the rifle, and they found only 2 places in range, and one of them had
> reloaded all his MC ammo with lead bullets. The other place was unable to
> identify Oswald as a customer. Yet an odd bunch of 4 shells were
> available for the rifle. Odd.
>

He'd have to buy a box of 20. How much did they cost him?


> Chris
>

[Bill Clarke]

In article <58def08c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

>>> his boss right after the assassination in 1963: ???It???s my
>>> rifle, I put the scope on it???.

>>>
>>> http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html
>>>
>>> David Von Pein
>>> August 2012
>>> February 2014
>>>
>>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1238.html
>>
>>
>>
>> I hate to back up DVP on this, but I've put out that news article many
>> times, and Sharp did indeed mount scopes on those rifles that Klein's
>> sold. His attitude helps to understand why the scope was mounted badly on
>> the MC rifle of Oswald's. And that it was mounted with only 2 screws
>> instead of the 3 that were required.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>Wow, another silly goose that knows nothing about rifles.
>You don't have to use all three holes. 3 are NOT required.
>You don't know enough about rifles to declare what is "REQUIRED."
>

I could place Marsh, every thing you know about rifles, bullets and their
performance, ballistics (internal, external and terminal) and other
knowledge about arms and ammo on a pin head. But yet you call tddhese men
"silly"? Get a grip.

[mainframetech]

Klein's gunsmith put the scope on the MC rifles they sold. He stated
it clearly in this article. I'm surprised you don't have a copy in your
museum:

http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

Chris

[mainframetech]

Although there's no proof which shot missed, if any of them did. Of
course the scope was misaligned, so there's no telling.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2017 10:50 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 10:29:32 AM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>> David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>>
>>> It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on the 40"
>>> model.
>>
>> Was that Caprio's entire argument??
>>
>> Or did you snip the other 99%?
>>
>> I'm not at all sure that he was correct, but your tactics are
>> amazing. I know, because you do this to everyone who
>> disagrees with you, including me.
>>
>> You cite them out of context or only present a small fraction
>> of their argument in your blog, where no dissent is
>> permitted, or attack them in a forum where you know they
>> don't post.
>>
>
> Anybody who is even remotely familiar with the way I archive the
> discussions on my blog site knows that they can access the *full original
> discussion* by clicking on the date (or dates) that I provide at the
> bottom of the page.
>
> I will always include a source link to the original discussion(s) IF such
> a link is still available and is not broken or deleted. And in some
> discussions I'll provide additional source links by hyperlinking a
> person's original post to the word "Said" (or "Said This") when I transfer
> the discussions to my webpages.
>

Lame. Do you even know what retention means? Have you even heard of the
Wayback machine, grasshopper?

> In the instance mentioned by Robert Harris above, Rob Caprio's full

Jeez, who do you know that Caprio isn't Harris?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes. It's called lead time. They were running out of the carbines and
substituted with the short rifles without telling their customers. Don't
think of it as Consumer Fraud. Think of it as a free upgrade. It can take
up to 2 months to change the ad.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1078.html
>
> And the whole "Carbine" vs. "Short rifle" argument is just semantics
> anyway. And, IMO, it's an incorrect argument being made by the CTers.

No, it isn't. There is a slight difference in performance and even
workmanship as Dave Emary points out. The average consumer would not even
notice the difference. Hence Oswald making a bag exactly 2 inches too
short.

A true Carcano carbine also has an adjustable rear sight.

http://www.milsurpafterhours.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=7844

Look at the damn ad. Look at the damn rear sight:

http://whokilledjfk.net/from_my_friend_gil_jesus_files/image001.jpg



But if you are fraudulent you can take a long rifle and cut it in half
and CALL it a carbine.

> According to several online dictionaries, the literal definition of
> "carbine" IS, in fact, "short rifle"....
>

You know where you can shove your junior high dictionaries. Where Todd
Vaughn had to shove his when he said there is no such thing as a fouling
shot.

> http://www.dictionary.com/browse/carbine
>
>

There are legal criteria and also manufacturer standards.

>
>
>>> I suppose a conspiracy theorist can always argue that the words "as
>>> illustrated" (or, as is the case with the November 1963 ad, just the word
>>> "illustrated", without the word "as" preceding it) doesn't have to mean
>>> the scope will be attached to the gun itself when Klein's ships it to a
>>> customer. The CTers can always claim that "as illustrated" only refers to
>>> the scope itself, and not its "mounted" status on the gun.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you COULD argue that the gun shown was just a display model and
>> they never sold it to anyone.
>>
>>> But I think another fair and even more accurate and reasonable
>>> interpretation of those words ("as illustrated") is an interpretation that
>>> I'm guessing a lot of people would have when they read that ad -- and that
>>> is: the scope is going to be mounted on the rifle I'm ordering, because
>>> that's what is "illustrated" in this ad.
>>>
>>> But in any event, we can know for certain that Klein's Sporting Goods of
>>> Chicago absolutely, positively DID mount a scope on a forty-inch
>>> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for at least one of its customers in March of
>>> 1963 -- and that customer was Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>>
>>
>> Begging the question. You can show that they routinely mounted scopes to
>> those models.
>>
>>> SCOPE ADDENDUM:
>>>
>>> With respect to the conspiracy theorists' persistent claim that Klein's
>>> Sporting Goods never mounted scopes on their 40-inch Italian Carcano
>>> rifles, the gunsmith who worked in the Klein's warehouse in 1963, William
>>> H. Sharp, was interviewed in 2013 [see link below] and said that he told

>>> his boss right after the assassination in 1963: ???It???s my
>>> rifle, I put the scope on it???.

>>>
>>> http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html
>>>
>>> David Von Pein
>>> August 2012
>>> February 2014
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1238.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> In sum, I enjoy the idea of you shooting down the kooks, but I cringe
>> when I see you make rookie errors which give them a way out.
>
>

I enjoy watching you squirm and make a fool out of yourself.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/1/2017 10:46 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 9:49:06 PM UTC-4, olde...@gmail.com wrote:
>> @David Von Pein
>>
>> I found Mr. Sharp's comments about LHO's rifle possibly experiencing a
>> 'hang fire' intriguing.
>>
>> David, do you feel LHO's weapon may have experienced at least one hang
>> fire in the ambush shooting sequence that caused LHO to miss on one of the
>> 3 shots? It certainly would explain why one of the 3 shoots hit way off
>> the target of JFK.
>>
>> Sincerely & respectfully,
>>
>> Brad Milch
>
> I suppose that's a possibility, yes. Nobody can know for sure. But I'm
> confident in my own mind that Oswald's first shot missed.
>

No. It is not a possibility. It is physically impossible.
Why don't you for for Max Holland's theory?
Isn't he still a WC defender? You MUST support your fellow WC defenders.
As your cover-up falls apart you guys need to stick together, not turn
on each other.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html
>

[mainframetech]

What a shame. Another self-made expert on guns and ammo. True that
Mr. Sharp didn't have to use 3 holes for the scope, but three were
recommended, and I'm sure that was for stability. The scope was found to
be misaligned, and the mounting was the cause. If more care was spent in
drilling and tapping the holes, and mounting the scope, perhaps it would
have been able to kill JFK, though the evidence is that it didn't. And
Sharp's attitude about the MC type rifles tells us that it was possible
that attitude was what caused him to not bother to do the job right.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

And *every* online dictionary is full of shit when it comes to defining
"Carbine", is that correct Tony?

IOW, everybody's full of crap EXCEPT W. Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts.
(Yeah, right.)

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes as long as it's YOU making that claim.

> IOW, everybody's full of crap EXCEPT W. Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts.
> (Yeah, right.)
>

I document my claims.

[OHLeeRedux]

If by "document" you mean posting links to web sites that anyone can find
themselves, then I guess that's what you do. Your other made-up crap is
useless.

[David Von Pein]

Well, isn't that special? (No bias being exhibited by you there, eh Tony?)

[Anthony Marsh]

Often I am the one who found them and put them online.
You have never found any documents on your own and put them online.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <f2a4bc22-cee0-4395...@googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech says...

>
>On Sunday, April 2, 2017 at 2:14:04 PM UTC-4, Bill Clarke wrote:
>> In article <58def08c$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...
>> >
>> >On 3/31/2017 5:01 PM, mainframetech wrote:

>> >> On Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 11:03:07 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote=
>:
>> >>> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>> >>>
>> >>> It is clear from the evidence that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on th=

>e 40"
>> >>> model.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>> >>>

>> >>> I don't care what Mitchell Westra told the HSCA, it seems quite obvio=
>us
>> >>> from the various 1963 Klein's advertisements pictured below that Klei=

>n's
>> >>> DID mount scopes on the 40-inch carbines they shipped to customers in
>> >>> 1963.
>> >>>

>> >>> The three Klein's ads shown in the photo below are almost identical w=
>hen
>> >>> it comes to the description being used concerning the scope, with one=
> of
>> >>> the ads (the top one from February 1963 that Lee Oswald used to order=
> his
>> >>> rifle) indicating a 36-inch carbine, while the other two show a 40-in=
>ch
>> >>> weapon:
>> >>>
>> >>>http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3=

>gZA/s2000/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg
>> >>>
>> >>> So to say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is

>> >>> practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Kle=

>in's
>> >>> Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963.
>> >>>

>> >>> Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a cus=
>tomer
>> >>> could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e=

>.,
>> >>> the scope is attached to the gun itself?
>> >>>
>> >>> I suppose a conspiracy theorist can always argue that the words "as

>> >>> illustrated" (or, as is the case with the November 1963 ad, just the =
>word
>> >>> "illustrated", without the word "as" preceding it) doesn't have to me=
>an
>> >>> the scope will be attached to the gun itself when Klein's ships it to=
> a
>> >>> customer. The CTers can always claim that "as illustrated" only refer=

>s to
>> >>> the scope itself, and not its "mounted" status on the gun.
>> >>>
>> >>> But I think another fair and even more accurate and reasonable

>> >>> interpretation of those words ("as illustrated") is an interpretation=
> that
>> >>> I'm guessing a lot of people would have when they read that ad -- and=
> that
>> >>> is: the scope is going to be mounted on the rifle I'm ordering, becau=

>se
>> >>> that's what is "illustrated" in this ad.
>> >>>

>> >>> But in any event, we can know for certain that Klein's Sporting Goods=

> of
>> >>> Chicago absolutely, positively DID mount a scope on a forty-inch

>> >>> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for at least one of its customers in March o=

>f
>> >>> 1963 -- and that customer was Lee Harvey Oswald.
>> >>>
>> >>> SCOPE ADDENDUM:
>> >>>

>> >>> With respect to the conspiracy theorists' persistent claim that Klein=

>'s
>> >>> Sporting Goods never mounted scopes on their 40-inch Italian Carcano

>> >>> rifles, the gunsmith who worked in the Klein's warehouse in 1963, Wil=
>liam
>> >>> H. Sharp, was interviewed in 2013 [see link below] and said that he t=

>old
>> >>> his boss right after the assassination in 1963: ???It???s my
>> >>> rifle, I put the scope on it???.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html
>> >>>
>> >>> David Von Pein
>> >>> August 2012
>> >>> February 2014
>> >>>

>> >>>http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-p=
>art-1238.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I hate to back up DVP on this, but I've put out that news article m=

>any
>> >> times, and Sharp did indeed mount scopes on those rifles that Klein's

>> >> sold. His attitude helps to understand why the scope was mounted badl=

>y on
>> >> the MC rifle of Oswald's. And that it was mounted with only 2 screws
>> >> instead of the 3 that were required.
>> >>
>> >> Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >Wow, another silly goose that knows nothing about rifles.
>> >You don't have to use all three holes. 3 are NOT required.
>> >You don't know enough about rifles to declare what is "REQUIRED."
>> >

>>=20
>> I could place Marsh, every thing you know about rifles, bullets and their=
>=20
>> performance, ballistics (internal, external and terminal) and other=20
>> knowledge about arms and ammo on a pin head. But yet you call tddhese me=
>n=20

>> "silly"? Get a grip.
>
>
>
> What a shame. Another self-made expert on guns and ammo. True that
>Mr. Sharp didn't have to use 3 holes for the scope, but three were
>recommended, and I'm sure that was for stability. The scope was found to
>be misaligned, and the mounting was the cause. If more care was spent in
>drilling and tapping the holes, and mounting the scope, perhaps it would
>have been able to kill JFK, though the evidence is that it didn't. And
>Sharp's attitude about the MC type rifles tells us that it was possible
>that attitude was what caused him to not bother to do the job right.
>
>Chris
>

And it appears you get your expertise the same place Marsh gets his. I'm
not impressed. I doesn't matter if they put 2 or 40 screws in it. A shim
or insert had to be placed between the scope mount and rifle before the
scope could be adjusted correctly. Until you do that you can put in
screws all day long and not change anything. But of course you knew this.
I only wished you and Marsh had some experience with guns and ammo. Then
you might understand.

[mainframetech]

Yep, I'm familiar with shims and also the Army statement that they had
to use 2 shims to get the scope back into alignment. Any damn fool knows
that 2 screws will secure a scope or other device, and more is not needed,
but when 3 holes are recommended, one has to assume there is a reason the
manufacturer did it. I suggest to you that stability was that reason.
But the scope was still mounted incorrectly and the shims were able to get
it close to where it should have been.

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

Nope. Never happened. Alternative fact.

[Anthony Marsh]

And who the Hell recommended 3? YOU?

> manufacturer did it. I suggest to you that stability was that reason.

False.

> But the scope was still mounted incorrectly and the shims were able to get
> it close to where it should have been.

The shims were used because the threads weere stripped.

>
> Chris
>

[bigdog]

Doesn't matter. The ballistic evidence establishes the Carcano as the
murder weapon and there is ample evidence that establishes Oswald was the
shooter.

[mainframetech]

WRONG again! The MC rifle couldn't be proven to be the murder
weapon, since no bullet from the MC rifle was found in any victim. One
was found in the limo in the front seat in fragments, and the other was
left on a gurney in the Parkland hospital and could not be proved to have
come from any victim of the JFK shooting.


When the bullet was found on the WRONG gurney, it was immediately used
as a bullet for the killing of JFK, but there was never anything that
linked it to that crime.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

OK, but what about that kook theory that CE 399 was a test bullet which
they put in a sabot and fired into the limo to frame Oswald?

[Anthony Marsh]

What if it was just the bullet that hit Connally?
It's still a crime to shoot Connally.

> Chris
>
>
>