Walt - The Defense Attorney
robcap...@netscape.com
and the scorn of all Americans for his alleged role in JFK's death
(according to the authorities and the media). His life is in the
hands of his defense attorney - Walter Cakebread!
Walt has a few tricks up his sleeve for the prosecutor. Let's see how
it goes.
CE-139 (alleged murder weapon)
The prosecution has put forth evidence showing LHO allegedly ordered a
40.2" Carcano weapon. It includes:
1) Money order
2) Envelope
3) Order form
4) Klein's shipping records
5) Bill of Lading
The defense lawyer can do the obvious and show that NONE of this
evidence proves he ordered this type of weapon, and that it is all
really NOT proof of any order at all. OR, he can let the evidence
stand, and debate the rifle his client ordered is NOT the rifle found
at the alledged murder scene. How does he prove this second point?
By arguing the strap and the "swivel sling" mounts are different on
the two weapons.
Now remember, LHO's life is in Walt's hands, imagine it was your life,
which method would you wan't the lawyer to go in? Walt chooses the
second option so all of the questionable evidence is entered into the
record.
Delivery of the weapon is part of this and the prosecutor argues he
picked it up at his Post Office box under the alias A. Hidell which he
listed on the order form.
Walt can go two ways here for his client, he can deny any such weapon
was ever shipped to his P.O. Box, or he can let the evidence be
entered into the record and claim his client never picked it up. Now,
for our scenario, you are the one on trial, imagine your fear at
facing the death penalty, what would you want your lawyer to do?
Consider, there is reasonable doubt LHO ever used the alias A. Hidell
as the only listed on his arrest form is O.H. Lee, and the alledged
I.D. showing this alias was NOT found in his wallet until the day
after his arrest. Add in the fact that LHO NEVER listed anyone on
page 3 of his P.O. application form to allow them to receive mail at
his Box, and you have all kinds of reasonable doubt.
Again, Walt can go after the shady evidence, or allow it into the
record and claim LHO never picked it up. Walt chooses the second
option. He admits his client did NOT pick it up at the P.O. but then
will say he did receive it later on. So, what did this do for his
client (you)? It made them look guilty.
CE-133A & CE-133B
Next comes a couple of pictures that depict the defendent posing with
a riflle, a pistol and some Communist literature. The prosecutor of
course claim these are authentic, and were taken by the wife of the
defendent. Walt can attack the validity of these photos on 20 major
points, or he can accept them into evidence. Walt cuts the
difference. He will tell the jury the first one is real, but the
second one is fake, and his client faked it himself. SO the jury now
has confirmation that LHO did order a rifle, received it and posed for
a picture with it.
Hang on LHO, those "sling swivel" mounts don't match!
General Walker
The prosecutor then says the defendent shot at General Walker in
April, 1963 while the General sat at his desk. The police evidence
proves it was not the type of rifle the prosecution claims LHO had in
his possession, and there are numerous other things that draw
suspicion elsewhere (i.e. the witness said there were two men, a dark
complected third man put something handed to him by the two men in the
back seat of his car, photos that have been altered, etc...).
Now Walt can state his case and attack the prosecution's case or admit
his client did it because his wife said so. Walt opts for the second
route. ALL evidence is admitted into the official record.
Kid, keep your head up, we have the "sling swivel" issue on our side.
I could repeat this process for the visits to the embassies in Mexico
City, the clip issue, the additional BY photos, etc...
It is obvious though that LHO would have roasted like a rotissiere
chicken if Walt was his defense lawyer.
Walt accepts all the premises of the WC, but thinks a few small things
(like the "sling swivel" mounts) will win out at the end of the day.
He ignores the years of research done by countless people, mostly on
their own time and money, that show almost all of the evidence Walt
would allow to be admitted to the official record is wrong, faked or
altered. Why is he taking this approach?
Only he knows for sure if he is NOT an LNer, but I sure wish he would
explain it for the rest of CTers.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> LHO is ready for his big day in court, he is facing the death penalty
> and the scorn of all Americans for his alleged role in JFK's death
> (according to the authorities and the media). His life is in the
> hands of his defense attorney - Walter Cakebread!
Is it possible for a defendant to plead insanity for his lawyer?
> Walt has a few tricks up his sleeve for the prosecutor. Let's see how
> it goes.
>
> CE-139 (alleged murder weapon)
>
> The prosecution has put forth evidence showing LHO allegedly ordered a
> 40.2" Carcano weapon. It includes:
>
> 1) Money order
> 2) Envelope
> 3) Order form
> 4) Klein's shipping records
> 5) Bill of Lading
>
> The defense lawyer can do the obvious and show that NONE of this
> evidence proves he ordered this type of weapon, and that it is all
> really NOT proof of any order at all. OR, he can let the evidence
> stand, and debate the rifle his client ordered is NOT the rifle found
> at the alledged murder scene. How does he prove this second point?
> By arguing the strap and the "swivel sling" mounts are different on
> the two weapons.
Either approach doesn`t have a chance in hell. Doubtful a defense
lawyer would pin his hopes on either one of these losing propositions.
> Now remember, LHO's life is in Walt's hands, imagine it was your life,
> which method would you wan't the lawyer to go in? Walt chooses the
> second option so all of the questionable evidence is entered into the
> record.
Can`t be stopped.
> Delivery of the weapon is part of this and the prosecutor argues he
> picked it up at his Post Office box under the alias A. Hidell which he
> listed on the order form.
That isn`t what a prosecutor would argue. He`d argue that it was
sent to Oswald`s PO box under a fictitious name.
> Walt can go two ways here for his client, he can deny any such weapon
> was ever shipped to his P.O. Box, or he can let the evidence be
> entered into the record and claim his client never picked it up. Now,
> for our scenario, you are the one on trial, imagine your fear at
> facing the death penalty, what would you want your lawyer to do?
> Consider, there is reasonable doubt LHO ever used the alias A. Hidell
> as the only listed on his arrest form is O.H. Lee, and the alledged
> I.D. showing this alias was NOT found in his wallet until the day
> after his arrest. Add in the fact that LHO NEVER listed anyone on
> page 3 of his P.O. application form to allow them to receive mail at
> his Box, and you have all kinds of reasonable doubt.
No, you have smoke and mirrors, and you are hoping the jury is
retarded. What alternative are you offering the jury beside that the
ID was found in Oz`s wallet? You are assuming the jury will be as
eager to believe police maleficence as you are. But this trial will
be played in front of a god-fearing law-and-order conservative jury,
and you just bought your client a ticket to the hot seat. Whenever you
would get to a point where the jury had to choose between the police,
and your darling commie patsy, you`d lose.
> Again, Walt can go after the shady evidence, or allow it into the
> record and claim LHO never picked it up. Walt chooses the second
> option. He admits his client did NOT pick it up at the P.O. but then
> will say he did receive it later on. So, what did this do for his
> client (you)? It made them look guilty.
> CE-133A & CE-133B
>
> Next comes a couple of pictures that depict the defendent posing with
> a riflle, a pistol and some Communist literature. The prosecutor of
> course claim these are authentic, and were taken by the wife of the
> defendent. Walt can attack the validity of these photos on 20 major
> points, or he can accept them into evidence. Walt cuts the
> difference. He will tell the jury the first one is real, but the
> second one is fake, and his client faked it himself. SO the jury now
> has confirmation that LHO did order a rifle, received it and posed for
> a picture with it.
They are going to conclude this no matter what.
> Hang on LHO, those "sling swivel" mounts don't match!
>
> General Walker
>
> The prosecutor then says the defendent shot at General Walker in
> April, 1963 while the General sat at his desk. The police evidence
> proves it was not the type of rifle the prosecution claims LHO had in
> his possession, and there are numerous other things that draw
> suspicion elsewhere (i.e. the witness said there were two men, a dark
> complected third man put something handed to him by the two men in the
> back seat of his car, photos that have been altered, etc...).
>
> Now Walt can state his case and attack the prosecution's case or admit
> his client did it because his wife said so. Walt opts for the second
> route. ALL evidence is admitted into the official record.
>
> Kid, keep your head up, we have the "sling swivel" issue on our side.
>
> I could repeat this process for the visits to the embassies in Mexico
> City, the clip issue, the additional BY photos, etc...
>
> It is obvious though that LHO would have roasted like a rotissiere
> chicken if Walt was his defense lawyer.
He frys no matter who his lawyer was, and regardless of what defense
is used.
> Walt accepts all the premises of the WC, but thinks a few small things
> (like the "sling swivel" mounts) will win out at the end of the day.
> He ignores the years of research done by countless people, mostly on
> their own time and money, that show almost all of the evidence Walt
> would allow to be admitted to the official record is wrong, faked or
> altered. Why is he taking this approach?
robcap thinks that just because the justifications the kooks have
contrived on behalf of Oswald play well amongst his own ilk, that this
somehow translates to victory for Oz in a courtroom.
> Only he knows for sure if he is NOT an LNer, but I sure wish he would
> explain it for the rest of CTers.
It`s simple. Walt is a heretic who splits from established kook
accepted dogma. He is cult of one, a prophet (like Bob Harris and a
few others) and you better persecute him, lest he persuade others to
leave your fold and follow the path he has shown.
Walt
wrote:
> LHO is ready for his big day in court, he is facing the death penalty
> and the scorn of all Americans for his alleged role in JFK's death
> (according to the authorities and the media). His life is in the
> hands of his defense attorney - Walter Cakebread!
>
> Walt has a few tricks up his sleeve for the prosecutor. Let's see how
> it goes.
>
> CE-139 (alleged murder weapon)
>
> The prosecution has put forth evidence showing LHO allegedly ordered a
> 40.2" Carcano weapon. It includes:
Whoa there ya flippin moron..... WHERE I ask WHERE is it specified
that Oswald wanted a 36 inch carbine???
Sure the ad advertises a 36 inch carbine, but where's you proof that
AJ hidell said "I want you to send me a 36 inch carbine." I'll grant
ya that the ad gave the 36 inch length....but there's NOTHING to
support your stupid claim that Oswald suspected that he might not get
what was advertised. If you had all the ads I have you would be much
better educated and know that Kleins didn't give a damn what the ads
said ....so long as they sold guns.
>
> 1) Money order
> 2) Envelope
> 3) Order form
> 4) Klein's shipping records
> 5) Bill of Lading
>
> The defense lawyer can do the obvious and show that NONE of this
> evidence proves he ordered this type of weapon, and that it is all
> really NOT proof of any order at all. OR, he can let the evidence
> stand, and debate the rifle his client ordered is NOT the rifle found
> at the alledged murder scene. How does he prove this second point?
> By arguing the strap and the "swivel sling" mounts are different on
> the two weapons.
>
> Now remember, LHO's life is in Walt's hands, imagine it was your life,
> which method would you wan't the lawyer to go in? Walt chooses the
> second option so all of the questionable evidence is entered into the
> record.
Only an idiot attorney ( Robcap) would attempt to say that every
last item on the list was a fake....A smart lawyer would stipulate
that the rifle had been ordered by someone named AJ hidell at his
clients PO Box. But that was 9 months prior to the assassination. Can
the prosecutor prove that Oswald ever used the alias AJ Hidell. Can
the prosecutor prove that Oswald was THE one and only person who used
the alias AJ Hidell?? Can the prosecutor prove that Oswald was the
person who picked up the package at the PO??
Aw, ta hell with this nonsense.....
scott...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A smart lawyer would still be on a loser
1) Oswald's A J Hidell identification was found on his person on the
day of the assassination
2) The writing on the order form was identified as Oswald's
3) Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle in the sniper's nest
4) The prosecution doesn't need to prove that Oswald collected the
rifle. How could a Post Office employee possibly be expected to
remember handing a package over to someone 9 months previously?
Gil Jesus
>
> A smart lawyer would still be on a loser
> 1) Oswald's A J Hidell identification was found on his person on the
> day of the assassination
So say the Dallas cops
> 2) The writing on the order form was identified as Oswald's
Doesn't prove he killed anyone.
> 3) Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle in the sniper's nest
Did the FBI find ANY identifiable prints on the rifle the night of the
assassination ?
> 4) The prosecution doesn't need to prove that Oswald collected the
> rifle. �
They don't need to prove HOW the rifle came into his possession ?
How could a Post Office employee possibly be expected to
> remember handing a package over to someone 9 months previously?-
Yes I suppose there are all kinds of people coming into the post
office to pick up rifles, and no one could EVER remember handing a
rifle to the most famous Presidential murderer of the 20th century.
Yeah, who could remember Lee Harvey Oswald ?
I can see where it would confuse them.
Walt
Perhaps..... But When Richard Case Nagell had to list all of the alias
he had used prior to being sent on a CIA mission. One of the names he
listed was....AJ Hidell Also when Nagall was arrested for "bank
robbery" on Sept 20 1963, he had in his possession a Draft Card # N
4,271,617 which had the name Oswald, Lee, H. and the rest of Oswald's
statistics on it.
So WHICH AJ Hidell ordered the rifle??
> 2) The writing on the order form was identified as Oswald's
The signature on Nagell's cards looks identical to Oswald's
> 3) Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle in the sniper's nest
SO WHAT......The man worked in that building!!!!
> 4) The prosecution doesn't need to prove that Oswald collected the
> rifle. How could a Post Office employee possibly be expected to
> remember handing a package over to someone 9 months previously?
Oh really..... It's unnecessary to prove that
A..... Oswald was THE AJ Hidell ????
B..... That AJ hidell didn't order the rifle for G. Demorhenschildt
C.....That Oswald picked up the rifle at the PO....
Assign YOURSELF to the defendent role.... and assume that you've been
set up...Would you want your attorney to simply concede that YOU were
the man that ordered the gun, for yourself, and that you received it
at that PO Box???
Walt
Dear Stupid bastard.... I would merely ask for PROOF that my client
received the rifle. Did it actually arrive at the Dallas PO?? Could
Postal inspector Holmes have intercepted the rifle and passed it off
to one of the members of the KKK??
Where .....have I ever said that he had C2766 in his possession????
There is ONE authentic back yard photo that shows him holding a
Mannlicher carcano that is VISIBLY different than C2766.....Therefore
the rifle in Oswald's hands is ... NOT... NOT... C2766
So, what did this do for his
> client (you)? It made them look guilty.
>
> CE-133A & CE-133B
>
> Next comes a couple of pictures that depict the defendent posing with
> a riflle, a pistol and some Communist literature. The prosecutor of
> course claim these are authentic, and were taken by the wife of the
> defendent. Walt can attack the validity of these photos on 20 major
> points, or he can accept them into evidence. Walt cuts the
> difference. He will tell the jury the first one is real, but the
> second one is fake, and his client faked it himself. SO the jury now
> has confirmation that LHO did order a rifle, received it and posed for
> a picture with it.
Dear Stupid Bastard.... I would point out that Oswald asked Marina to
take his picture in the back yard of their residence. (There is a
huge mound of evidence that verifies that Marina did in fact take ONE
photo)
Oswald wants a picture to send to the Daily Worker that will show them
that he is a rabid communist revolutionary who is is armed and ready
to fight for the revolution. Oswald takes the film to work with him
at JCS ( a photo processing shop) and developes the print. He
notices that the rifle doesn't look very menacing in the photo and it
doesn't show up very well, so he pencils in a "sling" to make the
rifle more visible. He also notices that he doesn't look much like a
hard boiled grizzled guerrilla.....so he pencils in a more pronounced
chin on his face. He's confident that when Castro's agents sees the
picture in the newspapers along with the story about how he attempted
to kill one of Castro's most bitter enemy's ( General Walker) They
will be decieved into accepting him as one of their own.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROFLMAO and I'm sure you have a sworn testimony from LHO saying he
penciled in a sling and a chin to make himself look like more of a
meanie, right???? This has to be the dumbest thing STUPID BASTARD has
come up with yet.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 26 Sep, 17:08, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > LHO is ready for his big day in court, he is facing the death penalty
> > and the scorn of all Americans for his alleged role in JFK's death
> > (according to the authorities and the media). His life is in the
> > hands of his defense attorney - Walter Cakebread!
>
> > Walt has a few tricks up his sleeve for the prosecutor. Let's see how
> > it goes.
>
> > CE-139 (alleged murder weapon)
>
> > The prosecution has put forth evidence showing LHO allegedly ordered a
> > 40.2" Carcano weapon. It includes:
>
> Whoa there ya flippin moron..... WHERE I ask WHERE is it specified
> that Oswald wanted a 36 inch carbine???
Gee, I don't know, MAYBE the fact the order form had a CATALOG NUMBER
AND DOLLAR AMOUNT MATCHING the 36" Carbine in the ad!!!!!!!!!!!
> Sure the ad advertises a 36 inch carbine, but where's you proof that
> AJ hidell said "I want you to send me a 36 inch carbine."
Where's your proof he wanted the 40.2" model BECAUSE of the picture??
> I'll grant
> ya that the ad gave the 36 inch length....but there's NOTHING to
> support your stupid claim that Oswald suspected that he might not get
> what was advertised.
Explain how a written description of a 36" Carbine, a catalog number
and dollar amount does NOT prove he would have been requesting this
model (if he really filled this stuff out). Explain for all of us how
a PICTURE outweighs all of this stuff.
> If you had all the ads I have you would be much
> better educated and know that Kleins didn't give a damn what the ads
> said ....so long as they sold guns.
I don't need all the ads, the February "American Rifleman" one is the
ONLY one that matters here as the WC "evidence" is tied to it (despite
them entering another one in the official record).
> > 1) Money order
> > 2) Envelope
> > 3) Order form
> > 4) Klein's shipping records
> > 5) Bill of Lading
>
> > The defense lawyer can do the obvious and show that NONE of this
> > evidence proves he ordered this type of weapon, and that it is all
> > really NOT proof of any order at all. OR, he can let the evidence
> > stand, and debate the rifle his client ordered is NOT the rifle found
> > at the alledged murder scene. How does he prove this second point?
> > By arguing the strap and the "swivel sling" mounts are different on
> > the two weapons.
>
> > Now remember, LHO's life is in Walt's hands, imagine it was your life,
> > which method would you wan't the lawyer to go in? Walt chooses the
> > second option so all of the questionable evidence is entered into the
> > record.
>
> Only an idiot attorney ( Robcap) would attempt to say that every
> last item on the list was a fake....
A defense lawyer doesn't have to argue from the standpoint of it being
"fake", but rather questionable in terms of proof of what it claims
happened. The simple fact you don't even get this is scary.
>A smart lawyer would stipulate
> that the rifle had been ordered by someone named AJ hidell at his
> clients PO Box.
A PROSECUTION lawyer would be smart to argue this, but WHY would a
defense attorney when there is NO proof to force them to do this?
> But that was 9 months prior to the assassination. Can
> the prosecutor prove that Oswald ever used the alias AJ Hidell. Can
> the prosecutor prove that Oswald was THE one and only person who used
> the alias AJ Hidell?? Can the prosecutor prove that Oswald was the
> person who picked up the package at the PO??
NO, so why do you want to prove he did all these things?
> Aw, ta hell with this nonsense.....
If ONLY this were true.....
robcap...@netscape.com
How does it feel to learn from a "stupid Ba....d?" Remember the
"Raleigh" call? It is good to see you can learn the case after so
many years as I pointed out to Walt a little while back that Nagell
used the A.J. Hidell alias too, and finally he has looked into it and
agrees. Funny a "stupid B.....d" would know this, huh Walt?
> I would merely ask for PROOF that my client
> received the rifle. Did it actually arrive at the Dallas PO?? Could
> Postal inspector Holmes have intercepted the rifle and passed it off
> to one of the members of the KKK??
The mere fact you are confirming he ordered a 40.2" M-C model when
there is NO proof to show this (other than a picture) is the scary
part.
> Where .....have I ever said that he had C2766 in his possession????
Where I have claimed this?
> There is ONE authentic back yard photo that shows him holding a
> Mannlicher carcano that is VISIBLY different than C2766.....Therefore
> the rifle in Oswald's hands is ... NOT... NOT... C2766
Where is your PROOF this ONE photo is authentic???
> So, what did this do for his
>
> > client (you)? It made them look guilty.
>
> > CE-133A & CE-133B
>
> > Next comes a couple of pictures that depict the defendent posing with
> > a riflle, a pistol and some Communist literature. The prosecutor of
> > course claim these are authentic, and were taken by the wife of the
> > defendent. Walt can attack the validity of these photos on 20 major
> > points, or he can accept them into evidence. Walt cuts the
> > difference. He will tell the jury the first one is real, but the
> > second one is fake, and his client faked it himself. SO the jury now
> > has confirmation that LHO did order a rifle, received it and posed for
> > a picture with it.
>
> Dear Stupid Bastard.... I would point out that Oswald asked Marina to
> take his picture in the back yard of their residence. (There is a
> huge mound of evidence that verifies that Marina did in fact take ONE
> photo)
Where is your PROOF for this claim??? The WC did NOT provide any so
please give us yours.
> Oswald wants a picture to send to the Daily Worker that will show them
> that he is a rabid communist revolutionary who is is armed and ready
> to fight for the revolution. Oswald takes the film to work with him
> at JCS ( a photo processing shop) and developes the print. He
> notices that the rifle doesn't look very menacing in the photo and it
> doesn't show up very well, so he pencils in a "sling" to make the
> rifle more visible. He also notices that he doesn't look much like a
> hard boiled grizzled guerrilla.....so he pencils in a more pronounced
> chin on his face. He's confident that when Castro's agents sees the
> picture in the newspapers along with the story about how he attempted
> to kill one of Castro's most bitter enemy's ( General Walker) They
> will be decieved into accepting him as one of their own.
Where is your proof for all of these claims??? Again, the WC provided
NONE so it is up to you to help us out.
> > Hang on LHO, those "sling swivel" mounts don't match!
>
> > General Walker
>
> > The prosecutor then says the defendent shot at General Walker in
> > April, 1963 while the General sat at his desk. The police evidence
> > proves it was not the type of rifle the prosecution claims LHO had in
> > his possession, and there are numerous other things that draw
> > suspicion elsewhere (i.e. the witness said there were two men, a dark
> > complected third man put something handed to him by the two men in the
> > back seat of his car, photos that have been altered, etc...).
>
> > Now Walt can state his case and attack the prosecution's case or admit
> > his client did it because his wife said so. Walt opts for the second
> > route. ALL evidence is admitted into the official record.
>
> > Kid, keep your head up, we have the "sling swivel" issue on our side.
>
> > I could repeat this process for the visits to the embassies in Mexico
> > City, the clip issue, the additional BY photos, etc...
>
> > It is obvious though that LHO would have roasted like a rotissiere
> > chicken if Walt was his defense lawyer.
>
> > Walt accepts all the premises of the WC, but thinks a few small things
> > (like the "sling swivel" mounts) will win out at the end of the day.
> > He ignores the years of research done by countless people, mostly on
> > their own time and money, that show almost all of the evidence Walt
> > would allow to be admitted to the official record is wrong, faked or
> > altered. Why is he taking this approach?
>
> > Only he knows for sure if he is NOT an LNer, but I sure wish he would
Walt
wrote:
Kleins ads.....
Feb 1961..... MC Carbine 7.5 lbs...... 41 1/2 "....... $18.87
July 1961..... MC Carbine 7.5 lbs..... 41 1/2 " ...... $14.99
May 1962......MC carbine 5.5 lbs...... 36".... W.scope..... $19.95
Aug 1962 .....MC carbine 5.5 lbs.......36: ....W, scope......
$19.95
Dec...1962 MC carbine 5.5lbs........36" ....W. scope ....$19.95
Jan 1963 MC carbine 5.5 lbs.......36" ...W. scope......
$19.95
Feb 1963 MC carbine 5.5lbs.........36" ...W.scope........
$19.95
April 1963 MC carbine 7.0 lbs........40" W.scope ......
$19.95
June 1963 MC carbine 7.0lbs..........40" W.scope......$19.95
July 1963 MC carbine 7.0lbs..........40" w.scope ....
$19.95
All of the above listed ads display the same illustration of a 40 inch
long 7.5 lb Mannlicher Carcano Short Rifle.
NOT a single ad displays a 36 inch carbine.
More to come.......
Walt
Aug 1962 .....MC carbine 5.5 lbs....36: ....W, scope...... $19.95
Dec...1962 MC carbine 5.5lbs........36" ....W. scope ....
$19.95
Jan 1963 MC carbine 5.5 lbs.....36" ...W. scope...$19.95
Feb 1963 MC carbine 5.5lbs......36" ...W.scope..... $19.95
April 1963 MC carbine 7.0 lbs......40" W.scope .... $19.95
June 1963 MC carbine 7.0lbs..........40" W.scope......
$19.95
July 1963 MC carbine 7.0lbs..........40" w.scope ....
$19.95
All of the above listed ads display the same illustration of a 40
inch
long 7.5 lb Mannlicher Carcano Short Rifle. NOT a single ad displays
a 36 inch carbine.
Aug 1963 The illustration is the same MC that appears in all of the
above ads but the text reads...
RARE .303 JUNGLE CARBINE
Military model but never issued. Royal Enfield .303 blah blah
blah......
The illustration is clearly a 40 inch ong Mannlicher Carcano , but the
text says it is a .303 Royal Enfield...
Sept 1963 MC carbine 7.0lbs 40" w.scope $19.95
Oct 1963 MC carbine 7.0 lbs 40"...w scope $19.95
Nov 1963 MC carbine 7.0lbs 40" w, scope $19.95
There ya go Stupid Bastard..... NONE of the ads displayed a
CARBINE....and yet every one of them called the SHORT RIFLE a
"Carbine" even though the length given in the ad varied from 41 1/2
inches to 40 inches to 36 inches. Each and every ad illustrated a 40
inch long model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano SHORT RIFLE. NOT One
illustration was of a 36 inch carbine.
The ad for August called the Mannlicher Carcano .... a Royal Enfield
carbine.........
Now tell me again about the accuracy of Kleins ads and how you can
determine what is being ordered by merely looking at the price and
stock number????
curtjester1
Is this an attempt to show a picture as proof? I would think a
catalog number would be more precise, eh? The catalog number CT-T750
was the number listed on the Klein's coupon allegedly sent by Oswald,
which described a ***36*** inch carbine with scope. This list is also
hard to comprehend for even attempting to establish Oswald to a 40-
inch gun when there was such an absent period for a 40-inch weapon,
only to be resumed for ad sale two months after the so-called order.
Did the ad show a scope attached? Klein's didn't send attached
scopes with 40's...Westra, an employee, in 1978.
CJ
Walt
I'm merely posting what I have....Those are the ads I have
It's pretty obvious that Klein's were pretty sloppy ....Callin a
Carcano a Royal Enfield???
You can pretent that the were very very accurate in their advertising
if you want to....I don't care.
I'm giving you facts.......
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Yes, it shows a scope mounted......
And the ad said ......"AS ILLUSTRATED" that means you get the way you
see it in the picture.
Klein's didn't send attached
> scopes with 40's...Westra, an employee, in 1978.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, when the FBI went around after the assassination interviewing
people, some remembered Oswald and some didn't.
Oswald's printing of the FPCC materials in New Orleans is a good
example of this. Some printers remembered Oswald, some weren't sure,
even given the provocative nature of what he wanted them to print.
The idea that some little Dallas post office employee is going to
remember, with clarity, giving Lee Harvey Oswald a long package many
months before most people even knew his name is absurd, Gil.
To use that as evidence that he never received the rifle, while
rejecting the HSCA's determination that the rifle he is holding in the
backyard photos is the same one found at the TSBD is equally as
absurd, Gil.
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
curtjester1
> TOP POST
>
> Hi Gil,
>
> Say, when the FBI went around after the assassination interviewing
> people, some remembered Oswald and some didn't.
>
> Oswald's printing of the FPCC materials in New Orleans is a good
> example of this. Some printers remembered Oswald, some weren't sure,
> even given the provocative nature of what he wanted them to print.
>
> The idea that some little Dallas post office employee is going to
> remember, with clarity, giving Lee Harvey Oswald a long package many
> months before most people even knew his name is absurd, Gil.
>
customers on a route and even counter people who deal with P.O boxes,
the same. It doesn't help when it's proven that the Postal Inspector
used a money order that he pulled out of a stack that would have been
in numerical order that would have been slated in 1964 or 1965 to use
in the framing of Oswald, to trust that he interviewed the employees
in that potential transaction.
CJ
> > I can see where it would confuse them.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
The ad said carbine with brand new scope .....AS ILLUSTRATED.... 19.95
The Stock number of C20- T750 denoted that the gun ordered was the one
in the illustration WITH a scope attached.
The stock number of C20- T1196 denoted that the gun ordered was
WITHOUT the scope.
It doesn't make any difference if Kleins erroneously called the 40
inch rifle a 36 inch carbine and gave the weight of 5.5 pounds ( a
nonexistant weight for any Carcano) They were selling the rifle in the
illustration, which was a 40 inch long, 7 1/2 pound, model 91 /38,
Mannlicher Carcano SHORT RIFLE.
This list is also
> hard to comprehend for even attempting to establish Oswald to a 40-
> inch gun when there was such an absent period for a 40-inch weapon,
> only to be resumed for ad sale two months after the so-called order.
>
> Did the ad show a scope attached? Klein's didn't send attached
> scopes with 40's...Westra, an employee, in 1978.
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
wrote:
sitdown and fan troll..... the stench of tuna is overwhelming....
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:63b058f7-1b9b-48da...@q9g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Talk to a printer from a newspaper Walt.
The text takes precedent over the photo.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
Walt
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Tom It's unneccessary to talk to a nrespaper printer or anybody
else....I can read, and reason. I don't need an "expert" to give me
his OPINION, on something as simple as the ad. I have an excellent
God given computer and I know how to use it. It's high time that
you get some help getting your computer rebooted, and the trash bin
emptied.
Walt
Tom, it's time for you to revert to your sick ad hominem
attacks.....You've exhausted all of your inane illogical arguments.
I believe that you're right if someone sued a seller on the basis of
an ad which illustrated one thing while the text promised another, the
buyer would win in court.
HOWEVER.... If the ad Illustrates an old battered Chevy convertible
and the ad describes a nice Corvette convertible and the buyer
actually receives a nice Corvette convertible..... Do you think the
buyer will take the seller to court??
The rifle in the illustration is a Model 91/38 Carcano. The 91 /38
Carcano is a much better rifle for sporterizing ( which is the primary
purpose that most buyers would buy the rifle) The text describes a
nonexistant rifle ( There never was a 5.5 lb Carcano manufactured) Do
you really think that if a person received a better rifle than he
ordered he would complain, and demand his money back??
The Lifshultz bill of lading is strong evidence that the rifle that
Kleins sent to Dallas was a 40 inch long, 7 1/2 lb., model (1 /38
Mannlicher Carcano.
Walt
Hey Tom.....I have only a couple of complaints about the list of my
posts that you've gathered, Thank you for putting them on your
website..... However if you don't want to be shown to be a liar you
probably should make a couple of corrections....
Walt & I have been corresponding with each other for several years.
Pappa_39
Walt Kotchenbrot
Or, whatever other Alias he uses.
Because Walt doesn't have his own set of the 26 Volumes, he's been
asking me to give him different exhibits of evidence &
testimony
over & over again during this time frame.
Example;
> > Tom would you post a link to the page in Lattimer's book where he sats
> > he owns a rifle with the serial number C2766? I'd like to know if it
> > was a printing error as Lattimer said after the book was published.
> > Please post it on the thread... Rifle #C2766
> > Thank you
> FOR WALT
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Thank you Tom..... I didn't know that you had already provided a link
on the original thread.
I wanted to read EXACTLY what Dr. Lattiliar wrote. He clearly
attempted to lead the reader into believing that he was using a
Carcano IDENTICAL to the TSBD rifle..... (right down to the same
serial number) He later claimed the serial number was a "printing
error" but when one reds what he wrote it's quite clear that he was
lying....He DID specify the rifle had the same serial number.
Here's an intriguing thought..... He said that he and his sons were
using a Mannlicher Carcano CARBINE with the serial number C2788. The
FBI had a Mannlicher Carcano CARBINE with the serial number 2766. If
Dr Lattiliar had a 36" CARBINE and not a 40" SHORT RIFLE with the
serial number 2766 ........ WHERE did he get it?????
EXAMPLE;
On Sep 23, 12:53 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On 23 Sep, 06:32, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > This is why CTers need to remember not to air our differences in a
> > public forum.
>
> > Part of their agenda is to divide and conquer.
>
> > It's ORGASMIC to the trolls when we do.
>
> I disagree totally Gil, I'm sick and tired of some CT's who post
> complete nonsense ( Rob Caprio, Tom Rossley, et al)
>
> I believe we need to clean up our own house......A lie is a lie no
> matter which side says it. And you can't find the path to the truth
> if you follow lies. I have always tried to gently steer a errant CT
> back from a lie by pointing out where they are getting on the wrong
> track. ( Have I not pointed out an error you were making?...think
> about it) There are some who refuse to back off from the wrong path
> and become abusive and nasty.(Rossley) I'm no longer going to try to
> be nice or keep my mouth shut when a CT presents false data. I'll
> attempt to show him the problem but if he doesn't present good sound
> logic backed up by facts I'm going to emasculate him.
Me Too Walt
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
Therein lies the problem.... There's little doubt in my mind that Lee
Oswald "THOUGHT" he was wearing two or three hats at the same time.
He
thought he was working for Bobby Kennedy's secret team, ( probably
true) He thought he was working for the FBI ( probably true ) He
thought he was working with the CIA ( probably not true)
When JFK was murdered everybody wanted to disassociate themselves from
Oswald with the exception of RFK, but Bobby couldn't admit that Oswald
had been working for him because right after The DPD arrested Oswald,
Hoover called Bobby and told him that a communist by the name of
Oswald
had shot his brother. Bobby knew that Hoover had him between the
devil
and the deep blue sea.
Oswald was working for the FBI but he was also being set up by
Hoover's
EXTRA special agents. They knew that the some of the BOP survivors
who
were employed by the CIA shared Hoover's deep bitter hatred for JFK
and
wanted to kill him. Hoover was glad too turn a blind eye to their
plot.
When the murder actually happened and the DPD blamed the murder on
Oswald, it sent everybody running for cover because of their
connection
to Oswald.
Walt
No Citation? Walt is Speculating.
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
You really need to pay attention..... Where have I ever said that CE
133A is a fake????
Mike Paine had a copy of CE 133A and he gave it to the cops on the
night of the assassination....They asked him if he knew the location
of the house that was seen in the photo was located. You're almost as
stupid as Rob.
No citation? Walt is Speculating.
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
I asked you for a straight from the shoulder answer and you replied
with a question. Don't you know the difference between a question and
an answer?
I fairly certain that Mike Paine did see a back yard photo in April of
1963. I think that he and Oswald and George got a merry chucle out of
the immage portrayed by the Back Yard photo (CE 133A) The photo
portrayed a character that was so unlike Oswald that they must have
got a hugh laugh outta seeing it. It was such a blatant, and
ameteurish, attempt to portray the man in the photo as a "hell bent
for leather" rabid communist revolutionary that no rational person
would believe it. ( well at least it wouldn't have fooled Castro's
agents and that's what the goal was)
HOWEVER....that was not the LAST time Mike Paine saw that photo....
The Last time he saw it was on the night of the assassination when he
gave it to the authorities..... Who asked him where and when the
picture had been taken.
No Citation? Walt is Speculating.
EXAMPLE;
On 24 Sep, 11:23, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> Now's the time to stand up and apologize for being an asshole.
>
> Tom wrote :
> 'Walt earlier stated that the weapon in evidence has "DUAL" sling
> mounts."
>
> Here's what Walt wrote:
>
> "The rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A is a rather rare DUAL sling
> mount version of the model 91 /38. The dual sling mount version
> allowed the user to attach a sling to either the side or the bottom of
> the rifle. Naturally the viewer can't see the side sling swivel in CE
> 133A because it would have been on the side of the rifle away from the
> camera. However...the BOTTOM sling swivel is clearly visible. Which
> means that the rifle that Oswald was holding when Marina snapped the
> shutter is.... NOT .... the rifle that wasfound in the TSBD.
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> "I pointed out that the rifle in CE-133-a had Round Bottom sling
> mounts. WHEN will you offer proof of your claims that the rifle in
> question, CE-139/133-a has "Dual sling mounts"?.
Here'a the proof that I "cut and pasted" from your post.
I cut and paste where necessary to prove a point....In this case the
statement I cut and pasted was posted by you, Tom.
You asked:....WHEN will you offer proof of your claims that the rifle
in question, CE-139/133-a has "Dual sling mounts"?.
CE 139 is the rifle that was found in the TSBD with the serial number
C2766. It has SIDE sling swivels ONLY.
CE133A is a Back Yard photo of Oswald holding a rifle that IS NOT the
TSBD rifle. The rifle in Oswald's hands has BOTTOM sling swivels and
it PROBABLY has side swivels also.
CE 133A and CE 139 are representations of TWO DIFFERENT RIFLES.
STILL, No Citation that 133-a had "Dual Sling Swivels".
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
Hoover was secretly supporting the Cuban exile ("Freedom Fighters") in
their efforts destroy the--- "Red Menace" just 90 miles off our
shores.--- ( as Hoover often said)
When Oswald tipped Bobby Kennedy off about the training camps at
Mandeville, La. Bobby didn't trust Hoover to raid the camps and arrest
the men found there, so he gave the job to the ATF...and ordered
Hoover
to send his agents along with the ATF. Hoover was livid....He was
being forced to raid his own ILLEGAL operation.He hated "That snot
nosed little Harvard Brat".... He really wanted to kill Bobby, but
knew that JFK would leave no stone unturned in finding Bobby's
murderer, so he arranged for a select group of the "Freedom Fighters"
to kill JFK... He told Lyin Bastard Johnson that his agents had
uncovered a plot to kill JFK and if the plot were successful LBJ
would
become president.
It didn't take a genius to figure out how Bobby had found out about
the
camps....Oswald arrives on the scene in May.....and two months later
Bobby knows about Hoover's Illegal operations. Hoover thought a great
joke that he was able to frame "Bobby's little snitch"
foe the Murder of JFK.
Walt
No Citation? Walt is speculating.
EXAMPLE;
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:3e88c1db-2ef0-423b-
a576-100...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 20 Sep, 04:47, timst...@gmail.com wrote:
> TOP POST
>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> Say, this MC database link supplied by Sam McClung appears to show
> rifles with BOTH bottom/side sling mounts on it, tomnln:
>
> http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/database/m91_38.html
>
> Can't speak for the veracity of the research, though interested as to
> why YOU didn't link to THAT page, tomnln.
There ya go Tomnln...... Just look at the column marked "sling" and
count down to the 29th rifle listed. tha]e rifle has the serial number
AU 8217. You'll notice that it is a Fucile Corte ( short rifle )
which is a model 91 /38 7 1/2 pound 40 inch long rifle with DUAL sling
swivels.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt;
Your item #29 has a serial number as>>> UA8217.
SEE item #2 It has a serial number as "C2766".
Also HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
> On Sep 20, 3:14 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here's the Homepage walt;
>
> > Show us a M C with BOTH bottom/side sling mounts.
>
> >http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/images/
EXAMPLE;
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:f20eba38-b7ce-42ab-
ba03-222...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On 23 Jan, 19:36, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2732823b-0d39-4f71...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 23 Jan, 13:08, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:4d91e389-c743-4c47...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On 23 Jan, 04:42, summersalmostg...@webtv.net (Phil Ossofee) wrote:
> > >> The Dallas Police Dept. on the day after the attempt said the bullet
> > >> was" steel jacketed". Gen. Walker told the HSCA that the bullet in
> > >> evidence shown to him by the comittee was not the same one removed by
> > >> Dallas's finest on April 10, 1963.
>
> > > Phil, I hope you know that I'm an unyeilding CT .... And the reason I
> > > am a unyeilding CT is because I KNOW with 99% certainty that the
> > > Warren Commission's decree is a flat out lie. And I most certainly
> > > wouldn't argue against solid irrefutable information, but I simply
> > > don't believe that Walker would be able to recall EXACTLY what a
> > > mangled bullet looked like ten tears after he saw it for just a brief
> > > moment.
>
> > > And as for the bullet being "steel jacketed" I strongly doubt that it
> > > was a STEEL jacketed. Steel jacketed bullets are very rare. They
> > > were designed for the military to pierce armour, but they ruin the
> > > bore of the rifle from which they are fired so they were not often
> > > used. A soldiers life depends on an accurate rifle, and a rifle with
> > > a ruined bore will not shoot accurately.... Therefore soldiers were
> > > reluctant to use STEEL jacked projectiles.
>
> > > My guess is some dopey reporter used the term "steel jacketed" when he
> > > meant METAL jacketed. The bullet that the DPD presented as the
> > > bullet that was removed from Walkers wall is a COPPER jacketed
> > > bullet. AND it is NOT a Western Cartridge Co, bullet. The lying
> > > "experts" are on record as saying that it matched the bullet that was
> > > found in the hallway of Parkland hospital. But anybody with one good
> > > eye can see with their own eye that the serrations in the cannelure
> > > are much finer than the serrations in the cannelre of CE 399. The
> > > two bullets are clearly made by two different manufacturers.
>
> > >> The only witness to the shooting Walter Coleman, saw 3 men hurriedly
> > >> get
> > >> in 2 cars just seconds after the shooting, behind Walker's house in a
> > >> church parking lot then flee the scene.
>
> > > Are you aware that Oswald said that he scared the crap out of a couple
> > > of young men when he fired the bullet through Walker's window.
> > > Oswald said he didn't even know those two homosexuals were there until
> > > he fired the rifle. He said they jumped up and ran like scared rabbits
> > > when he fired the rifle.
>
> > >> Walker's aide and neighbors had seen suspicious latino lookng men
> > >> drive
> > >> around the houe in the days before the shooting.
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The Seasoned Dallas Detectives who made out the Original Police report
> > said
> > it was a "Steel-Jacketed" bullet.
>
> > SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
> I can't read that report...... but I assume the detective wrote that
> the bullet was a steel jacketed bullet. Was the Detective
> infallible?? Could he have made the very common mistake of
> substituting the word "steel" for the word "metal"
If Walt is Too Lazy to save that report to his desktop & resize it Or,
he should read it in Volume XXIV page 39.
Why are Walt's "Assumptions" in favor of the WCR?
> It's not at all uncommon for careless people to use such words
> interchangably. Just as some folks call a hunting rifle a "HIGH
> POWERED" rifle, or call a soft drink a "COKE, or a bolt action rifle a
> "Mauser" or a lever action rifle a "Winchester" .... and on and
> on...
>
> Did he say in the report that he used a magnet to determine if the
> bullet was actually STEEL jacketed. Surely you must know that if the
> bullet fired had been STEEL jacketed it would have remained in
> pristine condition after striking nothing harder than soft wood. And
> yet the detective said re dug it out of the wall and it was badly
> mangled. ANOTHER ASSUMPTION???
>
> Walt
>
> ****************
>
> That's EXACTLY what the report says Walt;
>
> "steel jacketed of unknown caliber".
>
> Even Helen Keller can tell "steel jacketed" from "copper jacketed".
>
> Do you have any proof he was "mistaken"?
Tom, the photos purportedly as being the bullet that was dug out of
the wall at Walkers shows a copper clad bullet...
I know the DPD were liars so that calls into question the credibility
of that photo, however.... A person has to use his head.... Where
would the average joe get armour piercing ammo, and if that person
really wanted to kill Walker why on earth would he use ammo that is
NOT very lethal. A serious assassin would have chosen softnose
hunting ammo.
I'm tellin ya Tom the report of a STEEL jacketed bullet simply doesn't
make sense. It's much more likely that someone simply used the term
steel jacketed when he should said metal jacketed... But you believe
what ever propels yer boat, but I hope you'll heed a friendly word of
advice.... I don't think yer gonna get far with only one oar in the
water.
*********************
That's the second insult you've hurled at me.
If you wanna CONTINUE throwing out official records which PROVE the WC
messed with the evidence, you're free to CONTINUE doing so.
WHERE can I find the Oswald quote you post above?
EXAMPLE;
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:ed48d225-5efb-4f5a...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 22 Sep, 16:02, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hiya Rin-Tim-Tim;
>
> The rifle in CE-133-a shows Round bottom sling swivels.
> CE-139 shows Oblong Side sling swivels.
>
> Walt LIED stating that the rifle had DUAL sling mounts.
> (making excuses for the WCR)
>
> NICE to see both of you on the same side.
Oh, I don't think we're on the same side........ But it does seem that
we have something in common. The truth.
We both abhor fools and liars.....
Oh and speakin of fools and liars..... You've called me a liar and
said that I claimed that the TSBD rifle had dual sling swivels.
Please post the proof where I ever said any such thing. You
wouldn't be lying about that would ya Tom?
If you don't produce the proof that I ever said that then everybody
will know that you're a just liar.
Here ya go Walt;
For the SECOND time>>>
I seperated it so you won't get Lost finding it! ! !
On 17 Sep, 07:58, "aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com"
<aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein, the issue of the rifle sling is a little different than
> that.
>
> The backyard photos show a bottom mounted sling made of rope or
> cloth. The MC in evidence in the JFK shooting has a side mounted
> leather sling that looks as weathered as the rest of the rifle. And
> there is no explanation for the discrepancy. And, nobody from the
> government or the corporate media ever pointed out this discrepancy,
> either.
>
> Aaron Hirshberg
Aaron.....You're making a very common mistake....
Most people who view the BY photos make the mistake of comparing one
against the others.
Ther is only one AUTHENTIC back yard photo. That photo is the ONLY
photo that Marina took of Lee in their backyard. It became Warren
Commission exhibit CE 133A. Both CE 133B and the Geneva White photo
(133C) are fakes created by the DPD.
It is impossible to determine the authenticity of an object if a
person doesn't know what the original looked like.
For example:.... If someone handed you two $100 doolar bills and told
you that one was counterfeit and one was authentic and you could keep
the authentic bill but had to give back the counterfeit bill. You
could not determine which bill was authentic by comparing one bill
against the other. You probably would spot some differences in the
bills but that wouldn't reveal which bill was the real thing.
The same idea applies to the Back Yard photos. Marina only remember
taking ONE photo, and was stunned and confused when the WC lawyer
showed her the second photo ( CE 133B) She was at a loss because she
knew that she had only taken ONE photo, but here the lawyer was
showing her a second one. She attempted to help the commission by
suggesting that she perhaps had pushed the shutter twice. Which if
she had known anything about cameras she would have known that
clicking the shutter twice would have produced a double exposure, and
her explanation was nonsense.
Lee Oswald knew how to determine an authentic BY photo from a fake BY
photo.....( naturally, he had worked with that photo (CE 133A) and
signed the back of a copy of it and gave it to G.DeM.) so when the
cops showed him 133c he immediately knew that the photo they were
showing him was a fake.
Now back to the subject at hand..... The one and only AUTHENTIC B.Y.
photo shows Lee Oswald holding a 40 inch long model 91 / 38 Mannlicher
Carcano short rifle with NO SLING ( what appears to be a sling was
added to the photo) and the front sling swivel hanging empty beneath
the front barrel band.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rifle in Oswald's hands in CE 133A is a
rather rare DUAL sling mount version of the model 91 /38. The dual
sling mount version allowed the user to attach a sling to either the
side or the bottom of the rifle. Naturally the viewer can't see the
side sling swivel in CE 133A because it would have been on the side of
the rifle away from the camera. However...the BOTTOM sling swivel is
clearly visible. Which means that the rifle that Oswald was holding
when Marina snapped the shutter is.... NOT .... the rifle that
wasfound in the TSBD. (Walt said 133-a had Dual Sling Swivels)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOOK at the "sling" in CE 133A.... Notice that it tricks the viewer
into thinking the rifle has a sling on it. But if you look close
you'll notice that the fake sling isn't attached to the rifle, and it
isn't attached at the normal mounting points. It seems to hang
beneath the rifle like the handle on a piece of luggage, which could
mean that whoever added that "sling" to the photo didn't know much
about rifles, and thought that the sling was used like the handle on a
purse. Also notice that the "sling" is light colored..... The rifle
that was found in the TSBD had a very dark colored sling mounted in
SIDE swivels. A dark colored sling would have reflected very little
sunlight, and would have been nearly invisible in a photo.
Walt used to participate in my Live Audio Chat Room.
Walt always made wild speculative comments in my chat room.
I informed him that he does so at his own risk. Without ever
challenging him, out of courtesy.
Walt tried Repeatedly to get me to speculate.
When I Refused to do so, Walt left my chat room & has never come back.
Recently Walt posted on the newsgroup that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling
Mounts".
Leaving the possibility that CE-133-a is the same rifle as E-139,
although he denies they are the same rifle.
When I asked him to "Document" that CE-133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts,
he answered with Insults.
I RETALIATED! ! ! with better insults.
Which leads us to this page of my website in which I will publish some
of Walt's Ridiculous Undocumented Speculations.
*****************************************************************
Starting with Walt's original Insult....
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Is all that information in the 26 volumes Walt???
>
> That Mike Paine had a M C with bottom swivels?
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net>
Hey Tom, put the cork back on the bottle , go take a nap, and then
READ what I wrote:
"Speculation and explanation for the mystery....... Mike Paine had a
Mannlicher Carcano ( with bottom sling swivels) that he showed
Oswald.
He told Oswald that he had got it from Klein's Sporting goods for
only
twenty dollars. Oswald orderd one of the rifles. Paine and Oswald
took the rifles out to test them and do some target practice. When
Pain dropped oswald off at his house Oswald grabbed the Paine's rifle
with the bottom sling swivels and that is the rifle that is seen in
the photo that Marina took. (CE 133A ) "
Do you see that first word?? SPECULATION .....Do you know what that
word means?
Possible explanation to solve the mystery.... Do you understand that
I offered a possible explanation for the obvious problem that the
rifle in CE 133A had BOTTOM sling swivels while C2766 has side
swivels.
There are without doubt other explanations for the mystery.....I just
offered this one.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Walt;
Thanks for the insult;
It gives me an opportunity to address you eating Boy Scouts by the
Troop.
NOW!
About CE-139 & 133-a;
You said they had DUAL sling mounts, (hinting they are both the same
rifle.)
We were talking about the rifle in evidence, NOT any other rifle.
Sounds like an Excuse for the WCR to me.
On Sept. 28th Walt wrote;
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
> Walt's own words>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
Yes they are....And Thank you for providing the link to them......It
saves me from having to type out post after post so that imbeciles
like you and Rob can understand my position. I realize many of my
ideas piss you off, that's your problem not mine. One of them that
really gets under your skin is my refuting your idiotic idea that the
person who shot at Walker shot at him with ARMOR PIERCING (steel
jacketed) ammunition. Ha, ha, ha, hee,hee.... Pardon the laughter but
that idea has to have originated in a head that has no brain.
There's Walt's "admission" of Stupidity Folks.
Here's the original DPD report of April 10, 1963 describing the Walker
bullet as "Steel jacketed of unknown caliber".
Found in Volume XXIV page 39.
Walt believes that description from Seasoned Detectives FITS the
bullet produced by the WC . (Below)
Looks like Helen Keller had More Vision that Walt has.
Some of Walt's "Unsubstantiated Claims">>>
1) LHO ordered a 40.2" Carcano short rifle. FALSE!
AJ HIDELL ordered the rifle that was illustrated in the Klein ad
2) LHO took possession of said rifle, they only differ in the how and
when (I think). FALSE!
THERE IS NO PROOF ABOUT WHO ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE RIFLE
3) LHO posed with the rifle and Marina took a photo of this.---FALSE
OSWALD POSED WITH A DIFFERENT RIFLE THAN THE ONE THAT WAS FOUND IN THE
TSBD
4) LHO fired at General Walker.---- FALSE
OSWALD FIRED AT AND HIT GENERAL WALKERS WINDOW HE DID NOT FIRE AT
WALKER
5) LHO visited the Soviet and Cuban embassies in Mexico City.---TRUE
6) LHO was working with DeMohrenschildt to invade Cuba.----TRUE
7) There was a clip in the rifle found at the TSBD. FALSE
THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE 100% CERTAINTY IF THE WAS OR WAS
NOT A CLIP IN THAT RIFLE.
8) You can't hand-load a M-C so a clip is needed (this ties to the
above point). FALSE
YOU CAN"T ----PRACTICALLY----- HAND LOAD AN M-C TO USE IT AS A SINGLE
SHOT RIFLE
It is impossible to simply drop a single live cartridge into the
breech of a M-C and close the bolt and fire the single round. The
bolt will NOT close.
robcap...@netscape.com
So????? Why are you soooooo hung up on the picture???? DO you think
you could open a catalog now and order something that has ONLY a
picture but NO catalog number???? Why did LHO allegedly fill out the
money order for a 36" Carbine if he wanted a 40.2" short rifle like
you claim? I asked you this before and you skipped it like always.
> More to come.......
Unfortunately, I think he means it too! How about some evidence?? Is
any evidence EVER going to come?
robcap...@netscape.com
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Tom, you may want to add this unbelievable ASSUMPTION to your great
page on Walt!!!
Walt
I'm not hung up on the picture..... I'm showing you the inaccuracy of
the entire ad...
DO you think you could open a catalog now and order something that has
ONLY a
picture but NO catalog number????
Don't be silly..... But the catalog number did NOT denote a
difference between a Carbine and a rifle.
The catalog number of C20- T750 was assigned to the rifle in the
illustration (AS ILLUSTRATED) which depicts a Carcano RIFLE WITH A
SCOPE MOUNTED.
The ad clearly says "carbine AS ILLUSTRATED." But it is NOT a
carbine....
The bold lettering also calls it a 6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE ....But as you
should know by now it is in FACT a 40 inch Carcano rifle
The two catalog numbers given in the ad are for the rifle
illustrated .....The Cat # C20-1196 is for the illustrated rifle
WITHOUT the scope , while the cat# C20-T750 is the stock number for
the illustrated rifle WITH a scope.
tomnln
Never confuse Walt with FACTS! ! ! !
Back in '63 printing was done by "Hot Metal". (Printed from lead)
All photos to be inserted into the page were either lead/photo engraved
alloys. (called cuts)
(Saved after page was printed/broken up)
NOBODY, NOBODY had EVERY model of EVERY car MANUFACTURER.
NOBODY, NOBODY had EVERY model of EVERY gun manufacturer.
We have Klein's adds for 36 inch rifles.
We have Klein's adds for 40 inch rifles.
We have YOUR word that the photo in the American Rifleman for a 36 inch
rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
While the text Clearly states "36 inch rifle".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
Walt
Check it out mathmatically...... The trigger / magazine housing on all
Mannlicher Carcanos is 6 3/4 inches long.
Can you perform simple arithmetic??
robcap...@netscape.com
You have been claiming LHO ordered a 40.2" short rifle based SOLELY on
the photo of this type of rifle, and he says he "is NOT hung up" on
the picture!
> DO you think you could open a catalog now and order something that has
> ONLY a
> picture but NO catalog number????
>
> Don't be silly..... But the catalog number did NOT denote a
> difference between a Carbine and a rifle.
Why is this silly? This is WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING!!! So what you are
claiming must be SILLY!!! Thanks for finally admitting it. The
Catalog sure did denote a difference and when you make statements like
this I know it is NOT confusion, but rather lies on your part.
> The catalog number of C20- T750 was assigned to the rifle in the
> illustration (AS ILLUSTRATED) which depicts a Carcano RIFLE WITH A
> SCOPE MOUNTED.
Well, this is a weak point, as the catalog matched the written
description and this is what stands. IF this had NOT been a world-
famous murder case and you had made the order yourself and you went to
Klein's and said "hey, I wanted the 40.2" version" they would have
said "tough, you PAID for the 36" version."
> The ad clearly says "carbine AS ILLUSTRATED." But it is NOT a
> carbine....
Pictures don't prove anything Walt, especially when we are dealing
with someone who was so clueless with firearms as LHO was. Show me
any proof that would back up your assumption that LHO knew a lot about
firearms. You are transfering your knowledge of this weapon to him.
While you work on that one, show me ANY court of law that would agree
with you that a pictue outweighs a catalog number and dollar amount
too.
> The bold lettering also calls it a 6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE ....But as you
> should know by now it is in FACT a 40 inch Carcano rifle
I don't care what the picture is of, as the filled out order form was
for a 36" Carbine. You have provided NOTHING to overturn this point.
> The two catalog numbers given in the ad are for the rifle
> illustrated .....The Cat # C20-1196 is for the illustrated rifle
> WITHOUT the scope , while the cat# C20-T750 is the stock number for
> the illustrated rifle WITH a scope.
This is a lie, the catalog #C20-T750 is for the 36" Carbine with a 4X
scope attached. The ONLY mistake they made was saying it was
illustrated (and perhaps it was somewhere else in the magazine) when
it probably was not. IF you tried to get a 40.2" from them while
paying the $19.95 amount they would have told you to take a hike or
pay the difference.
> Why did LHO allegedly fill out the
> money order for a 36" Carbine if he wanted a 40.2" short rifle like
> you claim? I asked you this before and you skipped it like always.
Notice he SKIPPED this question again. Why?
tomnln
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt wrote;
Tom, it's time for you to revert to your sick ad hominem
attacks.....You've exhausted all of your inane illogical arguments.
I believe that you're right if someone sued a seller on the basis of
an ad which illustrated one thing while the text promised another, the
buyer would win in court.
HOWEVER.... If the ad Illustrates an old battered Chevy convertible
and the ad describes a nice Corvette convertible and the buyer
actually receives a nice Corvette convertible..... Do you think the
buyer will take the seller to court??
The rifle in the illustration is a Model 91/38 Carcano. The 91 /38
Carcano is a much better rifle for sporterizing ( which is the primary
purpose that most buyers would buy the rifle) The text describes a
nonexistant rifle ( There never was a 5.5 lb Carcano manufactured) Do
you really think that if a person received a better rifle than he
ordered he would complain, and demand his money back??
The Lifshultz bill of lading is strong evidence that the rifle that
Kleins sent to Dallas was a 40 inch long, 7 1/2 lb., model (1 /38
Mannlicher Carcano.
I write;
Walt, I only offer ad hominem attacks in "Retaliation";
YOU should know that above all others.
All you've done is offer your Unsubstantiated Claims that Oswald ordered a
40 inche rifle in CONTRAST to the evidence.
As for your "bill of laden"?
We know that Klein's also sold 40 inch rifles.
WHY didn't you show a "bill of laden" for the 36 inch rifles Klein's ALSO
sold.
Then, PROVE that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
(like you claimed)
Then PROVE that LHO worked for RFK.
(like you claimed)
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
EXCELLENT..... But since I'm not the one who's attempting to show
that a 36 inch carbine was sent to Dallas, perhaps you, or Rob, or
Gary...can provide the proof that Kleins were also selling the 36 inch
carbines at the same time they were selling the 40 inch rifle.
>
> Then, PROVE that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
> (like you claimed)
>
> Then PROVE that LHO worked for RFK.
> (like you claimed)
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> This list is also> hard to comprehend for even attempting to establish
tomnln
Mounts" allows for the "Possibility"
that CE133-a/CE139 are the SAME rifle???
THAT's why I asked him to Document that Claim.
Resulting in him hurling the First Insult.
The rest is History.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:91876ba7-2e1e-4299...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
First 2 graphics.
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:e5b63664-85ba-4b83...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Pappa_39
Walt Kotchenbrot
Example;
> > Thank you
> FOR WALT
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
EXAMPLE;
Me Too Walt
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
Walt
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
EXAMPLE;
EXAMPLE;
Walt <papakoc...@evertek.net>
Walt
EXAMPLE;
Also HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
EXAMPLE;
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------нн--------------------------------------------------------------------------н-н-----------
tomnln
in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
Klein's advertised a 36 inch rifle.
(text describes a 36 inch rifle)
Klein's advertised a 40 inch rifle.
(texr describes a 40 inch rifle)
BOTH ads have the SAME photo! ! !
Walt knows NOTHING of the newspaper/catalog printing practises.
Walt is making excuses for the WCR to be right.
Just like his claim that CE133-a has "Dual Sling Mounts".
Leaving the "Possibility" that CE139/CE133-a are the SAME rifle.
If they were the same rifle......CE139 would have "Dual Sling Mounts" ALSO!
! ! !
Buttressed by his other LIES>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:4ce47706-b183-4b53...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Walt wrote;
EXCELLENT..... But since I'm not the one who's attempting to show
that a 36 inch carbine was sent to Dallas, perhaps you, or Rob, or
Gary...can provide the proof that Kleins were also selling the 36 inch
carbines at the same time they were selling the 40 inch rifle.
I write;
The Klein's add in evidence proves they were selling 36 inch rifles.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walt
> Walt uses some personal "Mickey Mouse Measurements" to claim that the photo
> in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
I'm sorry that your mental deficiency prevents you from doing simple
math. What you call "Mickey Mouse Measurements" is a tried and true
method for determining the dimensions of objects in photos. It's
called scaling and it's a very simple process. Why do you suppose
some scale ( ruler, tape measure, coin, etc ) is always included in
in evidence photos??? By knowing the length of one object in the
photo other dimensions can be found.
It is a know and provable FACT that the trigger housing / magazine is
6 3/4 nches long. THAT can be used to determine that the rifle in the
Klein ad illustration is .....40 inches long.
>
> Klein's advertised a 36 inch rifle.
> (text describes a 36 inch rifle)
>
> Klein's advertised a 40 inch rifle.
> (texr describes a 40 inch rifle)
>
> BOTH ads have the SAME photo! ! !
>
> Walt knows NOTHING of the newspaper/catalog printing practises.
>
> Walt is making excuses for the WCR to be right.
>
> Just like his claim that CE133-a has "Dual Sling Mounts".
> Leaving the "Possibility" that CE139/CE133-a are the SAME rifle.
>
> If they were the same rifle......CE139 would have "Dual Sling Mounts" ALSO!
> ! ! !
>
> Buttressed by his other LIES>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On 29 Sep, 15:56, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Walt uses some personal "Mickey Mouse Measurements" to claim that the
> photo
> in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
I'm sorry that your mental deficiency prevents you from doing simple
math. What you call "Mickey Mouse Measurements" is a tried and true
method for determining the dimensions of objects in photos. It's
called scaling and it's a very simple process. Why do you suppose
some scale ( ruler, tape measure, coin, etc ) is always included in
in evidence photos??? By knowing the length of one object in the
photo other dimensions can be found.
It is a know and provable FACT that the trigger housing / magazine is
6 3/4 nches long. THAT can be used to determine that the rifle in the
Klein ad illustration is .....40 inches long.
I already told you;
Printers use any cut that's close to the item that's being sold.
The TEXT is what Counts.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 29 Sep, 15:56, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Walt uses some personal "Mickey Mouse Measurements" to claim that the photo
> > in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
>
> I'm sorry that your mental deficiency prevents you from doing simple
> math. What you call "Mickey Mouse Measurements" is a tried and true
> method for determining the dimensions of objects in photos. It's
> called scaling and it's a very simple process.
The SAME method was used to determine the man in CE-133A had a 16"
collar size!!! LHO had a 14 1/2" collar size!!! You don't accept
this as you claim the photo is of LHO and authentic. Why do you
believe in this "mathematical formula" for the rifle?????
> > > > > > A PROSECUTION lawyer would be smart to- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:216bcf8e-c0fc-43a3...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
> On Sep 29, 5:49 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 29 Sep, 15:56, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Walt uses some personal "Mickey Mouse Measurements" to claim that the
> > > photo
> > > in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
>
> > I'm sorry that your mental deficiency prevents you from doing simple
> > math. What you call "Mickey Mouse Measurements" is a tried and true
> > method for determining the dimensions of objects in photos. It's
> > called scaling and it's a very simple process.
>
> The SAME method was used to determine the man in CE-133A had a 16"
> collar size!!! LHO had a 14 1/2" collar size!!! You don't accept
> this as you claim the photo is of LHO and authentic. Why do you
> believe in this "mathematical formula" for the rifle?????
I have no idea what yer babblingand drooling about......go take yer
medication and try to post something coherent
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> news:c56256e4-8637-4fd7...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Sep, 15:56, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Walt uses some personal "Mickey Mouse Measurements" to claim that the
> > photo
> > in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
>
> I'm sorry that your mental deficiency prevents you from doing simple
> math. What you call "Mickey Mouse Measurements" is a tried and true
> method for determining the dimensions of objects in photos. It's
> called scaling and it's a very simple process. Why do you suppose
> some scale ( ruler, tape measure, coin, etc ) is always included in
> in evidence photos??? By knowing the length of one object in the
> photo other dimensions can be found.
> It is a know and provable FACT that the trigger housing / magazine is
> 6 3/4 nches long. THAT can be used to determine that the rifle in the
> Klein ad illustration is .....40 inches long.
>
I already told you; Printers use any cut that's close to the item
that's being sold.
Drum roooooolllll....FAN FARE...... ta da.... Rossley's desperation
is glaringly obvious.
When he's shown to be a stupid bastard, he then attempts to switch the
subject.
He called the scaling of a photo "Mickey Mouse Measurements" and then
I shoved his stupidity down his throat, and made him gag..... He then
dropped his stupid argument in favor of:....."I already told you;
Printers use any cut that's close to the item that's being sold."
Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee...... ROTFLMAO
tomnln
On 29 Sep, 21:47, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> news:c56256e4-8637-4fd7...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Sep, 15:56, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Walt uses some personal "Mickey Mouse Measurements" to claim that the
> > photo
> > in the add for a 36 inch rifle is actually a 40 inch rifle.
>
> I'm sorry that your mental deficiency prevents you from doing simple
> math. What you call "Mickey Mouse Measurements" is a tried and true
> method for determining the dimensions of objects in photos. It's
> called scaling and it's a very simple process. Why do you suppose
> some scale ( ruler, tape measure, coin, etc ) is always included in
> in evidence photos??? By knowing the length of one object in the
> photo other dimensions can be found.
> It is a know and provable FACT that the trigger housing / magazine is
> 6 3/4 nches long. THAT can be used to determine that the rifle in the
> Klein ad illustration is .....40 inches long.
>
I already told you; Printers use any cut that's close to the item
that's being sold.
Walt wrote;
Drum roooooolllll....FAN FARE...... ta da.... Rossley's desperation
is glaringly obvious.
When he's shown to be a stupid bastard, he then attempts to switch the
subject.
He called the scaling of a photo "Mickey Mouse Measurements" and then
I shoved his stupidity down his throat, and made him gag..... He then
dropped his stupid argument in favor of:....."I already told you;
Printers use any cut that's close to the item that's being sold."
Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee...... ROTFLMAO
I write;
WHO changes the subject?????
I've asked you Many Times to Prove your claim that.......
133-a had Dual Sling Mounts.
LHO worked for RFK.
Walker called a German newsman
Mike Paine gave 133-a to the DPD on 11/22/63
etc etc etc
You've been Outted as a Warren Commission Shill>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
I can see him on his knees with a magnifying glass counting pixels,
and giving a discourse on how to differentiate between a 40.2 MC and a
41.5...:- O
CJ
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On Sep 30, 9:41 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> I can see him on his knees with a magnifying glass counting pixels,
> and giving a discourse on how to differentiate between a 40.2 MC and a
> 41.5...:- O
>
> CJ
For you edification....There is NO Mannlicher Carcano that measures
41.5 inches long.
tomnln
"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a50eb70c-afa3-45c4...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 30, 9:41 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
I can see him on his knees with a magnifying glass counting pixels,
and giving a discourse on how to differentiate between a 40.2 MC and a
41.5...:- O
CJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I picture him on his knees in Other endeavors.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a50eb70c-afa3-45c4...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 9:41 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> I can see him on his knees with a magnifying glass counting pixels,
> and giving a discourse on how to differentiate between a 40.2 MC and a
> 41.5...:- O
>
> CJ
>
> I picture him on his knees in Other endeavors.
>
Shhhh. Don't tell him the Model 91 MC's were sold at 36" and 50"
model's, or that Klein's offered a 41.5 inch from November 1960 thru
Feb. 1962, it might make him STAND UP! Of course it would make
sense that the 40.2's might be out of stock and had to be reorderd.
Oops they came back to life for Klein's but too too late...Apr. 63 or
maybe it was June...something like that.
CJ
Walt
> On Sep 30, 2:32 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a50eb70c-afa3-45c4...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Sep 30, 9:41 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> > I can see him on his knees with a magnifying glass counting pixels,
> > and giving a discourse on how to differentiate between a 40.2 MC and a
> > 41.5...:- O
>
> > CJ
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > I picture him on his knees in Other endeavors.
>
> Shhhh. Don't tell him the Model 91 MC's were sold at 36" and 50"
> model's, or that Klein's offered a 41.5 inch from November 1960 thru
> Feb. 1962, it might make him STAND UP! Of course it would make
> sense that the 40.2's might be out of stock and had to be reorderd.
> Oops they came back to life for Klein's but too too late...Apr. 63 or
> maybe it was June...something like that.
>
> CJ
Thank you....for proving that the text of the Klein ads were grossly
inaccurate and can't be used to prove the length of the gun being
offered for sale. Gary Bergman (aka CJ) wrote: "Don't tell him the
Model 91 MC's were sold at 36" and 50" model's, or that Klein's
offered a 41.5 inch " There NEVER EVER was a MC manufactured that was
41.5 inches long. Since it is a fact that there is no MC 41.5 inches
long it's obvious that the Klein ad was not accurate about the length
of the gun they were selling.
Ha,ha,ha,ha, hee,hee,hee.......ROTFLMAO
>
>
>
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE...