Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?  (Read 13060 times)

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2020, 08:33:14 PM »
Advertisement
Feel free to nominate a pinch-hitter for Oswald. And those who knew, in advance, that an attempt on Kennedy would be made that day.

Feel free to actually contribute something relevant.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #32 on: September 25, 2020, 08:33:14 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2020, 08:43:35 PM »
Oswald sent Klein's $21.45. And Klein's sent Oswald (Hidell) the C2766 rifle just a few days later. The paperwork, confirmed by Bill Waldman, proves those two facts.

Bull. The “paperwork” proves neither. You have zero (and I mean ZERO) evidence that such a package ever went though the US Mail, was ever delivered to PO Box 2915, or was ever picked up by Oswald or anybody else. You also have no evidence that Oswald snuck away from work in the middle of the day and walked half a mile each way to buy a money order with nobody noticing.

Quote
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?

You seem to want to have it both ways. Was Klein’s lying to its customers when it said they could order a 36-inch rifle?

Quote
And I always get a kick out of the conspiracy mongers who like to prop up Mitchell Westra's statement about Klein's never putting scopes on the 40-inch rifles. The CTers will always, invariably, leave out the part of Westra's statement where he says this: "Undoubtably Klein's mounted some..."

What made it “undoubtable” other than the government telling him that he must have? And ignoring Dial Ryder’s account?

Quote
With respect to the conspiracy theorists' persistent claim that Klein's Sporting Goods never mounted scopes on their 40-inch Italian Carcano rifles, THIS NOVEMBER 2013 ARTICLE goes a long way toward debunking such a notion, because in that article, the gunsmith who worked in the Klein's warehouse in 1963, William H. Sharp, said that he told his boss right after the assassination in 1963: “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it”.

LN-ers always appeal to 50-year-old memories when it suits them.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2020, 08:46:02 PM by John Iacoletti »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2020, 09:10:13 PM »
Feel free to actually contribute something relevant.

Pretty sure Oswald is relevant

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2020, 09:10:13 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2020, 11:22:46 PM »
Pretty sure Oswald is relevant

What you’re “pretty sure” of is also irrelevant.

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2020, 03:04:05 AM »
The WC was designed to provide an explanation of the assassination.
In pursuing this "explanation", many issues were avoided, information was excluded, obfuscation was part of the process, etc.

My condolences if you haven't figured that out.

'many issues were avoided, information was excluded'
> Do any of those 'issues' and 'information' just happen to ooze out of CTer pet theories by any chance? 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2020, 03:04:05 AM »


Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6513
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #37 on: September 26, 2020, 03:11:54 AM »
What you’re “pretty sure” of is also irrelevant.

Relevant enough to take a knee at his gravesite, apparently.

Online David Von Pein

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 506
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2020, 03:21:24 AM »
The “paperwork” proves neither.

It proves that Oswald sent Klein's $21.45 for a rifle, and it proves Klein's sent LHO the C2766 rifle.

But keep pretending that all the Klein's paperwork is fake. After all, it's the only hope you've got.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #38 on: September 26, 2020, 03:21:24 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
« Reply #39 on: September 26, 2020, 07:18:35 AM »
Relevant enough to take a knee at his gravesite, apparently.

I’m still waiting for you to explain why that’s such a problem that you need to bring it up ad nauseum. Or a problem at all.