The fact that Oswald COULD have purchased his rifle in person does not in any way diminish the documentary evidence that confirms he DID purchase a rifle from Klein's. You believe it would be necessary to find the person who actually packaged the rifle and have them confirm months or years later that he/she sent a specific rifle to someone to confirm this fact? Incredible. Has that ever been necessary in the history of crime when there are corresponding documents that confirm this fact? This person would likely have no memory of who was mailed a rifle months after the fact. They just put the gun in a package and someone mailed it out. They may have done this hundreds or thousands of times. The documents prove beyond any doubt that an order was received and processed for this rifle to Oswald's PO Box. It has a specific serial number. It was not in Klein's possession. How does it wind up in Oswald's place of employment? A rifle with the exact same serial number that Klein's indicates that they sent to his PO Box. Much of this evidence exists prior to the assassination, is discovered at the crime scene, and/or is confirmed within hours of the assassination. Honestly, you seem like a person of average intelligence. When you dispute obvious facts like Oswald's ownership of this rifle, it undermines your credibility on any other matter.
The fact that Oswald COULD have purchased his rifle in person does not in any way diminish the documentary evidence that confirms he DID purchase a rifle from Klein's. What documentary evidence exactly confirms that Oswald purchased the MC rifle from Klein's?
All there is are photocopies of an order form, an envelope and a money order which one FBI expert claimed were written by Oswald. That's it! All the other documents produced by Klein's internally is derived from the order form and money order. Those internal documents prove nothing more than that Klein's processed an order!
You believe it would be necessary to find the person who actually packaged the rifle and have them confirm months or years later that he/she sent a specific rifle to someone to confirm this fact? Incredible. That person would stand a hell of a better chance of remembering than a VP who had no part in the transaction and who only confirms what is shown on some internal documents, without actually knowing a damned thing for sure about the transaction.
Has that ever been necessary in the history of crime when there are corresponding documents that confirm this fact? This person would likely have no memory of who was mailed a rifle months after the fact. They just put the gun in a package and someone mailed it out. They may have done this hundreds or thousands of times. Don't underestimate a person's ability to recollect information or notice anomalies in the paperwork, if there are any. In any event, the person handling the transaction would have written the serial number on Waldman 7 and that alone could authenticate the actual document. But perhaps the WC wasn't after authentication and preferred easily manipulated photo copies...
The documents prove beyond any doubt that an order was received and processed for this rifle to Oswald's PO Box.No they don't prove that at all.
It was not in Klein's possession. Of course not.... Waldman confirmed that according to Waldman 07 it was shipped by Parcel Post. So where is the receipt of Parcel Post?
How does it wind up in Oswald's place of employment? Obviously somebody put it there. Too bad that the rifle, when it was found, had no prints on it that one would expect there to be when somebody places a rifle between some boxes. Oh yeah, I forgot... Oswald must have wiped the rifle clean to avoid being linked to it, right? A bit silly, don't you think, after first leaving a massive and easy to follow trail behind at Klein's and with the BY photos....But I'm sure in your mind it makes perfect sense, right?
A rifle with the exact same serial number that Klein's indicates that they sent to his PO Box. When exactly did somebody write the serial number on Waldman 07? Do you know?
Much of this evidence exists prior to the assassination, is discovered at the crime scene, and/or is confirmed within hours of the assassination. How do you know what evidence existed prior to the assassination?
Honestly, you seem like a person of average intelligence. Says the guy who fools himself in believing he is smarter than everybody else, yet he still supports Trump... Go figure!
When you dispute obvious facts like Oswald's ownership of this rifle, it undermines your credibility on any other matter. When you jump like conclusions not supported by the actual evidence, it doesn't undermine your credibility, it completely destroys it. There are so many variables in play here, that there is nothing obvious about Oswald's alleged ownership of the MC rifle.
I can easily provide a completely different narrative, based on the same evidence, that justifies the conclusion that Oswald was manipulated and that it never was his rifle! That's how pathetically poor quality the evidence is.
