JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Gerry Down on September 15, 2020, 12:15:10 PM

Title: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Gerry Down on September 15, 2020, 12:15:10 PM
Jim D says Oswald ordered his rifle by post and Kleins processed the order all in the one day (24 hour period).

This can't be right?

Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Gerry Down on September 16, 2020, 12:23:25 AM
He says that's what the Warren Commission wants you to believe.

But the Warren Commission doesn't ask people to believe all that happened in 24 hours, they space it out more over several days.

I don't know where DiEugenio gets this 24 hour thing.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 16, 2020, 12:50:57 AM
But the Warren Commission doesn't ask people to believe all that happened in 24 hours, they space it out more over several days.

I don't know where DiEugenio gets this 24 hour thing.

It's true that the Commission never claimed that Oswald actually took possession of his mail-order rifle just 24 hours after he ordered it. But DiEugenio is correct when he asserts that the official position regarding Oswald's rifle is that Oswald placed his rifle order in a mailbox on March 12 and that order was then received and processed by Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago the next day (March 13). The paperwork proves that happened (IMO).

Much more about the rifle order and the speedy trip to Chicago at the links below:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 16, 2020, 01:47:47 AM
The paperwork proves that happened...
Paperwork can be faked...just like counterfeit bills and anything else.
To accept that an order was mailed from Dallas [in 1963 yet] was received and completely processed in a Chicago sports facility within 24 hours is absolute looney tunes. 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 16, 2020, 02:11:05 AM
Paperwork can be faked...just like counterfeit bills and anything else.
To accept that an order was mailed from Dallas [in 1963 yet] was received and completely processed in a Chicago sports facility within 24 hours is absolute looney tunes.

Therefore, if what you just said is true, then why on Earth did the looney conspirators who were "faking" all the rifle paperwork want to make it look like the order was processed in 24 hours? That was a really stupid gaffe on their part (if such a thing was impossible in 1963)....wouldn't you agree?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 16, 2020, 03:52:15 AM
Therefore, if what you just said is true, then why on Earth did the looney conspirators who were "faking" all the rifle paperwork want to make it look like the order was processed in 24 hours? That was a really stupid gaffe on their part (if such a thing was impossible in 1963)....wouldn't you agree?
What I can't agree on is that the order was processed like it was through ebay on the internet. From the DVP links...
Quote
The envelope may have been deposited in a drop box, possibly the day or evening before.
So what? That certainly doesn't make the mail any faster. Mail box pick-ups weren't any more reliable then..than they are now. Letters can possibly sit all weekend.
Quote
It has been proven, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did, in fact, order a mail-order rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods Company in Chicago in March of 1963. The handwriting on all of the documents connected with the Klein's transaction is that of Oswald's, which proves beyond all doubt that it was Oswald (and no other person) who ordered and paid for Carcano rifle
No other person? Then why are there [historically] people who have been convicted of.....dare I mention--forgery?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 16, 2020, 07:33:45 AM
Why not try answering the last question I asked you, Jerry?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 16, 2020, 01:43:28 PM
Why not try answering the last question I asked you, Jerry?
The question again?---   
Quote
That was a really stupid gaffe on their part (if such a thing was impossible in 1963)....wouldn't you agree?
A difficult question as one would have to be really super clairvoyant to decipher such primordial motivations.
If a what?....some blunder? was impossible? Why impossible?
That question threw me David. I am still looking at that 24 hour claim stuff...because I have never heard it before. What paperwork reveals that?
Also....I never understood the logic of ordering a firearm using an alias that could be directly linked back to Oswald...That never made any sense. 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 16, 2020, 10:11:57 PM
...was impossible? Why impossible?

It's not me who is saying it was impossible for Oswald's order form to reach Chicago in one day's time. It's the conspiracy theorists saying it. But as you can easily see below, it was most certainly not impossible at all.


Quote
I am still looking at that 24 hour claim stuff...because I have never heard it before. What paperwork reveals that?

The "24 hour" fact is proven by these three documents (the first 2 showing the date "March 12", and the 3rd one showing the date
"Mar. 13" stamped at the top of the Klein's internal invoice for Oswald's rifle purchase)....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2020, 12:40:24 AM
Therefore, if what you just said is true, then why on Earth did the looney conspirators who were "faking" all the rifle paperwork want to make it look like the order was processed in 24 hours? That was a really stupid gaffe on their part (if such a thing was impossible in 1963)....wouldn't you agree?

Another "that's so unlikely it must be true" LNer argument.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 17, 2020, 06:23:23 AM
Another "that's so unlikely it must be true" LNer argument.

Looks like John wants to avoid my perfectly reasonable question as well. (What a surprise.)
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 17, 2020, 06:26:46 PM
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
Well I'll Swanee! Right above the words--- Order Blank ---there it is. I have never noticed that before!
 I agree it is possible...if someone had immediately taken that money order...got on the next jet to Chicago...took a taxi to the sports warehouse and hand delivered it to the order fillers when the offices opened on the 13th of March..it is just possible!!
Those stupid conspiracy guys didn't think of that huh?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2020, 08:01:05 PM
Looks like John wants to avoid my perfectly reasonable question as well. (What a surprise.)

Your "perfectly reasonable question" is a strawman (what a surprise).
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 17, 2020, 08:10:12 PM
Looks like John wants to avoid my perfectly reasonable question as well. (What a surprise.)
Speaking of reasonable questions, you have still never explained how Oswald ordered one size long gun, but received a different sized long gun.

Which certainly shows more "sloppiness " on the part of someone.

So, we have magic mail that travels at high speed, and then brings about shipment of a different long gun than the one ordered.

Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2020, 08:41:58 PM
...to which I predict that DVP will respond with yet another strawman along the lines of "why would conspirators plant a different rifle than the one that they planted the order for"?

That's the go-to argument when an LNer is confronted with any anomaly in the evidence.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Gerry Down on September 17, 2020, 10:39:27 PM
Speaking of reasonable questions, you have still never explained how Oswald ordered one size long gun, but received a different sized long gun.

Maybe the guy packing the rifle just made a mistake?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 17, 2020, 11:47:18 PM
The LN strawman conspirators plan everything in intricate detail in advance and never make a mistake.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 18, 2020, 12:42:32 AM
...you have still never explained how Oswald ordered one size long gun, but received a different sized long gun.

I've explained the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy on many occasions in the past (such as in the articles linked below). It's a very easy problem to solve too (except if you're a conspiracy theorist, of course)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=36-inch+vs.+40-inch

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1081.html
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 18, 2020, 12:53:17 AM
And by "explain", he means that he's guessing that they "simply ran out of 36-inch guns" and decided to substitute 40-inch guns.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 18, 2020, 02:11:15 AM
And by "explain", he means that he's guessing that they "simply ran out of 36-inch guns" and decided to substitute 40-inch guns.

It couldn't be more obvious that Klein's was definitely running out of the 36-inch rifles in the early months of 1963, because they completely stopped selling (and stopped advertising) the 36-inch variant after February of '63. Every Klein's ad after February shows the "40-inch Carbine".

It's not hard at all to figure out what happened with Oswald's order in March (except if you're a conspiracy theorist, of course).
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 23, 2020, 08:11:16 PM
Klein's was still advertising the 36" rifle in the July 1963 issue of Guns Magazine.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 23, 2020, 08:16:17 PM
Klein's was still advertising the 36" rifle in the July 1963 issue of Guns Magazine.
Thank you, Mr I.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 24, 2020, 07:37:47 AM
Klein's was still advertising the 36" rifle in the July 1963 issue of Guns Magazine.

Yes. You're correct. I just confirmed for myself that "Guns" Magazine was, indeed, still advertising the 36-inch Italian Carbine as late as July of 1963:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ExPXlaXgXv2_0n_nXwVZMnQrUFMgpvH/view

In the August '63 issue of "Guns", they started advertising the 40-inch version of the rifle:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e8gnIUrcK2F1J7bjwAOPMmUmSST5zg8r/view

It would be interesting to know if customers who ordered Carcano rifles from Klein's while using "Guns" Magazine mail-order coupons from February through July of '63 received a 36-inch gun or, like Lee Oswald, a 40-inch gun. That is something, though, we will likely never be able to ascertain.

If only David Belin had asked Klein's Vice President William Waldman this question when Waldman was testifying in front of the Warren Commission on May 20, 1964 (which was not asked):

Mr. Waldman, can you explain to us why it is that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A. Hidell) ordered a 36-inch gun from your company (according to the mail-in coupon that he sent to Klein's in March of 1963), but the rifle you ultimately shipped to him one week later was a 40.2-inch gun? Can you tell us why that discrepancy exists in this case?

I would have enjoyed hearing Mr. Waldman's answer to the above question. I'm confident it would have been a very reasonable and acceptable answer too. (Conspiracy theorists undoubtedly would disagree.)
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on September 24, 2020, 01:45:12 PM
Yes. You're correct. I just confirmed for myself that "Guns" Magazine was, indeed, still advertising the 36-inch Italian Carbine as late as July of 1963:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ExPXlaXgXv2_0n_nXwVZMnQrUFMgpvH/view

In the August '63 issue of "Guns", they started advertising the 40-inch version of the rifle:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1e8gnIUrcK2F1J7bjwAOPMmUmSST5zg8r/view

It would be interesting to know if customers who ordered Carcano rifles from Klein's while using "Guns" Magazine mail-order coupons from February through July of '63 received a 36-inch gun or, like Lee Oswald, a 40-inch gun. That is something, though, we will likely never be able to ascertain.

If only David Belin had asked Klein's Vice President William Waldman this question when Waldman was testifying in front of the Warren Commission on May 20, 1964 (which was not asked):

Mr. Waldman, can you explain to us why it is that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A. Hidell) ordered a 36-inch gun from your company (according to the mail-in coupon that he sent to Klein's in March of 1963), but the rifle you ultimately shipped to him one week later was a 40.2-inch gun? Can you tell us why that discrepancy exists in this case?

I would have enjoyed hearing Mr. Waldman's answer to the above question. I'm confident it would have been a very reasonable and acceptable answer too. (Conspiracy theorists undoubtedly would disagree.)

How long were those curtain rods supposed to be again, Dave?  LOL
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 24, 2020, 05:37:06 PM
It would be interesting to know if customers who ordered Carcano rifles from Klein's while using "Guns" Magazine mail-order coupons from February through July of '63 received a 36-inch gun or, like Lee Oswald, a 40-inch gun. That is something, though, we will likely never be able to ascertain.

You haven't even ascertained that Oswald received anything.

Also, Mitchell Westra told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on the 40-inch rifles.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein on September 25, 2020, 02:36:23 AM
You haven't even ascertained that Oswald received anything.

That's the rabid conspiracy theorist in you talking. It's certainly not the "reasonable person named John Iacoletti who has looked at all the evidence" speaking.

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. So, what are the odds that Oswald really received nothing at all from Klein's?


Quote
Also, Mitchell Westra told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on the 40-inch rifles.

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?

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..."

Also....

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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html) 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”.

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 25, 2020, 05:08:30 AM
That's the rabid conspiracy theorist in you talking. It's certainly not the "reasonable person named John Iacoletti who has looked at all the evidence" speaking.

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. So, what are the odds that Oswald really received nothing at all from Klein's?


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?

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..."

Also....

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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html) 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”.

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html
Always with the ad hominem, Mr Von Pein.
" rabid conspiracy  theorists"
" conspiracy mongers"

Very mature.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Jerry Freeman on September 25, 2020, 06:11:05 AM
Always with the ad hominem, Mr Von Pein.
" rabid conspiracy  theorists"
" conspiracy mongers"

Very mature.
Don't forget Drooling Dog Faced Pony Soldiers  :D
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Mark A. Oblazney on September 25, 2020, 12:38:00 PM
That's the rabid conspiracy theorist in you talking. It's certainly not the "reasonable person named John Iacoletti who has looked at all the evidence" speaking.

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. So, what are the odds that Oswald really received nothing at all from Klein's?


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?

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..."

Also....

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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html) 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”.

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

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html

QED
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 25, 2020, 06:07:44 PM
The WC certainly did not think that was interesting in any way.

Otherwise they would simply have done it.

Wouldn't they?
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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 25, 2020, 06:48:18 PM
You probably shouldn't hand out condolences.

Why?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 25, 2020, 08:30:05 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 25, 2020, 08:33:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti 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 (https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html) 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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 25, 2020, 09:10:13 PM
Feel free to actually contribute something relevant.

Pretty sure Oswald is relevant
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 25, 2020, 11:22:46 PM
Pretty sure Oswald is relevant

What you’re “pretty sure” of is also irrelevant.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman 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? 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman 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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: David Von Pein 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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti 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.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 26, 2020, 07:22:08 AM
It proves that Oswald sent Klein's $21.45 for a rifle, and it proves Klein's sent LHO the C2766 rifle.

It proves nothing of the kind. It’s an order blank printed from microfilm that is now “missing”. It doesn’t prove that anything was sent anywhere.

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

Sorry, I didn’t claim anything was fake.

But you keep pretending that unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of two block letters on a photograph of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank proves a damn thing.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 26, 2020, 08:38:03 AM
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.

Whoa there, Tex: I'm only reportin' the news.
Not my bad if it makes you nauseous.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 27, 2020, 09:54:55 PM
Whoa there, Tex: I'm only reportin' the news.
Not my bad if it makes you nauseous.

It wasn’t news the first time you “reported” it, much less the 57th.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 27, 2020, 10:36:42 PM
It wasn’t news the first time you “reported” it, much less the 57th.

It's the gift that keeps on giving

Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 28, 2020, 05:57:31 AM
It's the gift that keeps on giving

And you still can’t explain what the problem is.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 28, 2020, 07:26:43 AM
And you still can’t explain what the problem is.

It's not a problem for me.
On the contrary, it's a gift.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 28, 2020, 02:44:08 PM
It's not a problem for me.
On the contrary, it's a gift.
Oswald is an important figure in history. Why wouldn't you take a picture of his grave? It doesn't mean you're a "fan" of Oswald.
Guilt by association is such a silly argument. There's a picture of me, age 9, standing by the Brandenburg Gate. Does that mean I am a fan of Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler, all of whom used it for political purposes?
( FYI, my family in Poland was oppressed by all those figures, especially old Adolf, so the question answers itself.)
What's your response to that, Mr Chapman?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 28, 2020, 02:48:34 PM
Oswald supposedly ordered a 36" long gun, yet somehow received a 40" long gun.
Still no explanation as to why.
Ordered no ammo, no record of purchase of ammo.
Why?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 28, 2020, 04:42:25 PM
Oswald supposedly ordered a 36" long gun, yet somehow received a 40" long gun.
Still no explanation as to why.
Ordered no ammo, no record of purchase of ammo.
Why?

Oswald supposedly ordered a 36" long gun, yet somehow received a 40" long gun.
Still no explanation as to why.


This argument is silly......   Simply because the add listed the carcano as a 36" carbine doesn't preclude the possibility that Klein's had ran out of the 36" carcano and there fore simply shipped the 40 inch model to buyers.   

This argument has been going for decades......and it proves NOTHING!
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 28, 2020, 06:57:11 PM
Oswald is an important figure in history. Why wouldn't you take a picture of his grave? It doesn't mean you're a "fan" of Oswald.
Guilt by association is such a silly argument. There's a picture of me, age 9, standing by the Brandenburg Gate. Does that mean I am a fan of Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler, all of whom used it for political purposes?
( FYI, my family in Poland was oppressed by all those figures, especially old Adolf, so the question answers itself.)
What's your response to that, Mr Chapman?

You were standing. You were a kid. Were any of you kneeling?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 29, 2020, 03:32:37 PM
You were standing. You were a kid. Were any of you kneeling?
No, because the Brandenburg Gate is quite tall, at least 100 feet above the ground. Oswald's gravesite is at ground level, hence the need to kneel and take a close up photo that includes the individual pictured and for Oswald's name on the grave site to be visible. 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 29, 2020, 03:49:06 PM
Oswald supposedly ordered a 36" long gun, yet somehow received a 40" long gun.
Still no explanation as to why.


This argument is silly......   Simply because the add listed the carcano as a 36" carbine doesn't preclude the possibility that Klein's had ran out of the 36" carcano and there fore simply shipped the 40 inch model to buyers.   

This argument has been going for decades......and it proves NOTHING!
The 40" rifle was a cut down long gun that was very inaccurate; it had a progressive twist, and cutting it down removed an element essential to it being accurate.
Oswald knew a lot about guns. If you recall, he spent a great deal of time reading Adrian Alba's gun magazines.
Therefore, he would have known that the 36"  " true carbine" was a very accurate gun, and the 40" rifle was not an appropriate "substitution.
Do you know the difference between a "true 36" carbine Carcano and a cut down 40" long gun?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 29, 2020, 04:15:26 PM
The 40" rifle was a cut down long gun that was very inaccurate; it had a progressive twist, and cutting it down removed an element essential to it being accurate.
Oswald knew a lot about guns. If you recall, he spent a great deal of time reading Adrian Alba's gun magazines.
Therefore, he would have known that the 36"  " true carbine" was a very accurate gun, and the 40" rifle was not an appropriate "substitution.
Do you know the difference between a "true 36" carbine Carcano and a cut down 40" long gun?

The 40" rifle was a cut down long gun that was very inaccurate; it had a progressive twist, and cutting it down removed an element essential to it being accurate.

This is utter nonsense.....The model 91/38 Carcano short rifle was NOT merely a "cut down long gun" ( model 91).   The Model 91 / 38 did employ the same basic action as the model 91, but the barrel did not have the gain twist rifling that was used in the long rifle. 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on September 30, 2020, 04:12:05 AM
The 40" rifle was a cut down long gun that was very inaccurate; it had a progressive twist, and cutting it down removed an element essential to it being accurate.

This is utter nonsense.....The model 91/38 Carcano short rifle was NOT merely a "cut down long gun" ( model 91).   The Model 91 / 38 did employ the same basic action as the model 91, but the barrel did not have the gain twist rifling that was used in the long rifle.
Excuse my error; the 36" long gun,the one allegedly ordered, was the cut down, progressive twist long gun that was very inaccurate. The 40" long gun, the true carbine was the superior weapon.
My mistake on confusing the two.
Only an idiot would order the 36" long gun; Oswald knew guns. Just ask Adrian Alba - the Minuteman; I'm sure you knew about that - about Oswald's gun questions and gun magazine reading habits.
Or look up Robert Mckeown - gun runner for Prio and Castro - about Oswald dropping by to talk about guns and gun purchases.
Do you also think he chose these men by chance or luck?
Oswald - in a Zelig like fashion - immersed himself into just about every political and governmental body in the western world. No wonder everyone ran for cover, and gladly went with the lone nut idea.
Here's the folks who were all associated with Oswald:
Minutemen
Pro Castro Cubans in U.S., and Fair Play for Cuba
Cuban embassy in Mexico City.
Russian embassy in Mexico City.
FBI. Hosty burned notes from Oswald.
CIA , including "Lee Henry (sic) " Oswald file, and coverup of Mexico City activities, including telephonic impersonation of Oswald.
Anti Castro Cuban/Americans, including the New Orleans charade.
General Walker, right wing nutjob.

These are all facts.

Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on September 30, 2020, 05:09:35 PM
Excuse my error; the 36" long gun,the one allegedly ordered, was the cut down, progressive twist long gun that was very inaccurate. The 40" long gun, the true carbine was the superior weapon.
My mistake on confusing the two.
Only an idiot would order the 36" long gun; Oswald knew guns. Just ask Adrian Alba - the Minuteman; I'm sure you knew about that - about Oswald's gun questions and gun magazine reading habits.
Or look up Robert Mckeown - gun runner for Prio and Castro - about Oswald dropping by to talk about guns and gun purchases.
Do you also think he chose these men by chance or luck?
Oswald - in a Zelig like fashion - immersed himself into just about every political and governmental body in the western world. No wonder everyone ran for cover, and gladly went with the lone nut idea.
Here's the folks who were all associated with Oswald:
Minutemen
Pro Castro Cubans in U.S., and Fair Play for Cuba
Cuban embassy in Mexico City.
Russian embassy in Mexico City.
FBI. Hosty burned notes from Oswald.
CIA , including "Lee Henry (sic) " Oswald file, and coverup of Mexico City activities, including telephonic impersonation of Oswald.
Anti Castro Cuban/Americans, including the New Orleans charade.
General Walker, right wing nutjob.

These are all facts.

look up Robert Mckeown - gun runner for Prio and Castro - about Oswald dropping by to talk about guns and gun purchases.
Do you also think he chose these men by chance or luck?


Lee's mission was to find out who was arming, financing and training the Cubans who were  conducting the raids on Cuba.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on September 30, 2020, 08:51:07 PM
No, because the Brandenburg Gate is quite tall, at least 100 feet above the ground. Oswald's gravesite is at ground level, hence the need to kneel and take a close up photo that includes the individual pictured and for Oswald's name on the grave site to be visible.

LOL

Somebody else had the camera. Iacoletti was the one taking the knee.
The act of anyone other than family kneeling at Oswald's grave speaks volumes.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7160/6712202335_b9a0db87b7_z.jpg)

Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 30, 2020, 11:11:34 PM
This argument is silly......   Simply because the add listed the carcano as a 36" carbine doesn't preclude the possibility that Klein's had ran out of the 36" carcano and there fore simply shipped the 40 inch model to buyers.

I think you meant to write "lame excuse" instead of "possibility".
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on September 30, 2020, 11:17:44 PM
Somebody else had the camera. Iacoletti was the one taking the knee.
The act of anyone other than family kneeling at Oswald's speaks volumes.

And what exactly are those voices in your head telling you about this?

You comical refusal to ever answer the question speaks volumes.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 01, 2020, 02:26:55 AM
And what exactly are those voices in your head telling you about this?

You comical refusal to ever answer the question speaks volumes.

A picture speaks a thousand words.

And no voices in-the-head needed on my part. If anybody had extra voices available, it would be your hero and his aliases.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 01, 2020, 05:07:53 AM
look up Robert Mckeown - gun runner for Prio and Castro - about Oswald dropping by to talk about guns and gun purchases.
Do you also think he chose these men by chance or luck?


Lee's mission was to find out who was arming, financing and training the Cubans who were  conducting the raids on Cuba.

Good god, McKeown ran guns for Prio to Castro. Mckeown was caught by the feds, and was still on probation in 1963 - he wanted nothing to do with guns. And, he was a personal friend of Fidel.

Adrian Alba was a member of the Minutemen; they feared a Communist takeover by domestic i.e. US  forces. They had nothing to do with Cuba.

Google is your friend.

As always, thanks for the laughs.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 01, 2020, 03:43:47 PM
Good god, McKeown ran guns for Prio to Castro. Mckeown was caught by the feds, and was still on probation in 1963 - he wanted nothing to do with guns. And, he was a personal friend of Fidel.

Adrian Alba was a member of the Minutemen; they feared a Communist takeover by domestic i.e. US  forces. They had nothing to do with Cuba.

Google is your friend.

As always, thanks for the laughs.

Johnny Boy.....You act as if you are a historian and an authority about the coup d etat .     Your posts reveal that you are not.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 01, 2020, 04:19:11 PM
Johnny Boy.....You act as if you are a historian and an authority about the coup d etat .     Your posts reveal that you are not.

So, my post about McKeown and Alba is in
correct?
Please enlighten me.

My name is John. Or, Mr Tonkovich.

Please try to answer the question.  Mr Cakebread. Thx.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 01, 2020, 09:13:41 PM
So, my post about McKeown and Alba is in
correct?
Please enlighten me.

My name is John. Or, Mr Tonkovich.

Please try to answer the question.  Mr Cakebread. Thx.

Forget about extolling you vast knowledge .....That has No direct bearing on the coup d etat
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 01, 2020, 10:21:38 PM
A picture speaks a thousand words.

And no voices in-the-head needed on my part. If anybody had extra voices available, it would be your hero and his aliases.

Your baseless assumptions don't determine who is somebody's "hero", or who used aliases.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 01, 2020, 10:56:52 PM
Your baseless assumptions don't determine who is somebody's "hero", or who used aliases.

No assumptions needed
You're still kneeling
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 01, 2020, 11:46:02 PM
No assumptions needed
You're still kneeling

yes, and you don't think your interpretation of that is a baseless assumption?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 02, 2020, 01:14:12 AM
Forget about extolling you vast knowledge .....That has No direct bearing on the coup d etat
You seem to be avoiding my question about Alba and McKeown, Mr Cakebread.
Please enlighten me as to my errors.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 02, 2020, 09:34:39 AM
yes, and you don't think your interpretation of that is a baseless assumption?

No. The aliases, for instance, exist as longtime points of controversy and are therefore valid as proof-of-concept candidates. And taking a knee at his grave smacks of genuflection, fealty... a veritable homage, as I see it.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 03, 2020, 04:11:17 AM
No. The aliases, for instance, exist as longtime points of controversy and are therefore valid as proof-of-concept candidates. And taking a knee at his grave smacks of genuflection, fealty... a veritable homage, as I see it.
Mr I, how long has Mr Chapman been repeating this foolishness? Months, years?
His argument is a textbook case of ad hominem.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 04, 2020, 06:39:19 PM
No. The aliases, for instance, exist as longtime points of controversy and are therefore valid as proof-of-concept candidates.

The aliases exist. You just cannot show that Oswald ever used them as aliases for himself.

Quote
And taking a knee at his grave smacks of genuflection, fealty... a veritable homage, as I see it.

And how does how you see things have the slightest bit of relevance? Do you see NFL football players as genuflecting and paying homage to the flag and country then?

And even if I was paying homage, so what? Is that bad just because you think he killed people?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 05, 2020, 11:49:46 PM

The aliases exist. You just cannot show that Oswald ever used them as aliases for himself.
So what? I give the aliases top marks on the feasibility chart.

And how does how you see things have the slightest bit of relevance?
You sure spend a lot of time reading my 'irrelevancies'.

Do you see NFL football players as genuflecting and paying homage to the flag and country then?
Not Freakin' Likely

And even if I was paying homage, so what? Is that bad just because you think he killed people?
Where did I say it was bad? On the contrary, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 06, 2020, 02:11:05 AM
The aliases exist. You just cannot show that Oswald ever used them as aliases for himself.
So what? I give the aliases top marks on the feasibility chart.

What you think is feasible is not only irrelevant, it's not even interesting.

Quote
Do you see NFL football players as genuflecting and paying homage to the flag and country then?
Not Freakin' Likely

But the question is, is it "feasible"?

Quote
And even if I was paying homage, so what? Is that bad just because you think he killed people?
Where did I say it was bad? On the contrary, it's the gift that keeps on giving.

Back to to the incoherent rambling.  It's a "gift", but you can't articulate why it's so notable.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 06, 2020, 03:30:32 AM

What you think is feasible is not only irrelevant, it's not even interesting.
Yet here you are 

But the question is, is it "feasible"?
Where did I equate feasibility with anything other than the aliases?

Back to to the incoherent rambling. It's a "gift", but you can't articulate why it's so notable.
A picture speaks a thousand words
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 06, 2020, 03:44:40 AM
What you think is feasible is not only irrelevant, it's not even interesting.
Yet here you are 

It's amusing to watch you try to be relevant and continually failing.

Quote
But the question is, is it "feasible"?
Where did I equate feasibility with anything other than the aliases?

Your "feasibility" standard is as worthless as everything else you come up with.

Quote
Back to to the incoherent rambling. It's a "gift", but you can't articulate why it's so notable.
A picture speaks a thousand words

Yeah, that's what I thought.  You bring it up every 5 minutes, but you can't even explain why.

The only "thousand words" around here are the ones from the delusional voices in your head.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 06, 2020, 01:37:10 PM

It's amusing to watch you try to be relevant and continually failing.
Who appointed you arbiter of what's relevant?

Your "feasibility" standard is as worthless as everything else you come up with.
Who appointed you arbiter of standards?

Yeah, that's what I thought
Want some fries with that nothingburger?

You bring it up every 5 minutes, but you can't even explain why.
A picture is worth a thousand words

The only "thousand words" around here are the ones from the delusional voices in your head.
Your Oswald-kneeling fully reveals just who is delusional here.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 06, 2020, 09:45:10 PM
Proof-of-your-irrelevance was achieved years ago so what's the point of continuing?

Again with the sticks & stones.. 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 06, 2020, 11:28:51 PM
Who appointed you arbiter of what's relevant?

Let's have a show of hands.

Quote
Who appointed you arbiter of standards?

Let's have a show of hands.

Quote
Your Oswald-kneeling fully reveals just who is delusional here.

You can't even articulate exactly what you think it does "reveal" or why.  What's delusional about it?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Dan O'meara on October 07, 2020, 01:55:54 AM
Let's have a show of hands.

Yeah, let's have a show of hands.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 07, 2020, 03:12:59 AM
Sure.  How many people here think that Bill Chapman has ever posted anything relevant?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 07, 2020, 03:28:17 AM
Perhaps Mr Chapman could add something to the topic at hand. Oswald's rifle.
Thx.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 07, 2020, 07:47:08 AM
Let's have a show of hands.

Let's have a show of hands.

You can't even articulate exactly what you think it does "reveal" or why.  What's delusional about it?

A picture is worth a thousand words: You're the guy in the photo @Oswald
Actions speak louder than words: You're the guy taking a knee in the photo @Oswald
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 07, 2020, 01:52:19 PM
Sure.  How many people here think that Bill Chapman has ever posted anything relevant?

Wow. Now there's a desperate plea for support.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 07, 2020, 04:22:48 PM
The topic is Oswald's rifle order.
And the likelihood of his letter/order going from Dallas to Chicago and being received by Kleins in one day.
Thx.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 07, 2020, 10:39:52 PM
Correct, Mr. Tonkovich.  Although the term "Oswald's rifle order" amounts to wishful thinking on the part of the Warren apologists.

How often does Chapman actually post on topic?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 08, 2020, 03:09:23 AM
Correct, Mr. Tonkovich.  Although the term "Oswald's rifle order" amounts to wishful thinking on the part of the Warren apologists.

How often does Chapman actually post on topic?

First, Mr I, you are correct as to " Oswald's rifle order"; my mistake. ( I, too, have many doubts about the Klein's order, starting with 36" versus 40", the money order, etc.)

As to Mr Chapman, he certainly can post anything he likes here, but staying on topic is my preferred method of engagement here, though I am far from perfect.

Back to the topic at hand, the quick delivery and receipt of " Oswalds " alleged rifle order. Did the USPS fly mail directly from Dallas to Chicago in 1963? I would think mail would go to some central hub in the South or Southeast? and then be sent out from there? Does anyone have such knowledge?
Just asking.

Thx.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 08, 2020, 02:46:06 PM
Correct, Mr. Tonkovich.  Although the term "Oswald's rifle order" amounts to wishful thinking on the part of the Warren apologists.

How often does Chapman actually post on topic?

How often do CTers play the 'off-topic' card?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 08, 2020, 06:11:51 PM
USPS delivery methods, 1963?
Delivery time, method, from Dallas to Chicago, 1963?
Anyone?
Bueller? : )
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 10, 2020, 11:37:23 PM
The topic is Oswald's rifle order.
And the likelihood of his letter/order going from Dallas to Chicago and being received by Kleins in one day.
Thx.

Oswald's Hidell's rifle order. Alek Hidell was in charge of armament procurement, as I've already pointed out in my assassination wrap-up ('The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help')
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 10, 2020, 11:50:46 PM
Does your family know you average 3.821 Joe Biden moments per day on this forum?

 :'(
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 14, 2020, 10:19:02 PM
Oswald's Hidell's rifle order. Alek Hidell was in charge of armament procurement, as I've already pointed out in my assassination wrap-up ('The Nobody Who Shot the Somebody Had Help')

Fascinating, since not even the alleged paperwork says "Alek Hidell".  At least you finally figured out that it isn't "Alex".
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 14, 2020, 10:58:50 PM
Fascinating, since not even the alleged paperwork says "Alek Hidell".  At least you finally figured out that it isn't "Alex".

(https://i.postimg.cc/L5vghG4H/hidell-gun.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 14, 2020, 11:20:04 PM
Yep.  Do you see the name "Alek" on the money order that was found in Virginia?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 15, 2020, 04:14:12 AM
Still waiting for Post Office logistics re: Dallas to Chicago in 1963.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 15, 2020, 05:08:07 AM
Yep.  Do you see the name "Alek" on the money order that was found in Virginia?

What I see, on the document I provided, is the name 'A. Hidell' (aka Alek Hidell), which is fertile JFK assassination lore, ripe for a bit of good-natured spoofing. Which I have provided.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 15, 2020, 04:54:38 PM
What I see, on the document I provided, is the name 'A. Hidell' (aka Alek Hidell), which is fertile JFK assassination lore, ripe for a bit of good-natured spoofing. Which I have provided.

Wait, how the h*ll do you know that the "A" on the money order stands for Alek?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 16, 2020, 12:06:29 AM
Wait, how the h*ll do you know that the "A" on the money order stands for Alek?

People are saying...
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 16, 2020, 12:31:15 AM
People are saying...

How Donald Trumpian of you...
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Bill Chapman on October 16, 2020, 04:19:25 PM
How Donald Trumpian of you...

Congratulations on noticing the borrowed sarcasm..
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 20, 2020, 11:45:55 PM
The question again?---    A difficult question as one would have to be really super clairvoyant to decipher such primordial motivations.
If a what?....some blunder? was impossible? Why impossible?
That question threw me David. I am still looking at that 24 hour claim stuff...because I have never heard it before. What paperwork reveals that?
Also....I never understood the logic of ordering a firearm using an alias that could be directly linked back to Oswald...That never made any sense.

It makes sense if you know that the rifle was purchased as a throw down rifle at General Walker's.   Lee and George wanted the rifle to be found by the police after the hoax "attempt" to shoot Walker.   But they didn't want it found until Lee was out of the country and on his way to Cuba.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 21, 2020, 03:33:36 AM
It makes sense if you know that the rifle was purchased as a throw down rifle at General Walker's.   Lee and George wanted the rifle to be found by the police after the hoax "attempt" to shoot Walker.   But they didn't want it found until Lee was out of the country and on his way to Cuba.

Then why didn't Oswald "throw down (the) rifle" instead of burying it? The rifle wasn't found by the police after the Walker shooting!! Your post makes absolutely no sense.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 21, 2020, 04:03:57 PM
Then why didn't Oswald "throw down (the) rifle" instead of burying it? The rifle wasn't found by the police after the Walker shooting!! Your post makes absolutely no sense.

Burying it??.... hiding it Beneath a pile of brush is NOT "burying it"....Ya dumb ass.  Do you think that Lee was carrying a shovel when he left the rifle in hope that the police dogs would find it?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 21, 2020, 08:18:08 PM
Burying it??.... hiding it Beneath a pile of brush is NOT "burying it"....Ya dumb ass.  Do you think that Lee was carrying a shovel when he left the rifle in hope that the police dogs would find it?

And it's not throwing the rifle down so the police could easily find it either, is it sh** for brains? And how do you suppose "the police dogs would find it" if they had not previously smelled it...ESP perhaps? lol  Yet another post that makes no sense, you ignorant, useless old fool.

"Marina Oswald stated that when
she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied
that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes
and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection.
She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle
and brought it back to their apartment."
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 21, 2020, 09:19:27 PM
And it's not throwing the rifle down so the police could easily find it either, is it sh** for brains? And how do you suppose "the police dogs would find it" if they had not previously smelled it...ESP perhaps? lol  Yet another post that makes no sense, you ignorant, useless old fool.

"Marina Oswald stated that when
she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied
that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes
and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection.
She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle
and brought it back to their apartment."


Marina thought ( speculated) that....Lee had "buried it in the ground .... OR ....HIDDEN IT IN SOME BUSHES"

He obviously didn't bury it in the ground....He had no shovel .....   Do you understand that? Dim Bulb?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2020, 09:33:12 PM
It makes sense if you know that the rifle was purchased as a throw down rifle at General Walker's.   Lee and George wanted the rifle to be found by the police after the hoax "attempt" to shoot Walker.   But they didn't want it found until Lee was out of the country and on his way to Cuba.

It makes sense if you know that Walt fabricated a story that the rifle was purchased as a throw down rifle at General Walker's.

There, I fixed it for you.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 21, 2020, 09:34:08 PM
And it's not throwing the rifle down so the police could easily find it either, is it sh** for brains? And how do you suppose "the police dogs would find it" if they had not previously smelled it...ESP perhaps? lol  Yet another post that makes no sense, you ignorant, useless old fool.

"Marina Oswald stated that when
she asked her husband what be had done with the rifle, he replied
that he had buried it in the ground or hidden it in some bushes
and that he also mentioned a railroad track in this connection.
She testified that several days later Oswald recovered his rifle
and brought it back to their apartment."


Walt likes to think that his made-up stories are more credible than Marina's made-up stories.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 22, 2020, 01:12:02 AM
Walt likes to think that his made-up stories are more credible than Marina's made-up stories.

I'm not sure if Walt likes to think..period.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 22, 2020, 02:54:09 AM
I'm not sure if Walt likes to think..period.

Well At least I'm not a gullible simpleton who believes the BS that LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" created for simple suckers. 
I can fit the evidence together and see a solution that makes sense.....   
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 22, 2020, 03:11:00 AM
Well At least I'm not a gullible simpleton who believes the BS that LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" created for simple suckers. 
I can fit the evidence together and see a solution that makes sense.....   

The only way you make the evidence fit is by lying thru your teeth and fabrication. How do you know when Cakebread's lying...when his lips move. LOL
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 22, 2020, 03:15:19 AM
The only way you make the evidence fit is by lying thru your teeth and fabrication. How do you know when Cakebread's lying...when his lips move. LOL


"How do you know when Cakebread's lying...when his lips move." LOL


Wow!...Is that a Pointing original?....or just more indication that you don't have the brain for original thought.   
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 22, 2020, 03:22:25 AM

"How do you know when Cakebread's lying...when his lips move." LOL


Wow!...Is that a Pointing original?....or just more indication that you don't have the brain for original thought.

Yeah, you're right it's not very original...you've been caught lying scores of times.  :D :D
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 22, 2020, 04:33:22 PM
The concept of " truthiness" seems to inform some of our members' posts. : )
I will say no more.
As to the rifle order, still waiting for info on USPO/USPS logistics in 1963 re: Dallas to Chicago mail delivery. I have no dog in this fight; it may well turn out that a letter posted on the morning of "Day 1" in Dallas could arrive on "Day 2" in Chicago. In 1963.
Answers?
Help?
Bueller?
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2020, 05:42:23 PM
Well At least I'm not a gullible simpleton who believes the BS that LBJ's "Special Select Blue Ribbon Committee" created for simple suckers. 
I can fit the evidence together and see a solution that makes sense.....   

It's one thing to see a solution that "makes sense".  It's quite another to state it as a fact.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 22, 2020, 06:09:10 PM
The concept of " truthiness" seems to inform some of our members' posts. : )
I will say no more.
As to the rifle order, still waiting for info on USPO/USPS logistics in 1963 re: Dallas to Chicago mail delivery. I have no dog in this fight; it may well turn out that a letter posted on the morning of "Day 1" in Dallas could arrive on "Day 2" in Chicago. In 1963.
Answers?
Help?
Bueller?

"it may well turn out that a letter posted on the morning of "Day 1" in Dallas could arrive on "Day 2" in Chicago."

Yes, If the letter left Dallas in the am  it's feasible that Kleins received and processed the order the next day....  I believe that is feasible.

And since I believe that George De M, was the person who bought the money order and sent the order to Kleins, he certainly was not confined to a work place or a schedule. 

People can't seem to understand that the rifle was ordered about a month before the "attempt " to shoot General Walker and it's insane to believe that Lee was plotting to murder JFK nine months before the murder on November 22nd 1963.   The purchase of the rifle in March had NOTHING to do with the coup d e'tat in November......     However...The FBI Knew that Lee had received the rifle from Klein's ( They were watching him because Hoover thought the Oswald's were Russian agents)  Therefore they had all of the documentation about the purchase of the rifle way back in March of 1963.... 
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 22, 2020, 09:29:45 PM
As to the rifle order, still waiting for info on USPO/USPS logistics in 1963 re: Dallas to Chicago mail delivery. I have no dog in this fight; it may well turn out that a letter posted on the morning of "Day 1" in Dallas could arrive on "Day 2" in Chicago. In 1963.
Answers?
Help?
Bueller?

Hi John, I'm afraid I can't answer your question specifically but this may be some help; I do know that back in 63 mail from Dallas-Chicago was delivered by air-mail. The last air-mail flight out of Dallas was 12.00 midday and the flight took just under 2.5 hours. Kleins stated they received Oswald's letter/order the next morning, I don't know what time. What do you think John, timeline feasible?

PS This was a question I answered some years back and I thought it interesting enough to jot down in my notebook. Unfortunately, I didn't write down the source. I believe it was Armstrong. You may not want to accept this without a solid source but I do believe it correct.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2020, 09:59:41 PM
Armstrong does make that claim about the last air mail flight, but it's unsourced.

https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html (https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html)

I'm looking through the Harvey & Lee book.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 22, 2020, 10:07:17 PM
Armstrong does make that claim about the last air mail flight, but it's unsourced.

https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html (https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html)

I'm looking through the Harvey & Lee book.

wow! Memories better than I thought. lol Thanks John.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on October 22, 2020, 11:29:37 PM
Thx, Mr P and Mr I.
This thread kind of devolved into weird non sequitur posts.
So the alleged " Hidell rifle order form" could have made that quick trip via the P.O.
Still odd that someone would use an alias to order a rifle, then have it sent to his own registered P.O. Box. Seems like a feeble attempt at anonymity.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 23, 2020, 12:12:25 AM
Armstrong does make that claim about the last air mail flight, but it's unsourced.

https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html (https://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html)

I'm looking through the Harvey & Lee book.

The link you provided is chock full of information and disinformation.....  It's a shame that the average reader could not sort the valid information from the disinformation...     But one thing that is abundantly clear, and that is the fact that the FBI meddled with the evidence and destroyed vital documents...
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 23, 2020, 01:02:07 AM
Thx, Mr P and Mr I.
This thread kind of devolved into weird non sequitur posts.
So the alleged " Hidell rifle order form" could have made that quick trip via the P.O.
Still odd that someone would use an alias to order a rifle, then have it sent to his own registered P.O. Box. Seems like a feeble attempt at anonymity.

"odd that someone would use an alias to order a rifle, then have it sent to his own registered P.O. Box. Seems like a feeble attempt at anonymity."

Seems like a feeble attempt at anonymity.

Yes you're right....That's because Lee WANTED cops as dumb as Barney Fife to be able to trace the rifle ....while at he same time "APPEARING" to be hiding his identity.....  Lee wanted the cops to find the rifle he had dumped under some bushes near Walker's house after the HOAX attempt to shoot one of Fidel Castro's most vocal foes.(General Walker)  Lee wanted enough time after the hoax attempt to get out of the country and request asylum in Cuba.....   Therefore he wanted the cops ( and newspapers) to publish information that he was linked to the attempt to shoot General Walker.

Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Denis Pointing on October 23, 2020, 01:23:43 AM
"odd that someone would use an alias to order a rifle, then have it sent to his own registered P.O. Box. Seems like a feeble attempt at anonymity."

Seems like a feeble attempt at anonymity.

Yes you're right....That's because Lee WANTED cops as dumb as Barney Fife to be able to trace the rifle ....while at he same time "APPEARING" to be hiding his identity.....  Lee wanted the cops to find the rifle he had dumped under some bushes near Walker's house after the HOAX attempt to shoot one of Fidel Castro's most vocal foes.(General Walker)  Lee wanted enough time after the hoax attempt to get out of the country and request asylum in Cuba.....   Therefore he wanted the cops ( and newspapers) to publish information that he was linked to the attempt to shoot General Walker.

We're trying to have a serious discussion here, using as much fact as possible. If I wanted to read an imaginary fairy tale I'd turn to the brothers Grimm.
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on October 23, 2020, 05:00:54 AM
We're trying to have a serious discussion here, using as much fact as possible. If I wanted to read an imaginary fairy tale I'd turn to the brothers Grimm.

You Lie!...   You'd go to the Warren Report.....A fairy tale as big as any fairy tale you can name....
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Iacoletti on October 28, 2020, 11:01:09 PM
Yes you're right....That's because Lee WANTED cops as dumb as Barney Fife to be able to trace the rifle ....while at he same time "APPEARING" to be hiding his identity.....  Lee wanted the cops to find the rifle he had dumped under some bushes near Walker's house after the HOAX attempt to shoot one of Fidel Castro's most vocal foes.(General Walker)  Lee wanted enough time after the hoax attempt to get out of the country and request asylum in Cuba.....   Therefore he wanted the cops ( and newspapers) to publish information that he was linked to the attempt to shoot General Walker.

Speaking of disinformation...
Title: Re: Is Jim DiEugenio correct about Oswalds rifle?
Post by: John Tonkovich on November 03, 2020, 04:47:33 AM
Speaking of disinformation...
While I disagree with Mr Pointing regarding the assassination, he and I manage to politely exist together here in the "reality based" community, and I appreciate his efforts to knock down unsubstantiated claims.
Mr Iacolletti also gets a gold star for his efforts.
Two gold stars in total, as Mr P certainly qualifies.
Thx. :)