JFK Assassination Forum

JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Martin Weidmann on June 25, 2023, 08:59:15 PM

Title: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 25, 2023, 08:59:15 PM
Some four months ago, Mark Felton, who normally makes well researched videos about everything related to WWII, made this video;


at around the 5.53 mark he claims that, in 1964, Marina Oswald sold all rights to Lee Oswald's rifle and pistol, for $10.000 to John J. King.

This begs the question if Marina had a financial insentive to morph the wooden stock of a rifle she believed to see in the blanket in September 1963 into a full blown "Yes, that's Lee's rifle" during her WC testimony.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Jon Banks on June 26, 2023, 03:20:42 AM
Marina also feared being deported and separated from her children. So I believe she had several reasons to tell the Warren Commission whatever they wanted to hear.

She’s one of the least consistent witnesses in this case.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2023, 03:43:36 AM
Marina also feared being deported and separated from her children. So I believe she had several reasons to tell the Warren Commission whatever they wanted to hear.

She’s one of the least consistent witnesses in this case.

When Marina was giving testimony to the Warren Commission she had no way of knowing what other people knew, saw or were going to say, so I think it was in her best interest to simply tell the truth. I know she may have made some innocent guesses like saying CE139 was Oswald's rifle but to the best of her abilities what she saw of the rifle at Neely Street was a close enough match.

Marina could have said she saw the rifle in the blanket the day/week before but she didn't know what the Commission knew, so she told the truth.
Marina could have said that she saw Oswald carry out the long brown package but again she didn't know, who would say what. Like for instance maybe Frazier would say the bag was already in the car from the night before.
Marina could have said she took X amount of Backyard Photos but she just said the best she remembered, because at the time imo it
wasn't particularly important to her.
There is a potential myriad of possibilities behind every fact and any slight divergence would deeply impact your credibility.

And I believe this same mindset would have been in the minds of the vast majority of eyewitnesses because by the time of the hearings, they were all under intense scrutiny and they would have no idea of the consequences of any contradictions.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2023, 06:36:46 AM
And yet Marina made so many contradictory statements that the HSCA compiled a 29 page document listing them.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 26, 2023, 08:03:13 AM
And yet Marina made so many contradictory statements that the HSCA compiled a 29 page document listing them.

Marina tried to protect Oswald at the start, so understandably may have told a white lie or two but after that she didn't have a perfect grasp of English, she was under a lot of pressure and her WC testimony was translated.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 26, 2023, 01:08:09 PM
“White lie or two”.

LOL.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 26, 2023, 07:31:58 PM
Some four months ago, Mark Felton, who normally makes well researched videos about everything related to WWII, made this video;


at around the 5.53 mark he claims that, in 1964, Marina Oswald sold all rights to Lee Oswald's rifle and pistol, for $10.000 to John J. King.

This begs the question if Marina had a financial insentive to morph the wooden stock of a rifle she believed to see in the blanket in September 1963 into a full blown "Yes, that's Lee's rifle" during her WC testimony.

That is one of the dumbest conspiracy claims in a long while.  Which is saying a great deal considering how low the bar has been set.  How many folks have made a buck for writing a book claiming there was a conspiracy?  Does that alone discredit the likes of Mark Lane and others?   Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.  When she was asked about a rifle by the police when they very first arrived at the Paine residence just a short while after the assassination, she directs them to the blanket.  Nothing morphed in her WC testimony as you dishonestly suggest.  She made numerous specific references to a rifle in her testimony.  The irony is that the false ambiguity in her identification of the rifle that you stupidly cite referencing the "wooden stock" comes from her WC testimony.  Her answers don't morph from the "wooden stock" answer to confirmation of a rifle because she had already confirmed to the WC, DPD, and others many times that Oswald owned a rifle before answering that specific question in her WC testimony.  There was no progression or morphing in that regard.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 26, 2023, 09:11:09 PM
That is one of the dumbest conspiracy claims in a long while.  Which is saying a great deal considering how low the bar has been set.  How many folks have made a buck for writing a book claiming there was a conspiracy?  Does that alone discredit the likes of Mark Lane and others?   Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.  When she was asked about a rifle by the police when they very first arrived at the Paine residence just a short while after the assassination, she directs them to the blanket.  Nothing morphed in her WC testimony as you dishonestly suggest.  She made numerous specific references to a rifle in her testimony.  The irony is that the false ambiguity in her identification of the rifle that you stupidly cite referencing the "wooden stock" comes from her WC testimony.  Her answers don't morph from the "wooden stock" answer to confirmation of a rifle because she had already confirmed to the WC, DPD, and others many times that Oswald owned a rifle before answering that specific question in her WC testimony.  There was no progression or morphing in that regard.

Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.

A rifle. Yes, that's how the story goes.... But as Ruth Paine did the translation, who knows for sure what she actually said.

In any event, she did not confirm Lee owned the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD. In fact, when she was shown the MC rifle on Friday evening she did not recognize it.

Nothing morphed in her WC testimony as you dishonestly suggest.  She made numerous specific references to a rifle in her testimony.

Of course it morphed from a rifle to the rifle.

Do you really think a scared young Russian woman with two small children and a dead husband accused of killing the President would, all by herself, come up with the idea that she, through inheritance was now the rightful owner of the rifle that was allegedly used to kill Kennedy and the revolver that was allegedly used to kill Tippit, and that she could sell them or at least her rights to them?

If the answer is yes, then Marina was a lot more shrewder than most people give her credit for.
If the answer is no, then there must have been somebody in the background putting this idea in her head.

So, let me give you the answer; On December 4, 1963, Dallas businessman John J. King, wrote a letter to Marina, who at that time was in protective custody, in which he asked her to contact him to discuss a business proposition that could benefit her thousands of dollars. The result was that in the months that followed several representatives for Marina (where did they come from?) negotiated with King until Marina herself got involved in July 1964. Untimately a deal was struck in December 1964.

In other words, in the months leading up to Marina's WC testimony this potential deal was being discussed in secret. But we are to believe that it did not potentially influence her testimony?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 27, 2023, 01:47:33 PM
Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.

A rifle. Yes, that's how the story goes.... But as Ruth Paine did the translation, who knows for sure what she actually said.

In any event, she did not confirm Lee owned the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD. In fact, when she was shown the MC rifle on Friday evening she did not recognize it.

Nothing morphed in her WC testimony as you dishonestly suggest.  She made numerous specific references to a rifle in her testimony.

Of course it morphed from a rifle to the rifle.

Do you really think a scared young Russian woman with two small children and a dead husband accused of killing the President would, all by herself, come up with the idea that she, through inheritance was now the rightful owner of the rifle that was allegedly used to kill Kennedy and the revolver that was allegedly used to kill Tippit, and that she could sell them or at least her rights to them?

If the answer is yes, then Marina was a lot more shrewder than most people give her credit for.
If the answer is no, then there must have been somebody in the background putting this idea in her head.

So, let me give you the answer; On December 4, 1963, Dallas businessman John J. King, wrote a letter to Marina, who at that time was in protective custody, in which he asked her to contact him to discuss a business proposition that could benefit her thousands of dollars. The result was that in the months that followed several representatives for Marina (where did they come from?) negotiated with King until Marina herself got involved in July 1964. Untimately a deal was struck in December 1964.

In other words, in the months leading up to Marina's WC testimony this potential deal was being discussed in secret. But we are to believe that it did not potentially influence her testimony?

You are all over the place.  When the police arrived just hours after the assassination and asked Marina whether her husband owned a rifle, she directed them to the Paine's garage.  That tells us without any ambiguity that Marina knew that Oswald owned a rifle and kept that rifle in a blanket in the garage.  She would not have directed the police to the location in response to a specific question about a rifle unless she had cause to believe that a rifle was kept there.  She would not direct them to a piece of wood as you stupidly imply.  That means that her story did not "morph" to make money.

Marina has from the first moments of this case confirmed that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  In nearly six decades, she has never claimed that Ruth Paine mistranslated her answer to the police or otherwise altered that statement.   As a result, it is dishonest to suggest that Marina conjured up the rifle for money.  That claim is demonstrably false based on the known timeline of events.  You are conflating this issue with whether Marina - as a person who was not familiar with guns - could identify the 6th floor rifle as the one owned by Oswald with certainty.  What Marina's testimony does do is confirm that: 1) Oswald owned a rifle in the months leading up to the assassination; 2) she took pictures of him holding that rifle; 3) Oswald stored the rifle in the Paine's garage; and 4) that rifle was discovered missing in the first hours after the assassination and has never been accounted for in any way EXCEPT as the rifle found in the TSBD.  Her testimony alone doesn't link Oswald to a specific rifle but provides compelling support, taken in conjunction with the other evidence in this case, that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on June 27, 2023, 02:26:17 PM
You are all over the place.  When the police arrived just hours after the assassination and asked Marina whether her husband owned a rifle, she directed them to the Paine's garage.  That tells us without any ambiguity that Marina knew that Oswald owned a rifle and kept that rifle in a blanket in the garage.  She would not have directed the police to the location in response to a specific question about a rifle unless she had cause to believe that a rifle was kept there.  She would not direct them to a piece of wood as you stupidly imply.  That means that her story did not "morph" to make money.

Marina has from the first moments of this case confirmed that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  In nearly six decades, she has never claimed that Ruth Paine mistranslated her answer to the police or otherwise altered that statement.   As a result, it is dishonest to suggest that Marina conjured up the rifle for money.  That claim is demonstrably false based on the known timeline of events.  You are conflating this issue with whether Marina - as a person who was not familiar with guns - could identify the 6th floor rifle as the one owned by Oswald with certainty.  What Marina's testimony does do is confirm that: 1) Oswald owned a rifle in the months leading up to the assassination; 2) she took pictures of him holding that rifle; 3) Oswald stored the rifle in the Paine's garage; and 4) that rifle was discovered missing in the first hours after the assassination and has never been accounted for in any way EXCEPT as the rifle found in the TSBD.  Her testimony alone doesn't link Oswald to a specific rifle but provides compelling support, taken in conjunction with the other evidence in this case, that the rifle found in the TSBD belonged to Oswald.
It's revealing - but at this point not really - that at the same time they characterize the evidence that Oswald owned the rifle, shot Tippit, et cetera as speculation and conjecture and then dismiss it based on that characterization then turn around and simply uncritically repeat all of these claims about Marina's motivations and dishonesty and behavior. One absurdly high standard for the evidence against Oswald - chain of custody, et cetera - and not much of one for evidence that everyone else was corrupt. Shorter: Everyone was corrupt except Oswald.

I really didn't need to make this point. It's been obvious from the start.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 27, 2023, 04:49:09 PM
You are all over the place.  When the police arrived just hours after the assassination and asked Marina whether her husband owned a rifle, she directed them to the Paine's garage.  That tells us without any ambiguity that Marina knew that Oswald owned a rifle and kept that rifle in a blanket in the garage.

No, it tells us that she believed he owned a rifle and kept it in the garage. There’s a difference.

Quote
Marina has from the first moments of this case confirmed that Oswald owned a rifle and kept it in the Paine's garage.  In nearly six decades, she has never claimed that Ruth Paine mistranslated her answer to the police or otherwise altered that statement.

Ruth told the WC what she translated: that Marina peeked in the end of a tied up blanket in late September/early October and saw part of a wooden stock that she took to be a rifle.

The morphing is going from that to CE139 being “the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald” according to somebody who admittedly couldn’t even distinguish a rifle from a shotgun.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 27, 2023, 04:52:34 PM
One absurdly high standard for the evidence against Oswald - chain of custody, et cetera - and not much of one for evidence that everyone else was corrupt. Shorter: Everyone was corrupt except Oswald.

Nobody ever claimed that everyone was corrupt except Oswald. That’s your fallback strawman when you are unable to prove your own claims.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 27, 2023, 06:12:39 PM
Marina was asked by the police if her husband owned a rifle.  They did not ask her if he owned something made of wood.  She directed them to the blanket in response to their specific question about a RIFLE.  Marina "believed" there was a rifle in the blanket because she had seen it.  She responded to dozens of WC questions about a RIFLE.  She used the word RIFLE in dozens of instances. There is no ambiguity after her testimony regarding Oswald owning a RIFLE.  Even in the single instance cited by our contrarians when she noted seeing the wooden stock that response comes after saying this:   "There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  Of course, a RIFLE has a wooden stock.

This rabbit hole discussion just highlights how far out and dishonest these folks are in accessing the evidence.  Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the rifle for god's sake.  Those pictures exist. Anyone can see the RIFLE in Oswald's own hands with their own eyes.  Marina's testimony in conjunction with the other evidence proves beyond any iota of doubt that Oswald owned a rifle in the months leading up to the assassination.  There is no accounting for that RIFLE or even an attempt by our contrarians to account for that RIFLE as any other than the RIFLE left in the TSBD.  If Oswald had sold the rifle or had an explanation for it not being in the blanket other than using it in a crime, he had every incentive to direct the police to that RIFLE to exonerate himself.  Instead he lied.  The evidence of guilt leads back at every direction to Oswald.   

Nov. 22, 1963 - Marina Oswald affidavit:

"I knew there was a rifle in Mrs. Paine's garage. Two weeks ago I was in the garage and saw the same blanket that the Police got. I opened the blanket and saw the rifle in it."
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 27, 2023, 07:22:53 PM
Marina was asked by the police if her husband owned a rifle.  They did not ask her if he owned something made of wood.  She directed them to the blanket in response to their specific question about a RIFLE.  Marina "believed" there was a rifle in the blanket because she had seen it.  She responded to dozens of WC questions about a RIFLE.  She used the word RIFLE in dozens of instances. There is no ambiguity after her testimony regarding Oswald owning a RIFLE.  Even in the single instance cited by our contrarians when she noted seeing the wooden stock that response comes after saying this:   "There was only once that 1 was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle."  Of course, a RIFLE has a wooden stock.

This rabbit hole discussion just highlights how far out and dishonest these folks are in accessing the evidence.  Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the rifle for god's sake.  Those pictures exist. Anyone can see the RIFLE in Oswald's own hands with their own eyes.  Marina's testimony in conjunction with the other evidence proves beyond any iota of doubt that Oswald owned a rifle in the months leading up to the assassination.  There is no accounting for that RIFLE or even an attempt by our contrarians to account for that RIFLE as any other than the RIFLE left in the TSBD.  If Oswald had sold the rifle or had an explanation for it not being in the blanket other than using it in a crime, he had every incentive to direct the police to that RIFLE to exonerate himself.  Instead he lied.  The evidence of guilt leads back at every direction to Oswald.   

Nov. 22, 1963 - Marina Oswald affidavit:

"I knew there was a rifle in Mrs. Paine's garage. Two weeks ago I was in the garage and saw the same blanket that the Police got. I opened the blanket and saw the rifle in it."

Talk about being all over the place;

Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


In her affadavit she said she was in the garage "two weeks ago" and saw the rifle.
In her WC testimony she said she was in the garage and saw the rifle; "about a week after I came from New Orleans." which means it happened in late September.

I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

So, first she knew that was a rifle wrapped in a blanket....

There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

But then, she didn't because she wanted to find out what was in the blanket...

Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


And then she found that the rifle was in the blanket because she saw the wooden part of it...

By the time Marina Oswald testified before the WC she had been in protective custody for several months being subjected to a large number of interviews by the all sorts of law enforcement agencies to whom she lied on multiple occassions. She was alone with two young children and was told by a specially flown in immigration officer that she would not be deported if she "cooporated" with the investigators. Her husband was dead and she was being told over and over again that he was the lone gunman. That alone would make any widow, placed in her position, very angry. And with all this going on, she gets an offer for a substantial amount of money (back then) to buy the rights she had to Lee's rifle and revolver. So, why would she have to stay loyal to her dead husband when she can also get herself out of the mess by "cooperating" with the investigators and perhaps make some money on the side?

The bottom line is that nothing Marina said should be taken at face value as there is no way of knowing what is and isn't true.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Dan O'meara on June 27, 2023, 07:32:42 PM
Were any fibres found on the rifle that could be potentially connected to the blanket?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 27, 2023, 08:09:13 PM
Were any fibres found on the rifle that could be potentially connected to the blanket?

No, there were some fibres similar to the blanket's found in the paper bag recovered from the TSBD.
You know, the bag that was carried out of the TSBD upside down.... :D
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 27, 2023, 08:10:08 PM
Talk about being all over the place;

Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

So, first she knew that was a rifle wrapped in a blanket....

There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

But then, she didn't because she wanted to find out what was in the blanket...

Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


And then she found that the rifle was in the blanket because she saw the wooden part of it...

What are you babbling about here?  On Nov. 22 Marina clearly and without ambiguity confirmed that there was a rifle in the blanket.  Because in one single instance in her testimony she refers to the "wooden stock" in response to a question about the RIFLE, you go down this endless rabbit hole.  A RIFLE has a wooden stock.  If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE.  In dozens of other instances in her testimony, she makes clear reference to the "RIFLE."  THE RIFLE!  She took pictures of Oswald holding it.  You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.   Unreal.  What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?  LOL.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Dan O'meara on June 27, 2023, 10:10:00 PM
No, there were some fibres similar to the blanket's found in the paper bag recovered from the TSBD.
You know, the bag that was carried out of the TSBD upside down.... :D

 ::)

Is there a single piece of evidence in this case that answers more questions than it raises?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 27, 2023, 10:12:14 PM
What are you babbling about here?  On Nov. 22 Marina clearly and without ambiguity confirmed that there was a rifle in the blanket.  Because in one single instance in her testimony she refers to the "wooden stock" in response to a question about the RIFLE, you go down this endless rabbit hole.  A RIFLE has a wooden stock.  If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE.  In dozens of other instances in her testimony, she makes clear reference to the "RIFLE."  THE RIFLE!  She took pictures of Oswald holding it.  You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.   Unreal.  What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?  LOL.

Why did you ignore the rest of my post?


By the time Marina Oswald testified before the WC she had been in protective custody for several months being subjected to a large number of interviews by the all sorts of law enforcement agencies to whom she lied on multiple occassions. She was alone with two young children and was told by a specially flown in immigration officer that she would not be deported if she "cooporated" with the investigators. Her husband was dead and she was being told over and over again that he was the lone gunman. That alone would make any widow, placed in her position, very angry. And with all this going on, she gets an offer for a substantial amount of money (back then) to buy the rights she had to Lee's rifle and revolver. So, why would she have to stay loyal to her dead husband when she can also get herself out of the mess by "cooperating" with the investigators and perhaps make some money on the side?

The bottom line is that nothing Marina said should be taken at face value as there is no way of knowing what is and isn't true.

If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE. 

Really?

She took pictures of Oswald holding it.

Holding what?

You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.

What rifle would that be?

What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?

I'm not claiming any of it, because I simply do not know and the evidence is not conclusive enough to make a determination. Not that that will stop you from making one assumpution to another leap of faith.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 27, 2023, 10:19:05 PM
::)

Is there a single piece of evidence in this case that answers more questions than it raises?

And yet, LNs will insist this is a simple open and shut murder case. Go figure!
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 28, 2023, 12:33:31 PM
Why did you ignore the rest of my post?

If you see the wooden stock of a RIFLE then you are looking at a RIFLE. 

Really?

She took pictures of Oswald holding it.

Holding what?

You can see the RIFLE in those pictures with your own eyes.

What rifle would that be?

What exactly are you claiming?  That Oswald didn't own any rifle in this time frame?  That he did own a rifle but it was not the one found in the TSBD?  That some mysterious person lost to history ended up with Oswald's rifle and never said a word?  That some mystery person handed Oswald a rifle, asked him to pose for a picture and then took the rifle?

I'm not claiming any of it, because I simply do not know and the evidence is not conclusive enough to make a determination. Not that that will stop you from making one assumpution to another leap of faith.

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.  Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.  A time machine is not necessary.   
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 28, 2023, 01:07:42 PM
What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.  Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.  A time machine is not necessary.

What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?

The only object that could be attached to a wooden stock of a rifle is a rifle, but that does not mean that every wooden stock automatically has a rifle attached to it. Your claim that when you look at a wooden stock you are looking at a rifle is indeed nothing more than an assumption. It's not an unreasonable assumption but it is an assumption nevertheless.

The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.

John Mytton recently posted the interview with Questioned Documents expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt, who admitted to Gerry Spence that photocopies of documents need to be treated with caution because they could have been manipulated. In other words, when a FBI expert examines photocopies of documents there is always a possibility of it being a fake. With this in mind no expert can conclude with 100% certainty that the Kleins' copies are indeed authentic.

There are no prints that place "a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald"!

And the BY photos only show a man holding a rifle and a revolver on the day the photos were taken. It does not proves in any way, shape or form ownership of those weapons.

And there is no testimony "from a variety of different sources" that places a rifle in the possession of Oswald, after March 1963. All there is, is the testimony of Marina Oswald and that is so dubious it can not be relied upon.

Here on planet Earth that is called "evidence" that is used in every trial to link a suspect to a crime.

A lot of stuff is being used as "evidence" in "every trial", but not all of it is authenticated or persuasive. Oswald's wedding ring being found in a cup is "evidence", but it doesn't prove a damned thing.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 28, 2023, 02:01:27 PM
Marina took pictures of Oswald holding the rifle for god's sake.  Those pictures exist. Anyone can see the RIFLE in Oswald's own hands with their own eyes. 

a) that was 8-9 months earlier

b) you can’t uniquely identify that rifle
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 28, 2023, 02:06:21 PM
What object do you believe that a wooden stock of a rifle is attached to other than a rifle?  There are no assumptions here.  The documents, prints, photos, and testimony from a variety of different sources place a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald in the months leading up to the assassination.

LOL. Name a single thing that places “a specific rifle in the possession of Oswald”.

Here on planet Earth that’s called an unsubstantiated claim.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 28, 2023, 11:30:47 PM
The serial number on the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box is the same as the rifle found in TSBD.   Oswald's prints were found on that rifle.  There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle. There is no accounting for the rifle in Oswald's possession except as the rifle found in his place of employment.  On planet Earth, that is considered evidence.  It is of type used in any criminal investigation.  It is hard to imagine how there could be much more evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle.  A time machine is only necessary if you are someone who takes a defense attorney approach that nothing can ever be proven.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 29, 2023, 12:29:11 AM
The serial number on the rifle sent by Klein's to Oswald's PO Box is the same as the rifle found in TSBD.   

There’s no evidence that any rifle went through the postal service, was delivered to Dallas, or was picked up by Oswald or anybody else.

Quote
Oswald's prints were found on that rifle. 

No, there were some prints near the trigger guard that were unsuitable for identification purposes, and a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

Quote
There are photos of Oswald holding that rifle.

No, there are photos of Oswald holding a rifle that cannot be uniquely identified to the exclusion of all other rifles.

Quote
There is no accounting for the rifle in Oswald's possession except as the rifle found in his place of employment.

The burden is on you to prove that it’s the same rifle, not on anybody else to prove that it isn’t.

Quote
On planet Earth, that is considered evidence.

On planet Earth, that’s called misrepresenting evidence.

Quote
It is of type used in any criminal investigation.  It is hard to imagine how there could be much more evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle. 

Why, you have no problem imagining all sorts of things. Imagine having any conclusive evidence of any of the above claims. For example, evidence that was actually properly collected, documented, stored, and secured.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 29, 2023, 01:21:30 PM
In the contrarian world, nothing can ever be proven no matter the evidence while anything can be implied no matter the lack of evidence.  Here they tell us that they are taking no position except that the evidence linking Oswald to the TSBD rifle is lacking.  But in supporting this position, they claim the evidence has been manipulated or falsified.  His prints are apparently not on rifle despite the DPD saying so etc.  Of course, there is zero evidence to support any fabrication of this evidence which comes from a variety of different sources in different timeframes.  To even suggest that the evidence is fabricated is then taking a position that were was a conspiracy.  Nevertheless, the contrarians refuse to even acknowledge they are CTers while making outrageous conspiracy claims to support their "non-position" on the case.  It is humorous.  A defense attorney approach to the case but without a client.  That is the only way to avoid accepting that obvious conclusion to be drawn from the evidence that Oswald committed this crime.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 29, 2023, 01:37:11 PM
I don't respond to Dishonest John but this one is a real keeper and provides insight into the "mind" of the contrarian:  "There’s no evidence that any rifle went through the postal service."  What does this even mean in that context?  That some postal worker would remember one of thousands of packages over a period of many months?  They didn't keep such records in 1963.  Does that mean it is impossible to prove Oswald ordered and received the rifle as stupidly suggested?  Of course not.  We know from the Klein's records that someone using an alias associated with OSWALD ordered a rifle, that rifle would have been sent to the address noted on the order, that address was OSWALD"S PO Box, that rifle had the same serial number as the one found at OSWALD"s place of employment, Marina confirms that OSWALD obtained a rifle in this same timeframe, there is a picture of OSWALD holding the rifle, experts have indicated that rifle is the same rifle found on the 6th floor, the DPD indicates that they found OSWALD'S prints on TSBD rifle (with the same serial number as the one sent to OSWALD'S PO Box), and there is not a scintilla of evidence after six decades to suggest that Oswald possessed any rifle other than the one found on the 6th floor.  None.  There is no accounting for the rifle which Klein's sent to Oswald's PO Box in any other way except sending it to Oswald.  What exactly does the contrarian think Klein's did when they received an order requesting delivery at a specific address?  They would send the purchased item to that address. That address is OSWALD'S PO Box.  But we don't have "evidence that any rifle went through the postal service"!  HA HA HA.  So nothing to see here unless someone invents a time machine to confirm it was put in the mail.  Wow.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 29, 2023, 02:20:41 PM
I don't respond to Dishonest John but this one is a real keeper and provides insight into the "mind" of the contrarian:  "There’s no evidence that any rifle went through the postal service."  What does this even mean in that context?  That some postal worker would remember one of thousands of packages over a period of many months?  They didn't keep such records in 1963.  Does that mean it is impossible to prove Oswald ordered and received the rifle as stupidly suggested?  Of course not.  We know from the Klein's records that someone using an alias associated with OSWALD ordered a rifle, that rifle would have been sent to the address noted on the order, that address was OSWALD"S PO Box, that rifle had the same serial number as the one found at OSWALD"s place of employment, Marina confirms that OSWALD obtained a rifle in this same timeframe, there is a picture of OSWALD holding the rifle, experts have indicated that rifle is the same rifle found on the 6th floor, the DPD indicates that they found OSWALD'S prints on TSBD rifle (with the same serial number as the one sent to OSWALD'S PO Box), and there is not a scintilla of evidence after six decades to suggest that Oswald possessed any rifle other than the one found on the 6th floor.  None.  There is no accounting for the rifle which Klein's sent to Oswald's PO Box in any other way except sending it to Oswald.  What exactly does the contrarian think Klein's did when they received an order requesting delivery at a specific address?  They would send the purchased item to that address. That address is OSWALD'S PO Box.  But we don't have "evidence that any rifle went through the postal service"!  HA HA HA.  So nothing to see here unless someone invents a time machine to confirm it was put in the mail.  Wow.

They didn't keep such records in 1963.

Really? If that's true, why is there a shipping document for the revolver?

Are you seriously suggesting that a mail order company would send merchandise to clients all over the country without some sort of proof of shipment?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 29, 2023, 02:38:57 PM
They didn't keep such records in 1963.

Really? If that's true, why is there a shipping document for the revolver?

Are you seriously suggesting that a mail order company would send merchandise to clients all over the country without some sort of proof of shipment?

They received an order with a name and address.  They send the item to that name and address.  Marina confirms that Oswald obtained a rifle in that same timeframe.  The rifle found in the TSBD has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent to Oswald.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "proof of shipment".  There was no requirement in 1963 that I'm aware of that would require any such record.  Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?  If not, you are just suggesting that they should have complied with some imaginary best business practice that you have conjured up nearly six decades after the event.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 29, 2023, 02:47:12 PM
They didn't keep such records in 1963.

Really? If that's true, why is there a shipping document for the revolver?

Are you seriously suggesting that a mail order company would send merchandise to clients all over the country without some sort of proof of shipment?

As I recall, there were different legal rules for shipping handguns.  Different companies also have different business policies.  You have shown us nothing to support the conclusion that Klein's must have had additional evidence of the transaction.  For example, is there is any evidence that Klein's handled any other rifle order differently from this one?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 29, 2023, 02:57:34 PM
They received an order with a name and address.  They send the item to that name and address.  Marina confirms that Oswald obtained a rifle in that same timeframe.  The rifle found in the TSBD has the same serial number as the one Klein's sent to Oswald.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "proof of shipment".  There was no requirement in 1963 that I'm aware of that would require any such record.  Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?  If not, you are just suggesting that they should have complied with some imaginary best business practice that you have conjured up nearly six decades after the event.

Thank you for not answering my question.

Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?

Required by whom? They would be utter fools and very quickly out of business if they didn't keep some sort of postal receipt to show that a particular item was send to a particular client or address. Just imagine the free for all as a result of a lack of such proof of shipment; anybody could order something, receive it and then claim their money back by pretending they never received it.

Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 29, 2023, 04:20:05 PM
Thank you for not answering my question.

Do you believe that Klein's was required to keep any such "proof"?

Required by whom? They would be utter fools and very quickly out of business if they didn't keep some sort of postal receipt to show that a particular item was send to a particular client or address. Just imagine the free for all as a result of a lack of such proof of shipment; anybody could order something, receive it and then claim their money back by pretending they never received it.

Required by the law in 1963.  That's how things are "required."  LOL.  Your personal opinion of the wisdom of their business practices is amusing but not evidence that they failed to abide by any requirement or treated Oswald's situation differently from any other order.  You are claiming that some proof of shipping is missing here but haven't demonstrated what that would be.  If they were not required to do so and they didn't do so in other cases, no such thing would ever have existed.  You are the one suggesting it did and we should have it to demonstrate that Oswald was sent the rifle.  But that is a false premise.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 29, 2023, 07:28:50 PM
Required by the law in 1963.  That's how things are "required."  LOL.  Your personal opinion of the wisdom of their business practices is amusing but not evidence that they failed to abide by any requirement or treated Oswald's situation differently from any other order.  You are claiming that some proof of shipping is missing here but haven't demonstrated what that would be.  If they were not required to do so and they didn't do so in other cases, no such thing would ever have existed.  You are the one suggesting it did and we should have it to demonstrate that Oswald was sent the rifle.  But that is a false premise.

Nope, I am suggesting that if no such proof of shipping existed, they took for granted that they couldn't prove that an item had indeed been sent. Which of course is exactly what we have here in this case. Thanks for agreeing with me.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 29, 2023, 08:36:36 PM
Nope, I am suggesting that if no such proof of shipping existed, they took for granted that they couldn't prove that an item had indeed been sent. Which of course is exactly what we have here in this case. Thanks for agreeing with me.  Thumb1:

You suggested that Klein's failed to do something here that they were never required to do and for which you have provided no evidence that they did in any other similar situations.  Your opinion of their business practices is not relevant.  They knew their business better than you.  Oswald never complained to them about not receiving his rifle.  Oswald provided a mailing address with his order.  A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to this PO Box.  Oswald received a rifle in this same timeframe according to his own wife. A rifle with that same serial number was found in Oswald's place of employment.  According to the DPD, Oswald left his print on that rifle.  According to various experts, that rifle is depicted in the BY photos.  How or why would anyone need to trace the delivery of the rifle through the mail system to link this rifle to Oswald?  There are pictures of him holding it.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 29, 2023, 09:16:10 PM
You suggested that Klein's failed to do something here that they were never required to do and for which you have provided no evidence that they did in any other similar situations.  Your opinion of their business practices is not relevant.  They knew their business better than you.  Oswald never complained to them about not receiving his rifle.  Oswald provided a mailing address with his order.  A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to this PO Box.  Oswald received a rifle in this same timeframe according to his own wife. A rifle with that same serial number was found in Oswald's place of employment.  According to the DPD, Oswald left his print on that rifle.  According to various experts, that rifle is depicted in the BY photos.  How or why would anyone need to trace the delivery of the rifle through the mail system to link this rifle to Oswald?  There are pictures of him holding it.

You suggested that Klein's failed to do something here that they were never required to do

No. I never said they failed to meet any kind of requirement. I did say that they, as a mail order company, would be stupid to leave themselves with no proof of shipment.

Oswald never complained to them about not receiving his rifle.

How do you know this? Did he tell you?

Oswald provided a mailing address with his order.  A rifle with a specific serial number was sent to this PO Box.

Prove it!

Oswald received a rifle in this same timeframe according to his own wife.

Where did Marina say that Oswald received a rifle and when?

According to various experts, that rifle is depicted in the BY photos.

Name those "various experts"

How or why would anyone need to trace the delivery of the rifle through the mail system to link this rifle to Oswald?

Because you haven't provided a shred of evidence for your claims that a rifle was sent, that Oswald received it and so on, and so on...

There are pictures of him holding it.

No, there are pictures of him holding a rifle. Those pictures do not confirm he received that rifle from Kleins' nor do they prove that Oswald was the owner of that rifle.

You are making all sorts of dubious claims for which you can not provide anything more than flawed circular logic.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 29, 2023, 09:39:49 PM
I don't respond to Dishonest John but this one is a real keeper and provides insight into the "mind" of the contrarian:  "There’s no evidence that any rifle went through the postal service."  What does this even mean in that context?

I haven’t said a single dishonest thing, yet “Richard” as usual just rattled off a slew of dishonest misrepresentations about photos and prints and what Marina “confirmed”.

Because “Richard” claims (without evidence) that they “didn’t keep such records” (you ever hear of a receipt?), then we should just accept that a rifle was shipped and picked up by Oswald because “Richard” believes it and Marina said he had a rifle.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 29, 2023, 09:41:27 PM
As I recall, there were different legal rules for shipping handguns.  Different companies also have different business policies.  You have shown us nothing to support the conclusion that Klein's must have had additional evidence of the transaction.  For example, is there is any evidence that Klein's handled any other rifle order differently from this one?

Maybe it the original microfilm didn’t go “missing”, that could be investigated. Darn the luck.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 29, 2023, 09:43:08 PM
Required by the law in 1963.  That's how things are "required."  LOL.  Your personal opinion of the wisdom of their business practices is amusing but not evidence that they failed to abide by any requirement or treated Oswald's situation differently from any other order.

Says the guy with no evidence that Oswald ever received or picked up any such order.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 29, 2023, 09:50:04 PM
Where did Marina say that Oswald received a rifle and when?

She didn’t. Another dishonest “Richard” claim.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 29, 2023, 09:59:57 PM
Maybe it the original microfilm didn’t go “missing”, that could be investigated. Darn the luck.

And of course you can present evidence that the microfilm is missing?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 29, 2023, 11:23:40 PM
And of course you can present evidence that the microfilm is missing?

JohnM

Asking for evidence?


Talk about delusions of Grandeur, you seem to get off in your fantasy about being Oswald's defence lawyer, but this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum.
At times we can use the evidence court standards but let me repeat, this isn't court, it's just a discussion Forum! LOLOLOLOL!

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 29, 2023, 11:32:22 PM
Asking for evidence?

Yes, is the microfilm "missing" or not?

Btw have you had any response from the archives about your request for the reason why the Hidell ID was missing from that photograph? And if not, I am willing to help you follow up your request, can you tell me who or what department you sent your request to and I can then find out why they are failing to act.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 29, 2023, 11:45:50 PM
If you're so desperate to find out, why don't you contact NARA yourself?

I didn't make the claim and it's only fair that such a strong allegation is confirmed.

Btw have you had any response from the archives about your request for the reason why the Hidell ID was missing from that photograph? And if not, I am willing to help you follow up your request, can you tell me who or what department you sent your request to and I can then find out why they are failing to act.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 29, 2023, 11:48:58 PM
Yes, is the microfilm "missing" or not?

Btw have you had any response from the archives about your request for the reason why the Hidell ID was missing from that photograph? And if not, I am willing to help you follow up your request, can you tell me who or what department you sent your request to and I can then find out why they are failing to act.

JohnM

Thank you, but I don't need your help. It's not my problem that you have no patience.

But if you are so desperate to find out, why don't you contact them yourself and put in an urgent request?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 29, 2023, 11:58:57 PM
Thank you, but I don't need your help. It's not my problem that you have no patience.

But if you are so desperate to find out, why don't you contact them yourself and put in an urgent request?

Quote
Thank you, but I don't need your help. It's not my problem that you have no patience.

It's been a long time, and I am more than willing to help.

Quote
But if you are so desperate to find out, why don't you contact them yourself and put in an urgent request?

Your request should be attended to, so tell me who or what you contacted and please let me help you.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 12:22:26 AM
It's been a long time, and I am more than willing to help.

Your request should be attended to, so tell me who or what you contacted and please let me help you.

JohnM

Your request should be attended to

And I'm sure it will be. You can either wait for the reply or get in touch with NARA yourself
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 12:28:31 AM
Your request should be attended to

And I'm sure it will be.

How can you be "sure"? Is there any other information that you have yet to disclose?

Quote
You can either wait for the reply or get in touch with NARA yourself

I am willing to contact them, just tell me who or what you contacted so I can help you complete your request.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 12:40:27 AM
How can you be "sure"? Is there any other information that you have yet to disclose?

I am willing to contact them, just tell me who or what you contacted so I can help you complete your request.

JohnM

How can you be "sure"?

Sure about what? That they will reply?

I am willing to contact them, just tell me who or what you contacted so I can help you complete your request.

And what makes you think that if they don't reply to me, they will reply to you?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 12:42:35 AM
The US National Archives would of course give priority to an Australian with a fake name.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 12:46:10 AM
The US National Archives would of course give priority..

Who said anything about priority? We are simply following through Martin's request.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 12:47:46 AM
Who said anything about priority? We are simply following through Martin's request.

JohnM

 Who are "we"?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 12:48:59 AM
“We”?

Speaking of Australia, my wife and I have been enjoying watching McLeod’s Daughters on Netflix. Good on ya.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 01:03:55 AM
Speaking of Australia, my wife and I have been enjoying watching McLeod’s Daughters on Netflix. Good on ya.

Thanks, we make some quality programming and to be fair we also make some entertainment that isn't so good.
You lot also make a lot of stuff that I like. Thumb1:                                                                 

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:12:10 AM
Thanks, we make some quality programming and to be fair we also make some entertainment that isn't so good.
You lot also make a lot of stuff that I like. Thumb1:                                                                 

JohnM

Yeah, but who is "we"?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 01:27:51 AM
Yeah, but who is "we"?

The reason this Forum exists is to discover the truth and I was simply responding on the behalf of the hundreds of CT/LNer/neutral members.

Btw in the time we have been discussing the Hidell ID, have you had a response because I am more than willing to help you and contact them.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:30:04 AM
The reason this Forum exists is to discover the truth and I was simply responding on the behalf of the hundreds of CT/LNer/neutral members.

Btw in the time we have been discussing the Hidell ID, have you had a response because I am more than willing to help you and contact them.

JohnM

I was simply responding on the behalf of the hundreds of CT/LNer/neutral members.

Who are they and when did they make you their spokesman?

Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 01:31:29 AM
I was simply responding on the behalf of the hundreds of CT/LNer/neutral members.

Who are they and when did they make you their spokesman?

Are you implying that this Forum isn't interested in the truth?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 01:32:44 AM
You suggested that Klein's failed to do something here that they were never required to do

No. I never said they failed to meet any kind of requirement. I did say that they, as a mail order company, would be stupid to leave themselves with no proof of shipment.



Klein's was in this business, but you claim to know better than them how they should have conducted themselves in 1963.  LOL.  Talk about "assumptions" and "opinions."  This is a real easy one.  They sold rifles by mail order.  They received an order with a name and mailing address to send the rifle.  They would send the rifle to that address.  What else would they have done in that situation?  Keep the customer's money and not send the rifle?  You should really be ashamed to go down these rabbit holes.  I'm not sure what mental compulsion requires this exercise in every single instance that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor.  None.  Not an iota.  It is difficult to conceive how there could even be much more evidence of the fact.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:34:33 AM
Are you implying that this Forum isn't interested in the truth?

JohnM

No, of course not. I'm saying that you are not interested in the truth.

And the question still remains unanswered. Who are "they" and when did thet make you their spokesman?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:37:56 AM
Klein's was in this business, but you claim to know better than them how they should have conducted themselves in 1963.  LOL.  Talk about "assumptions" and "opinions."  This is a real easy one.  They sold rifles by mail order.  They received an order with a name and mailing address to send the rifle.  They would send the rifle to that address.  What else would they have done in that situation?  Keep the customer's money and not send the rifle?  You should really be ashamed to go down these rabbit holes.  I'm not sure what mental compulsion requires this exercise in every single instance that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor.  None.  Not an iota.  It is difficult to conceive how there could even be much more evidence of the fact.

This is a real easy one.  They sold rifles by mail order.  They received an order with a name and mailing address to send the rifle.  They would send the rifle to that address.

Sure, and they did so without having any proof that they actually sent it? Are you for real?

but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor.  None.  Not an iota.

Just too bad that you can't provide any conclusive evidence for that absurd claim.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 01:41:56 AM
No, of course not. I'm saying that you are not interested in the truth.

And the question still remains unanswered. Who are "they" and when did thet make you their spokesman?

Enough of the pointless deflection.
I have offered to help you get final clarification on the Hidell ID and you clearly are resisting,, so "we" can draw our own conclusions!

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 01:46:07 AM
This is a real easy one.  They sold rifles by mail order.  They received an order with a name and mailing address to send the rifle.  They would send the rifle to that address.

Sure, and they did so without having any proof that they actually sent it? Are you for real?



Why do you keep repeating this?  Klein's was in this business.  This was 1963.  Someone ordered a rifle and they sent it to them.  What is so complicated?  You keep implying that they need "proof" of the shipment.  Maybe if the customer didn't receive it and complained, they just sorted it out.  Oswald didn't complain because he got his rifle.  He is pictured in the BY photos holding it.  If there were any doubt, that rifle with the same serial number as the one sent by Klein's to Oswald ends up at Oswald's place of employment.  See any theme?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:47:20 AM
Enough of the pointless deflection.
I have offered to help you get final clarification on the Hidell ID and you clearly are resisting,, so "we" can draw our own conclusions!

JohnM

Talk about diversions and deflections    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You can't help me get final clarification on the Hidell ID because you are using a fake ID and as such can never show us what NARA told you without revealing your true identity.

I am more than happy to wait for NARA's reply and you (not "we") can draw all the conclusions you like.

Having said that, my question still remains unanswered. Who are "they" and when did thet make you their spokesman?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 01:53:54 AM
Klein's was in this business, but you claim to know better than them how they should have conducted themselves in 1963.  LOL.  Talk about "assumptions" and "opinions."  This is a real easy one.  They sold rifles by mail order.  They received an order with a name and mailing address to send the rifle.  They would send the rifle to that address.  What else would they have done in that situation?  Keep the customer's money and not send the rifle?  You should really be ashamed to go down these rabbit holes.  I'm not sure what mental compulsion requires this exercise in every single instance that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor.  None.  Not an iota.  It is difficult to conceive how there could even be much more evidence of the fact.

Quote
but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor.  None.  Not an iota.

That's the be all and end all.
And with all the irrelevant fluff that CT's produce, they can never give a reasonable theory that explains this single concluding fact.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:58:31 AM
Why do you keep repeating this?  Klein's was in this business.  This was 1963.  Someone ordered a rifle and they sent it to them.  What is so complicated?  You keep implying that they need "proof" of the shipment.  Maybe if the customer didn't receive it and complained, they just sorted it out.  Oswald didn't complain because he got his rifle.  He is pictured in the BY photos holding it.  If there were any doubt, that rifle with the same serial number as the one sent by Klein's to Oswald ends up at Oswald's place of employment.  See any theme?

Why do you keep repeating this stupidity?

Maybe if the customer didn't receive it and complained, they just sorted it out.

How? They couldn't prove they sent it, so what else was there to do but to either refund the money or send the item again.

Oswald didn't complain because he got his rifle. 

And you know this, how?

He is pictured in the BY photos holding it.

Really? He's holding a rifle, that's for sure, but what is your evidence that it is the one Kleins' is supposed to have sent to him?

If there were any doubt, that rifle with the same serial number as the one sent by Klein's to Oswald ends up at Oswald's place of employment. 

Really? And, even if true, how does that make it Oswald's rifle?

See any theme?

Yes, it's a nice fairytale story
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 02:03:59 AM
That's the be all and end all.
And with all the irrelevant fluff that CT's produce, they can never give a reasonable theory that explains this single concluding fact.

JohnM

This sounds like "we can't prove it, but we know Oswald is guilty and that's all we need to know"
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 02:04:39 AM
I'm not sure what mental compulsion requires this exercise in every single instance that lends itself to Oswald's guilt, but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor.  None.  Not an iota.  It is difficult to conceive how there could even be much more evidence of the fact.

Says you. But I’m not sure how relevant it is what you have “zero doubt” about. I have zero confidence in your knowledge of the evidence.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 02:06:22 AM
That's the be all and end all.
And with all the irrelevant fluff that CT's produce, they can never give a reasonable theory that explains this single concluding fact.

“fact”. LOL.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 02:06:42 AM
Talk about diversions and deflections    :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You can't help me get final clarification on the Hidell ID because you are using a fake ID and as such can never show us what NARA told you without revealing your true identity.

I am more than happy to wait for NARA's reply and you (not "we") can draw all the conclusions you like.

Having said that, my question still remains unanswered. Who are "they" and when did thet make you their spokesman?

I simply asked you to tell me who or what department you asked about the Hidell ID so I could expediate a response but your failure to respond is clear proof of what transpired.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 02:11:05 AM
Really? He's holding a rifle, that's for sure, but what is your evidence that it is the one Kleins' is supposed to have sent to him?

Still waiting for “Richard” to name the experts who “have indicated that rifle is the same rifle found on the 6th floor”. But then “Richard” doesn’t answer questions or defend his dishonest claims. He just regurgitates them ad nauseam.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 02:22:54 AM
I simply asked you to tell me who or what department you asked about the Hidell ID so I could expediate a response but your failure to respond is clear proof of what transpired.

JohnM

You can't "expedite" anything. But I will give you the information when you provide your true identity.

















Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 02:24:24 AM
You can't "expedite" anything.

Why not?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 02:28:53 AM
Why not?

JohnM

Because you are a fake.

Provide your true identity and then we'll talk.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 02:40:23 AM
Because you are a fake.

Provide your true identity and then we'll talk.

Disclosing my identity on this Forum has no bearing on my ability to extract the information that we require from the archives.

But your newest diversion is Duly noted and clearly demonstrates your grasping of straws and is powerful evidence of your lack of credibility.

Btw since we know your real name is "Martin Weidmann" you should have no problem proving it, right?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 04:12:01 AM
Disclosing my identity on this Forum has no bearing on my ability to extract the information that we require from the archives.

But your newest diversion is Duly noted and clearly demonstrates your grasping of straws and is powerful evidence of your lack of credibility.

Btw since we know your real name is "Martin Weidmann" you should have no problem proving it, right?

JohnM

Disclosing my identity on this Forum has no bearing on my ability to extract the information that we require from the archives.

Of course it does, unless you use your fake ID to contact the National Archives as well. But you never really planned on contacting them in the first place, right?

But your newest diversion is Duly noted and clearly demonstrates your grasping of straws and is powerful evidence of your lack of credibility.

You're not making sense. I'm calling you a fake and you have already admitted that you are. There is no diversion....

Btw since we know your real name is "Martin Weidmann" you should have no problem proving it, right?

Why would I need to prove it when you already know it?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 05:21:56 AM
Disclosing my identity on this Forum has no bearing on my ability to extract the information that we require from the archives.

Of course it does, unless you use your fake ID to contact the National Archives as well. But you never really planned on contacting them in the first place, right?

But your newest diversion is Duly noted and clearly demonstrates your grasping of straws and is powerful evidence of your lack of credibility.

You're not making sense. I'm calling you a fake and you have already admitted that you are. There is no diversion....

Btw since we know your real name is "Martin Weidmann" you should have no problem proving it, right?

Why would I need to prove it when you already know it?

Quote
unless you use your fake ID to contact the National Archives as well.

Well you contacted them didn't you "Martin Weidmann", right?

Quote
But you never really planned on contacting them in the first place, right?

If you simply supplied the information I innocently requested then of course I would!

Quote
You're not making sense. I'm calling you a fake and you have already admitted that you are. There is no diversion....

No, you demanded I provide my "true identity", do you even know your own arguments?

Quote
Why would I need to prove it when you already know it?

Then proving your real name shouldn't be a problem, right?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 12:50:23 PM
Why do you keep repeating this stupidity?

Maybe if the customer didn't receive it and complained, they just sorted it out.

How? They couldn't prove they sent it, so what else was there to do but to either refund the money or send the item again.

Oswald didn't complain because he got his rifle. 

And you know this, how?



You believe that there is a viable possibility that Oswald did not receive the rifle from Klein's and complained to them about it?  And Klein's simply lied to the WC for some inexplicable reason.  They were prepared to do this as early as the night of Nov. 22 when the FBI helped them search their records to confirm that they sent the rifle to him.  Wow. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 01:11:33 PM
You believe that there is a viable possibility that Oswald did not receive the rifle from Klein's and complained to them about it?  And Klein's simply lied to the WC for some inexplicable reason.  They were prepared to do this as early as the night of Nov. 22 when the FBI helped them search their records to confirm that they sent the rifle to him.  Wow.

You believe that there is a viable possibility that Oswald did not receive the rifle from Klein's and complained to them about it?

Apart from the fact that anything is viable in this crazy case, why would I believe that when there is no evidence that a rifle was sent in the first place?

And Klein's simply lied to the WC for some inexplicable reason.

Why would Waldman lie? He had nothing to do with the gun sales department and had no first hand knowledge of any part of the transaction.
All he could do, and did, was confirm what certain markings on Waldman 7 mean, but even Waldman wasn't able to authenticate that document.

[
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 01:41:59 PM
You believe that there is a viable possibility that Oswald did not receive the rifle from Klein's and complained to them about it?

Apart from the fact that anything is viable in this crazy case, why would I believe that when there is no evidence that a rifle was sent in the first place?

And Klein's simply lied to the WC for some inexplicable reason.

Why would Waldman lie? He had nothing to do with the gun sales department and had no first hand knowledge of any part of the transaction.
All he could do, and did, was confirm what certain markings on Waldman 7 mean, but even Waldman wasn't able to authenticate that document.

[

You questioned the conclusion that Oswald didn't complain about not receiving his rifle.  That seems to imply that you believe there is a viability possibility that he did complain about it.  Is that the case that you think there is a realistic possibility that Oswald didn't receive the rifle and then complained to Klein's or not?  I've pointed out that the FBI and Klein's searched the records on Nov. 22 to confirm that a specific rifle was sent to him.  Therefore, if Oswald did not receive the rifle and complained, Klein's would have been in on the coverup from the very beginning.  That is a necessary and direct implication of your argument that there is a possibility that he never received the rifle.  It is impossible to sort out a logical narrative in which Klein's was not involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK under the known timeline of events in your absurd fantasy that Oswald did not receive the rifle.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 02:01:09 PM
You questioned the conclusion that Oswald didn't complain about not receiving his rifle.  That seems to imply that you believe there is a viability possibility that he did complain about it.  Is that the case that you think there is a realistic possibility that Oswald didn't receive the rifle and then complained to Klein's or not?  I've pointed out that the FBI and Klein's searched the records on Nov. 22 to confirm that a specific rifle was sent to him.  Therefore, if Oswald did not receive the rifle and complained, Klein's would have been in on the coverup from the very beginning.  That is a necessary and direct implication of your argument that there is a possibility that he never received the rifle.  It is impossible to sort out a logical narrative in which Klein's was not involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK under the known timeline of events in your absurd fantasy that Oswald did not receive the rifle.

You questioned the conclusion that Oswald didn't complain about not receiving his rifle. 

Who concluded that?

I've pointed out that the FBI and Klein's searched the records on Nov. 22 to confirm that a specific rifle was sent to him.

Yes, you pointed that out and you were wrong. On November 22 the FBI determined who ordered the rifle, not that it was sent.

your absurd fantasy that Oswald did not receive the rifle.

You are getting ahead of yourself again. I can not claim that Oswald did or didn't receive the rifle, when there is no evidence that a rifle was actually sent in the first place.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 02:33:13 PM
You questioned the conclusion that Oswald didn't complain about not receiving his rifle. 

Who concluded that?




This is real simple. I said that Oswald didn't complain to Klein's about not receiving the rifle ordered.  You questioned that statement.  That implies that you believe that there is a realistic possibility that Oswald did complain to Klein's about not receiving his rifle.  Is that your position or not?  You seem to think that upon receiving an order and payment for a rifle that there is some mystery about what Klein's would do in the absence of some shipping confirmation.  They were a mail order business.  It is obvious that upon receiving an order, that they would ship the item to that person.  If for some reason that person didn't receive the rifle (as you seem to imply was possible), that person would complain to them.  There is not a scintilla of evidence that Oswald complained to anyone about not receiving a rifle. To the contrary, his wife confirms he obtained a rifle in this timeframe, there are pictures of him holding a rifle, the DPD indicates his print was on a rifle, that rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, and that rifle had the SAME serial number as one Klein's indicates was sent to his PO Box. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 02:44:13 PM


Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm
record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes, the date of shipment was March 20,1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle
around the letters “PP.”
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 02:49:02 PM

This is real simple. I said that Oswald didn't complain to Klein's about not receiving the rifle ordered.  You questioned that statement.  That implies that you believe that there is a realistic possibility that Oswald did complain to Klein's about not receiving his rifle.  Is that your position or not?  You seem to think that upon receiving an order and payment for a rifle that there is some mystery about what Klein's would do in the absence of some shipping confirmation.  They were a mail order business.  It is obvious that upon receiving an order, that they would ship the item to that person.  If for some reason that person didn't receive the rifle (as you seem to imply was possible), that person would complain to them.  There is not a scintilla of evidence that Oswald complained to anyone about not receiving a rifle. To the contrary, his wife confirms he obtained a rifle in this timeframe, there are pictures of him holding a rifle, the DPD indicates his print was on a rifle, that rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, and that rifle had the SAME serial number as one Klein's indicates was sent to his PO Box.

You questioned that statement.

I question every statement you make.

You seem to think that upon receiving an order and payment for a rifle that there is some mystery about what Klein's would do in the absence of some shipping confirmation.  They were a mail order business.  It is obvious that upon receiving an order, that they would ship the item to that person.

Except the item ordered was no longer in stock

There is not a scintilla of evidence that Oswald complained to anyone about not receiving a rifle.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that a rifle was actually sent. Waldman saying that "PP" written on a form means that it was shipped isn't evidence, and Waldman did not have first hand knowledge of the shipment and thus could only make an assumption.

his wife confirms he obtained a rifle in this timeframe

Repeating a lie doesn't somehow make it become true

that rifle had the SAME serial number as one Klein's indicates was sent to his PO Box.

Kleins' indicated no such thing. Waldman did and that was an assumption based on a handwritten number on a photocopy of an internal document.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 02:51:03 PM

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm
record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes, the date of shipment was March 20,1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle
around the letters “PP.”

Exactly what I said; Waldman, who had no first hand knowledge and nothing to do with gun sales is reading a photocopy of a document and telling Belin what some handwritten markings mean.

In no way is this a conclusive confirmation of a rifle having actually been sent.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 04:10:43 PM
Exactly what I said; Waldman, who had no first hand knowledge and nothing to do with gun sales is reading a photocopy of a document and telling Belin what some handwritten markings mean.

In no way is this a conclusive confirmation of a rifle having actually been sent.

LOL.  He is confirming in his capacity of as the VP of Klein's the contents of a document that Klein's generated which confirms the rifle was shipped.  Exactly what you said was missing.  Now you are on to it being faked etc.  The endless circle of contrarian lunacy.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 05:33:25 PM
LOL.  He is confirming in his capacity of as the VP of Klein's the contents of a document that Klein's generated which confirms the rifle was shipped.  Exactly what you said was missing.  Now you are on to it being faked etc.  The endless circle of contrarian lunacy.

He can "confirm" the content of a document as much as he wants. He had no first hand knowledge, no involvement in gun sales and relied purely on what a photocopy of an unauthenticated document said. Anybody can write the letters "PP" on a document. It's not proof of shipment, no matter how much you want it to be. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 05:39:24 PM
He can "confirm" the content of a document as much as he wants. He had no first hand knowledge, no involvement in gun sales and relied purely on what a photocopy of an unauthenticated document said. Anybody can write the letters "PP" on a document. It's not proof of shipment, no matter how much you want it to be.

Do you realize how insane that is?  This is a document generated by Klein's as part of their routine business records.  Not just anybody.  Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?  He has knowledge of the records that they kept.  Those records confirmed that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is why he is testifying.  He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.  The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.  The documentary evidence is conclusive of the fact. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 06:22:54 PM
Do you realize how insane that is?  This is a document generated by Klein's as part of their routine business records.  Not just anybody.  Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?  He has knowledge of the records that they kept.  Those records confirmed that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is why he is testifying.  He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.  The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.  The documentary evidence is conclusive of the fact.

What is truly insane is that they didn't call the man who actually wrote the handwritten information on Waldman 7. That would have authenticated it and settled the matter. The WC were very much aware of the fact that evidence needs to be authenticated. When Arlen Specter introduced the bullet CE399 in evidence, during Dr. Humes' testimony, he said;

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.


One can only wonder why they failed to call a man who could authenticate the evidence and called instead a VP who was not involved in gun sales, had no first hand knowledge and couldn't authenticate a damned thing.

Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?

Mr. BELIN. Let me just ask you this preliminary question: This is a photostatic copy of a document, is it not?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. And is the original copy, or was the original copy prepared by someone under your direction or supervision?
Mr. WALDMAN. The original was prepared under a system which I originated and this particular order was not prepared at my direction. It would be--the merchandise was ordered in a routine basis at a time in which it was needed, and----
Mr. BELIN. Do you know who the person is that filled out this order?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; his initials are so indicated as "M.W."
Mr. BELIN. Would that be the name at the lower lefthand corner of Exhibit 1?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. And that is who?
Mr. WALDMAN. Mitchell W. Westra.
Mr. BELIN. At that time was he an employee of your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. He was.
Mr. BELIN. Was he under your jurisdiction and supervision?
Mr. WALDMAN. He was not under my direct supervision, no. He was under the supervision of Sam Kasper.
Mr. BELIN. And where is Sam Kasper now?
Mr. WALDMAN. He may or may not be here.
Mr. BELIN. I don't mean this afternoon. Is he with the company?
Mr. WALDMAN. He is the vice president of our company.
Mr. BELIN. He is the other vice president of the company?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.

He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.

Nobody disputes that

The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.

I have no burden of proof and I don't need to make a claim. The law is clear; if somebody relies on a piece of evidence to support his argument, that person has the obligation to authenticate the evidence he wants to rely on. It is that simple!

The documentary evidence is conclusive of the fact.

The only fact that it is conclusive of is that Waldman told Belin what the handwritten notes on Waldman 7 mean. Everything else is your assumption.

Now, mr. know it all, tell me, why did they call Waldman to testify and not the man who could have authenticated the document beyond doubt?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 06:38:31 PM
You questioned the conclusion that Oswald didn't complain about not receiving his rifle.  That seems to imply that you believe there is a viability possibility that he did complain about it.

It’s also a viable possibility that Oswald didn’t complain because he never ordered a rifle from Klein’s.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 06:41:01 PM
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm
record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes, the date of shipment was March 20,1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle
around the letters “PP.”

Anybody can circle letters on a piece of paper. Where is the postal service record of shipment?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 06:44:33 PM
Do you realize how insane that is?  This is a document generated by Klein's as part of their routine business records.  Not just anybody.  Waldmann was VP of the company that sold guns but he had no "involvement in gun sales"?  He has knowledge of the records that they kept.  Those records confirmed that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is why he is testifying.

Conspicuous in its absence is any testimony from those who processed, filled, and shipped the orders and generated the actual paperwork. Maybe they didn’t want that much scrutiny of these photocopies. And they certainly didn’t want to talk to the guy who said he didn’t mount any scopes on 40” rifles.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on June 30, 2023, 08:32:44 PM


He is the guy who knows what the documents mean.

Nobody disputes that

The only way that this doesn't prove that the rifle was sent to Oswald is if the documents are faked or manipulated.  And there is zero evidence of that.  You certainly have provided none.

I have no burden of proof and I don't need to make a claim. The law is clear; if somebody relies on a piece of evidence to support his argument, that person has the obligation to authenticate the evidence he wants to rely on. It is that simple!



Again, Klein's provided their business record that confirm that a specific rifle was ordered and sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is what the form clearly indicates.  You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle.  That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.  By implication you are suggesting this information was fabricated.  That is the only way to avoid accepting the conclusion that Oswald was sent a specific rifle since that is what the records indicate.  You have provided no evidence or even attempted to provide any evidence to support this baseless claim.  Instead you run away with the weak burden of proof nonsense.  This is not a criminal trial with burden of proof standards.  You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 09:18:29 PM
Again, Klein's provided their business record that confirm that a specific rifle was ordered and sent to Oswald's PO Box.  That is what the form clearly indicates.  You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle.  That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.  By implication you are suggesting this information was fabricated.  That is the only way to avoid accepting the conclusion that Oswald was sent a specific rifle since that is what the records indicate.  You have provided no evidence or even attempted to provide any evidence to support this baseless claim.  Instead you run away with the weak burden of proof nonsense.  This is not a criminal trial with burden of proof standards.  You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation.

You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle. 

That's not a claim, it's a statement of fact and it is also 100% true. There is still doubt that Oswald was sent a rifle for one reason only; you have failed completely in showing that a rifle was indeed sent. Waldman's opinion about something that's written on a piece of paper isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.

Kleins' business records do not show a rifle was actually shipped. You can twist and turn this all you want, but Waldman 7 will never be evidence that a rifle was actually sent.

Instead you run away with the weak burden of proof nonsense. 

There is nothing weak about it. You claim a rifle was sent, the burden of proof is on you.

This is not a criminal trial with burden of proof standards.

Says the guy who has the burden of proof and can't meet it.... Hilarious.

Oh, and btw, why do you constantly keep asking me for evidence? Double standard, perhaps?

You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation.

And there he goes ad hom again... a clear sign of the weakness of his argument.

Just like with the "Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired" and "Oswald came down the stairs completely unnoticed", you have yet again failed to back up your claim (or is it your faith) with conclusive evidence.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 09:57:30 PM
“Burden of proof nonsense” tells you everything you need to know about how “Richard’s” mind operates.

Burden of proof isn’t just a trial thing. It applies to any argument or truth claim.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 10:52:25 PM
And they certainly didn’t want to talk to the guy who said he didn’t mount any scopes on 40” rifles.

Besides advertising the "40 inch Carcano with scope" in American Rifleman in 1963,

(https://i.postimg.cc/v8vKCbd8/40-inch-carcano-rifle-with-scope.jpg)

here's 2 Kleins ads advertising the "40 inch Carcano with scope" from Guns Magazine from the November 1963 and December 1963 issues.

(https://i.postimg.cc/HLWBC706/kleins-carcano-ad-12-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G1163.pdf

(https://i.postimg.cc/K8DJV5TK/kleins-carcano-ad-11-1963.jpg)
https://gunsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G1263.pdf

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on June 30, 2023, 10:59:08 PM
Besides advertising the "40 inch Carcano with scope" in American Rifleman in 1963,
here's 2 Kleins ads advertising the "40 inch Carcano with scope" from Guns Magazine from the November 1963 and December 1963 issues.

Just because they advertised one doesn’t mean they sold any like that. Especially prior to it being advertised.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 11:31:37 PM
Just because they advertised one doesn’t mean they sold any like that.

Yeah, you're probably right, Kleins obviously didn't have a clue on what to include in their ads.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 11:35:47 PM
Yeah, you're probably right, Kleins obviously didn't have a clue on what to include in their ads.

JohnM

Well, they advertised a rifle that they no longer had in stock.....
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 11:36:53 PM

You are not Oswald's defense attorney despite being here night and day railing against every piece of evidence against him and entertaining every baseless counter explanation.

And there he goes ad hom again..


How is that an ad hom? Or do you seriously consider that you are Oswald's defence attorney?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 11:37:46 PM
Well, they advertised a rifle that they no longer had in stock.....

How do you know what rifles Kleins had in stock?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 11:43:42 PM
How is that an ad hom? Or do you seriously consider that you are Oswald's defence attorney?

JohnM

Why do you always want to talk about other things than the case? Is there a reason for that?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 11:46:05 PM
How do you know what rifles Kleins had in stock?

JohnM

Well, they didn't sent (if they sent one at all) the 36" rifle ordered by Hidell.

Why would they sent (if they did) a 40" rifle if they still had the 36" rifle in stock?

It isn't rocket science....
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 11:49:27 PM
Why do you always want to talk about other things than the case?

How is the discussion about what would constitute Oswald's defence be classified as "other things"?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 11:51:09 PM
Well, they didn't sent (if they sent one at all) the 36" rifle ordered by Hidell.

Why would they sent (if they did) a 40" rifle if they still had the 36" rifle in stock?

It isn't rocket science....

Oh, so you made an assumption.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 11:54:35 PM
Oh, so you made an assumption.

JohnM

Yes, I did. Don't confuse it with evidence, as you usually do.

But I ask again, if somebody orders a 36" rifle from Kleins", and they still have those in stock, why would they sent out a 40" instead?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on June 30, 2023, 11:55:48 PM
How is the discussion about what would constitute Oswald's defence be classified as "other things"?

JohnM

Need another fishing rod?

Btw this was my last response on this topic.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on June 30, 2023, 11:58:23 PM

Why would they sent (if they did) a 40" rifle if they still had the 36" rifle in stock?


This is new, you now think that Kleins may have sent a rifle?  :D

JohnM



Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 12:00:04 AM
Btw this was my last response on this topic.

Good, if I was you I'd back away very quickly as well.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 12:02:09 AM
This is new, you now think that Kleins may have sent a rifle?  :D

JohnM

You don't understand the words "(if they did)"?

Just how desperate are you to pick another fight?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 12:16:33 AM
You don't understand the words "(if they did)"?

Just how desperate are you to pick another fight?
 

Quote
You don't understand the words "(if they did)"?

You don't understand the words "(may have sent)"?

Quote
Just how desperate are you to pick another fight?

I'm just analysing your posts and responding.

JohnM



Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 12:25:17 AM
 

You don't understand the words "(may have sent)"?

I'm just analysing your posts and responding.

JohnM

You don't understand the words "(may have sent)"?

When and where did I use those words?

I'm just analysing your posts and responding.

No you're not
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 12:31:13 AM
You don't understand the words "(may have sent)"?

When and where did I use those words?

Huh? It may be a benefit to you to read my posts, think, then respond.

This is new, you now think that Kleins may have sent a rifle?  :D

JohnM

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 12:46:07 AM
Huh? It may be a benefit to you to read my posts, think, then respond.

JohnM

Why do I care what you say or make up?



This is new, you now think that Kleins may have sent a rifle?  :D

JohnM


Since when do you know what I think?

You desperately need to get a life....
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 03:26:33 AM
Why do I care what you say or make up?


Since when do you know what I think?

You desperately need to get a life....

Quote
Why do I care what you say...

I never said you "cared" but you do seem to respond to a lot of my posts.

Quote
Since when do you know what I think?

Well Martin that's easy, you have a one track mind which is focused in a very specific direction.

Quote
You desperately need to get a life....

I see you added this since I was last logged on, and it only took you a little over ten minutes to think it up!
But it is a nice touch and I'm oh so terribly offended, congrats! 

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 03:40:01 AM
But I ask again, if somebody orders a 36" rifle from Kleins", and they still have those in stock, why would they sent out a 40" instead?

In all this excitement, I kind of lost track of how many posts you made, but being this is so important I couldn't resist responding.

Anyway, you just spent the last bazillion posts arguing that there was no proof that Oswald was sent a rifle, yet here you seem to be  confirming that Oswald was sent a 40" rifle?

Btw do you feel lucky, Punk?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 01, 2023, 04:21:34 AM
Yeah, you're probably right, Kleins obviously didn't have a clue on what to include in their ads.

Maybe Westra and Sharp didn’t mount any scopes on 40-inch rifles because they never got an order for one. Do you have any evidence that they ever did?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 01, 2023, 04:25:53 AM
You don't understand the words "(if they did)"?

Just how desperate are you to pick another fight?

“Mytton” regresses back to word games when he gets stuck in an argument.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 06:25:02 AM
Maybe Westra and Sharp didn’t mount any scopes on 40-inch rifles because they never got an order for one. Do you have any evidence that they ever did?

Anyway, here's some evidence from Sharp himself and as an added bonus, some extra logical conclusions from myself.

1.Oswald’s choice of weapon aside, there was something else to haunt him. At work the next day, Sharp relayed concerns to his boss about the gun he had seen on television.
“It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it,” Sharp told him. His boss replied, "'No No No, don't say that!'"  Sharp said his boss was afraid of the consequences.

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

2. Both Sharp and Westra in the same HSCA interviews agreed that Kleins mounted scopes on the 36 inch model but for some reason the 40 inch model which was advertised for almost a year in multiple Gun Magazines never had a scope mounted? Really?
Perhaps if it wasn't done by Kliens, it was done out of house?

3. America is full of Gun Enthusiasts and after the Scoped Carcano became one of the most notorious rifles in America it's difficult to believe that there wasn't at least 1 Gun Enthusiast who would want a similar Scoped Rifle. To at least check out the difficulty of the shots or as a souvenir. IIRC Walt said he has three Carcano's with at least one with a scope?

4. Holding inventory is a costly business and if an item isn't selling, it only makes sense to lower the price but the price of the combined package was the same until at least the December Kleins ad that I showed.

EDIT I just came across this piece by Gil Jesus, who posts some bizarrely irrational opinions and even he doesn't lower himself to the extreme nonsensical speculation that you just spouted. "Maybe Westra and Sharp didn’t mount any scopes on 40-inch rifles because they never got an order for one"

"It's clear from their ads that Klein's was offering the 40" rifle with a scope. But the evidence indicates that the scopes were not mounted "in-house"."
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27197-10-reasons-why-i-believe-that-the-depository-rifle-isnt-oswalds/

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 06:26:38 AM
“Mytton” regresses back to word games when he gets stuck in an argument.

Huh?

1.What was my "word game"?

2. Please explain how I was stuck?

Btw you used to be good at this, what happened?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 11:37:11 AM
I never said you "cared" but you do seem to respond to a lot of my posts.

Well Martin that's easy, you have a one track mind which is focused in a very specific direction.

I see you added this since I was last logged on, and it only took you a little over ten minutes to think it up!
But it is a nice touch and I'm oh so terribly offended, congrats! 

JohnM


In all this excitement, I kind of lost track of how many posts you made, but being this is so important I couldn't resist responding.

Anyway, you just spent the last bazillion posts arguing that there was no proof that Oswald was sent a rifle, yet here you seem to be  confirming that Oswald was sent a 40" rifle?

Btw do you feel lucky, Punk?

JohnM

Huh?

1.What was my "word game"?

2. Please explain how I was stuck?

Btw you used to be good at this, what happened?

JohnM

So desperate to pick a fight.... Even a childish wordplay on some Clint Eastwood lines....

And when you "insult" him, he runs crying back to mama.... What an obnoxious piece of work.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 01, 2023, 12:41:45 PM

So desperate to pick a fight.... Even a childish wordplay on some Clint Eastwood lines....

And when you "insult" him, he runs crying back to mama.... What an obnoxious piece of work.

Hilarious, the Forum Bully is playing the victim card.

Here's just a small list from the last 10 days, of "Martin" quotes.

Quote
You desperately need to get a life....

(or is it your faith)

Now, mr. know it all

no need to prove anything to a troll

using a fake name

I'm calling you a fake

Because you are a fake.

What's wrong with you?

They don't have a clue

keep repeating this stupidity

you are not interested in the truth.

he's desperately trying.....   :D :D :D :D :D

Speaking from experience, are you?

Says the biggest propagandist of them all.....

Sorry, I can't fix stupid.

you'll find somebody else to bore to death.

It merely exposes a massive superiority complex.

your complete inability to comprehend

Having fun watching you being an idiot

Stop humiliating yourself.

your silly games

It was fun watching you making a fool of yourself.

you are such an enormous waste of time and space.

The troll is still here.... :D :D :D :D :D

the biggest fool on this planet

the top response from a cry baby

What are you babbling about?

The self-appointed "seeker of truth"

Deal with it.

Guys like you are so pathetic.

Oops, did I just describe a troll?.... Yeah it seems I did.

And then of course there are the trolls

zealots like you.

before making such a pathetically false statement.

your BS claims. Poor Johnny

Thanks for sharing your pathetic opinion.

your poor judgment.

That's what happens in a cult!

your usual BS.

your own pathetic comments

Sorry John, I don't speak Chinese or gibberish.

I rest my case, your honour!

JohnM



Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 01:26:59 PM
Hilarious, the Forum Bully is playing the victim card.

Here's just a small list from the last 10 days, of "Martin" quotes.

I rest my case, your honour!

JohnM

"Mytton"'s obsession with me on full display. No sane person would spend so much time to go through another member's posts.

Keep trying (or should I say crying), "Johnny" and I'll keep laughing.  Thumb1:
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 01, 2023, 03:40:04 PM
You have made a claim.  You claimed that there is still doubt that Oswald was sent this rifle. 

That's not a claim, it's a statement of fact and it is also 100% true. There is still doubt that Oswald was sent a rifle for one reason only; you have failed completely in showing that a rifle was indeed sent. Waldman's opinion about something that's written on a piece of paper isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

That contradicts the clear business records of Klein's who sold and shipped the rifle in question.



Good grief.  Klein's received an order for a rifle.  The address on that order was Oswald's PO Box.  They kept a business record that confirmed that the rifle was sent in response to that order on March 20.  It is a business record specifying the date and method of shipment.  This is not Waldman's "opinion" that it was sent as you stupidly suggest.  It is the information contained on the business form.  There are only two options to be drawn from this circumstance:  1) a rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box on March 20 as the form indicates; or 2) Waldman and Klein's were in on the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of the president by fabricating this information.  There is no third option in which nothing can ever be proven because we live in a world of blissful contrarian ignorance.  No time machine is required.   It can't get much clearer than this:

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm
record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes, the date of shipment was March 20,1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle
around the letters “PP.”
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 03:58:36 PM
Good grief.  Klein's received an order for a rifle.  The address on that order was Oswald's PO Box.  They kept a business record that confirmed that the rifle was sent in response to that order on March 20.  It is a business record specifying the date and method of shipment.  This is not Waldman's "opinion" that it was sent as you stupidly suggest.  It is the information contained on the business form.  There are only two options to be drawn from this circumstance:  1) a rifle was sent to Oswald's PO Box on March 20 as the form indicates; or 2) Waldman and Klein's were in on the conspiracy to frame Oswald for the assassination of the president by fabricating this information.  There is no third option in which nothing can ever be proven because we live in a world of blissful contrarian ignorance.  No time machine is required.   It can't get much clearer than this:

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm
record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes, the date of shipment was March 20,1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle
around the letters “PP.”

I'm not going to repeat myself. If you don't get that Waldman had no first hand knowledge of the shipment and was merely explaining what some handwritten remarks on a photocopy of an utterly unauthenticated internal document mean, then I can't help you.

There is no third option

Of course there is, but I am not going to waste my time explaining that to you.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 01, 2023, 04:06:15 PM
I'm not going to repeat myself. If you don't get that Waldman had no first hand knowledge of the shipment and was merely explaining what some handwritten remarks on a photocopy of an utterly unauthenticated internal document mean, then I can't help you.

There is no third option

Of course there is, but I am not going to waste my time explaining that to you.

If Waldman had never been born, the business record still confirms the shipment.  That is how businesses track transactions.   You suggested as much noting that a shipping company would keep records of such transaction in case there was an issue.  And here it is!  Do you think employees of a shipping company that sends endless packages would remember better than a form when a specific package was mailed?  Unreal.  Business records are kept exactly for this reason.  This is a classic example of refusing to accept any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ironclad the evidence while entertaining all manner of baseless counter explanations.  Here, by implication, you are suggesting a narrative in which this form has been fabricated by someone and Klein's is cooperating with some unknown conspirators to frame Oswald.  For which you have not one iota of supporting evidence other than a time machine does not exist to allow us to view someone putting the package in the mail.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 05:11:09 PM
If Waldman had never been born, the business record still confirms the shipment.  That is how businesses track transactions.   You suggested as much noting that a shipping company would keep records of such transaction in case there was an issue.  And here it is!  Do you think employees of a shipping company that sends endless packages would remember better than a form when a specific package was mailed?  Unreal.  Business records are kept exactly for this reason.  This is a classic example of refusing to accept any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ironclad the evidence while entertaining all manner of baseless counter explanations.  Here, by implication, you are suggesting a narrative in which this form has been fabricated by someone and Klein's is cooperating with some unknown conspirators to frame Oswald.  For which you have not one iota of supporting evidence other than a time machine does not exist to allow us to view someone putting the package in the mail.

If Waldman had never been born, the business record still confirms the shipment.

Nope...Anybody can write "PP" and a serial number on a document. FBI questioned documents expert Lundal Shaynefelt agreed with Gerry Spence (in the mock trial) that photocopies can be manipulated. This alone requires that a document is authenticated. Waldman 7 never was!

You suggested as much noting that a shipping company would keep records of such transaction in case there was an issue.  And here it is!

Nope... a internal document doesn't prove shipment.

Do you think employees of a shipping company that sends endless packages would remember better than a form when a specific package was mailed?

Well they could have easily found out by asking the man who wrote the date on the document, but for some reason they just didn't want to do that. Go figure!

This is a classic example of refusing to accept any evidence of Oswald's guilt no matter how ironclad the evidence

First of all, Waldman 7, even if it is authentic, isn't evidence of Oswald's guilt and secondly, if you really believe Waldman 7 to be ironclad then there simply is no reason for me to waste any time on your naive stupidity.

Here, by implication, you are suggesting a narrative in which this form has been fabricated by someone and Klein's is cooperating with some unknown conspirators to frame Oswald.

Wrong again. I am suggesting that the investigators failed completely to authenticate a piece of evidence in order to eliminate the possibility of manipulation.

That's what you seem to be unable to understand; the burden of proof is on you and your ilk. You either provide conclusive and persuasive evidence or you don't (can't). Unauthenticated documents are not conclusive evidence.

other than a time machine does not exist to allow us to view someone putting the package in the mail.

So you agree, there is no evidence that someone put a package in the mail   Thumb1:
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 01, 2023, 06:06:27 PM
and as an added bonus, some extra logical conclusions from myself.

LOL

Quote
1.Oswald’s choice of weapon aside, there was something else to haunt him. At work the next day, Sharp relayed concerns to his boss about the gun he had seen on television.
“It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it,” Sharp told him. His boss replied, "'No No No, don't say that!'"  Sharp said his boss was afraid of the consequences.

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

That's not what he said to the HSCA.  But by all means, let's go with a newspaper quote from 50 years after the events in question.

Quote
3. America is full of Gun Enthusiasts and after the Scoped Carcano became one of the most notorious rifles in America it's difficult to believe that there wasn't at least 1 Gun Enthusiast who would want a similar Scoped Rifle.

Appeal to ignorance.  Is there any evidence that Klein's ever got an order for a 40-inch scoped Carcano?  Yes or no? 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 01, 2023, 06:10:32 PM
I'm not going to repeat myself. If you don't get that Waldman had no first hand knowledge of the shipment and was merely explaining what some handwritten remarks on a photocopy of an utterly unauthenticated internal document mean, then I can't help you.

"Richard" doesn't actually read or consider what is written in any responses.  He's a one-way propaganda machine.

"Business record".  LOL.  Where are the corresponding United States Postal Service "business records"?  If an issue came up, How would Klein's ever prove that somebody actually took this package to the post office?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 01, 2023, 07:12:38 PM
"Richard" doesn't actually read or consider what is written in any responses.  He's a one-way propaganda machine.

"Business record".  LOL.  Where are the corresponding United States Postal Service "business records"?  If an issue came up, How would Klein's ever prove that somebody actually took this package to the post office?

Well, let's see just how bad "Richard"'s ignorance really is.

Let's say, somebody steals "Richard"'s identity and uses it to order, out of pure malice, an item, via the internet, at a mail order company.
The mail order company then sends the item to the address on the order form and sends the bill, by e-mail, to "Richard".
He receives the bill and contacts the mail order company saying that he never ordered or received anything, to which the mail order company replies; "well, according to our business records" you have ordered and received the item. Would you like to see the internal document?"

Going by "Richard"'s so-called "logic" he would have no choice but to pay the bill, right? After all, the mail order's business records is conclusive proof of shipment, right?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 01, 2023, 11:48:40 PM
Let’s go a step further and imagine that “Richard” dies in an unfortunate incident at the police station prior to the bill being send out, and his widow contacts the company, because she didn’t know anything about the order and they say, well “Richard” must have picked it up because our “business records” have a PP stain on them. So pay up.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 03, 2023, 12:26:32 AM
Let’s go a step further and imagine that “Richard” dies in an unfortunate incident at the police station prior to the bill being send out, and his widow contacts the company, because she didn’t know anything about the order and they say, well “Richard” must have picked it up because our “business records” have a PP stain on them. So pay up.

Quote
and imagine that “Richard” dies

Wow, talk about inappropriate, I don't particularly like some of my critics but I don't imagine their deaths.

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 03, 2023, 12:32:29 AM
Wow, talk about inappropriate, I don't particularly like some of my critics but I don't imagine their deaths.

It’s just an analogy — lighten up. But nice use of moral indignance to try to divert.

Besides, “Richard Smith” doesn’t actually exist.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 03, 2023, 02:01:41 PM
Well, let's see just how bad "Richard"'s ignorance really is.

Let's say, somebody steals "Richard"'s identity and uses it to order, out of pure malice, an item, via the internet, at a mail order company.
The mail order company then sends the item to the address on the order form and sends the bill, by e-mail, to "Richard".
He receives the bill and contacts the mail order company saying that he never ordered or received anything, to which the mail order company replies; "well, according to our business records" you have ordered and received the item. Would you like to see the internal document?"

Going by "Richard"'s so-called "logic" he would have no choice but to pay the bill, right? After all, the mail order's business records is conclusive proof of shipment, right?

What a stupid analogy to Oswald's situation.  The Klein's records indicate that the rifle in this instance was shipped TO OSWALD"S PO Box.  Not to someone else's address. Good grief. LOL.  You yourself argued that a mail order business would keep a record of their transactions in case there was an issue.  And it turns out Klein's did exactly that.  They kept a business record of the transaction confirming that they mailed a rifle to Oswald's PO Box on March 20.  Why would they not have mailed it to his address as you stupidly and baselessly imply?  Of course, this record is not the only evidence to confirm that Oswald received this rifle.  His own wife confirms he obtained a rifle in this timeframe.  The rifle shipped to his PO Box turns up in his place of employment.  It has the same serial number as the rifle sent to him by Klein's.  The DPD indicates that Oswald's print was left on that rifle.  There is no accounting for any other rifle belonging to Oswald in this timeframe.  He is pictured holding the rifle.  Experts confirm the rifle depicted in that photo is the same rifle found in the TSBD which is the same rifle that Klein's confirms was sent to Oswald's PO box.  The totality of evidence and circumstances here is conclusive of the fact that Oswald was sent and received a specific rifle.  The same one found at the TSBD on Nov. 22.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 03, 2023, 02:11:59 PM
What a stupid analogy to Oswald's situation.  The Klein's records indicate that the rifle in this instance was shipped TO OSWALD"S PO Box.  Not to someone else's address. Good grief. LOL.  You yourself argued that a mail order business would keep a record of their transactions in case there was an issue.  And it turns out Klein's did exactly that.  They kept a business record of the transaction confirming that they mailed a rifle to Oswald's PO Box on March 20.  Why would they not have mailed it to his address as you stupidly and baselessly imply?  Of course, this record is not the only evidence to confirm that Oswald received this rifle.  His own wife confirms he obtained a rifle in this timeframe.  The rifle shipped to his PO Box turns up in his place of employment.  It has the same serial number as the rifle sent to him by Klein's.  The DPD indicates that Oswald's print was left on that rifle.  There is no accounting for any other rifle belonging to Oswald in this timeframe.  He is pictured holding the rifle.  Experts confirm the rifle depicted in that photo is the same rifle found in the TSBD which is the same rifle that Klein's confirms was sent to Oswald's PO box.  The totality of evidence and circumstances here is conclusive of the fact that Oswald was sent and received a specific rifle.  The same one found at the TSBD on Nov. 22.

So many words, repeated as a broken record, and - as expected - no answer to my hypothetical question

Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 03, 2023, 02:20:15 PM
So many words, repeated as a broken record, and - as expected - no answer to my hypothetical question

You can tell when the contrarian brothers are running scared.  LOL.  Martin went on and on about how Klein's would have kept a business record of the shipment of the rifle.  And they did!  Now he is on to the record not proving a rifle was sent.  Imagine that scenario.  Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.  His evidence for such?  None.  Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?  Of course not.  What does Martin believe happened here?  We have no idea because he lives in a contrarian fantasy world where no fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt can be acknowledged.  An order is received and processed as reflected in Klein's business records.  Oswald receives a rifle.  The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.  But that is not sufficient in the delusional contrarian world to prove that Oswald was sent the rifle. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 03, 2023, 03:16:47 PM
“Richard” thinks that repeating the same failed arguments without addressing (or even acknowledging) their shortcomings somehow makes them more convincing. Anybody can make a circle on a piece of paper. It confirms “nothing”.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 03, 2023, 04:37:16 PM
You can tell when the contrarian brothers are running scared.  LOL.  Martin went on and on about how Klein's would have kept a business record of the shipment of the rifle.  And they did!  Now he is on to the record not proving a rifle was sent.  Imagine that scenario.  Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.  His evidence for such?  None.  Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?  Of course not.  What does Martin believe happened here?  We have no idea because he lives in a contrarian fantasy world where no fact that lends itself to Oswald's guilt can be acknowledged.  An order is received and processed as reflected in Klein's business records.  Oswald receives a rifle.  The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.  But that is not sufficient in the delusional contrarian world to prove that Oswald was sent the rifle.

When "Richard" can not present conclusive evidence to support his pathetic claims, he starts attacking the person he is talking to.

Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.

What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.

Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?

The order was for a 36" rifle, which Klein's no longer had in stock. There's your logical reason!

Oswald receives a rifle.

Really? From whom?

The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.

Really?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 03, 2023, 11:19:00 PM
When "Richard" can not present conclusive evidence to support his pathetic claims, he starts attacking the person he is talking to.

Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.

What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.

Would there be any logical reason for Klein's not to have shipped the rifle to the address designated on the order form?

The order was for a 36" rifle, which Klein's no longer had in stock. There's your logical reason!

Oswald receives a rifle.

Really? From whom?

The rifle found at Oswald's place of employment is the same one shipped to him by Klein's.

Really?

Quote
What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle and Oswald possessing the rifle and the rifle with Oswald's prints being discovered at his work. What do you feel that whatever you're looking for would add to the preceding evidence?

(https://i.postimg.cc/PJC6T9fC/WCReport-0072b.jpg)

(https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/lee-harvey-oswald.jpeg/@@images/image/large)

(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0158b.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/SsnIeaAWFfo/hqdefault.jpg)

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 03, 2023, 11:27:39 PM
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle and Oswald possessing the rifle and the rifle with Oswald's prints being discovered at his work. What do you feel that whatever you're looking for would add to the preceding evidence?


JohnM

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

True, but it doesn't apply here.


Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle

What you can not do without making assumptions

Oswald possessing the rifle

Which you can not prove, beyond him being photographed with a rifle

the rifle with Oswald's prints being discovered at his work.

Which is not true. The FBI examined the rifle within 24 hours after the shooting and found no trace of any kind of print or even the residue that's normally left behind if a print had been lifted.

What do you feel that whatever you're looking for would add to the preceding evidence?

What "preceding evidence"?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 03, 2023, 11:43:05 PM

Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle

What you can not do without making assumptions


What assumptions?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 03, 2023, 11:53:19 PM
What assumptions?

JohnM

That Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
That Klein's actually sent out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered
That Oswald received a rifle through the mail
That a photocopy of an internal Klein's document with a serial number and "PP" handwritten on it is authentic
That Westra, Klein's principal gunsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles


Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 04, 2023, 12:11:27 AM
That Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.
That Klein's actually sent out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered
That Oswald received a rifle through the mail
That a photocopy of an internal Klein's document with a serial number and "PP" handwritten on it is authentic
That Westra, Klein's principal gubsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles

Quote
That Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.

That's a possibility but how did the rifle the exact same rifle that Kliens sent end up at Oswald's work?

Quote
That Klein's actually sent out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered

Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.

Quote
That Oswald received a rifle through the mail

As explained to you before, not any old rifle but a specific 40 inch italian Carcano which the HSCA forensic expert determined was the exact same rifle as was found on the 6th floor. And the easily accessible visual evidence has not been disputed for over three decades.

Quote
That a photocopy of an internal Klein's document with a serial number and "PP" handwritten on it is authentic

Waldman took the print straight from the microfilm.

Quote
That Westra, Klein's principal gubsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles

Sharp who actually did the work confirmed that he mounted the scope.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 04, 2023, 12:47:09 AM
That's a possibility but how did the rifle the exact same rifle that Kliens sent end up at Oswald's work?

Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.

As explained to you before, not any old rifle but a specific 40 inch italian Carcano which the HSCA forensic expert determined was the exact same rifle as was found on the 6th floor. And the easily accessible visual evidence has not been disputed for over three decades.

Waldman took the print straight from the microfilm.

Sharp who actually did the work confirmed that he mounted the scope.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150806005342/http://newsarchive.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news-226036.html

JohnM

That's a possibility but how did the rifle the exact same rifle that Kliens sent end up at Oswald's work?

Did it? First of all, there is no evidence that Klein's sent C2766 to anybody. The only link to the rifle found at the TSBD is the serial number handwritten on a photocopy of an unauthenticated internal document.

Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750.

No. Hidell ordered C20-T750 from Department 358, which is a 36"rifle as advertised in February 1963

As explained to you before, not any old rifle but a specific 40 inch italian Carcano which the HSCA forensic expert determined was the exact same rifle as was found on the 6th floor. And the easily accessible visual evidence has not been disputed for over three decades.

First of all, where would anybody go to dispute that "easily accessible visual evidence"?
And secondly, Ceril Kirk's opinion was not shared by the other photographic specialists on the panel. Cherry pick much?

Waldman took the print straight from the microfilm.

During his testimony, you mean? Sure, but that was months after the FBI took the microfilm and who knows what happened to it after that.

Sharp who actually did the work confirmed that he mounted the scope.

Confirmed it to whom?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 04, 2023, 02:46:32 AM

First of all, where would anybody go to dispute that "easily accessible visual evidence"?
And secondly, Ceril Kirk's opinion was not shared by the other photographic specialists on the panel. Cherry pick much?


Quote
No. Hidell ordered C20-T750 from Department 358, which is a 36"rifle as advertised in February 1963

You've been told this before, the Dept number is simply a way to track what order comes from what magazine.

Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.


Quote
First of all, where would anybody go to dispute that "easily accessible visual evidence"?

(https://i.postimg.cc/zGTn3yr9/Photo-hsca-ex-206.jpg)

Quote
And secondly, Ceril Kirk's opinion was not shared by the other photographic specialists on the panel.

cite?

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 04, 2023, 05:00:18 AM
You've been told this before, the Dept number is simply a way to track what order comes from what magazine.

Yes, and that magazine offered a 36” rifle for sale.

Quote
cite?

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification”

Note that it doesn’t say “the Panel considered…”. And Kirk merely said “tilts the scales”
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 04, 2023, 05:35:42 AM

“the Panel's forensic photographic specialist considered this mark to be a random patterning sufficient to warrant a positive identification”

Note that it doesn’t say “the Panel considered…”. And Kirk merely said “tilts the scales”

That doesn't support Martin's claim or answer my question.

Btw have you found any photo expert who refutes The HSCA'a photo exhibit 206? Waiting ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz......

(https://i.postimg.cc/zGTn3yr9/Photo-hsca-ex-206.jpg)

Quote
And Kirk merely said “tilts the scales”

"yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mr. FITHIAN. I am going to ask Mr. McCamy in just a minute about any analysis he performed on this chip. Did you make measurement analysis and so forth?
Mr. McCAMY. Yes.
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. I will come back to you in just a minute. Do you know, Sergeant, whether or not the FBI at the time of the Warren Commission went through a process that would be the equivalent of yours, plus Mr. McCamy's, or can you shed any light on that?
Sergeant KIRK. The only testimony that I found in the Warren Commission report was relying on the testimony from one agent, Agent Shaneyfelt. There is no indication I could find where it was subjected to the analysis that this committee has on this weapon.
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question.
Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place.
Beyond that, however, I went to the Archives and made 21 photographs of the rifle using a variety of different kinds of illumination. On those photographs, it was possible to see a large number of nicks, scratches and so on, distinguishing marks.
I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository. So that I think is very convincing evidence that it is the rifle."
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/kirk3.htm

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 04, 2023, 03:16:00 PM
When "Richard" can not present conclusive evidence to support his pathetic claims, he starts attacking the person he is talking to.

Klein's - a mail order business - receives an order for a rifle with a specific address.  Their records confirm that they process this order and even confirm the shipping date and method to that address.  Martin stupidly argues that this doesn't mean they shipped the rifle to that address.

What is stupid is believing that a mail order business would send out merchandise without keeping a shipping document to prove to their customer that the package was actually sent.



They did.  Their records confirm they sent him the rifle on March 20 via parcel post.  What is your explanation for such a record if you don't believe they sent him the rifle?  It's unclear to me what you believe happened here.  Klein's - a mail order business - received an order specifying an address to send the rifle. That address was Oswald's PO Box.  Their records indicate that they processed that order and sent a specific rifle with a serial number to Oswald's PO Box.  That same rifle was later found at Oswald's place of employment. But you suggest there is doubt that Klein's sent him this rifle.  Meaning by implication that something else happened. Do you think Klein's was involved in the framing of Oswald and faked these documents?  And that they were IN on it from as early as March 20?  They lied or fabricated all this information for some unknown reason.  If the documents are accurate, they prove that a specific rifle was sent to Oswald and that is the same rifle found at the TSBD.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 04, 2023, 08:59:29 PM
100% Dunning-Kruger, and you have been schooled on this repeatedly in the past.

There is no verified evidence that Klein's stocked the rifle when it was allegedly shipped.

Game over.

LOL.  Another mysterious first-time poster shows up to "help" Martin.  At least he didn't cite us to a "You Tube" video.  HA HA HA. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 04, 2023, 09:05:46 PM
Btw have you found any photo expert who refutes The HSCA'a photo exhibit 206? Waiting ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz......

You don’t have to refute something that hasn’t been proven in the first place. Next?

Quote
"yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle." "yes, indeed it is the same rifle."

“Tilts the scales” isn’t to the exclusion of all other rifles. It’s not even beyond a reasonable doubt. Next?

Quote
"Mr. FITHIAN. I am going to ask Mr. McCamy in just a minute about any analysis he performed on this chip. Did you make measurement analysis and so forth?
Mr. McCAMY. Yes.
Mr. FITHIAN. All right. I will come back to you in just a minute. Do you know, Sergeant, whether or not the FBI at the time of the Warren Commission went through a process that would be the equivalent of yours, plus Mr. McCamy's, or can you shed any light on that?
Sergeant KIRK. The only testimony that I found in the Warren Commission report was relying on the testimony from one agent, Agent Shaneyfelt. There is no indication I could find where it was subjected to the analysis that this committee has on this weapon.

Appeal to ignorance. There was no indication that it wasn’t, either.

Quote
Mr. FITHIAN. Mr. McCamy, can you give us any measurement or photogrammetric process or anything that you did to further nail down this I think vital question.
Mr. McCAMY. Yes. We made measurements, measurements on the rifle, and on the photographs to ascertain that indeed this particular chip was in the right place.
Beyond that, however, I went to the Archives and made 21 photographs of the rifle using a variety of different kinds of illumination. On those photographs, it was possible to see a large number of nicks, scratches and so on, distinguishing marks.
I then went back through all of the photographs I had mentioned to you. In many instances--I believe in 56 different instances--I was able to find markings that appear on this rifle that were on the photographs that were made back there on the day of the assassination.
So, we are very confident that this is indeed the rifle that was carried from the book depository--oh, incidentally, I can carry it farther than that.
I found distinguishing marks of this rifle on a motion picture that was made at the time the police officer picked the rifle up off of the floor of the book depository. So that I think is very convincing evidence that it is the rifle."

Red herring, but nice try. There was only one supposedly visible mark in the CE133A photo. This is talking about photos of the rifle being carried outside the TSBD, in the police station, and in the Alyea footage.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 04, 2023, 09:10:29 PM
They did.  Their records confirm they sent him the rifle on March 20 via parcel post.  What is your explanation for such a record if you don't believe they sent him the rifle? 

No, their records “confirm” that someone circled “PP” on a form supposedly (but unverifiably) copied from the original microfilm. And nothing else.

Quote
It's unclear to me what you believe happened here.

It’s not complicated, “Richard”. What happened here is that there is nothing that shows that any such package went through the postal service, was shipped to Dallas, or that a 5-foot cardboard box labeled “firearm” was ever signed for or handed over to Oswald or anybody else. None.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 04, 2023, 10:18:26 PM
You don’t have to refute something that hasn’t been proven in the first place. Next?

“Tilts the scales” isn’t to the exclusion of all other rifles. It’s not even beyond a reasonable doubt. Next?

Appeal to ignorance. There was no indication that it wasn’t, either.

Red herring, but nice try. There was only one supposedly visible mark in the CE133A photo. This is talking about photos of the rifle being carried outside the TSBD, in the police station, and in the Alyea footage.

More word games. LOL

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Zeon Mason on July 05, 2023, 02:36:12 AM
Marina Oswald was a subject citizen of the USSR for some  20 yrs so it’s a high probability she was mentally conditioned to agree with and obey government authority without question because to be a dissenter in a communist regime was extremely dangerous, especially for women.

That fear of government was not likely any different when Marina became a citizen of the USA and subjected  to interrogation by FBI.

What small % of wooden portion of some object inside a blanket that Marina saw can not be declared as proof that  the object must have been the MC rifle found on the 6th floor TSBD.

It cannot be logically concluded that the object  was a rifle any more than the object was a shotgun.

Marina could not even distinguish in early first statements the difference between a  shotgun or a rifle nor could she remember ever seeing a scope on whatever object that Oswald may have had in hand. She could not distinguish if the sound she heard from Oswald on the porch with whatever object he may have had was due to dry firing noise from a rifle or from a pistol or a shotgun.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Mytton on July 05, 2023, 03:28:17 AM
LOL.  Another mysterious first-time poster shows up to "help" Martin.  At least he didn't cite us to a "You Tube" video.  HA HA HA.

C'mon Richard, even though I can't recall 1 example, Tom did say you were "repeatedly schooled" which means he has been closely monitoring this Forum and I really don't know anyone else who is here night and day? Oh hang on... -giggle-

JohnM
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 05, 2023, 02:34:04 PM
More word games. LOL

The word game is yours, trying to claim that the HSCA panel “determined” anything regarding identifying the rifle in the backyard photos. Typical Mytton exaggeration.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Zeon Mason on July 09, 2023, 05:39:15 AM
Maybe Mr.Mytton can show a similar pattern of marks on the rifle butt in the BYP that match the rifle presented in WC exhibit photo?

Mr. Mytton in another thread was able to post a WC exhibit photo of the MC rifle butt side by side of a close up of a frame from Tom Aleyas film where the MC rifle Lt.Day has in hand has the rifle butt in view. There were (apparently) enough points of marks on the butt in the WC exhibit photo that corresponded to marks seen in Tom Aleyas film.

This resolved a question of whether the portion of rifle butt in the photo taken on 6th floor (in between boxes ) was in fact the butt of an MC rifle as opposed to some other kind of rifle.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 10, 2023, 01:53:07 AM
“Mytton”’s infamous imagination-driven yellow blob.
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 15, 2023, 07:55:20 PM
Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.

A rifle. Yes, that's how the story goes.... But as Ruth Paine did the translation, who knows for sure what she actually said.

In any event, she did not confirm Lee owned the MC rifle that was found at the TSBD. In fact, when she was shown the MC rifle on Friday evening she did not recognize it.

Nothing morphed in her WC testimony as you dishonestly suggest.  She made numerous specific references to a rifle in her testimony.

Of course it morphed from a rifle to the rifle.

Do you really think a scared young Russian woman with two small children and a dead husband accused of killing the President would, all by herself, come up with the idea that she, through inheritance was now the rightful owner of the rifle that was allegedly used to kill Kennedy and the revolver that was allegedly used to kill Tippit, and that she could sell them or at least her rights to them?

If the answer is yes, then Marina was a lot more shrewder than most people give her credit for.
If the answer is no, then there must have been somebody in the background putting this idea in her head.

So, let me give you the answer; On December 4, 1963, Dallas businessman John J. King, wrote a letter to Marina, who at that time was in protective custody, in which he asked her to contact him to discuss a business proposition that could benefit her thousands of dollars. The result was that in the months that followed several representatives for Marina (where did they come from?) negotiated with King until Marina herself got involved in July 1964. Untimately a deal was struck in December 1964.

In other words, in the months leading up to Marina's WC testimony this potential deal was being discussed in secret. But we are to believe that it did not potentially influence her testimony?

Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.

Yes, that's how the story goes.... But as Ruth Paine did the translation, who knows for sure what she actually said.

Ruth Paine spoke and understood Russian very well......  So why did she reply "NO" when the Detective asked Marina if Lee owned a rifle ?   Marina understood the detective's question and she replied to Ruth ( who was serving as interpreter ) that "YES" Lee did own a rifle.   WHY did Ruth lie?? 

As they were going back into the house Marina whispered to Ruth " Has your understanding of Russian suddenly failed you?  Why did you tell the detective no when I told you "yes" that Lee did own a rifle.

Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Richard Smith on July 15, 2023, 10:32:43 PM
Marina confirmed from the very beginning that Oswald owned a rifle and stored it in the Paine's garage.

Yes, that's how the story goes.... But as Ruth Paine did the translation, who knows for sure what she actually said.

Ruth Paine spoke and understood Russian very well......  So why did she reply "NO" when the Detective asked Marina if Lee owned a rifle ?   Marina understood the detective's question and she replied to Ruth ( who was serving as interpreter ) that "YES" Lee did own a rifle.   WHY did Ruth lie?? 

As they were going back into the house Marina whispered to Ruth " Has your understanding of Russian suddenly failed you?  Why did you tell the detective no when I told you "yes" that Lee did own a rifle.

Who knows for sure?  Marina is still alive 60 years later and has never changed her story on the rifle. 
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: Martin Weidmann on July 15, 2023, 11:41:21 PM
Who knows for sure?  Marina is still alive 60 years later and has never changed her story on the rifle.

She just no longer thinks that Lee killed Kennedy and just wants all the facts out.

Btw, where would she go to "change her story on the rifle"? Is there an office somewhere that deals with this stuff?
Title: Re: Did Marina have a reason to claim the MC rifle belonged to Lee?
Post by: John Iacoletti on July 18, 2023, 05:17:43 AM
Who knows for sure?  Marina is still alive 60 years later and has never changed her story on the rifle.

You mean her story on the rifle that tells you absolutely nothing about who killed Kennedy?