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.
And yet Marina made so many contradictory statements that the HSCA compiled a 29 page document listing them.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Were any fibres found on the rifle that could be potentially connected to the blanket?
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...
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
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.
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.
::)
Is there a single piece of evidence in this case that answers more questions than it raises?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Where did Marina say that Oswald received a rifle and when?
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
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
Asking for evidence?
If you're so desperate to find out, why don't you contact NARA yourself?
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?
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?
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
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
The US National Archives would of course give priority..
Who said anything about priority? We are simply following through Martin's request.
JohnM
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
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
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?
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.
Are you implying that this Forum isn't interested in the truth?
JohnM
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
but there is zero doubt that Oswald was sent the rifle found on the 6th floor. None. Not an iota.
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Why not?
JohnM
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
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?
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?
You're not making sense. I'm calling you a fake and you have already admitted that you are. There is no diversion....
Why would I need to prove it when you already know it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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,
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.
Yeah, you're probably right, Kleins obviously didn't have a clue on what to include in their ads.
JohnM
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..
Well, they advertised a rifle that they no longer had in stock.....
How is that an ad hom? Or do you seriously consider that you are Oswald's defence attorney?
JohnM
How do you know what rifles Kleins had in stock?
JohnM
Why do you always want to talk about other things than the case?
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
How is the discussion about what would constitute Oswald's defence be classified as "other things"?
JohnM
Why would they sent (if they did) a 40" rifle if they still had the 36" rifle in stock?
Btw this was my last response on this topic.
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?
You don't understand the words "(if they did)"?
Just how desperate are you to pick another fight?
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?
This is new, you now think that Kleins may have sent a rifle? :D
JohnM
Huh? It may be a benefit to you to read my posts, think, then respond.
JohnM
This is new, you now think that Kleins may have sent a rifle? :D
JohnM
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....
Why do I care what you say...
Since when do you know what I think?
You desperately need to get a life....
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?
Yeah, you're probably right, Kleins obviously didn't have a clue on what to include in their ads.
You don't understand the words "(if they did)"?
Just how desperate are you to pick another fight?
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?
“Mytton” regresses back to word games when he gets stuck in an argument.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
JohnM
Beyond proving that Oswald purchased the rifle
What you can not do without making assumptions
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 gubsmith was lying when he told the HSCA that Klein's did not mount scopes on 40" MC rifles
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
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
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?
No. Hidell ordered C20-T750 from Department 358, which is a 36"rifle as advertised in February 1963
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.
You've been told this before, the Dept number is simply a way to track what order comes from what magazine.
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”
And Kirk merely said “tilts the scales”
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.
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.
Btw have you found any photo expert who refutes The HSCA'a photo exhibit 206? Waiting ZZZzzzzzzzzzzz......
"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."
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.
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.
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.
More word games. LOL
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.
Who knows for sure? Marina is still alive 60 years later and has never changed her story on the rifle.
Who knows for sure? Marina is still alive 60 years later and has never changed her story on the rifle.