The FBI, in CE 2562, reports on a carton containing 100 Carcano rifles, including serial number C2766 rifle. The carton containing the rifles is listed as weighing 750 lbs. I.e. 7.5 lbs per rifle.
The rifle in the national archives is listed as weighing 8 lbs.
Your thoughts?
(Sorry for not linking to CE 2562. Having technical problems. CE 2562 is readily available at History Matters. And elsewhere.)
Thank you.
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/riflead_pre38.png) | (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/riflead_post38.png) |
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/riflead_pre38.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/riflead_post38.png)
Historically the Carcano M91/38 "Short Rifle" variant averages about 7.5 ibs.
Of course, the 750lbs refers to the weight of the entire carton.
Not just the rifles.
So, it's not possible to package 100 rifles in a carton, at 7.5 lbs each, i.e 750 lbs, plus the packaging, and come in at 750 lbs.
What is the weight of Oswald's scope?
The 91/38 Fucile Corto ,with bayonet attached, weighs 7 lbs 7 oz. Oswald's Carcano didn't have a bayonet.
[/quote
Ad shows 40" rifle, 7.5 lbs. Per Mr. Organ.
This is from the "Carcano Page" website: ( Link (http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/models.html) ). Weights are at the bottom.
Assuming Tim is correct about the bayonet being part of the 7 lbs 7 oz rifle weight and that a folding-bayonet weights about 9 oz (from an auction site), then the bayonet-less Carcano weighed 6 lbs 14oz.
At that weight, one-hundred M91/38 Carcanos weighed 687 lbs 8 oz. leaving about 60 lbs for the shipping container.
Ad shows 40" rifle, 7.5 lbs. Per Mr. Organ.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/13/aMcJibWR_o.png)
I found this 1943 source for Model 38 Carcano weight of 7 1/2 pounds without the bayonet.
The ad says 7.5 lb.
Your posting. Bayonet is irrelevant. Removed afterward? Never there? We're talking original 100 rifle shipment. 750 lbs. FBI report, WC.
750 lbs in a 60lb container?
Still, that's about 810 lbs.
The 36" rifle weighs 5.5 lbs.
FBI paperwork suggests..100 36" rifles.
Klein's order form allegedly filled out by Oswald..36" rifle.
National archives rifle..40".
( P.S. A tip of the hat to Martha Moyer. And crazy John " I invented two Oswalds.. because...?" Armstrong, who is occasionally a good researcher...but a complete charlatan otherwise..)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3f/13/aMcJibWR_o.png)
I found this 1943 source for Model 38 Carcano weight of 7 1/2 pounds without the bayonet.
Do I see 7.35 mm? Also, it gives the length as 40 inches.
Thanks.
The WC / FBI present 40", 7.5 lb rifle as assassination weapon.
Also present "Oswalds rifle" as part of 100count carton of rifles weighing 750lbs. Including ..rifles, and packaging.
Something doesn't add up.
You think there's some significant weigh difference between a 7.35mm M91/38 and a 6.5mm M91/38? Do tell.
The Handbook also acknowledges the 6.5mm caliber.
You doing anything about it besides being a Smart Aleck?
The Klein's February ad lists a Carcano at 5 1/2 lbs.
Tell me. Do you think the fellow who assembled the container and the fellow who picked it up had access to a scale that could weigh such weights? Or is it more likely that the customer phoned the shipper and said he was shipping 100 rifles that weighed 7 1/2 lbs each?
The ad was wrong in those particulars (no Carcano weighs 5 1/2 lbs). Also wrong is the illustration. However, Klein's was receiving 40" Carcanos at a dollar over the TS price, and in turn selling the 40" Carcanos for $12.88, the price in the ad.
That would mean the crate weighed 113 lbs.
Order no. and price reflect a 40" Carcano. Do you think Klein's were shipping the illustrated rifle?
Or were they just lax in updating things? It was the Print Age; no faxes or web sites.
More than a tip of the hat.
You think there's some significant weigh difference between a 7.35mm M91/38 and a 6.5mm M91/38? Do tell.
The Handbook also acknowledges the 6.5mm caliber.
You doing anything about it besides being a Smart Aleck?
Just presenting the facts. From FBI and WC.
Irrelevant.
Ad shows only 40" rifle at 7.5 lbs. Per Mr. Organ.
John, would you care to address my response to your#8 reply?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2375.msg74210.html#msg74210
John, would you care to address my response to your#8 reply?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2375.msg74210.html#msg74210
Immaterial.
Incidentally, what is the premise of your poorly worded Subject?
The ad shows the weight of the rifle, when shipped. What Oswald did with it later is not the subject at hand.
CE 2562 shows the weight of 100 rifles, and carton, on their way to Klein's. Long before C2766 ( allegedly) reaches Oswald.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/riflead_pre38.png) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/riflead_post38.png)
Historically the Carcano M91/38 "Short Rifle" variant averages about 7.5 ibs.
Scroll right. 40" Carcano, model 91/38. 7.5 lbs.
That's not Klein's ad. Klein's advertised the 40 inch rifle as weighing only 7 lbs.
(https://i.imgur.com/Sv0TBGK.gif)
.
100 x 7 = 700
He's not answering my questions, as well. His mind is made up; the rifles can only be TS-type and the shipping container has to be wood.
I think if you open your eyes.... The weight on the BOL is TARE weight..... Tare weight is the weight of the freight,minus the weight of the shipping container.
My apologies for "poor wording".
No premise. Just facts.
The carton and rifles weighed 750 lbs. The 40" rifle weighed 7.5 lbs, in the ad provided by Mr. Organ.
100 x 7.5 = 750. Plus weight of carton.
CE 2562 is quite informative.
This topic seems somewhat pointless.
However, as usual: I do enjoy looking at Organ's splendid, original graphics.
Not wanting to offend you John... but: How does this theory affect the guilt or innocence of Lee Harvey Oswald--the assassin?
Are you suggesting this "weights and measures" debate proves there is something suspicious about the "history" of the Carcano rifle C 2766?
The TOPIC is so brief and vague that only JFK Assassination aficionados would be inclined to proceed to read it. Why not something like this instead:
Rankin letter (CE 2562) ~ Carcano (C 2766) history (Crescent to Kleins) is faked
I do believe this site is peopled by JFK Assassination afficionados? Last time I checked?
CE 2562 seems quite real.
And informative. Would like to see D171, the bill of lading. Checking into locating it. Any help appreciated.
Thanks.
I do believe this site is peopled by JFK Assassination afficionados? Last time I checked?
CE 2562 seems quite real.
And informative. Would like to see D171, the bill of lading. Checking into locating it. Any help appreciated.
Thanks.
Do you agree that the TOPIC could be more descriptive?
That aside: Do you consider there is some sinister irregularity in the shipment from Crescent Firearms (NYC) to Kleins Sporting Goods (Chicago) of one-hundred (100) Carcano rifles? The shipment being the one that contained C 2766--the Oswald assassination weapon.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11277#relPageId=55&tab=pageThanks. But that's a Crescent document. Which says "weight subject to correction". Would appreciate seeing Lifschutz Fast Freight bill of lading.
Thanks. But that's a Crescent document. Which says "weight subject to correction". Would appreciate seeing Lifschutz Fast Freight bill of lading.
Thanks. But that's a Crescent document. Which says "weight subject to correction". Would appreciate seeing Lifschutz Fast Freight bill of lading.
You asked to see D171. I gave you D171.Yes. Thanks. My error.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/54/51/La465Rol_o.jpg)
Thanks for the rendering.
Is that a wooden crate?
( My knowledge of rifle packing crates, cartons? is limited to what I see in films..i.e. worthless.)
Don't take anything literal from the illustration. I have no idea how the Carcanos were placed in the box. May have been 2 rows of 5 or some other configuration.
I can't prove it to your satisfaction but I believe the Carcanos were shipped in cardboard boxes. This box, for example, could hold ten Carcanos and it claims to hold up to 80 lbs. ( Link (https://www.uline.ca/Product/Detail/S-14235/Heavy-Duty-Boxes/48-x-24-x-24-275-lb-Double-Wall-Corrugated-Boxes) ). Back in the 1960s, balled-up newspaper and bagged popcorn or wood chips made lightweight packing material. Maybe a few cardboard cut-outs that supported the rifle inside the box.
Can't see them using wood and all that extra shipping weight for surplus weapons with a small profit margin. Since the container was cardboard, a shipper might be willing to charge "Net Weight" only (weight of goods, excluding container) to secure a contract.
The FBI, in CE 2562, reports on a carton containing 100 Carcano rifles, including serial number C2766 rifle. The carton containing the rifles is listed as weighing 750 lbs. I.e. 7.5 lbs per rifle.
The rifle in the national archives is listed as weighing 8 lbs.
Your thoughts?
(Sorry for not linking to CE 2562. Having technical problems. CE 2562 is readily available at History Matters. And elsewhere.)
Thank you.
The ad says 7.5 lb. Your posting. Bayonet is irrelevant. Removed afterward? Never there? We're talking original 100 rifle shipment. 750 lbs. FBI report, WC.
750 lbs in a 60lb container?
Still, that's about 810 lbs.
The 36" rifle weighs 5.5 lbs.
FBI paperwork suggests..100 36" rifles.
I just weighed my model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano short rifle ( 40.2 inches long) It weighs 7.8 pounds with a leather sling attached.
I would guess that the sling probably weighs 2 ounces .....
Klein's order form allegedly filled out by Oswald..36" rifle.
National archives rifle..40".
( P.S. A tip of the hat to Martha Moyer. And crazy John " I invented two Oswalds.. because...?" Armstrong, who is occasionally a good researcher...but a complete charlatan otherwise..)
The rifles did not come with bayonets....So the weight of the rifle without the sling or scope should have been 7 and 1/2 pounds.....
I weighed my model 91/38 short rifle ( 40.2") and it weighs 7.8 pounds with a leather sling attached. I'd guess the sling weighs about 2 ounces....
Don't take anything literal from the illustration. I have no idea how the Carcanos were placed in the box. May have been 2 rows of 5 or some other configuration.
I can't prove it to your satisfaction but I believe the Carcanos were shipped in cardboard boxes. This box, for example, could hold ten Carcanos and it claims to hold up to 80 lbs. ( Link (https://www.uline.ca/Product/Detail/S-14235/Heavy-Duty-Boxes/48-x-24-x-24-275-lb-Double-Wall-Corrugated-Boxes) ). Back in the 1960s, balled-up newspaper and bagged popcorn or wood chips made lightweight packing material. Maybe a few cardboard cut-outs that supported the rifle inside the box.
Can't see them using wood and all that extra shipping weight for surplus weapons with a small profit margin. Since the container was cardboard, a shipper might be willing to charge "Net Weight" only (weight of goods, excluding container) to secure a contract.
I have some doubt about the "net weight" theory, since shippers usually deduct "tare" from containers they provide to clients. (I'm willing to be corrected on that; I am no expert on shipping, and yes, I am not - unlike the Pope, allegedly - infallible.)
But if we go with your proposition on shipping weight of the rifles, 750lbs for 100 units, then the rifles would be 7.5lbs each, i.e. 40" rifle, not the 36" model Oswald ordered. No? Yes?
I have some doubt about the "net weight" theory, since shippers usually deduct "tare" from containers they provide to clients. (I'm willing to be corrected on that; I am no expert on shipping, and yes, I am not - unlike the Pope, allegedly - infallible.)
But if we go with your proposition on shipping weight of the rifles, 750lbs for 100 units, then the rifles would be 7.5lbs each, i.e. 40" rifle, not the 36" model Oswald ordered. No? Yes?
The order form in the National Archives shows C20-T750. 36".
Kleins used the same catalogue number "C20-T750" for both the 36 and 40 inch Carcano rifles. Btw what is interesting is that Kleins was using the 36 inch model advertisement in another magazine as late as iirc August 1963.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5p9yhpR/Riflead1.jpg)
JohnM
The order form in the National Archives shows C20-T750. 36".
Jerry`s reference ad - and his post-war state C20-750
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11277#relPageId=55&tab=page
Thanks Tim, the reason why the shipping documents and the Kleins paperwork both have the weight as 750 is because initially that's what they were told by the supplier "Crescent Firearms" and imo unless there was some obvious discrepency, Lifschultz went with what was on the paperwork.
Also note that the 750 appears to include an unknown number of clips.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqJ9hGdK/crescent-request-form.png)
JohnM
I think when a shipper provides containers, it more applies to things like bulk fruit and vegetables, or grain and ore.
I doubt a shipper would have provided the cardboard containers used to pack the Carcanos in Italy. I believe each Carcano was wrapped in heavy paper and placed side-by-side in the container, with some packing material to fill gaps between. Things wouldn't shift much. The overseas shipment would have been gross weight, including tare. In the USA, Adam could have gotten a freight contract for "net weight", arguing the containers were cardboard and that the rifles (TS at first, then Short Rifles) being shipped had different weights.
When you say "the 36" model Oswald ordered", you appear to be going solely by the Feb-1963 ad saying the length was 36" (a TS is 36 1/2"). In that case, do you also accept that Klein's was shipping a rifle that weighed 5 1/2 lbs (the TS weighed about 6.4 lbs) and the model-type illustrated (shortened M91 Rifle)?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8qPwzVnkaIQ/UBsE30QLFYI/AAAAAAAAGW0/oTfplUk3gZA/s580/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg)
The Order No and price in the Feb-1963 ad reflect the 40" M91/38 Short Rifle (Adam sold those to Klein's for one dollar more; the TS Order No was C20-T749 for $11.88). Klein's updated the length and weight (albeit wrong but now closer) in later ads the same year. The Order No and price remained the same or near to it. I don't know what year (if any) they updated the illustrated. Possibly Klein's dropped the Carcano mali-order offers in the wake of the assassination, and sold remaining stock on the floor or through an auction.
Oswald ordered the "packaged deal" (Order No C20-750) for $19.95. It makes sense to me that the "package deal" would mean the base model in the same ad to which a scope was added.
Thanks Tim, the reason why the shipping documents and the Kleins paperwork both have the weight as 750 is because initially that's what they were told by the supplier "Crescent Firearms" and imo unless there was some obvious discrepency, Lifschultz went with what was on the paperwork.
Also note that the 750 appears to include an unknown number of clips.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jqJ9hGdK/crescent-request-form.png)
JohnM
Jerry`s reference ad - and his post -state C20-T750 as 36" rifle with scope.
(https://i.imgur.com/W5Tt9S9.jpg)
Another graphic by John Mytton just to reiterate the point he already made. Oswald ordered a C20-T750. That was Klein's catalogue number for a Carcano packaged with a scope. In January of 1963, they were offering the 36 inch model under that catalogue number. In March, when Oswald placed his order via mail, they no longer had the 36 inch model in stock. They were offering the 40 inch model under catalogue #C20-T750. Oswald ordered a C20-T750 and that's what Klein shipped to him.
Oswald ordered a C20-T750.Thanks for the them clarification.
If we assume that Oswald is indeed Hidell, then, yes he did.
That was Klein's catalogue number for a Carcano packaged with a scope.
Again, correct, but not complete. The devil is in the details. The order coupon (as well as the envelope) were addressed to Dept. 358, which told Klein's that the order coupon came from the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman, in which the 36" MC rifle was advertised.
Klein's had no reason to send a 40" rifle which were not even advertised until April 1963.
Oswald ordered a C20-T750.
If we assume that Oswald is indeed Hidell, then, yes he did.
That was Klein's catalogue number for a Carcano packaged with a scope.
Again, correct, but not complete. The devil is in the details. The order coupon (as well as the envelope) were addressed to Dept. 358, which told Klein's that the order coupon came from the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman, in which the 36" MC rifle was advertised.
Klein's had no reason to send a 40" rifle which were not even advertised until April 1963.
How were Klein's to send Oswald a 36 inch Carcano in March when they didn't have any to send? They had 40 inch rifles in stock and that's what they were offering under the catalogue #C20-T750.
How were Klein's to send Oswald a 36 inch Carcano in March when they didn't have any to send? They had 40 inch rifles in stock and that's what they were offering under the catalogue #C20-T750.
They were not offering the 40" rifle in the February issue of Rifleman. They didn't even alter the advert until April 1963?
They knew, or at least must have known, from the Department number on the order coupon that a 36" rifle was being ordered. If they had run out of stock, they IMO should have informed the client and give him the option of accepting a 40" rifle or cancel the order. I find it hard to believe they would simply send out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered.
How were Klein's to send Oswald a 36 inch Carcano in March when they didn't have any to send?
Two questions for you;
Why would Klein's advertise a 36" MC in the February 1963 edition of Rifleman if they didn't have sufficient 36" in stock to last them more than a couple of weeks?
And how do you know that they did not have 36" MC in stock in March, more specifically mid-March, since the order coupon was send to them on March 12?
What's your evidence that "they didn't have any to send"?
They were not offering the 40" rifle in the February issue of Rifleman. They didn't even alter the advert until April 1963?
They knew, or at least must have known, from the Department number on the order coupon that a 36" rifle was being ordered. If they had run out of stock, they IMO should have informed the client and give him the option of accepting a 40" rifle or cancel the order. I find it hard to believe they would simply send out a 40" rifle when a 36" rifle was ordered.
How were Klein's to send Oswald a 36 inch Carcano in March when they didn't have any to send?
Two questions for you;
Why would Klein's advertise a 36" MC in the February 1963 edition of Rifleman if they didn't have sufficient 36" in stock to last them more than a couple of weeks?
And how do you know that they did not have 36" MC in stock in March, more specifically mid-March, since the order coupon was send to them on March 12?
Why else would they send a 40 inch rifle instead of a 36 inch?
April and February were just the cover dates on those editions of the magazine. The February edition would have been on store shelves probably as early as December. The April edition would have likely been on store shelves in February. If Klein's still had the 36 inch model in stock in March, then they would have shipped one of those to Oswald instead of the 40 inch.
Why else would they send a 40 inch rifle instead of a 36 inch? We know that they had just received 100 40 inch rifles the month before.
We do not "know" they sent a 40" rifle.
We do not "know " they received 100 40" rifle; the point of this whole topic I started was to determine, through examining CE 2562, which rifles were received.
April and February were just the cover dates on those editions of the magazine. The February edition would have been on store shelves probably as early as December. The April edition would have likely been on store shelves in February.
Nice theory, but there isn't a shred of evidence that this was the case for the American Rifleman. One can imagine that they would print and distribute the magazine somewhere in January to get it in the shops in the actual month. But if - as you say - it was in the stores in December, the magazine would have had to be printed in November, requiring the advertisers having to submit their adverts four months ahead of time. That simply does not make any sense, but even if we assume that you are correct, that would mean IMO the Klein's would have had to make sure that they had sufficient stock in store as they could not risk running out of rifles before the date of the magazine.
If Klein's still had the 36 inch model in stock in March, then they would have shipped one of those to Oswald instead of the 40 inch.
That's the same circular argument that John refered to in his last post.
The mere fact that Klein's shipped out a 40" rifle (if that is indeed what happened) is in now way proof that they had run out of 36" rifles. Like many other businesses, Klein's was dealing with people (like for instance collectors) who ordered a specific type and model rifle because that's the exact one they wanted. You just can not simply send them another rifle than the one ordered. It doesn't work like that now, nor did it back then. Besides, there is no evidence whatsoever that Klein's had run out of 36" rifles.
We do know that they sent a 40 inch rifle because the Carcano bearing serial number C2766 is a 40 inch rifle.
I'm not saying that the February edition was definitely in stores in December. I'm just saying that it probably was and was almost certainly on store shelves in January.
Again, I don't know why else Klein's would send a 40 inch rifle instead of a 36 inch, other than human error. if it was a mess up on their part then Oswald could have complained about getting an "upgrade". I doubt that he even realized that he did.
Are you 100% sure that serial number was exclusive to only a 40" MC rifle?
We do know that they sent a 40 inch rifle because the Carcano bearing serial number C2766 is a 40 inch rifle.
This one seems pretty straightforward. We need to examine the weight of CE 2562 and determine its accuracy. If we added up the weight of 100 rifles and added the weight of the container there is no way in hell it would come to exactly 750 lbs.
750 lbs was obviously an estimate based on each rifle being 7.5 lbs, excluding the container, regardless whether it was accurate or actually weighed. EOS.
Excluding the container.
So shipping companies don't charge by weight?
Instead, they ..feel sympathetic, and let the customer only pay for the weight of the items they are selling?
Interesting.
Can you provide examples of such practices?
Excluding the container.
So shipping companies don't charge by weight?
Instead, they ..feel sympathetic, and let the customer only pay for the weight of the items they are selling?
Interesting.
Can you provide examples of such practices?
Before I start, C2766 can be traced from Crescent to Kleins to Neely street
Before I start, C2766 can be traced from Crescent to Kleins to Neely street to The Texas School Book Depository and yet you think the key to deception is an insignificant weight discrepancy? Hilarious!
Here is a copy of the delivery schedule for the Chicago run that had the Kleins delivery and we have 21 weighted objects and ten of those weights end in a zero and another 6 end in a five, does that suggest that every item was weighed to within a pound or did the various companies who sent the items just guess?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xRjhXpr/Lifschultz-weight-estimates.png)
JohnM
Or the rifles were 7 lbs x 100 + a 50 lb container. But my point is that if CE 2562 was actually weighed, then it would NOT be exactly 750 lbs. That is obviously an estimate, not an actual weight, for whatever reason.
I think you mean the container. (CE 2562 is an exhibit.)
What is this "reason", of "for whatever reason"?
I would just like to know what the rifles were shipped, the weight of that container, including packing materials, etc?
Or the rifles were 7 lbs x 100 + a 50 lb container. But my point is that if CE 2562 was actually weighed, then it would NOT be exactly 750 lbs. That is obviously an estimate, not an actual weight, for whatever reason.
Yer right..... The 750 was not an actual weight it was calculated by multiplying the manufactures specified weight for one rifle. 100 rifles @ 7.5 pounds. The weight of the container was not included.... The weight on the BOL is the tare weight. If you don't know what tare weight is, go to a truck stop and have a cup of coffee and ask a trucker. Or just look at the license information on the side of the truck.
Yer right..... The 750 was not an actual weight it was calculated by multiplying the manufactures specified weight for one rifle. 100 rifles @ 7.5 pounds. The weight of the container was not included.... The weight on the BOL is the tare weight. If you don't know what tare weight is, go to a truck stop and have a cup of coffee and ask a trucker. Or just look at the license information on the side of the truck.
Such absolutes would be great to have. In the absence of such, we are left with common sense and probabilities.
You have reasoned the rifles must be 36" and shipped in wood. Others have reasoned the rifles were 40" and shipped in cardboard.
Before I start, C2766 can be traced from Crescent to Kleins to Neely street to The Texas School Book Depository and yet you think the key to deception is an insignificant weight discrepancy? Hilarious!
I don't "think" . I just ask questions. I have no idea if there is "deception" involved. A lack of information? Definitely. Not sure why questions bring you such..mirth?
Here is a copy of the delivery schedule for the Chicago run that had the Kleins delivery and we have 21 weighted objects and ten of those weights end in a zero and another 6 end in a five, does that suggest that every item was weighed to within a pound or did the various companies who sent the items just guess?
Are you suggesting they guessed?
(https://i.postimg.cc/3xRjhXpr/Lifschultz-weight-estimates.png)
And as for how transport companies charge for delivering weighted items, they don't charge for every single gram/pound/kilogram/ton but charge for different weight categories.
The shipping invoice for Lifshutz -see CE2562- shows 750lbs multiplied by the rate.
(http://littlecutie.com.my/baby/media/wysiwyg/1413632398478_1.jpeg)
(https://www.bookweb.org/sites/default/files/teaser_photo/partnership%20table%202.jpg)
(https://www.dafscoffeeconnoisseurs.com.au/uploads/4/2/9/1/42918581/1444089742.png)
(https://www.sitegiant.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2019-03-11.jpg)
These examples are not Lifschutz, 1962. Or 1963
JohnM
"Common sense and probabilities"...? So, no factual evidence, Yes?
I have not "reasoned" anything.
Do you expect bills of lading, freight contracts and cardboard boxes from 1963 to still exist?
I would expect "bills of lading, freight contracts" to be presented in 1963, especially if they were so conclusive.
"Cardboard boxes", not so much. Especially since there's no evidence the rifles were shipped in cardboard boxes.
(https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Crscnt_Rifle.jpg)
Is this what you're looking for (Lifschultz at lower-left)? Highlighting not on originals.
It was in the Moyers article also: ( Link (https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/10442993/ordering-the-rifle-by-martha-moyer-pdf-jfk-lancer) )
Please explain this concept of the "guess".
Would there never be any verification?
Seems like there would be great potential for..cheating?
Please explain this concept of the "guess".
Would there never be any verification?
Seems like there would be great potential for..cheating?
Do you expect bills of lading, freight contracts and cardboard boxes from 1963 to still exist?
An estimate. DUH!
Sure, if there was an obvious discrepancy.
See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, you keep asking for evidence, so here it is.
Crescent Firearms sent C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/767fgN3g/Crescent-sent-C2766.png)
Kleins received C2766
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTsDX6hC/Kleins-received-C2766.png)
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x838ZTF8/Waldman-7.png)
Oswald was photographed with C2766
(https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/691a336/2147483647/strip/true/crop/868x1080+0+0/resize/772x960!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.newatlas.com%2Farchive%2Flee-harvy-oswald-backyard-photo-posture-authentic-2.jpg)
C2766 was found at Lee Harvey Oswald's place of employment.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/alyea-best-quality-photo-2.jpg)
The HSCA evidence showing the chip on C2766 being in the same place as in the Backyard Photos taken at Neely street
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/3e/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
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.
Oswald's palm print was discovered on C2766.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k0FT1l2g5sw/TwqYE_kXOAI/AAAAAAAACvg/jZ9fM5NCXFg/s1600/CE637.jpg)
Case Closed!
JohnM
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.
Oswald was photographed with C2766
Oswald's palm print was discovered on C2766.
Case Closed!
Upper right invoice: item described as "T-38".
What does this mean? Context?
So, the rifles were shipped in which container, weight of that container - including packing material?
Simple, direct questions.
Also, Oswald ordered 36 " rifle, according to WC.
So, the rifles were shipped in which container, weight of that container - including packing material?
Simple, direct questions.
Also, Oswald ordered 36 " rifle, according to WC.
Sure, but how does your self perceived weight anomaly overturn the mountain of evidence I presented above?
You only have conspiracy on your mind and just like "Iacoletti", you get tied up on inconsequential detail and can't see the forest for the trees.
(https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pages/WH_Vol21_0358b.jpg)
On January 15, 1962, Klein's contracted with Crescent for 400 M91/38 TS Carcanos ("Model 91TS" in the picture above). Klein's advertised in catalogues and several gun and sport magazines; I only have information on their ads that ran in "American Rifleman".
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkwords/carcano/kleinsjun62.png)
Between March and June, "American Rifleman" ads offered the TS Carcanos (Order No. C20-T749) for $11.88. The model wasn't specified, only "6.5 Italian Carbine". If a customer knew the TS was 36 1/2" long, he might assume he was getting a M91/38 TS Carcano, as the ad presented the length as 36". The illustration showed a different rifle, and the weight was wrong.
"American Rifleman" was a monthly magazine and had a much more slower turnover than a news weekly like "Life". The March issue would have been on the stands around early February, if not late January. Monthlies usually had a deadline for ads to be finalized about a week or two before the magazine was actually printed. Then maybe a week for the magazines to make it from the printers to remote newsstands (the weeklies having priority). So the "American Rifleman" ads that ran between March and June seem to reflect the order from Crescent.
On April 13, 1962 the Cresecent order was amended to receive from Crescent Carcanos presumably of a different model than the TS rifle (the new rifles are not referred to as "Model 91TS") and at a cost increase of one-dollar. We know Crescent paid one-dollar more for the M91/38 Fucile Corto (Short Rifle) 40" Carcanos, being a slightly-more substantial rifle than the 36" TS. Beginning August 1962, "American Rifleman" ads show a new Order No. C20-T1196 for $12.88. This would seem to reflect the one-dollar-more wholesale price from Crescent.
Assuming Klein's was ethical, they would satisfy those $12.88 orders with the 40" Carcanos, and use the same rifles to fulfill the "package deal" with the scope. They continued to advertise the wrong weight and illustration, so it may be that they thought the new Carcanos were 36". They didn't weigh the rifles so why should we assume they measured them; at some point they did or word got back to them because the weight and length were amended during 1963, though not for the February 1963 "American Rifleman" ad.
The use of "T" doesn't mean the Carcanos were TS models. It may mean Type-38 because the 1938 model-revisions were supposedly an improvement over the pre-1938 models. "Italian-Select" the order form to Crescent says. The M91/38s were sold by the Italian government as surplus after the pre-1938 stock had been auctioned off. I assume Klein's would have wanted 1938-and-newer stock, so the references to "38".
An estimate. DUH!
Sure, if there was an obvious discrepancy.
See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, you keep asking for evidence, so here it is.
Oswald was photographed with C2766
C2766 was found at Lee Harvey Oswald's place of employment.
The HSCA evidence showing the chip on C2766 being in the same place as in the Backyard Photos taken at Neely street
Oswald's palm print was discovered on C2766.
Case Closed!
JohnM
Listen closely, the shipper request form from "Crescent Firearms" said the amount was 750 and that's what's on ALL the paperwork thereafter, end of argument! So , the 750lbs is now a fact, not an estimate, as you, previously suggested?
BTW I really don't know why you waste so much of your life worrying about something that has no value?
The facts don't matter[?/b]
(https://i.postimg.cc/2SnqLYD0/cresent-s-original-order-form.png)
Sure, but how does your self perceived weight anomaly overturn the mountain of evidence I presented above? what mountain?
You only have conspiracy on your mind and just like "Iacoletti", you get tied up on inconsequential detail and can't see the forest for the trees.
How does this Conspiracy work? Are you suggesting that evidence was faked yet they couldn't even fake the right details?
Certainly a possibility. FBI assembled a "mountain" of evidence in ..less than 48 hours.
JohnM
An estimate. DUH!
Sure, if there was an obvious discrepancy.
See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, you keep asking for evidence, so here it is.
Crescent Firearms sent C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/767fgN3g/Crescent-sent-C2766.png)
Kleins received C2766
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTsDX6hC/Kleins-received-C2766.png)
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x838ZTF8/Waldman-7.png)
Oswald was photographed with C2766
(https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/691a336/2147483647/strip/true/crop/868x1080+0+0/resize/772x960!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.newatlas.com%2Farchive%2Flee-harvy-oswald-backyard-photo-posture-authentic-2.jpg)
C2766 was found at Lee Harvey Oswald's place of employment.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/alyea-best-quality-photo-2.jpg)
The HSCA evidence showing the chip on C2766 being in the same place as in the Backyard Photos taken at Neely street
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/3e/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
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.
Oswald's palm print was discovered on C2766.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k0FT1l2g5sw/TwqYE_kXOAI/AAAAAAAACvg/jZ9fM5NCXFg/s1600/CE637.jpg)
Case Closed!
JohnM
An estimate. DUH!
Sure, if there was an obvious discrepancy.
See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, you keep asking for evidence, so here it is.
Crescent Firearms sent C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/767fgN3g/Crescent-sent-C2766.png)
Kleins received C2766
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTsDX6hC/Kleins-received-C2766.png)
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x838ZTF8/Waldman-7.png)
Oswald was photographed with C2766
(https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/691a336/2147483647/strip/true/crop/868x1080+0+0/resize/772x960!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.newatlas.com%2Farchive%2Flee-harvy-oswald-backyard-photo-posture-authentic-2.jpg)
C2766 was found at Lee Harvey Oswald's place of employment.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/alyea-best-quality-photo-2.jpg)
The HSCA evidence showing the chip on C2766 being in the same place as in the Backyard Photos taken at Neely street
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/3e/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
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.
Oswald's palm print was discovered on C2766.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k0FT1l2g5sw/TwqYE_kXOAI/AAAAAAAACvg/jZ9fM5NCXFg/s1600/CE637.jpg)
Case Closed!
JohnM
836. Looks like g to me
I would agree with 95% of Mr Mutton's post..... I do believe that Lee ordered the carcano ...BUT George De M actually bought the Postal MO and gave it to Lee to order the cheap old unusual rifle that they wanted to use as a photo prop for the BY photo and a throw down gun to be left for the police to find at Walker's house.
The 5% of Mutton's post that is totally wrong is the part where he actually believes that the smudge on the foregrip of the rifle is Lee's palm print. Anybody who believes that an adult man could grasp the 5/8" diameter ( the size of a AA penlight battery) metal barrel and deposit an identifiable palm print on the small cylinderical surface should visit a shrink....
That part of Mutton's post is pure BS.... The liars who framed Lee have made suckers out of gullible idiots like Mutton......
I would agree with 95% of Mr Mutton's post..... I do believe that Lee ordered the carcano ...BUT George De M actually bought the Postal MO and gave it to Lee to order the cheap old unusual rifle that they wanted to use as a photo prop for the BY photo and a throw down gun to be left for the police to find at Walker's house.
The 5% of Mutton's post that is totally wrong is the part where he actually believes that the smudge on the foregrip of the rifle is Lee's palm print. Anybody who believes that an adult man could grasp the 5/8" diameter ( the size of a AA penlight battery) metal barrel and deposit an identifiable palm print on the small cylinderical surface should visit a shrink....
That part of Mutton's post is pure BS.... The liars who framed Lee have made suckers out of gullible idiots like Mutton......
An estimate. DUH!
Sure, if there was an obvious discrepancy.
See above.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, you keep asking for evidence, so here it is.
Crescent Firearms sent C2766.
(https://i.postimg.cc/767fgN3g/Crescent-sent-C2766.png)
Kleins received C2766
(https://i.postimg.cc/vTsDX6hC/Kleins-received-C2766.png)
Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x838ZTF8/Waldman-7.png)
Oswald was photographed with C2766
(https://assets.newatlas.com/dims4/default/691a336/2147483647/strip/true/crop/868x1080+0+0/resize/772x960!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.newatlas.com%2Farchive%2Flee-harvy-oswald-backyard-photo-posture-authentic-2.jpg)
C2766 was found at Lee Harvey Oswald's place of employment.
(https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/alyea-best-quality-photo-2.jpg)
The HSCA evidence showing the chip on C2766 being in the same place as in the Backyard Photos taken at Neely street
(https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/3e/Photo_hsca_ex_206.jpg)
Mr. FITHIAN. Then I take it, it is your testimony that the chip or the defect is sufficiently unique, with the corners or whatever, that spotting it in each of the pictures at least gives you the confidence that that rifle you are holding is the rifle that was photographed?
Sergeant KIRK. When I match that up with the scientific data Mr. McCamy has obtained from measuring it, this has to tilt the scales in the direction, yes, indeed it is the same rifle.
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.
Oswald's palm print was discovered on C2766.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k0FT1l2g5sw/TwqYE_kXOAI/AAAAAAAACvg/jZ9fM5NCXFg/s1600/CE637.jpg)
Case Closed!
JohnM
C2766 was found at Lee Harvey Oswald's place of employment.
That's true....But it was found 15' 4' from the north wall of the TSBD.....NOT 13 feet as it is seen in the official in situ photos.
No human could have reached from the aisle at the top of the stairs and carefully hidden the 8 pound carcano beneath the pallet of boxes where Seymour Weitzman, and Eugene Boone found it with the aid of their powerful flashlights. So the DPD were forced to move the rifle 2 feet closer to the aisle and jam it between boxes .....
Maybe. Maybe not.
The issue here is ..The rifle. Size. Weight. Shipping.
As they say in the art world, "what is the provenance of this item?".
Maybe. Maybe not.
The issue here is ..The rifle. Size. Weight. Shipping.
As they say in the art world, "what is the provenance of this item?".
It doesn't matter if the TSBD rifle is the same rifle that Klein's sent to Lee Oswald's PO box..... The conspirators wanted the gullible public to believe that it was Lee Oswald's rifle. And they were successful. However those same conspirators planted the rifle to far away from the "escape" aisle. Detective Studebaker measured the distance from the North wall as 15' 4" but the official in situ photos show that it was photographed stuck between boxes at 13 feet from the North wall.
The brief video clip from Tom Alyea's film shows that Lt Day picked up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR ( not jammed between boxes) where it was found lying on it's right side ( sling side up)
The Conspirators were compelled to "reconstruct" the scene and place the rifle about two feet closer to the aisle, after they fabricated the tale about Lee dashing by that spot and hastily discarding the rifle as he fled.....They realized that he wouldn't have had sufficient time to hide the rifle beneath the pallet of boxes of books not could he have reached across that span and deposited the eight pound rifle beneath the stack of boxes at the 15' 4' spot.
(https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338668/m1/1/med_res/) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) South is towards left of picture. West is away from viewer. | (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339279/m1/1/med_res/) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) South is towards bottom of picture. West is towards left. |
Stop being kooky.
The rifle was found south of the line of boxes near the pillar with the "No Smoking" sign.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
South is towards left of picture. West is away from viewer.
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
South is towards bottom of picture. West is towards left.
The pillar is centered on 13' from the north wall. South face of pillar is about 13' 4 1/2". Boxes are about 16" to 18" long. Boxes further along seem to be a little more southward. Rifle was found to west of tall stack that reaches towards the "Stairway" sign.
You've got the measurements correct....The pillar's are 13 feet from the north wall... But that is NOT where the rifle was found..... That is where the conspirators moved the rifle to when they created the fake in situ photos. Detective Studebaker measured the distance from the north wall to the rifle at 15' 4" ......And Tom Alyea's film shows Lt Day picking up the rifle FROM THE FLOOR by the sling. He simply reaches out and grabs the sling near the butt and lifts the rifle up to Captain Fritz....
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Pdvd_10.jpg) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Alyea showed a photograph being made. (This film clip not seen in YouTube video at left) |
Alyea's film shows the area where the rifle is lifted to be in the same area as the Crime Lab photographs, if you compare the boxes in them and other features. The film doesn't show the rifle on the floor in-situ, only after Day has prepared it to be lifted by the strap.(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Alyea showed a photograph being made.
(This film clip not seen in YouTube video at left)
Begin 3:17
Mr O, why are you so damned dishonest.....We both know that the Alyea clip has been posted many times and it shows Lt, Day as he stoops down and grabs the rifle that is LYING ON THE FLOOR with the sling side of the rifle up. (See at 0:44 Of the Alyea clip)
Do you think everybody is so stupid that they can't see that you've posted a copy of Alyea's film that has the frames cropped that show Lt Day stooping down to grab the sling of the rifle.
Thank you for displaying your dishonesty......
I've seen the full film clip. That's why I wrote:
"The film doesn't show the rifle on the floor in-situ,
only after Day has prepared it to be lifted by the strap."
The full film clip begins with Day lifting the rifle from the floor, not with the rifle undisturbed. When the rifle was in-situ, Alyea was filming the Crime Lab photographer. I presume Day would have gently moved apart the boxes supporting the rifle such that the rifle could be lowered on its side and then gently picked up without disturbing prints and so forth. Excellent police work.
What do you hope to accomplish by arguing about the size, weight,and shipping?
Solve the case! :)
No, just trying to air the issue.
Oswald ordered 36" rifle.
The FBI's hurried, uh, "activities led to amazing "discoveries" , in record time.
Close examination of the provided documents reveals discrepancies, and an incomplete record.
Explanations of "routine" substitution of 40" for 36" rifles is not supported by any documentation.
Frankly, John.....Lee simply ordered the cheapest old rifle he could find .... He just wanted something for a staged photo that he thought would depict him as a heavily armed communist revolutionary ( like Fidel Castro) I doubt that he cared if the rifle was 36 or 40 inches long.....( if he even noticed)
He and George De M ordered the carcano because it was unusual , which meant it could be traced easily. They wanted the rifle to use in staging the BY photo, and then leaving the rifle as a "throw down gun" at Walker's house after a bullet was fired through Walker's window. The whole plan was intended to make Lee appear to be a communist revolutionary who had tried to shoot one of Castro's most vocal enemies ... ( Make it appear that Lee was a Castro supporter) They thought that Lee would be welcome in Cuba...and that was their goal.... Lee wanted to infiltrate Castro's bastion and try to learn if the Russian Nuclear missiles had in fact been removed from Cuba.
Open your eyes and LOOK I mean really LOOK at the BY photo..... It's basically nothing but a carnival photo .....Like the silly photos where a person stands behind a picture (with a hole cut in the prop) that shows a convict in stripes and a ball and chain around his ankle. True,... it's not quite that obvious but CE 133A is a fraud Carnival photo, never the less.