The catalogue number you referred to in your post is associated with a 36" rifle and not the 40". Where does it show that Klein's sent LHO a 40" rifle?
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
HSienzant
Philosopher
Asked and answered. By me. In depth. Previously. Ignore it all you want.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824307&postcount=3284
The business records at Klein's -- by law, acceptable in any courtroom -- show that Oswald was shipped the 40" rifle bearing the serial number C2766 - the same number appearing on the rifle found in the Depository.
Asked and answered. By me. In depth. Previously. Ignore it all you want. The catalog number is C20 - T750.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824307&postcount=3284
Here's another link for you to ignore and then to ask me again to cite for.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_3_Assassin.pdf
See page 88.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Assume for a second you are right. That Klein happened to receive Oswald's order when they were shipping 40inch models, but for whatever reason happened to send Oswald a shorter model. Just assume for a second he happened to have hidden that rifle somewhere that no authority has ever found it, and he owned the rifle he was photographed with, with his prints on it, and matched to the killer bullets to the exclusion of all other rifles.
What exactly is your point?
That the WC made a reasonable mistake when tracking two rare, easily mistakable rifles, of simaller make and model, because the paper trail indicated that the order was received when the 40inch model was being phased in and the 36 inch model phased out?
How is that suspicious? How does it change what happened on the day?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Asked and answered. Read the post again. It is associated with both.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11824307&postcount=3284
Here's the two different ads showing the two rifles both with the same catalog number:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q_gppD-Coys/VnskoDjAe9I/AAAAAAABImY/d2TSQcYLp2s/s1600/Klein%27s-Ads.jpg
And the Klein's business records (also cited and ignored by you) show Oswald was shipped the 40" model with the serial number C2766 - the same number on the rifle found in the Depository.
Hank
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
For this newbie, exactly what is your belief in the assignation of JFK?
HSienzant
Philosopher
No Other:
Still looking for some answers to these softball questions:
And if you're going to persist in arguing it wasn't a rifle that Oswald brought into the Depository, please tell us:
(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,
(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,
(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,
(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,
(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,
(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,
(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository, and
(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?
Hank
Still looking for some answers to these softball questions:
And if you're going to persist in arguing it wasn't a rifle that Oswald brought into the Depository, please tell us:
(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,
(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,
(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,
(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,
(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,
(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,
(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository, and
(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Presume you mean 'assassination' and your spell-checker got the better of you.
That's an excellent question.
After six months or more debating the assassination with MicahJava, I still don't know what he actually believes happened, other than "a conspiracy of some sort".
Conspiracy theorists are by their nature necessarily vague about their beliefs because all they have is these disparate complaints about what this witness said that conflicts with this hard evidence, and what that witness said that conflicts with this other hard evidence. And more often that not, because these are outlier witnesses, the stories their witnesses tell don't come close to meshing with each other.
Very few have an definitive scenario (Robert Harris is a notable exception) they are willing to put forth and actually debate side-by-side with the conventional narrative.
Most simply pretend not to see any questions asking them to spell out their narrative (see the questions in the post above that I've asked of No Other at least three times now and he's ignored each time), or they cast the debate as prosecutor vs defense attorney, and claim the defense has no need to do more than poke holes in the prosecution's theory.
But this isn't a court case - any chance of that died when Oswald did - and they are not defense attorneys. And we're not prosecutors. Right now, we're all amateur historians (not detectives) and it's all about who can put the evidence together in the best way.
Throwing out the hard evidence and the contemporaneous eyewitness statements and falling back on stories told by witnesses - especially stories told 15 or 33 years after the event - is not the best approach to solving this crime - but that's consistently been MicahJava's approach.
Posting some outlier statement by some witness that disagrees with the majority of the other witnesses in Dealey Plaza isn't a great approach either, but that's what No Other has done (Carolyn Walthers). Ignoring or rejecting simple explanations for what she thought she saw (that no one else saw) doesn't help his cause either.
Truth be told, the Dallas Police Department pretty much solved this case in the first 48 hours. Most of the evidence against Oswald was collected then, and it has stood the test of time.
Hank
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Most CTs refuse to offer a theory or narrative beyond occasionally that LHO was innocent. There are a few out there (LBJ got Mac Wallace to do the shooting, etc), but most CTists will only pick convenient cherries from any one theory and ignore other bits. Rarely does it fit together to a whole.
Robert Prey in the earlier incarnations of this thread is a prime example. He would offer lengthy posts about how this witness proves a conspiracy, because a Cuban kid said so, that the medical witnesses were forced to lie, that LBJ called the hospital, and that Oswald was a communist CIA spy....
But even writing a lengthy "essay" he can't offer an actual theory, just a lot of jumbled things he thinks might have happened.
Robert Prey in the earlier incarnations of this thread is a prime example. He would offer lengthy posts about how this witness proves a conspiracy, because a Cuban kid said so, that the medical witnesses were forced to lie, that LBJ called the hospital, and that Oswald was a communist CIA spy....
But even writing a lengthy "essay" he can't offer an actual theory, just a lot of jumbled things he thinks might have happened.
bknight
Master Poster
You are correct the spell checker got me again. I see he hasn't even ventured a position statement, so your analysis seems to be spot on. Perhaps he is a troll, simply posting outlier quotes to show the I know more than other people mindset.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No. That is the no-claimer default. Attempt to cast aspersions while making no actual claims.
This has been going on for decades. Various folks have attempted it. MJ is simply the most recent. The MO is to simply avoid making a claim that can be tested. CT's do not want such a thing. Ambiguity is their friend. Hatloads of those have tried that gambit, none have succeeded.
bknight
Master Poster
I believe that they do make claims, backed up by unfounded beliefs. I suspect that some perhaps not all are trollies in that they are "inviting" comments. I agree that many have tried, but none have presented an argument that has validity.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
What do you mean "can't be tested"? The issue of the small head sound was tested the day of the autopsy. After a certain point, it's you making the positive assertion that the wound was higher.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
An assertion tested and proven by photographs, X-ray and documentation, consistent with filmed footage.
Axxman300
Philosopher
You might want to read a few books too. JFK and RFK directed those assassination attempts. Many lines of investigation after the assassination of JFK were terminated by RFK to keep that a secret, not because they lead to Dallas, but to protect his brother's legacy.
Axxman300
Philosopher
All of which only a handful of people have seen. The few photos out in the public domain are not enough for anybody to make any kind of conclusion other than Kennedy was shot in the head and the back.
Insufficient data on this to disprove the autopsy.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Apparently not.
bknight
Master Poster
You are very quick in countering anyone that disagrees with you, yet you have yet to indicate what your beliefs considering the assassination of JFK.
So what's up?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
With a case like this, it would be kind of hard to claim to "believe" anything. But as to where the small head wound was located, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the original lower location. A new batch of forensic experts examining the X-rays would really help this case. There's a lot that hasn't been 100% settled, like the metal fragment in the neck Ceil Wecht found.
Whether or not this lower small head wound could have any relation to the large head wound depends on if such a shot could somehow go upwards through the occipital lobe without severely damage the cerebellum, and how the majority of the fragments in the head could be so high.
Looks like more than one head shot to me.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious.
Exactly how many of the qualified forensic pathologists who have examined the extant autopsy materials agree with your unqualified layman's opinion that no one here cares about?
Don't bother to respond - everyone here knows the answer is NONE.
Why do you bother to tell us what you think on subjects where no one is asking for your opinion but are so reticent to tell us what you think on the subjects that people are seeking your opinion?
Like, your overall narrative of the assassination? Who planned it, and how? How many shooters and where were they? How'd they get Oswald's rifle to plant in the Depository? Where'd the bullet recovered in Parkland come from, if it was neither a legit bullet that fell out of a victim nor a planted bullet? And a few dozen more you'll never acknowledge.
Hank
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
100% of forensic pathologists agree that when a bullet enters the cerebellum, it severely damages it. So we're left with discussing how the cerebellum on the (official) brain didn't have severe damage. Was the entry wound higher than contended before? Nope, the evidence doesn't point to that. Some experts like Larry Sturdivan and Peter Cummings have tried to say it could've been one head shot that entered the EOP, went along the occipital lobe and exited the top of his head, but they do little to explain lack of cerebellar damage. It doesn't help that all (or most) of the bullet fragments appear to be in the parietal-frontal area, in a downward trail. And a trajectory that goes sharply upwards even accounting for the decline in Elm street and Kennedy's leaning head.
Last edited:
- Status