JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[RoboTimbo]

I have no concern for two rifles having the serial number; I am satisfied that the 36" rifle has the C2766 serial number because that is what Klein's records show.

Do two rifles of the same make and manufacture have the same serial #?

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is laughable and if you believe what you just stated; then you need to accept (without questioning) any response from someone who disagrees with you especially if it is not backed up with documentation and only speculation. Your speculation does not trump the known facts.

As opposed to believing that there was, for reasons you have not provided, a second rifle of the same serial number, of a slightly longer barrel length, for which we have no evidence exists. You can offer no suggestion of what happened to it after Oswald took possession of the second rifle, where it is now, or how there came to be identical markings on a different rifle.

You are unable to account for all the known the facts, or supply facts to support your speculation.

 

[bknight]

This is laughable and if you believe what you just stated; then you need to accept (without questioning) any response from someone who disagrees with you especially if it is not backed up with documentation and only speculation. Your speculation does not trump the known facts.

A red herring, you did not address the intent of the post. For there to be an error in transaction handling then proof of that error must be shown. If they did not measure shipped or received rifles in the normal course of business then the question of

Now show me a form from Kleins that shows a 40.2" rifle was shipped to PO Box 2915.

is of moot value

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have no concern for two rifles having the serial number; I am satisfied that the 36" rifle has the C2766 serial number because that is what Klein's records show.

And what do you believe the relevance of this is?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I do not know

Who owned the 40" MC with serial #C2766?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Your declaration does not pass any common sense test; you have thrown your hands up and declared that what you (but cannot prove that a 40.2" rifle was shipped by Klein's to PO Box 2915) think is correct.

It doesn't matter what you proclaim if you cannot back up your claim; I have shown that the order form shows a 36" rifle and not a 40.2 " rifle.

What was Robert Frazier's testimony in the WCR concerning unique serial #'s?

 

[No Other]

I am dealing with known information and/or available information; in order to preserve a level of cognitive advancement, please do the same.

Your continuance to pursue me with assumptions while you are laying them off as facts is boring. If I have to prove that your assumptions are incorrect, then I have picked the wrong forum to express my position. My impression was this is a forum with intelligent discourse and friendly "bantering" but when the continuance to disprove your theories accelerates, it means this is getting out of control. Put on yourselves the same level of integrity that you expect out of someone else.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am dealing with known information and/or available information; in order to preserve a level of cognitive advancement, please do the same.

Your continuance to pursue me with assumptions while you are laying them off as facts is boring. If I have to prove that your assumptions are incorrect, then I have picked the wrong forum to express my position. My impression was this is a forum with intelligent discourse and friendly "bantering" but when the continuance to disprove your theories accelerates, it means this is getting out of control. Put on yourselves the same level of integrity that you expect out of someone else.

What evidence do we have for the existence of a 40" MC with serial #C2766 using known information?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I am dealing with known information and/or available information; in order to preserve a level of cognitive advancement, please do the same.

It seems you are trying to avoid dealing with known information. For example: The existence of a rifle with the serial number, that the two models were being phased, and that we only have evidence of one rifle of the make in Oswald's possession.

 

[No Other]

What evidence do we have for the existence of a 40" MC with serial #C2766 using known information?

I am not championing the 40.2" rifle.

 

[No Other]

It seems you are trying to avoid dealing with known information. For example: The existence of a rifle with the serial number, that the two models were being phased, and that we only have evidence of one rifle of the make in Oswald's possession.

Show me where Klein's had the serial number C2766 on the 40.2" rifle and shipped it to PO Box 2915? Show documentation with 40.2" and it's associated catalogue number of C20-750 with the serial number C2766.

 

[No Other]

And what do you believe the relevance of this is?

Klein shipped the rifle with the serial number C2766; this is where the entire issue of the serial number started, Klein has records that show the 36" rifle had the previously mentioned serial number.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I am not championing the 40.2" rifle.

No need to champion it. What evidence do we have for the existence of a 40" MC rifle with serial #C2766 using known information?

 

[Axxman300]

... and this serial number is associated with a 36" rifle; you need to show how this serial number got on a 40.2" rifle. Klein's records show the serial number belongs to a 36" rifle.

No, sorry, YOU need to show that the Carcano with that serial number left the factory in Italy at 36", was never modified with a longer barrel, and was 36" when it left Europe, and entered the US at the same length, and was shipped by the wholesaler at 36".

If you are going to play knit-picking then you have to go all the way.

I am not up on the surplus European weapons market in the decade after WWII, but I doubt much care was put into accuracy of labeling - especially cheap Italian rifles. The Carcano in question was likely packed into a crate with a bunch of other weapons, and was either mislabeled in Europe by the original seller, or was mislabeled/not double-checked by the importing party.
Whatever the case, Kleins bought a longer rifle at no extra cost (if there was one), advertised it at 36", and sold it.

Those 4 inches you're stressing over only made the rifle more accurate.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Klein shipped the rifle with the serial number C2766; this is where the entire issue of the serial number started, Klein has records that show the 36" rifle had the previously mentioned serial number.

What evidence do we have for the existence of a 36" MC rifle with serial #C2766? Using known information, of course.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Show me where Klein's had the serial number C2766 on the 40.2" rifle and shipped it to PO Box 2915? Show documentation with 40.2" and it's associated catalogue number of C20-750 with the serial number C2766.

No. YOU show that there a rifle with that serial number other than the one in evidence, or any records to the contrary can be deemed to be inaccurate, based on the fact we have a rifle of the correct serial number that IS a 40.2" rifle and no others.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Klein shipped the rifle with the serial number C2766; this is where the entire issue of the serial number started, Klein has records that show the 36" rifle had the previously mentioned serial number.

And we live in a universe where 1) we have a rifle of that serial number, that has been measured, and 2) records have been known to contain errors.

Why should we discount the possibility of such an error, if you provide no evidence for another rifle of the same serial number?

Why should we assume the records to be correct, without a rifle to compare them to?

 

[OKBob]

Show me where Klein's had the serial number C2766 on the 40.2" rifle and shipped it to PO Box 2915? Show documentation with 40.2" and it's associated catalogue number of C20-750 with the serial number C2766.

No Other, if you're going to continue on this line of argumentation, it would be well that you realize the burden of proof that you alone bear, and how weak your current position is. The WC established the null hypothesis that we all must work with: that is, the WC gathered testimony and evidence that showed, at a minimum, that Crescent Firearms of NY shipped to Klein's of Chicago a MC rifle bearing the serial number C2766; that Klein's shipped a MC rifle of the identical serial number to one "A. Hidell" of Dallas, shown to be LHO. The Italian Armed Forces Intelligence also confirmed the serial number C2766 for a MC rifle. (WCR 118-19). A rifle with that serial number was found in the TSBD after the President's murder, bearing LHO's latent palm print. And that's not all the evidence that links LHO to C2766.

Now, against all that--the null hypothesis--you seem to want to establish an alternative hypothesis, though I'm not sure what it is.

You are requiring your critics to explain an anomaly which does not overturn the null hypothesis, and thus shifting the burden of proof. The anomaly is not strong enough to destroy the null hypothesis. The proof you demand that Klein's substituted a 40-inch rifle for the 36-inch rifle apparently does not exist. Does this single anomaly destroy the null hypothesis, in your mind? If so, I think you are exhibiting a poor ability to weigh evidence in context.

There is so much evidence that C2766 was ordered, owned, and fired by LHO that the apparent anomaly can reasonably be resolved by the circumstantial inference that Klein's simply shipped a 40-inch MC rifle in response to a coupon filled out for a 36-inch MC rifle. The shipping order gave a "100% Money Back Guarantee," but it can reasonably be inferred that LHO, if he noticed the 40-inch length at all, did not return the rifle for a refund.

Your demand for all-anomaly-resolving paperwork strikes me as of a piece with those CTists who say that unless there is a photograph of LHO in the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City, it is incredible that LHO was in Mexico City, because photos were often or typically taken inside the embassies.

Your own ideal of an adversarial trial would have permitted defense counsel to raise the seeming anomaly of the rifle length. I strongly doubt that that one point would have led a jury to reject all the other evidence of LHO's purchase, ownership, and use of C2766.

 

[No Other]

No Other, if you're going to continue on this line of argumentation, it would be well that you realize the burden of proof that you alone bear, and how weak your current position is. The WC established the null hypothesis that we all must work with: that is, the WC gathered testimony and evidence that showed, at a minimum, that Crescent Firearms of NY shipped to Klein's of Chicago a MC rifle bearing the serial number C2766; that Klein's shipped a MC rifle of the identical serial number to one "A. Hidell" of Dallas, shown to be LHO. The Italian Armed Forces Intelligence also confirmed the serial number C2766 for a MC rifle. (WCR 118-19). A rifle with that serial number was found in the TSBD after the President's murder, bearing LHO's latent palm print. And that's not all the evidence that links LHO to C2766.

You are not accurate on you position of burden of proof. Burden of proof is an obligation of standing behind one's statement(s). I did not make the statement regarding the 40.2" rifle being shipped to LHO. One who makes a statement needs to support it. I have made comments and supported those statements but the ones who disagree with me will not show their evidence.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j2O-kIQp5...AAxSI/G97X3C5lxOI/s1600/Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg

Now, against all that--the null hypothesis--you seem to want to establish an alternative hypothesis, though I'm not sure what it is.

There is no alternative hypothesis, I have stated what is on record and found within corroborating evidence. What I have said matches with the commission, I have elaborated with greater detail and have provided that on this thread.

You are requiring your critics to explain an anomaly what anomaly?which does not overturn the null hypothesis your use of null hypothesis supports my issue with you and others who support the WC Report. I have not made up anything (unlike others on this thread) and therefore there is no alternative theory or universe to discuss, and thus shifting the burden of proof. again your understanding of burden of proof is wrong. What is the alternative theory that I have supposedly proposed? And what is the null hypothesis? Since a majority of Americans do not believe in the WC Report, the null hypothesis lies with that group of people and not the ones who believe in the Lone Gunman theory see link below

Again, you are wrong due to describing my position incorrectly. Claims came back to me that were created by others and if they cannot defend those statements, then the comments are not taken seriously.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx

The anomaly is not strong enough to destroy the null hypothesis. The proof you demand that Klein's substituted a 40-inch rifle for the 36-inch rifle apparently does not exist.

Those who feel that a 40.2" was substituted has the burden of proof, not me.

Does this single anomaly destroy the null hypothesis, in your mind? If so, I think you are exhibiting a poor ability to weigh evidence in context.

There are many things that have a Boolean expression and this particular situation is one of those. If you don't see this, then I cannot offer you anything else.

There is so much evidence that C2766 was ordered, owned, and fired by LHO provide support for this comment that the apparent anomaly can reasonably be resolved by the circumstantial inference that Klein's simply shipped a 40-inch MC rifle in response to a coupon filled out for a 36-inch MC rifle.this is nothing more than an assumption. You claim to be an Officer of the Court but you are not presenting your position like one, all you have provided is a guess. There is no need for a circumstantial inference when facts stand on their own. You have to prove that what listed to have been shipped was not shipped, this is where the burden of proof lies.I have presented evidence

The shipping order gave a "100% Money Back Guarantee," but it can reasonably be inferred that LHO, if he noticed the 40-inch length at all, did not return the rifle for a refund.

You are going heavy on assumptions. What makes you think LHO wanted a 40.2" over a 36" rifle? You are assuming LHO liked the longer rifle, you are assuming LHO was able to get the rifle from the post office when the package was addressed to Hidell. You have leaped to conclusions that deal with individual taste and you have no idea what LHO thought when/if he received the 40.2" rifle. You and others have not even established that LHO picked up the rifle from the post office.

Your demand for all-anomaly-resolving paperwork strikes me as of a piece with those CTists who say that unless there is a photograph of LHO in the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City, it is incredible that LHO was in Mexico City, because photos were often or typically taken inside the embassies.

nice straw man.

Your own ideal of an adversarial trial would have permitted defense counsel to raise the seeming anomaly of the rifle length.

Another assumption

I strongly doubt that that one point would have led a jury to reject all the other evidence of LHO's purchase, ownership, and use of C2766.

Spoken like a person who believes that LHO was the Lone Gunman. Too bad an audience outside the Commission was not able to prove you right... or wrong.

 

[OKBob]

You are not accurate on you position of burden of proof. Burden of proof is an obligation of standing behind one's statement(s).

No. You don't appear to understand argumentation and its burdens. I am not required to take a position on 40 inches. I'm explaining that you are poorly positioned in a big pile of evidence because you have found what you think is a single contradictory point. You are the one who must show why that seeming contradiction overturns a large assemblage of evidence that points to LHO and to him alone. For the critical role of the null hypothesis in this context, I urge you to read through previous JFK assassination threads on JREF/ISF, particularly those that focused on the claims of Robert Prey and Robert Harris. Search JayUtah's informative remarks about null hypothesis.