CE 2562

[John Tonkovich]

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?

[Walt Cakebread]

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.   

[John Tonkovich]

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.   

I am quite familiar with the concept of "tare".

The weight on the bill of lading is..the weight of the shipment.

[John Tonkovich]

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.

"Common sense and probabilities"...?  So, no factual evidence, Yes?

I have not "reasoned" anything.

I am curious, how a cardboard box / crate court hold, at minimum, 550 lbs? (36" , 5.5lbs x 100) And how such a container would be moved? Certainly not by hand? On a large pallet? ( what's the old line , " 10lbs of sh#t in a 5lb sack")

Anecdotally - not factually - googling rifle containers for bulk shipments brings up .. a lot of wooden crates.
I will do more research.



Anecdota

[John Tonkovich]

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?


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.








These examples are not Lifschutz, 1962. Or 1963
JohnM

[John Tonkovich]

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.

[John Tonkovich]

Is this what you're looking for (Lifschultz at lower-left)? Highlighting not on originals.

It was in the Moyers article also: ( Link )

Upper right invoice: item described as "T-38".

What does this mean? Context?

[John Mytton]

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".

An estimate. DUH!

Would there never be any verification?

Sure, if there was an obvious discrepancy.

Seems like there would be great potential for..cheating?

See above.

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

Anyway, you keep asking for evidence, so here it is.

Crescent Firearms sent C2766.



Kleins received C2766



Kleins sent C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.



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



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.



Case Closed!

JohnM