The LHO Escape -- Panic and Shock

[Martin Weidmann]

Well Martin, if you paid for it, there was a record of the money you sent in your handwriting, you filled out the order form in your handwriting, if the order form was addressed to your PO Box, the company that sent it had a record of you buying it, you were photographed with the F1, the F1 at your workplace had the same licence plate that the company sent, and your wife saw the F1's spoiler poking out from behind a car cover then yeah sure, I'd be absolutely certain that you own the F1 car!

Oops, that didn't work out how you guessed it would, did it! Hehehe!

JohnM

It worked out fine, because you, foolishly and without being able to provide conclusive evidence for it, make the same mistake as you did with the BY photograph. There you assume that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photo is in fact the one that Hidell ordered from Klein's. It is in no way certain that it is.

Even if Hidell did order a rifle from Klein's and even if Klein's shipped a rifle to Oswald's P.O. box and even if Marina saw a rifle in the blanket at Ruth Paine's garage, in late September, that still does not prove that the rifle Oswald is holding in the photograph is the same one and/or the same rifle as the one found at the TSBD. In other words, there is no proof whatsoever that Oswald owned the rifle he was photographed with, just as I don't own the F1 car I was photographed with.

That's where your little fairytale story crashes every time, yet you keep telling the same story, expecting a different outcome..... Go figure.

Do you understand what I am saying or should I dumb it down even further for you?

[Fergus O'Brien]

well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .

"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus

regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .





if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .

there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .

[Martin Weidmann]

well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .

"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus

regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .





if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .

there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .

Interesting,

So when Mytton says;

Forgets that Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750

JohnM

he is in fact (and what else is new?) misrepresenting the facts, as the catalog number for the 40" rifle was C20-750.

[Martin Weidmann]

If Kleins was faithful to the advertisement, they would have been mailing out modified M91s that were originally over 50" long (that's the illustration in the ad). As well, no Carcano military issue weighed 5.5 lbs.

So, we can't rely on anything that Klein's told us? Is that what you are trying to say?

[John Mytton]

Interesting,

So when Mytton says;

he is in fact (and what else is new?) misrepresenting the facts, as the catalog number for the 40" rifle was C20-750.

Just like your silly F1 car analogy which I ripped apart, here again you are very, very wrong!

Here's the only relevant Kleins ad which applies to the precise timeframe of when Oswald purchased the rifle



And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.



You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.

Bye.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

well Mr mytton i think gil jesus has done some very good work in regards the rifle . i dont know if he is still a member here . but its worth repeating what he has previously pointed out .

"A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders." gil jesus

regardless of who one may say ordered a rifle the order form and kliens own documentation tell us that on the order was an order for a 36 inch carcano , along with the kliens catalogue number for a 36 inch carcano . then kliens documentation tells us that THEY SAID they sent the same 36 inch rifle , with same catalogue number that was on the order . so if LN accept that both the order and the kliens documentation is genuine well then equally should it then not also be accepted that a 36 inch rifle was ordered and a 36 inch rifle was dispatched ? .





if we accept that kliens did indeed send a 36 inch rifle ? well then LN have a serious problem , because the rifle in evidence is a 40 inch model . LN will of course argue and say well maybe kliens did not have the 36 inch model so they sent the 40 inch model , but that is just assumption not proof .

there are other issues of course . such as oswalds jaggers chiles stoval work records placing him very much in work on the morning and at the very time the money order was bought and posted . LN will of course say OH HE MUST HAVE SLIPPED OUT OF WORK even tho they have not one shred of proof that he did so .

Fergus, in case you missed my reply to Martin. And by the way, my name is Mytton with a capital "M", not mytton, please be more vigilant in the future!

Here's the only relevant Kleins ad which applies to the precise timeframe of when Oswald purchased the rifle.



And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.



You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.

Bye.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

So, we can't rely on anything that Klein's told us? Is that what you are trying to say?

What a stupid leap of self serving convenience, Jerry didn't say that at all.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Just like your silly F1 car analogy which I ripped apart, here again you are very, very wrong!

Here's the only relevant Kleins ad which applies to the precise timeframe of when Oswald purchased the rifle



And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.



You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.

Bye.

JohnM

And here's the April American Rifleman Kleins ad.

Who cares what the add in April was? By then the BY photos had already been taken, if the official narrative is to be believed.

If any rifle was sent at all, there is no reason to assume that a 40" MC rifle was sent instead of a 36".
According to Waldman C20-T750 was ordered and C20-T750 was sent. There is no mention of a 40" rifle being sent.
In fact Waldman doesn't even know (he only has reason to believe) that the rifle that was ordered was in fact shipped with a scope mounted.

Mr. WALDMAN. Our catalog No. C20-T750, which was the number indicated on the coupon prepared by A. Hidell, designates a rifle with scope attached. And we would have so shipped it unless the customer specifically specified that he did not wish to have it attached. There is nothing in our records to indicate that there was any request made by the customer, and therefore we would have every reason to believe that it was shipped as a rifle with scope-mounted.


You boys should have consulted me first before accepting Gil Jesus's typical misrepresentation of the evidence.

Hilarious...never in a million years. You can't even be believed when you claim your name is Mytton!