Lee Harvey Oswald Ordered The Rifle

[Colin Crow]

If you had taken notice of the old site you would have noticed there was around 500 pages of old threads in the archives. Not 500 threads. I read them all and used them as references for further reading. Well not all of them. It soon became apparent some authors were best ignored.

Perhaps you should learn to express yourself more accurately. "500 pages or so of achives from the old site" is not the same as 500 pages of threads.

This attack from a position of weakness seems to be pervasive in many of the LN crew.

[Martin Weidmann]

On page 1 of this thread I asked David von Pein two simple straight forward questions, which so far he has not be able or willing to answer.

Instead he did a song and dance act, claiming that the exact implication of the alleged purchase was "obvious", but he never managed to come up with an answer. So let's try this again; 

The C2766 Carcano rifle was positively mailed by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago to Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact.

Please explain in detail how Waldman 7 proves that the rifle was mailed to the P.O. Box?


So Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") definitely ordered that rifle. There is no REASONABLE doubt about that fact.

Even if true, what exactly would be the implication of such a purchase?

Do you admit David that Waldman 7 holds not a shred of proof that any rifle was actually mailed to the P.O. Box?

And, if somebody (under false name or pretenses) orders, pays for and receives a rifle by mail in late March 1963 what exactly would be the implication of that purchase? No theories about what could have happend to and with the rifle at a later date, please. Just the only true implication of that purchase.... do you think you can answer that, David?

[David Von Pein]

Do you admit, David, that Waldman 7 holds not a shred of proof that any rifle was actually mailed to the P.O. Box?

I do not agree with that statement at all, Martin.

Waldman #7 is the internal order form created by the seller--Klein's--and it shows that Hidell/(Oswald) ordered 1 Italian Carbine in March '63, and it also shows that the order was PAID FOR via a money order ("MO") in the amount of $21.45.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

It's true that Waldman 7 doesn't have these specific words written on it --- "THIS RIFLE WAS MAILED VIA THE USPS". But it does, however, provide the shipping date---March 20. And it also indicates that the rifle was sent via "Parcel Post" (denoted by the "PP" being circled at the top). But that's not good enough for you either, is it Martin?

Plus, there's William Waldman's testimony, which certainly indicates that Klein's did MAIL rifle number C2766 to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas on the 20th day of March in 1963. Or do you think Waldman was lying through his teeth here?....

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.

And, if somebody (under false name or pretenses) orders, pays for and receives a rifle by mail in late March 1963 what exactly would be the implication of that purchase? No theories about what could have happened to and with the rifle at a later date, please. Just the only true implication of that purchase.... do you think you can answer that, David?

It implies that "Hidell" (aka Lee Oswald) ordered a rifle under an alias. But apparently you think the rifle order implies that someone was framing Oswald and wanted to only make it LOOK like he had ordered a rifle from Klein's in March of '63 (which means the orchestrators of such a plan perfectly faked Oswald's handwriting as well).

But, IMO, it's much more reasonable to believe the rifle evidence is just what it appears to be---an order placed by Oswald himself and not by plotters attempting to frame him.

Oswald didn't buy the rifle to shoot the President, that's true enough. He purchased the gun to kill General Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting makes that fact pretty clear. And with that illegal activity in Oswald's mind, it makes perfect sense that he would want to use an alias to order the rifle by mail in March.

In short....

It was OSWALD'S rifle, and there is no indication at all that he ever loaned that weapon to anyone else the entire time he owned it. And there certainly is not a shred of evidence to indicate anybody stole the gun from Ruth Paine's house in September, October, or November of 1963.

And, as I've asked conspiracy theorists in the past --- Who is MORE likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on any day of the week (11/22/63 or any other day)---the rifle's owner himself or someone else? That simple and basic observation, all by itself, makes OSWALD much more likely to be JFK's murderer than any other person on the planet.

[Martin Weidmann]

I do not agree with that statement at all, Martin.

Waldman #7 is the internal order form created by the seller--Klein's--and it shows that Hidell/(Oswald) ordered 1 Italian Carbine in March '63, and it also shows that the order was PAID FOR via a money order ("MO") in the amount of $21.45.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm

It's true that Waldman 7 doesn't have these specific words written on it --- "THIS RIFLE WAS MAILED VIA THE USPS". But it does, however, provide the shipping date---March 20. And it also indicates that the rifle was sent via "Parcel Post" (denoted by the "PP" being circled at the top). But that's not good enough for you either, is it Martin?

Waldman #7 is the internal order form created by the seller

Exactly, it's an internal document and no matter how you spin it, it simply does not prove that a rifle was sent, which is what you claimed.

The C2766 Carcano rifle was positively mailed by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago to Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact.

But that's not good enough for you either, is it Martin?

An internal document that anybody could have written? No, that's most certainly not good enough as "proof" that a rifle was mailed.

Plus, there's William Waldman's testimony, which certainly indicates that Klein's did MAIL rifle number C2766 to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas on the 20th day of March in 1963. Or do you think Waldman was lying through his teeth here?....

Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.

Waldman's testimony is IMO overrated and very often misrepresented by LNs. The man was a VP of Klein's who had nothing to do with the weapons selling side of the business. His testimony clearly shows that he is only explaining what the forms are and how the procedure works. He is not confirming the accuracy of the content, simply because he the lacked first hand knowledge to do so. Waldman just assumes that what is on those forms is accurate because he has no reason to believe otherwise.

I do not think Waldman was lying through his teeth, but unless he posted the package himself he simply could not have known if and when a package was mailed. So, his testimony does not indicate that Klein's mailed that package. It merely indicate that Waldham, based on the documents before him, assumed that it was.

It implies that "Hidell" (aka Lee Oswald) ordered a rifle under an alias. But apparently you think the rifle order implies that someone was framing Oswald and wanted to only make it LOOK like he had ordered a rifle from Klein's in March of '63 (which means the orchestrators of such a plan perfectly faked Oswald's handwriting as well).

But, IMO, it's much more reasonable to believe the rifle evidence is just what it appears to be---an order placed by Oswald himself and not by plotters attempting to frame him.

It implies that "Hidell" (aka Lee Oswald) ordered a rifle under an alias.

Implication isn't proof.

But apparently you think the rifle order implies that someone was framing Oswald and wanted to only make it LOOK like he had ordered a rifle from Klein's in March of '63 (which means the orchestrators of such a plan perfectly faked Oswald's handwriting as well).


You don't know what I think, David. Your strawman argument doesn't work on me.

Oswald didn't buy the rifle to shoot the President, that's true enough. He purchased the gun to kill General Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting makes that fact pretty clear. And with that illegal activity in Oswald's mind, it makes perfect sense that he would want to use an alias to order the rifle by mail in March.

In short....

It was OSWALD'S rifle, and there is no indication at all that he ever loaned that weapon to anyone else the entire time he owned it. And there certainly is not a shred of evidence to indicate anybody stole the gun from Ruth Paine's house in September, October, or November of 1963.

Oswald didn't buy the rifle to shoot the President, that's true enough. He purchased the gun to kill General Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting makes that fact pretty clear.

If Oswald did indeed buy the rifle, then you can only quess about why he bought it. Your opinion that the timing of the Walker shooting makes "that fact" pretty clear is just that... your opinion.

It was OSWALD'S rifle, and there is no indication at all that he ever loaned that weapon to anyone else the entire time he owned it. And there certainly is not a shred of evidence to indicate anybody stole the gun from Ruth Paine's house in September, October, or November of 1963.

Was the rifle found in the TSBD really ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage, David? Can you provide evidence for that, beyond Marina's claim of seeing, in late September, what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle (which later morphed into "there was a rifle")? And can you prove conclusively that an alleged rifle that was last seen in late September was still there on 11/21/63 and not removed long before that?

Don't you think it a bit strange that Marina would allow a lethal weapon lying around for months in an easy accessible garage of a house where kids live and frequently play on the front lawn. Does that sound even remotely plausible to you, David?

And, as I've asked conspiracy theorists in the past --- Who is MORE likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on any day of the week (11/22/63 or any other day)---the rifle's owner himself or someone else? That simple and basic observation, all by itself, makes OSWALD much more likely to be JFK's murderer than any other person on the planet.

Silly! This assumes that (1) Oswald did in fact order the rifle (2) received it (3) owned it and (4) still had it on 11/22/63. That's not a simple and basic observation. That's 100% speculation, pure and simple.

[John Anderson]

My best guess and it is only a best guess, not proof for you proof folks, is he retrieved the rifle because the cops told the media they found a .30-06 bullet in Walkers wall. From that he may have believed the rifle was safe to keep.

Keeping the rifle may sound incompetent but Peter Sutcliffe was driving around with a hammer in his car which he had battered numerous women to death with. Nutty folks do nutty things.

[Walt Cakebread]

My best guess and it is only a best guess, not proof for you proof folks, is he retrieved the rifle because the cops told the media they found a .30-06 bullet in Walkers wall. From that he may have believed the rifle was safe to keep.

Keeping the rifle may sound incompetent but Peter Sutcliffe was driving around with a hammer in his car which he had battered numerous women to death with. Nutty folks do nutty things.

Mr Anderson....A word of advise.... You are displaying a lack of critical thinking.    First of you are on the wrong path in accepting the finding of the Warren Commission.    If you haven't read the Warren Report ( and it appears that you haven't) then perhaps you should start from the beginning .......     

[John Anderson]

Mr Anderson....A word of advise.... You are displaying a lack of critical thinking.    First of you are on the wrong path in accepting the finding of the Warren Commission.    If you haven't read the Warren Report ( and it appears that you haven't) then perhaps you should start from the beginning .......   

Mister I waded through dozens of your threads of pish in the archives and you question my thinking? Seriously? Oswald shot at Walker and kept the gun despite leaving a bullet behind and a paper trail leading back to him. Master criminal he was not. I believe Oswald shot at Walker and Kennedy not because the Warren Commission told me so, because I can think for myself.

Did the Warren Commission try their best to convince the public Oswald was 'the man'? Yes they did but they didn't set up an innocent man they went full bore to establish a case against a guilty man. Unfortunately DPD, FBI, SS and CIA all lied through their teeth which is blatant to the reader and the Commission even at the time. Hence the conspiracies.

[Ray Mitcham]

Mister I waded through dozens of your threads of pish in the archives and you question my thinking? Seriously? Oswald shot at Walker and kept the gun despite leaving a bullet behind and a paper trail leading back to him. Master criminal he was not. I believe Oswald shot at Walker and Kennedy not because the Warren Commission told me so, because I can think for myself.

Did the Warren Commission try their best to convince the public Oswald was 'the man'? Yes they did but they didn't set up an innocent man they went full bore to establish a case against a guilty man. Unfortunately DPD, FBI, SS and CIA all lied through their teeth which is blatant to the reader and the Commission even at the time. Hence the conspiracies.

Wow an awful lot of suppositions in your post, John.
"Oswald shot at Walker and kept the gun despite leaving a bullet behind and a paper trail leading back to him."
Totally unproven.

"I believe Oswald shot at Walker and Kennedy not because the Warren Commission told me so, because I can think for myself. "
Believe what you want. Doesn't prove a thing.

"Did the Warren Commission try their best to convince the public Oswald was 'the man'? "
Thank you for showing the intention of the Warren Commission.

"Yes they did but they didn't set up an innocent man they went full bore to establish a case against a guilty man."

First you have to prove that Oswald was guilty.