Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 14, 2018 21:09:54 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2025
assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/4/8/5/4/c/54c085fa-bf52-11e3-9bdd-34641bda4e1c.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) with a World War II (WWII) surplus Mannlicher Carcano (M-C) 40” model rifle, but as we have seen previously in this series there is NO evidence showing LHO ever ordered a 40” model M-C. The WC’s OWN evidence found in the twenty-six volumes shows us at best he would have ordered a 36” CARBINE model and NOT a 40” model. Even this is in doubt though as the money order allegedly used contained a serial number NOT used by the Dallas area Post Office UNTIL late 1964 or early 1965, so how would LHO have gotten this? Also, it was supposedly purchased at 10:00 a.m. when LHO was at work and from a Post Office some distance from the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall building.
Furthermore, as we have seen previously in this series there is ZERO evidence showing LHO ever received any package of ANY TYPE at his Dallas P.O. Box so how did he allegedly get this 40” rifle in the first place? Also, we saw in this post that the addressee was to a “A. Hidell” (a supposed alias of LHO’s) and LHO had NEVER listed anyone else eligible to receive mail at his P.O. Box in the Part III of the P.O. Box application, thus, the package (if sent as claimed) would have been RETURNED TO SENDER as is described in Postal regulations.
We see there is NO evidence LHO ever ordered or received a 40” M-C at all to use on 11/22/63 even if he wanted to. The tiny string that the WC, and its current day defenders, hang their case on are the BackYard Photographs (BYPs) that they claim depict LHO in holding a 40” M-C, but as we have seen in various posts in this series this is just another lark by them.
We have covered the backyard pictures in numerous posts in this series. We have looked at this issue from many angles and it shows LHO is NOT in them and they were doctored as he claimed. Even IF they are genuine, and they are NOT, so what? All this shows is he had a 40” M-C in his hands on THAT DAY, it does NOT show he ordered it or received it via his Dallas P.O. Box as claimed. He could have been lent it or given it by someone else for all we know. The topper though is this—the FBI expert called by the WC could NOT, would NOT, say the rifle seen in the BYPs is the SAME ONE found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) so this destroys any value left in the BYPs (not that there was any anyway) as the WC defenders can’t show the person holding the M-C seen in the BYPs is the same one found later on in the TSBD. There is NO link in this evidence. Period.
In this post we will look at what experts said about the rifle in question to see if it could have done what was claimed of it.
*************************************
Here is the alleged murder weapon.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0053b.jpg
The first major issue is the FACT the ammunition LHO would have been using for this legendary shooting feat would have been manufactured in 1944 (see letter to Stewart Galanor from Olin/Winchester Western Division WWD, dated 7/14/1965, and found in Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, Appendix VII, p. 411). That means at the time of the assassination this ammunition would have been NINETEEN-years old!
How reliable could this have been? NOT very reliable according to H.J. Gebelein, Asst. Sales Service Manager/WWD, as he told researcher and WC critic Sylvia Meagher in a letter dated 4/20/1965 (and published in her book Accessories After the Fact) that, “the reliability of such ammunition would be questionable today.”
The WC flat-out lied about this as they claimed in their “Speculation and Rumors” section that WWD was STILL making 6.5mm ammo as of 1964 (today per them). They said the following.
Quote on
Speculation—Ammunition found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had not been manufactured since the end of World War II. The ammunition used by Oswald must, therefore have been at least 20 years old, making it extremely unreliable.
Commission finding—The ammunition used in the rifle was American ammunition RECENTLY made by the Western Cartridge Co. [East Alton, Illinois], which manufactures such ammunition CURRENTLY. (Emphasis added)
Quote off
Beyond bad math (1944-1963 is 19 years) and a poor history background (WWII ended in 1945, NOT 1944) we see the WC flat-out lied as the company they claimed to be making the ammunition said the ammunition had NOT been made since 1944 by them or anyone else!
Add in the fact LHO did NOT allegedly order a clip from Klein’s Sporting Goods (KSG) or purchase one from anywhere else and we have all kinds of issues going on with the ability to fire the rifle in a quick manner and be reliable when doing so. Why would LHO NOT order a clip? Here is what FBI expert Robert Frazier said about the clip before the WC.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you receive a clip with that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip—that someone wishing to shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the clip later?
Mr. FRAZIER. They would have to acquire it from some source.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is it commonly available?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
As we saw in post #136 of this series it was NOT commonly available as ONLY two stores in the Dallas/Irving area sold 6.5mm ammunition, thus ONLY two stores would have a need to stock clips for it. As we saw in that post NEITHER store said they remembered selling a clip to LHO, so where did he get his IF you believe the WC? Frazier would say this about NOT having a clip.
Mr. McCLOY - Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you can.
Mr. McCLOY - What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER - It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY - The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Can you imagine LHO getting off three shots in 5.6 seconds as claimed loading the rifle this way? The clip is very important, and the WC, its defenders, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) have never come close to explaining where LHO would have gotten his from.
The WC deduced that this rifle was ready to go on 11/22/63 despite using 19-year old ammunition, and a clip that no one knows where it came from. What about the issue of the telescopic sight? Robert Frazier said this about it before the WC.
Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
Representative BOGGS - One other question, then. It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.
Representative BOGGS - So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. FRAZIER - If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
Representative BOGGS - But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. EISENBERG - For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
Despite some obvious skilled diversion we see it was the ballistics laboratory of the Army that ADDED the shims to the rifle and scope to make it possible to sight the rifle! Frazier said there were NO shims when they received the rifle in the laboratory, thus, we have to assume there were none when they found it. He does try to cover this by claiming the scope was loose because the shims were taken out so the weapon could be processed for prints though. What proof does he have for this statement? Who knows as he does NOT say. IF we go to Lieutenant Day’s testimony, we see this in regard to the scope.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel, which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
We see he says he did NOT “get to the scopic sight” area at all before he was told to turn the weapon over to the FBI, thus, he would have NO reason to loosen or remove the shims as claimed by Frazier. Nowhere in Studebaker’s or Latona’s testimonies do you see anything about processing the scope. So again, where did Frazier get this idea from? It would seem he just made it up to cover for the FACT the scope was loose when the rifle was found, and this means you could NOT sight it or use it on 11/22/63.
So much for this comment by Frazier before the WC regarding the scope.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly and do this--hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.
The sight was NOT in working condition Mr. Frazier so this comment by you is totally inaccurate for that reason alone, but it is inaccurate for many others too.
There is more to consider as J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director, said this in a letter to Lee J. Rankin (lead counsel for the WC).
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0070b.gif
It is to be noted that at the time of firing these tests, the telescopic sight could NOT be PROPERLY aligned WITH THE TARGET since the sight reached the limit of its adjustment BEFORE reaching ACCURATE alignment. (Emphasis added) (CE 2724, p. 104; p. 2 in original)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0070b.htm
Quote off
This is very damaging for the WC’s claim since the rifle could NOT be properly sighted with the target! I would think that would be an issue for the shooter. What about you? Right after this on the same page in the same paragraph we see this comment by Hoover.
Quote on
The present error in alignment, if it did exist at the time of the assassination, would be in FAVOR of the shooter since the weapon is presently grouping slightly high and to the right with respect to the point of aim, and would have tended to reduce the need for “leading” a moving target in aiming the rifle.” (Emphasis added) (Ibid.)
Quote off
Talk about making lemonade out of a bunch of sour lemons, huh? How could shooting high and to right aid the shooter when his target was LOW AND TO THE LEFT of the crosshair? This is utter nonsense and shows again the lengths they would go to make LHO look guilty.
Let’s look at some other comments made over the years about the alleged murder weapon. The first quote comes to us from Walter H.B. Smith who was an author of several National Rifle Association books. This quote was found on pages 122 & 123 of Rush To Judgment.
Quote on
[The Italian Mannlicher-Carcano rifles] are poor military weapons in comparison with United States, British, German or Russian equipment. (Basic Manual of Military Small Arms, 5th edition, 1955, p. 536)
Quote off
This quote says it all. Why would you choose a “poor quality” weapon to shoot the president with when you had knowledge of a better weapon—M1—from your Marine Corps days? Mark Lane found and quoted more for us in his book on page 123.
Quote on
[The Mannlicher-Carcano] is crudely made, poorly designed, DANGEROUS AND INACCURATE…unhandy, crude, UNRELIABLE, on REPEAT shots, has safety design faults. (October 1964 edition of Mechanix Illustrated article) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
That is not so bad, right? Dangerous and inaccurate? Unreliable on repeat shots? I’m sure LHO had NO worries on 11/22/63 if he used CE-139 as claimed though, right? The WC said this weapon was capable of doing what they claimed too!
Jack O’Conner wrote in the Rifle Book that [The Mannlicher-Carcano action is] “TERRIBLE” and added that the weapon has “a coy habit of blowing the firing pin out in the shooter’s FACE.” This quote matched up with what the WC said too.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0109a.gif
None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had NOT even pulled the trigger because of concern about BREAKING THE FIRING PIN. (Emphasis added) (WCR, p. 193)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
Quote off
So in addition to a loose scope that had NO shims in all likelihood to adjust it with, NO clip that we know of, 19-year old ammunition, a crude and unreliable rifle on repeat shots that was also dangerous and inaccurate, we have the issue of the firing pin either blowing back into the shooter’s face or breaking completely during your shooting attempt!
But on the positive side we have a pull high and to the right aiding the shooter when he was attempting to shoot LOW and to the LEFT! The WC actually said this could work with showing in their own twenty-six volumes it was totally ludicrous, thus, they again SINK their own conclusion.
I guess the WC finally told us the truth when they said the U.S. Marine Corps equated the marksman rating (LHO’s last test score) with being a “rather poor shot.” (WCR, p. 191) Even if he was one of the best shots in the world, and he wasn’t, who could have hit anything with the alleged murder weapon?
Once again, we see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.
assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2014/4/8/5/4/c/54c085fa-bf52-11e3-9bdd-34641bda4e1c.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) with a World War II (WWII) surplus Mannlicher Carcano (M-C) 40” model rifle, but as we have seen previously in this series there is NO evidence showing LHO ever ordered a 40” model M-C. The WC’s OWN evidence found in the twenty-six volumes shows us at best he would have ordered a 36” CARBINE model and NOT a 40” model. Even this is in doubt though as the money order allegedly used contained a serial number NOT used by the Dallas area Post Office UNTIL late 1964 or early 1965, so how would LHO have gotten this? Also, it was supposedly purchased at 10:00 a.m. when LHO was at work and from a Post Office some distance from the Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall building.
Furthermore, as we have seen previously in this series there is ZERO evidence showing LHO ever received any package of ANY TYPE at his Dallas P.O. Box so how did he allegedly get this 40” rifle in the first place? Also, we saw in this post that the addressee was to a “A. Hidell” (a supposed alias of LHO’s) and LHO had NEVER listed anyone else eligible to receive mail at his P.O. Box in the Part III of the P.O. Box application, thus, the package (if sent as claimed) would have been RETURNED TO SENDER as is described in Postal regulations.
We see there is NO evidence LHO ever ordered or received a 40” M-C at all to use on 11/22/63 even if he wanted to. The tiny string that the WC, and its current day defenders, hang their case on are the BackYard Photographs (BYPs) that they claim depict LHO in holding a 40” M-C, but as we have seen in various posts in this series this is just another lark by them.
We have covered the backyard pictures in numerous posts in this series. We have looked at this issue from many angles and it shows LHO is NOT in them and they were doctored as he claimed. Even IF they are genuine, and they are NOT, so what? All this shows is he had a 40” M-C in his hands on THAT DAY, it does NOT show he ordered it or received it via his Dallas P.O. Box as claimed. He could have been lent it or given it by someone else for all we know. The topper though is this—the FBI expert called by the WC could NOT, would NOT, say the rifle seen in the BYPs is the SAME ONE found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) so this destroys any value left in the BYPs (not that there was any anyway) as the WC defenders can’t show the person holding the M-C seen in the BYPs is the same one found later on in the TSBD. There is NO link in this evidence. Period.
In this post we will look at what experts said about the rifle in question to see if it could have done what was claimed of it.
*************************************
Here is the alleged murder weapon.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0053b.jpg
The first major issue is the FACT the ammunition LHO would have been using for this legendary shooting feat would have been manufactured in 1944 (see letter to Stewart Galanor from Olin/Winchester Western Division WWD, dated 7/14/1965, and found in Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, Appendix VII, p. 411). That means at the time of the assassination this ammunition would have been NINETEEN-years old!
How reliable could this have been? NOT very reliable according to H.J. Gebelein, Asst. Sales Service Manager/WWD, as he told researcher and WC critic Sylvia Meagher in a letter dated 4/20/1965 (and published in her book Accessories After the Fact) that, “the reliability of such ammunition would be questionable today.”
The WC flat-out lied about this as they claimed in their “Speculation and Rumors” section that WWD was STILL making 6.5mm ammo as of 1964 (today per them). They said the following.
Quote on
Speculation—Ammunition found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository had not been manufactured since the end of World War II. The ammunition used by Oswald must, therefore have been at least 20 years old, making it extremely unreliable.
Commission finding—The ammunition used in the rifle was American ammunition RECENTLY made by the Western Cartridge Co. [East Alton, Illinois], which manufactures such ammunition CURRENTLY. (Emphasis added)
Quote off
Beyond bad math (1944-1963 is 19 years) and a poor history background (WWII ended in 1945, NOT 1944) we see the WC flat-out lied as the company they claimed to be making the ammunition said the ammunition had NOT been made since 1944 by them or anyone else!
Add in the fact LHO did NOT allegedly order a clip from Klein’s Sporting Goods (KSG) or purchase one from anywhere else and we have all kinds of issues going on with the ability to fire the rifle in a quick manner and be reliable when doing so. Why would LHO NOT order a clip? Here is what FBI expert Robert Frazier said about the clip before the WC.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you ordered C-250, which is now Commission Exhibit 542, did you receive a clip with that rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you deduce, therefore, that the clip—that someone wishing to shoot that rifle and use a clip in the rifle would have purchased the clip later?
Mr. FRAZIER. They would have to acquire it from some source.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is it commonly available?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
As we saw in post #136 of this series it was NOT commonly available as ONLY two stores in the Dallas/Irving area sold 6.5mm ammunition, thus ONLY two stores would have a need to stock clips for it. As we saw in that post NEITHER store said they remembered selling a clip to LHO, so where did he get his IF you believe the WC? Frazier would say this about NOT having a clip.
Mr. McCLOY - Can you use that rifle without the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; you can.
Mr. McCLOY - What is the advantage of the clip?
Mr. FRAZIER - It permits repeated firing of the weapon without manually loading one shot at a time.
Mr. McCLOY - The only other way you can fire it is by way of manual load?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; one shot at a time.
Can you imagine LHO getting off three shots in 5.6 seconds as claimed loading the rifle this way? The clip is very important, and the WC, its defenders, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) have never come close to explaining where LHO would have gotten his from.
The WC deduced that this rifle was ready to go on 11/22/63 despite using 19-year old ammunition, and a clip that no one knows where it came from. What about the issue of the telescopic sight? Robert Frazier said this about it before the WC.
Representative BOGGS - Excuse me just a moment. Do you have any opinion on whether or not the sight was deliberately set that way?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I do not. And I think I must say here that this mount was loose on the rifle when we received it. And apparently the scope had even been taken off of the rifle, in searching for fingerprints on the rifle. So that actually the way it was sighted-in when we got it does not necessarily mean it was sighted-in that way when it was abandoned.
Mr. EISENBERG - Carrying this question a little bit further on the deliberateness of the sighting-in, the problem with the elevation crosshair is built into the mounting of the scope, is that correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. The mount is not screwed to the rifle in such a fashion that it points the scope at the target closely enough to permit adjusting the crosshair to accurately sight-in the rifle.
Representative BOGGS - One other question, then. It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alignment.
Representative BOGGS - So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. FRAZIER - If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
Representative BOGGS - But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. EISENBERG - For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
Despite some obvious skilled diversion we see it was the ballistics laboratory of the Army that ADDED the shims to the rifle and scope to make it possible to sight the rifle! Frazier said there were NO shims when they received the rifle in the laboratory, thus, we have to assume there were none when they found it. He does try to cover this by claiming the scope was loose because the shims were taken out so the weapon could be processed for prints though. What proof does he have for this statement? Who knows as he does NOT say. IF we go to Lieutenant Day’s testimony, we see this in regard to the scope.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel, which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
We see he says he did NOT “get to the scopic sight” area at all before he was told to turn the weapon over to the FBI, thus, he would have NO reason to loosen or remove the shims as claimed by Frazier. Nowhere in Studebaker’s or Latona’s testimonies do you see anything about processing the scope. So again, where did Frazier get this idea from? It would seem he just made it up to cover for the FACT the scope was loose when the rifle was found, and this means you could NOT sight it or use it on 11/22/63.
So much for this comment by Frazier before the WC regarding the scope.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say you would have to be very familiar with the weapon to fire it rapidly and do this--hit this target at those ranges. But the marksmanship is accomplished by the telescopic sight. I mean it requires no training at all to shoot a weapon with a telescopic sight once you know that you must put the crosshairs on the target and that is all that is necessary.
The sight was NOT in working condition Mr. Frazier so this comment by you is totally inaccurate for that reason alone, but it is inaccurate for many others too.
There is more to consider as J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director, said this in a letter to Lee J. Rankin (lead counsel for the WC).
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pages/WH_Vol26_0070b.gif
It is to be noted that at the time of firing these tests, the telescopic sight could NOT be PROPERLY aligned WITH THE TARGET since the sight reached the limit of its adjustment BEFORE reaching ACCURATE alignment. (Emphasis added) (CE 2724, p. 104; p. 2 in original)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0070b.htm
Quote off
This is very damaging for the WC’s claim since the rifle could NOT be properly sighted with the target! I would think that would be an issue for the shooter. What about you? Right after this on the same page in the same paragraph we see this comment by Hoover.
Quote on
The present error in alignment, if it did exist at the time of the assassination, would be in FAVOR of the shooter since the weapon is presently grouping slightly high and to the right with respect to the point of aim, and would have tended to reduce the need for “leading” a moving target in aiming the rifle.” (Emphasis added) (Ibid.)
Quote off
Talk about making lemonade out of a bunch of sour lemons, huh? How could shooting high and to right aid the shooter when his target was LOW AND TO THE LEFT of the crosshair? This is utter nonsense and shows again the lengths they would go to make LHO look guilty.
Let’s look at some other comments made over the years about the alleged murder weapon. The first quote comes to us from Walter H.B. Smith who was an author of several National Rifle Association books. This quote was found on pages 122 & 123 of Rush To Judgment.
Quote on
[The Italian Mannlicher-Carcano rifles] are poor military weapons in comparison with United States, British, German or Russian equipment. (Basic Manual of Military Small Arms, 5th edition, 1955, p. 536)
Quote off
This quote says it all. Why would you choose a “poor quality” weapon to shoot the president with when you had knowledge of a better weapon—M1—from your Marine Corps days? Mark Lane found and quoted more for us in his book on page 123.
Quote on
[The Mannlicher-Carcano] is crudely made, poorly designed, DANGEROUS AND INACCURATE…unhandy, crude, UNRELIABLE, on REPEAT shots, has safety design faults. (October 1964 edition of Mechanix Illustrated article) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
That is not so bad, right? Dangerous and inaccurate? Unreliable on repeat shots? I’m sure LHO had NO worries on 11/22/63 if he used CE-139 as claimed though, right? The WC said this weapon was capable of doing what they claimed too!
Jack O’Conner wrote in the Rifle Book that [The Mannlicher-Carcano action is] “TERRIBLE” and added that the weapon has “a coy habit of blowing the firing pin out in the shooter’s FACE.” This quote matched up with what the WC said too.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0109a.gif
None of the marksmen had any practice with the assassination weapon except for exercising the bolt for 2 or 3 minutes on a dry run. They had NOT even pulled the trigger because of concern about BREAKING THE FIRING PIN. (Emphasis added) (WCR, p. 193)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0109a.htm
Quote off
So in addition to a loose scope that had NO shims in all likelihood to adjust it with, NO clip that we know of, 19-year old ammunition, a crude and unreliable rifle on repeat shots that was also dangerous and inaccurate, we have the issue of the firing pin either blowing back into the shooter’s face or breaking completely during your shooting attempt!
But on the positive side we have a pull high and to the right aiding the shooter when he was attempting to shoot LOW and to the LEFT! The WC actually said this could work with showing in their own twenty-six volumes it was totally ludicrous, thus, they again SINK their own conclusion.
I guess the WC finally told us the truth when they said the U.S. Marine Corps equated the marksman rating (LHO’s last test score) with being a “rather poor shot.” (WCR, p. 191) Even if he was one of the best shots in the world, and he wasn’t, who could have hit anything with the alleged murder weapon?
Once again, we see evidence that disputes the claims of the WC, thus, their conclusion is sunk again.