Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
  • Content count

    4,655
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David Von Pein


  1. 32 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

    ...Magic Handwriting®...

    [...]

    ...the bogus “documentation” for the Magic Rifle®...

    [...]

    ...the key was the Magic Money Order®...

    [...]

    ...an all new money order was needed to incriminate the Designated Patsy...

    The strange things CTers will believe. Amazing.

    (And why isn't there an ® symbol to accompany your make-believe "Designated Patsy"? A terrible oversight indeed!)


  2. 2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

    Interesting, though, that the Bureau worked so hard to hide the fact it had confiscated Klein’s microfilm—preferring to let people believe it was safely locked away at Klein’s!

    Yeah, that must be why the FBI wrote up Commission Document No. 75, which plainly states that William J. Waldman relinquished control of the microfilm on 11/23/63 to the FBI, with Waldman himself saying that very thing in his Warren Commission testimony.

    Waldman also put his initials on the cardboard box containing the microfilm (FBI Exhibit D-77 / Waldman Exhibit No. 6). And the date "11-23-63" appears twice on the cardboard box as well....

    Waldman-Exhibit-Number-6.jpg

     

    CD75 also plainly says that Waldman made available the microfilm "from a safe in his control", which perfectly aligns with the earlier FBI FD-302 report we find in CD7.

    And when examining both reports (CD7 vs. CD75), we see that the EXACT same detailed information is provided in both reports regarding the things that were found on the Klein's "Order Blank" (which would become Waldman No. 7) -- e.g., the transaction number, the VC number, the C2766 serial number, the March 20th date, etc.

    All info is identical in both FBI reports, one of which (CD7) was written prior to the FBI taking the microfilm from Waldman/Klein's; with the second report (CD75) being prepared after the FBI took control of the microfilm from Klein's.

    CTers like John Armstrong evidently think that BOTH of those FBI reports are false and full of lies regarding the things the FBI agents saw on the Order Blank provided by Klein's. But in reality, the truth is:

    William Waldman kept possession of the microfilm in his safe for just a very short period of time on 11/23/63 (certainly no more than a few hours) before he turned it over to the FBI that very same day. CD7 precedes CD75 as far as the chronological order of the reports. And if you're a person who isn't prone to thinking the FBI faked everything imaginable concerning the JFK case, then CD7 -- all by itself -- provides the written proof that Klein's Sporting Goods most definitely had in its possession on November 23, 1963, an internal "Order Blank" for a 6.5-mm. Italian rifle (Serial # C2766) that was shipped by Klein's to "A. Hidell" in Dallas on 3/20/63.

    That should be enough, right there, for all reasonable people to stamp this mystery "Solved".


  3. A close examination of events shows that the FBI was just making up stories for a week following the assassination, before settling on the final legend.

    That's total nonsense, Jim.

    As I have mentioned in previous discussions, there are very sensible and logical (and non-sinister) explanations for the initial inaccurate reports concerning the details of the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase -- particularly the confusion that arose from the "$12.78" figure and the "March 20" date.

    But to an Internet conspiracy theorist, however, virtually everything done by Officialdom is looked at as being part of some secretive and underhanded plot. So silly.

    I think more conspiracy believers should embrace Hanlon's Razor....

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

     


  4. James DiEugenio said:

    ...the idea that somehow Klein's had to be involved in the plot is so silly that I don't even think you really believe it.

    Given the fact that Klein's internal paperwork (Waldman #7) and a Klein's-produced microfilm for the order form for a rifle (Commission Exhibit #773) and the detailed testimony of Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman all play an integral and key role in the "Rifle Evidence" against Lee Harvey Oswald, I can't see any reasonable way for Klein's Sporting Goods Company of Chicago, Illinois, to NOT be "involved in the plot" that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio have invented for themselves.

    Good gosh, the key and relevant rifle documents (CE773 and Waldman Exhibit No. 7) were, in fact, found in the Klein's files in Chicago, and were found by Klein's employees themselves early in the morning of 11/23/63.

    But, incredibly, per conspiracy fantasists like Mr. DiEugenio, we're supposed to believe that there was really no such legitimate "Hidell" order form for Rifle C2766 found in the Klein's files at all! --- because Jim doesn't think Oswald/Hidell really ordered ANY rifle from Klein's at any time!

    Talk about believing in something "silly". The "Oswald Never Ordered A Rifle At All" nonsense would certainly be it. And I don't see how any such ridiculous theory could possibly NOT include at least a few Klein's employees who must have been privy to the "plot". Maybe James D. can explain how that could have happened.

     


  5. 15 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

    Sorry, we barely submit anything in paper form anymore and although I recall bulk transfers from earlier in my career, I don't have any details to share.   I respond to you because you have a grip on rational thought -however- the whole topic should be at most two posts long: a non-banker asking for a banker's opinion followed by an answer in the next post.  If you don't believe ME, ok, simply print out the back of the money order and bring it to your bank and ask if this is a valid endorsement.   The fact is with a large commercial depositor, no one at any stage of processing is checking the endorsement - it could be a scribble, it could be in Chinese, it could be missing entirely.   The endorsement means almost nothing (in this case), likewise any "missing" endorsement or ABA number means nothing.   The Fed promulgated guidelines and has since time began never enforced them in routine daily transactions.  Then and now processing occurs without signatures, with missing dates, and with all kinds of arguably invalid attributes.   To imagine Klein's is in on the assassination is why CTers are seen as the lunatic fringe.

    Imagining you can read a tiny snippet of federal regulations and become an expert on check processing without any bank experience is ridiculous.

    Thanks for your response, Jason. I'll be sure to add it to my mile-long "Money Order" webpage [linked again below].

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/The Hidell Money Order


  6. Jim,

    Repeating what I said in an earlier post on this page....

    As far as I can see, the only argument the conspiracy theorists can make now in support of the idea that additional markings are still needed on the CE788 money order is to argue that this requirement was not met....

    "The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

    But, as I stated two or three years ago in a similar "Money Order" thread, it's quite possible that the Hidell money order was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which could very well have had those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).

    To believe the Hidell money order is fraudulent at this stage in the lengthy PMO discussion is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exactly where it should have been found --- in Alexandria/Washington --- on 11/23/63.

    And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question. (Unless CTers want to argue that the $21.45 M.O. mentioned by Wilmouth is a DIFFERENT $21.45 M.O. entirely.)


  7. JIM HARGROVE SAID:

    Warren Commission loyalists want us to believe that this uncashed, unendorsed money order is legitimate proof of purchase by “A. Hidell” of a rifle that was shipped to Hidell via a Dallas P.O. Box under the name of “Oswald,” contrary to U.S. postal regulations, for a price of… well… first it was $12.78 for a rifle without a scope as pointed out by dozens of American dailies for nearly a week after the assassination.

    As one example of many, a Nov. 23 article by the New York Times wire service, picked up in daily newspapers in many cities, including the Nov. 24 Salt Lake Tribune, reported the following: “Handwriting, analyzed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington as Oswald's on an assumed-name order to a Chicago mail order house last March 20 for a $12.78 rifle, similar to the assassination weapon.”

    When the saga of Dial Ryder and the scope didn't pan out, the FBI apparently lost all its reports of a $12.78 rifle without a scope. But, like magic, "Oswald's handwriting" suddenly appeared on a new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope.

    A magic money order to purchase a magic rifle that shot magic bullets. It was truly an age of miracles!


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Jim,

    There's no "magic" or "miracles" of any kind involved here at all. And there's no sinister or underhanded cover-up involved either. The reason why the media was reporting the $12.78 cost for the rifle (sans the scope) was quite simple --- they were simply referring to the Klein's ads that were currently running in various magazines in November of 1963. Between the time Oswald ordered his rifle in March '63 and the time of the assassination eight months later, the price of the Italian carbine (without the scope attached) in the Klein's advertisements had decreased by 10 cents, from $12.88 to $12.78.

    And it's highly unlikely that any of the people in the press still had ready access to any Klein's magazine ads from eight or nine months earlier. So they were merely reporting on the CURRENT price of the gun in their TV and newspaper reports, without bothering to factor in the proper "With Scope" price. Big deal.

    And even Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on 11/23/63:

    "I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that." (See the video clip below.)

    http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/interviews-with-jesse-curry.html

    As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87.

    So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?


  8. 21 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

    Please note the phrase "ANY BANK, BANKER, OR TRUST CO." in the endorsement on the top right photostat below of the 1963 voucher to Lee Harvey Oswald from the Texas Employment Commission.

    So what?

    First National Bank in Chicago most certainly satisfies the "any bank, banker or trust company" requirement. As far as I can see, the only argument the conspiracy theorists can make now in support of the idea that additional markings are still needed on the CE788 money order is to argue that this requirement was not met....

    "The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

    But, as I stated two or three years ago in a similar "Money Order" thread, it's quite possible that the Hidell money order was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which could very well have had those stamps on it (i.e., the date and the ABA transit numbers).

    To believe the Hidell money order is fraudulent at this stage in the lengthy PMO discussion is silly, especially when we KNOW it was found just exactly where it should have been found --- in Alexandria/Washington --- on 11/23/63.

    And we also have information in CD75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Wilmouth) verifying that First National DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question. (Unless CTers want to argue that the $21.45 M.O. mentioned by Wilmouth is a DIFFERENT $21.45 M.O. entirely.)

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

    CD75.png

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


     The-Hidell-Money-Order-Logo.png
     


  9. 10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

     

    All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

    direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

    order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

    order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

    endorsement.


    So the endorsement would look like one of these:

    1. Pay to the order of Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
    2. Pay to the order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Company
    3. (Some similar endorsement.)

    Sandy,

    Please tell us (again) why, in your estimation, the "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" endorsement on the CE788 Hidell/Oswald Postal Money Order does NOT meet Requirement #2 listed above. Isn't "1st National Of Chicago" to be considered "Any Bank" in your opinion? If not, why not?

    Money-Order-Back-Side-Comparison.jpg

     


  10. 8 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

    I work at a bank.   First of all - checks and money orders are processed all the time with NO endorsement whatsoever.   All the endorsement does is provide a legal chain of recourse should the check turn out bad.   Endorsements SHOULD be present, but quite often they are not.   Second of all - commercial depositors always endorse their checks [in effect] twice - once to themselves, and once again to their bank.  JUST AS KLEIN's did.

    In any case - the endorsement on the money order is correct, it is all that it is needed - both then and now.

    Finally! We get to hear from someone who works in a bank! I was beginning to think no one with your occupation would ever show up at this forum.

    Thank you, Jason.


  11. 26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

    David,

    I don't see how your semi-random snippets of old posts serve any useful purpose.

    The "useful purpose" that is served via my "semi-random snippets" is to remind people who might be looking in for the first time just how ridiculous and dead wrong many of the theories espoused by JFK conspiracy theorists truly are --- such as the "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" theory, which has to be one of the silliest conspiracy theories of all time.

    Such common-sense reminders (via "semi-random snippets" or otherwise) are very much needed at any JFK forum, IMO, in order to provide a little "LN" balance to counteract the CTers' fantasies, if for no other reason.


  12. JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

    You don't want to deal with new evidence which shows the rifle was never ordered or picked up. Just like Vince [Bugliosi] did not.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Complete garbage. There is no "new" evidence that proves your goofy "No Rifle Was Ordered" theory, Jimmy. Only the CT INTERPRETATION of the Klein's evidence. And it's an interpretation that's about as believable as the moonbat "No Airplanes Hit The World Trade Center" theories. It's THAT ridiculous. You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the following words --

    "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." [J. DiEugenio; 8/5/15]

    But evidently no theory is too fringe-like for Mr. DiEugenio.

    Joe Ball's 1964 retort to Mark Lane concerning Oswald's rifle purchase is just as true today as it was then. It's a great quote, and completely accurate:

    "I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64
     

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-992.html


  13. JIM HARGROVE SAID:

    There is plenty of evidence at the National Archives incriminating “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and all of it is phony.

    [...]

    ...the FBI altered their statements.

    [...]

    ...FBI report falsifications.

    [...]

    ...the FBI and/or Warren Commission merely had to alter his testimony.

    [...]

    ...documents were fabricated.

    [...]

    ...I don't trust ANY report.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape.

    In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.)

    When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case.


    JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

    I call this DVP land, which is similar to the territory that Rod Serling inhabited in his TV days.

    Consider:

    For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope!

    Were they all blind? And this included the local newspapers.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it.

    And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see the first video at the link below)....

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1102.html

    And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 on November 22 as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper.

    Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle.

    And yet another here.

    Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun.

    So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond November 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope".

    But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.


    JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

    I love it when Davey goes into one of his tantrums. As he did above. It shows you how exacerbated this issue gets him.

    See, that is not what I meant. Let me explain:

    If DVP is saying that the 12.78 price which was widely circulated was a mistake, because they did not realize the scope was a part of the purchase, then all they had to do was look at the rifle and see it had a scope. Which as he shows, many outlets did. OK, what is the price of the scope?

    But if he is saying that they knew it had a scope, then why did so many outlets still get it wrong?

    It's that simple. DVP wants to have it both ways.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    The media kept getting it wrong because they simply kept repeating the main $12.78 price for the rifle (without the scope) that was originally reported by Chief Curry on TV on 11/23/63. Nobody in the media took the time in those first few days to seek out what the price was WITH the scope included. Big deal.

    There's no cover-up there. Just a lack of details regarding the "With Scope" price.

    Again....big deal. It's only a "big deal" to rabid conspiracy theorists like you, Jim.


    JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

    Davey:

    Curry of the police said that the FBI reported that price [$12.78]. For a rifle with scope.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    But keep in mind that when Curry told the press about the $12.78 price for the rifle, the complete information concerning the $21.45 money order had not been revealed to Chief Curry yet. I believe Curry provided the $12.78 info at about 7 PM Dallas time on 11/23, while the money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on 11/23. The Secret Service and FBI knew a little earlier than that, of course, that they were looking for a money order in the amount of $21.45 (see Commission Document No. 87), but the DPD wouldn't necessarily have been privy to the $21.45 price until much later (assuming they were ever provided that figure by the SS or FBI, which perhaps they weren't, I don't really know).

    So the press people went with the info they had available as of Curry's makeshift conference at DPD at 7:00 on Nov. 23 --- i.e., Oswald's handwriting was traced to the Klein's "order letter" (not the money order), with Curry telling the reporters this....

    "I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that."


    JIM HARGROVE SAID THIS.


    SANDY LARSEN SAID:

    LOL, this is crazy! The FBI was initially going to go with the March 20 $21.95 money order purchase. Then later changed their minds and decided to fabricate their own money order!

    DVP, how do you explain the fact that the FBI got the wrong order from the microfilm? I mean, are they so inept that they thought they saw serial number C2766 on that order when in fact it wasn't there? Remember, this was not just one FBI agent... it was three! So all three hallucinated the C2766 serial number???

    This is yet another smoking gun, Jim. But can DVP convincingly explain it away?? I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a reply!


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Sandy,

    The FBI didn't get the "wrong order" from the microfilm. There WAS NO ORDER FOR $21.95 for the C2766 rifle. That was merely a slipped digit. And Harry Holmes talks about that mistake in his testimony too. That was one of the reasons it took a little longer to find the $21.45 Hidell money order --- because they were searching (in vain) for the wrong amount ($21.95).

    Once they realized what the correct figure was--$21.45--they found it very quickly.

    Do you think Waldman No. 7 is a fake document, Sandy? It clearly says $21.45 on it. And it also says C2766. And A. Hidell. And Italian Carbine. And William Waldman testified in detail about that order form. Was he a plotter too?

    Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg


    JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

    What a bunch of Von Peinian baloney.

    And by God in heaven, to use Holmes as your witness. As a famous lawyer said to Joe McCarthy, "Have you no shame sir?"

    Well, we know the answer to that don't we? In both cases.

    How anyone can write the above knowing they were looking for the serial number, not the price, is simply beyond the realm of normal thinking. He still has not read John's essay.

    But that is why Davey is Davey.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    Jimmy,

    When it came time to look for the money order, they were most certainly looking for the AMOUNT, not the serial number. (The serial number wasn't on the M.O.)

    And this sentence written by John Armstrong....

    "They did, however, find documentation that showed Klein's sold a $21.95 rifle that was paid for with a postal money order issued on March 20, 1963."

    ....is just a flat-out distortion of the facts, because the FBI most certainly did NOT find any $21.95 Klein's order form for the C2766 rifle. They found the Waldman Exhibit No. 7 document, which is the ONLY document that has BOTH a price and the C2766 serial number on it--and Armstrong knows it. He's merely trying to turn an innocent error regarding the exact amount of the purchase ($21.95 vs. $21.45) into a mountain of conspiracy and cover-up. Silly beyond belief.


    SANDY LARSEN SAID:

    What specifically is the "order" anyway? Is it the coupon cut out from the magazine? The money order? Both?


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    The "order letter" that Chief Jesse Curry refers to in his hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 is CE773, which is the microfilm of the order form clipped by Oswald out of the Feb. '63 American Rifleman magazine. That's the microfilmed document that was the basis for the FBI's findings that the "order letter" had Oswald's writing on it. That order form, of course, doesn't have the $21.45 figure on it either. Nor does it have $12.78 on it. It has $19.95 on it. (Shall we dance some more over those three figures?)


    SANDY LARSEN SAID:

    David, can you write a quick summary for me so that I can understand what happened. I'll write one up right now to give you an idea of what I want:

    1. The FBI has the serial number, C2766. (I'm not sure how they got that, but I'll try to understand that later.)

    2. The FBI guys search the Klein's microfilm for seven hours and find what they THINK they are looking for... an order with C2766 printed on it. (Even though it wasn't.)

    3. The order is dated March 20 (now we're talking about the money order, right?) for $21.95.

    4. The FBI authenticated Oswald's handwriting.

    5. They discover they had the wrong order. (But then how did they authenticate Oswald's handwriting??)

    David, I don't know how to fix the above with your solution to the problem. You say they were searching for an order with the wrong price. But I thought they were searching for an order with a given serial number, C2766, not with a given price.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    1. The FBI did, indeed, have the serial number. (They had the rifle in their possession at 11:45 PM CST on Friday, you know. So why would you be surprised they knew the serial number? And even if they didn't have the rifle themselves, the FBI could have simply telephoned the DPD and gotten the number from them at any time on Nov. 22....couldn't they?)

    2. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after finding out that Crescent had sold the "C2766" rifle to Klein's.

    3. The Klein's records are searched and the "C2766" invoice is found (via what would soon become "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7"), which provides all the pertinent information about the sale of Italian rifle No. C2766 for $21.45 to one A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas (via "M.O." [Money Order]) on March 20, 1963 (which is the date the FBI goes with, instead of the date stamped at the very top of Waldman No. 7--March 13, 1963--which was the date Klein's put the Hidell order through their cash register, as William Waldman explained in his Warren Commission testimony; the March 20 date was, of course, the date the rifle was shipped to Hidell/Oswald).

    4. Somebody connected with the discovery of the "Waldman No. 7" invoice must have transmitted the wrong purchase price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45), which led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order that was used to pay for the rifle.

    5. In addition to the internal Klein's invoice (Waldman No. 7), the FBI also found the "order letter" (as Curry called it), which is CE773. They quickly determined that the writing on the order form was that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

    In short, there was no "wrong order". Somebody just wrote down or transmitted to somebody the wrong purchase price after the discovery of Waldman No. 7.
    But even though some officials had the wrong price, there were others who knew the correct price of $21.45 for the Hidell rifle order, because we find the correct figure being written in two separate reports (connected with the discovery of the money order) authored by both the FBI and the Secret Service on November 23 -- CD75 and CD87.

    David Von Pein
    February 17-20, 2016

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence

     


  14. I wish I had the complete day's TV coverage from 11/22. But my collection from all 3 networks  doesn't go "wall to wall" after JFK's body departs Andrews. It's only partial coverage from all of the networks after about 6:30 PM. 

    However, anyone who was able to (somehow) record and save the streamed coverage that CBS' website streamed online on 11/22/2013 would therefore have access to the material CBS aired at 7 PM on 11/22/63. I wasn't able to record that wall-to-wall 2013 stream, though.


  15. 9 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

    I'm pretty sure I didn't stay up till 4:30 that night. 

    Well, I think the 4:30 AM coverage was probably not aired live (although I could certainly be wrong about that). I think it was taped and then aired later, such as the replay we see above on Mike Wallace's morning news show at 7 AM. And it was no doubt replayed many times on CBS throughout the day on Saturday. You probably saw any number of the replays. 


  16. 43 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

    All evidence seems to point to my memory of watching live coverage of the arrival at Bethesda as being a false memory. But I will probably go to my grave believing that the memory is true. My epitaph will say, "I still think I saw it."

    And my theory, in believing that the memory is true, is that any tape of live TV coverage of the naval ambulance's arrival at Bethesda was destroyed at some time soon after.

    Ron,

    I wonder if perhaps you could have seen the footage of the gray ambulance arriving at the White House at 4:30 AM on Nov. 23rd (at 2:34:20 in the video below), and your memory has made the mistake of equating that footage with supposed TV coverage of that very same gray Navy ambulance arriving at Bethesda. Is that possible?

    Anyway, I'm nearly 100% certain there was no TV coverage of the ambulance arrival at Bethesda. I certainly have no such footage in my video archives at any rate.

    I know that this kind of "I think I saw it" phenomenon is quite common regarding various aspects of the JFK case. Some people insist they actually SAW the assassination of JFK on live television at the moment it happened. We all now know that's impossible, however. But the people who say they saw it LIVE have a hard time being convinced they didn't really see it live.

     

×