Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

Did Lee Harvey Oswald Order The Rifle? The Answer Is Yes

Recommended Posts

I don't know that anyone called Waldman a xxxx; those are YOUR words, not mine.

I 'm pretty sure you won't find anything in my post #134 above saying the paper trail is falsified. I haven't made that accusation.

I just asked about where that microfilm is today. Because if the microfilm cannot be produced today, then it cannot be examined.

And if it cannot be examined, we can no longer determine whether or not any evidence allegedly taken from the microfilm is what it is represented to be.

SHOULD a grand jury ever be convened to examine the evidence--which has NEVER been done in this case, and which folks like Bill Kelly are trying to bring about--the admissibility of the Waldman evidence might be challenged successfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

And, I will stress again, unless Bill Waldman was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document below is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his WC testimony at 7 H 366....

Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert and David are right. No such footage has ever emerged.

Thanks Stephen, but it was there in 1963, I saw it, myself. I have seen it since. I'm not interested in it. It has nothing to do with 'who shot John".

Sorry, Kenneth, no you didn't. I have an extensive collection of post-assassination films (although maybe not as extensive as DVP's), and I'm fully aware of all the film inventories made from that time. There is NO FILM such as you describe. You're right, it's irrelevant, but you are misremembering.

BTW, there is "evidence which would prove something in court," and there is "evidence which is not conclusive but which strongly suggests what really happened." Just because the original evidence has been challenged at every turn doesn't mean that we can't draw reasonable inferences from it, for historical rather than evidenciary purposes. If one believes the evidence faked, one has to consider how complicated it would have been to fake it.

Sorry Stephen, but you're wrong. Can't really understand why you would be interested in even having an opinion or discussion about it. You said I was 'misremembering'. Well, no, actually I'm not. First you must be under the impression that I'm testing my memory of something from the past. That's not the case. The events happened as I described them and I knew it 'at the time' and it is not any different today. First, I don't really see why it deserves discussion because it really didn't have anything to do with the weapon that shot JFK or the persons involved because it was on the 6th floor and the whole civilized world knows there were no shots fired from the snipers nest on 11/22/63. But, just for the sake of discussion. I watched TV continuously for at least 3 days, beginning as soon as the news coverage of the assassination began that day. I saw several police officers looking amongst the shelves and boxes etc in the SBD. I saw them with a rifle in their hands. Some of them were looking at it, there was a discussion as to what type of rifle it was. It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser. Everyone took a look and seemed to be satisfied, at least to the point that all or most of them signed a sworn affidavit that it was a Mauser. So anyhow, after seeing that, then sometime the next day, Walter Cronkite said he had been told that after the FBI had looked at the rifle in DC that they determined it was a Manliter CarChanto. Remember that pronunciation? I remember thinking at the time that it was strange that an expert could look at a rifle, read the name off of the rifle and get the manufacturer wrong. And not only that, that everyone that he pointed out the name on the rifle also saw it wrong and were so sure of what they had seen that they were willing to sign a sworn affidavit as to what they had seen. So Stephen I remember that from 11/22 and 11/23, not from today or last week. So why don't you fill me in on the exact details that you saw that day and how that memory from that day compares with what you remember today.

The whole civilized world, except for certified Nutters, believe that LHO didn't have anything to do with shooting JFK, so it hardly matters what kind of rifle that the conspirators had planted in the SBD. But, for you to make a claim that I can't remember what I saw is a little pathetic on your part. First you have no knowledge of my mental capability and it seems as if you're remembering the events of the assassination based on things you have read or been told. I'm remembering what I, myself, actually saw and it's not an exercise in 'misremembering'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did EVERY cheek that fired the weapon test positive...?

Wrong....

"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"

Is that the only thing you disagreed with? You're quoting different info from a different time. Try to get back onto the discussion and veering off on a tangent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, too many questions....

Bruce,

IMO, there are no unanswered "questions" with respect to Oswald's rifle purchase at all. To the contrary, it couldn't BE any more crystal clear from the paperwork that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's and Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald's PO Box. How much more straightforward can it get? And the testimony of the Klein's representative (Waldman) seals the deal on the transaction---that rifle WAS shipped by Klein's in Chicago to to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

The rifle transaction is, in a sense, ON FILM --- microfilm records.

Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked.

As they have done in so many other areas of the JFK murder case, conspiracy advocates have invented any number of flimsy reasons to disregard the perfectly solid evidence that proves Oswald ordered the rifle and that Oswald (aka Hidell) was shipped the eventual Kennedy murder weapon by Klein's.

In addition, I think one of the silliest and dumbest and lamest of all the theories put forth over the years by CTers is the throry that has a group of unknown plotters creating all of the rifle documents from whole cloth in order to have what looks like a solid trail for the rifle purchase. A much much better "CTer theory" would be to just accept what is obviously the truth about Oswald ordering and possessing the C2766 rifle --- and then the CTers can pretend that the plotters went about the much easier task of framing Oswald with his own rifle, versus having the conspirators having the need to invent the rifle trail from the ground up themselves.

But that's what usually happens when CTers go down these silly paths to conspiracy --- they end up looking mighty foolish when the truth (and the paperwork and the testimony of William Waldman) is stacked up alongside the weak-sister "Everything's Phony" excuse that is always propped up by the conspiracy believers.

"Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked." I would like to point out that the exact opposite of every thing you said is just as likely. No Nutter has ever proved that any of the documents connected with 'that' rifle have ever proved to be real. Why would a nutter believe any of the fake documents are real? They have zero proof that any are real? real documents? on microfilm? that prove 'something'? Give us a link. I don't believe any jury in the world would accept as 'proof' that just because someone 'claims' that an object was mailed to someone's PO box in some one else's name that is absolute evidence that a different person received that object. Tell us you believe that DVP. If I were to show you a 'document' that said I shipped an object to your PO address but in someone else's name and you never see that object, could you still provide absolute proof that you received it? All this smoke and mirrors over a weapon that has never been associated in any way with JFK's assassination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So where are those microfilm records TODAY? Can you produce them? Can you tell us where in the National Archives they might be found?

Because if that microfilm CANNOT be found today...then its evidentiary value is greatly diminished.

Mark,

The WC exhibits known as Waldman 7 and CE788 and CE773 are photographic copies made from the original Klein's microfilmed records. That's practically the same thing as having the original microfilms. Although for handwriting anaylsis, it is always better to have an "original". But that argument certainly doesn't apply to Waldman #7, which has no "Oswald" writing on it at all. So that excuse won't work for CTers regarding the crucial document known as Waldman Exhibit No. 7.

Plus there is the testimony of Bill Waldman, who verified that what we see in Waldman #7 is a copy of the original.

Those things don't meet your requirements for "proof", Mark? You MUST see the "originals" in order to believe the documents are authentic, is that it?

In order for the rifle paper trail to be a falsified trail, CTers have no choice but to call William Waldman a big fat xxxx. There IS no way around that.

Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a xxxx and a person who wanted to frame Oswald?

Should I have a reason to think everybody EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is a suspect in this crime?

"Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a xxxx and a person who wanted to frame Oswald?" Why would anyone care? Let's assume for the moment that everything was 100% accurate that Waldman thinks is accurate. It doesn't put a rifle in LHO's hands on 11.22.63, or any other day in his lifetime. It doesn't provide a rifle that has been proven to have any relation to the JFK assassination. So tell us again what difference it makes. I'll bet you think Superman can really fly, don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

And, I will stress again, unless Bill Waldman was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document below is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his WC testimony at 7 H 366....

Waldman-Exhibit-7.jpg

Am I missing something in that photo? I don't see LHO's name. I don't see where LHO signed for a rifle received at his PO Box. I don't see any proof that any rifle was ever delivered to anyone. I don't see any evidence that indicates that the serial number is unique to that rifle to the exclusion of all others that Klein 'supposedly" shipped. To sum it all up, Better start again at the beginning, see if you can actually come up with something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched TV continuously for at least 3 days, beginning as soon as the news coverage of the assassination began that day. I saw several police officers looking amongst the shelves and boxes etc in the SBD. I saw them with a rifle in their hands. Some of them were looking at it, there was a discussion as to what type of rifle it was. It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser. Everyone took a look and seemed to be satisfied, at least to the point that all or most of them signed a sworn affidavit that it was a Mauser.

This is all in your mind, Ken. Nothing even remotely close to that scenario occurred during the live TV broadcasts of November 22, 1963. Not even close. You've conflated Weitzman's affidavit with Roger Craig's 1974 lie and then you've convinced yourself you saw this scenario play out on live television on 11/22/63. But it never happened. And the biggest reason we can KNOW this scenario you painted never happened on TV is because the rifle found in the Depository could not possibly have been stamped with a "7.65 Mauser" marking....because it wasn't a Mauser....it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

BTW, the only video or film footage that was taken of the rifle while it was still inside the TSBD building is the footage taken by Tom Alyea. And it's a SILENT motion picture. There's no audio on Alyea's film. So how did you manage to HEAR people talking in that footage, Ken?

What you probably are remembering is the WFAA/ABC coverage that has ABC's Bob Clark narrating while we see the Alyea Film on the screen. At one point while narrating Alyea's footage, Clark tells the audience (incorrectly, of course) that the rifle being shown in the film is an "Argentine Mauser". That is the closest that Ken Drew can possibly get to the situation that he says occurred in his post above.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched TV continuously for at least 3 days, beginning as soon as the news coverage of the assassination began that day. I saw several police officers looking amongst the shelves and boxes etc in the SBD. I saw them with a rifle in their hands. Some of them were looking at it, there was a discussion as to what type of rifle it was. It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser. Everyone took a look and seemed to be satisfied, at least to the point that all or most of them signed a sworn affidavit that it was a Mauser.

This is all in your mind, Ken. Nothing even remotely close to that scenario occurred during the live TV broadcasts of November 22, 1963. Not even close. You've conflated Weitzman's affidavit with Roger Craig's 1974 lie and then you've convinced yourself you saw this scenario play out on live television on 11/22/63. But it never happened. And the biggest reason we can KNOW this scenario you painted never happened on TV is because the rifle found in the Depository could not possibly have been stamped with a "7.65 Mauser" marking....because it wasn't a Mauser....it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.

BTW, the only video or film footage that was taken of the rifle while it was still inside the TSBD building is the footage taken by Tom Alyea. And it's a SILENT motion picture. There's no audio on Alyea's film. So how did you manage to HEAR people talking in that footage, Ken?

What you probably are remembering is the WFAA/ABC coverage that has ABC's Bob Clark narrating while we see the Alyea Film on the screen. At one point while narrating Alyea's footage, Clark tells the audience (incorrectly, of course) that the rifle being shown in the film is an "Argentine Mauser". That is the closest that Ken Drew can possibly get to the situation that he says occurred in his post above.

DVP, one thing we can all be sure of after that response is that you are so tuned in to saying everyone is mistaken and don't know what they saw and that you are so positive that YOU know all ofl the REAL details because you read and believe the Warren commission report. AT NO TIME did I say that he said it was a 7.65 Mauser. Those are your made up words, not mine. Also, at no time did I say it was a 'talkiing movie or film" I said that what they said he was doing and saying. Are you now claiming that when the studio was showing the film that they weren't describing what was taking place? Your Pigpen must be a magic world where you use a lot of imagination in creating what others say. But I notice that in all scenarios, your memory, according to you is spot on, even tho you were never there to see what happened that day. And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63. I did hear Cronkite say CarChanto. But that was after the FBI took over the details and got us all straightened out and had the palmprint installed on the wrong rifle.

Maybe you need to go back and look at some of those films that you are collecting and see what is actually on them and quit relying on your failing memory.

Why don't you answer the questions I had about your post no. 142, and don't just tell us, show us. I want you to just show us any piece of evidence that links ANY rifle to the shooting of JFK.

Edited by Kenneth Drew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT NO TIME did I say that he said it was a 7.65 Mauser.

You most certainly did. You said this....

"It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser." -- K. Drew

Your false memory is about the worst I've ever seen. You don't even remember what you've said just minutes after you've said it. And I'm supposed to believe you can recall intricate details about the TV coverage from 52 years ago? Yeah, sure.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi David,

I think you may have over analyzed my prior post. I said, for purposes of the discussion, that I would go with your premise (in your book, I think, certainty) that all is in order with the chain of documents and evidence surrounding the MC found at the TSBD. Done ... LHO wrapped up ... lone nut ... 2 days later killed ... case closed !! OK I'm good with that ... (as a premise).

WAIT Uh Oh ... We've suddenly found bogus back yard photos of LHO holding some other similar weapon ! Why were these created and by whom, not Marina? REALLY bad patsying? When precisely were these created and for what purpose? Nothing at all to do with the lone nut. Maybe Roscoe White's body? Marina didn't take the photos. Different rifle. What's going on here? Why do we have them at all?

I don't think simply accepting the basic acquisition info, as you would like us to do, is satisfactory, and never should have been to the DPD or FBI.

It seems to me we have some sort of prior setup (in which case lone nut doesn't entirely apply) and need to give more credence to LHO's on air statement ... paraphrasing ... I didn't shoot anybody, I'm just a patsy. We've all heard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAIT Uh Oh ... We've suddenly found bogus back yard photos of LHO holding some other similar weapon! Why were these created and by whom, not Marina? REALLY bad patsying? When precisely were these created and for what purpose? Nothing at all to do with the lone nut. Maybe Roscoe White's body? Marina didn't take the photos. Different rifle. What's going on here? Why do we have them at all?

But Bruce, the backyard photos have been authenticated as genuine. They are NOT fake pictures. Why are you continuing to believe in the "Fake Backyard Pictures" myth?

The HSCA authenticated the BY pics:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

And Marina Oswald has always maintained that she took the photos. She doesn't recall exactly how many she took, but she recalls taking SOME pictures in the Neely St. backyard while Lee was holding guns and was dressed all in black--just like the things we see in the photos you are assuming are fakes.

In addition, I would still like a good (i.e., reasonable) answer to a question I've been asking for years....

Why on Earth would anyone want to fake multiple pictures that are depicting the exact same thing (Oswald with guns and newspapers in the Neely backyard)?

It makes no sense for any "plotters" to even WANT to fake more than just one such photograph. The chances of the fakery being exposed is only multiplied by the number of fake pictures being created. And why wouldn't just ONE such photo suffice for the patsy framers? Obviously, one photo would have sufficed. One picture is just as good as having three or four. And a lot less risky.

So, IMO, the NUMBER of backyard photos that exist is another thing that (circumstantially) suggests that those photos are genuine. Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing. It's just a dumb idea to begin with.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, you're making MY point.

The rifle in the BYP is not the same as the rifle found in the TSBD. Back to square one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, you're making MY point.

And just how am I doing that? By pointing out the HSCA's conclusion of "No Fakery"? And by pointing out the fact that Marina says she did take the BY pics?

~~shrug~~

The rifle in the BYP is not the same as the rifle found in the TSBD.

Yes it is....

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

No need for "square one" at all.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And for the record, I never at any time heard any announcer or anyone else use the term Argentine Mauser during the weekend of 11/22/63."

Kenneth, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you but, there is only one group of Mausers chambered for the 7.65mm cartridge, and they are universally known as Argentine Mausers. No one had to mention the word "Argentine", as soon as they said 7.65mm, the only thing it could be was an Argentine Mauser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...