Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

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

Recommended Posts

Humes was using ordinary common sense, David. He knew there were no bullets in JFK's body. And after he talked to Dr. Perry, he confirmed that the trach masked a bullet hole. Given these facts, should Humes have written this in the autopsy report?....

Two bullets entered the upper body of the President, one in the upper back and one entered the throat. Neither of these bullets caused much damage at all, and both missiles have disappeared without a trace.

Sounds mighty silly, doesn't it? (It sure does. And is.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sensing here that we have with DVP ... "he doth protest too much" ... mostly protest, little reality ... not sure where to go with that, but I'm feeling more wary than anything else ... who's he representing?

Does every LNer have to be "representing" somebody else? Get a grip.

And Bruce's "little reality" comment is a howl.

IOW, the person who has ALL of the physical evidence on his side (that'd be me) is somehow a person who is dealing with "little reality".

That's comical. And dripping with irony that no doubt just sails over Bruce's cranium.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humes was using ordinary common sense, David. He knew there were no bullets in JFK's body. And after he talked to Dr. Perry, he confirmed that the trach masked a bullet hole. Given these facts, should Humes have written this in the autopsy report?....

Two bullets entered the upper body of the President, one in the upper back and one entered the throat. Neither of these bullets caused much damage at all, and both missiles have disappeared without a trace.

Sounds mighty silly, doesn't it? (It sure does. And is.)

Not quite a silly as "the bullet entered the President's back at the third vertebra, at a downward angle of 45/60 degrees, and exited his throat, whereupon it hit Governor Connally in the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Ray, that fictional "45 to 60 degrees" business IS silly. Where could that gunman have been located to achieve that steep of an angle? In a 707 that just departed Love Field? ~shrug~

The key to knowing the "45 degree" stuff was just a totally WILD guess on Humes' part is this testimony from Dr. Humes.....

"Mathematics is not my forte." -- J.J. Humes; 1964

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, David, David

Physical reality ... two different rifles ... you're way too bright and articulate to be taking an opposing view on that ... but you are ... that's the reality ... and then sarcasm ... OK, that fits perfectly... more convinced than ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Von Pein... you did not answer any of the questions posed...

1. Where in the autopsy did Rankin read this? And if you cannot find it in the existing autopsy - what was Rankin referring to?

2. How can the autopsy have come to a conclusion: "The
missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck,
damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of
the neck
.
" in Nov when in January the info is still inconclusive?

3. WCD298 is a model of the shooting by the FBI delivered in early January and was part of the hiding of the survey legend which shows the WCR explanations impossible.

This model, created in Dec 1963 using every FBI resource, shows three shots hitting the occupants of the limo with a final shot 40 feet down the road where the SS recreation also puts the final shot (4 feet from 5-00)

Which resources did they use to determine a shot 40 feet past Z313 David? And why was the SBT not even a thought at this point?

The WCD gives us specific measurements with the disclaimer that this model will assist those who have never been to DP to "gain a full and clear understanding of the happenings surrounding each event." From what sources could the FBI have gotten their conclusion so incredibly wrong when compared to the physcial evidence available?

(For those who don't know.. 4+65 refers to a point 65 feet past station 4 which in turn is 35 feet from station 5 further down Elm. The hidden legend puts the "third shot" at 4+65, not 5 feet from 5+00 like the SS report and FBI model.

Where do you suppose they got the info to place the third shot 40 feet further doen Elm Dave?

CE875%20and%20CE884%20conflicting%20SS%2

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=6&tab=page

FBIshotrecreationcd298-andactualmeasurem

fbiandZapruder_zpsee8a0154.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David, David, David

Physical reality ... two different rifles ... you're way too bright and articulate to be taking an opposing view on that ... but you are ... that's the reality ... and then sarcasm ... OK, that fits perfectly... more convinced than ever.

There weren't "two different rifles". There was one rifle --- the "C2766" rifle. That's the ONLY rifle connected to this case and the only one that has ever been connected to it. THAT'S the "reality".

As I said to Kenneth the other day --- Maybe it's time for CTers to stop believing in all the myths that continue to surround this murder case.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David

There were two rifles. Not a myth. Perhaps conflicting evidence, but no myth. Our ability to enlarge and read photographs is better today than was anticipated 50 years ago and there way more of us doing it than was ever thought possible by the patsyists.

A link, actually from your blog, apparently (it seems to me) uncontested. You're at least allowing the other side to make their points there, thanks.

http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html

quotes on

Summary


The existence of two rifles with the serial number C-2766 in evidence means that no one can prove that the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. In fact, it is highly unlikely. The only photographs of Oswald with the rifle shows that it had a bottom sling mount -- the rifle found in the Depository did not.

Since the Warren Commission concluded that there was only one rifle of that type to bear that serial number, it seems safe to conclude that the second C-2766 was a forgery. And what other reason could there be to forge the serial number other than to frame Oswald?

Jerry McLeer

quotes off

I apparently am not alone in my analysis of the evidence I see nor am I by any stretch timely. I apologize for wasting your and the others here time with my assertions (still holding them of course). By the way, why did you feel the need to bring up the subject of 'the' rifle ownership again anyway? Seems, on reflection, to have been pretty well hashed out over the last several years. You were rebutting whose current work? Or just asking us (posting neophytes like me perhaps) to keep a thread going for your LN promotion desires? David, what's your motivation? Second time asking that question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have mentioned before, it isn't whether Oswald ordered the rifle under the Hidel name, it how and when did he pick it up at the Post Office, and how come no one there recalls him paying the ballance on the pistol and handing him the rifle over the counter?

And on the day the Warren Commission claimes he picked up the rifle, his time card at Jaggars-Chiles-Stoval indicates he worked from before the Post Office 0pened until after it closed, so when did he do it?

It is also interesting that on the day he reportedly picked up the rifle Oswald worked on the advertising account of Sam Bloom, the company that hnndled the motorcade and publicity for the president's visit. Was he working on the Sam Bloom account when he picked up the rifle?

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1139&relPageId=562

Following the rifle around is also interesting - as Mrs. Paine delivered the rifle to New Orleans and then picked it up again and took it to Texas while Oswald went to Mexico.

And then the rifle stayed in the Paine's garage until the night before the assassination.

Oswald's brother, who was a Marine sharpshooter and knew Oswald's shooting skills well, said that if his brother did not practice with that rifle and scope in the days and weeks before the assassination, as the Warren Report insists, then he didn't kill the President.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2014/11/oswalds-brother-lee-did-not-fire-shots.html

“If Lee did not spend a considerable amount of time practicing with that rifle in the weeks and months before the assassination, then I would say that Lee did not fire the shots that killed the President and wounded Governor Connally.” - Robert Oswald

It doesn't matter whether Oswald was the lone assassin or designated patsy, we are now getting quite close to figuring out exactly how JFK was killed - and that very specific method - that used psychwar techniqques - will lead us to those who planned the Dealey Plaza operation.

Stay tuned.

Bill Kelly

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruce,

I'm not convinced that the object that CTers are referring to as a "sling mount" in the backyard photograph is really part of the rifle at all. It looks to me (especially in the super-big version below) that the "sling mount" might be something in the background behind Oswald....

Extra large version -----> Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg

BTW, Bruce, that "JFK Research" site is not mine.

Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Backyard-Photo.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you simply have nothing to say and no way to confuse the issue regarding the questions I asked Dave?

Regarding the BYP - 133-C. How does the DPd know to put Det Brown into the 133-C pose if that photo is not seen until 1977?

Stop the side show and address the questions posed Dave...

Why is what Rankin says is in the autopsy report - is NOT in the report? What were they referring to Dave?

WCD298 - where did the info on the "5 feet from 5+00" come from so that the FBI could show a shot hitting JFK at Z375?

Try to stay focused Dave... this is what the evidence shows... not what I say or they say or we think... this is the Evidence

and the Evidence IS the Conspiracy.

Good luck with all that... :up

(you're obvious avoidance is transparent Dave... "Change the subject" is a tactic, not a solution.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you feel the need to bring up the subject of 'the' rifle ownership again anyway? Seems, on reflection, to have been pretty well hashed out over the last several years.

And yet there are still very few Internet CTers who seem to want to accept the obvious truth regarding Oswald's rifle purchase. We still have people insisting Oswald never ordered any rifle at all from Klein's. This thread is in response to that 50-year myth. I posted it to set the record straight and to show that Oswald definitely DID order a rifle from Klein's in 1963. And only someone who is desperate to disregard all kinds of proof of that rifle transaction could possibly believe LHO did not order that rifle.

David, what's your motivation? Second time asking that question.

I'll repeat something I said to James Gordon in a private message last month....

"Yes, my opinion is pretty firm on the "LN" and "WC" side of things, but that's because I believe ALL of the physical evidence supports Oswald's guilt (and supports the SBT as well). And when someone decides to (IMO) misrepresent things...then I think I should call them on it and point out those misrepresentations (and/or errors in their thinking). And most of the "LNer vs. CTer" debates, IMO, really DO come down to pointing out and correcting the misrepresentations made over and over again by the CTers on forums. I see it all the time---on Edu. Forum, on Facebook, on Duncan MacRae's forum, on McAdams' newsgroup, on IMDB---everywhere. CTers perpetuate myth after myth, year after year, and that's a big reason I post on forums today---to give the other side to anyone who cares to absorb it. Most CTers, of course, think that it's I who "misrepresent" the facts. I feel strongly otherwise. So there's the perpetual stalemate --- Who's right? Who's wrong? That debate will likely never end." -- David Von Pein; May 16, 2015

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Ray, that fictional "45 to 60 degrees" business IS silly. Where could that gunman have been located to achieve that steep of an angle? In a 707 that just departed Love Field? ~shrug~

The key to knowing the "45 degree" stuff was just a totally WILD guess on Humes' part is this testimony from Dr. Humes.....

"Mathematics is not my forte." -- J.J. Humes; 1964

O'Neill/Sibert report

"This opening was probed by Dr Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of he missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees."

What mathematics were needed to observe that the wound was 45 to 6o degrees downwards?

If Humes made a "wild guess" what other wild guesses did he make during the autopsy?

The position of the head wound?

The direction of the throat wound?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

I think when J. Lee Rankin said a "fragment" came out of JFK's neck, he undoubtedly meant "bullet" -- as in the WHOLE BULLET that the autopsy doctors determined DID come out the front of the neck.

I think it's quite obvious that Rankin's "fragment" is the same as the "whole" bullet.

Surely, you're not suggesting that Rankin thought that BOTH a "fragment" AND a whole bullet exited JFK's throat, are you?

This is the very same kind of loose talk regarding the words "fragments" and "missile" that surrounds the Sibert/O'Neill report too. Only it's reversed from the S&O report. The corpsman who wrote the memo for the Sibert report wrote "missile" when it should have said "fragments". While Rankin appears to have used the wrong word ("fragment") instead of the correct word ("bullet").

I think you're drowning in semantics there, David. Nothing more.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the autopsy doctors dissect the neck/throat in order to examine the wound and therefore determine that a bullet passed through JFK's body? If not, how did they determine that this happened?

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...