David Von Pein

8 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

...but to expect both [gun] shipments to not draw attention really pushes the limits of credulity. 

But it's a red herring, Lawrence. Whether or not Oswald's gun packages drew the attention of anyone at the Dallas Post Office is a moot point.

Why?

Because all reasonable people who aren't prone to shouting "It's all fake!" every time they turn around realize that Lee Oswald did order the rifle and the revolver via mail order in early 1963, and Oswald did receive those weapons in the mail. In addition to the large amount of paperwork that exists to link Oswald to those two guns, there's also the fact, of course, that Oswald was photographed with both weapons in late March of '63 (just days after Klein's and Seaport shipped the guns to LHO).

So, do you think the backyard photos are all fakes too---despite the clean bill of health the HSCA gave them, and despite the fact that Marina Oswald has never ever backtracked on her testimony that she, herself, took pictures of her husband while he was holding each of those weapons in the Neely Street backyard? (Or do you think the guns he posed with were NOT the C2766 Carcano or the V510210 Smith & Wesson?)

But just how much alleged fakery is too much alleged fakery for a reasonable person to stomach in this case? Or is there any limit at all?

49 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Did he [Edwin Lopez] lose a lot of weight between 1978 and the mock trial?  Did the court reporter in '78 make a mistake?

I suppose either one of those things is a possibility, Tommy. Because it's hard to imagine a person who is well under six feet tall (which Lopez appears to be; see video below) being both "skinny" and weighing 199 pounds. That's just not possible. (And Lopez looks quite thin to me in 1986 at the mock trial. But maybe he dropped a load in the eight years between '78 and '86. ~shrug~)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAuZ1NfMVcycktCT1E/view

But it must be a much bigger bitch for you CTers, seeing as how you guys have absolutely no physical evidence of any conspiracy whatsoever. That must be really frustrating for the dedicated Anybody But Oswald faithful. (God bless 'em.)

21 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

It was a 5 foot carton from Kleins addressed to the wrong person's PO Box.   They knew he was getting the WORKER just not a rifle from Kleins which required a variety of steps to pick up.

Not once from April 1 thru Nov 22 did a single government source declare that Oswald had a rifle...  even after the Walker shooting.
 

Yet the man accused of being his CIA handler and his wife are the sources - again, after the fact - that Oswald had a rifle that no one else sees... ever.

And your reply about the efficiency of FBI informants, when mountains of info that YOU use comes from these assets regarding virtually every aspect of Oswald's life... just not the receipt of a scoped rifle... rings hollow Dave.  

The FBI and its assets were efficient enough on so many other fronts....  these informants - if you've read thru their reports - provide detailed info on so much minutia and inconsequential things...    less than 2 weeks before the Walker shooting Oswald supposedly buys and receives a scoped rifle - yet not a single FBI asset is aware of this.

Kinda like the 25 FBI informants in Mexico also not being able to find any evidence of Oswald in Mexico....

Life's a real bitch sometimes, ain't it?

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey is the greatest cherry picker in the history of the case.

He completely ignores the dialogue with Ed Lopez which took place after this walk thought with Cornwell, which Josephs quoted earlier.  And pretty much blows up the whole Cornwell part.

But that is Davey for you.

The Lopez/Duran quotes are actually very nice for an "LNer" like myself....because that exchange between Lopez and Duran only serves to demonstrate once more in this case how people are really bad at estimating the weight of OTHER PEOPLE they are looking at. Duran seems to think that the general build and size of both "skinny" Oswald (Duran's quote) and the 199-pound Edwin Lopez were the same build. (Think "Marrion Baker" and "Howard Brennan", with regard to their individual TOO HEAVY estimates of Oswald's weight.)

And Jimmy will no doubt just ignore the fact that Silvia Duran said that it was her handwriting on the Cuban visa application. And Jim will also totally ignore the fact that Duran also identified the picture on the application---a picture of OSWALD, of course---as being the same man she saw in Mexico City in September 1963.

But that is Jimmy for you.

Read the first line of my previous post again, David....

"I think you (like many CTers) expect way too much efficiency from Government employees."

David J.,

I think you (like many CTers) expect way too much efficiency from Government employees. (Similar to the efficiency you seem to expect from the post office clerks in Dallas, none of whom could recall handing Oswald his rifle package in March of '63---which is expecting way too much from a clerk many months after the transaction.)

Addendum....

Here's a related discussion re: the rifle purchase from April of last year....

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

I'm curious Dave... all the FBI reports between March 1963 and Nov 1963 and not one mention of a rifle... or Judyth Baker for that matter... both figments of an overactive imagination. The FBI does not mention a rifle during that time because there was no rifle to talk about...

Prove otherwise.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's tons of proof that Oswald owned and possessed a rifle and a revolver as of March 1963. Tons! You just refuse to believe ANY of it is legitimate. ALL of this stuff is fake (or flat-out wrong), per many CTers:

1. All (or most) of the "Waldman Exhibits" that are available in Volume 21 of the WC volumes.

2. Commission Exhibit No. 773.

3. The backyard photographs (which show Oswald with a rifle and a pistol).

4. 6 HSCA 146 (verifying the legitimacy of the backyard photos).

5. Marina Oswald's testimony where she talks about seeing the guns Lee owned.

6. Marina Oswald's testimony where she admits that she herself took the backyard photographs.

7. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt's testimony where she states that she saw a rifle in the closet of Lee Oswald's apartment on Neely Street in Dallas....

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?"

8. The testimony of William J. Waldman, in which he testified that Klein's definitely did ship the C2766 Carcano to Oswald's post office box in Dallas in March of '63.

9. The handwriting on both the money order (CE788) and the order coupon and envelope for the rifle purchase (CE773). That handwriting and handprinting was positively identified as the writing of LEE HARVEY OSWALD by multiple handwriting experts for the Warren Commission and the HSCA. But CTers want to now pretend that all of those experts got it wrong (or were just flat-out lying, take your pick).

So, as we can see, there is ample proof to show that Lee Oswald ordered, paid for, and possessed the Kennedy murder weapon (and the Tippit murder weapon as well).

Do conspiracy theorists really think the FBI "planted" all of those records in BOTH the Klein's files in Chicago AND the Seaport Traders files in Los Angeles prior to each of those companies finding the pertinent "Hidell" purchase records for both the rifle and the revolver on November 23, 1963? Can CTers REALLY believe they planted all of those records---right under the noses of the various Klein's and Seaport personnel who were performing the physical searches for those documents on 11/23/63? Such a notion is absurd, of course. But I guess many conspiracists must buy it.

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1241.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-935.html

David Josephs said:

Warren Commission decides NOT to show DURAN Oswald's app she processed.

But Silvia Duran did look at that very same visa application when she was interviewed by the HSCA in 1978, and she identified not only the photo as being a picture of the same man (Oswald) she saw at the Cuban Consulate/Embassy in September of 1963, but she also identified the handwriting as her own writing in the upper-right part of the application (the handwritten numbers "779")....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0422b.htm

CORNWELL - This is a photograph of what would appear to be a visa application. Does it appear to be basically the type of visa application that we have been speaking about?
TIRADO (DURAN) - Yes. The numbers, I think they're mine.
CORNWELL - The numbers in the upper right-hand corner which are handwritten?
TIRADO - I think so.
CORNWELL - Those appear to you to be in your handwriting?
TIRADO - Yeah, because when I file I write in the number.

[...]

CORNWELL - I have another photograph of just the upper left-hand corner of the same document, which we'll mark as Exhibit 3 on the back, and ask you if, to the best of your recollection, that is a photograph of the man whom you saw on or about the 27th of September?
TIRADO - Yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscadurn.htm

3 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Do you believe that LHO was most likely impersonated in any way and at any point in time before 11/22/1963?

Absolutely not.

Dallas, circa 1930....

https://flashbackdallas.com/2017/12/10/a-birds-eye-view-to-the-north/

2 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

You do realize you are irrational in boxing all "CTers" in together yes?

I didn't box all CTers together. That's why I said "Internet CTers".

There's a huge difference between "regular CTers" and "Internet CTers". The level of "fantasy" engaged in by Internet CTers is much higher than that of "ordinary (non-Internet) conspiracists". (With the "Oswald Never Owned The Rifle" fantasy that nearly all Internet CTers believe in being a prime example.)

An ABC-TV newscast from November 1961:

New....

1-HOUR INTERVIEW WITH DR. GEORGE BURKLEY (OCTOBER 17, 1967)

New....

High-definition video upgrade....

"THE LAST TWO DAYS" (OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE COLOR FILM)

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Dulles and Belin had Baker's first day affidavit when he testified, did they not?  Why did they not take him to the TSBD and ask him why he could not tell the difference between the lunchroom and the the third floor landing?

Because the WC was capable of doing what most CTers cannot do --- i.e., properly evaluate a witness' first-day affidavit, while realizing that some NON-SINISTER errors of fact might find their way into such a first-day statement.

Ergo, the Warren Commission could easily see that Officer Baker was describing the SAME EVENT in his first-day affidavit that he and Truly described in their respective WC testimony (that is: Baker & Truly encountered Oswald in the lunchroom---not on the "3rd or 4th floor").

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, by far, in world history. Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation. With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxvi of "Reclaiming History"

Incredibly, Jim DiEugenio is still under the delusion—here in the year 2018 AD—that the Warren Commission was an "adversary procedure". It wasn't at all, of course. It was a fact-finding investigation. The "accused" was a dead man. The WC was tasked with finding the facts—and the truth—relating to Oswald and the events of 11/22/63. And, in my opinion, they did exactly that during their 10-month (and very detailed) probe — notwithstanding the persistent whining from Internet conspiracy theorists who have a willful desire to tear down Earl Warren's Commission.

The following fact remains perfectly clear (at least to me it's very clear)....

After 50+ years of trying to replace the Warren Commission Report with something better (and something conspiratorial in nature), the thousands upon thousands of JFK conspiracy theorists who have made such an attempt have failed abysmally in their efforts. Because nothing that has ever been put on the table by conspiracists over the years has come even close to matching the Warren Commission's conclusions when it comes to reasonably evaluating the sum total of the raw evidence (both physical and circumstantial) associated with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders, which includes the Commission's reasonable and logical interpretation of Lee Harvey Oswald's very own actions and movements on November 21 and 22, 1963.

When it comes to evaluating that "sum total of evidence", the Warren Commission and the Warren Report stand alone, IMO. The conspiracy community hasn't even made a dent in those WC conclusions (as far as being able to put on the table an alternative "conspiracy"-based scenario that reasonably and rationally and believably explains every facet of the evidence in the case AND also reasonably explains Lee Oswald's guilty-like actions both on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22). And I don't think they ever will make a dent.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/warren-commission-got-it-right.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/warren-commission-objectives.html

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

David Josephs said:

Someone should have asked: "Officer Baker / Mr. Truly:  the Baker Affidavit 11/22 states you both encountered a man coming down the stairs between the 3rd and 4th floors who worked at the TSBD - who was that?"

But what difference would it have made to the outer-fringe Internet conspiracy theorists if Marrion Baker HAD been asked the above question by David Belin of the Warren Commission?

Would any CTer here actually have believed Baker's answer if he had said he was merely confused and got the floor number mixed up, and if he had provided an answer about the "stairway" similar to what Lance proposed earlier?

Come now! Let's get real! No (Internet) CTer would suddenly start believing Officer Baker---no matter what he said in front of the WC.

Replay....

"Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is — a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?" -- DVP; December 2017

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Lunchroom Encounter

At 10:42 of this 11-29-63 phone conversation, Hoover states that LHO was confronted by police and cleared by LHO's boss at the front door of the TSBD.

Hoover got a lot of things wrong....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

To protect these Radical Right, Dallas Police conspirators, Lee Harvey Oswald had to be a LONE Shooter -- so he could never be a passenger in a car -- EVER.

That is why they had to forge the fake bus trip, and fake taxi trip of Oswald from Dealey Plaza back to his rooming house in Oak Cliff.

Why the need to fake BOTH a bus ride AND a cab ride? It's silly beyond belief (as usual with CTers).

And I suppose Bill Whaley's positive I.D. of Oswald was a lie too, right? And Whaley's testimony about his passenger wearing a silver bracelet on his left wrist must be a lie too---or an amazing coincidence, huh? (See pic below.)

And Oswald (or Fritz) lied too when Oz admitted he took a cab to his roominghouse on 11/22, eh?

This case has more liars than the TV game show "To Tell The Truth".

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

...Jean Davison hit the nail on the head as to how conspiracy theorists operate...

Jean always hits the nail squarely on the head. I've yet to see her miss the nail.

Here are a few of the miscellaneous "Common Sense" quotations (including some from Jean) that I have collected over the last several years relating to the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases [hundreds more can be found here]....

"The argument that Oswald was the tool of a high-level conspiracy does seem plausible, until one tries to fit it into the context these theorists always leave out -- the personality and background of Lee Harvey Oswald, the individual."

[...]

"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."

[...]

"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy is interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one may glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are disconnected scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close examination, many of these scenes evaporate." -- Jean Davison; Pages 25, 276, and 277 of "Oswald's Game"

~~~~~~~~~~

"We already knew that ["Harvey And Lee" author John] Armstrong threw out logic and reason long ago with respect to his [double Oswald] fairy tale, but at least he had his insanity to fall back on.

The fairy tale loses even its “internal logic” insanity when he asserts that the CIA got someone to impersonate Marguerite who looked nothing like her. How much longer do we have to wait for Armstrong to inform us that it was a Kennedy imposter who was assassinated?

For those conspiracy theorists who feel I haven’t “done justice” to Armstrong by not mentioning every matter, issue, or witness Armstrong cited in his nearly one-thousand-page book--to do so would almost take a book in itself--if justice is giving something its due, the only justice for Armstrong’s book is to put it in a trash can.

Every word I wrote about this freaky book is one more word than Armstrong and his theory deserve. Here’s a book that at worst doesn’t deserve First Amendment protections (I’m being facetious) and at best is merely fun and games.

And yet, Walt Brown, a serious student of the assassination, while noting a few of the book’s absurdities, gives it a positive review in his publication, JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, saying it is “required reading.”

When someone of Brown’s stature in the conspiracy community tells his readers to go out and “get the book and set aside...everything you previously read about what happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963” (JFK/Deep Politics Quarterly, April 2004, pp.3–10), he is doing nothing more than encouraging other Armstrongs to go off on similar delirious odysseys into the twilight zone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 578 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

~~~~~~~~~~

"Any assassins who would have needed only Oswald fingered for the two murders on 11/22/63 must have all (to a man!) been under the influence of large quantities of hallucinogenic drugs when they decided to place a variety of different shooters throughout Dealey Plaza (and on 10th Street for Tippit's killing), as many CTers advocate. And these powerful drugs they must have been on I guess must have had a crazy type of "Miracles Are Possible" effect on all of the shooters and behind-the-scenes schemers -- because only a "miracle" could have rescued such an inane multi-shooter "Patsy" plan from certain failure on that 22nd day of November back in '63." -- David Von Pein; April 7, 2006

~~~~~~~~~~

"The only possible way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following idiotic situation occurred (which nobody could possibly even begin to believe happened on November 22, 1963):

Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier." -- David Von Pein; June 4, 2013

~~~~~~~~~~

"When kooks look at the evidence, anything involving Oswald's culpability is "almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud [Usenet Newsgroup Participant]; June 18, 2006

~~~~~~~~~~

"Now we've got kooks claiming the unfired bullets in Oswald's pants pocket were "planted". And for what possible purpose again? Oh yes, I forgot---the patsy framers got bored and decided to plant needless and useless unfired bullets in Oswald's trousers. Incredible." -- David Von Pein; August 6, 2015

~~~~~~~~~~

"If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007


 

Bernie Laverick said:

I was merely pointing out how [the] H&L gang have no qualms about siding with LNs and will cherry pick at will from the WC when it suits their ends. As you do.

Everybody "cherry picks", Bernie. You (no doubt) do it. I do it. All CTers on the planet do it. All God's children do it. In fact, it SHOULD be done. Otherwise, I'd have no choice but to treat all of the junk presented by conspiracy theorists (including the rabid "H&L gang") as worthy of EQUAL consideration. (Does it count as "cherry picking" if I'm "picking" out the FACTS and the LIKELY TRUTH?)

Bernie,

Please give me your opinion as to WHY ON EARTH the cops felt ANY NEED to plant the paper bus transfer on Lee Oswald's person. (Or did they merely just SAY they "found" it in LHO's pocket, but didn't physically "plant" it on his person?)

There was NO logical reason for the police to want to say that LHO rode on a bus for a few blocks on Elm Street. None whatsoever. The cab ride with Whaley could have easily sufficed for the "evil" DPD purposes. So what was the point of that ruse, Bernie? Just to play some games?

Even Oswald admitted he took the bus. But he saw the need to lie about it too, right? Or you probably think LHO never said a word about taking a bus. It was FRITZ who just made that up. Correct?

This kind of "IT NEVER HAPPENED" nonsense that you believe, Bernie, makes you almost as ridiculous as the H&L fantasists.

11 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You have the same question about LHO and the "bus" regarding his journey from the TSBD after the JFK assassination -- why did he take the bus (taxi, etc.)   My question to you is the same!  What evidence do you have that LHO actually took any bus?   Have you read the WC testimony of the alleged bus driver, the alleged bus passenger, or the alleged taxi driver?  Each one falls apart like a house of cards.  These were all cases of "mistaken identity" -- to be generous to them.

So, Mary Bledsoe was wrong? And what about this bus transfer, Paul? You must think it's a fake, right?....