David Von Pein

So you think the LA Free Press just MADE UP the quote they attribute to "RC" (Roger Craig)?? Get outta here!

Now I'm even more confused than before, Micah. Maybe it would help things if I were to write "WTF???" twenty times in a row. Ya think?

Gee, I wonder what the heck that means??? ~big shrug~

Then you think this 1968 newspaper article has been "altered", eh George?.... https://app.box.com/s/n0hkvccua7iczh71h5bp

Again, what's that got to do with the blatant "7.65 Mauser" lie uttered by Roger D. Craig in nineteen hundred & seventy-four?? You DO agree that he lied, don't you? How could you possibly deny it, with these two quotes staring you in the face?.... 1968: QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was pulled from the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?" ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles." CIRCA 1974: ROGER CRAIG: "Stamped right on the barrel of the rifle was '7.65 Mauser'." https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_YygHvgJjo6UTV5a2t6ZnBrbXc/view

What does that have to do with this whopper of a lie that Craig told in circa 1974, which totally contradicts his 1968 statement?.... 1968: QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?" ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles." CIRCA 1974: ROGER CRAIG: "Stamped right on the barrel of the rifle was '7.65 Mauser'."

You're too funny. Pot meets Kettle (yet again) in the JFK world. Conspiracy theorists, of course, don't feel "queasy" at all and don't feel that it's "shameful" in the least when they constantly accuse all kinds of innocent people of despicable crimes and misdeeds -- people such as: Earl Warren, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter, James J. Humes, Buell Frazier, Ruth Paine, the whole FBI, the DPD, the whole Warren Commission, etc., etc. Nice double standard there indeed. Thanks for today's ironic laugh, Michael.

1968: QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [that was pulled from the boxes on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?" ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles." CIRCA 1974: ROGER CRAIG: "Stamped right on the barrel of the rifle was '7.65 Mauser'."

Roger Craig was a proven l-i-a-r, as I demonstrate here.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1194.html And the "mysterious second rifle" in Tom Alyea's film is undoubtedly a gun taken up to the sixth floor by the Dallas Police, possibly the same one that we can see being held by a police detective in plain clothes in the Alyea footage (fast-forward to the 1:57 mark in the video below).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8UwZ588YcqIdkFIY1dPclZjUjA/view

Amen to that, Glenn! Common Sense Break (below)!! .... "John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in 2003 called 'Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald', in which he carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this endnote. .... Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. .... On the day of the assassination, Armstrong has both Lee Harvey Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people who are spitting images of each other, in the Depository. .... At the moment of the assassination, HARVEY Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom having lunch and LEE Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at Kennedy. .... Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn't tell his readers what happened to him thereafter, though...he tells them near the beginning of the book that he may be "very much alive". [...] Perhaps most important, Armstrong doesn’t deign to tell us why this incredibly elaborate and difficult scheme was necessary. I mean, if the CIA were willing to frame the Russian refugee for Kennedy’s murder by setting him up as a patsy, why not simply frame the real Lee Harvey Oswald? After all, both the real Oswald and the imposter Oswald were, per Armstrong, recruited by the same conspirators at the CIA and both were being “handled” by them. .... So before Armstrong even writes the first word of his long tribute to absurdity, the premise for his whole book is seen to be prodigiously ridiculous. [...] If we are to believe Armstrong, Harvey Oswald was out there for years doing his darnedest to impersonate Lee Oswald. But Armstrong doesn’t explain why Harvey’s CIA handlers would have him do (or not do) obvious things that Lee was (or was not) doing. For instance, he writes that Lee Harvey Oswald “was seen driving cars in Dallas, Irving, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Alice, Pleasanton, Freer, and other locations.” But, he says, “Harvey Oswald did not have a driver’s license . . . He rode a bus to downtown Dallas in the morning and returned by bus at the end of the day.” (Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p.757) John (John Armstrong), what type of incredibly sloppy impersonation is this? They find a young man who, according to you, looks almost exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald, and then they have him acting like anyone but Lee Harvey Oswald? [...] Armstrong’s theory is so looney that it even completely confuses him. For instance, much of it is based on the premise that although Lee and Harvey look very much alike (after all, the CIA got Harvey to impersonate Lee), there are sufficient differences, though slight, to prove that two different people are shown in the photographs. But on page 65 of his book, he completely forgets the above premise and suggests that a photo of Lee taken by his brother Robert at the Bronx Zoo in New York, supposedly during the spring of 1953, doesn’t look anything like Lee. Armstrong misleads his readers by telling them the Bronx Zoo photo (CE 282, 16 H 802) is of a “small, thin, almost frail-looking boy,” and very different from the “tall, husky” boy shown in a photo (CE 282, 16 H 802) taken a year earlier in Fort Worth. (Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p.65) But the Bronx photo shows Lee to be a perfectly normal, healthy young boy. And he looks just like the Lee Harvey Oswald (except that he is a little younger) shown in the earlier Fort Worth photo as well as in earlier photos of Oswald in Armstrong’s companion publication of photos and documents (pp.2–6). Moreover, there is no way to discern from the Bronx Zoo photo that the boy depicted is of a different height. How was it possible for Armstrong to determine that? [...] What I will say that’s good about 'Harvey and Lee' is that Armstrong did an enormous amount of good research on Lee Harvey Oswald’s background and life that will be of use to researchers in the future, and Armstrong deserves to be commended for that. What prevented his biography of Oswald from being more valuable is not only the fact that he contaminated it throughout by the fun and games he plays with the two Oswalds, but that he relied hardly at all on by far the best source for Oswald’s history from Minsk to Dealey Plaza, Marina Oswald’s story as told in Priscilla McMillan’s seminal book, 'Marina and Lee'." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 565-575 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Oh, OK, George. You were just kidding in your first post. Sorry, I couldn't tell.

Oh, there HAD to be a "contingency cover-up"? You know that for a fact, eh? ~big grin~ (Forgive me if I chuckle at the thought.)

BEN HOLMES SAID: Believers don't believe in utilizing the most plausible explanation... the evidence *CLEARLY* conflicts, and the simple explanation is there ready for them to accept... but they don't. BUD SAID: You [Ben Holmes] slide down a slippery slope, grasping at one fantastic concept after another until your ideas are crushed by the weight of the fantastic. Which is why you will never put your ideas on the table for examination, the absurdity of them would become instantly apparent. BEN HOLMES SAID: Said the coward who refuses to post his scenario... And refuses to answer simple questions... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You don't think Bud has ever posted his "scenario" of the JFK assassination? You must be nuts. Bud's scenario has been on the table for decades. And it's the same as mine.... Oswald fired three shots with his Carcano from the 6th floor of the TSBD, striking the President twice, with one of those "strikes" also hitting Governor Connally. No conspiracy. Just Oswald. Period. BEN HOLMES SAID: GOOD!!! It's always amusing when I can get a believer to answer a simple question. And since you've provided your scenario, I'll do EXACTLY WHAT I'VE REPEATEDLY STATED I WILL DO - which is to provide a scenario EXACTLY as detailed, and with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE cited as you do. At least three shooters fired multiple weapons from at least three different directions, striking the President three times, and striking Connally at least twice, and probably three times. Clearly a conspiracy. Oswald was not a shooter. Period. Now, the next time you or "Bud" or any other believer tries to claim that I've not provided a scenario - *YOU* will know that you or they are lying, won't you? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No wonder you didn't want to post your scenario earlier. It's embarrassingly silly. Poor Ben. Just imagine the "at least three shooters" all taking aim at JOHN KENNEDY'S body (with none of them aiming at JOHN CONNALLY, of course; only an idiot would think that any shots were aimed at Connally) --- and the end result of all this AIMING AT KENNEDY is that CONNALLY is hit AS MANY TIMES WITH BULLETS as JFK was (per Holmes' insane scenario). Hi-lar-ious! DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID: Do you, Ben, think the "at least three shooters" in Dealey Plaza were PROFESSIONAL ASSASSINS? Or were they merely three guys with guns who were chosen at random off the street to do the job by the Grand Poobah Of Assassinations? BEN HOLMES SAID: Tut tut tut, David... I gave you a RECENT example where a shooter, FAR CLOSER TO HIS INTENDED VICTIM THAN OCCURRED IN DEALEY PLAZA, still ended up shooting two unintended victims. You should publicly acknowledge that you've been schooled. *THEN*... and only then, can you ask more questions. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Once more I want lurkers to just envision the kind of "professional assassination" plot that most CTers believe in --- THREE shooters all taking aim at JFK. (And why there was even a NEED for "at least three shooters" is yet another discussion; it's ridiculous overkill, of course, and would only serve to TRIPLE the chances that the shooters would be caught and/or exposed.) And yet, per Ben, these THREE shooters ("at least"; maybe even four, five, or sixty gunmen, per Kook Ben), all presumably PRO killers, pelt an unintended victim (Connally) with just as many bullets as the intended victim (3 apiece). Remind me to never again hire any of those "at least three shooters" for my next Presidential hit in the future. Their performance could hardly have been worse (as far as hitting ONLY the target, that is). It's remarkable that Skinny Holland, Jean Hill, Ike Altgens, and Jesse Curry got out of Dealey Plaza alive, what with the "three blind mice" wielding the guns that day. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1240.html

There is also this photo of the D-77 roll of microfilm, Waldman Exhibit No. 6. And, as you can easily see, there is no "canister" shown in this picture at all. Just a box and the reel of microfilm:

But, David, we know that Klein's was selling Carcano rifles to customers well PRIOR to the time when Oswald purchased his Carcano from Klein's. Waldman Exhibit No. 1 proves that fact. So we could also ask: Why hasn't anybody ever come forward, AT ANY POINT IN TIME, to say that they purchased a gun from Klein's that is similar to the C2766 Oswald rifle? As far as I know, no one has ever come forward to make such a claim about purchasing ANY RIFLE from Klein's Sporting Goods, regardless of whether it was a gun that was part of the "100 rifles" in the Crescent-to-Klein's February 1963 shipment or not. And you surely aren't going to claim that ALL Klein's rifle sales that PRE-DATE the date of the Oswald/Hidell sale in March of '63 are tainted or faked in some manner, are you? So, since we can't really explain the total LACK of people coming forward to say they bought ANY similar Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from Klein's back through the years, even though you and I both know that Klein's positively DID sell many hundreds (maybe thousands?) of Carcano rifles to various mail-order customers prior to (and for several months after) March of 1963, then that fact would seem to severely diminish your argument when you claim that many people should be coming out of the woodwork to say they purchased a rifle from Klein's that was specifically part of the Crescent-to-Klein's shipment of 100 rifles that also included Oswald's C2766 weapon.

What makes you think anybody "stole" it?

There's also this Warren Commission testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman (starting at 7 H 365; DVP's emphasis): DAVID W. BELIN -- "I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is?" WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "This is a microfilm record of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI." MR. BELIN -- "Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?" MR. WALDMAN -- "It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963." MR. BELIN -- "Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?" MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation." MR. BELIN -- "You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?" MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes." MR. BELIN -- "And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?" MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes." MR. BELIN -- "I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22." MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes." (Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.) MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?" MR. WALDMAN -- "That's a number which we assign for identification purposes." MR. BELIN -- "And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped to?" MR. WALDMAN -- "Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex." MR. BELIN -- "And does it show any serial number or control number?" MR. WALDMAN -- "It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766." [...] MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, I'm going to mark what has FBI Exhibit D-77 on it as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 6, being the container with your initials and the microfilm record itself, which you placed on the microfilm reader and about which you have just testified upstairs." [...] MR. BELIN -- "Now, Mr. Waldman, perhaps we'd better further identify the microfilm which show your control numbers. We marked the microfilm as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 6. Do you have any control numbers on this at all which indicate which microfilm this is?" MR. WALDMAN -- "This is our film No. 38, which covers our transactions Nos. 269688 through 270596." MR. BELIN -- "And I believe that you already testified to the control number or transaction number that appears on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 as being number what?" MR. WALDMAN -- "270502." MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you, and Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 5, which is the invoice from Crescent Firearms which has stamped on it that it was paid by your company on March 4, is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3?" MR. WALDMAN -- "The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C2766 was included in that shipment. .... Those forms are your exhibit captioned Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3. Now, our payment voucher No. 28966 of March 1, 1963, which is your Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 5, shows in the lower portion, second column from the left, the number 3178, which ties in with Crescent Firearms invoice No. 3178." MR. BELIN -- "And you have before you a carbon copy of a check that was written by your company to Crescent Firearms in the amount of $850, and attached to it, the attachment that shows it's for invoice No. 3178?" MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct." MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, do your records show whether or not the rifle was shipped with the scope mounted on it, or is there any way that you know whether or not it was?" MR. WALDMAN -- "Our catalog No. C20-T750, which was the number indicated on the coupon prepared by A. Hidell, designates a rifle with scope attached. And we would have so shipped it unless the customer specifically specified that he did not wish to have it attached. There is nothing in our records to indicate that there was any request made by the customer, and therefore we would have every reason to believe that it was shipped as a rifle with scope mounted." MR. BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not the rifle would have been broken down in shipment, or whether or not it would have been shipped fully assembled?" MR. WALDMAN -- "It was customary for us to ship all of these rifles and scopes fully assembled, and I would have no reason to believe that this particular one would have been shipped otherwise." [...] MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, when we testified upstairs in front of the microfilm machine, was the microfilm itself more clear or less clear than the photostats or prints that have been made from it?" MR. WALDMAN -- "More clear." MR. BELIN -- "So it would be possible to read items on the microfilm itself that might not come out clear on the printed copies?" MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct."

FWIW.... There's also this Warren Commission testimony of FBI agent James Cadigan (at 7 H 419; emphasis is DVP's): MELVIN A. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you an item consisting of a roll of microfilm labeled D-77, and ask you whether you are familiar with that roll of microfilm?" JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "Yes; I am." MR. EISENBERG -- "That microfilm will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1." (The article referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.) MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cadigan, was Exhibit No. 773 developed from a negative contained in Cadigan Exhibit No. 1?" MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; it was printed from that roll."

What do you think the thing inside the white circle is, David J.? What does that look like to you?.... Only you care about such meaningless trivia. It's not important in the slightest way in trying to determine whether or not Oswald was shipped Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766. You're obsessing over things that mean nothing.

Where did Josephs do that? I don't see any picture of an EMPTY film canister. If you're talking about Cadigan Exhibit No. 1 (which Josephs did post previously).... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0133a.htm That's not a picture of an empty canister. That's a 1964 picture for WC volume 19. The microfilm is there in that photo.

Okay, Jim. Thanks for the info. I don't think I had heard that name (J.A. Mueller) in the past. (If I ever did hear of him, I've forgotten about it.) But, anyway, I'd say the people that Klein's utilized to locate the Oswald rifle order on the morning of 11/23/63 did a very effective job --- even without the assistance of Mr. Mueller. By 4:00 AM, they had the information the FBI was seeking. Not too bad, I'd say. The clock doesn't mean much to me anymore, Jim. I'm retired now. So I don't have to deal with the 9-to-5 grind any longer. (Thankfully.)

OK, Jim. I'll bite. Who is J.A. Mueller?

That's better, Jimmy. (But I'm not a very big hoops fan, so I don't have any classic basketball contests archived. Sorry.) I haven't the slightest idea why it's empty. (But are we SURE that the "empty canister" story is the absolute truth? Forgive me if I don't take everything said by a CTer as Gospel. Although I did earlier speculate that the FBI returned the original microfilm to Klein's at some point in time. So an "empty canister" would be perfectly consistent with that theory.) Every single entry seen in Waldman #4 looks identical on all pages. You think the evil-doers faked EVERY line on all pages of Waldman 4? Please, Jim, tell me WHY they needed to fake EVERY serial number on those pages, when only ONE shows "C2766"? And is this "C2766" reference a fake too, Jim?.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htm Well, Jimmy, maybe it was because this was the investigation into the murder of THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Ya think THAT might mean a person kinda "high up" in the Klein's executive chain just MIGHT want to get involved?

But it was the KLEIN'S people searching through their OWN files. Not the FBI. The FBI agents probably WERE just sitting around drinking coffee and waiting for the Klein's employees to find the right "C2766" order (which, of course, they eventually did find). BTW, there's no baseball in late November, Jimmy. But if you like to listen to baseball games, I can help with that.... http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-audio-video-master-index.html#Baseball-Games-And-Highlights

Just as I said --- it was KLEIN'S people doing the actual search for documents. Not the FBI. So both Waldman and Scibor are cover-up operatives and liars, eh? I think a better question is this one: How many people do CTers want to label as "liars" and/or "cover-up operatives" in the JFK case? The number must surely be approaching triple digits by now.