David Von Pein

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1179.html

......

Thanks for the NYC vacation link. Nice aerial views. My brother will probably be taking that exact same helicopter flight around NYC in just a few days. He's on vacation now in the northeast and taking tons of videos for his YouTube channel (which is one of the top channels for "Travel Videos" on YT).... YouTube.com/HoosierTim/videos BTW, I love Carly Simon too .... DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2012/05/coming-around-again-itsy-bitsy-spider.html And speaking of NYC --- tomorrow is the 15th anniversary of the worst day in recent memory.... Sept-11-2001.blogspot.com

I assume you're talking only about the videos that I've uploaded using Google Drive on my websites. The Full Screen buttons work perfectly fine on "YouTube" videos, but for some spiteful and unknown reason, Google Drive (which is an outstanding uploading and file storage service overall) will not allow an embedded video to be expanded into Full Screen mode. I, like you, have noticed that glitch in the past, and I don't like it. (And since you brought it up today, I just this minute sent a "Glitch Report" to Google Drive via their Feedback link. Thanks for bringing it to the forefront. Maybe they'll fix it soon.) But, Michael, you CAN still go to Full Screen mode via my embedded "Drive" videos by merely clicking the "Pop-out" link in the upper-right corner of every video. That will take you to a stand-alone URL page for that particular video (which will be presented in a larger player than I can present on my webpages). And then you can make the player even bigger by clicking the "Full Screen" button in the lower-right corner of the player (after hitting Play first). The Full Screen button always works on the stand-alone pages, like this one: drive.google.com/file/September 11th, 2001 Audio I have no control whatsoever when it comes to any captioning options on my videos uploaded through the Google Drive service. There is no option for the uploader to turn captions on or off. It's an option that does not exist. The "Drive" video players resemble YouTube video players, but there has never been any option or setting for "Captions" or "Subtitles" on the control panel of the "Drive" players. Captions just aren't available through Google Drive. Perhaps that's something Google will add to its player controls in the future. Google Drive is a relatively new service. It's only been part of the Google family of services since 2012. So I would expect some things to be tweaked and expanded to the service as time goes on. NOTE -- And I just now noticed that the "Caption" options aren't even showing up on my YouTube videos anymore. I have no idea why. I know that option previously had been there on YT videos. Odd. ~shrug~ EDIT -- And now, just seconds after checking it, the Caption buttons are back on my YouTube videos. Geez, how weird. (Must be a Captioning Conspiracy.) EDIT #2 -- Now I see that the Caption option only appears on some of my YouTube videos, but not on all of them. I guess they just pick and choose at random when to put the Caption button in there. ~another shrug~ EDIT #3 -- I figured out the "Captions" mystery at YouTube. The Caption button only appears on videos shorter than approximately 105 minutes in length (perhaps 106.775 minutes). Longer videos don't have the Caption option available at all. But even that restriction seems to be hit and miss on some of my videos. They just like to keep you guessing I guess.

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/buell-wesley-frazier.html

There are a lot of people who think Lee Oswald acted alone on 11/22/63. And I hear from many of those people regularly by e-mail and via the comments I get on a daily basis on my YouTube videos. I hear from more CTers than I do LNers, that's true enough. But I get comments from many Lone Assassin believers too. And I always get a chuckle out of the conspiracy theorists who seem to believe there are just a handful of "LNers" left on the entire planet. Along those same lines of thought, here's a brief exchange I had at this forum with Jon G. Tidd in July of 2015: JON G. TIDD SAID: DVP, Either you are a surrogate for the U.S. Government. Or you speak the same as the government. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jon, I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them. Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101.html Ramon, As incredible as it might be for you and other CTers to contemplate, there ARE some people in this world--myself included--who don't think of Dale K. Myers as a lying charlatan and a disinformation agent.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers-and-sbt.html dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/06/dale-myers.html With--Malice.blogspot.com

Thanks for the extra info, Pat. But whether he was sick or not, I think you'd have to agree with me, that if Albert Thomas had been privy to some kind of assassination conspiracy plot to murder JFK, the wink that Thomas threw to Kennedy's successor in full view of Cecil Stoughton's camera lens would have been a demonstration of blatant brashness and boldness that we aren't likely to see very often from someone who possesses knowledge of a covert nature—knowledge which that person certainly would not have a desire to flaunt so conspicuously and unnecessarily. And I also have to assume that the conspiracy theorists who think Thomas' wink should be placed in the "suspicious" or "sinister" categories must also believe that President Kennedy's praise and admiration of Representative Thomas during JFK's speech in Houston the night before the assassination (audio below) was praise and admiration that most certainly was not reciprocated by Mr. Thomas toward President Kennedy.

But there was certainly some "dog eat dog" bickering going on in Kennedy's era too, as we can see here:

Me too, Jim. The stars must be out of alignment or something.

"WINK" ADDENDUM.... JIM HESS SAID (AT FACEBOOK): Big ol' '60s camera in his face and he covertly winks? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Right. That's what a lot of CTers believe. It's preposterous. TED RUBINSTEIN SAID: Von Pein doesn't attempt to explain it, I noticed. [...] Von Pein doesn't even comment on the inappropriateness. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I think Thomas' wink was basically the equivalent of a "Good Luck" handshake. Nothing more. And how anyone can think it is anything more than that is beyond me, seeing as how Thomas had to know that Stoughton was snapping away with his camera just a few feet away. Do you, Ted, really think Thomas' gonads were THAT large? TED RUBINSTEIN SAID: I think perhaps he had no love for JFK. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Big deal. August 23, 2016

But the fact that Albert Thomas winked at Johnson at a time when Thomas certainly had to know that photographer Cecil Stoughton was present in that super-small compartment of Air Force One (and everybody could probably even hear Stoughton's camera shutter clicking away as he took all of these pictures of the swearing-in scene) is virtual proof in and of itself that Albert Thomas was certainly not one of Lyndon Johnson's "crooked cronies" (certainly with respect to JFK's murder at any rate). If a situation had existed in which Albert Thomas did, in fact, possess some knowledge of a conspiracy plot which was designed to elevate LBJ to the highest office in the land, with Thomas then winking at Johnson right after he was sworn in (serving as a congratulatory message to LBJ that the assassination plot had been pulled off successfully), with Thomas knowing full well that his "wink" would very likely be captured on film by White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, then I think it would be safe to say that Representative Albert Thomas of Houston, Texas, would have been the top candidate for the "Brass Balls Award For 1963". Anybody disagree with that?

Finally! Something that Jim D. and I agree on! It's a miracle! jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/primary.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/crisis.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/11/faces-of-november.html

I think Bud gave a plausible explanation for that eight years ago..... BUD SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2008): You are talking Powerball odds that Crescent firearms or Klein's would have two Carcano rifles with the same serial number. A person spending his whole life might find two Carcanos with the same serial number. Note that when Klein's inventoried the boxes of Carcanos [Click Here], they didn't even bother with the letter prefix in front of the serial number, knowing full well how unlikely it would be to get two rifles with just the same numbers.

Okay. Gladly. Here you go.... ---Quote On:--- "The Warren Commission overlooked putting the American Rifleman advertisement in its volumes. But conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher points out that the advertisement was for a $12.88 Carcano ($19.95 with scope) that was 36 inches long, weighed 5 1⁄2 pounds, and had a catalog number of C20-T750, though we know the $19.95 Carcano that was sent to Oswald was 40 1⁄5 inches long and weighed 8 pounds, which was closer to the 40-inch Carcano weighing 7 pounds advertised in the November 1963 ad in a different magazine, Field and Stream. But Meagher fails to state the significance of this discrepancy. (Meagher, 'Accessories after the Fact', p.48 footnote; fact that Oswald ordered his Carcano from a February 1963 Klein’s advertisement in the American Rifleman magazine: Waldman Exhibit No. 8, 21 H 704; CE 773, 17 H 635; WR, p.119; 7 H 366, WCT William J. Waldman; advertisement reprinted in “In the Works: Tighter Laws on Gun Sales,” p.4; see also the August 27, 1965, edition of Life magazine [pages 62-65]; Field and Stream ad where yet a different catalog number, C20-750, is used for the Carcano: Holmes Exhibit No. 2, 20 H 174, viii; 7 H 294, WCT Harry D. Holmes; length and weight of Oswald’s Carcano: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier) In other words, so what? We know Oswald was shipped his Carcano, serial number C2766 (whether or not it was the same weapon he had ordered, and whether or not he was even aware he received a Carcano a little over 4 inches longer and 3 1⁄2 pounds heavier [sic] than he had ordered), we know it was found in the sniper’s nest [sic], and we know it was the murder weapon." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 392-393 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" ~~~~~~~~~~ The LIFE Magazine article linked below, which is referred to by Vince Bugliosi as a source note in the book excerpt I quoted above, could be of some interest to people who are fascinated with the subject of Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle. I'm sure some conspiracists can find something in this article to complain about: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI.... Two more services that I have used for downloading YouTube videos. These sites have worked very well for me: http://KeepVid.com http://VideoGrabby.com

From Vincent Bugliosi's book: "William Suchur [sic], the owner of International Firearms Company of Montreal, informed the FBI on March 12, 1964, per a letter from J. Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission of April 22, 1964, that “in the 1930’s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not” (CE 2562, 25 H 808). However, no other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has ever surfaced, although one with a serial number of 2766 without any prefix did. .... However, even if another Mannlicher-Carcano did surface with the same serial number as Oswald’s, C2766, it would be irrelevant since we know one with that serial number was sold and sent to Oswald, was found in the sniper’s nest*, and was proved to be the murder weapon." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 340 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" * Slight error on Bugliosi's part here. Vince, of course, knew full well that the rifle was not found "in the sniper's nest" itself. He obviously meant to say "on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building" instead of "in the sniper's nest". But it seems to me that a reasonable interpretation of what William Sucher told the FBI in March 1964 would be that only the four numerals that appear after the letter prefix in a serial number are repeated when stamping the serial numbers on Mannlicher-Carcano rifles. Hence, he said "some bear a letter prefix and some do not". Therefore, when the four digits in a given serial number are identical to the numbers stamped on a previously manufactured gun, a letter prefix is added to the number to set it apart from all other Carcano serial numbers. I certainly think that's one way to interpret Sucher's remarks at any rate. Although apparently Vince Bugliosi did not interpret Sucher's statement in such a manner. Otherwise, I think he would have mentioned such an interpretation in his book, which he did not do. RELATED FLASHBACK.... GIL JESUS SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008): [Quoting from Commission Exhibit No. 2562, p.15:] "Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER APPEARS ON WEAPONS MANUFACTURED BY MORE THAN ONE CONCERN. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." .... Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix? DAVID VON PEIN SAID (ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2008): Yes, you're correct here (in a way), Gil. I'll admit that. I.E., The above passage which you quoted from CE2562 can, indeed, be interpreted this way: The exact same 5-character serial number can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, which would include the same prefix letter as well as the same four numbers that follow the prefix letter. But I also think the above quote from CE2562 can be interpreted another way, which is probably the correct way of interpreting it, especially when factoring in these two things as a prerequisite: 1.) J. Edgar Hoover's comments to J. Lee Rankin on Page 1 of that 20-page document that makes up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2562, wherein Hoover is telling Rankin about two specific rifles of interest to the Commission, rifles which bear similar serial numbers, but not serial numbers that are exactly the same, because one of them doesn't bear the "C" letter prefix. And: 2.) The fact that nobody, to date, has produced a single example of another Model #91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that bears the exact same 5-character serial number as the one that was shipped by Klein's to Hidell/Oswald in March 1963. And, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever come up with ANY two separate MC 91/38 rifles that bear the exact same 5-character serial number, regardless of whether the number is "C2766" or some other number. Given the above two facts, I believe that the above quote that you cited from CE2562 could reasonably be interpreted in the following manner: The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0 through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number, while the other rifle will not have this prefix. In my opinion, the above explanation is a reasonable one, given the comments by J. Edgar Hoover on Page #1 of CE2562. And it's also a very reasonable explanation when factoring in the following comments regarding this topic of serial numbers that were made by the FBI's Robert A. Frazier to the Warren Commission in 1964: MR. EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined to one weapon of a given type?" MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter." MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?" MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."

But I never said that clicking the pictures would take you necessarily to an enlarged version. I merely wrote "Click each picture". (That's because some of the links go to other things besides just an enlargement.) But since you brought it up, I think I will change the wording there, so people aren't misled. (EDIT: It's fixed now. Thanks.)

1935: 11/25/63: OCTOBER 2015: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/08/dealey-plaza-photos-dating-back-to-1935.html

DiEugenio can't possibly be serious in Post #34. Everything he wrote in that post is absurd and laughable---covering all three topics. Per Jimbo's strained logic, since Thomas H. Purvis once allegedly had a rifle with a "C5XXX" serial number, that somehow "PROVES" (in Jimmy's mind) that a second rifle with "C2766" on it had to have existed. I'd love to hear that idiotic argument uttered in a court of law. The laughter would never cease.

The day after this aired, this DJ was fired....

Thanks, Pat. I'm glad I didn't waste my time watching it.

Yes, that's correct, I will say exactly that very thing---and have said that exact thing in the past. In fact, I said it earlier tonight in this very thread! I said it twice, in fact! In Post #20 and #25. (Jimmy's memory is now apparently nonexistent entirely.) And you KNOW why this whole topic of "Duplicate C2766 Serial Numbers" is completely irrelevant, Jimbo. You know why. You just want to ignore the reason why. So I'll say it yet again (so you can ignore it yet again).... "Even if 100 additional Carcano rifles were discovered tomorrow with the same C2766 serial number on them -- who cares? So what? Would the discovery of several more "C2766" MC rifles suddenly make Oswald's C2766 rifle CEASE BEING THE WEAPON THAT KILLED PRESIDENT KENNEDY? Of course it wouldn't; and that's because Oswald's C2766 gun (CE139) has unique barrel rifling marks that set it apart from all other rifles--including any other Carcano rifles that the CTers think are also stamped with the serial number C2766. So, in reality, the argument that conspiracists continue to dredge up regarding potential duplicate C2766 serial numbers is a worthless argument in the first place. Because the "C2766" gun that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD (with OSWALD'S prints on it) is the one and only gun that killed JFK." -- DVP; July 30, 2010