David Von Pein

Jim,

There's no "magic" or "miracles" of any kind involved here at all. And there's no sinister or underhanded cover-up involved either. The reason why the media was reporting the $12.78 cost for the rifle (sans the scope) was quite simple --- they were simply referring to the Klein's ads that were currently running in various magazines in November of 1963. Between the time Oswald ordered his rifle in March '63 and the time of the assassination eight months later, the price of the Italian carbine (without the scope attached) in the Klein's advertisements had decreased by 10 cents, from $12.88 to $12.78.

And it's highly unlikely that any of the people in the press still had ready access to any Klein's magazine ads from eight or nine months earlier. So they were merely reporting on the CURRENT price of the gun in their TV and newspaper reports. And even Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on 11/23/63: "I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that."



As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87.

So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?

So how about this? There was no such wound to see at Parkland. (Obviously.) The gaping wound in the right side of the head was created by the butchers who conducted a pre-autopsy "autopsy." The Z film was then altered accordingly to show how this wound "occurred" in Dealey Plaza.

How did the unknown "they" (the film-alterers) manage to fake/alter the Z-Film so fast---BEFORE any of the three copies were made?

Or do you think "they" somehow performed a miracle by faking the film FOUR separate times (once for the original film and then they faked each of the three copies separately after those copies were created at Jamieson's)?

Any way you cut it --- it's impossible and unrealistic (not to mention ridiculous). But that never stopped an alterationist from proposing such silliness.

And before DVP pipes in with witness Newman's statement, Newman would have seen the back of JFK's head blown out, and must have been mistaken in that traumatic instant that the wound was more forward. What he thinks he saw simply can't be reconciled with what the Parkland doctors didn't see at close range and for an extended period.

Oops! Looks like you've forgotten a first-day witness (who appeared on WFAA-TV at 2:31 PM, Dallas time, just two hours after he filmed the assassination with his own camera). Was Abraham Zapruder being TOLD where to place his hand here?:

And then there's Gayle Newman as well. Was she part of the never-ending cover-up too, Ron? And this image was captured at approximately 1:18 PM CST, just 48 minutes after JFK was shot:

Isn't it funny that none of the Parkland doctors saw something so obvious, and right out in the open?

Yes, I agree. It is.

But there's also no doubt whatsoever that a great big hole WAS there in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of JFK's head.

And here's the inescapable proof....

I guess Jon G. Tidd has overlooked (or just decided to totally ignore) Pat Speer's informative post regarding the "computer-enhanced X-rays". Here's a replay....

"Custer denounced the x-rays multiple times...after being shown the computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA, which were not only computer-enhanced to increase the contrast, but cropped to remove the jaw. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, and shown the original un-enhanced, un-cropped x-rays, he recognized his mark on the x-rays, and acknowledged them as Kennedy's x-rays, and x-rays he'd taken. Same with Edward Reed, the other radiology tech at work on 11-22-63.

So now, ask yourself, is it a coincidence that Custer and Reed both denounced the x-rays when shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays published by the HSCA, and then signed off on their authenticity once shown the originals? I suspect not. Rather than recognize the obvious--that they had failed to recognize the enhanced x-rays because they had a different appearance than the x-rays they normally saw at Bethesda, and then recognized the originals shown them by the ARRB, because they looked just like the x-rays they had seen at Bethesda--Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO.

It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they [want] to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear." -- Patrick J. Speer; Dec. 12, 2015 (12:07 AM EST)

A cop trained to be observant described a guy on the third or fourth floor as

"... a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

Third or fourth floor.....no.... ..second floor (allegedly)

White man................... check

30 years old................ no...... 24 years old.

165 lbs..........................no..... 131 lbs

dark hair..............,,,,,,,,,,check

Light brown jacket.......No ... patterned shirt.

I go with his first affidavit.

Yeah, me too. And we KNOW for an absolute FACT that Baker saw LEE OSWALD and nobody else.

More....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

One of the many things that conspiracy theorists will always refuse to evaluate properly is the fact that Howard Brennan provided a description of the 6th-floor assassin on Day 1 (November 22) in his affidavit that generally fits Lee Oswald.

Even the age of the assassin Brennan saw fits perfectly with Marrion Baker's incorrect estimate of Lee Oswald's age -- about 30 -- which we know is wrong, but we also know that the man Baker described as being "approximately 30 years old" WAS Lee Harvey Oswald and not somebody who could have merely been confused with Oswald.

And then there are the "weight" estimates provided by Brennan and Baker in their individual affidavits, which also (just like the "age" estimate) blend together perfectly:

Baker said -- "165 pounds".

Brennan said -- "165 to 175 pounds".

And, just like Baker's estimate for Oswald's age, the weight estimate he provided in his affidavit is wrong, but we still know that Baker was estimating the weight of the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he wrote down "165 pounds" in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

Ergo, we know that it is, indeed, possible for a person to look right at Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and think he weighed as much as 165 pounds. Shouldn't this fact mean just a little something to CTers when they attempt to assess whether or not Howard Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in the Sniper's Nest on that same day?

Do CTers think that Baker and Brennan got together and swapped information so that their affidavits would merge perfectly with respect to both the "age" and "weight" estimates?

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST KNOWN

AS "NICKNAME" SAID:

Brennan's testimony does your case no good, unfortunately. He recalls seeing "a white man, early 30's, slender, weight about 165 to 175 pounds." As if that description doesn't fit 40 million people. Add that he was 120 feet away, staring at a figure six stories up. Could you positively ID someone from that distance? And even if it was Oswald he saw, that only proves that Oswald was ONE OF the shooters, not the only shooter.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

NickName,

Read my last post again, and place Brennan's 11/22 affidavit alongside Baker's 11/22 affidavit. Can't you see the similarities?

And, as I said, we know for an absolute irrefutable fact that Marrion Baker was describing Lee Harvey Oswald in that affidavit and nobody else on Earth. And yet he made the same TWO incorrect estimates that Howard Brennan also made -- age and weight.

And you surely aren't going to pull a DiEugenio on me and claim something silly like this (are you?)....

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact."

-- James DiEugenio; July 13-14, 2015

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

A guy who weighs 141 pounds would never be said to weigh 165.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tell that to Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department, Garry....

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; November 22, 1963

Let me guess, Garry --- Marrion Baker wasn't really describing the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he said the man he stopped at gunpoint in the Depository's second-floor lunchroom weighed "165 pounds", right? You think Baker was either lying or he was describing somebody besides Oswald (despite the fact Roy Truly, who was right there in the lunchroom with Baker during the encounter, confirmed it was Lee Oswald). Right?

Let's hear the CTers' lame, rip-roaring, half-baked excuse for totally dismissing these words written by Roy Truly on 11/23/63:

"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy S. Truly; November 23, 1963

HANK SIENZANT SAID:

Great post, David.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Hank.

I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds.

DAVID G. HEALY SAID:

What a ludicrous post. Witnesses can THINK what they want about any old thing. It's what they THINK and interpret about what they saw that's important.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right. And Marrion L. Baker THOUGHT the man he stopped in the 2nd-floor lunchroom weighed about 165 pounds. (It says so right there in Baker's written statement that he composed on the same day.)

And Marrion L. Baker INTERPRETED what he saw (i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald's body) as being a person who weighed 165 pounds.

(And Healy berates me for my post being "ludicrous". Incrediburgible! Pot collides head-on with Kettle yet again.)

DAVID G. HEALY SAID:

For one reading witnesses' testimony, it is entirely POSSIBLE for one to state: it's utterly impossible to cram 165 pounds into a 130[-pound] frame.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure. But that's not the point, you clown, and you know it. The point is: How much did Officer Baker think Lee Oswald weighed?

Because as much as you conspiracy-happy clowns dislike this fact, Marrion Baker proved for all time that it most certainly was NOT "impossible" for a person who was staring right at Lee Harvey Oswald on the date of 11/22/63 to believe that Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds.

And Howard Brennan's first-day affidavit, in which Brennan says he thought the sixth-floor assassin weighed as much as "165 to 175 pounds", when coupled with Marrion Baker's statement regarding Oswald's estimated weight (and age too [30 years old]), make it all too obvious that witnesses who saw Oswald on the day of the assassination CAN--and DID--think Oswald weighed at least 165 pounds.

And Brennan's statement concerning the man he saw firing a rifle at President Kennedy needs to be evaluated with this important fact in mind too....i.e.:

The "165 to 175-pound" person Brennan saw in the window was located in the exact same place on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building where we know evidence was found that is incriminating against the exact same "165-pound" person seen just a couple of minutes later by Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker. Incriminating evidence such as fingerprints, palmprints, the empty 38-inch paper bag with Oswald's prints on it, and the three expended bullet shells that were conclusively proven to have been fired in and ejected from the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action rifle purchased by Lee Harvey Oswald on March 12, 1963.

Given the amount of physical evidence that is screaming "Oswald Was Here In This Sniper's Nest On November 22, 1963", the odds that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald in that sixth-floor window at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63 are virtually zero.

David Von Pein

August 15, 2015

December 1, 2015

Bob Prudhomme said:

Doesn't it seem odd that these same doctors did NOT report a large gaping wound on any other part of JFK's head, considering the fact that every other part of JFK's head was completely visible to them?

I've often wondered why more of the Parkland witnesses didn't see at least *some* of the large wound in the right-front of JFK's head.

From a 2009 Internet discussion:

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland)?

Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound).

But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head:

1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head).

and:

2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

-- Dr. Humes; June 1967

BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:

"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975. And the ones who did see it lied about it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Zapruder's film was privately owned (by Abraham Zapruder) at the time it was developed, processed, and copied for the Secret Service on 11/22/63. And that's the most important timeframe that I was referring to when I said the film was a "privately-owned non-Government home movie".

Because in order for the silly Z-Film Alterationists to have a prayer of being right about the film being altered, that film certainly MUST have been altered BEFORE any of the three copies were made at the Jamieson film lab on November 22nd. And there's no way in hell anyone "altered" the film that quickly. Not even George Reeves as Superman could have accomplished that ultra-fast film-altering feat. Therefore, based on that timing factor alone, we can have all the confidence in the world that the film was most certainly NOT altered.


REPLAY....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.




SANDY LARSEN SAID:

One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed regarding the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you've got to be an even bigger chump to believe that the Zapruder Film was altered (with lightning-like speed AND with Mr. Zapruder practically hovering over the film-fakers every step of the way), as well as believing all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND X-rays were faked and altered by conspirators too (despite the fact the HSCA determined just exactly the opposite).

I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this.

Well, let's face it, no matter which side of the "Head Wound" debate you decide to endorse, a whole bunch of people are going to turn out to be dead wrong. That's just a fact of life.

If you're an "LNer", like I am, you've got to try and reconcile how all of those witnesses at Parkland Hospital (and some Bethesda witnesses too) could possibly have seen something that did not exist---a big hole in the back (or "occipital") part of JFK's head.

And if you're a "CTer", then you've got to ask yourself how the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) could have ALL been dead wrong, because not a one of them ever said that Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head. (Conspiracy believers, I guess, must think that all three of those doctors decided to get together after the autopsy and tell a bunch of lies in the official autopsy report that each one of them attached his name to. Yeah, right.)

And the CTers also need to somehow reconcile those autopsy photos and X-rays, which do not come close to depicting a gaping back-of-the-head wound described by many of the Parkland witnesses, such as Dr. Robert McClelland.

And then there are the few witnesses on the north side of Elm Street who watched the assassination occurring as it actually happened. Those witnesses, of course, did not get an extended or detailed look at JFK's head injuries, but they were looking right at the President when his head exploded into a cloud of blood and brain tissue....and, as I mentioned earlier, the closest Elm Street eyewitnesses were interviewed almost immediately after the assassination and they said things on live television that support and corroborate (in general) the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie and in the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, whether you're an LNer or a conspiracy believer, quite a few people are going to have to be placed into the "THEY WERE WRONG" category when it comes to the question of: Where was President Kennedy's large head wound located?

Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.

But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now. That is, the Zapruder Film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays. We have ALL of that stuff to examine now at our leisure. And the HSCA and Rockefeller panels did too. And they determined, independent from one another, that JFK was struck by only TWO bullets, with both of those bullets coming FROM BEHIND the President's car, including the one and only missile that struck JFK in the head.

As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?

(Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?)

In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63.

Sandy,

But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear....




So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head:

1. The autopsy photos.

2. The autopsy X-rays.

3. The Zapruder Film.





Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case?

If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items have been faked or altered.

And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman....

-----

From "Reclaiming History":

"In addition to the testimony of the Parkland doctors, conspiracy theorists cite the recollections and testimony of several eyewitnesses in attendance at the autopsy as further "proof" that the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. Once again, these eyewitness accounts (some of them, recollections over three decades old) are supposed to supersede the autopsy photographs and X-rays that show the large defect was primarily to the right front.

Remarkably, the list by conspiracy theorists of eyewitnesses to this supposed back-of-the-head exit wound is so expansive it frequently even includes two of the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, who we know concluded that the bullet exited in the right front of the skull. Apparently the fact that they mentioned in their autopsy summary that the large exit defect "extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" got them a ticket into the club of rear-exit believers.

Indeed, even Captain John H. Stover, commanding officer of the Naval Medical School, who reported in 1978 that he saw

"a wound on the top of the head," qualified for the back-of-the-head list.

The list includes three Secret Service agents (William Greer, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill) and two FBI agents (James Sibert and Francis O 'Neill) whose testimony points to a right-rear or back-of-the-head exit wound.

The above is not to suggest that all of the lay witnesses at the autopsy thought the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. For instance, James Curtis Jenkins, a lab technician during the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that the large head wound was to the "middle temporal region back to the occipital." [see MD65; Page 4]

Chester Boyers, the chief petty officer in charge of the lab at Bethesda who was present at the autopsy, said the exit wound was to the right front of the president 's head.

Richard A. Lipsey, a personal aide to General Wehle, told the HSCA it was obvious that a bullet "entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his head."

Also, at the London trial, Paul O'Connor, the naval hospital corpsman who assisted in the president's autopsy, testified he "assumed" that the bullet to the president's head "had hit him from the rear and had come out the front only because of what other physical evidence was present."

When I said to O'Connor, "You told me over the phone that this large massive defect to the right frontal area of the president's head gave all appearances of being an exit wound, is that correct?"

O'Connor: "Yes, on the front."

None of the aforementioned people or witnesses had a close-up view of the president's head. Only four people in the autopsy room did, the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head.

When I spoke to Stringer, he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." [MD227; Page 3]

Though, as we shall see later, Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."

So we see that all four people who were much closer to the president's head than anyone else, and whose business it was, as opposed to the many other people in the room, to know where the wounds were, have no question in their mind that the exit wound was to the right front side of the president's head, not the rear."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 408-410 of "Reclaiming History:

The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)

Ben Holmes (currently at the AMAZON Forum) has been driving you nuts for years concerning the x-ray "white blob" that happens to be 6.5mm in diameter.

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, Healy. The "white blob" being discussed in this thread has nothing to do with the "6.5 mm. object/opacity" (which Mantik thinks is made out of cardboard; ~chuckle~).

DVP: [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW,

See how long it is before I deal with you directly again.

Oh, the horror! I'm back on Ignore. I'll surely be committing hari-kari now!

Geesh. What an ego.

Let's review....

>>> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or liars, per people like DiEugenio).

>>> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O.

>>> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB).

>>> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington.

>>> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, below....)



But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers.

You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Oswald, Klein's, and the FRB. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact.

You know, I always said you had problems with the English language.

And this is one reason I do not deal with you anymore [EVEN THOUGH HE'S "DEALING" WITH ME RIGHT NOW, AND DEALT WITH ME NUMEROUS TIMES RECENTLY IN THE "MONEY ORDER" THREAD TOO; GO FIGURE ~shrug~].

The point of the issue is not whether the x rays show an intact skull.

What Mantik is arguing is that the rear of the skull appears to be overexposed which is where a white patch appears. And it obstructs that so you cannot decipher what is back there.

And, as I said before, the ONLY possible reason for anyone to have wanted to add a "white blob" or a "white patch" to the X-ray would be to fake the X-ray to make it look like the back of the President's head was intact (i.e., with no missing bone).

Therefore, the bottom-line issue about this matter IS, indeed, "whether the x rays show an intact skull".

If that's NOT the "issue", then for Pete sake, what is?

You think Mantik believes that somebody faked an X-ray that already showed an intact back of the head?

That's really crazy, Jimmy. (Even for you.)

[it's] not a point of whether or not the back of the head is intact.

Huh? It's not??! You must be joking.

OF COURSE that's what it's all about, Jim. That's the ENTIRE genesis for the "White Blob" X-ray debate! Otherwise, this whole topic about the X-rays is a complete non-issue.

Dr. Mantik thinks that President Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head and that's why somebody (allegedly) tampered with the X-rays.

Why ELSE would the forever-unidentified and unknown "they" be monkeying around with the X-rays? Just for kicks?

No, it was not. They quite clearly stated that the entry defect was in the cowlick area, and that this entry point was on the margin of the large wound. You might look at [what] the x-ray experts of the HSCA said about this:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/hsca/hsca.htm

The Ramsey Clark Panel saw the x-rays. They found the back of the head intact.

The HSCA FPP saw the x-rays, and they found the back of the head intact.

So in the late 60s and then in the late 70s the x-rays showed "what the plotters wanted to show."

Why did they mess with them between the late 1970s and the time that Mantik got ahold of them?

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/YahseK20pTs/yeU6bKXFFRYJ

C'mon. We will never be taken seriously it we continue to do this stuff. We will (rightly) be perceived as a bunch of jejune axe grinders.

Oh, brother. As if your 20+ theories of untenable junk deserve to be "taken seriously". Hilarious....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-114.html

Re: the silly "White Blob Added To The X-Ray" theory....

"Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays. He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact. Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW?" -- John McAdams; December 22, 1999

And yet another worthless and vapid contribution from the keyboard of David G. Healy. (Gee, what a shocker.)

Why waste the bandwidth, Healy? Or is there now a statute on the books in your town of Conspiracyville, U.S.A., that requires you to follow me around everywhere I go like a Chihuahua?

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

[sandy] Larsen has a done a good job of showing the 1960 Regulations required a bank number and date stamp. He also cited the same in the 1969 Regulations, so that means they applied in 1963 as well.


CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

Actually all he did is prove it was not a requirement. The salient word here is SHOULD. Not shall or must.

Larsen failed and you just did too.


ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

Obviously just a denier trying to get the most out of semantics as possible against the obvious.

[...]

As far as I see it, nobody has yet topped Larsen's citation of the Federal Bank Regulation 'Circular' showing Money Orders had to have a bank number and date stamp according to the rules.


CRAIG LAMSON SAID:

The word "SHOULD" in this case is not just semantics.

Why don't you research it in a legal context. Or would that destroy your carefully constructed fantasy?


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Sandy Larsen, over on the ED Forum, says that he has shown that bank endorsements were indeed required on PMOs. He's wrong and I don't see where anyone has pointed that out to him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer.

If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy?

Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item".

It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here....

"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement."

And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):




TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

If we're going to get into a debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the word "Each", then perhaps we could add the words "should", "shall", and "must" into the mix as well.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Tim, I agree.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12852.msg411727.html#msg411727

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12923.msg412477.html#msg412477

TOM SCULLY SAID:

It follows that, after FBI lab "processing" of the $21.45 postal money order, it was much less authoritive for the purposes of evidentiary value than the "official" photographs of that money order taken before processing.

I expect [Albert] Doyle and other interested parties do not fully understand the Federal Reserve Bank role and the fact that no human examined automatically processed money orders for endorsements, which were not required, anyway, and lack of presence of had no effect on processing or claim of payment by First National Bank of Chicago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I imagine that even Sandy Larsen at The Education Forum by this time is pretty much convinced the Hidell M.O. was not a faked or forged document. The excellent VISUAL proof that the M.O. (as seen in Cadigan No. 11) does not show any of the bleed-thru that CE788 exhibits is likely the thing that will tip the scales for Sandy in the direction of "There's No Forgery Here". Particularly after Sandy said this to me four days ago:

"I wouldn't be questioning the money order if missing stamps was the only irregularity. I might have even dropped it today or sometime soon if it weren't for the ink bleeding thru. But naturally I don't intend on spending a great deal more time on this aspect of the case. There are other more important things to investigate. I chose this only because it seemed to be simple at the time. The bleeding ink is harder to understand than the missing stamps." -- Sandy Larsen; Dec. 2, 2015

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

I don't want to search through this thread, but I mentioned way back that the bleed-through might be due to side effects of police technical analysis of the Money Order during the investigation. Seemed like an obvious possible cause.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good job, Albert.

And now to "Pre-empt the Defense".....

We can now probably expect to hear from the CTers regarding a different "Money Order" subject....

Whether or not Jim Cadigan and Alwyn Cole examined the original money order for the handwriting analysis BEFORE or AFTER it was treated for fingerprints.

If it was AFTER, the CTers will, of course, say we must disregard Cadigan's & Cole's anaylsis of it being Oswald's writing, because the chemical treatment of the M.O. had altered the document and the ink before it was examined.

And it also means that McNally and Scott and the other HSCA handwriting experts examined the M.O. only after it had been treated with chemicals (quite obviously, since it was treated in 1963 and the HSCA didn't exist until the 1970s).

EDIT --- Alwyn Cole definitely examined the money order only AFTER it had been treated for fingerprints....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cole, before you discuss your conclusion, the handwriting on 788 seems to have a slight blur in some parts. Could you explain that in any way?"

MR. COLE -- "Yes; it is my view that this document has been in contact with moisture which affected the ink of the handwriting. Such contact might have been through an effort to develop fingerprints."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Was it or is it discolored at this point at all, do you think?"

MR. COLE -- "There are only two small areas of discoloration on this document, one of them being along the upper edge just above the figure "9," and the other along the right edge just opposite the figure "5." This indicates to me that at one time this document was more deeply stained but has been cleared up by some chemical bleach."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Was it in the same condition when you examined it as it is now?"

MR. COLE -- "It was."

TIM BRENNAN SAID:

The Money Order Bleed-Thru Problem Explained....

One of the reservations expressed about the veracity of [the Hidell money order] is the apparent "bleed thru" effect of the postal stamp and other details, given that US Postal Money Orders were actually of a computer punch card type by this time in 1963.

However, it seems that this issue can be explained. The card was subjected to a chemical process, which bleaches and makes inks run, in order to establish whether or not there were latent fingerprints upon it.

After this, a process known as "desilvering" was applied to the card to return it as much as possible to its previous state, though obviously some effects of the fingerprinting process, like ink run, remained in place.

Fortunately, though, FBI handwriting expert James C. Cadigan examined the card and had it photographed BEFORE the fingerprinting process took place. This is a much CLEARER copy of the Money Order, Cadigan's handwriting arrows notwithstanding ----> CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 11.

As can be seen, the UNTREATED card, Cadigan Exhibit 11, DOESN'T appear to exhibit the "bleed thru" problems we see in CE 788.

Relevant parts of Cadigan's testimony re this matter are here and here.

H/T to DVP re this, who has been fighting the good fight on the Postal Money Order matter over at the Education Forum for WEEKS.

Way to go DVP!

Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excellent, Tim!

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the photos of the money order. The picture of the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 most certainly does not exhibit the bleed-thru that is apparent in Commission Exhibit No. 788.

Here's a direct comparison of the two exhibits:



And, as Tim pointed out, Cadigan #11 is a picture that was taken BEFORE the money order was treated for fingerprints, per Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony (at 7 H 434).

Here's what Cadigan said:

MELVIN A. EISENBERG -- "Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?"

JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain why the signature, "Lee Oswald" or rather "L. H. Oswald" is apparent, while the signature "A. J. Hidell" is not?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Different inks."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Some inks are more soluble in the solution used for fingerprint tests than others?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Definitely."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801, and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "That is correct."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in their original silvered condition."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints."

MR. CADIGAN -- "I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial."

~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks again, Tim Brennan, for this discovery. It looks like you've just hammered one more nail into the coffin of the "Money Order Is Fake" theory.

Source link:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0wrJY1LBj78/knAU6EFkBwAJ

Also see:

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Sandy has alredy [sic] dealt with that so well, that I am not even going to comment on it.

The written statutes, two sets, plus two bank supervisor witnesses is plenty.

But...

I predict that, in spite of that, DVP will not mention any of the statutes, or either of the interviews--and BTW, the one John [Armstrong] did is really something, since the supervisor was literally stunned--and he will now place this on his web site. And he will now say that the MO is for real. Even though it was never stamped as going through the system. As it should have been by law.

As per your other arguments about handwriting, please give us all a break on this. You and John McAdams with your FBI handwriting analysis is like a broken record. David Josephs contravened you very effectively on this, and like everything else that neuters your argument, you shove it under the rug. Down the memory hole so that people at your site don't see it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Talk about a broken record. I think you're a great example of a "broken record", Jimmy. And it's the exact same song on both Side A and Side B -- "This Is Fake! This Is Fake!"

Please give everyone a break from that silly refrain, will ya?

As for the handwriting analysis, Jim has no choice but to think that all of the various questioned documents examiners who looked at the ORIGINAL "HIDELL" MONEY ORDER in 1964 and 1978 for the Warren Commission and the HSCA were wrong (or liars).

Or, as an alternative, Jim must think that someone was able to perfectly re-create Lee Oswald's handwriting on the CE788 money order so that this alleged forgery was able to fool MULTIPLE handwriting experts who would later be rendering an opinion on the matter.

Yeah, sure, Jim.

BTW, I recently had a battle with a mega-kook named Ben Holmes over at Amazon concerning the subject of the handwriting on the money order. That discussion can be found HERE.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As per the date, uh Davey, you very conveniently leave out the role of Harry Holmes don't you? Very predictable by you. Especially for anyone who knows your methodology.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

News Flash for James DiEugenio!! ----

David Von Pein, unlike Jim DiEugenio, isn't obligated by law to believe that every single person in Dallas and Washington was on a mission to frame a patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald in November 1963!

You and other conspiracy hounds see sinister and underhanded activity in the testimony and the statements of Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes. I, however, do not "see" things the same strange way you see them, Jim. And I "see" no good enough reason in the written statements or actions of Harry Holmes to cause me to believe he was lying through his teeth with respect to the manner in which the Hidell money order was found and recovered OR with respect to the things Holmes said in his testimony regarding the manner in which Lee Harvey Oswald very likely took possession of the Carcano rifle at the Dallas post office in late March of 1963.

If you want to toss Holmes under your conspiracy bus, go right ahead. But I'm certainly not going to help you do it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You also leave out David Josephs' work on the timeline. Nice going.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Typical of you, Jim. You fail, yet again, to factor in ANY "ordinary human error" into the equation. In your mind, ANY kind of discrepancy or error in time-keeping or other human-like mistakes that might have cropped up while trying to hunt down the Hidell money order MUST have some kind of sinister roots and therefore can ONLY signal Foul Play.

But we know that Harry Holmes was initially futilely searching for a money order made out in the amount of $21.95, instead of the correct amount of $21.45. So this led to some confusion at the beginning of the search....

HARRY HOLMES -- "The FBI furnished me the information that a money order of some description in the amount of $21.95 had been used as reimbursement for the gun that had been purchased from Klein's in Chicago, and that the purchase date was March 20, 1963. I immediately had some men begin to search the Dallas money order records with the thought that they might have used a U.S. postal money order to buy this gun. .... So in about an hour, Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95--$21.45 excuse me--and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20. So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub to show which would designate, which would show the number of the money order, and that is the only way you could find one. I relayed this information to them and told them to start on the 13th because he could have bought it that morning and that he could have gotten it by airmail that afternoon, so they began to search and within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount issued on, I don't know that I show, but it was that money order in an amount issued at the main post office, which is the same place as this post office box was at that time, box 2915 and the money order had been issued early on the morning of March the 12th, 1963."

~~~~~~~

Plus, the confusion about exactly WHERE the processed money order should have been found is, as far as I am concerned, explained in full in Commission Document No. 75 (on Pages 668 and 669), wherein the FBI first received some information from First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth stating his belief that the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago sent all of its processed money orders to Kansas City.

But on the next page of the FBI report (Page 669), it's revealed by FRB Assistant Cashier Lester Gohr that not all of the money orders handled by the FRB in Chicago are sent to Kansas City. Gohr told the FBI that 75% of them were being sent to Washington (i.e., Alexandria, VA.), while only about 25% were sent to Kansas City.

I see nothing sinister or conspiratorial in the way any of this information was being relayed, forwarded, or acted upon by the people who ultimately found the Oswald/Hidell Postal Money Order in exactly the location where it should have been found--Alexandria, Virginia--after it had gone through the hands of Klein's, First National Bank, and the FRB in Chicago.

And I see nothing in David Josephs' "Money Order Timeline" that would suddenly make me want to jump aboard the CT ship. In fact, I think that ship has been floundering for 52 years.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Finally, as you will see when John is done, it was not actually found exactly where it should be found.

But see, that is the kind of work you do. Which is why Mel Ayton contacted you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Jim, I guess that means you are now adding the three Chicago FBI agents who were responsible for the report in CD75 to your list of liars now, eh? Or maybe you think the Assistant FRB Cashier, Lester Gohr, was the [L-word] when he told those three FBI men that "three-fourths of the money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C." from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Was Mr. Gohr lying through his teeth when he said that to those three FBI agents on November 23, 1963?

I'd really like to see your "Complete List Of Liars" connected to the JFK assassination, Jim. Based on the huge number of bizarre things that I know you believe, I'm guessing that the length of such a list might rival Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" for size and sheer bulk.