Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,058

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. David Von Pein
    Are those replies hosted on YOUR site?
  2. David Von Pein
  3. David Von Pein
    You think I "embroider" the direct quotes I get from here? Your imagination is a remarkable thing to behold, Jimmy. And you think you DON'T get the "last word" when you write an article for your website? So tell me....what's the major difference (in a "last word" fashion) between the way I cull a conversation for my blog and the way you structure an article for your website, such as your 2-part smear piece on DVP? Answer----there is no difference at all, and you know it. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-1.html http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html
  4. David Von Pein
    I didn't say that my quotes you used (without my permission) in your 2-part smear piece against me in 2010 came from THIS site, Jimmy. I think most of the quotes you used came from Debra Conway's old Lancer forum. But, so what? The point is still the same. Lancer undoubtedly had about the same "Terms of Use" rules in place as Edu. Forum does, right? So, did you get Lancer's express permission to use my quotes in your DVP smear piece? Of course you didn't. Nobody ever does. Who would? They're posts on a public forum. And I'm pretty certain Jon Tidd's first post is accurate. It's not illegal to copy quotes from any public forum or website and use them elsewhere on the Internet. Can you just imagine the massive number of lawsuits that there would be if "copying & pasting" Internet quotes to other sites suddenly became a major violation? There wouldn't be enough lawyers in the world to handle all the cases. It's absurd. Jim Hargrove started this ridiculous thread merely because of my status as a Lone Nutter -- and for NO other possible reason. To prove I'm right, just ask yourself this question---- Do you think Hargrove would have even considered (for even a brief instant) starting up a thread like this one if it was Jim DiEugenio or John Armstrong or Mark Lane or Greg Parker or Jon Tidd who had copied posts written by other people to their websites? (And, of course, DiEugenio and Parker HAVE done just that--many times--in the past. What person who owns a "JFK" website HASN'T?) I rest my case.
  5. David Von Pein
    And Jon went home with a sore head.
  6. David Von Pein
    Yeah, sure, Jimmy. And you've NEVER copied anyone's posts from JFK forums to use in your CTKA articles, have you? Like, say, this little smear piece against "Disinformation Dave", as you called him.... http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html Pot meets Kettle (again). And I sure hope to God that Jimbo got bank supervisor "Craig's" express written approval before quoting him in this thread above. If not, a lawsuit will surely be pending!
  7. David Von Pein
    "Imaginary conversations"? Maybe you'd better choose some other words to describe my verbatim quoting of CTers on my website, Jim. Because those two words you just utilized are just plain ridiculous. You're going to have a tough time finding anything "imaginary" about the conversations on my site. (I always provide a link to the source conversation, if available, as well. So if somebody wants to check out the original thread, they can do so.) And you'll have an even tougher chore trying to find where I have misquoted someone on my site--ever. And if you're also implying that I don't permit CTers to have their say or get in their licks against me when I transfer written material to my site---think again. Because you'd be dead wrong if you were to think anything like that.
  8. David Von Pein
    The "order letter" that Chief Jesse Curry refers to in his hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 is CE773, which is the microfilm of the order form clipped by Oswald out of the Feb. '63 American Rifleman magazine. That's the microfilmed document that was the basis for the FBI's findings that the "order letter" had Oswald's writing on it. That order form, of course, doesn't have the $21.45 figure on it either. Nor does it have $12.78 on it. It has $19.95 on it. (Shall we dance some more over those three figures?) 1. The FBI did, indeed, have the serial number. (They had the rifle in their possession at 11:45 PM CST on Friday, you know. So why would you be surprised they knew the serial number? And even if they didn't have the rifle themselves, the FBI could have simply telephoned the DPD and gotten the number from them at any time on Nov. 22....couldn't they?) 2. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after finding out that Crescent had sold the "C2766" rifle to Klein's. 3. The Klein's records are searched and the "C2766" invoice is found (via what would soon become "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7"), which provides all the pertinent information about the sale of Italian rifle No. C2766 for $21.45 to one A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas (via "M.O." [Money Order]) on March 20, 1963 (which is the date the FBI goes with, instead of the date stamped at the very top of Waldman No. 7--March 13, 1963--which was the date Klein's put the Hidell order through their cash register, as William Waldman explained in his Warren Commission testimony; the March 20 date was, of course, the date the rifle was shipped to Hidell/Oswald). 4. Somebody connected with the discovery of the "Waldman No. 7" invoice must have transmitted the wrong purchase price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45), which led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order that was used to pay for the rifle. 5. In addition to the internal Klein's invoice (Waldman No. 7), the FBI also found the "order letter" (as Curry called it), which is CE773. They quickly determined that the writing on the order form was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. In short, there was no "wrong order". Somebody just wrote down or transmitted to somebody the wrong purchase price after the discovery of Waldman No. 7. But even though some officials had the wrong price, there were others who knew the correct price of $21.45 for the Hidell rifle order, because we find the correct figure being written in two separate reports (connected with the discovery of the money order) authored by both the FBI and the Secret Service on November 23 -- CD75 and CD87. Also see: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html
  9. David Von Pein
    The only thing it really reveals is how eager CTers like James DiEugenio are to take that gun out of Lee Oswald's hands. You know, just as I do, that there was no Klein's order found in the amount of $21.95. Somebody relayed the wrong price after the FBI and Klein's discovered Waldman No. 7 in the Klein's files at 4:30 AM on Nov. 23rd. One slipped digit--that's all. Nothing more. And you still don't understand that.
  10. David Von Pein
    Jimmy, When it came time to look for the money order, they were most certainly looking for the AMOUNT, not the serial number. (The serial number wasn't on the M.O.) And this sentence written by John Armstrong.... "They did, however, find documentation that showed Klein's sold a $21.95 rifle that was paid for with a postal money order issued on March 20, 1963." ....is just a flat-out distortion of the facts, because the FBI most certainly did NOT find any $21.95 Klein's order form for the C2766 rifle. They found the Waldman Exhibit No. 7 document, which is the ONLY document that has BOTH a price and the C2766 serial number on it--and Armstrong knows it. He's merely trying to turn an innocent error regarding the exact amount of the purchase ($21.95 vs. $21.45) into a mountain of conspiracy and cover-up. Silly beyond belief.
  11. David Von Pein
    Yeah, Healy, the recent verification that Oswald's money order is legit and genuine (via the File Locator Number) was a real bummer for the LN side, wasn't it? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The-File-Locator-Number-On-The-Hidell-Money-Order BTW: When Healy makes his first post here that has any "JFK" substance to it, please call ABC and FOX News immediately! That will be major Breaking News. I'll bet the moderators just love comments like this.
  12. David Von Pein
    Sandy, The FBI didn't get the "wrong order" from the microfilm. There WAS NO ORDER FOR $21.95 for the C2766 rifle. That was merely a slipped digit. And Harry Holmes talks about that mistake in his testimony too. That was one of the reasons it took a little longer to find the $21.45 Hidell money order --- because they were searching (in vain) for the wrong amount ($21.95). Once they realized what the correct figure was--$21.45--they found it very quickly. Do you think Waldman No. 7 is a fake document, Sandy? It clearly says $21.45 on it. And it also says C2766. And it says A. Hidell. And Italian Carbine. And William Waldman testified in detail about that order form. Was he a plotter too? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html
  13. David Von Pein
    I feel kind of sorry for people who insist on making conspiratorial mountains out of ordinary run-of-the-mill molehills. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/Ruth Paine's Calendar jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/Oswald Ordered The Rifle jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/The Hidell Money Order
  14. David Von Pein
  15. David Von Pein
    OK, I see what you mean now. But keep in mind that when Curry told the press about the $12.78 price for the rifle, the complete information concerning the $21.45 money order had not been revealed to Chief Curry yet. I believe Curry provided the $12.78 info at about 7 PM Dallas time on 11/23, while the money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on 11/23. The SS and FBI knew a little earlier than that, of course, that they were looking for a MO in the amount of $21.45 (see CD87), but the DPD wouldn't necessarily have been privy to the $21.45 price until much later (assuming they were ever provided that figure by the SS or FBI, which perhaps they weren't, I don't really know). So the press people went with the info they had available as of Curry's makeshift conference at DPD at 7:00 on Nov. 23 --- i.e., Oswald's writing was traced to the Klein's "order letter" (not the money order), with Curry telling the reporters this.... "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." http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=119
  16. David Von Pein
    I have no idea what you mean here.
  17. David Von Pein
    Jim H., Why do you say "J. Edgar Hoover" made the mistake regarding the $12.78 price? The PRESS and the MEDIA were spreading the "$12.78" price around. Not Hoover. BTW, I didn't draw the circle in that ad.
  18. David Von Pein
    What's even more "utterly AMAZING", Jim H., is that you ascribe something sinister to something so easy to figure out in a non-sinister fashion. The press just kept repeating the same incorrect price for the gun. The $12.78 figure was the number in BIG print in the Nov. '63 Klein's ads, so that's the number the media (and Curry) went with. Simple as that.
  19. David Von Pein
    Because they simply kept repeating the main $12.78 price for the rifle (without the scope) that was originally reported by Chief Curry on TV on 11/23/63. Nobody in the media took the time in those first few days to seek out what the price was WITH the scope included. Big deal. There's no cover-up there. Just a lack of details regarding the "With Scope" price. Again .... big deal. It's only a "big deal" to rabid conspiracy theorists like you, Jim.
  20. David Von Pein
    Gee, what a surprise.
  21. David Von Pein
    I'll let you decide..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes
  22. David Von Pein
    Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it. And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see video below).... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 (November 22) as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper: Portland-Oregon-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle: Sante-Fe-New-Mexico-Newspaper-Front-Page-November-22-1963.jpg And yet another: Oxnard-California-Newspaper-Front-Page-11-22-63.jpg Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun. So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about. I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond Nov. 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope". But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.
  23. David Von Pein
    I don't think ANY testimony should be changed or altered. But my guess is that James Cadigan answered the same question twice, and the revised answer was used in the transcript. Is it your contention that Cadigan never uttered the words "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter"? Do you think the WC (Dulles?) just inserted those words into the mouth of Cadigan?
  24. David Von Pein
    Sandy, I have no idea. But we can easily see that the "3-13-63" Klein's sheet exactly matches (to the penny) the "2-15-63" extra copy of the deposit slip: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=730
  25. David Von Pein
    When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape. In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.) When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case.
×
×
  • Create New...