David Von Pein

[deleted by author]

HANK SIENZANT SAID: David, Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased). He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever: Sandy wrote: "From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c .... "Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations: All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner." [End Quote.] A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from. See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations." Also see that page, section 762.11b: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"." And see page 211, section 762.11a: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face." Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order. As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one. Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists. Larsen also cites this website: FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders: http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html But nowhere in there that I can find does it say the bank must affix its stamp to the money order. These are also the current rules, and he presents no evidence all this applied in 1963 (checks now have a number of safeguards to prevent forgery, and no doubt Postal Money Orders have improved & the processing may have changed in various ways in the intervening 52 years as well). DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Hank. Excellent work on noting the difference between "Disbursement Postal Money Orders" and the type of ordinary money orders that consumers purchase at post offices. I'm glad you scrolled back one page in those Postal Regulations, Hank, because apparently nobody else did -- and that includes me. And I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't scroll back to that page you discovered. Because by doing so, you have totally defeated Sandy Larsen's "proof" regarding this topic. Plus, let me add one more section of Postal Regulation 762.11 that you didn't mention in your post, Hank.... 762.11c --- "The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only." As we can see, the Oswald/Hidell money order has the amount ($21.45) printed only in numbers, not in words: ============================================== So, I guess I was on the right track when I said this to Sandy Larsen last month: "I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means. The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization". And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?" -- DVP; 11/12/2015 Source for above discussion: http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx27WB2NYXXWZIY&cdMsgNo=4001&cdPage=161&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2TWVIHCI1W2YB#Mx27WB2NYXXWZIY

.......

Scott, You ACTUALLY think that I think the Zapruder Film is fake? Please tell me where you got such a crazy notion? And I'd still like to see the link to this quote.... "I think it was a mistake allowing Scott in this forum." Have you got a link for it?

I do? Gee, that's news to me. Where on Earth did you get the nutty idea that I think the Z-Film is fake?

That's for sure. "Facts" and "evidence" don't seem to count for much in JFK circles. As illustrated here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html Excerpt: LARRY TURNER SAID: ...The problem is not your rehashing of Warren Commission era tropes, but your tone of dismissive certainty. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Larry, I rehash the "Warren Commission era tropes" simply because the evidence is still the evidence--and it decides this case--and it all points to Oswald. Like it or not. And there's nothing you or I can do to change that fact. Do you think it's ALL fake?

No worries, Dawn. Most of the CTers in this place already agreed (many weeks ago) to put me on "ignore". So you can rest easy. Oswald's guilt will still conveniently be sidestepped and ignored by about 85% of the Education Forum members, regardless of anything ol' DVP has to say. Pretty much the same way Oswald's obvious guilt is totally ignored at your "Deep Politics Forum" as well (via the complete silencing of any anti-conspiracy opinion). ====================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014: "We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-802.html

I've been searching Ed Cage's Facebook group (forum) archives and my own Facebook group archives (the group that I own is called "JFK VIDEO, AUDIO, PHOTOS, & DISCUSSION") --- and I can't find any post authored by me that says what you've quoted me as saying above, Scott. Can you provide a link to that quote? I'm not saying I *didn't* say it. Perhaps I did. I'm just saying I don't remember saying it at Ed Cage's group, and I couldn't find the quote even when doing a specific word search within the two groups I just mentioned. But, anyway, regardless of that quote attributed to me, here's an example of the type of commentary I was treated to by Scott Kaiser at my own Facebook group after I accepted Scott as an active participant in June 2015. If this is the way he behaved over at Ed Cage's group too, then the quote that Scott attributed to me above would, indeed, be quite appropriate and reasonable.... DAVID VON PEIN SAID [ON JUNE 11, 2015]: Scott [Kaiser] appears to be relying ONLY on the Z-Film. And a very subjective view of the Z-Film at that. All the while ignoring THE BEST evidence that proves JFK was shot only once in the head, with that shot coming FROM BEHIND. That evidence being the autopsy photos & X-rays, plus the autopsy report and the testimony and statements of the autopsy surgeons. Scott, can you possibly believe that ALL of the above things I just mentioned are ALL bogus (or liars)? Here's the entry hole---and it ain't in the front. SCOTT R. KAISER SAID: As far as I'm concerned I'm throwing out everything from the WCR and the HSCA simply because neither reports the findings I'm working on. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Gee, there's a shocker. Scott's "throwing out" the ENTIRE two Government reports! The ONLY major investigations re: this case. And Scott, just like that, has decided to chuck them both. Isn't that special? SCOTT KAISER SAID: With so much conservatory questions going on as to the altered photos, altered xrays, and altered films, I'm taking my chances on what I believe to be best evidence. I'd rather have the truth, [than] to be told, "this is the truth", seek, and ye shall find. DAN PAUL SAID: This is a hoot!! Because Scott says so, we should all believe him and not the experts who conducted the official investigations and were able to examine all the evidence. This altered Zapruder film nonsense is a huge laugh!!!!! LATER IN THE DISCUSSION, SCOTT KAISER SAID: I can't be surrounded by idiots Lord, please let it not be so. AND A LITTLE LATER, MY GROUP DISCUSSION WAS TREATED TO THESE ENTERTAINING GEMS FROM SCOTT R. KAISER: What a freaking numbnut! [...] Chuck, "as far as I'm concerned", you're an idiot! [...] There you go, the three musketeers have now graduated to four, and, now, it's complete, the four numbnuts. [...] As a child, I could still remember my father say, if you don't have something intelligent to say, don't say anything at all. This was growing up as a child, some of you adults can't help it. I understand. SOURCE DISCUSSION: https://www.facebook.com/groups/243480929145732/permalink/431566480337175

I certainly don't consider Bowers to be screwy. He's actually a pretty decent "LN" type of witness.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/lee-bowers.html

Or the word "Facts".

Yep....

That's hilarious, Ramon. The exact opposite is true, of course. Every "new" scientific demonstration or test performed by competent and legitimate scientists, physicists, and experts in the fields of ballistics and photography (and other areas) ALWAYS supports the "LN" version of events -- including the SBT, the analysis of the backyard photos, the acoustics evidence, and "Badge Man". But thanks for today's Pot/Kettle laugh, Ramon.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That [Mac] Wallace print most certainly DID NOT come from any of the boxes in the Texas School Book Depository Building. And that fact is confirmed via Commission Exhibit No. 3131. TONY FRATINI SAID: David, That fingerprint had to come from somewhere and why did it take the FBI 18 months to come to the conclusion that it wasn't a match? In addition, all of us know that there is NO WAY that ANY official body would ever admit to a Wallace fingerprint being anywhere near Dallas, let alone the sniper's nest. The implications of that are staggering. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Tony, I'm just going by THE EVIDENCE (which CE3131 certainly represents). And CE3131 says that all prints lifted off of the TSBD boxes were identified EXCEPT FOR ONE PALMPRINT, which the FBI was still trying to identify as of the date of the letter to the Warren Commission which is seen in CE3131 (and that date was September 18, 1964). Anybody can CLAIM anything they want. Who was it who first claimed that an "unidentified" print in the National Archives belonged to Malcolm Wallace anyway? Do you know? I would say that the reason for any prints still being marked "unidentified" in the National Archives is due to the fact that there was a large gap in time between the time the TSBD box prints were photographed and the time the FBI finally got around to acquiring comparison prints of the various DPD officers. The FBI didn't get those DPD prints until August and September of '64 -- nine months after the assassination. So it wasn't until AUGUST and SEPTEMBER that the "unidentified" prints on the TSBD boxes could be compared with the people to whom almost all of them actually belonged--members of the Dallas Police Department. And that's why fingerprint expert Arthur Mandella had to tell the Warren Commission on April 2, 1964 (4 to 5 months before most of the prints [save one palmprint] were positively identified), that he just simply did not know whose prints those "unidentified" prints belonged to. How could he have known as of 4/2/64? Nobody had even compared the prints with all the Dallas cops who touched the boxes until months after Mandella's testimony. Why the delay? I have no idea. But, regardless of the reason for that delay, CE3131 STILL EXISTS and is still the BEST EVIDENCE to this day regarding the prints on the Depository boxes. If you want to believe that CE3131 is nothing but a con job--feel free. It won't be the first time (or the last) that a conspiracy theorist is willing to throw out the official evidence in the JFK case in favor of conjecture and unsupportable theories. David Von Pein January 15, 2010

VINCENT BUGLIOSI, NATHAN DARBY, MALCOLM WALLACE, AND CE3131: http://amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/AUGUST-21-2007 http://amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/AUGUST-22-2007 https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/lU6c_7weDhA/LuKaw_9Ik5UJ https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/lU6c_7weDhA/za4HyneSlT8J Also see: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-944.html

In a related "Money Order" matter.... DAVID JOSEPHS SAID [iN THE AUDIO CLIP BELOW]: http://box.com/David Josephs On "Black Op Radio" (11/19/15)(Excerpt) DAVID VON PEIN SAID: In the above audio excerpt, David Josephs says that Robert Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist". But Tom Scully, himself a conspiracy theorist(!), has once again unearthed a document that tends to debunk some of the nonsense constantly being spouted by CTers about the money order and Oswald's purchase of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766. In this instance, Scully's research would seem to refute David Josephs' claim that Mr. Jackson's address does not exist at all. On this webpage, Scully posted a photo of the death certificate of Robert Henry Jackson, one of the men who was involved in the initial retrieving and handling of the CE788 Hidell money order on November 23, 1963 [see CD87]. Jackson died in January 1977, and his residence is shown on his death certificate as "6108 Leewood Drive" in Alexandria, Virginia, the same city, located just 7 miles south of downtown Washington, D.C., where the Hidell money order was found on 11/23/63.... It could be that CTers David Josephs and John Armstrong were searching for Lee Wood Drive (with two words in the street name, which is how the street name is incorrectly spelled in the Secret Service document found on Page 3 of Commission Document No. 87), instead of Leewood Drive (one word). But even if Josephs and Armstrong did a Google search for "Lee Wood" (two words), they would certainly have been prompted to also search for "Leewood" (spelled as one word) as well. ~shrug~ In any event, it's pretty clear that "Leewood Drive" does exist in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Virginia. And that fact can easily be confirmed by looking up "Leewood Drive" on Google Maps, which I did, RIGHT HERE. As far as Robert Jackson's street numbers not matching (CD87 says that Jackson lived at "2121 Lee Wood [sic] Drive"; while Jackson's death certificate indicates his residence as of 1977 was "6108 Leewood Drive"), I don't think that's any reason for a CTer to leap for joy and shout "Cover-Up" or "Conspiracy". It's possible that Mr. Jackson moved down the street between 1963 and 1977. Or perhaps the person who wrote up the Secret Service report in CD87 got the number wrong. Or, just as likely, the city of Alexandria might have re-numbered Jackson's street address. And for verifiable proof that addresses are re-numbered occasionally in U.S. cities, just ask me. My house in Mooresville, Indiana, had a street number of 140 when I first moved into the home in 1982. But the number was changed by the city (or county) several years later to a much higher number, 7992. So, I think we can chalk up the Lee Wood/Leewood Drive mystery as just one more thing that conspiracy theorists have been mistaken about when it comes to researching things associated with the assassination of John Kennedy. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

Jim, It's a thing called: Being able to properly and reasonably evaluate and assess the evidence in the JFK murder case without resorting to calling everybody under the sun a [falsehood teller] or a cover-up agent or a conspirator. And as I have pointed out so many times in the past, that is something that James DiEugenio has never been able to do. And I think that becomes blatantly obvious when we look at the sum total of the many, many things that Jim is absolutely positive fall into the general category of "everything about it--from A to Z--is dubious" --- and I'm not talking about JUST the rifle evidence, but virtually EVERY SINGLE THING that points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald as the murderer of President Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit. DiEugenio thinks ALL of the evidence pointing to Oswald is "dubious". All of it. It's ridiculous. Just last week, I asked Jim: "I'll be happy to rewrite that 20th item [on this list], Jim, if you can tell me JUST ONE single piece of evidence that leads to Oswald that you think was NOT faked, tainted, or manufactured. Is there one such piece? I don't think there is." -- DVP; November 12, 2015 I never received an answer. The silence was (and is) deafening.

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: So we have this rifle, which as you must know is the wrong rifle -- in both classification and in length and weight. It was not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jim's above comment about the "wrong rifle" is just outright nonsense. And I think, deep down, Jim knows it's pure nonsense. Quoting from this discussion I had with DiEugenio in April of this year at Amazon.com: "As for the assassination rifle being the "wrong rifle", as Jimmy likes to constantly say, DiEugenio knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer to that "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy is. I've pointed it out to him on several occasions in the past. But since he likes the idea of Oswald having never touched Carcano Rifle #C2766, Jim will forever ignore the logical answer to the "wrong rifle" topic. But, of course, that's why we have had professional investigators and real detectives looking into these matters over the years, instead of relying on [people] like Jim DiEugenio to try and solve a Presidential assassination. If James had been in charge, Oswald would probably have posthumously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize instead of being officially labelled what he was---a double murderer. Re: the rifle.... "Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman magazine from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e., "36 inches" vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's shipped a rifle with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963. The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman Exhibit No. 7) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766")." -- DVP; September 21, 2008" Also see: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 99) JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 100) JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Oswald Ordered The Rifle

TIM NICKERSON SAID: David, According to that 1966 document, the Treasury Department began converting the money order operation to the electronic system in June 1962. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: What page number of the '66 document, Tim? I want to capture it. And that "June 1962" date is interesting, indeed, because it's the exact same month when the new yellow-tinted money orders were being introduced, per the Palm Beach newspaper article discovered recently by Tom Scully [pictured below; the Google Books version of the Palm Beach article has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet as of today; but, fortunately Tom Scully captured an image of it before it went AWOL from the Web]. TIM NICKERSON SAID: Page 498. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you. I see it now. (See image below.)

PAUL ERNST SAID: And when was the above system introduced, which year David? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: It's from a 1966 document. But the 10-digit number is also seen on the Hidell M.O. from 1963. Same formatting....three digits, a space, then seven more numbers. Are you saying that the identical formatting for that number meant something OTHER than the "File Locator Number" discussed in that 1966 PDF document that Lance posted earlier? Gee, there's an amazing coincidence, huh? Plus, Lance made this comment about the "new" system discussed in the 1966 document.... "Don't be misled by his reference to the "new" system — he is talking about the "new" system adopted in 1957. Later in the article (page 494), he says that the procedures for postal money orders are "quite similar." " -- Lance Payette PAUL ERNST SAID: David, we are talking here about BANK CHECKS and not a MO. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: From the same 1966 PDF document Lance provided.... And this excerpt below—from that same 1966 PDF file—pretty much indicates that the entire 1966 document is talking about procedures that began ten years earlier, in Fiscal 1957.... PAUL ERNST SAID: And what about the question [regarding the first three digits stamped at the top-left of the Hidell money order] --- 138 = Dallas??? Where can I find that back? I found something about postal zones...but not about that 138 number = DALLAS? Can you help me out? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No, I can't. I tried searching the "138" prefix all day yesterday (in the hopes that something might pop up to indicate that "138" did, indeed, mean something specifically), but I had no luck in finding any info on it. After about 1,000 Google searches, I tossed in the towel. But maybe you'll have better luck. Or maybe Lance Payette or Sandy Larsen or Tom Scully have some kind of "magic Google Search touch" that enables them to dig out long-forgotten, decades-old PDF documents regarding very old 1960s and 1950s U.S. postal procedures. All three of them seem to have hit paydirt of one kind or another with respect to this topic of the money order. Who knows what might turn up next. ~shrug~

The number of extremely old documents available on the Internet is incredible. While searching for stuff relating to this "Money Order" topic the other day, I actually came across a 102-year-old document of more than 700 pages, "Postal Laws and Regulations of the United States of America; Edition of 1913". So I guess it's possible to find almost anything online, even if it's 102 years old. Here's a photo of the sample check which appears on page 483 of the 1966 PDF document Lance provided above, indicating where on a processed check the "File Locator Numbers" are found. And it does, indeed, match the Klein's/Hidell money order exactly, with respect to the number of digits (10) and the format/placement of those digits (3 numbers, then a space, followed by seven additional numbers).... And here's an excerpt from the 1966 PDF with more information about the "File Locator Numbers". The key words here are: "The file locator number...is printed on each paid check..." Emphasizing these words again -- "Each PAID check..." The check has, therefore, been PAID already before a File Locator Number is added to the check. And as Lance alluded to earlier, U.S. Postal Money Orders were likely being handled in a "similar" fashion to checks at the time. Thank you, Lance Payette, for what must have been hours of tedious Google searching in an effort to dig up that banking information.

Just in case anybody wants to see another yellow U.S. Postal Money Order to compare with the Hidell M.O. and the previously posted yellow M.O. dated 9/11/63, here's an uncashed money order issued in Deer Trail, Colorado, on May 17, 1966, which bears a serial number that is 5.2 billion numbers higher than the number on the Oswald/Hidell money order. And, again, like the 9/11/63 M.O., this uncashed one from 1966 also shows no stamped number in the top left corner. An odd thing I noticed about this particular money order is the fact that the serial number stamped on the stub doesn't match the serial number on the M.O. itself. They're five numbers apart, which is quite strange. Click to enlarge:

Nix vs. Zapruder (in sync and stabilized).... Related Link (Re: The Limo Slowdown): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-786.html

He can't. He's obsessed with me. Has been for years. I wish he would start ignoring me, though, because the way he calls me "hon" and "toots" is creepy as all get out. Can you imagine a 60+-year-old man talking like that over and over again on public forums? (Yikes.)

Does that mean that the LNers worldwide can finally expect to see some PROOF from a conspiracy theorist with respect to the things I mentioned at 3:41 AM EST this morning? You know, this stuff.... "Now, if only [John] Armstrong can somehow find a way to conveniently explain away how on Earth the Klein's endorsement stamp **AND** Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting (which was verified as Oswald's by at least 4 different handwriting analysts) managed to attach themselves to the CE788 Hidell U.S. Postal Money Order, then Mr. Armstrong will be home free on this issue. Until then, I'm afraid Armstrong is fighting an uphill battle. .... And the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the money order does not prove that either the Klein's stamp or Lee Oswald's handwriting are fraudulent markings on Commission Exhibit 788." -- DVP; 11/16/15 AM

As I've said in the past, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many people he has to trash and call L-words (falsehood tellers). There is no limit in Jim's all-encompassing world of "conspiracy" and "cover-up" in the JFK case. In Jim's last short post alone, three people get thrown under the bus by Jim -- Holmes, Dulles, and Ford. All of them innocent of any wrong-doing (IMO), but all of them considered falsehood tellers of the first order by James DiEugenio of Los Angeles. Absolutely pathetic.