David Von Pein

You're nitpicking, Ken. You said that you saw Weitzman on TV on 11/22/63 and that Weitzman himself said the rifle was a Mauser (whether it be a "7.65" Mauser or some other caliber, who cares). And that just simply did not happen. Therefore, you could not possibly have seen it on TV in 1963.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all). But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO. And, I will stress again, unless William Waldman of Klein's was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his Warren Commission testimony at 7 H 366. GARY MACK SAID: Hi Dave, What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP. Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was. Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made. The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me. Gary DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Hi Gary, You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald? I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office). If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45. But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know. Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning. Thanks. GARY MACK SAID: I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping. Gary DAVID VON PEIN SAID: My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days. The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.

And just how am I doing that? By pointing out the HSCA's conclusion of "No Fakery"? And by pointing out the fact that Marina says she did take the BY pics? ~~shrug~~ Yes it is.... "A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66 No need for "square one" at all.

It was, of course, the same Pontiac ambulance/hearse that left Andrews carrying JFK's body, Jackie Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy. I know of no pictures of the Pontiac arriving at Bethesda, however. I've certainly never seen any pictures of that arrival anyway. I'd love to find some, though, to add to my Kennedy Gallery. Another picture I'd love to find (and I've always been curious as to why none seems to exist) is a picture of JFK's SS-100-X limo leaving Parkland Hospital. There were tons of newsmen (with cameras) crawling all over Parkland during the period when that limousine would have certainly been leaving Parkland for Love Field. But there's not a single photo in existence of the car departing the hospital (that I am aware of). Very odd.

But Bruce, the backyard photos have been authenticated as genuine. They are NOT fake pictures. Why are you continuing to believe in the "Fake Backyard Pictures" myth? The HSCA authenticated the BY pics: "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146 And Marina Oswald has always maintained that she took the photos. She doesn't recall exactly how many she took, but she recalls taking SOME pictures in the Neely St. backyard while Lee was holding guns and was dressed all in black--just like the things we see in the photos you are assuming are fakes. In addition, I would still like a good (i.e., reasonable) answer to a question I've been asking for years.... Why on Earth would anyone want to fake multiple pictures that are depicting the exact same thing (Oswald with guns and newspapers in the Neely backyard)? It makes no sense for any "plotters" to even WANT to fake more than just one such photograph. The chances of the fakery being exposed is only multiplied by the number of fake pictures being created. And why wouldn't just ONE such photo suffice for the patsy framers? Obviously, one photo would have sufficed. One picture is just as good as having three or four. And a lot less risky. So, IMO, the NUMBER of backyard photos that exist is another thing that (circumstantially) suggests that those photos are genuine. Because only a team of goofs and morons would have had any desire to risk faking multiple versions of the exact same thing. It's just a dumb idea to begin with. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

Ron, The hearse that carried JFK's body from Andrews to Bethesda was a Pontiac. It wasn't a Cadillac or a Lincoln. From the TIME website.... "In January of last year [2011], a 1963 Pontiac ambulance that carried the president’s body from Air Force One when [it] landed in Maryland was sold for $132,000, noted CNNMoney. At the time, the ambulance was said to be a fake by historians cited by Jalopnik. The ambulance’s new owner, Addison Brown, was quoted by Reuters saying that she had “no doubt” the vehicle was real." November-22-1963-JFKs-Casket-Is-Taken-Off-Air-Force-One-At-Andrews-Air-Force-Base.jpg kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-296.html

You most certainly did. You said this.... "It was pointed out that Weitzman was some kind of expert on firearms so they looked to him for ID. He pointed out that it said right on the weapon that it was a Mauser." -- K. Drew Your false memory is about the worst I've ever seen. You don't even remember what you've said just minutes after you've said it. And I'm supposed to believe you can recall intricate details about the TV coverage from 52 years ago? Yeah, sure.

This is all in your mind, Ken. Nothing even remotely close to that scenario occurred during the live TV broadcasts of November 22, 1963. Not even close. You've conflated Weitzman's affidavit with Roger Craig's 1974 lie and then you've convinced yourself you saw this scenario play out on live television on 11/22/63. But it never happened. And the biggest reason we can KNOW this scenario you painted never happened on TV is because the rifle found in the Depository could not possibly have been stamped with a "7.65 Mauser" marking....because it wasn't a Mauser....it was a Mannlicher-Carcano. BTW, the only video or film footage that was taken of the rifle while it was still inside the TSBD building is the footage taken by Tom Alyea. And it's a SILENT motion picture. There's no audio on Alyea's film. So how did you manage to HEAR people talking in that footage, Ken? What you probably are remembering is the WFAA/ABC coverage that has ABC's Bob Clark narrating while we see the Alyea Film on the screen. At one point while narrating Alyea's footage, Clark tells the audience (incorrectly, of course) that the rifle being shown in the film is an "Argentine Mauser". That is the closest that Ken Drew can possibly get to the situation that he says occurred in his post above.

We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all). But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO. And, I will stress again, unless Bill Waldman was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document below is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his WC testimony at 7 H 366....

Mark, The WC exhibits known as Waldman 7 and CE788 and CE773 are photographic copies made from the original Klein's microfilmed records. That's practically the same thing as having the original microfilms. Although for handwriting anaylsis, it is always better to have an "original". But that argument certainly doesn't apply to Waldman #7, which has no "Oswald" writing on it at all. So that excuse won't work for CTers regarding the crucial document known as Waldman Exhibit No. 7. Plus there is the testimony of Bill Waldman, who verified that what we see in Waldman #7 is a copy of the original. Those things don't meet your requirements for "proof", Mark? You MUST see the "originals" in order to believe the documents are authentic, is that it? In order for the rifle paper trail to be a falsified trail, CTers have no choice but to call William Waldman a big fat xxxx. There IS no way around that. Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a xxxx and a person who wanted to frame Oswald? Should I have a reason to think everybody EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is a suspect in this crime?

Bruce, IMO, there are no unanswered "questions" with respect to Oswald's rifle purchase at all. To the contrary, it couldn't BE any more crystal clear from the paperwork that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's and Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald's PO Box. How much more straightforward can it get? And the testimony of the Klein's representative (Waldman) seals the deal on the transaction---that rifle WAS shipped by Klein's in Chicago to to Oswald's post office box in Dallas. The rifle transaction is, in a sense, ON FILM --- microfilm records. Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked. As they have done in so many other areas of the JFK murder case, conspiracy advocates have invented any number of flimsy reasons to disregard the perfectly solid evidence that proves Oswald ordered the rifle and that Oswald (aka Hidell) was shipped the eventual Kennedy murder weapon by Klein's. In addition, I think one of the silliest and dumbest and lamest of all the theories put forth over the years by CTers is the throry that has a group of unknown plotters creating all of the rifle documents from whole cloth in order to have what looks like a solid trail for the rifle purchase. A much much better "CTer theory" would be to just accept what is obviously the truth about Oswald ordering and possessing the C2766 rifle --- and then the CTers can pretend that the plotters went about the much easier task of framing Oswald with his own rifle, versus having the conspirators having the need to invent the rifle trail from the ground up themselves. But that's what usually happens when CTers go down these silly paths to conspiracy --- they end up looking mighty foolish when the truth (and the paperwork and the testimony of William Waldman) is stacked up alongside the weak-sister "Everything's Phony" excuse that is always propped up by the conspiracy believers.

Wrong.... "There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle." -- David Belin; Page 18 of "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"

Kenneth, Maybe it's time for you to stop believing in so many myths about this case. There was no hole in the windshield. Paraffin tests are essentially worthless as evidence. And there is no proof that there was any gunman on the Knoll. The next thing you'll be posting is that Mr. Umbrella Man was an assassin too.

Bruce, The JFK murder weapon had the exact same serial number as the rifle Klein's mailed to Oswald's P.O. Box. Why deny the obvious? Klein's shipped Oswald/Hidell the same weapon that ended up being used by an assassin to murder the President. And who is more likely to have used a rifle that was mailed to Oswald/Hidell than Oswald/Hidell himself --- be it November 22, 1963, or any other day?

It's not uncommon at all for people to think they had seen something on television that we know they could not have possibly seen. But in that person's mind, they would swear on a stack of bibles that they saw it. It's part of their memory forever---even though it's a distorted and inaccurate chunk of their memory. I provided one such example of this type of false memory when I talked about the woman who said she saw "the whole thing on television", which we know was impossible. Another example emerged during a radio interview with a JFK author (it was probably in one of Vincent Bugliosi's many interviews in 2007, but I can't recall exactly which interview this occurred in). A caller claimed that he heard Jack Ruby shouting several things to Oswald before Ruby fired the shot that killed LHO. And the caller insisted he heard Ruby's voice as he was watching the live TV coverage of the shooting on November 24, 1963. The caller's memory is vividly clear on this point. Of course, we know from the videotape TV footage and from the Ike Pappas audio recording that Ruby's voice is never heard once. Ruby never uttered a sound that was audible on either television or radio. But a man has a clear memory of Ruby shouting stuff at Oswald nonetheless. And his false memory will likely never change---even though he probably knows he is wrong.

You saw no such TV footage, because no such film or video exists---and it never did exist. Kenneth is suffering from the same "conflated memory" problem that a woman had in a 1967 CBS-TV interview. In that interview, CBS stopped a woman on the street and she told us that she "just happened to be home at that time [when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63]...and I saw the whole thing on television". It was from observing "the whole thing on television" that the woman also stated in the same interview that it was her belief that it would have been impossible for just one man to have murdered the President by himself, and that Oswald, according to the same woman, was "working for the CIA". Of course, in reality, there is no news footage that shows "the whole thing" (i.e., the assassination in progress on Elm Street). So when the lady boldly claimed in 1967 that she was home and witnessed the "whole thing" on television, she is quite obviously mistaken. She has likely taken information she later heard about the CIA being a suspect in the assassination, and she has merged that theory together with her memory of being at home and watching Walter Cronkite or Frank McGee or Ron Cochran as those newsmen reported the bulletins of the shooting on 11/22/63. That's similar to what Kenneth Drew is now doing regarding the "Mauser" topic. He saw some footage on November 22 (possibly a film of the police holding rifles and shotguns outside the Depository; there was plenty of filmed footage showing cops with guns)....or Ken saw the various reporters saying (without confirmation) that the rifle found in the TSBD was a "Mauser" or a "6.5 Mauser" or perhaps even a "7.65 Mauser"....and then (years later) Ken heard Roger Craig's bald-faced lie about actually seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle....and--voila!--the two events become merged together as one event in Ken Drew's mind. But I have collected almost every minute of available network news footage from 11/22/63, and I can guarantee everyone reading this post that there is no footage from that day that has anyone saying they saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that was found in the Book Depository. As for Roger Craig's tall tale..... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ifn0KxjZzn8/kHdMvTwPAZAJ

And in addition to convincing LBJ and J. Edgar to begin the "Frame Oswald" campaign, those amazing PRE-assassination plotters were also somehow able to convince everybody in Dallas law enforcement to start framing the very same patsy named Oswald?? Is that what you think happened, Cliff? UNLUCKY plotters, you say? Hardly. Seems to me that those assassins were the luckiest plotters known to man. "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud (aaj/acj); Jan. 19, 2007 "A cast of thousands, cutting across all walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day. Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." -- Bud; Aug. 11, 2007

Yeah, I can understand that. The Anybody But Oswald Clubs of the United States, Canada, & the United Kingdom are overflowing with members. Your contractual obligations must be overwhelming, Bob.

And yet, according to almost every CTer on the Web, the PRE-assassination plotters tried to frame Lee Oswald. Which would mean, logically, that whoever was trying to frame LHO prior to Nov. 22 would have been doing everything they could to make it look like the patsy DID commit the crime -- even though Robert Prudhomme assures us that ..... "Once it is explained what type of bullet hit JFK in the head and back, no one could think for one minute that a minimum wage earner could have pulled this thing off." Oh, those strange patsy-framers. So brilliant. And yet at the same time---so amazingly stupid.

Yes, Ken, I did say "bye-bye" to you earlier. (I guess I lied. So sorry.) Bye (again).

I did welcome it. Five years ago this month (see links below). And I even gave Jim a perfect chance to "embarrass" me further. (Without me even knowing what questions he was going to ask.) But Jimmy said no. Go figure that. I still can't. .... dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-34.html dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-35.html#Debate-Challenge -----------

Don't ya love how Prudhomme likes to drag things out? "Patience, please. All will be answered", Robert assures us all. And the answers from the Mighty Bob P. will be coming straight from Mount Sinai in tablet form, no doubt. (Won't they, Bob?)

Bye-bye, Kenny. You're obviously a lost cause. Lost in a wilderness of conspiracy dreck and myths. I hope you're able to swim free of all that crap eventually. Good luck to you.

Kenneth Drew, I see that you buy into every conspiracy myth known to man. (Gee, what a surprise.) This nonsense doesn't even deserve a response. (But I'll provide a response anyhow, below.) Saying that "there has never been any valid data/info" that indicates Oswald shot Tippit is about the same as saying there's no valid data/info that the sun is hot. Another myth, Ken. Why can't you let the myths go? Witnesses B. Davis and V. Davis said that the gunman was manually dumping shells out of a pistol. That means the gunman had a REVOLVER, not an AUTOMATIC. (Let me guess, both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis were liars too, right?) Plus, the shells picked up later by BOTH Davis girls (one shell each) were positively linked to a REVOLVER, not an AUTOMATIC. And not just ANY revolver. It was OSWALD'S revolver (S&W No. V510210). We don't know how long (exactly) Oswald was in his room that day. Furthermore, we don't know how fast (or slow) Oswald was walking (or running or trotting...or whatever) when he made his way from Beckley to Tenth Street. And the "1:06" timestamp for the murder is hardly an established fact. You seem to think that a huge Naval Observatory clock was hovering over Helen Markham's head--flashing "1:06"--at the time Tippit was killed. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html "It's always been my theory (yes, it's a guess, but a good one, IMO) that Oswald was not in that shoebox-sized room of his on Beckley for any "3 to 4 minutes" (as ESTIMATED by Mrs. Roberts, who was the only witness to Oswald's coming in and going out again around 1:00 PM on 11/22/63). Why on this Earth would Oswald, who was undoubtedly in a "hurry" (per Roberts herself), spend 3 to 4 minutes in that closet of a room just to grab his pistol and some bullets?" -- DVP; 08/02/2007 Only one witness (Clemmons) ever said that more than one person was involved in the Tippit murder. And she didn't actually see the shooting as it was happening. She saw the aftermath. So tell me, Ken, with all of the OTHER witnesses (who were closer than Clemmons was) who said that just ONE man killed Tippit--with several of them IDing Oswald as that man--why would you place so much faith in just Acquilla Clemmons' lone account of "Two Killers"? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit I enjoy acknowledging CTers like DiEugenio. I like propping up their foolish and preposterous "Anybody But Oswald" claims. In fact, DiEugenio is by far the easiest type of conspiracy clown to combat with the facts. And that's because a "fact" to Jimbo is never considered a "fact". No matter how much corroboration there is to back it up. (The Tippit murder evidence being just one of dozens of such examples.) Embarrassed by DiEugenio? That is an impossibility...in light of all this: dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

Excellent, Bob. Thanks for confirming what I was hoping either Ken or you would be silly enough to write down in print for all to see (and laugh at). And yet, amazingly, with posts like Bob's latest one (quoted by me above), Mr. Prudhomme thinks his opinions and conclusions are worthy of serious consideration....and respect. Incredible.