David Von Pein

It would be nice if you could learn to quote people properly. You didn't write most of your above response. Jim DiEugenio did. And yet you fail to cite him for any of the above words. Not even a quotation mark around Jim's quotes. It's not clear at all where Jimbo's quote ends and where your latest anti-DVP tirade begins, Ken. Very sloppy. [Ken later edited his post to include quotation marks. But that's still not really good enough. He should have cited the person's name who is being quoted too.] Moreover, your DiEugenio example above is nothing but pure malarkey coming from a man (DiEugenio) who won't even admit that Oswald shot J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't get much worse than that in the "Denial" department.) Furthermore, in my rebuttal articles that I have written in response to the never-ending fantasies and crap promoted by Mr. DiEugenio, I have effectively destroyed all of his nonsensical arguments when it comes to the items of physical evidence connected with Oswald and the JFK case (such as the C2766 rifle and the revolver and the backyard photos and the bullets, etc.). I've amassed a 100-part series devoted to debunking DiEugenio's fantasies and non-stop misrepresentations. So just because Jimbo D. says something on CTKA, don't think that's where the argument ends. Because it certainly doesn't end there at all.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html You're being ridiculous, Kenneth, and you know it. I have provided fact after fact to prove that Lee Oswald killed two people in Dallas in Nov. 1963. (See the link below for tons of examples.) You just don't like those facts. It's as simple as that. Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com ----------

Oh, so you think the Clark Panel DIDN'T really look at ANY of the "real" JFK autopsy photos or X-rays? Is that what you're suggesting, Kenneth? They merely were examining "fake" autopsy pictures, is that it?

So, Ken, the four Clark Panel doctors (Fisher, Morgan, Carnes, and Moritz) were all liars? Is that what you think? Or were those four men just piss-poor at evaluating X-rays and photos?

And those many times I have been "shot down" would include....? Try to cite just one.

Kenneth, Why are you totally ignoring all of those Clark Panel quotes I just posted? Particularly this one.... "The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found." -- Clark Panel; 1968 Why did you ignore that quote, Ken? Do you think you know more than the four medical doctors who examined the autopsy photographs and X-rays for the Clark Panel in 1968? ~~patented DVP shrug~~

Ken, That Z201 trajectory is a still image from Myers' "trailer" for the DVD that was never released. When viewed as a motion sequence, those two "cones" will merge together and form just one trajectory that leads back to the Oswald window.

Imported from this EF thread.... Well, Bob, all I can say is.... You are obviously incorrect in your analysis. Simple as that. Also.... The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel had no problem with the bullet going clean through JFK's body. Nor did the autopsy doctors have any difficulty arriving at such a "thru-&-thru" conclusion (after Dr. Humes talked with Dr. Perry on the morning of November 23rd, that is). But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck. You think you know more than TWELVE different pathologists, Bob? Please enlighten me on WHY you think that. And here's another panel which concluded something that Robert Prudhomme thinks could have only resulted from "magic". So this brings the total number of doctors that Bob P. needs to ignore up to sixteen.... Quoting from the Clark Panel Report (emphasis added by DVP)..... "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck. The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report." [END QUOTE.] These excerpts deserve a replay and lots of extra emphasis: "The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found." "Any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html ---------

Well, Bob, all I can say is.... You are obviously incorrect in your analysis. Simple as that. Also.... The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel had no problem with the bullet going clean through JFK's body. Nor did the autopsy doctors have any difficulty arriving at such a "thru-&-thru" conclusion (after Dr. Humes talked with Dr. Perry on the morning of November 23rd, that is). But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck. You think you know more than TWELVE different pathologists, Bob? Please enlighten me on WHY you think that. And here's another panel which concluded something that Robert Prudhomme thinks could have only resulted from "magic". So this brings the total number of doctors that Bob P. needs to ignore up to sixteen.... Quoting from the Clark Panel Report (emphasis added by DVP)..... "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck. The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report." [END QUOTE.] These excerpts deserve a replay and lots of extra emphasis: "The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found." "Any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html ---------

I'm not sure exactly. But my guess would be Z223. It doesn't. Dale Myers' computer model shows the entry wound to be slightly right of the midline in Kennedy's upper back---just where the autopsy picture places it (click to enlarge).... BTW, Bob, we've hashed all this out before. Just four months ago in fact, as archived here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-887.html ---------------

Ian, Regardless of what length rifle Oswald actually ordered, the TSBD weapon is clearly the same weapon that Klein's mailed to "Hidell" (at Oswald's post office box). It's got the same serial number on it---and Oswald's prints are on it. 1.) Oswald ("Hidell") was shipped an Italian (Carcano) rifle with the serial number C2766 on it. 2.) The TSBD rifle is an Italian (Carcano) rifle with the serial number C2766 on it. Good heavens, what more proof do you require? And try as they might, no CTer has ever come up with proof that a SECOND Carcano rifle bearing the serial number C2766 has ever existed. Nor, for that matter, have I seen anybody produce two Carcanos with the same serial number---period---regardless of what serial number it might be. As for the "different length" argument, go back to Post #1 in this thread (or click the link below; it's the same as Post 1).... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

Two of the Myers images show the frame numbers right on them, Bob. Can't you read the numbers?

Bob, Dale Myers' computer model (which is aligned with the Z-Film itself) shows how far Governor Connally is turned to his right when the SBT bullet struck. It's difficult to tell exactly how much to the RIGHT Connally is turned when JUST looking at the Z-Film. I certainly can't tell how many "degrees" to the right JBC is turned at Z224 by merely watching the Z-Film. But Myers has locked his computer animation right to the Zapruder Film itself. So this is the most accurate 3D rendering we're likely to ever get.... Other still images here -----> With--Malice.blogspot.com

A reprise.... Doesn't this little "coincidence" ever cause you pause and want to re-think the SBT, Bob?: JFK is hit in the UPPER BACK by a bullet. and John Connally is ALSO hit by a bullet in his UPPER BACK too. And Connally is hit at nearly the very same instant that Kennedy is also hit. That little "BOTH VICTIMS ARE STRUCK IN THEIR RESPECTIVE UPPER BACKS AT ALMOST AN IDENTICAL TIME" coincidence doesn't mean a thing to you, does it, Bob? I wonder why not.

So you say. Just one more conspiracy theorist/hobbyist (this time by the name of Robert Prudhomme) trying to disprove what is quite obviously the truth --- i.e., a single bullet travelled completely through JFK's body (just like the autopsy doctors said in their report), with that bullet then going on to hit the person sitting IN FRONT of the President. Doesn't that little "coincidence" ever cause you pause and want to re-think the SBT, Bob? I mean, this "coincidence": JFK is hit in the UPPER BACK by a bullet. and John Connally is ALSO hit by a bullet in his UPPER BACK too. And Connally is hit at nearly the very same instant that Kennedy is also hit. That little "BOTH VICTIMS ARE STRUCK IN THEIR RESPECTIVE UPPER BACKS AT ALMOST AN IDENTICAL TIME" coincidence doesn't mean a thing to you, does it, Bob? I wonder why not.

I was just tying up a loose end regarding this Reiland thing. And you're the one who made this statement yesterday, Bob. Not I. .... "Ron Reiland and Bob Clark were obviously the only ones who knew their butts from a hole in the ground when it came to rifles." As for your other thread..... You haven't proven the SBT is a fallacy. Your charts and schematics don't show JOHN KENNEDY'S skeletal structure specifically. And without knowing every little nuance of John F. Kennedy's body, then your charts might be CLOSE, but they might not be close ENOUGH. Plus, I've already pointed out about 699 times in the past the absurdity of believing that TWO separate bullets went into JFK's body just A TINY LITTLE BIT, with neither bullet exiting the body....and then....both bullets simply VANISH! Tell me how that theory passes anyone's laugh test, Bob. Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT ----------------

Ron Reiland refers to the Depository rifle as an "Argentine 6.5 Mauser" in this WFAA-TV audio clip from the afternoon of 11/22/63. He doesn't call it a "7.65" weapon at all: RON REILAND AUDIO EXCERPT FROM NOVEMBER 22, 1963 So much for Mr. Reiland being one of only two people in Dallas on November 22nd "who knew [his] butt from a hole in the ground when it came to rifles".

RELATED COMMENTS...... While re-reading a few portions of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" today, I came across something that I don't remember having seen before. This happens to me frequently when revisiting parts of Bugliosi's immense JFK book---I'll find something that seems brand-new, even though I read the book in its entirety years ago. But this habit of "revisiting" Vincent's book from time to time is usually a worthwhile exercise, because since the book is so large, some stuff in it is bound to be forgotten or overlooked after going through it just once (or even twice). Here's the interesting segment from today's "re-reading" of page 790 of Bugliosi's tome: "In a search pursuant to a search warrant by Dallas Police Department detectives of Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, portions of two Klein's magazine ads for the rifle were found inside a box." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 790 of "Reclaiming History" Sources used by Bugliosi for the above quote: CD 578, March 7, 1964, FBI Exhibit D-85; and 7 H 195, WCT Richard S. Stovall. In addition to the sources shown above, one other source concerning this subject that Bugliosi didn't mention is Commission Document No. 7, Page 388. So, we can see HERE that there were two separate clipped portions of two different Klein's magazine advertisements found among Lee Oswald's possessions in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, both of which are nearly identical to the order form that Oswald used to order his rifle from Klein's in March of 1963 [seen in CE773 and Waldman Exhibit No. 8]. This particular topic of two nearly identical Klein's order forms being found among Oswald's belongings the day after President Kennedy was assassinated is something I don't recall being discussed too much (if at all) among JFK researchers. I wonder how the conspiracy theorists who think Lee Oswald never ordered the rifle from Klein's are able to combat this additional "Klein's" evidence that was found in Ruth Paine's garage the day after the assassination? Do those theorists want to believe that those blank Klein's order forms were planted in Paine's garage in order to help frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder? Or do the CTers who know about this "Klein's" evidence found in Commission Document No. 578 simply shrug it off as being irrelevant and immaterial entirely? But it is rather revealing to have in evidence those two other "Klein's" order forms, seeing as how Klein's in Chicago is the exact same mail-order company that sent a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to a post office box in Dallas that was being used at the time by a certain Mr. Lee H. Oswald. The clippings seen in CD578 provide further physical evidence tying Lee Harvey Oswald to Klein's Sporting Goods. Footnote/Addendum.... Vincent Bugliosi's verbiage in the quote I cited above isn't quite 100% accurate. Vince says that "portions of two Klein's magazine ads for the rifle were found" in Ruth Paine's garage. (Emphasis added by DVP.) The words "for the rifle", however, do not apply in that quote, because as we can see in the links I provided earlier, the Klein's clippings are not ads "for the rifle" that Oswald ultimately ended up receiving from Klein's in late March of 1963. The clippings only show two blank Klein's order forms. So, Mr. Bugliosi has overstated the facts just a little bit in that quote I cited. The proper way for Vince to have said it in his book would have been this way (IMO).... "In a search pursuant to a search warrant by Dallas Police Department detectives of Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, portions of two Klein's magazine ads were found inside a box." I'm sure the discovery of another small error in Vince Bugliosi's book will make some conspiracy theorists jump for joy, because they can now claim once again that Vince deliberately "lied" to his readers on page 790 of "Reclaiming History", with a determined and calculated effort being made by Bugliosi to deceive them. I, of course, will choose to categorize Vincent's "for the rifle" mistake in a different manner, as I have done when confronted with the "Bugliosi Is A xxxx" brigade in the past as well. David Von Pein November 28, 2014 ============================ THE KLEIN'S ADS (PART 2) ============================

Kenneth, CBS-TV (Dan Rather) was identifying the rifle as a "6.5 mm. Italian" gun at about 7:00 PM CST on Nov. 22, only about 6 hours after the assassination. What's so incredibly delayed about that? Dan Rather didn't say "Carcano", no. But do you now want to say that "6.5mm Italian gun" ISN'T the same as saying "6.5mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano"? They are the SAME THING, Ken.

Good. Then we're in complete agreement that Weitzman "got fooled". Excellent. He thought the Carcano looked like a 7.65 Mauser. And even you agree that Weitzman was "fooled". So what do we have to argue about here? Looks like we're in complete agreement. You're closer to joining the LN ranks than you think, Bob. Nice job. Because from my experience with Internet CTers, you're in the vast minority of CTers who actually have had the guts to admit that Seymour Weitzman "got fooled". I don't think I've talked to one other Internet CTer in the last five years who thinks there WASN'T a Mauser found on the sixth floor (except maybe Pat Speer). Pat, do you think a Mauser was found? I can't remember your position on that. Anyway, thanks, Bob Prudhomme, for acknowledging the obvious -- "Weitzman got fooled".

So you seem to accept the fact that Oswald (using his "Hidell" alias) did order the rifle. But you can't envision a situation where Oswald could have merely gone to the post office, handed the clerk the slip he found in his P.O. Box, and then have the rifle package handed to him by the clerk?? That scenario is played out in hundreds or thousands of post offices all over the USA every day. Plus, let me ask this simple, common-sense question..... Why would somebody order something by mail-order and have it shipped to their post office box (whether it be a rifle or any other item) and then never go to the post office to pick up the merchandise? Why would anybody do that, Bill? You think a clerk should have instant recall regarding every package he/she gives out to every John Doe in Dallas---even after eight months have passed? Come on. ==================== RELATED CAT FIGHT.... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Von Pein is the prime example of the Warren Commission Crazies or kamikazes. I mean, see there was never any evidence that Oswald ever picked up the handgun used to shoot Tippit at Railway Express. In fact, even more exculpatory, there was never any evidence that the FBI even went there. So how did the transaction happen? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: How about that for sterling logic and razor-sharp evaluation of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit murder, folks? DiEugenio is much more concerned about the lack of a paper trail that would connect Lee Harvey Oswald to the Smith & Wesson revolver that killed Officer J.D. Tippit than he is about the PROVABLE FACT that Oswald had that very same gun ON HIM (as he was trying to shoot more policemen with it) when he was arrested inside the Texas Theater just a half-hour after Officer Tippit was gunned down. There are no words left for me to use to describe how utterly preposterous DiEugenio's thinking is regarding this matter concerning Oswald's revolver and the Railway Express. To DiEugenio, Oswald being caught red-handed with the murder weapon in his very own hands in the movie theater on 11/22/63 is of far less importance than being able to answer the following question --- When and where did Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail order in early 1963? More revolver chatter: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

So, Bob P., you actually think Ron Reiland and Bob Clark examined the rifle THEMSELVES before reporting that an "Argentine" Mauser had been found in the Depository? Neither one of those men examined the rifle for themselves. They were merely repeating the incorrect information they received from another source (or sources). When the facts were finally confirmed via the DPD about what type of rifle it was (at approximately 6:16 PM CST on 11/22/63, as this CBS-TV footage proves), everyone then began reporting it correctly as an "Italian" rifle. The words "Mannlicher-Carcano" weren't heard until the afternoon of November 23rd, however. ============================= GARY MACK SAID [AT 12:16 PM EDT ON 5/25/2015, VIA E-MAIL]: Hi Dave, You are quite correct about Reiland and Clark regarding the "Argentine" weapon. One has to read the AP and UPI wire reports - and I certainly have - to know that they distributed the misinformation early that afternoon. No individuals were named as sources, but they certainly weren't Reiland and Clark who were, respectively, in a news car on the way to Oak Cliff and [at] Parkland when the Carcano was found in the TSBD. The only newsmen on the TSBD sixth floor when the rifle was found were Tom Alyea of WFAA and Kent Biffle of the Dallas Morning News. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser while it was still on the floor and partially hidden by boxes. Later, when Lt. Day lifted it out for Capt. Fritz, Day found the rifle was an Italian weapon. Unfortunately, either Alyea or Biffle had already gotten word out to their newsroom and the misidentification went around the world only to be repeated by Reiland and Clark before corrections appeared. Such problems are quite normal in the news profession to this day but inaccurate information gets corrected as soon as possible. Gary DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Gary. As always. DVP ============================= IN A RELATED DISCUSSION IN EARLY 2014, MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID: I noticed Boone, at the mock trial, said he learned the rifle was a Carcano only after the FBI had their hands on it and said it was a Carcano. He did not know Lt. Day was parading the rifle in front of the press telling them it was an Italian rifle made in 1940 on the early evening of 11-22-63...I guess. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: As far as I know, Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD never uttered a word while parading around holding the rifle over his head at 6:15 PM on November 22. Day was never interviewed by the press. He merely carried the gun in silence. As I said in one of my forum posts recently, I don't think very many people at the DPD had an up-close look at the rifle at all on Day #1. Lt. Day, in fact, *might* have been the only person who had a really good look at it (and perhaps Captain Fritz too, who we can see via Tom Alyea's film was examining the gun up close in the TSBD). But it was Lt. Day who took possession of the gun inside the TSBD, and it was Day who carried it out of the building, and it was Day who then locked it up in a lock box at City Hall for a few hours while he went back to the Depository to take pictures. Lieutenant Day then went back to City Hall and started examining the rifle in greater detail. Then, close to midnight, he was told to stop working on the rifle and to turn it over to Vincent Drain of the FBI, which he did. Ergo, the initial incorrect "Mauser" reports coming from Dallas County Deputies Weitzman and Boone became the "facts" as far as many people (and reporters thirsty for details) were concerned. MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID: I've seen a couple clips of the rifle traveling through the DPD, but never see the whole thing like I wish we did. When asked what kind of rifle it was, Day said, "6.5, apparently made in Italy 1940". I [saw] it aired, and heard him say it on a CNN show called "The Assassination of President Kennedy" on 11-21-13. I recorded it and just watched it again. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I don't recall that clip with Lt. Day saying something to the press. I wonder if I have it in my video collection? I'm not sure, but I'm sure going to look for it. Thanks, Michael. And my apologies for saying that Lt. Day never spoke to the press in the DPD corridors. I guess you just proved me wrong in that regard. Thank you. MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID: Why that is not included in the clips of this historic event, I do not understand. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Perhaps it is buried in my collection someplace. I don't know. But thanks for the info nonetheless. PAT SPEER SAID: I watched the CNN program he [Michael G.] mentions, and can verify that the quote of Day is accurate. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Pat. I just did a little digging into my video archives and verified for myself that at least one TV network (CBS) was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd. In the video clip below, which was aired live on CBS-TV on the evening of 11/22/63, Dan Rather of CBS News clearly calls the rifle being held up by Lt. J.C. Day an "Italian 6.5-millimeter" gun. We can't hear Lt. Day say anything; we only hear Rather's narration in this clip, but it is clear from the video that Lt. Day definitely is speaking to the members of the press at the crowded City Hall. He's probably identifying the rifle in just the manner confirmed by Michael Giampaolo and Pat Speer: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that everybody on radio or television was labelling the murder weapon as a Mauser all the way through Day 1 (November 22nd) are proven wrong (just as I was proven wrong on this issue too) by the above video alone. And if CBS was reporting that the assassination weapon was a 6.5mm. Italian rifle during the evening of November 22nd, you can bet that most of the other TV and radio networks were reporting the very same thing at that same time as well. Thanks again to Michael and Pat. Your confirmation of Lt. Day's statements in the 2013 CNN program prompted me to dig further myself. And the digging paid off. Much obliged. GARY MACK SAID: David, The original KRLD-TV video tape of Day holding the rifle is in The Sixth Floor Museum's permanent collection and it has been licensed to many documentaries over the years. The audio track includes Day's first words which were, "There's no name on it." From there, going by memory, he says, "6.5mm, made in Italy, 1940." As Day said in his museum's oral history, he was taking the rifle back to his office and held it overhead so reporters couldn't touch it. As the clock shows, the scene happened at 6:16pm on Friday and both AP and UPI wire services soon fed his words around the world. Boone and Weitzman, who both worked for the Sheriff's Department, never saw the rifle again after they or it left the TSBD. One of the two reporters present, either Tom Alyea/WFAA-TV or Kent Biffle/Dallas Morning News, presumably reported the ID information to their offices, so that must be how the Mauser story started. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Gary. GARY MACK SAID: By the way, the video of Day was not shown live; the scene was recorded at KRLD and fed to CBS soon thereafter for Rather to narrate on the network. Gary DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yes, I know. It's obvious that Dan Rather isn't narrating a LIVE scene taking place at Dallas City Hall. That's why I phrased a portion of my forum post in this manner (knowing full well that the clock on the wall behind Lieutenant Day was showing a time of 6:16): "CBS was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd." Thanks. DVP January 2014

Yeah, right. Reiland and Clark got some inaccurate info from either the newswires or from some other source, and that suddenly makes them world-class rifle experts, right? Too funny.

Larry Hancock, Thank you for your last post.

Kenneth, The number of already-debunked conspiracy myths and inaccuracies in your last post is staggering. You totally disregard OSWALD'S handwriting on all of the various documents relating to the rifle purchase order. You totally dismiss and/or disregard the two large bullet fragments (CE567 & 569) that were found in the front seat of the limo. And those fragments came from Rifle C2766 and no other gun (and that's the same gun with OSWALD'S prints on it and the same gun Klein's mailed to OSWALD'S post office box). I wonder how bullet fragments from the gun shipped to LHO's P.O. Box by Klein's managed to find their way into JFK's car? Any ideas on that? You totally disregard OSWALD'S prints being on the C2766 rifle itself (the palmprint and the two fingerprints on the trigger guard; the latter were said to be OSWALD'S prints by Vincent Scalice in 1993). You totally cast aside the fact that OSWALD had at least one card in his wallet on Nov. 22 bearing the name "Hidell" (with OSWALD'S picture on it, to boot). And yet you claim there's no evidence at all that Oswald used the name Hidell. Was this Selective Service card planted on him? You totally ignore Vol. 6 of the HSCA re: the backyard photos, in which it is said that the gun Oswald is holding in the pictures is the C2766 rifle. In short, you are dead wrong about----everything. A perfect .000 batting average. Not even a foul tip. Congratulations.

Can you point me to any of this "demonstrable evidence" of conspiracy?