David Von Pein

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.

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