David Von Pein

The Dallas Police Department discovered who killed JFK on the day of the assassination. It was Lee Harvey Oswald, who was charged with two murders before the end of the day on November 22, 1963. Now, just try to imagine a scenario in which the Dallas police have accumulated enough evidence to actually formally charge a totally innocent man named Lee Oswald with two murders on the same day. Do police departments normally officially charge people with double murder even though they have absolutely no hard evidence to back up the charges whatsoever, as many conspiracy theorists seem to believe? Are we really supposed to believe that the two murder charges that the DPD filed against Oswald were trumped up charges, with all of the evidence in both murders being manufactured or planted to frame an innocent man? Can any sensible person really believe such a thing? (I sure can't.) A big clue to Oswald's guilt (in addition to the pile of evidence that convicts him ten times over) is the crucial and often-overlooked fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was already, in effect, a political assassin seven months before President Kennedy ever went to Dallas, when Oswald took that shot at General Walker on April 10, 1963. For some reason, however, conspiracy theorists seem to want to exonerate Oswald of that murder attempt too. But I guess that's understandable from the POV of the standard Anybody But Oswald conspiracist, because if they were to admit that Lee Oswald took a gun and aimed it at the head of a retired United States general, then they'd have to admit something they fear -- i.e., Lee H. Oswald had murder running through his veins in the year 1963. Edwin Walker And Lee Harvey Oswald Gary Mack isn't an "LNer". He's a conspiracy believer. Why on Earth many people continue to think that Gary Mack thinks Oswald acted alone is anyone's guess. But the CTers continue to call Mack an LNer every single day. But he's not. http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

An addendum (of sorts) that was posted at Greg Burnham's forum (in the same thread about the "mystery photo" of JFK)..... CHRISTINA GILL SAID: Another thing that is haunting about that day was the fact that LBJ's limo is flanked by Secret Service protection. There are agents standing on those platforms on his car. You almost can't see him. However the exact opposite is true for President Kennedy's car. So like you said he was isolated and he was driven right into an ambush. There is so much about this that makes me angry. DAVID VON PEIN SAYS: Christina obviously is confused, because there are certainly no SS agents standing on platforms of LBJ's car in Dallas. Nor, in fact, are there any SS agents standing on platforms outside the SS follow-up car behind Johnson either. The agents are all inside a regular four-door hardtop sedan. Christina must think that JFK's Queen Mary/Halfback Secret Service follow-up Cadillac is the same car which contains Lyndon Johnson. Why she thinks that is anyone's guess. Source Post -- http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?/topic/27-rare-photo-of-jfk-in-the-dallas-motorcade/#entry270

Some follow-up posts from my Facebook discussion regarding this issue..... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Addendum --- It's a neat (and rare) picture regardless of where it was taken. Not perfect quality, but a nice close-up of a smiling JFK riding in the bubbletop limo (I can tell that by the handholds on the back of the car). Perhaps somebody can confirm there was a SAVINGS & LOAN building near Griffin & Main in Dallas in Nov. '63 (or confirm there WASN'T such a "LOAN" building that can be seen in the background of the photo)?? Too bad we can't see who else is in the back seat with the President. MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID: The stripes in the Dallas shirt are very prominent and easily seen. For sure we would see some sign of stripes if there were some. I don't see any at all. Plus the design of the tie looks different too. And shouldn't there be a motorcycle somewhere? Instead I see people running. CHRIS SIMONDET SAID: It's a print owned by the International Center of Photography - photographer unidentified - here it is uncropped: And here's a fairly high-resolution detail of the photo: Although it's already clearly not Dallas, we can add that there are no SS agents hanging off the side of the Queen Mary - that might help narrow things down. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Chris. But it doesn't appear that enough of the SS follow-up car is visible in order to determine whether any agents are riding the running boards. I'd be very surprised if there were NO agents on the running boards on the left side of the SS car, regardless of the location of the motorcade. But if it's not Dallas, I'm wondering where Stan Wilbourne (who posted the picture at Burnham's site) got the specific info about the picture being taken at Main & Griffin in Dallas? That's mighty specific info. ~shrug~ CHRIS SIMONDET SAID: I'd put money on the caption being from here: http://www.rsvlts.com/2013/11/21/john-f-kennedy-rare-photos/ DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Chris. But the caption is messed up then, because the caption for each photo applies to the pic ABOVE the caption, which means the "Griffin & Main" reference is referring to the Cecil Stoughton pic above the caption. The mystery photo in question actually has this caption (so it still says it's Dallas on 11/22) --- "22 November 1963 Bystander snaps the Presidential motorcade in Dallas, Texas." [...] But actually, if we can determine that the "mystery" pic wasn't taken in Dallas on 11/22, then it really could conceivably have been taken during any one of dozens of motorcades JFK rode in from June '61 through Nov. '63. (It had to be after June 15, 1961, though, because that's when the "bubbletop" Lincoln car first arrived in Washington to serve as JFK's main limo.) [...] I wonder if this tie (below) could be the same one seen in the mystery picture? This photo below was taken at about 10:30 AM on 11/21/63, probably just a matter of minutes before JFK left for his trip to Texas. Whether JFK changed clothes before departing, I haven't the foggiest: [...] How about this to add to the shirt mystery --- I just dug up this photo (below) of JFK in Fort Worth just after his parking lot speech on 11/22/63, and I sure don't see any stripes in this shirt either. And this is definitely Nov. 22. However, it is possible that JFK changed his shirt after this pic was taken, because I know he changed his suit coat because it was raining when Kennedy made his parking lot speech at the Hotel Texas, and I'm almost certain he changed into a dry coat before giving his Chamber of Commerce speech in the ballroom at the hotel. So, it could be he changed his shirt too (and perhaps his tie as well), which would explain why he has on what seems to be a plain white shirt at 9 AM on 11/22, but had on a striped shirt in Dallas. However, if he DIDN'T change shirts, then this would have to be the same striped shirt we see him wearing at Love Field in those HQ pics I posted earlier: [...] I don't think these ties are the same at all, but it's interesting that JFK seems to be wearing ties that are KIND OF similar in design--i.e., no stripes or solid lines to positively distinguish a particular tie from another one:

This is not very important really, but I found it interesting nonetheless --- At Greg Burnham's nicely-laid-out new website and JFK forum, somebody posted the photo below of JFK, which the person posting it says was taken on 11/22/63 during the motorcade through Dallas. But I am a little skeptical as to whether the picture was taken in Dallas on November 22, mainly because of the shirt and tie being worn by President Kennedy, which do not seem to match the pattern of the tie or the striped shirt that JFK was wearing in Dallas that day. Here's the picture: Now it could be that the less-than-perfect nature of the above photo (plus the lighting) are making the stripes in JFK's shirt impossible to see. But I sure don't see any stripes in that shirt when compared to the higher-quality picture below, which was definitely taken at Love Field in Dallas on Nov. 22nd (and the pattern in the tie looks different too): I'd like to put the top picture on my Photo Gallery website, but I'm just not sure how to label it. I'd like to be able to confirm it was taken on the day of JFK's assassination in Dallas. But I'm just not sure. The person who posted it at Greg Burnham's forum said it was taken in Dallas "on Main Street at Griffin Street" on 11/22/63. Any photo experts here? What do you think about the shirt and tie issue I raised? Another comparison pic can be found here -- http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/11/kennedy-gallery-370.html Source for top pic -- http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?/topic/27-rare-photo-of-jfk-in-the-dallas-motorcade/

"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. .... The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." .... The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president. It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered. Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Given the fact that there was this HUGE hole in the right/top/front part of the President's head....and this small "entry"-like hole in the back of his head, how difficult is the math here? Should we consult Einstein to get this figured out? Or should a cat by the name of Felix be able to solve this puzzle? (I vote for the latter.) (Can this get any sillier? Answer--Yes, it can. See Pat Speer's next comment for proof....) A humdinger of a dumb and preposterous theory, yes. So, you think the ONLY thing the HSCA relied on were the photos & X-rays, eh? That's interesting (and very wrong). There's also the testimony of the autopsists. Or is their 1978 testimony "meaningless" too (as it relates to their ability to answer the fundamental question of: "WAS JFK STRUCK BY ANY BULLETS COMING FROM THE FRONT?")? Anyway, the autopsy photos cannot possibly be fake, unless there's a way to fake pictures in stereo pairs (which every expert has said is impossible). So, you're cooked again, Mr. Speer. Sorry. :-)

Oh, bull, Pat. In THIS (JFK) case, there can be no doubt whatsoever which of Kennedy's head wounds was the entry wound--with or without "tracking" of the bullet wounds. Am I supposed to think THIS wound in the photo below is an EXIT wound and that huge hole in the right/front/top portion of the President's head is an ENTRY wound? (Talk about topsy-turvy. This takes the cake.) I'm not denying that there is controversy among the "experts" and the autopsy surgeons regarding JFK's head wounds. I've never denied or ducked that controversy. I've merely attempted to explain it in what I feel is a reasonable and sensible way (based mainly on what I consider to be the best evidence associated with the President's wounds--the autopsy pictures and X-rays). But most of the conspiracy theorists disagree quite strongly with EVERY single expert who has ever officially investigated John F. Kennedy's murder and looked at the original autopsy photographs and X-rays. A CTer who is absolutely positive that JFK was shot from the front and had a massive hole in the BACK of his head has no choice but to totally disregard every single item listed below (which is just plain ridiculous): 1.) The autopsy report. 2.) The autopsy photographs. 3.) The autopsy X-rays. 4.) The testimony and subsequent statements of all three autopsy physicians. 5.) The conclusion of the Warren Commission in 1964. 6.) The conclusion of the Clark Panel in 1968. 7.) The conclusion of the Rockefeller Commission in 1975. 8.) The conclusion of the HSCA in 1978. 9.) The Zapruder Film. See how silly it gets once you get beyond a HALF-DOZEN different things/committees that the conspiracy theorists believe are totally wrong or phony? But the CTers don't care that they have to spit on ALL NINE of the above things. They'll do it anyway. But please don't ask me to disregard the above batch of evidence. Because in order to do that, I'd have to park my common sense at the front door. And I'll never do that. So, you see Pat, the horse I'm riding isn't perched so high. But CTers don't even have a horse to ride in this race, as far as I can see. They ride a different animal -- BULL.

I wasn't sneaky at all regarding the "angled" Newman map photo. I know it's taken from an angle that somewhat skews everything. But I used it to merely illustrate what even a SKEWED version of that map clearly indicates--i.e., Bill Newman thought the shots were coming from a location where virtually NOBODY in the "JFK World" thinks shots were REALLY coming from. So, tell me, Ray -- Do you REALLY think shots were coming from an area BETWEEN the Depository and the fence/"Badge Man" area on the Knoll? If you answer Yes to that question, you'll be the first person on the planet (AFAIK) who thinks shots came from that "in-between" area in Dealey Plaza. BTW, Ray, your version of Newman's map is almost identical to the "skewed" version I posted. Very little difference at all. Your "unskewed" version still has Newman's mark at the FAR EAST EDGE of the pergola/shelter. Looks like another "Mountain From A Molehill" argument being made by a conspiracy fan. (What a surprise.) Besides, how in the heck can I know for certain you've got that gray line in the exact correct spot to equate to Newman's 1986 marking of the sketch/map? Maybe I should call in Dale Myers to check it out. An expert on photogrammetry couldn't hurt here, right?

And Newman's 1986 map also indicates he didn't think the shots came from anywhere near the famous "Grassy Knoll/Picket Fence" area of Dealey Plaza either. (That was kind of my main point, in case you missed it.) But, then too, we already knew that fact when Newman clearly stated in his 11/22/63 affidavit that the shots came from "directly behind me", which does not equate to the famous "Grassy Knoll" area where the fence is. OIC. That must be why only TWO very small metal fragments were plucked from inside President Kennedy's head by the autopsy surgeons at Bethesda, huh? And I wonder why there is very little in the way of bullet (metal) fragments visible in the X-rays taken of JFK's head? A faked X-ray, Ray? .... And it's also good to know that you, Ray Mitcham, are a person who actually DOES think that the great-big wound in JFK's head serves as the ENTRY point for a bullet. Most people can easily figure out the ENTRIES from the EXITS when it comes to assessing bullet wounds, with the largest wound almost always indicating the BLOW-OUT (or EXIT) point for the missile. But, as with everything in this JFK case, the conspiracists have a habit of turning night into day---and exits into entries. A humorous example of this type of topsy-turvy mindset exhibited by some conspiracy theorists came up on one of the other JFK forums, when a certain unnamed kook insisted that Governor Connally's chest wound was actually a wound of ENTRY, while Connally's upper-back wound was a wound of exit. Such is the upside-down world of JFK conspiracists.

You think it takes superhuman ability to assess and reasonably evaluate the statements made by William Newman concerning his observations relating to JFK's head wound? A second-grader could figure this out. I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists can't do it? It's probably because those conspiracy believers just simply don't WANT to properly evaluate statements made by witnesses like Bill and Gayle Newman. The CTers are too enamoured with their long-held belief that William E. Newman is a terrific "conspiracy" type witness. But in reality, he's no such thing. Newman even marked the location of where he thought the shots were coming from on a map during his appearance at the 1986 mock Oswald trial in England. And just look at where he put the gunman--in a location that's not even close to the famous "picket fence" area: In fact, Newman's marked location on that map is much closer to the Book Depository Building than it is to the fence atop the Grassy Knoll. I think you already know the answer to that question, Ray. But, I'll bite anyway.... The largest portion of Oswald's Carcano bullet, after going through JFK's head, was never recovered by anybody. But two fairly large chunks of that head-shot bullet (CE567 and CE569) were recovered in the front seat area of JFK's limousine, with those two fragments of bullet being stopped by the car's windshield and chrome molding (which were cracked and dented, respectively). More of my thoughts about CE567/569 HERE and HERE. Now, to reciprocate, maybe Ray Mitcham can answer a similar question for me (and for everyone else in the world too) --- Since you obviously think that what Bill Newman saw on the SIDE of President Kennedy's head was the ENTRY location of a bullet, would you please tell me what happened to that bullet that entered the right "temple" of John F. Kennedy? Where did that bullet end up? And why didn't it cause some kind of wound to the LEFT side of JFK's head?

So, Ray, you think Bill Newman had the superhuman ability to actually SEE the bullet in flight, eh? Otherwise, how could he possibly know precisely where the bullet ENTERED President Kennedy's head? As any child could figure out, Newman saw the big hole and all the blood on the RIGHT SIDE ("temple" area) of JFK's head after Oswald's bullet had gone through the President's cranium....and Newman's immediate impression, due to the location of all that blood, was that the bullet hit JFK in the side of the temple. Newman says over and over again in his various interviews in 1963 and 2003 that he saw the "SIDE" of the President's head come off. That sure doesn't sound like he's describing the ENTRY point for a bullet, does it? He's describing where the EXIT wound was located, of course. And Newman repeated that comment again during his November 2013 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum ----> "The side of his head blew off." -- William Newman; 11/9/13 There is also a similar statement made by Gayle Newman in her official affidavit, which she prepared on the day of the assassination itself ---> "I saw blood all over the side of his head." -- Gayle Newman; 11/22/63

And just how on Earth does Zapruder's "from back of me" remark help out the conspiracy theorists who want to place a gunman behind a fence on the Grassy Knoll, which is a fence that was certainly NOT in "back" of Abe Zapruder's pedestal at the time of the head shot. That fence was to the RIGHT of Zapruder....and actually, to be technical, the area of that fence where most of the conspiracy buffs like to put a gunman was also a little bit in FRONT of Zapruder's position as well (i.e., a little SOUTH of the Zapruder pedestal) -- as the photograph below indicates: But I suppose all the conspiracy theorists can argue that the picket fence area was, indeed, IN BACK of Zapruder's position when at least ONE of the shots was fired, because Zapruder's body would have been turned more toward the Elm & Houston corner at that time. So you can argue that "angle" difference if you want, but it's still not going to garner you a victory in this particular argument, and that's because of the following portion of Mr. Zapruder's Warren Commission testimony that Ray decided to leave out of his last post: Mr. LIEBELER - All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Well, yes. Mr. LIEBELER - From the direction behind you? Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, actually--I couldn't say what I thought at the moment, where they came from--after the impact of the tragedy was really what I saw and I started and I said--yelling, "They've killed him"--I assumed that they came from there, because as the police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the back of me. Mr. LIEBELER - But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what direction the shots did come from actually? Mr. ZAPRUDER - No. So it's pretty clear to me that Zapruder's WC testimony is in perfect harmony with what he told CBS-TV in 1967. In other words--he just couldn't tell exactly where the shots were coming from.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Ray. Bill Newman did utter the above words in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum. I stand corrected. However, even in that excerpt at 9:50 of the video, Newman is saying that the shots came from what he calls the "in-between area", very near where Abraham Zapruder was standing -- between the Depository and the picket fence.

Huh? Bill Newman said no such thing in that 2003 video. In fact, he specifically says that he refuses to "define" the exact location of the gunshots. He said: "So I say 'behind' and I leave it at that." He said he can't say whether the shots he heard came more to the left or more to the right of his location: "If I thought it came from the sixth floor, I'd most definitely tell you so. If I thought it came from the picket fence, I'd certainly tell you so. The reality of it is--I don't know." -- William E. Newman; July 10, 2003 Audio clip with Bill Newman -- https://app.box.com/s/koji4pr1e7242ajo3hvd Yeah, right Ray. They avoided the Newmans, but had no problem publishing the testimony of Sam Holland, Mark Lane, Jean Hill, Jack Dougherty, Victoria Adams, Clint Hill, Marguerite Oswald, and several other "conspiracy" type witnesses. But they were just scared to death of Bill and Gayle Newman, huh? You're funny. That's not what he told Eddie Barker in Dealey Plaza in 1967: "I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were shots that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded alike; there was no different sound at all." -- Abe Zapruder; June 1967 (emphasis added by DVP) SOURCE: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report.html

Right, Ray. And "directly behind" the Newmans at the moment of the fatal head shot is....where again? Certainly NOT the famous "picket fence" on the Knoll. More..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/bill-and-gayle-newman.html During a 2003 interview, Bill Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (at the 6:20 mark of the video below), when he says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise". Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this interview -- http://www.c-span.org/video/?287932-101/kennedy-assassination-bill-gayle-newman-part-2

Either way, Dr. Peters is still wrong, because there was no humongous hole in President Kennedy's head in either one of those "BOH" locations, as these photos clearly prove for all time: For a more accurate "hand on the head" demonstration of where the large wound in JFK's head was really located, we need to go to the witnesses who saw the assassination as it was occurring in Dealey Plaza. And the best possible witnesses among that group are Abraham Zapruder and William Newman: And there's also Gayle Newman too, who provided a hands-on account of the location on JFK's head where she saw "blood gushing out". And it sure isn't in the occipital (or rear) portion of the head:

Thank you, Pat, for your last reply. But this comment you made still makes no sense to me: Well, Pat, since we all know the autopsy started at about 8:00 PM, it's fairly obvious that David Lifton DOES indeed believe the wounds were altered BEFORE 8:00. Right? So how is Lifton's previous remark out of sync with his theory that the body was altered by somebody at Walter Reed (or wherever) prior to the time Dr. Humes started the autopsy? What am I missing here? You surely don't think Lifton is of the opinion the alleged alterations to the President's body were performed AFTER the Bethesda autopsy commenced at 8 PM. Right? Re: Groden.... I don't know if Robert Groden was being deliberately deceptive in his 1993 book or not, but this picture which I captured of Dr. Paul Peters (taken from the 1988 NOVA/PBS program) comes pretty close to matching Groden's photo of Peters, although it appears as if Peters' hand is a little lower on the back of his head in the montage posted earlier than it is in this 1988 hands-on demonstration:

I think Pat Speer's last post makes a lot of sense -- except for two things.... Huh? Pat, the remarks made by David Lifton [repeated below] that you are replying to in the above quote are not inconsistent in the slightest way with Mr. Lifton's longstanding beliefs put forth in his book. Lifton is saying here what he's always said (and it's still as far-fetched and unrealistic here in 2014 as it was back in 1966 when DSL's strange odyssey first began). He's saying the body of JFK was altered between Parkland and Bethesda. But the statement below does not imply that Lifton has embraced the additional Humes Altered The Wounds nonsense put forth by Doug Horne. Emphasis added by DVP here: Number two -- I agree with Pat Speer up to a point about some of the "BOH" witnesses. But this composite chart made by Mr. Speer is probably a tad bit misleading (IMO), because the three witnesses pictured here ARE still indicating that there was SOME kind of wound or defect extending all the way into the VERY BACK part of JFK's head. Right, Pat? Otherwise, what do you think Peters and Custer and O'Connor are doing when they have their own hands placed over the REAR portions of their heads in the photos on the right side of your montage below? Are they just scratching their heads here, and a picture was taken to mislead people? Or what?.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / President Kennedy's Head Wounds JFK-Archives.blogspot.com / Index -- BOH Articles An excerpt from the above links: "Of course, the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists] who think that Kennedy was shot in the head from the front can always go down "THE PHOTOS ARE ALL FAKES" path...even though the HSCA said that ALL of the autopsy pictures are "unaltered" in any way whatsoever. .... To stress my main point again (via the opinion that the [autopsy] pictures are GENUINE and are NOT FAKES, which, of course, IS the truth of the matter): How would it be even remotely possible for a bullet to leave a huge hole in the FAR-RIGHT-REAR portion of President Kennedy's head and yet have the REAR SCALP of that same President Kennedy look like this (in the autopsy picture below) after such a shooting event? Was Kennedy's scalp made of bullet-proof cast iron or some other impossible-to-penetrate material? Lacking that type of crazy explanation, I cannot see how it would be possible for a bullet that caused the amount of damage to the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's skull that most CTers think it DID cause, to NOT have penetrated the RIGHT-REAR scalp of Kennedy's head and caused at least SOME visible damage to the outer scalp of the President. In a word -- impossible." -- DVP; April 2008

Related video (re: Klein's and Oswald's rifle purchase):

We don't know that Hidell's name wasn't on the application for Box 2915. That portion of the application was discarded. And for CTers who bring up the FBI report found in CE2585, I offered up this retort in 2010.... " "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585] But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963? Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915. And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made [see the link below to see Craig's gaffe]: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not. Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915. In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister. Why? Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail. So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application. [...] BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail. But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010 JFK Archives / Oswald's Post Office Applications

As Bob said above, Bill Sharp was evidently the ONLY gunsmith in the Klein's warehouse. Therefore, who ELSE could have mounted Oswald's scope? Furthermore, Sharp said in his 2013 interview that he said this to his boss on 11/23/63 (he must have worked on Saturdays), “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it.” Grain of salt disclaimer -- Yes, Sharp was an 82-year-old man when he said the above quote. And nobody's memory is perfect after 82 years. But the whole "Klein's never mounted Oswald's scope" argument made by CTers is just ludicrous on its face, IMO. Here's why.... "To say that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?" -- DVP; Aug. 2012

Maybe David Josephs should take a pill before reading this Nov. 2013 interview with gunsmith William Sharp.... http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=226036 “It’s my rifle, I put the scope on it.” -- William H. Sharp http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html

..........

Robert thinks a bullet hitting water is the same as hitting a human skull. Brilliant, Bob. And Bob will also totally ignore the various tests done with 6.5mm WCC/MC bullets fired into human skulls, with the result always being a mangled and fragmented bullet: Well, you just blew your own theory. Unless you think CE567 and 569 "disintegrated into miniscule pieces". Try again.