David Von Pein

I don't know the answer to this question as it relates to "windows", "doors", "soda bottles", "shells", and "other locations". And I don't really know if some of those items were even checked for fingerprints, such as doors and windows. But we do know that your resident "patsy" had his prints lifted off of various objects that were obviously used by the assassin of JFK -- e.g., the Sniper's Nest boxes and the rifle and the paper bag found in the corner of the Nest (and multiple police officers DID testify that they DID see that paper sack [CE142] on the floor in the Sniper's Nest after the shooting--Studebaker, Lt. Day, and Montgomery all said they saw it there on the floor). Perhaps more things on the sixth floor should have been checked for fingerprints. I don't know. But I do know that the person who owned the weapon that killed JFK had his prints on a lot of stuff on that sixth floor on 11/22/63. And yes, he worked there on a daily basis since October 16th. I don't deny that fact. And yes, he was up on that sixth floor probably every day that he worked there, giving him the opportunity to place his prints on any number of boxes and other objects on that sixth floor. But the RIFLE and that empty 38-inch-long PAPER SACK were certainly NOT things that Lee Oswald would normally be touching on any other day except November 22, 1963. And the prints of Oswald's on the boxes (deep inside the Sniper's Nest), IMO, serve as corroborating evidence which only further bolster the idea that Oswald was, indeed, present at that sixth-floor window when Kennedy drove through Dealey Plaza. Those "box prints" themselves don't prove Oswald shot the President. But when we ADD those prints to the OTHER things linked to Oswald inside that very same sniper's lair, then I think those box prints become more significant. How could a reasonable person examining ALL of the Sniper's Nest evidence simply toss aside the fact that Oswald's own prints were also located on two of those boxes inside that Nest? And his fairly fresh prints at that (according to the FBI fingerprint expert).

Why are you assuming something you can't possibly know or prove, Bill? You don't know for a fact that the sixth-floor sniper (Oswald, of course) did not use the telescopic sight when he was shooting JFK. And I don't know either. It's another one of those "unanswerable" questions--Did he or didn't he use the scope? We can never know for sure. But there's one thing about the rifle that is not debatable -- bullets from OSWALD'S rifle were definitely fired at JFK's limousine on 11/22/63. (And you surely don't want to claim that the two front-seat bullet fragments that came out of Oswald's gun were "planted". Do you, Bill?) CE567 AND CE569

This very peripheral question ranks as #5 on your list, Bill? Geesh. (This laundry list of yours must not be in order of importance, huh?) Anyway, I'm not sure why you say this: "From someone who knew the owner of the rifle." Huh? Why did you jump to such a conclusion? Anyway, just like the "Where Did The Bullets Come From?" inquiry, this question is also in the "Unanswerable" category. AFAIK, we can never know exactly where Lee Oswald obtained the homemade-like sling that was attached to his rifle. He very likely could have gotten it from any number of places. Nobody can know for certain. But, again, just like with the bullets, where does this type of question go anyway? Does it necessarily have to lead down "Conspiracy Road" or "Patsy Boulevard"? No, it does not. And anyone who thinks that just because there are no definitive answers to questions like these (regarding the bullets and the leather strap), it therefore means something sinister and that Oswald is innocent---is wrong. It means no such thing. As a parallel, do you think it's necessary to know where and when O.J. Simpson bought the knife he used to kill his two victims in 1994? Heck, the murder weapon was never even found in that murder case--but Simpson's guilt is blatantly obvious nonetheless--and has been proven scientifically. But in the JFK case, we DO have the murder weapon--and the verifiable murder weapon that killed John F. Kennedy belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald. The bullets that struck the President came from OSWALD'S very own gun. Shouldn't that fact be at least a little bit pertinent to the conspiracists of the world?

The rifle came from Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago. It was shipped to OSWALD'S known alias (A. Hidell) to OSWALD'S own post-office box in Dallas. Why this question is even asked over and over again by the conspiracy crowd is a huge mystery to me, because Oswald's ownership of the Carcano rifle could not be any more solid, firm, final, and irrevocable. OSWALD'S handwriting is on the money order that paid for the rifle. OSWALD'S writing is also on the order form for the rifle...and on the envelope mailed to Klein's. And OSWALD'S P.O. Box number is the address that Klein's definitely shipped the rifle to on 3/20/63 (per Waldman No. 7 below). And the serial number is on this internal Klein's order form too. How much more proof is required than this to prove that Rifle C2766 found in the TSBD was OSWALD'S/"HIDELL'S" own rifle? Is this document supposedly a fake too? Was Klein's Sporting Goods part of the "plot" to frame Oswald too? IOW--how far down "Everything's Fake Avenue" is a sensible person expected to travel? And why would you expect a postal employee to remember a transaction from many months earlier? It was undoubtedly just another package being picked up by another P.O. Box owner. Nothing more. Nothing less. And detailed records for every package that is picked up at the post office aren't kept. Put yourself in the shoes of the post office clerk -- After eight months have passed, do you think you could recall handing a particular package to a particular person when, at the time of the transaction, you would have had no reason at all to say to yourself: Now I'd better make a mental note of THIS particular package pick-up, because this guy picking up this package just might shoot the President eight months from now? The proof that Oswald ordered and paid for (and, logically, took possession of) Rifle #C2766 (as well as Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210) is a mile deep. Here's how deep it is (including, in the first link, new information that I obtained recently about the "12" that appears in the postmark on the envelope that Oswald mailed to Klein's): THE POSTMARK ON COMMISSION EXHIBIT 773 OSWALD'S RIFLE PURCHASE OSWALD'S REVOLVER PURCHASE

The only answer to this question is: Nobody knows. But does that answer have to mean that Lee Oswald did not obtain any bullets to go into his newly-purchased mail-order rifle in March of 1963? Answer--of course not. After all, common sense would tell a reasonable person that if somebody buys a rifle, then it's logical to assume that the purchaser of that rifle probably would want to get some bullets to put into that rifle. And I think it's fairly obvious that Oswald did, indeed, obtain some bullets (from somewhere) to put into his Carcano rifle prior to his shooting at General Edwin Walker with that gun on April 10, 1963, and (of course) also prior to taking that same gun to work with him on November 22, 1963, and firing three bullets at President Kennedy. A logical question I could throw back in the face of the CTers would be this one..... Since many many Internet conspiracists actually believe in the fairy tale theory that has Oswald being set up and framed as the "patsy" for JFK's murder (with many of those same CTers also believing that the entire paper trail that links Oswald with the Carcano rifle is a phony/fake paper trail)....then why didn't those patsy plotters take the additional step of phonying up some documents that would provide a paper trail for LHO's bullet purchases too? Did the plotters just figure nobody would ask the question Bill Kelly just asked: Where did Oswald buy his bullets?? ~shrug~ A final common-sense inquiry.... Who buys a rifle and then never purchases a single bullet to go into it? Food for Carcano thought....isn't it?

All three shots came from the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. The evidence to support this conclusion is overwhelming in nature (despite the opinions to the contrary expressed by conspiracy proponents). Only four or five witnesses said they heard shots coming from more than one single direction/location (that's less than 5% of the total witnesses). And more than 75% of the witnesses heard EXACTLY three shots. And THREE expended shells were found under the sniper's window in the Depository. That's pretty decent "Three Shots Were Fired" corroboration right there, sans anything else at all. Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm Note -- In 2013, John McAdams compiled updated charts regarding the earwitnesses, with even more witnesses now falling into the "three shots" pie slice. Here are the 2013 charts:

Re: The Dr. Pepper machine.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dr-pepper-talk.html http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12

Says the man who thinks Oswald wasn't even on the sixth floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63. Pot & Kettle meet once more. I love it!

Three shots were fired (total). All of them were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The weapon used: Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (serial number C2766). Shot #1 @ Zapruder frame 160 (approx.) (the missed shot). Shot #2 @ Z224 (the SBT shot hitting both Kennedy & Connally). Shot #3 @ Z313 (quite obviously). The fatal head shot. ------- Some supporting articles and sites: The Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses The Missed Shot Controversy The Single-Bullet Theory JFK's Head Wounds The Zapruder Film And The Head Shot

The mud-slinging was minimal in that article, Bill. And there are (IMO) some good and informative things that came out of my forum exchange with CTer Roger Collins at Duncan MacRae's forum earlier this year (which appears in "Addendum #2" of the article)..... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html But in the future I'll try to remember to consult William Kelly when I want to post something to my own personal website/blog. Forgive me for being too verbose in your eyes, Bill. I can't help it, you see. My mother was a real chatterbox. It must be inherited.

OSWALD, BAKER, TRULY, AND THE COKE: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Oswald-Baker-Truly-And-Coca-Cola

Sorry. I guess it did get "off topic" yet again. So easy for that to happen, especially when a person (Bill Kelly) asked me a series of questions within this now-derailed thread. (Of course, Bill isn't to be scolded in this "off topic" regard, is he Bob? Only me.) Should I have just ignored Bill's list of inquiries to me, Bob? ~reciprocal sigh~

Frazier, of course, did drive the rifle from Irving to the TSBD on 11/22. That fact couldn't be more obvious. And it's also obvious that the bag found on the sixth floor could easily hold Oswald's disassembled rifle, as this side-by-side photo amply illustrates (the caption of the FBI photo from CD#1 is slightly off when it says that the blanket was found in "Oswald's garage"; it should say Ruth Paine's garage, of course; that is one of dozens of errors made by the FBI during its haste in preparing its 12/9/63 report): http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=327309 Ergo, Wesley Frazier was simply in error about the bag's length. VINCE BUGLIOSI -- "Is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?" BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true." BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?" FRAZIER -- "That is true." http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/buell-wesley-frazier.html Tell us, William Kelly, how did Oswald's prints get on that 38-inch paper bag (CE142) if he didn't handle it at some point prior to the assassination? Huh? On the bus? The rifle was almost certainly transported back to Dallas from New Orleans via Ruth Paine's station wagon. No mystery there at all. So why create one? There was nobody in the Sniper's Nest window during that time. You surely aren't relying on Lillian Mooneyham's observations about seeing a person in the window several MINUTES after the shooting, are you? The idea that any assassin would just be hanging around the sniper's window (to be easily seen from the outside) for several minutes after having just shot the President is just crazy and everybody knows it. Mooneyham's times are off--which couldn't be a more common mistake made by witnesses. Another perfect example being Earlene Roberts' estimate of "3 or 4 minutes" for Oswald staying inside his closet-sized room on 11/22, even though Roberts herself contradicted her own "3 or 4 minutes" timeline when she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". Does that activity usually take a person three or four minutes to accomplish? Well, there was no "man" in the window several minutes after the assassination. But anyway, I do know that OSWALD'S fingerprints and palmprints were on two of the boxes that were located deep within the Sniper's Nest. Stated another way -- Lee Harvey Oswald's fingers touched the same boxes that were utilized by the person who fired a rifle at President Kennedy. Do the math. It isn't rocket science--or even 10th grade algebra. It's 1st grade 2+2 arithmetic. You're just looking for an excuse to throw away some very incriminating evidence that corroborates and solidifies all of the other "Oswald Was Here" stuff that is also on the table. But go ahead and play defense attorney for Oswald if that's your desire. But I doubt a jury would buy it (especially when that same jury considers whose gun deposited those three empty cartridge cases that were lying just a few inches away from Oswald's prints on those boxes). I see you've fallen for the myth about Malcolm Wallace's prints being on the TSBD boxes. Of course, Wallace's prints were not on any of those boxes, because the only unidentified print on ANY of the TSBD boxes (per Commission Exhibit 3131) was a palmprint, not a fingerprint. The Wallace thing is a hoax. Simple as that.

Sure I know all of that stuff, Bill. Does that mean I have to swallow it like you have?

Then how did OSWALD'S rifle get on the sixth floor, Bill? And why did Oswald lie about the "curtain rods"? What possible reason would Oswald have had for telling such a false tale to Buell Frazier (twice)? And you think it's just a coincidence that OSWALD'S prints were all over the boxes in the Sniper's Nest--the same nest where Kennedy's killer was located at 12:30 PM? My, what lucky patsy plotters.

Why do so many conspiracy believers totally ignore Oswald's own words concerning where he said he was located at the time of the shooting?

You're really enjoying this "Prayer Man" stuff, aren't you Sean? You actually think that the fuzzy "preacher" in the doorway is Lee Oswald, don't you? Even with Buell Frazier standing right beside him, with Frazier telling us later that Oswald was NOT in that doorway at 12:30? And even with Oswald himself telling the world he was inside the building when the shooting occurred? And what is so incredibly impossible (or "desperate", to use your word) about "Mr. Prayer Man" being a non-TSBD worker? I'm sure there were many Dal-Tex workers and Post Office Annex workers, etc., who were in the area of Elm & Houston when the President's motorcade passed through Dealey Plaza. Why would it be unheard of for a non-Depository individual to take advantage of those steps? After all, the Depository was a public building. Those steps weren't marked "For Depository Workers Only" on November 22, 1963. To hear you talk, you seem to be of the opinion that the only person on the planet who could be "Prayer Man" is Lee Harvey Oswald.....which, of course, is pure nonsense. (Especially when factoring in all of the "Oswald Shot JFK" evidence that exists on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.)

It could be anybody, Sean. I don't know who it is. Nor do you.

I never said I thought "Prayer Man" was Frazier. I think you're probably right about Frazier. Frazier is the person you've got circled in your photo above. At least I think it certainly could be Frazier inside that circle. As for "Prayer Man" -- I haven't the slightest idea who that person is. But one person I know it is NOT is Lee Harvey Oswald. There's no possibility that Oswald was on the Depository steps at 12:30. If he had been outside the building on those steps, he would have said he was there when questioned by the police (and the press)....http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/oswalds-patsy-lie.html

Sean, Do you think "Prayer Man" is wearing a long-sleeve or a short-sleeve shirt?

New revised Second Edition [$65.00!]..... http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-jfk-assassinations-forgotten-hero.html

DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 90) (Re: DiEugenio's Smear Campaign Against McAdams)

Yeah. After all, he's got to pay 20 reviewers a day to write all those fake reviews. Can't be cheap. (But, then too, maybe the publisher takes care of that stuff.)

You do, indeed, have a point regarding Bill O'Reilly's "Killing Kennedy" book. I don't have that book and have not read it, but of course I know the bottom-line theme in the book -- LHO was the person who shot JFK and Tippit. So from that limited "bottom line" standpoint, I would still recommend the book...if only just so a little more "equal time" can be achieved between the crazy CT books and the few-and-far-between LN volumes (even if O'Reilly's LN volume wasn't written by a so-called "JFK Scholar"). But I will say that there is most definitely something fishy about the thousands of five-star reviews that O'Reilly's book gets at Amazon.com. I have no proof, but those short reviews sure look rigged to me, just to hike the overall "star" rating for the book. But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are several people every single day of the year (sometimes as many as 15 or 20 people per day) that have a desire to go to the Amazon site and write a very short, two-line blurb (almost always just two measly lines) to rave about O'Reilly's "good read". But it sure looks strange to me. (And I'm not just saying this for the first time today either....) "A few weeks ago I noticed that there is definitely something very strange about all the 5-star "reviews" for Bill O'Reilly's book. It looks like Bill has his people very busy writing hundreds of fake reviews for his new JFK book. A shame. The tip-off is the fact that almost all of those short, one-paragraph 5-star "reviews" represent the FIRST and ONLY review ever written by the reviewer at Amazon. A few of the reviewers have 2 or 3 other reviews, but the vast majority have zero other reviews, which is a sure sign that something's rotten in the state of "Killing Kennedy Review Land"." -- DVP; November 21, 2012

Do you think any CTer will take any "dramatic license" into account when watching Tom Hanks' film? Not a chance. DiEugenio has already blasted Hanks' use of dramatic license...and that's just from a snippet in the 2-minute trailer. And you think Stone's ignoring a very important FACT (Oswald taking a package into work on 11/22) should be labelled "dramatic license"? Hilarious! A much more accurate label there would be a "license to ignore the facts". Stone had a patent on that license.