David Von Pein

Subject: Re: Bullet CE399 Date: 9/27/2012 (10:08:14 P.M. EDT) From: Gerald Blaine To: David Von Pein ---------------------------------- Dave, Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will recheck with Clint what he remembers. It is very unusual for WHD [White House Detail] agents to get involved in investigative work, but Dick went to Cal and studied Criminal Justice so he should have known the rules of evidence. James Rowley once worked for the FBI and he too should have understood the rules. I have no doubt that it was the bullet that came from the stretcher. Jerry ============================== Subject: Re: Bullet CE399 Date: 9/27/2012 (11:26:29 P.M. EDT) From: David Von Pein To: Gerald Blaine ---------------------------------- Hi again Jerry, Thanks for your latest reply. There was, indeed, an envelope involved with the transfer of Bullet CE399 as it went from the possession of the Secret Service to the FBI lab in Washington on 11/22/63. That "envelope" fact is confirmed in Commission Document No. 7 (which I linked in an earlier mail I sent you). So, if Richard Johnsen marked the envelope, rather than the bullet itself, it would certainly explain why he said he could not "positively identify" the bullet that was later shown to him by Elmer Todd of the FBI in June of 1964. Because in such a circumstance, Johnsen wouldn't have placed his initials on the bullet itself, but instead would have marked only the container (envelope) that Johnsen put the bullet into. However, if Dick Johnsen (and possibly James Rowley too) had marked the evidence envelope containing the bullet, I'm wondering why the FBI (in CE2011) didn't mention something about Johnsen and/or Rowley marking that envelope in the text of the report we find in CE2011? Do you think Johnsen and Rowley, in the intervening sevens months between November 1963 and June 1964, had just forgotten about marking the envelope? And therefore they never even mentioned it in June when the FBI showed them the bullet? Or is it possible that they did mention marking the envelope, but the FBI just failed to note that important fact in CE2011? From the way it stands in the official record of CE2011, we are unquestionably left with the impression (to the delight of many conspiracy theorists around the globe) that neither Johnsen nor Rowley could complete any kind of chain of possession or chain of custody for Bullet CE399 at all. Is that the way it appears to you by reading CE2011, Jerry? In addition, do you have any more information you can supply me regarding your previous statement about Richard Johnsen himself being the person who handed the bullet over to the FBI on 11/22/63 (instead of it being James Rowley)? The official documents clearly indicate that it was Rowley, and not Johnsen, who gave the bullet (and envelope) to FBI agent Elmer Todd on the night of the assassination. If you acquire any additional information about this matter, please drop me a line. I thank you very much, Jerry, for the answers you have given me today. I greatly appreciate it. And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact (for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts on the Internet in the past several years. Regards, David Von Pein

On September 23, 2012, I sent an e-mail to former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine, co-author of the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail". I sent the same e-mail message to former Secret Service agent Clint Hill as well (by way of Lisa McCubbin; I didn't have an e-mail address for Mr. Hill, so I asked Lisa if she could possibly forward my message to him). The e-mail I sent contained questions I had concerning the policy that the Secret Service had for its agents marking evidence in 1963. I received a very strange reply from Mr. Blaine today (September 27). The link below includes my original e-mail to Gerald Blaine, plus all answers I received and all follow-up correspondence concerning the issues raised. I will be updating the page linked below when (and if) I get more replies from Mr. Blaine and/or Clint Hill: JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Secret Service And CE399

In case anybody cares, here are the latest replies I have received: DON PEARSON OF THE "MACHINE CANCEL SOCIETY" SAID: Interesting. I had not read that part of the conspiracy. I think the more interesting part is the cancel. A Pitney Bowes, I think. ================================ DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But what does the "12" in the postmark mean, Don? That's the key question. Any thoughts? ================================ A MEMBER OF THE "MACHINE CANCEL SOCIETY" SAID: The 12 just means that this piece of mail was canceled on machine #12 in the main post office -- or main handling office for sorting mail, if that is somewhere other than the main post office building. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

Yes, you could be right, Greg. Here's an excerpt of what I wrote on my site: "One thing, however, that might go in the direction of the "12" on Oswald's rifle-order envelope (CE773) being a postal zone code after all is the fact that the "12" is facing the same direction as the letters in "Dallas, Tex." (as if the "12" could be a continuation of the "Dallas, Tex." location), whereas in the Dallas postmarks that have a number/letter combination stamped on them (like "3B" and "2B"), those markings are facing the other way, opposite the way that "Dallas, Tex." is engraved on the postmark. Whether or not that "upside down" fact regarding the number/letter codes is significant at all in determining the meaning of such markings, I haven't the foggiest idea. But I thought it was worth mentioning anyway." -- DVP; 8/13/12

Follow-ups: JFK Archives/The Postmark On CE773 (Follow-Up E-mails)

A CTer who thinks LHO never ordered a rifle by mail order in '63 and who thinks ALL of the paperwork connected with that rifle purchase is fake and fraudulent is preaching to me about "logic". Oh, my weak bladder! Have at least some pity on it, will ya Davey!

Unbelievable. The internal illogic and "xxxx, xxxx" rhetoric of outer-fringe JFK conspiracy theorists is staggering. So, per DiEugenio, the only reason Westra said that Klein's undoubtedly mounted scopes on "some" 40-inch rifles was so that he wouldn't look like an "idiot". Therefore, DiEugenio has just added another xxxx to his growing list of liars connected with this case -- Mitchell Westra. IOW -- Westra didn't really believe what he was telling the HSCA in February 1978. He only said what he said so he wouldn't look foolish, which is a silly explanation provided by DiEugenio. Why would Westra have looked like a fool by merely saying he didn't mount the scope on Oswald's rifle but that somebody else probably did mount it? (Which is precisely what he was saying.) If we were to take a detailed tally of the people on DiEugenio's Liars list, the total would surely be nearing four digits by now.

~sigh~ Yet another CTer claim that is so obviously mythical--and dead wrong. And even Mitchell Westra, who talked about scope-mounting in an interview with the HSCA, didn't say that Klein's NEVER mounted scopes on 40-inch guns. In fact, he specifically told the HSCA that "undoubtably Klein's mounted some" scopes on forty-inch rifles (those are the HSCA's words in quotes, paraphrasing what Westra told the HSCA; see photo below). The CTers apparently want to totally ignore those words from Westra. In the final analysis, it seems quite obvious from the various 1963 Klein's advertisements pictured below that Klein's DID mount scopes on the 40-inch carbines they shipped to customers in 1963. The three Klein's ads shown in the photo below are almost identical when it comes to the description being used concerning the scope, with one of the ads (the one from February 1963 that Lee Oswald used to order his rifle) indicating a 36-inch carbine, while the other two show a 40-inch weapon: So 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? I suppose a conspiracy theorist can always argue that the words "as illustrated" (or, as is the case with the November 1963 ad, just the word "illustrated", without the word "as" preceding it) doesn't have to mean the scope will be attached to the gun itself when Klein's ships it to a customer. The CTers can always claim that "as illustrated" only refers to the scope itself, and not its "mounted" status on the gun. But I think another fair and even more accurate and reasonable interpretation of those words ("as illustrated") is an interpretation that I'm guessing a lot of people would have when they read that ad -- and that is: the scope is going to be mounted on the rifle I'm ordering, because that's what is "illustrated" in this ad. But in any event, we can know for certain that Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago absolutely, positively DID mount a scope on a forty-inch Mannlicher-Carcano rifle for at least one of its customers in March of 1963 -- and that customer was Lee Harvey Oswald. http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence

Jim, You're actually only proving that your conspirators who you think faked all the rifle-purchasing documents were (once again) members of the "Idiot Patsy-Framers Of America Club". Because you think that ALL of the documents ARE fakes...which means some goofy plotters deliberately put into the record of this case a fake mail-order form for a 36-inch carbine, and those same plotters (I assume it's the same group, right Jimmy?) also put into the record of this case Waldman #7, which shows that C2766, a 40-inch gun, was mailed to the proverbial patsy. Can't even YOU, Jimbo, see the problem here? Therefore, your plotters made a really stupid error (seemingly on purpose), but Klein's couldn't possibly have simply run out of 36-inch rifles a little earlier than they had intended. Is that it, James? Jimmy, the problem is not with people like me (LNers). It's always been with the CTers (like you) who never, ever evaluate the evidence properly or with a granule of common sense attached. And this rifle-length silliness is a prime example of your continued and never-ending failings when it comes to assessing virtually everything connected with the JFK assassination.

Who cares? I'll again offer the responses from TWO different people from two different highly-specialized "postmark" type organizations...either of which is in a much better position (knowledge-wise) to know about these trivial "postmark" matters than anyone else on this JFK forum. Here they are, for DiEugenio to sidestep and/or ignore for a third time: "It just means that it was cancelled at machine 12 where they cancelled the mail in Dallas. It's not a zone code or anything." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "The 12 is the machine number that canceled the envelope. Larger post offices have multiple machines to cancel their mail, so they number the machines and sometimes the machine number appears in the postmark, and sometimes it appears in the killer bars."

You think I need your permission to post something that I received via e-mail from Gary? Get real. If you've got a gripe about your private mails with Gary Mack, go gripe to him, and tell him not to send a carbon copy to me anymore. That'll solve it.

Don't know. Don't know. Probably to frame poor sap Oswald. Right, Jimmy? Common sense alone tells any reasonable person that there weren't "40 to 50" MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same number on them. You DO know what the significance of a "serial number" is, don't you, Jim? SERIAL NUMBER (Wikipedia, From 2008) -- "...A unique number assigned for identification which varies from its successor or predecessor by a fixed discrete integer value." Why even put serial numbers on their guns if there are going to be "40 to 50" in existence that have the exact same number (per Thomas H. Purvis)? That's just nuts, Jimmy. And even you, an outer-fringe CTer if ever one existed, must realize it's nuts. I have no idea. And neither do you. But I like the way you've completely ignored the detailed list of the Klein's ads for the year 1963 that Gary Mack supplied a while back, wherein we can see that the February ad for the 36-inch model was either the last or next-to-last month in '63 that Klein's was advertising the 36-inch model. All other months in '63 they were showing the 40-inch gun in their ads. Hence, it's not at all unreasonable to assume that even though Oswald used an ad that advertised a 36-inch gun, Klein's simply ran out of stock of the 36-inchers shortly before they received Oswald's mail-order form, and they merely substituted the 40-inch (almost identical) weapon in its place. And, as I've stated before, it's my guess that Oswald didn't even know the difference. And it's also my guess that he wouldn't have cared if he HAD known the difference. (Do you think LHO got out a tape measure and noticed it was 4 inches longer than the one he ordered?) >>> "Isn't that an important point to demonstrate?" <<< Not when some ordinary common sense is applied to the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" debate. >>> "Did Klein's run out of 36 inch rifles to ship? OK, when did this happen." <<< See my earlier reply. >>> "Is there another case in which they [Klein's] sent the wrong rifle?" <<< Probably. Because we know their stock of thirty-six-inch guns must have been exhausted at SOME point prior to when they changed their ads in the magazines. Do you really think that things lined up absolutely PERFECTLY with regard to the number of 36-inch rifles Klein's had in stock in early 1963 and the number of mail-order coupons that Klein's received from customers that had the 36-inch gun advertised? It's ridiculous to think that the number of 36-inch rifles ran out at the EXACT moment they received their very last mail-order request from a magazine that was advertising that exact length weapon. There were bound to be a few customers who ordered the 36-incher, but got the 40-incher. And Lee Harvey Oswald was one of those customers. Addendum: BTW, Jimmy, do you still think the "12" on Oswald's postmarked envelope represents a Dallas zone code? You've been nailed on that issue, and now you're silent. I wonder why? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

I want to repeat this comment I made earlier (which is very important and means the CTers who love the idea of multiple "C2766" rifles don't have a leg to stand on, and never did): "Even if I'm dead wrong, and there are 150 additional Carcano 91/38 rifles in the world today with the number "C2766" on them, it's totally immaterial anyway. Why? Because we know that only ONE particular Carcano rifle with C2766 on it was the weapon that killed President Kennedy in Dallas. And that one particular C2766 rifle is CE139, the one with Lee Oswald's prints on it that was found in the building where Lee Oswald worked." -- DVP

Why are you so obsessed with this, David? I don't find it unusual in the least that we have never seen OTHER (non-Oswald) orders from Klein's files. I wouldn't EXPECT to see any non-LHO orders from Klein's ... because, as stressed previously, any non-C2766 orders were IMMATERIAL when it came to the FBI's investigation into the JFK murder case. They were searching for ONE specific serial number. No other number or order mattered. I wonder why it matters to you so much? It's crazy. In a related topic, has anybody ever seen any other order forms filled out by Seaport Traders for other revolvers shipped to non-Oswald customers? I never have. Have you, David? And if you haven't, are you going to start belly-aching about fake evidence in the Seaport files regarding the revolver that Oswald ordered?

DiEugenio totally misrepresents Frazier's "repeated" comment (as expected). Frazier was talking about the NUMBER being repeated on rifles, but a prefix letter is then added if there's a repeat number. Hence the reason we have a 2766 and a C2766....and there's probably a D2766 and a G2766, etc. End result: No two rifles ever have the exact same complete serial number on them. I wonder why Jimbo cannot fathom that concept?

More DiEugenio Drivel. All bluster and BS from Jimbo re the serial numbers (as usual). We all know about the FBI (Hoover) report stating that a "2766" rifle existed. But that is not the same as another "C2766" at all. The prefix makes it unique (my whole point from before). SERIAL NUMBER (Wikipedia) -- "...A unique number assigned for identification which varies from its successor or predecessor by a fixed discrete integer value." And John Canal proved (via correspondence he had with Dr. John Lattimer in 2004) that Lattimer's "C2766" remark in his 1980 book was merely an error that could not be corrected before the book went to press. [Fully discussed HERE. DiEugenio, naturally, thinks Lattimer was lying through his teeth.] And if Purvis REALLY had in his possession a second C2766 MC 91/38 gun -- we'd have certainly seen pictures of that gun plastered all over the Internet by now. But I sure haven't seen any such proof via photos. Have you, Jimmy? I believe that no other C2766 Carcano has ever existed. And, as mentioned before, I challenge anyone to locate two rifles of ANY make or model that bear the exact same serial number. To date, I've never even seen that type of generic proof re duplicate serial numbers on rifles. Have you, Jimmy? If so, please show us. My belief is that Robert Frazier of the FBI was correct when he said this to the WC: MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?" MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is." -------------- MORE RIFLE CHAT: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-6.html

This gives me a perfect opportunity to utilize this same type of "YOU FIND IT" argument in a related "rifle" area of the case: For years, CTers like Thomas H. Purvis (and others) have claimed that there are very likely a whole bunch of additional 91/38 Carcano rifles in existence with the serial number C2766, other than just CE139 (Oswald's rifle). Purvis, in fact, has stated in the past that there could be as many as "40 to 50" Carcano rifles floating around with the exact same serial number of C2766 adorning them. (Which is totally insane, to begin with.) But, to date, I have never ever seen any conspiracy theorist produce any proof at all that even TWO different Carcano rifles have the exact same serial number -- and that goes for the number "C2766" or ANY other serial number. I've never seen anyone show proof that there were two rifles of ANY make or model that have an identical serial number. The whole idea of identical serial numbers on any products is an absurd notion on its face. And it's particularly nutty to think that there are as many as "40 to 50" Carcano 91/38s floating around with C2766 on them. The whole idea of a serial number in the first place is to give that ONE item uniqueness, which sets it apart from all others in its general class. And particularly rifles, which are often used in crimes and would require tracing via unique serial numbers. I can't show David Josephs any other Klein's order forms for rifles (other than Waldman 7, which is the form that hangs Oswald in a number of ways). But that's not because no other forms exist. Of course similar forms did exist in the Klein's files in 1963. For Pete sake, the Klein's people were scouring those forms and records until the wee small hours of 11/23/63 looking for one specific form with "C2766" on it -- which, of course, they found. And that's the ONLY form the FBI was interested in in November 1963. Other rifle orders were meaningless then, just as they are meaningless now. But in my "SHOW ME THE RIFLE" example, I feel the reason we haven't seen any other "C2766" Carcano rifles is because none of those do exist (other than the one marked CE139 in the National Archives). But, maybe in the year 2499, some old gun buff will produce another ancient Mannlicher-Carcano with the number C2766 stamped on it. But I'm not holding my breath. (Are you?) But, of course, even if I'm dead wrong, and there are 150 additional Carcano 91/38 rifles in the world today with the number "C2766" on them, it's totally immaterial anyway. Why? Because we know that only ONE particular Carcano rifle with C2766 on it was the weapon that killed President Kennedy in Dallas. And that one particular C2766 rifle is CE139, the one with Lee Oswald's prints on it that was found in the building where Lee Oswald worked. ------------ RELATED "C2766" TALK: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-8.html

To some extent, yes. Because, in the final analysis, it's the physical evidence (plus the eyewitness evidence and Oswald's own guilty actions on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63) that solve this case. It's not LHO's bio that solves it. Although, yes, it's nice to know the background of the person who committed the crime. Of course it's nice to know that. But a jury wants to see the PROOF that the accused committed the crime -- and there's more than enough proof in this case to show that the accused person (Oswald) did commit the two murders that he was charged with committing in 1963. And there is no hard evidence to indicate that Oswald was a "patsy" or that he conspired with anyone else. You've got loose threads (very loose ones) that you must think mean something when it comes to solving the JFK case. (Otherwise, you wouldn't be bringing them up in the first place.) But one thing you don't have -- and never will -- is the needle or the glue that ties those loose threads to the Presidential assassination in question. Tie them together, Greg. I'll be waiting.

Do you want to "go" somewhere with your "facts" above, Greg? Or do you prefer to just state such peripheral things re John Pic and Ed Keenan and leave them hanging out there, unattached to any of the actual evidence in the JFK case? Spell it out for us -- you think Oswald was working as an Intelligence agent at age 13? Right? And you think the Intelligence agency that employed the very young Oswald ultimately murdered the President and framed Oswald for that crime? Right? (I can't blame you for not wanting to come out and admit that you believe in that kind of stuff, Greg. I wouldn't want to go on record with garbage like that either.)

You conspiracists just can't get it through your heads that Mr. Mack is NOT an "LNer". He thinks there WAS a conspiracy. Why do you guys always totally ignore that fact when it comes to discussing Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum? As for the Warren Commission's investigation being "incomplete", let's face reality here -- for a conspiracy theorist like yourself, Greg, no history of this case could ever possibly hope to be "complete", because you keep piling on more and more stuff (aka: chaff) that only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to the basic bottom-line facts concerning Lee Oswald's guilt. A great example of such muddying activity can be found in your posts in this thread. You've got enough six degrees of separation junk to cover a dozen murder cases. Does it ever end? And do you really think that stuff like the stuff quoted below (quoting you, Greg Parker) is relevant to who murdered JFK? Does any of this really change the physical evidence in the case--which is evidence that conclusively proves LHO's guilt in TWO murders in 1963?: "At the same time young Lee lived with him, John Pic worked in the intelligence branch of the Coast Guard (The Port Security Unit) alongside the FBI and ONI chasing commie subversives out of the ports. Lee's truancy commenced when he turned 13 and ended at the same time Pic left the PSU. While all this was going on, research was being done into the Korean POWs and what made some "turn". A Harvard graduate was inside the consulate office with the former Harvard CIA spotter when Oswald attempted to defect. His name was Ed Keenan. He was an expert in Soviet and Russian history, language and society. The same year that Oswald left the USSR, Keenan was kicked out as a spy. His name is missing from your "history" and he is not mentioned anywhere in the 26 volumes. Why is that?" [End Parker Quotes.] Oh, brother, what a bunch of nothin'. The single biggest thing that has made the JFK murder case seem so endlessly complicated (even though it's really a very simple crime to solve) is the fact that so many conspiracy theorists like Greg Parker, James Fetzer, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and John Armstrong (et al) have spent thousands of hours heaping more and more "suspects" and "connections" and minutiae and unsupportable theories onto the conspiracy table, making it absolutely impossible to make the record "complete". As Vincent Bugliosi has said many times (and he's right): The JFK case is endless; there is no bottom to the pile. And the only reason it's endless is because of the conspiracy theorists' never-ending quest to be right about some element of their perpetual conspiracy theories in the John F. Kennedy case. But when an LNer on the other side takes time to examine some of these theories and "connections" more closely, the theory always turns out to be bogus. Here are just a few examples: 1.) The subject of this very Education Forum thread -- the postmark on Oswald's envelope (CE773). There's now good reason to conclude that the "12" on that Dallas postmark doesn't have anything to do with any postal zone within the city of Dallas at all. 2.) The death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Eddy. For years, outer-fringe CTers were saying that Eddy Benavides was murdered as part of some continuing conspiracy plot in the JFK assassination (i.e., to send a message to Domingo prior to his giving his Warren Commission testimony). But recently it's been learned (via Dallas newspaper clippings) that Eddy Benavides didn't die in 1964, he died in 1965, a full year AFTER Domingo gave his WC testimony. 3.) The three tramps, whose arrest records were discovered years later (by a pair of conspiracy theorists, of all people), with the tramps turning out to be nothing but...real tramps. 4.) The "backyard photos are fake" theory, which, amazingly, many CTers still embrace to this day, even though we now know (as of 1977) that Lee Oswald himself personally signed one of the photos and gave it to George DeMohrenschildt. 5.) The people who scream that "The Single-Bullet Theory is physically impossible" should now be hiding their faces in shame and embarrassment here in the 21st century, due to the fine work done by people like Dale Myers, Failure Analysis, and the Discovery Channel -- all of whom have pretty much verified that the SBT is a workable and reasonable conclusion (especially when considering what the silly multi-gun anti-SBT alternatives have got to be if the SBT is untrue). Give me a few more minutes and I could come up with lots more theories that have deservedly been flushed down the toilet since 1963. I'll close with a few relevant and astute quotes from the great Jean Davison: "The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy is interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one may glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are disconnected scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close examination, many of these scenes evaporate." -- Jean Davison; Page 277 of "Oswald's Game" ~~~~~~~~~~ "The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt." -- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game" ~~~~~~~~~~ "Instead of focusing on the important issue -- that Oswald in fact ordered the weapon that was delivered to his P.O. Box, the CTs focus on the "capillaries," nitpicking the P.O.'s faulty record-keeping." -- Jean Davison; January 17, 2006 ~~~~~~~~~~ "The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's character and background interacting with circumstance." -- Jean Davison; Page 297 of "Oswald's Game"

I'm not being "manipulated" by anyone. Gary Mack didn't ask me to post anything. He never has. I do it on my own. Why does this upset CTers so?

Nice batch of meaningless mush there, Greg. None of which has anything to do with the topic of whether or not Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Rifle #C2766. But, as always, Internet conspiracy theorists love to concentrate on all the wrong things in order to paint a double-murderer named Lee Harvey as a poor manipulated patsy. ~yawn~ JFK Archives/Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence

Related Quote (which I've just added to my "Quoting Common Sense" website). I was surprised to learn today that this is the first one from Mr. Mack that I've put on my site. That's a blatant oversight on my part, because Gary's common-sense offerings are plentiful. I'll have to see about adding some more in the future: "The [sixth Floor] Museum has NO position, just history. .... Oswald ordered a Carcano, got one, let others see it, had himself photographed with it, used it to try to kill someone but failed, then used it again to kill and injure. That’s what history says and no amount of whining and question asking [by conspiracy theorists] changes any aspect of that. There is simply no significant evidence that has changed that history, at least so far." -- Gary Mack; August 6, 2012

Why on Earth would the FBI care about other orders in the Klein's files other than the paperwork connected with the purchase of one particular rifle with the serial number C2766 on it (which was purchased by Oswald, of course)? That's the only gun purchase the FBI was looking for -- the one with C2766 attached to it. And that's because they knew that the JFK murder weapon was a gun with "C2766" on it. Any other Klein's order was useless and immaterial to the FBI's investigation. Isn't this obvious? You, David Josephs, are merely concentrating on all the wrong things (again), in order to make Oswald blameless. Of course there were many other order forms in the Klein's files that looked similar to Waldman #7. But none of those other orders had the serial number "C2766" written on them, and therefore none of those many other Klein's orders had any bearing whatsoever on the JFK murder case. So why in the world would those other forms for non-Oswald gun purchases be propped up in any FBI report, or the Warren Report, or anyplace else (outside a forum like this one, which is filled with people who look for excuses 24/7 to exonerate a guilty double-murderer)?

Another thing that suggests that the "12" in the CE773 postmark doesn't represent a postal code within the city of Dallas is demonstrated by the two Dallas, Texas, postmarks from the late 1960s pictured below, which both show a combination of a number and letter after the words "Dallas, Tex." on the postmark. The 1967 postmark has "3B" following the Dallas notation; while the 1968 postmark example has "1B" stamped on it. So, unless Dallas had postal zones labeled with a mixture of numbers and letters (which I've never seen before), then those markings seen in these postmarks can't represent postal zones.