DiEugenio Responds to "Cheerleader" Von Pein
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e2f37c37bf650d53
>>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
The above article by Mr. DiEugenio is just more of the usual bluster
and obfuscation and non-evidence that I've become accustomed to seeing
being written by conspiracy theorists over the years.
A good example of the "non-evidence" supported by the DiEugenios of
the world is when James D. pulls the following nonsense out of his bag
of conspiracy-created silliness:
"It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in
1963." -- James DiEugenio
The above comment is just flat-out idiotic.
Why?
Well, as I've mentioned before, just one look at Waldman Exhibit #7
will tell a reasonable person why:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter
rifle to "A. Hidell" (that's Oswald, of course) in March of 1963.
And that rifle that was shipped to Hidell/Oswald was a rifle that had
the serial number "C2766" stamped on it (that's the exact same serial
number that was stamped on CE139, of course, which is the rifle found
on the sixth floor of the Book Depository at 1:22 PM CST on 11/22/63,
just 52 minutes after JFK was murdered by rifle bullets on the street
in front of the Depository).
And that rifle was shipped by Klein's to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas,
Texas, USA (that's Oswald's post-office box in Dallas, of course).
And CE139 (i.e., the FORTY-INCH rifle with the serial number "C2766"
stamped on it that was found in the TSBD after the assassination) had
the right-hand palmprint of "guess who?" on it? Yes, indeed -- it was
the palmprint of the man that every CT-Kook wants to make look totally
innocent of shooting the President, for some silly reason -- Lee H.
Oswald.
And I'll remind Mr. DiEugenio once again that (to my knowledge) there
hasn't been one person come forward to prove that a second Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle ever existed with the exact same C2766
serial number on it.
Out of those "millions" of MC rifles that Mr. DiEugenio talks about in
his anti-VB review, you'd think that somebody, somewhere, would have
come up with just ONE example of another Mannlicher-Carcano Model
91/38 that was stamped with the number "C2766" IF SUCH A SECOND RIFLE
EXISTED.
But even if another one or more guns DID have that exact same serial
number on it....the chances of CE139 (the TSBD rifle) being a
DIFFERENT rifle from the "C2766" rifle that was shipped to Hidell/
Oswald in March of '63 are so incredibly low that those chances could
almost be considered impossible (if you're a reasonable person, that
is).
So, to quote my favorite author once again (and since I'm supposedly
Vincent's "drum majorette", according to James Di., I might as well
put that title to good use some more):
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the
assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- serial
number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A.
Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
"We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert,
that the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential
limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
"We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard
fall from above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to
the exclusion of all other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond
ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- VINCENT T.
BUGLIOSI; DURING T.V. DOCU-TRIAL IN LONDON; JULY 1986
www.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7e8de66a0
Two more examples of Mr. DiEugenio playing fast and loose with the
facts of the case with respect to the "rifle/serial number" issue are
illustrated below:
1.) DiEugenio states in his "Von Pein: Still Cheerleading" article:
"Tom Purvis has proved there was at least one of those [36-inch
Model 38 Carcanos] stamped with that serial number [C2766]." -- James
D.
Of course, Purvis The Kook "proved" no such thing at all. Not even
close to it, in fact. Jim just THINKS that Purvis has "proved" the
existence of such a second "C2766" Carcano.
Mr. Purvis apparently has a friend or acquaintance who owns (or owned)
a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle with a serial number that began with
"C5XXX" (I can't recall the exact number, but the first number after
the "C" was a "5", which is the important part).
And therefore, per Purvis' way of assessing the situation, this has to
mean (undeniably) that a rifle with "C2766" on it must have also been
produced at that exact Carcano factory (wherever it was, I can't
recall, but it doesn't matter) at some point prior to his friend's
"C5XXX" being manufactured, given the presumed progressive numbering
system for such things.
But Purvis hasn't proven that these various Carcano plants that were
manufacturing the MC rifles many years ago didn't have some kind of
inventory system in place that would ensure that no two rifles of the
same make and model would end up with the same identical serial
number.
I happen to believe that some kind of inventory system for serial
numbers WAS probably being used at those various Carcano factories
(even years ago, before the computer age and more efficient inventory
systems being in place, etc.).
Because the whole point of stamping an item with a SERIAL NUMBER is to
make that item UNIQUE when compared to all others. Right? Of course
it's right. And it stands to reason that the Carcano plants of the
world were adhering to that basic type of "unique" policy with respect
to serial numbers on their products, even back in the early 1900s.
Yes, I suppose it's possible that a second rifle with the number C2766
on it might have slipped through the cracks at one of the plants who
made those weapons years ago. I can't deny that possibility.
But to believe, as Mr. Purvis seems to believe, that as many as "40 to
50" MC 91/38 rifles could have been stamped with that same C2766
number is, IMO, just simply ludicrous.
Plus: To repeat, where is the proof that ANY other MC 91/38 rifle
(besides CE139) was ever stamped with the number "C2766"? To date, no
such proof exists (even via the late Dr. John K. Lattimer; see the
following comments on that).
2.) Jim DiEugenio also said this:
"As I reported, Dr. [John] Lattimer had one [Carcano rifle] of
the 40 inch variety with the C 2766 serial number." -- James D.
Jim evidently hasn't seen the following comments made by Dr. Lattimer
himself (in 2004) regarding the confusing matter that appears in
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln", in which he stated that he
did, indeed, own a Carcano 91/38 rifle with the number C2766 stamped
on it.
But, when we do a little leg work regarding this Lattimer rifle (as
John Canal did, by writing to Lattimer himself), the mystery of Dr.
Lattimer's duplicate "C2766" rifle is cleared up in just a few
words....these words:
"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
used for his tests was C-2766 (the same [serial number] as the
Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and
today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It
was [an] error: "...the book was printed before we noticed the error
and it was too late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
To re-emphasize Dr. Lattimer's quote within John Canal's post above:
"The book [Kennedy And Lincoln] was printed before we noticed
the error and it was too late to correct it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer;
April 2004
Sorry, Jim. There's another C2766 theory down the drain.
So, we're still left at the end of this day (like all other days since
November 22, 1963) with no proof whatsoever that any other Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (other than CE139) was ever stamped with the
specific serial number C2766.
REPRISE:
>>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
Of course, DiEugenio is going to be critical of my criticism of his
anti-VB, anti-LN stance.
You don't think he's going to let those 16-million words that he's
written in a lame attempt to debunk Bugliosi's ironclad pro-LN case go
swirling down the drain without a fight, do you?
Duh.
>>> "Very amusing that he calls you Bugliosi's cheerleader!!" <<<
That's certainly a lot better than being any kind of a
"CTer" [conspiracy theorist], that's for dang sure.
But what I find more amusing is the fact that someone like Mr.
DiEugenio would go to so much trouble to try and smear Mr. Bugliosi's
work (which is work that is based on the hard, verifiable evidence in
the JFK case...vs. the paper-thin foundation of rumor, speculation,
and lots of idiotic reasoning that is employed by most conspiracy
promoters of the Earth).
Am I "Bugliosi's cheerleader"? You might say that (if you want to).
But, then too, there's a very good reason for cheering for VB -- i.e.,
his "Oswald Did It" book, "Reclaiming History", is filled with facts,
verified evidence, logic, 10,000+ sources, and (most of all) basic
common sense:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5561db8d63c885a8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
David Von Pein
RE: JIM DiEUGENIO'S ANTI-BUGLIOSI CAMPAIGN (Continued)......
www.blackopradio.com/black395a.ram
On October 9th, 2008, conspiracy theorist and Vince Bugliosi-basher
James DiEugenio once again appeared on Len Osanic's BlackOpRadio
program (linked above), to continue his bashing of Mr. Bugliosi's
first-rate 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
During the first portions of that BlackOp program, Jim tries to debunk
my comments that I made in the top two articles linked below (which
are responses to some of DiEugenio's recent anti-VB criticisms):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
First off, I'll say (and readily admit) that I didn't respond to a
whole lot of the unsupportable pro-conspiracy stuff that Mr. DiEugenio
wrote in his lengthy Parts 1 and 2 of his review for Bugliosi's book
(those review segments are linked below)....
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_2_review.html
I elected to respond to just a few of the issues relating to Jim's
very long anti-VB review, with one of those items being a response to
the "Rifle"/"C2766" issue -- which, as DiEugenio correctly points out,
is one of the main pieces of evidence that Vincent Bugliosi heavily
relies upon in his book to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.
Although, as a footnote to the above paragraph, I will also point out
that Rifle #C2766 certainly isn't the only thing that leads any
reasonable person to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty of the two
murders he committed in Dallas on 11/22/63; because, as Vince B.
points out in his book chapter entitled "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt",
VB goes on and on for many pages detailing the "53 pieces of
evidence" (both physical and circumstantial) that all lead toward the
GUILT of Lee H. Oswald.*
* = And the only one of those 53 pieces of evidence that I, myself,
think doesn't really belong there is item #41, where Vince talks about
the positive paraffin test to LHO's hands. In my opinion, that item
shouldn't be included in a list like that, because Vince himself (in
the very same book) talks about the unreliability of paraffin tests. I
talk more about my disagreement with VB on this paraffin issue (and a
couple of other instances of disagreement as well) within my own
review for "Reclaiming History", here:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
Now, when speaking about Rifle C2766 (or "Commission Exhibit 139") on
the October 9th BlackOp radio program, Jim DiEugenio tries to weaken
the value of the CE139 rifle as strong evidence in the JFK murder case
by talking about how different people over the years (via various
independent investigations) have been able to chip away at the
ballistics evidence in this case, to the point where DiEugenio
actually had the immense balls to say that CE139 is pretty much
worthless altogether as evidence in this case.
And the reasons given by DiEugenio for the rifle being virtually
nothing but a useless prop are:
1.) The recent NAA studies -- which are studies that have convinced
many conspiracists that by merely concluding that the NAA tests
performed on the JFK bullet evidence by Dr. Vincent P. Guinn in the
1970s are not as conclusive as first thought, this somehow
automatically indicates that more than just the two bullets fired from
Oswald's rifle struck the two victims in the limo on November 22,
1963. But, of course, the recent NAA studies prove no such thing. Not
even close to it.
In fact, just ordinary common sense ALONE tells any reasonable person
that NAA analysis isn't really even required here in order to arrive
at the logical solution of: Only Oswald's bullets hit JFK and John
Connally.
Why?
Simple math -- Since we know that 40% of the bullet specimens (2 out
of 5) examined by Dr. Guinn came from TWO DISTINCTLY SEPARATE BULLETS
that were definitely fired from Lee Oswald's Carcano rifle....and
since we also know that there wasn't even ONE other piece of a bullet
(other than CE567, CE569, and CE399 from LHO's gun) connected to this
murder case that was large enough to be tested by regular, non-NAA
ballistics means....then I ask: what are the chances that ANY of the
remaining 3 very small bullet specimens examined by Guinn in 1978 came
from bullets that were fired by guns other than Lee Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano?
Just plain ordinary common sense and logic will tell a reasonable
person that the answer to the above question is -- The chances are
very (VERY) slim that any of the 5 specimens examined by Dr. Guinn
originated from any non-Oswald (non-CE139) ammunition.
2.) And the only other thing that DiEugenio mentions in his radio
interview that he says destroys the notion that Oswald's rifle was the
murder weapon is the fact that the people who first observed Bullet
CE399 later said they could not make a positive identification of that
specific bullet as the one they saw on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital.
(And that is indeed true. I don't deny this fact. None of those bullet
witnesses made an ironclad, positive identification of 399.)
But DiEugenio seems to have missed an important point regarding the
discussion of the "stretcher bullet". And nearly all other CTers miss
this important point too -- the CTers, that is, who love to prop up
the silly theory that Bullet 399 was a planted bullet, or was a bullet
that was a "substitute" for a different "pointy-nosed" bullet that
CTers think was really found on a Parkland stretcher by Darrell
Tomlinson---
The important point being this one:
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Darrell
Tomlinson and O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen
DIDN'T really see Bullet CE399 at Parkland on 11/22/63, and instead
saw a different bullet entirely (that was fired from a non-Oswald
gun), those men STILL SAW A COMPLETELY-INTACT BULLET THAT CAME OFF A
STRETCHER IN THE HALL WHERE JOHN CONNALLY'S STRETCHER WAS LOCATED ON
NOVEMBER 22.
And if a DIFFERENT non-399 bullet was actually part of this murder
case (and caused all of John Connally's wounds--and there is no
indication that Governor Connally was hit by more than just ONE bullet
in Dealey Plaza), then that would be totally contrary to the beliefs
of virtually every conspiracy believer I've ever spoken with over the
years -- to wit: no matter WHAT bullet smashed into the back and ribs
and wrist of John B. Connally Jr. on November 22nd, most CTers are of
the opinion that a bullet (ANY bullet) could not possibly have ended
up in a near-pristine condition, similar to the condition of CE399.
So where, then, does this argument about the musical bullets go for
the CTers?
Do the conspiracy promoters now want to suddenly start believing that
a bullet COULD, indeed, have smashed into Connally, causing his bony
damage, and emerged in a complete and unfragmented condition--and with
its POINTY NOSE still "pointy" at the end of the day as well?! (Which
is what some CTers apparently believe.)
Or: Do CTers want to invent some more unsupported theories, and go
down another avenue (one that wouldn't be contradictory to their long-
held belief that NO BULLET could have come out near-perfect after
hitting Connally) and contend that a whole, unfragmented, "pointy-
nosed" bullet was "planted" by some evil plotters on a stretcher at
Parkland....and then, later, that pointy bullet was REPLACED by yet
ANOTHER "planted" bullet that played no part in the actual shooting in
Dealey Plaza either -- Bullet CE399? (Just how stupid and bumbling
were these so-called bullet-planting plotters anyway?)
I can't think of a third option. Can anyone? Can Jim DiEugenio?
Other than, of course, to rely on some more sheer speculation (which
is completely unsupported by the known evidence in the case) about
John Connally being hit by more than one bullet, with this "second"
bullet being a pointy-nosed one that ended up on his stretcher at the
hospital.
But, then too, that last option probably won't fly with most CTers
either, because almost all conspiracy-loving kooks believe that the
stretcher bullet (no matter what bullet it was) didn't really come off
of Connally's stretcher at all. Most theorists maintain that it really
came off of a stretcher that was last occupied by a young boy (Ronald
Fuller), which was situated next to Connally's in the Parkland
corridor that November day.
Any way you slice it, it seems like a pretty big problem for the
"CE399 IS A FRAUD" crowd.
But, YMMV.
DiEugenio, after magically sweeping away CE399 and the NAA evidence
ONLY, and nothing more, also had the gonads to say this in his October
9th BlackOp appearance (I'm not kidding; he really said this; no
fooling):
"All you have left connecting Oswald to the crime is the rifle.
If you take away the rifle, what is there? There really is almost
nothing. He [Oswald] was in that building. That's it. That's about it.
There's no ballistics evidence that connects him to the crime
now. .... So this is why I think Von Pein has really taken umbrage at
this; so he's gone after me on more than one occasion here." -- James
DiEugenio; 10/09/08
After hearing the above nonsensical words, I could only stare at my
computer screen, mouth agape.
"Almost nothing" else to connect Lee Oswald to the crime, Jim?
Has Jim's mind been taken over by James Fetzer perhaps? Has he no
memory at all of the mountain of OTHER stuff (including more bullet
evidence) that irrevocably ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the murder of the
President?
As mentioned, DiEugenio stripped away only the NAA stuff and Bullet
CE399 before making the above "almost nothing" comment. But, Jim,
apparently forgot about CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments from
OSWALD'S RIFLE that were found right inside the LIMOUSINE itself.
And then there are the three bullet cartridge casings (shells),
positively from Oswald's gun, that were found beneath the Sniper's-
Nest window in the Book Depository.
And as an extra bonus, the rifle in question--CE139--just happens to
have Lee Oswald's right palmprint on it, plus some other prints near
the triggerguard that are almost certainly Oswald's too, as determined
in later in-depth fingerprint studies conducted by Vincent Scalice:
www.jfk-online.com/prints.html
And then there's the fact that a witness (Howard Brennan) actually saw
Lee Oswald, with a rifle, firing shots at JFK's car from the sixth
floor of the Book Depository on November 22nd. (And no matter how much
CTers despise Mr. Brennan, and they all do, his testimony is still
going to be there--in the official record of this case--like it or
not.)
And then there are Lee Oswald's many, MANY outright, provable lies
that he told to the police after his arrest. And those lies center
mainly on the rifle and LHO's revolver and other substantive issues
about the assassination and its aftermath that Oswald desperately
wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM.
And WHY would he want to do this if he was nothing but an innocent
"patsy", as so many conspiracists firmly believe?
And, of course, there is also the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, which
occurred just 45 minutes (approx.) after JFK was killed. And no
reasonable person examining this whole case could possibly buy the
theory that Oswald was made to be a "patsy" in the Tippit slaying
too....could they? (Right, Jim?)
The evidence is about 8 miles high supporting Oswald's guilt in the
Tippit murder on Tenth Street. If LHO had gone to trial for only
shooting Tippit, the jury wouldn't have even needed a coffee break --
he would have been convicted in half a heartbeat.
And since every reasonable person who has looked at this case knows
(beyond all possible doubt) that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit less than
one hour after JFK was shot -- the reasonable inference here is that
the Tippit killing was "connected" in some way to the murder of
Kennedy....especially so when we consider the fact that the murder of
Kennedy occurred right in front of a building where Tippit's killer--
Lee Harvey Oswald--was located when JFK was being gunned down.
Only a blind person who WANTS Lee Oswald innocent of both November
22nd murders could fail to see the significance of my last paragraph
above.
=============
OTHER MISC. COMMENTS ABOUT JIM DiEUGENIO'S OCTOBER 9 BLACK OP RADIO
APPEARANCE:
I noted that Jim stopped short of making the same blatantly-incorrect
mistake he made the last time he was on the BlackOp show -- In Jim's
previous interview there, he stated that Oswald's rifle had the words
"Mannlicher-Carcano" printed (or stamped) right on the weapon itself
for all the policemen to see, which is not true at all.
But in the October 9th show, Jim gets it right, saying that only "6.5
Caliber [CAL.]" is stamped on the gun. He didn't really correct his
"MC" error from last time, though.
Jim says that the Warren Commission had "a problem" with Oswald's
rifle -- i.e., Jim is hinting (without any verification of this at
all, beyond his own gut feeling) that the WC knew that the C2766 rifle
found in the TSBD just might not have been the exact same rifle that
was shipped by Klein's in March and, therefore, it just might not have
been possessed at any time by Lee Harvey Oswald.
But Jim's speculation about the WC's "problem" is nothing but that --
sheer speculation...and, frankly, it's total poppycock.
The Warren Commissioners and their staff members thoroughly looked
into the information surrounding Rifle #C2766, and after examining the
numerous documents concerning the ordering, handling, processing, and
shipping of that weapon, there can't be but one series of logical and
reasonable conclusions to reach with respect to that rifle....this
series:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle from Chicago's Klein's
Sporting goods in January 1963 via a mail-order magazine coupon.
2.) Klein's shipped a 40-inch Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifle
with the serial number C2766 on it to Oswald/"A. Hidell" at Oswald's
known mailing address in Dallas, Texas, on March 20, 1963.
3.) Lee Oswald picked up that 40-inch MC rifle at his Dallas P.O. box
one day in late March '63.
4.) Oswald took that same rifle that was shipped to him by Klein's to
work with him on 11/22/63; and LHO shot the President with it from his
sixth-floor sniper's perch, stashing the weapon behind some boxes near
the stairwell as he was exiting the sixth floor.
5.) The same rifle Klein's shipped to Oswald was found in the TSBD by
police 52 minutes after JFK was shot.
Any alternate conclusions that are reached about the rifle Oswald
purchased in 1963 are conclusions that can only be considered very
weak ones when compared with the ones spelled out above.
And it doesn't really matter at all whether Oswald specifically
ordered a "36-inch" rifle (like it said in the magazine ad). Because
the key point here is the fact that the serial numbers MATCH -- i.e.,
Klein's internal paperwork from March 1963 (seen in Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, linked below) shows that the rifle that was shipped to Oswald/
Hidell had the SAME IDENTICAL SERIAL NUMBER ("C2766") as the rifle
that was ultimately discovered by police on the Depository's sixth
floor at 1:22 PM on November 22nd.
WALDMAN EXHIBIT 7:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
And since there hasn't been a single person on this planet (that I am
aware of) who has been able to prove that there was another Carcano
91/38 rifle (or ANY other "Carcano" rifle, period), besides the 40-
inch rifle that Klein's sent to LHO, which had serial number "C2766"
on it, how could any reasonable person with a working brain in their
cranium possibly conclude anything other than what the Warren
Commission concluded in 1964 -- which was: The rifle Klein's sent to
Oswald/Hidell in March and the rifle found in the TSBD in November
were the very same weapon.
=============
WEITZMAN AND BOONE (AND THE "MAUSER V. CARCANO" DEBATE):
Mr. DiEugenio said in his interview that Seymour Weitzman (one of the
officers who first saw the rifle on the 6th Floor) was not interviewed
by "the Warren Commission".
But Weitzman, like many other witnesses who gave testimony to the WC
or its lawyers, was properly questioned by WC counsel member Joseph
Ball, in Dallas, on April 1, 1964.
Why DiEugenio doesn't consider this April 1st questioning of Weitzman
by Ball to be good enough is a mystery to me? Especially when Ball
elicited the following information about the "Mauser" controversy from
Weitzman's own lips:
MR. BALL -- "In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police
Department that afternoon [11/22/63], you referred to the rifle as a
7.65 Mauser bolt action?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "In a glance, that's what it looked like."
MR. BALL -- "That's what it looked like, did you say that or someone
else say that?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "No, I said that. I thought it was one."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Joe Ball, btw, is the same person who questioned Eugene Boone as well,
with Ball asking Boone questions like this concerning the rifle he saw
in the TSBD on 11/22/63 (proving that the WC certainly wasn't hiding
anything with regard to the fact that some officers initially thought
that Oswald's Carcano looked like a "Mauser" when they first saw it in
the Depository):
MR. BALL -- "Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that
day?"
MR. BOONE -- "Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was [a] 7.65 Mauser."
MR. BALL -- "Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?"
MR. BOONE -- "I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just
discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65
Mauser."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boone.htm
=============
CAMERAS:
I took issue with Mr. DiEugenio in an earlier response to his Bugliosi
review concerning the matter of the various cameras belonging to Lee
Oswald that were discovered and confiscated by the police after the
assassination.
I want to now correct a mistake that I made in an earlier post
regarding the chronology of how the Imperial-Reflex camera finally
made it into the hands of law enforcement officials. (The famous
Backyard Photos of Lee Oswald were taken with the Imperial-Reflex
camera.)
In my earlier post, I think I was incorrect when I said that the
Imperial camera "was later turned over to the authorities by Ruth
Paine, after Robert Oswald gave it to Ruth".
When looking at Ruth Paine's testimony just now, I find that it was
probably Robert Oswald who turned over the Imperial camera to the
police at some point in time well after the assassination (and
DiEugenio has said the same thing, so I stand corrected on this
point).
Ruth Paine said this to the WC --- "I have heard from the police that
it [a box containing some of the Oswalds' belongings] also included an
old camera which they had to chase later and went up to Robert
Oswald's to find it."
But, regardless of who it was who eventually turned the Imperial
camera over to the police, the fact still remains that that camera (as
determined by the WC's tests on this matter) was proven beyond all
doubt to have been the camera that positively snapped the Backyard
Photos showing LHO with his guns in the Neely St. backyard.
DiEugenio says he doesn't have a problem with the fact that the
Imperial did, in fact, take those pictures. But he thinks it's
suspicious that the camera wasn't initially confiscated by the police
during their multiple searches of Ruth Paine's residence in Irving,
Texas.
Well, all I can say regarding that suspicion is -- If the theory being
hinted at here is that there was a group of plotters who were trying
to frame Oswald with the Backyard Photos, then what possible purpose
would be served by holding back the Imperial camera from the
authorities for XX number of weeks (however many it was)?
It seems to me, if anything, the plotters doing this supposed frame-up
job on Oswald would want to get that camera into the hands of the
police much sooner--not later--than they did.
Again, what reason would anyone have to hide this evidence from the
police for an extended period following November 22....even from the
point-of-view of conspiracy theorists who want to think that Oswald
was being set up as the fall guy?
It makes no sense....because we know that the Backyard Photos were
discovered and in the hands of the police BEFORE Oswald was killed on
November 24 (at least one of the pictures was anyway). And Oswald
himself even saw one of the pictures by no later than November 23,
with LHO claiming it was a fake (even though the photo was later
determined to have been taken with Oswald's very own camera).
=============
DALE MYERS:
DiEugenio does a nice job of misinterpreting Dale Myers' excellent
computer animation of the JFK assassination ("Secrets Of A Homicide":
www.jfkfiles.com). As is usually the case when conspiracists attempt
to discuss the inner workings of Mr. Myers' intricate computer work,
they undoubtedly don't have the slightest idea what they're talking
about.
Now, I'll readily admit, I'm not an expert on computer animation
myself--so I guess I'm leaving myself open to a "Pot Meets Kettle"
response on this issue from DiEugenio and other CTers who hate Myers'
work about as much as the Devil hates holy water--but I do know this:
Dale K. Myers has worked in the field of computer animation (and
photogrammetry) for many years now.
Therefore, I think I'm probably a little more inclined to believe what
Mr. Myers says about his detailed animation work on the Kennedy
assassination, vs. placing my faith in a bunch of "Myers Got It Wrong,
Because I Say So!" cry babies like Mr. DiEugenio and the other anti-
Myers kooks that populate this JFK Forum.
If people want to call me gullible....feel free. But another thing I
know is this -- Dale Myers' intricate computer simulation of JFK's
murder was KEY FRAMED to the Zapruder Film itself.
Or do CTers really think Myers is just lying through his teeth when he
says that all of the pertinent frames of the Z-Film have been LOCKED
IN to his computer model, i.e., "Key Framed" to the model?
I'm sure that Anthony Marsh does, indeed, think Dale is a liar in this
"key" regard, but then again, I doubt that Mr. Marsh would trust his
mother to go get the mail in the morning.
Anyway, this KEY FRAMING has locked the actual Zapruder movie onto
Myers' computer model (regardless of what the kooks believe), and what
we then find via the MEASURABLE things in Myers' animation is rather
remarkable, in that everything in the model tends to confirm the WC's
conclusion of the shots coming from the Book Depository -- e.g., the
angles through the two victims at a point in time when Bullet 399 was
crashing through both of them (Z223-Z224) is just perfect for the SBT
to work. (Which is absolutely incredible, actually, if the SBT is to
be considered "impossible", as most conspiracy theorists seem to want
to believe.)
And the angle from Kennedy's back wound to the TSBD Sniper's Nest is
just perfect at Z223-Z224 (17 to 20 degrees, depending upon if you
want to account for the approx. 3-degree street grade on Elm Street).
Also -- the reactions seen on the two victims is just perfect for the
SBT in Myers' model....which, again, is LOCKED into the Z-Film
itself....so Myers' model cannot (by definition) show something that
is NOT also present in Abraham Zapruder's home movie.
All of these things add up to one inescapable conclusion (even to a
person who knows virtually nothing at all about computer animation) --
The SBT is almost certainly the correct scenario for the way JFK and
JBC were wounded around frame Z223-224.
Any other non-SBT solution to the double-man wounding of Kennedy and
Connally has to (somehow) mirror, almost to the LETTER, the various
aspects of the Single-Bullet Theory, right down to the angles of the
wounds through the TWO victims and the angles that lead, inexorably,
back to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Also:
DiEugenio seems to think that by looking at ONE specific frame of
Zapruder's film (Z224**), a researcher can totally demolish the
workability of the SBT. Since, per DiEugenio, JFK is reacting to a
bullet wound in this one frame in question (Z224**), and Connally
isn't physically reacting as of that frame, DiEugenio thinks that this
proves the SBT is a bunch of hooey.
** = But maybe Jim really meant to say Z225; because using Z224 for
his anti-SBT example is just too silly for words, since JFK is barely
visible at all in that frame. Only a tiny portion of Kennedy's body is
viewable in Z224, and none of his face at all, as we can see here (and
his hands haven't even begun their journey northward toward his throat
as of Z224 either):
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z224.jpg
So, Jim probably meant to say Z225, which is the Z-frame when we can
first see the pained and startled expression on JFK's face. But James
D. said 224 on the radio. ~shrug~
But, regardless of the exact frame that any CTer wants to use to try
and debunk the SBT, utilizing a STILL frame to try and prove that the
SBT is bunk is just stupid on its face. You need to watch the MOVING
images of Zapruder's film. Not just a still image culled from the
film.
And when watching the moving images of the Z-Film in real time (or in
slow motion), it couldn't be any more obvious that both Kennedy and
Connally are reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., Oswald's Bullet
#CE399) at the very same point in time....within literally one or two
frames of each other:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3086.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb129f6cf7c098a
=============
NAME-MANGLING:
I must commend Jim DiEugenio for pronouncing my last name correctly on
at least a couple of occasions during his BlackOp session. My name is
usually mangled, however, so I'm used to that happening. And it's
mangled by DiEugenio a few times too, but Jim also can't seem to ever
pronounce Vince Bugliosi's last name correctly either (a lot of people
have a hard time with that name), so I guess I'm in good company
there.
Bugliosi's "G" is silent, and my name is pronounced "Von PINE", btw.
Maybe Vince and I should change our names to Smith or Jones, just to
make things easier. But, then too, it appears that my name is actually
Dave Reitzes, according to the rumor that Len Osanic at BlackOp seems
to believe (per his October 9th comments). So, I guess it doesn't
really matter what an LNer's real name is -- because some CTer will
pretend it is something else entirely. ;)
=============
THE BOTTOM LINE:
The end result of all of the CT vs. LN wrangling and "Mauser vs.
Carcano" and "CE399" controversy is still the same end result that has
existed since 1963 --- Conspiracy theorists have NO physical evidence
in this case to solidify their notions and various theories that a
conspiracy took the life of President John F. Kennedy.
The fact remains (and no doubt always will remain) that the only
physical evidence that exists in the official record with respect to
the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases is evidence that leads straight
to the guilt of one single person -- Lee Harvey Oswald. And anyone who
insists otherwise is simply living in a dream world filled with
shadowy, never-proven conspiracy theories that are helmed by never-
seen conspirators.
It's as simple as that.
David Von Pein
October 11, 2008
David Von Pein
>>> "Hi Mr. Von Pein, Did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to you on CTKA Probe? He also has a long review on Dale Myers! All very interesting!! My Best, Billy" <<<
Hi Billy,
Yes, I've seen both of those articles by Mr. DiEugenio at CTKA [linked
below]. (Jim is almost as long-winded as I am at times, isn't he?)
<chuckle>
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_myers.html
To be perfectly blunt with you, Billy -- Jim DiEugenio is living in a
world of total fantasy and speculation regarding the JFK
assassination. Not a shred of what he says can be proven....and he
knows it (or he certainly should know it by now).
Jim loves to point out things that he thinks are strange or
mysterious, and things that he apparently believes lead down a path
that results in eventual "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder cases (i.e., "thread ends", for lack of a better term). Jim
then speculates that those loose threads mean something significant
with respect to Lee Oswald, or JFK, or the CIA, or the assassination
in general.
Here's a great example of what I mean -- The other night (October 9),
DiEugenio appeared on Len Osanic's "BlackOpRadio" program (you can
hear the whole 1.5-hour show at that link below; the last half is as
dry as the Sahara, however)....
www.blackopradio.com/black395a.ram
....and at one point during the program he went on and on for several
minutes about how Marguerite Oswald supposedly knew that her son, Lee
Harvey, wanted to defect to the Soviet Union many weeks (or months)
before Lee actually did travel to Russia in late 1959.
This knowledge that was supposedly gained by Marguerite is supposed to
LEAD SOMEWHERE (I assume) in Mr. DiEugenio's "conspiratorial" world.
But Jim never tells us WHERE this knowledge of Marguerite's is
supposed to go.
In other words, HOW does Marguerite's possibly knowing about Lee
wanting to defect to Russia (in advance of him actually doing so)
somehow MATTER in the least little bit when considering whether or not
Lee Oswald shot JFK four years later?
And how can such knowledge by Marguerite be utilized as a springboard
for any conspiracy theorists with respect to whether Lee Harvey Oswald
was or wasn't employed by the CIA?
It almost sounds as if DiEugenio wants to believe that MARGUERITE
OSWALD was a "plotter" or "conspirator" of some sort....and that her
"pre-knowledge" of Lee's intentions to go to Russia is some kind of a
major signal that Lee was employed by the CIA (or some other entity of
the Government).
But, in reality, that kind of stuff just flat-out goes NOWHERE for a
conspiracist like Mr. DiEugenio. Absolutely nowhere. And he has to
know it doesn't go anywhere, but Jim just likes to point out and
highlight these "loose threads" that can never, ever be tied to any
kind of workable, believable, and cohesive "plot" behind Lee Harvey
Oswald and the assassination of John Kennedy.
Here's another example of the type of "It Goes Nowhere" junk that Mr.
DiEugenio loves to talk about (as my own brand of long-windedness
takes over here for a moment longer; albeit a different type of long-
windedness, because my brand contains an abundance of CS&L attached to
it ["Common Sense & Logic", that is]).....
In his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book and during a segment of one
of his recent BlackOpRadio appearances, DiEugenio talks about the fact
that Lee Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera (the camera which took the
infamous "Backyard Photographs" of LHO holding the rifle he used to
kill the President) wasn't turned over to the police by Robert Oswald
until many weeks after the assassination.*
* = And this was no doubt due to a simple oversight. You see, that
camera was apparently stored in a closed box in a closet inside Ruth
Paine's house at the time of the assassination in November. Most
likely, Ruth just simply forgot that some of the Oswalds' belongings
were in that closet in that box, with the Imperial camera being one of
the items that was in there.
The box later was given by Ruth to LHO's brother, Robert Oswald, who
then gave it to the police many weeks after the assassination.
Now, to Mr. DiEugenio, this oversight regarding the Imperial camera is
"suspicious". He thinks it's odd that the police never found that
camera during their multiple searches of Paine's home in November.
But DiEugenio just STOPS right there....with his "suspicious" remark.
He never ties it up; he never says WHY this delay in finding the
camera is to be considered "suspicious". He never explains WHY either
Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald (or anyone else) would want to
deliberately hide the camera from the police or the FBI.
And, moreover, Jim never tells us HOW this delay in turning the camera
over to the authorities would, in any way whatsoever, BENEFIT or AID
any type of so-called "Patsy" plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.
If somebody was trying to frame Oswald (as DiEugenio undoubtedly wants
to believe), then why on Earth would they be wanting to HIDE evidence
that could be used to further the "patsy" plot along?
DiEugenio knows (and readily acknowledges) that the Imperial camera
did take at least one of the Backyard Photos (there was only one of
the pics that was definitively linked to the camera, because only one
picture's negative was recovered). And Jim knows that Lee Oswald
himself was shown one of the Backyard Photos by the Dallas police as
early as November 23rd, the day after the assassination.
Therefore, Jim isn't arguing that the pictures are "fakes". We know
the photos were taken months before November 22nd, and were taken by
the Imperial camera owned by Oswald.
Given these undeniable facts, what possible purpose would be served by
any "plotters" hiding the camera from police view for an extended
period....the very same camera that can prove the legitimacy of the
Backyard Photos?
Jim doesn't say. He just says it's "suspicious".
But the only thing that's really suspicious here is WHY Jim D. thinks
this completely-innocuous event regarding the Imperial-Reflex camera
is "suspicious" in the first place.
If you listen to DiEugenio's BlackOp interviews (any of them), you'll
find numerous additional examples of this same type of conspiracy-
oriented policy that has been adopted by many conspiracists over the
years. And it's a policy that could aptly be labeled --- "THIS STUPID
SHIT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT REALLY GOES NOWHERE, BUT I'M GOING
TO POINT IT OUT ANYWAY, AS IF IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TOWARD SOLVING
THIS CASE".
Thanks for writing.
Best Regards,
David Von Pein
curtjester1
> http://www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
To enhance what Jim Eugenio brings out, and what DVP has stayed away
from, and what VB will always stay away from, is some pertinent posts
to his reponse, and anyone can use the 'Search this group' feature in
the upper right to bring them out. Some of the articles posted in
recent months are:
* What Is The Origin Of The Unused $21.45 Postal Money Order
* The Seven Points Of Contention For Proof (that the WC deemed
necessary)
* Creating The Illusion Oswald Purchased A Rifle From Klein's
* The "Official Story" Of How The $21.45 Money Order Was Found
* Klein's Receives 100 Rifles On Feb.21, 1963 (36" or 40" MC?)
* Exposing Postal Inspector/FBI Informant Harry D. Holmes
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
I have a feeling DVP's buddy - Walt - may be jumping on poor James
DiEugenio soon.
robcap...@netscape.com
Great review, and he is right in terms of too many CTers just
conceeding the fact the LHO ordered a rifle for too long. There is NO
proof he ever ordered any rifle, especially a 40" model.
robcap...@netscape.com
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> >>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
>
> Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
>
> Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
>
> www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
>
> The above article by Mr. DiEugenio is just more of the usual bluster
> and obfuscation and non-evidence that I've become accustomed to seeing
> being written by conspiracy theorists over the years.
>
> A good example of the "non-evidence" supported by the DiEugenios of
> the world is when James D. pulls the following nonsense out of his bag
> of conspiracy-created silliness:
>
> "It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in
> 1963." -- James DiEugenio
>
> The above comment is just flat-out idiotic.
>
> Why?
>
> Well, as I've mentioned before, just one look at Waldman Exhibit #7
> will tell a reasonable person why:
>
Where does this document mention a 40" model???? Why does the dollar
amount match exactly with a 36" model with a scope, plus S&H? Why
does the catalog number referenced match a 36" version with a scope as
well?
> That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that
> Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter
> rifle to "A. Hidell" (that's Oswald, of course) in March of 1963.
Both the 36" and 40" models were 6.5mm, so where is your proof the
model sent was for a 40" version?
> And that rifle that was shipped to Hidell/Oswald was a rifle that had
> the serial number "C2766" stamped on it (that's the exact same serial
> number that was stamped on CE139, of course, which is the rifle found
> on the sixth floor of the Book Depository at 1:22 PM CST on 11/22/63,
> just 52 minutes after JFK was murdered by rifle bullets on the street
> in front of the Depository).
Where is your proof for this claim??? Where is your proof the rifle
was ever shipped to LHO since he did NOT list any aliases to receive
mail at this Dallas P.O. Box?
> And that rifle was shipped by Klein's to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas,
> Texas, USA (that's Oswald's post-office box in Dallas, of course).
Proof please.
> And CE139 (i.e., the FORTY-INCH rifle with the serial number "C2766"
> stamped on it that was found in the TSBD after the assassination) had
> the right-hand palmprint of "guess who?" on it? Yes, indeed -- it was
> the palmprint of the man that every CT-Kook wants to make look totally
> innocent of shooting the President, for some silly reason -- Lee H.
> Oswald.
Really? Then why did Lt. Day refuse to sign any document that stated
he found the palmprint of LHO on the rifle?
> And I'll remind Mr. DiEugenio once again that (to my knowledge) there
> hasn't been one person come forward to prove that a second Mannlicher-
> Carcano Model 91/38 rifle ever existed with the exact same C2766
> serial number on it.
So what? First prove all your claims that any 40" rifle was ordered
and sent to A. Hidell.
David Von Pein
>>> "Where does this document mention a 40" model???? Why does the dollar amount match exactly with a 36" model with a scope, plus S&H? Why does the catalog number referenced match a 36" version with a scope as well?" <<<
Here's a much better question.......
Why is Rob so hell-bent on acting like a fool?
Back to reality for a moment....
What the hell DIFFERENCE does it make if Oswald ordered a "36-inch"
rifle or a "40-inch" rifle or a 76-inch one?
The FACT remains that Klein's shipped him what they shipped him--a 40-
inch MC. With the KEY being the serial number. And that serial number
is the same on Waldman Exhibit 7 and on CE139.
Are we supposed to believe that that little "serial-matching" trick is
just a coincidence? Or that it was magically "arranged" that way by
evil plotters who just happened to locate another "C2766" MC somewhere
in the world to frame poor LHO with?
Even though, as we all know, not a single person on the planet has
managed to find even ONE other Carcano (of ANY size) that perfectly
matches Oswald's "C2766" serial number. And this is true despite what
you might have read in Mr. DiEugenio's anti-VB review, because John
Lattimer did NOT own a rifle with that serial number, and Lattimer
said so in 2004.
BTW, do any of you Anybody-But-Oswald kooks think that Oswald really
CARED in the slightest that Klein's mailed him a 40-inch rifle instead
of the 36-incher he really ordered out of the magazine ad?
If anybody answers 'yes' to that last inquiry, they need to put down
the six-pack for a little while.
lazu...@webtv.net
Bugliosi's tactics regarding anything suspicious is-leave it out,not
tell the full story, or bury it in the notes, or hey...it really doesn't
matter since Oswald killed JFK...time after time after time after time.
David Von Pein
>>> "Yes, all these pesky questions that Bugliosi and Von Pein can't address. Bugliosi's tactics regarding anything suspicious is-leave it out,not tell the full story, or bury it in the notes, or hey...it really doesn't matter since Oswald killed JFK...time after time after time after time." <<<
Can some CTer please (please) explain how the large-scale, incredible
multi-gun way-more-than-3-shots-fired conspiracy was fulfilled and
pulled off oh so nicely without a SINGLE piece of a non-Oswald bullet
trailing behind? And without a single piece of any other physical
evidence being left behind in its wake either?
This "plot" must've been carried out by 1,299 Houdinis and another 999
Copperfields.
And, to think, so many people actually BUY a "plot" with no physical
evidence--none at all!
But, then again, that's what makes a successful multi-gun, frame-the-
nut-in-the-Depository-by-firing-from-the-front-too conspiracy, doesn't
it? No evidence left behind to blow the whole shabang?
And even though Jimmy Garrison has at least 4 guys popping away at JFK
with four guns aimed at his head....and another team of killers on
Tenth St. to take care of Tippit (so that the various plotters who
were arrested would get sprung from their Dallas jail cells quickly--
no kidding, that's what Garrison told Johnny Carson in 1968--you can't
make up shit like this, so why would I try to?).....the end result is:
Evidence that all leads back to Lee Harvey O. in the TSBD.
And Oswald is a guy who, per Garrison (and most of the kooks in these
parts) "never fired a shot; never fired a shot".
Again -- a band of Houdinis was in Dealey Plaza (and everywhere else)
to hide this stupid pre-planned patsy arrangement that Dr. Braindead
and his assistant Simon Bar Fucktard dreamed up.
And, to think, people actually BUY it. Even in 2008 they buy it.
That's the kicker, kids.
To get back to Laz-Kook's original point after my digression down CT
Avenue with Jimbo Garrison, the "pesky questions" asked by conspiracy-
seeking individuals have all been answered satisfactorily since 1963
-- every one, without a doubt. But those answers mean zilch to CTers.
Because, like a weed in the cracks of your sidewalk, those questions
keep popping back up....even after they've been sprayed with the
proper weed killer (by LNers armed with CS&L).
And why do kooks think it's mandatory for LN believers to spring to
their feet (and/or keyboards) and answer every crackpot assertion put
forth by CTers, 24/7?
RE: Bugliosi specifically.....
Neither Laz nor DiEugenio nor anyone else will be able to find one
single SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE (let's underline "substantive") relating to
the death of John F. Kennedy that "Reclaiming History" author Vincent
T. Bugliosi has not addressed within the 2,800+ pages of his 2007 book
(including the endnotes on CD).
DiEugenio......
Did anybody else take note of DiEugenio's crazy "IT GOES NOPLACE"
arguments on BlackOp last week regarding several matters that don't
mean a DAMN THING in this case?
E.G.,
The matter of WHEN the Imperial-Reflex camera was turned over to the
police.
And: the silliness about Marguerite Oswald and her candy-jar injury in
1959 and Oswald's attempted defection to the USSR, etc.
I'll repeat what I wrote just a few days ago regarding James D.'s
approach to so many matters in this case.....and I challenge any kook
in here to prove me wrong when I said:
"If you listen to DiEugenio's BlackOp interviews (any of them),
you'll find numerous additional examples of this same type of
conspiracy-oriented policy that has been adopted by many conspiracists
over the years. And it's a policy that could aptly be labeled ---
"THIS STUPID SHIT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT REALLY GOES NOWHERE,
BUT I'M GOING TO POINT IT OUT ANYWAY, AS IF IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
TOWARD SOLVING THIS CASE"." -- DVP; October 12th, 2008
lazu...@webtv.net
curtjester1
> >>> "Where does this document mention a 40" model???? Why does the dollar amount match exactly with a 36" model with a scope, plus S&H? Why does the catalog number referenced match a 36" version with a scope as well?" <<<
>
> Here's a much better question.......
>
> Why is Rob so hell-bent on acting like a fool?
>
> Back to reality for a moment....
>
> What the hell DIFFERENCE does it make if Oswald ordered a "36-inch"
> rifle or a "40-inch" rifle or a 76-inch one?
>
> The FACT remains that Klein's shipped him what they shipped him--a 40-
> inch MC. With the KEY being the serial number. And that serial number
> is the same on Waldman Exhibit 7 and on CE139.
>
opposite. Confronted, he offered no rebuttal at all, at the OBVIOUS,
and yet will continue to go by an agenda instead of REAL FACTS.
___________________________________________________________
On Sep 27, 3:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51453acf50c36a90
> What a bunch of crap.
> The CT Kook Brigade just refuses to let go of the chaff. They prefer
> the loose ends (which the kooks create themselves, of course, in their
> own minds) vs. the common-sense fact that Lee Oswald ordered, paid
> for, picked up, possessed, and owned Rifle C2766 (CE139) in 1963.
The usual dis-info spin. Just do the kook-mantra and not come right
in with in evidentiary support.
> Waldman Exhibit No. 7 -- all by itself -- provides the virtual proof
> (to a reasonable person, that is) that Lee H. Oswald (aka A. Hidell)
> purchased rifle C2766/CE139.....his alias, his P.O. Box in Dallas:
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
Thank you. You just supported the fact that they messed up by
putting
Carbine on the order. Only 36" MC's were assigned the name Carbine.
The 40 inchers were assigned the name Short Rifle. Of course you
didn't read or bother with the Waldman blatant inconsistencies in the
ten pages which featured many plus the other Exhibits. The serial
number on the order for the Carbines was only given to the Short
Rifles when they went back on the market in June. Ooops, too late
for
a weapon ordered 4 months prior. Unfortunately, Belin, the FBI and
SS sought to smooth over by glossing over things like this. Only
one
who wants NOT to gloss over for scenaio's sake will read carefully,
absorb, and then make an intelligent reply/rebuttal. You better not
go the Dwayne Rider route either, as there is all sorts of trap doors
you would fall through if you do.
CJ
_____________________________________________________________________
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> And the carload of evidence discovered after the assassination in the
> Book Depository with respect to Rifle C2766 provides the 100% proof
> that Lee H. Oswald possessed and handled that same rifle.
> And with 99% certainty it can be shown and proven (to a reasonable
> person, that is, but not to an Anybody-But-Oz kook) that Oswald
> "possessed" and "handled" that exact same rifle on 11/22/63 itself, as
> he used it to fire three bullets at JFK on Elm Street.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
David Von Pein
>>> "[DVP] uses this 'KEY' when it PROVES just the opposite." <<<
So, per a jackass named Jester, since we know we have Waldman 7 saying
"C2766" on the internal Klein's paperwork from 03/20/63....and we know
we have CE139 having the same serial number on it....this somehow
"proves" that CE139 was a DIFFERENT rifle from the C2766 one Klein's
shipped to PO Box 2915.
Only in a kook's world could this happen, kids. Only there. Nowhere
else.
Next up......
A driveway full of snow in January "proves" that it didn't snow at all
-- it hailed.
BTW, a "Carbine" IS a "rifle", you evidence-skewing moron.
But even if it wasn't a rifle (which it certainly is), it wouldn't
matter -- because Klein's shipped "C2766" to Oswald--regardless of
whether they put the word "Carbine" on the Waldman No. 7 invoice or
not.
aeffects
<nothing, AGAIN>
be nice Keating... we only tolerate frauds for a short while (unless
of course case we need to point to 'overt' Lone Nut lunacy) You always
measure up, troll!
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Where does this document mention a 40" model???? Why does the dollar amount match exactly with a 36" model with a scope, plus S&H? Why does the catalog number referenced match a 36" version with a scope as well?" <<<
>
> Here's a much better question.......
>
> Why is Rob so hell-bent on acting like a fool?
Really?? The document you attached has the word CARBINE written on it
and I'm acting like a fool to ask how you get a 40" rifle is meant to
be what is listed???? Explain this for us.
>
> Back to reality for a moment....
The REALITY is the document you referenced has the word CARBINE on it.
> What the hell DIFFERENCE does it make if Oswald ordered a "36-inch"
> rifle or a "40-inch" rifle or a 76-inch one?
Every bit, and you asking this question shows how little you know
about this case.
> The FACT remains that Klein's shipped him what they shipped him--a 40-
> inch MC. With the KEY being the serial number. And that serial number
> is the same on Waldman Exhibit 7 and on CE139.
Waldman Exhibit 7 has the word CARBINE on it, and for rifle-impaired
people like you that means a 36" weapon. A 40" weapon was found in the
TSBD.
Now prove your assertion someone could order and pay for a 36" inch
Carbine and be sent a 40" short rifle (not that LHO ordered any
rifle).
> Are we supposed to believe that that little "serial-matching" trick is
> just a coincidence? Or that it was magically "arranged" that way by
> evil plotters who just happened to locate another "C2766" MC somewhere
> in the world to frame poor LHO with?
You are getting off track. PROVE your assertion that LHO was sent a
40" Carcano.
> Even though, as we all know, not a single person on the planet has
> managed to find even ONE other Carcano (of ANY size) that perfectly
> matches Oswald's "C2766" serial number. And this is true despite what
> you might have read in Mr. DiEugenio's anti-VB review, because John
> Lattimer did NOT own a rifle with that serial number, and Lattimer
> said so in 2004.
We were NOT discussing this, prove LHO was mailed a 40" inch Carcano
and he picked it up. Quite trying to change the topic.
> BTW, do any of you Anybody-But-Oswald kooks think that Oswald really
> CARED in the slightest that Klein's mailed him a 40-inch rifle instead
> of the 36-incher he really ordered out of the magazine ad?
You have to PROVE this assumption, and to date NO ONE has ever proved
it. Good luck.
> If anybody answers 'yes' to that last inquiry, they need to put down
> the six-pack for a little while.
Why would people answer an UNPROVEN assumption rather than wanting
proof for it first?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "[DVP] uses this 'KEY' when it PROVES just the opposite." <<<
>
> So, per a jackass named Jester, since we know we have Waldman 7 saying
> "C2766" on the internal Klein's paperwork from 03/20/63....and we know
> we have CE139 having the same serial number on it....this somehow
> "proves" that CE139 was a DIFFERENT rifle from the C2766 one Klein's
> shipped to PO Box 2915.
Now, now, Dave, CJ didn't call you any bad names. I like how Dave
skipped over this document saying the following:
1) The word CARBINE is mentioned and this refers to a 36" model.
2) The dollar amount MATCHES the cost of a 36" Carbine with a scope,
plus S&H.
3) The catalog number MATCHES a 36" Carbine with a scope.
Now if the serial number, C2766, is mentioned than it is for a 36"
CARBINE, NOT a 40" short rifle. Thus, Mr. DiEugenio is correct in his
statement that the serial number had to be used more than once since
you are claiming a 40" short rifle had the SAME serial number.
Oh, by the way, when will you EVER PROVE a rifle was mailed to LHO's
P.O. Box?
> Only in a kook's world could this happen, kids. Only there. Nowhere
> else.
You are the ONE living in a lying, distorting kind of world, but there
is hope you will see the evil of your ways before it is too late.
> Next up......
>
> A driveway full of snow in January "proves" that it didn't snow at all
> -- it hailed.
Nice, more stalls here. I guess anything that changes the focus of
your lies is welcomed.
> BTW, a "Carbine" IS a "rifle", you evidence-skewing moron.
LOL!!!! Dave shows his ignorance once again. I hope Vince isn't
paying you much as you have NOT put in the study time.
> But even if it wasn't a rifle (which it certainly is), it wouldn't
> matter -- because Klein's shipped "C2766" to Oswald--regardless of
> whether they put the word "Carbine" on the Waldman No. 7 invoice or
> not.
Prove this for us.
robcap...@netscape.com
wrote:
By the by, isn't it ironic Dave is arguing the SAME thing Walt has
been arguing for a couple of months now???
Ssshhhhhhhh. Be quite, very, very quiet.
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rob, now you know this is not a good area for the WC SHILL GANG!!!
Am I being too LOUD??...:)
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are doing great CJ! Did you see Walt was caught in another lie
today?
Walt
> >>> "Where does this document mention a 40" model???? Why does the dollar amount match exactly with a 36" model with a scope, plus S&H? Why does the catalog number referenced match a 36" version with a scope as well?" <<<
>
> Here's a much better question.......
>
> Why is Rob so hell-bent on acting like a fool?
>
> Back to reality for a moment....
>
> What the hell DIFFERENCE does it make if Oswald ordered a "36-inch"
> rifle or a "40-inch" rifle or a 76-inch one?
>
> The FACT remains that Klein's shipped him what they shipped him--a 40-
> inch MC. With the KEY being the serial number. And that serial number
> is the same on Waldman Exhibit 7 and on CE139.
>
> Are we supposed to believe that that little "serial-matching" trick is
> just a coincidence? Or that it was magically "arranged" that way by
> evil plotters who just happened to locate another "C2766" MC somewhere
> in the world to frame poor LHO with?
>
> Even though, as we all know, not a single person on the planet has
> managed to find even ONE other Carcano (of ANY size) that perfectly
> matches Oswald's "C2766" serial number. And this is true despite what
> you might have read in Mr. DiEugenio's anti-VB review, because John
> Lattimer did NOT own a rifle with that serial number, and Lattimer
> said so in 2004.
Dear LOB.... When you lie....all you prove is that you're a liar. In
2004 Latimer attemped to wiggly away from the statement he'd written
earlier. Latttimer said that he and son were experimenting with a
Mannlicher Carcano that was identical to the TSBD rifle... right down
to the serial number.
Lattimer said that because in his ignorance he thought he could trick
other ignorant people into believing that his rifle was IDENTICAL to
the TSBD rifle and therefore his experiments were valid.
Lattimer may have been telling the truth about his rifle being
identical to the TSBD rifle and even the serial number was the same.
I know of at least one man ( an "ex"- FBI man) who was creating
replicas of the TSBD rifle and selling them for a high price.
I don't know if he created those replicas with the same serial number
(C2766) but I would not be surprised.
Walt
Once again I find myself in agreement with the Pea Brain......
99.999% of the purchasers would probably not even noticed that they
had received a 40 inch rifle and the ad said 36 inches. The rifle
they received looked just like the picture in the ad so they could
have cared less.
The ONLY purchaser who MIGHT have balked and complained would have
been an avid collector who want a 36 inch carbine and not a 40 inch
short rifle. That possibillity is pretty unlikely,,,but possible.
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
>>> "BTW, a "Carbine" IS a "rifle"." <<<
ROB THE KOOK THEN SAID:
>>> "LOL!!!! Dave shows his ignorance once again. I hope Vince isn't paying you much as you have NOT put in the study time." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Via Random House Dictionary:
CARBINE:
1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.
Via American Heritage Dictionary:
CARBINE:
n. A lightweight rifle with a short barrel.
Via WordNet:
CARBINE:
noun: light automatic rifle
Via Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
CARBINE:
n. A short, light musket or rifle, esp. one used by mounted soldiers
or cavalry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
I guess Random House and American Heritage and Webster's and all other
dictionary people are "in" on the 45-year-old "cover-up" too, huh, Rob?
David Von Pein
>>> "The REALITY is the document you referenced has the word CARBINE on it." <<<
So what?
The serial number is the key, you idiot.
The word "Carbine" is typed (or stamped) on Waldman Exhibit No. 7,
whereas the serial number (C2766) and the Klein's internal "control
number" (VC 836) are printed by hand on the document/invoice -- which
makes perfect sense, of course. (Except if you're an 'ABO' kook who
wants to start believing that Waldman #7 is a "fake" document and that
the handwritten portions of the document were written in at a later
date, just to implicate Patsy Lee. I'm quite sure that there are many
CTers who do, indeed, believe in that precise scenario.)
But as anyone can easily see on Waldman #7, those internal documents
used by Klein's Sporting Goods are designed so that some of the
information that ends up on them is supposed to be written in by hand,
vs. some of the information being stamped (or typed) on them.
Pre-stamped (or pre-typed) information on those Klein's documents
includes such info as the item number of the merchandise being
purchased (which, here in Waldman #7, would be the "C20-T750" item
number that Oswald ordered with the magazine mail-order coupon, plus
the words "ITALIAN CARBINE 6.5 W/4X SCOPE", plus the price of "19.95",
plus "CON #" and "SER #").
It's obvious that those specific "CON" and "SER" numbers are meant to
be written in by hand on every order that Klein's processes:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
So, if Oswald had stood trial for JFK's murder....and after the
prosecutor had shown the jury Waldman Exhibit #7, and after the
prosecution gets William Waldman to take the stand to testify to what
all of the markings on Waldman #7 mean (which anybody with a brain
could figure out for themselves, of course, but the prosecutor needs
to have Waldman say it all on the stand anyway), and after Robert
Frazier of the FBI takes the stand to testify that the rifle found in
the TSBD on November 22 had the exact same serial number stamped on it
as the number that appears in Waldman #7....
The jury would then, unless it was comprised of 12 kooks named
"Robcap", quite obviously have come to the only possible reasonable
conclusion they could come to with respect to whether or not the TSBD
rifle (CE139) is the same rifle that was shipped by Klein's to "A.
Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas on 3/20/63.
And that reasonable conclusion, quite naturally, is -- Yes, they are
the same weapon.
>>> "PROVE your assertion that LHO was sent a 40" Carcano." <<<
Waldman Exhibit 7 proves it. Because the serial number of the rifle
mailed to Oswald was "C2766", which is stamped on a 40.2-inch MC, not
a 36-inch MC.
Mark VII. And case closed.
Rob, if you can't figure out these really, really easy things, how can
you possibly hope to figure out some of the more difficult problems
connected with this case -- like, say, figuring out whether or not Lee
Oswald was a boy or a girl?
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!!! I know what a Carbine is but do you know why I'm laughing?????
I guess not.
David Von Pein
>>> "LOL!!! I know what a Carbine is but do you know why I'm laughing????? I guess not." <<<
Because you think every dictionary in the world has got the definition
of "carbine" wrong?? Is that it?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The REALITY is the document you referenced has the word CARBINE on it." <<<
>
> So what?
>
> The serial number is the key, you idiot.
Dave doesn't know the difference between a Carbine and short rifle and
I'm the idiot. It is key and it describes a weapon totally different
from the one found in the TSBD. Thanks for pointing that out for us.
> The word "Carbine" is typed (or stamped) on Waldman Exhibit No. 7,
> whereas the serial number (C2766) and the Klein's internal "control
> number" (VC 836) are printed by hand on the document/invoice -- which
> makes perfect sense, of course. (Except if you're an 'ABO' kook who
> wants to start believing that Waldman #7 is a "fake" document and that
> the handwritten portions of the document were written in at a later
> date, just to implicate Patsy Lee. I'm quite sure that there are many
> CTers who do, indeed, believe in that precise scenario.)
I guess I have to tell him, I liked making him squirm. A Carbine and
a short rifle are two different things. The 40" model is called a
short rifle, they would not use the term Carbine to describe it.
> But as anyone can easily see on Waldman #7, those internal documents
> used by Klein's Sporting Goods are designed so that some of the
> information that ends up on them is supposed to be written in by hand,
> vs. some of the information being stamped (or typed) on them.
Blah, blah, blah...show me where it references a 40" short rifle.
> Pre-stamped (or pre-typed) information on those Klein's documents
> includes such info as the item number of the merchandise being
> purchased (which, here in Waldman #7, would be the "C20-T750" item
> number that Oswald ordered with the magazine mail-order coupon, plus
> the words "ITALIAN CARBINE 6.5 W/4X SCOPE", plus the price of "19.95",
> plus "CON: #" and "SER: #").
Calm down Dave, you don't want to wet your pants. The item number you
reference was tied to a 36" Carbine with a scope attached (the only
model they attached a scope to was the Carbine) NOT a 40" short rifle.
> Note the colons [":"] after "CON" and "SER" on Waldman #7. It's
> obvious that those specific numbers are meant to be written in by hand
> on every order that Klein's processes:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
Prove it was a 40" short rifle that is referenced on that document. I
dare you.
> So, if Oswald had stood trial for JFK's murder....and after the
> prosecutor had shown the jury Waldman Exhibit #7, and after the
> prosecution gets William Waldman to take the stand to testify to what
> all of the markings on Waldman #7 mean (which anybody with a brain
> could figure out for themselves, of course, but the prosecutor needs
> to have Waldman say it all on the stand anyway), and after Robert
> Frazier of the FBI takes the stand to testify that the rifle found in
> the TSBD on November 22 had the exact same serial number stamped on it
> as the number that appears in Waldman #7....
In your dreams, the document you keep refering to points to a
DIFFERENT model type from the one found in the TSBD. You would be
sunk right there.
> The jury would then, unless it was comprised of 12 kooks named
> "Robcap", quite obviously have come to the only possible reasonable
> conclusion they could come to with respect to whether or not the TSBD
> rifle (CE139) is the same rifle that was shipped by Klein's to "A.
> Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas on 3/20/63.
I guess if you point out the truth you are a "kook", huh? I guess if
you educate Dave as to what a Carbine is you are a "kook", huh? Nice
try, but you are sunk. By the way, the WC NEVER proved any rifle was
ever shipped to Dallas for LHO. Can you?
> And that reasonable conclusion, quite naturally, is -- Yes, they are
> the same weapon.
Only a man totally ignorant of all weapons would make this statement.
Even your pal Walt didn't do this.
> >>> "PROVE your assertion that LHO was sent a 40" Carcano." <<<
>
> Waldman Exhibit 7 proves it. Because the serial number of the rifle
> mailed to Oswald was "C2766", which is stamped on a 40.2-inch MC, not
> a 36-inch MC.
This DOESN'T PROVE anything, in fact, if it did prove anything it
would prove a 36" Carbine was ordered NOT a 40" short rifle like the
one found in the TSBD.
> Mark VII. And case closed.
LOL!!! Dave, you are really clueless in this case. You and Walt
better hit the handlers soon so you can get some up-to-date info. It
is sooooooooo obvious you have NO clue what you are talking about.
> Rob, if you can't figure out these really, really easy things, how can
> you possibly hope to figure out some of the more difficult problems
> connected with this case -- like, say, figuring out whether or not Lee
> Oswald was a boy or a girl?
LOL!!! Dave doesn't even know the difference between a Carbine and a
short rifle and somehow I'm the one with the issues. Dave is
priceless, clueless as well, but priceless none the less.
No wonder our country is in trouble as they waste tax money on guys
like Dave. He has ONE job, prove LHO did it by himself and he CAN'T
even get this right.
robcap...@netscape.com
> I've heard many people refer to Oswald's 40-inch rifle (CE139 / C2766)
> as a "carbine". My dictionary posts earlier were merely to prove that
> the words "carbine" and "rifle" are pretty much interchangable.
They are NOT interchangeable as a Cabine is different from a rifle,
thus, the reason it is NOT called a rifle in the first place.
> Heck, Jim Fetzer doesn't even think CE139 is a "rifle" at all. How
> about that? (I guess he thinks CE139 is a bazooka or some other type
> weapon entirely.)
Because he is saying you guys offered up proof that a "Carbine (36")
weapon was ordered.
> But kooks like Rob get bogged down in the "Carbine" mystery....which,
> of course, is no mystery whatsoever, because the serial number is the
> key, whether any kook believes it or not.
NO, kooks like Dave don't even know what they are talking about yet
they want people to believe them. NOW that is real scary!
> Rob thinks that a jury would just toss aside the incredible FACT that
> CE139 and Waldman 7 have the SAME IDENTICAL SERIAL NUMBER on them.
No, I think a jury would say, wait, the Carbine had the number C2766
and yet they claim a 40" short rifle was found with the same NUMBER.
How can that be? And of course you guys sunk yourself as you have
always claimed there is ONLY ONE C2766 weapon. Thanks!
> That fact means NOTHING to Rob. Nothing. Despite the FACT that nobody
> has produced a single other MC rifle (of ANY model) that has the
> serial number "C2766" stamped on it (besides CE139, of course).
You produced it by showing a document that proves a 36" Carbine had
the serial number of C2766 as well as the 40" short rilfe found.
Psst. Dave never thought they could engrave a new number on the
weapon. Go look at Jerry's article as it shows the differences in
script.
> It's time for the ship to the 'CT Kook Zone' to take off now, Rob.
> You'd better get ready to go. Your seat has been reserved.
LOL!! Dave is claiming things he has NO clue about but I'm the kook.
Dave, take a time out, get with your handler, and please to some
studying. I hate to see good tax money go to waste.
Walt
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> >>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
>
> Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
>
> Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
>
> www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
>
> The above article by Mr. DiEugenio is just more of the usual bluster
> and obfuscation and non-evidence that I've become accustomed to seeing
> being written by conspiracy theorists over the years.
>
> A good example of the "non-evidence" supported by the DiEugenios of
> the world is when James D. pulls the following nonsense out of his bag
> of conspiracy-created silliness:
>
> "It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in
> 1963." -- James DiEugenio
>
> The above comment is just flat-out idiotic.
>
> Why?
>
> Well, as I've mentioned before, just one look at Waldman Exhibit #7
> will tell a reasonable person why:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter
rifle
Where the hell did you learn to read?? The sales order specifically
reads ITALIAN CARBINE.
While I agree that the gun shipped to PO box 2915 was in fact a 40
inch long Model 91 /38 Manlicher Carcano, that's NOT what was printed
on the sales slip. I believe Klein's were sloppy and simply didn't
pay an attention to the PROPER terminology and called the MC SHORT
RIFLE a "CARBINE".... But there's no excuse for you misrepresenting
what was clearly written on that document. You and Rob and
Curt ........
to "A. Hidell" (that's Oswald, of course) in March of 1963.
>
> And that rifle that was shipped to Hidell/Oswald was a rifle that had
> the serial number "C2766" stamped on it (that's the exact same serial
> number that was stamped on CE139, of course, which is the rifle found
> on the sixth floor of the Book Depository at 1:22 PM CST on 11/22/63,
> just 52 minutes after JFK was murdered by rifle bullets on the street
> in front of the Depository).
>
> And that rifle was shipped by Klein's to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas,
> Texas, USA (that's Oswald's post-office box in Dallas, of course).
>
> And CE139 (i.e., the FORTY-INCH rifle with the serial number "C2766"
> stamped on it that was found in the TSBD after the assassination) had
> the right-hand palmprint of "guess who?" on it? Yes, indeed -- it was
> the palmprint of the man that every CT-Kook wants to make look totally
> innocent of shooting the President, for some silly reason -- Lee H.
> Oswald.
>
> And I'll remind Mr. DiEugenio once again that (to my knowledge) there
> hasn't been one person come forward to prove that a second Mannlicher-
> Carcano Model 91/38 rifle ever existed with the exact same C2766
> serial number on it.
>
> Out of those "millions" of MC rifles that Mr. DiEugenio talks about in
> his anti-VB review, you'd think that somebody, somewhere, would have
> come up with just ONE example of another Mannlicher-Carcano Model
> 91/38 that was stamped with the number "C2766" IF SUCH A SECOND RIFLE
> EXISTED.
>
> But even if another one or more guns DID have that exact same serial
> number on it....the chances of CE139 (the TSBD rifle) being a
> DIFFERENT rifle from the "C2766" rifle that was shipped to Hidell/
> Oswald in March of '63 are so incredibly low that those chances could
> almost be considered impossible (if you're a reasonable person, that
> is).
>
> So, to quote my favorite author once again (and since I'm supposedly
> Vincent's "drum majorette", according to James Di., I might as well
> put that title to good use some more):
>
> "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the
> assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- serial
> number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth floor of the Book
> Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A.
> Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
> "We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert,
> that the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential
> limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the
> exclusion of all other weapons.
> "We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
> cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
> window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard
> fall from above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to
> the exclusion of all other weapons.
> "So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond
> ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- VINCENT T.
> BUGLIOSI; DURING T.V. DOCU-TRIAL IN LONDON; JULY 1986
>
> www.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7...
>
> Two more examples of Mr. DiEugenio playing fast and loose with the
> facts of the case with respect to the "rifle/serial number" issue are
> illustrated below:
>
> 1.) DiEugenio states in his "Von Pein: Still Cheerleading" article:
>
> "Tom Purvis has proved there was at least one of those [36-inch
> Model 38 Carcanos] stamped with that serial number [C2766]." -- James
> D.
>
> Of course, Purvis The Kook "proved" no such thing at all. Not even
> close to it, in fact. Jim just THINKS that Purvis has "proved" the
> existence of such a second "C2766" Carcano.
>
> Mr. Purvis apparently has a friend or acquaintance who owns (or owned)
> a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle with a serial number that began with
> "C5XXX" (I can't recall the exact number, but the first number after
> the "C" was a "5", which is the important part).
>
> And therefore, per Purvis' way of assessing the situation, this has to
> mean (undeniably) that a rifle with "C2766" on it must have also been
> produced at that exact Carcano factory (wherever it was, I can't
> recall, but it doesn't matter) at some point prior to his friend's
> "C5XXX" being manufactured, given the presumed progressive numbering
> system for such things.
>
> But Purvis hasn't proven that these various Carcano plants that were
> manufacturing the MC rifles many years ago didn't have some kind of
> inventory system in place that would ensure that no two rifles of the
> same make and model would end up with the same identical serial
> number.
>
> I happen to believe that some kind of inventory system for serial
> numbers WAS probably being used at those various Carcano factories
> (even years ago, before the computer age and more efficient inventory
> systems being in place, etc.).
>
> Because the whole point of stamping an item with a SERIAL NUMBER is to
> make that item UNIQUE when compared to all others. Right? Of course
> it's right. And it stands to reason that the Carcano plants of the
> world were adhering to that basic type of "unique" policy with respect
> to serial numbers on their products, even back in the early 1900s.
>
> Yes, I suppose it's possible that a second rifle with the number C2766
> on it might have slipped through the cracks at one of the plants who
> made those weapons years ago. I can't deny that possibility.
>
> But to believe, as Mr. Purvis seems to believe, that as many as "40 to
> 50" MC 91/38 rifles could have been stamped with that same C2766
> number is, IMO, just simply ludicrous.
>
> Plus: To repeat, where is the proof that ANY other MC 91/38 rifle
> (besides CE139) was ever stamped with the number "C2766"? To date, no
> such proof exists (even via the late Dr. John K. Lattimer; see the
> following comments on that).
>
> 2.) Jim DiEugenio also said this:
>
> "As I reported, Dr. [John] Lattimer had one [Carcano rifle] of
> the 40 inch variety with the C 2766 serial number." -- James D.
>
> Jim evidently hasn't seen the following comments made by Dr. Lattimer
> himself (in 2004) regarding the confusing matter that appears in
> Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln", in which he stated that he
> did, indeed, own a Carcano 91/38 rifle with the number C2766 stamped
> on it.
>
> But, when we do a little leg work regarding this Lattimer rifle (as
> John Canal did, by writing to Lattimer himself), the mystery of Dr.
> Lattimer's duplicate "C2766" rifle is cleared up in just a few
> words....these words:
>
> "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
> notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
> used for his tests was C-2766 (the same [serial number] as the
> Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and
> today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It
> was [an] error: "...the book was printed before we noticed the error
> and it was too late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/63765...
>
> To re-emphasize Dr. Lattimer's quote within John Canal's post above:
>
> "The book [Kennedy And Lincoln] was printed before we noticed
> the error and it was too late to correct it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer;
> April 2004
>
> Sorry, Jim. There's another C2766 theory down the drain.
>
> So, we're still left at the end of this day (like all other days since
> November 22, 1963) with no proof whatsoever that any other Mannlicher-
> Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (other than CE139) was ever stamped with the
> specific serial number C2766.
>
> REPRISE:
>
> >>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
>
> Of course, DiEugenio is going to be critical of my criticism of his
> anti-VB, anti-LN stance.
>
> You don't think he's going to let those 16-million words that he's
> written in a lame attempt to debunk Bugliosi's ironclad pro-LN case go
> swirling down the drain without a fight, do you?
>
> Duh.
>
> >>> "Very amusing that he calls you Bugliosi's cheerleader!!" <<<
>
> That's certainly a lot better than being any kind of a
> "CTer" [conspiracy theorist], that's for dang sure.
>
> But what I find more amusing is the fact that someone like Mr.
> DiEugenio would go to so much trouble to try and smear Mr. Bugliosi's
> work (which is work that is based on the hard, verifiable evidence in
> the JFK case...vs. the paper-thin foundation of rumor, speculation,
> and lots of idiotic reasoning that is employed by most conspiracy
> promoters of the Earth).
>
> Am I "Bugliosi's cheerleader"? You might say that (if you want to).
> But, then too, there's a very good reason for cheering for VB -- i.e.,
> his "Oswald Did It" book, "Reclaiming History", is filled with facts,
> verified evidence, logic, 10,000+ sources, and (most of all) basic
> common sense:
>
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5561db8d63c885a8
> ...
>
> read more »
Walt
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> >>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
>
> Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
>
> Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
>
> www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
>
> The above article by Mr. DiEugenio is just more of the usual bluster
> and obfuscation and non-evidence that I've become accustomed to seeing
> being written by conspiracy theorists over the years.
>
> A good example of the "non-evidence" supported by the DiEugenios of
> the world is when James D. pulls the following nonsense out of his bag
> of conspiracy-created silliness:
>
> "It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in
> 1963." -- James DiEugenio
>
> The above comment is just flat-out idiotic.
>
> Why?
>
> Well, as I've mentioned before, just one look at Waldman Exhibit #7
> will tell a reasonable person why:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that
> Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter
>
And that rifle that was shipped to Hidell/Oswald was a rifle that had
the serial number "C2766" stamped on it (that's the exact same serial
number that was stamped on CE139, of course, which is the rifle found
on the sixth floor of the Book Depository at 1:22 PM CST on 11/22/63,
Yup.... The rifle was found BURIED BENEATH boxes of books.
I'd be most interested in hearing your explanation for that rifle
being BURIED under those boxes of books.
Remember that the Warren Commission re-enacted their IMAGINED scenario
of Oswald fleeing from the SN window to the second floor lunchroom,
and the only way they could make their IMAGINED THEORY work was having
the Oswald impersonator run by those books and toss the rufle behind
them. Of course they had to ignore many many witnesses to make that
imagined theory work.
They ignored Deputy Boone who told them the rifle was WELL HIDDEN
beneath those boxes of books. And he said he had to move a box before
he could see the rifle.
They had to ignore deputy Luke Mooney who told them the rifle was so
well concealed that he had a difficult time seeing it even after Boone
pointed it out to him.
They had to ignore Howard Brennan who said the gunman he'd seen firing
a rifle from a sixth floor window DID NOT dash away after the
shooting. Brennan said the sniper merely put the rifle down by his
side and stood there a few seconds, before disappearing into the
recess of the room.
They had to ignore BOTH Howard Brennan and Arnold Rowland who had told
them that the gun involved was a HUNTING rifle.
They had to ignore Arnold Rowland's testimony when he told them that
the gunmans HUNTING rifle had a LARGE and powerful scope on it, when
they could clearly see that the TSBD rifle had a SMALL cheap scope on
it.
David Von Pein
I've heard many people refer to Oswald's 40-inch rifle (CE139 / C2766)
as a "carbine". My dictionary posts earlier were merely to prove that
the words "carbine" and "rifle" are pretty much interchangeable.
Heck, Jim Fetzer doesn't even think CE139 is a "rifle" at all. How
about that? (I guess he thinks CE139 is a bazooka or some other type
weapon entirely.)
But kooks like Rob get bogged down in the "Carbine" mystery....which,
of course, is no mystery whatsoever, because the serial number is the
key, whether any kook believes it or not.
Rob thinks that a jury would just toss aside the incredible FACT that
CE139 and Waldman 7 have the SAME IDENTICAL SERIAL NUMBER on them.
That fact means NOTHING to Rob. Nothing. And it still means nothing to
Rob despite the FACT that nobody has produced a single other
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (ANY model of Carcano) that has the serial
number "C2766" stamped on it (besides CE139, of course).
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave...has ONE job, prove LHO did it by himself and he CAN'T even get this right." <<<
As if *I* need to prove what was proven 45 years ago.
Rob, you're a howl.
>>> "No wonder our country is in trouble as they waste tax money on guys like Dave." <<<
Howl #2.
Robby actually believes that the Government is paying me to write
stuff on a forum which is a virtual ghost town (relatively-speaking).
Challenge for Rob:
Come up with verifiable PROOF (your silly speculation isn't gonna cut
it) of just ONE person who has been paid by the US Government to post
messages on this Internet board, or any other message board.
I look forward to seeing the proof you unearth in this regard. Good
luck, Mr. Cap-Kook.
David Von Pein
DVP SAID:
>>> "That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter rifle." <<<
WALT SAID:
>>> "Where the hell did you learn to read?? The sales order specifically reads ITALIAN CARBINE." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
A carbine IS a rifle, idiot. ....
CARBINE:
1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
curtjester1
> >>> "[DVP] uses this 'KEY' when it PROVES just the opposite." <<<
>
> So, per a jackass named Jester, since we know we have Waldman 7 saying
> "C2766" on the internal Klein's paperwork from 03/20/63....and we know
> we have CE139 having the same serial number on it....this somehow
> "proves" that CE139 was a DIFFERENT rifle from the C2766 one Klein's
> shipped to PO Box 2915.
>
unsupportive assumtions....
> Only in a kook's world could this happen, kids. Only there. Nowhere
> else.
>
Yep, our world doesn't necessitate name-calling as the requirement for
rule #5 of DisInforming. Must be a shallow and lonely existence for
getting a paycheck.
> Next up......
>
Real research.
> A driveway full of snow in January "proves" that it didn't snow at all
> -- it hailed.
>
I think I'll go to the dealer and get me and Edsel, er I mean car.
> BTW, a "Carbine" IS a "rifle", you evidence-skewing moron.
>
Of course, that's why they spend all that money in advertising to just
spend more money. I know you won't respond but here is stuff 'we'
think about.
2) Prove That Klein's Had C2766 In Inventory In February 1963
The FBI probably knew , from advertisements placed in the ***American
Rifleman*** and discussions with Klein's officials, that Klein's sold
only ***36-inch*** Italian carbines from February 1962 through March
1963. The 10 shipping slips which Feldsott gave to the fBI (dated
6/18/62) were almost certainly ***36-inch*** rifles. The serial
number on one of those rifles was C2766 and matched the serial number
of the rifle found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. The problem was that
***C2766 was sold and delivered to Klein's in June 1962 and not early
1963<*** *which is why the 3 FBI agents who reviewed microfilm records
at Klein's on the early morning hours of November 23 found no records
for the sale of C2766 in March 1963.*
To create the illusion that C2766 was available for the sale by
Klein's in February 1963, the FBI simply needed to show that C2766 was
in their store on or before March 1963 when "A. Hidell's" order was
ALLEDGELY received. To accomplish this the FBI and the WC needed to
match Crescent's 10 ***undated*** shipping slips (100 rifles which
included C2766) with an order for 100 rifles placed by Klein's in
early 1963. *This was easy because the FBI had the 10 undated
shipping slips and Klein's microfilm in their custody.*
The FBI gave the WC a ***copy*** of the Klein's purchase order for 100
rifles from Cresent Firearms dated January 24, 1963 (Waldman Ex. NO
1). WC attorney David Belin showed the copy to Klein's vice president
William Waldman on May 20, 1964 and said, "Mr. Waldman, I hand you
what is being marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit 1 and ask you
tostate if you know what that is." Waldman answered, "I do...This
constitutes a purchase order of Klein's directed to Crescent Firearms
for Italian Carcano rifles prepared on January, 2, 19-, oh, wait
aminute; hold that a moment, January 24, 1963, calling for 200 units
at a cost of $8.50."
After obtaining testimony that Klein's ordered 100 rifles from
Crescent Firearms on January 23, 1963, the Commission needed to show
that ***C2766*** was one of the rifles. They wanted to track
***C2766*** from its origin in Italy, to the dock in New Jersey, and
to Klein's in Chicago and offered as "proof" the following documents:
o A bill of lading which showed that Waterfront Transfer Company
delivered 520 cartons
of rifles (5200 rifles) from the *Elleetra Fascio* to the
Harborside Terminal on October
25, 1960 (FBI Ex. D-178). Carton #3376 contained 10 riles,
one of which was C2766.
o Billing copy from Harborside Terminal (dated 11/9/60) which
listed 520 cartons of "38
E91 I 6.5" calibre rifles (FBI Ex. D-189).
o Five delivery orders (891.38, 14473, 03403, A01640, A0062) which
showed that gun
dealer Fred Rupp removed cartons of rifles from the Harborside
Terminal from August
thru October 1962 (FBI Ex. D-190). **But carton #3376, which
contained ***C2766***,
was not listed on any of these delivery orders.**
NOTE: ** Keep in mind that Crescent Firearms sold
***C2766*** to Klein's
on June 18, 1962, ***two months
before*** Fred Rupp began
removing the 520 cartons of rifles from
harborside.
o An undated shipping order which shows that North Penn Transfer
picked up 10 cartons
of rilfes from Fred Rupp (FBI Ex. D-152). **But carton #3376,
which contained C2766,
was not listed on this shipping order:**
o A delivery receipt which shows that North Penn Transfer delivered
10 cartons of rifles
to Lifschultz on February 13, 1963 (FBI Ex. D-169). **But
carton #3376 which contained
C2766 was not listed on this delivery receipt.**
o Lifschultz Fast Freight-Chicago Run Sheet, which shows that
Lifschultz delivered 10
cartons of rilfes to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago on
February 21, 1963 (FBI Ex.
D-170). **But carton #3376, which contained C2766, was not
listed on the run sheet.**
Not one of these shipping documents listed carton numbers or serial
numbers of rifles. From these documents it is impossible to know
***when*** carton #3376 left the Harborside Terminal or ***where*** it
was delivered. ***The absence of serial and carton numbers on these
documents*** is what allowed the FBI, *and the Warren Commission, to
fraudulently claim that ***C2766*** was shipped to Klein's in early
1963.*
After "proving" that ***C2766*** was shipped to Klein's the Commission
needed to show that Klein's ***received*** the rifle. They introduced
a ***copy*** of Klein's "receiving record," which was purportedly a
list of rifles received by the receiving department on February 21,
1963. But instead of questioning J. A. Mueller, the head of the
receiving department, Commission attorney David Belin questioned
Klein's General Operating Manager, Mitchell J. Scribor and vice-
president William Waldman.
Belin handed Waldman the ***copy*** and said, "I hand you what has
been marked as Waldman Exhibit No 4 (FBI Ex. No D-167). and ask you to
state if you know what this is." Waldman answered, "This is the
record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to
the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted on the frame
of the gun....Our control number for that is VC-836."
On the upper right side of this document is the notation "1259" and on
the upper left side of the document is the notation "RR 1243." The
"1259" was not identified by the Commission, but "RR 1243" was
identified as "receiving record 1243." The "1243" matched the Klein's
order number for 100 rifles placed on January 24, 1963 (1/24/3).
*This only one of two documents which the Commission used to link
C2766 to the January 24, 1963 order (the other document was a copy of
Crescent form #3178 which contained hand written entries for 10 carton
numbers.)
NOTE: ** An FBI Airtel of 3/13/64 (FBI Ex. No. D-167) *states, "One
photstatic copy of a ***list prepared by Mitchell Scibor on
11/23/63.*** This Airtel suggests that scibor may have printed a copy
of the receiving record from Klein's microfilm on 11/23/63.**
In an honest investigation the WC would have deposed J. A. Mueller,
the man in charge of the Klein's receiving department, and simply
asked him who prepared "RR 1243." Instead, the Commission interviewd
William Waldman and Mitchell Scibor who spent little time, if any in
the company's shipping and receiving department and had no idea if the
copy of the receiving record they were shown was authentic.
Commission attorney David Belin then gave ***copies*** of Lifschultz
Fast Freight bills of lading to William Waldman and said, "I'm going
to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit 2 and
ask you to state if you know what that is." Waldman answered, "I
do...this is a delivery receipt from the Lifschultz Fast Freight
covering 10 cases of guns deliverd to Klein's on February 21, 1963,
from Crescent Firearms....The February 21 date is the date in which
the merchandise ame to our premises whereas the date of February 22,
is the date in which they were officially received by our receiving
department." The delivery receipt was signed by J.A. Mueller, the
head of Klein's receiving department.
NOTE: ** Waldman probably never saw these bills of lading prior to
his testimony. The Lifschultz documents showed only that 100 rifles
were delivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963, but listed ***not
carton or serial numbers*** of rifles.
**Readers should remember that the weight of the 10 cartons of rifles
delivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963 clearly indicated they were
***36-inch*** rilfes. The Commission was trying to prove that Klein's
received a shipment of ***40-inch*** rifles on February 21, 1963 (C
2766 was a ***40-inch*** rifle).
Belin then handed Waldman copies of Crescent's 10 ***undated shipping
forms*** *(which Louis Feldsott said were from June 1962)* and said,
"I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is." Waldman
answered, "Yes; these are the memos prepared by Crescent Firearms
showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one
of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case."
Belin then tried to get Waldman to say the 10 shipping forms ***(from
6/18/62)*** represented the 100 rifles that were delivered to Klein's
on February 21, 1963. Belin said, "Now, you earlier mentioned that
these (Waldman Ex. No. 3) were packed with the case." Waldman
replied, "Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company
(Crescent) ***does not include these with the cases***, but sends
these memos separately with their invoice."
NOTE: ** At this point the Commission had ***no testimony*** that
linked Crescent's 10 undated shipping forms from June 18, 1962 to the
delivery of 100 rifles to Klein's on February 21, 1963.**
David Belin, obviously unsatisfied with Waldman's answer, THEN TOLD
WALDMAN THE SERIAL NUMBERS LISTED ON THE UNDATED SHIPPING FORMS
MATCHED THE ORDER FOR THE 100 RIFLES. Belin said, "Referring to
Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 3, ***which ***ARE*** the serial numbers of the
100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to
you,*** and Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 5, which is the invoice from Crescent
Firearms which has stamped on it that it was paid by your company on
March 4, is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to
rifles which are shown on Waldman Dep. Ex. No 3?"
NOTE: ** The fact that David Belin told Waldman the undated shipping
forms matched the order for 100 rifles clearly demonstrates the
Commission's willingness to manipulate testimony in order to frame
Oswald.
Waldman did not acknowledge the first part of Belin's question, but to
the second part of his question answered, "The forms submitted by
Crescent Firearms, showing serial numbers of rifles included in the
shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178, indiciate that the rifle
carriying serial No. ***C-2766*** was included in that shipment."
*This is not true. Waldman Dep. Ex. No. 5, dated February 7, 1963
which lists invoice #3178 (FBI Ex. D-165) ***does not list any serial
or carton numbers whatsoever.***
There is, however, a ***handwritten*** form dated February 7, 1963
which lists invoice #3178 (FBI Ex. D-172). This is a ***copy*** of a
document which the FBI ALLEGEDLY obtained from Louis Feldsott and
contains a ***handwritten*** list of the numbers of 10 cartons of
rifles in the middle of the page. One look at the ***handwriting***
on the copy of this form clearly shows that *the person who filled out
the form originally was not the same person who wrote the numbers of
the 10 cartons of rifles.*
This form, *which was not published in the Warren Volumes,* was the
second item that linked Crescent's 10 undated shipping forms (from
June, 1962) with a Klein's order received on February 21, 1963 *(the
other was Klein's receiving record)*. If this form had been shown to
Louis Feldsott by the Warren Commission he would have immediately
identiifed it as a forgery, *but Feldsott was never interviewed by the
Commission.*
The Commission then introduced Klein's check #28966, in the amount of
$850, to rove that payment for 100 Model T-38 rifles was made on March
1, 1963 (FBI Ex. No. D-166). However, there are no notations on the
Klein's check stub that refer to the number of Crescent's shipping
form, carton numbers, or the serial numbers of any of the 100 rifles-
*only Crescent invoice #3178 is listed on the check stub.*
NOTE: ** There is no doubt that Klein's ordered and received 100
rifles in early 1963, but these were not the same rifles identified on
Crescent's 10 undated shipping slips from June 18, 1962 (C2766).
**************************************************
A Final Thought About The Crescent Shipping Forms: The WC knew the 10
shipping forms (including ***C2766***) came from Louis Feldscott,
*and they also knew that Feldsott provided an affidavit in which he
said that Crescent sold ***C2766*** to Klein's in June 18, 1962.*
Their failure to depose Feldsott and resolve this conflict is
inexcusable and probably intentional. Had Feldsott testified he would
have indentified Crescent form #3178 as a forgery and he would have
testified that the 10 undated shipping forms represented 100 rifles
sold to Klein's on June 18, 1962, ***and not in early 1963.***
The owner of Klein's Sporting Goods, Milton Klein, knew something was
wrong with the FBI investigation but no longer had his company's
microfilm records and was therefore unable to dispute their
conclusions. Klein told reporters again and again that Oswald ordered
a ***36-inch*** rifle, *but was unable to explain how the Dallas
Police managed to find a ***40-inch*** rifle on the 6th floor of the
TSBD.*
In the early 1960's nearly everyone trusted and admired the FBI and on
one, including Milton Klein, believed the Bureau would manipulate and/
or fabricate evidence. But with Klein's microfilm records in their
custody as of 5:00 am on November 23, 1963, the FBI could print copies
of any of Klein's microfilm records, alter the paper copies, and then
re-microfilm the altered copies. One of the best indications that the
Bureau did alter Klein's microfilm records is the fact that Klein's
microfilm DISAPPEARED ***while in FBI custody.*** With no other
records available, there was simply no way that Milton Klein or anyone
else could challenge the conclusions of the FBI and the Warren
Commission.
> But even if it wasn't a rifle (which it certainly is), it wouldn't
> matter -- because Klein's shipped "C2766" to Oswald--regardless of
> whether they put the word "Carbine" on the Waldman No. 7 invoice or
> not.
Aha, another false assumption, that's merely said and not supported.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you, Rob, but I owe it all to my Zen Master, Harvey LNBanger.
When DOESN'T WC SHILL, not lie??!!!
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> I've heard many people refer to Oswald's 40-inch rifle (CE139 / C2766)
> as a "carbine". My dictionary posts earlier were merely to prove that
> the words "carbine" and "rifle" are pretty much interchangeable.
They are wrong, like you.
> Heck, Jim Fetzer doesn't even think CE139 is a "rifle" at all. How
> about that? (I guess he thinks CE139 is a bazooka or some other type
> weapon entirely.)
Fetzer's point is that the Carbine, or any Carcano, is NOT a high-
velocity weapon and the cause of death is due to a "high-velocity"
bullet to the head on JFK's death certificate.
> But kooks like Rob get bogged down in the "Carbine" mystery....which,
> of course, is no mystery whatsoever, because the serial number is the
> key, whether any kook believes it or not.
It is now "kooky" to list weapons as they are. I wonder why the
military catergorizes weapons as this is "kooky" according to DVP.
> Rob thinks that a jury would just toss aside the incredible FACT that
> CE139 and Waldman 7 have the SAME IDENTICAL SERIAL NUMBER on them.
NO I don't, that is my point as CE-139 is a 40" short rifle and the
weapon mentioned on the Waldman 7 document is a 36" Carbine. Thus you
have two weapons with the SAME serial number, something you said is
impossible.
> That fact means NOTHING to Rob.
What fact??? That two rifles have the SAME serial number?? That means
a great deal to me.
> Nothing. And it still means nothing to
> Rob despite the FACT that nobody has produced a single other
> Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (ANY model of Carcano) that has the serial
> number "C2766" stamped on it (besides CE139, of course).
YOU just did!! You said the weapon on the Waldman document (which is
clearly a 36" Carbine) and the one found in the TSBD (which is a 40"
short rifle) BOTH had the same serial number! Thanks Dave!!
> It's time for the ship to the 'CT Kook Zone' to take off now, Rob.
> You'd better get ready to go. Your seat has been reserved.
IF telling the truth makes me "kooky" then so be it.
robcap...@netscape.com
It is called a joke Dave, but I do wonder why it bothers you
soooooooooo much. Hmmm.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:339a0720-54ec-4621...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Warren Commission "Apologist" Dr. (Urologist) John Lattimer ALSO had a
Manlicher-Carcano with the Serial Number C2766 ! ! !
David Von Pein
>>> "You said the weapon on the Waldman document (which is clearly a 36" Carbine)..." <<<
Nope. It's CLEARLY a rifle with the serial number "C2766" on it. And
the rifle with the serial number C2766 on it is not a 36-inch Carcano
-- it's a 40.2-inch Carcano (regardless of whether it says "Carbine"
on Waldman 7 or not).
The serial number trumps the "Carbine" notation, which is quite
obvious to any reasonable person (i.e., anyone who isn't in the
Anybody-But-Oswald fraternity).
>>> "Thanks Dave!!" <<<
No problem. I always enjoy making you kooks look foolish.
lazu...@webtv.net
inconsistencies, hell I'd love to see DiEugenio and Bugliosi go at it...
Sam McClung
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:s6MJk.3010$1r2....@newsfe01.iad...
> YOU just did!! You said the weapon on the Waldman document (which is
> clearly a 36" Carbine) and the one found in the TSBD (which is a 40"
> short rifle) BOTH had the same serial number! Thanks Dave!!
what about that other guy who had a C2766 Carcano,
the guy who put it in his book,
was he ever investigated as a suspect?
David Von Pein
>>> "what about that other guy who had a C2766 Carcano, the guy who put it in his book, was he ever investigated as a suspect?" <<<
Oh, goodie! Now Dr. John Lattimer is a "suspect".
Nice job, McClung. You're really onto something here.
David Von Pein
>>> "There's a lot more problems with this rifle than one or two inconsistencies..." <<<
Bullshit.
>>> "I'd love to see DiEugenio and Bugliosi go at it." <<<
I can hear the continuing refrain being repeated by Bugliosi if that
were to happen (and this would occur a minimum of 99 times during any
such debate):
"Where in the hell are you going with this unsupportable
conjecture of yours, James? Anywhere at all?"
curtjester1
> There's a lot more problems with this rifle than one or two
> inconsistencies, hell I'd love to see DiEugenio and Bugliosi go at it...
Laz,tons of them, and they had to weave a huge web, and many of it
very subtle, yet patternful. I am sure DiEugenio would defer to
Armstrong on that, though.
Sam, saw your other rifle having a same serial number. It wasn't
uncommon as even different manufacturers used the same number. See
the first point of the Seven Contentions.
CJ
Sam McClung
news:42e38d78-a11e-49b3...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 16, 3:46 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Sam, saw your other rifle having a same serial number. It wasn't
> uncommon as even different manufacturers used the same number. See
> the first point of the Seven Contentions.
guess my attempt at humor flopped
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sam, there are no Statutes of Limitation in this case and YOU are
still a SUSPECT!!
CJ
Sam McClung
> CJ
uh, i was at home with momma, when the neighbor lady, whose daughter
is a former first lady of colorado (where harrelson was locked up),
came over crying with the news
where were you?
tomnln
"Sam McClung" <mcc...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:gd8h2...@news5.newsguy.com...
NO.
That was a WCR Supporter.
Dr.(Urologist) John lattimer.
Wrote a book titled "Kennedy & Lincoln".
Sam McClung
on Kennedy and Lincoln:
http://web.newsguy.com/mcclung/street_symbols.html
the second and third graphics here show the Kennedy motorcade route
cutting through one point of the star, at Pegasus Plaza
part of magnolia Hotel with winged Pegasus atop it now also in same point of
star
and the Lincoln Plaza
inside another point of the star
inside another point of the star is Thanksgiving Square
across from it outside the star is Thanksgiving Tower
"thousand POINTS of light" = how many star configurations around the world
visible by the flying horse pegasus?
curtjester1
> "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f5ee7dc5-004b-4801...@v30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 16, 4:23 pm, "Sam McClung" <mccl...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> > "curtjester1" <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:42e38d78-a11e-49b3...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Oct 16, 3:46 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> > > Sam, saw your other rifle having a same serial number. It wasn't
> > > uncommon as even different manufacturers used the same number. See
> > > the first point of the Seven Contentions.
>
> > guess my attempt at humor flopped
> > Sam, there are no Statutes of Limitation in this case and YOU are
> > still a SUSPECT!!
> > CJ
>
> uh, i was at home with momma, when the neighbor lady, whose daughter
> is a former first lady of colorado (where harrelson was locked up),
> came over crying with the news
>
> where were you?
Where Harrelson was locked up. Three guard checks a day, all on
paperwork.
CJ
Sam McClung
< CJ
you were where harrelson was?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "You said the weapon on the Waldman document (which is clearly a 36" Carbine)..." <<<
>
> Nope. It's CLEARLY a rifle with the serial number "C2766" on it. And
> the rifle with the serial number C2766 on it is not a 36-inch Carcano
> -- it's a 40.2-inch Carcano (regardless of whether it says "Carbine"
> on Waldman 7 or not).
Dave, you are lying as the word Carbine is used. A Carbine model of a
Carcano came ONLY in a 36" size.
> The serial number trumps the "Carbine" notation, which is quite
> obvious to any reasonable person (i.e., anyone who isn't in the
> Anybody-But-Oswald fraternity).
All it trumps is your claim of ONLY ONE weapon having a C2766 serial
number.
> >>> "Thanks Dave!!" <<<
>
> No problem. I always enjoy making you kooks look foolish.
Sure, like you are really taken any more seriously than your idol
Bugliosi.
Walt
> DVP SAID:
>
> >>> "That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter rifle." <<<
>
> WALT SAID:
>
> >>> "Where the hell did you learn to read?? The sales order specifically reads ITALIAN CARBINE." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> A carbine IS a rifle, idiot. ....
I'll wager any sum you'd like to wager That I know more about firearms
than you....I'm not saying this to brag I just want you to know I
don't need your shitty lessons on what a "carbine" is.....
Imerely pointed out that you were lying once again and it is patently
obvious because anybody can read that sales slip and see that the gun
was listed as a "6.5mm Italian Carbine"
You said ...Quote..."That document linked above proves (beyond all
possible doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an
Italian 6.5-millimeter rifle." ...unqoute....
Yer a liar and an asshole....
David Von Pein
>>> "I'll wager any sum you'd like to wager that I know more about firearms than you." <<<
Walt, I have no doubt at all that even a conspiracy-happy ABO kook
like you knows a lot more about firearms than me. Heck, a dead fish
probably knows more about firearms than I do.
I've never fired a gun (any gun) in my entire 46+ years on this
planet....and I never will (if I can help it). I've never even held a
firearm in my hands.
But "detailed firearms knowledge" wasn't the point of my recent
dictionary posts. I know my limitations when it comes to most
arguments. My "carbine" point was to merely clarify a misunderstanding
that many people seem to carry with them regarding the LITERAL MEANING
(and synonyms) of the word "carbine". And "carbine" equates to
"rifle". Period. And there's nothing that any of the kooks in here can
do to change what it says in every dictionary I've recently looked at
when looking up the word "carbine".
"Carbine" = A type of "Rifle". In every dictionary I've looked at.
Period.
DEFINITION REPLAY.......
Via Random House Dictionary:
CARBINE:
1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.
Via American Heritage Dictionary:
CARBINE:
n. A lightweight rifle with a short barrel.
Via WordNet:
CARBINE:
noun: light automatic rifle
Via Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
CARBINE:
n. A short, light musket or rifle, esp. one used by mounted soldiers
or cavalry.
David Von Pein
>>> "You said ...Quote..."That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter rifle." ...unqoute..." <<<
And that quote of mine is absolutely 100% accurate...beyond every
shred of a doubt.
Why?
Because a "carbine" is a "rifle". And there's nothing Walt The Kook
can do about it.
>>> "Yer [sic] a liar and an asshole." <<<
And you (like always) are an evidence-ignoring and evidence-mangling
idiot who can't even read a dictionary -- ANY dictionary.
Walt
Hey Rob....Try to focus..... This isn't about definitions of rifles
and carbines . The point of contention is, your ability to read and
your ability to lie.
Did you or did you not write: ... "That document linked above proves
(beyond all possible doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago
shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter rifle."...
The document you provided the link to clearly is a Kleins sales order
which specifically reads 6.5mm ITALIAN CARBINE."
Walt
> >>> "I'll wager any sum you'd like to wager that I know more about firearms than you." <<<
>
> Walt, I have no doubt at all that even a conspiracy-happy ABO kook
> like you knows a lot more about firearms than me. Heck, a dead fish
> probably knows more about firearms than I do.
>
> I've never fired a gun (any gun) in my entire 46+ years on this
> planet....and I never will (if I can help it). I've never even held a
> firearm in my hands.
THIS addmission says it all..... This asshole isn't even a true
American.
Hey Pea Brain.... What won you the liberty to freely post your ideas
and opinions on the internet?? Was it not a gun?
How many thousands of good brave Americans have taken up arms and
died, so you can have the right to express yourself without fear of
the government putting you in prison for speaking freely?
You make me puke.....
David Von Pein
>>> "Anybody can read that sales slip and see that the gun was listed as a "6.5mm Italian Carbine"." <<<
And lookie what we have here in the other Klein's ad (the one that
advertises the 40-inch model rifle) -- look what it says, right there
in this advertisement -- "6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE" and "40 inches":
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/40/4098-001.gif
So, the two things that CT-Kooks here seem to think are totally
incompatible -- i.e., the word "CARBINE" and "40 INCHES" -- are things
that ARE joined together in that Klein's ad linked above.
Go figure.
David Von Pein
>>> "Because a "carbine" is a "rifle". And there's nothing Walt The Kook can do about it." <<<
And even a FORTY-INCH Carcano is considered to be a "CARBINE" (at
least Klein's thinks so). Try and debunk this ad, kooks:
Walt
> >>> "You said >
> And that quote of mine is absolutely 100% accurate...beyond every
> shred of a doubt.
>
> Why?
>
> Because a "carbine" is a "rifle". And there's nothing Walt The Kook
> can do about it.
>
> >>> "Yer [sic] a liar and an asshole." <<<
>
> And you (like always) are an evidence-ignoring and evidence-mangling
> idiot who can't even read a dictionary -- ANY dictionary.
OK lying asshole...... I've told you before this isn't about whether
the gun was a rifle or a carbine.
The point is: That sales order did NOT have the word "rifle" on
it.... as you said when you wrote :
...Quote..."That document linked above proves (beyond all possible
doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-
millimeter rifle." ...unqoute..."
Although I have little doubt that the gun that was sent to PO Box
2915, was a 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano Short Rifle, that's not
the point .... The point is you either can't read or you're a liar.
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:c0eb486c-a909-4e50...@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 17 Oct, 16:30, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "You said >
>> And that quote of mine is absolutely 100% accurate...beyond every
>> shred of a doubt.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Because a "carbine" is a "rifle". And there's nothing Walt The Kook
>> can do about it.
>>
>> >>> "Yer [sic] a liar and an asshole." <<<
>>
>> And you (like always) are an evidence-ignoring and evidence-mangling
>> idiot who can't even read a dictionary -- ANY dictionary.
Wally wrote;
> OK lying asshole...... I've told you before this isn't about whether
> the gun was a rifle or a carbine.
>
> The point is: That sales order did NOT have the word "rifle" on
> it.... as you said when you wrote :
>
> ...Quote..."That document linked above proves (beyond all possible
> doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-
> millimeter rifle." ...unqoute..."
>
> Although I have little doubt that the gun that was sent to PO Box
> 2915, was a 40 inch long Mannlicher Carcano Short Rifle, that's not
> the point .... The point is you either can't read or you're a liar.>
I write;
Considering that Klein's advertised a 36 inch Manlicher-Carcano;
Considering that Klein'e advertised a 40 inch Manlicher-Carcano;
Explain HOW Oswald "Ordered" a 36 inch Manlicher-Carcano.
"Received" a 40 inch Manlicher-Carcano?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "THIS addmission [sic] says it all.....This asshole isn't even a true American." <<<
Therefore, every American who hasn't held a rifle in their hands isn't
a "true American", per Walt The Mega-Moron.
Right, moron?
Fuck you, asshole.....and fuck your stupid-ass rules that you live by.
>>> "How many thousands of good brave Americans have taken up arms and died, so you can have the right to express yourself without fear of the government putting you in prison for speaking freely?" <<<
Go fuck yourself.
>>> "You make me puke..." <<<
Good, I'm glad. Fuckers like you deserve to choke on your own puke
daily. Eat hearty, Mr. Mega-Kook.
David Von Pein
>>> "The point is: That sales order did NOT have the word "rifle" on it.... as you said when you wrote: ...Quote..."That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter rifle." ...unqoute..." " <<<
Seeing as how a "carbine" IS a "rifle", my previous quote is 100%
accurate.
So what the fuck's your point, idiot?
Walt
My, my, Von Pea Brain you seem a bit upset.....My old grandpa told me
many years ago.... a man can hard as steel or as mallible as
lead.....But like steel he's not worth a tinker's damn if he loses his
temper.
If you don't like eating crow, don't put it on the table, cuz if you
do I'll feed it to you...Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,...ROTFLMAO
David Von Pein
>>> "My old grandpa told me..." <<<
You never had a grandpa. You're from another planet. And Twilo-ites
don't have grandpas.
David Von Pein
>>> "But like steel he's not worth a tinker's damn if he loses his temper." <<<
It feels good to lose one's temper every now and again (and call a
fucker a fucker). I don't do it too often. Only when seriously
justified.
Just make sure the person you're calling a fucker really IS a fucker.
So, I certainly have no worries that I was spreading misinformation
when I called Walt The Kook one of those.