JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 146)
David Von Pein
======================================================
OSWALD, THE DPD, AND THE WARREN COMMISSION:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2871.msg54129.html#msg54129
OSWALD AND THE POST OFFICE:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4e8648efa6bc0833
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/705f99a9ccbe325c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a826e30646ee101f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2d55d21d970ad0f3
THE MAIN STREET CURB:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85715ca99114cf10
SINGLE-BULLET THEORY:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2904.msg54536.html#msg54536
MANNLICHER-CARCANO SERIAL NUMBERS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/088fa92d64a15096
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/372ead1e27638e01
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4d9fd417d7d3ae2
KOOKS AND "CRACKERS":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2b5c402dd6dbc3cc
DAVE REITZES AND JIM DiEUGENIO:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bc034f053733ea78
DR. JAMES J. HUMES:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c714f76aa0d9c971
HAVING A LITTLE FUN WITH JERRY LEWIS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2da1a3736009434f
MORE POSTS AND ARTICLES:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2877.msg54108.html#msg54108
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2853.msg54236.html#msg54236
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/90f0bec6b79df82a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3626a4f2d7ceda6
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2939.msg55081.html#msg55081
======================================================
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=199910
>>> "I don't believe he [LHO] ever owned one [revolver]. I believe it was planted 100% on him in the theater. I know Duke and Greg are in disagreement over which Police Officer or Detective "planted" the gun. Greg thinks it was Nick McDonald. Duke thinks it was Gerald Hill." <<<
Good lord! What a load of crap this is.
There are actually conspiracy theorists here at this forum who think
Oswald DIDN'T OWN A REVOLVER?? Even with Commission Exhibit No. 790
available for everybody to see (which, of course, has Oswald's writing
all over it)? Was his handwriting supposedly "planted" on this order
form too?:
Plus: To believe that the gun was "planted" on Oswald in the Texas
Theater, you've got no choice but to call civilian witness Johnny
Brewer a liar. Brewer saw Oswald pull out a gun and attempt to shoot
policemen with it.
Is Brewer lying here?:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html
And a whole bunch of different police officers would have to go into
the "liars" pool too, who each testified that Oswald pulled out a gun
and grappled with the police as he tried to shoot cops with that gun.
Are Nick McDonald and Paul Bentley telling one lie after another here
too?:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/06/nick-mcdonald-and-paul-bentley.html
Is there any end to the number of people that conspiracists are
willing to call liars and cover-up agents? Or is the sky truly the
limit?
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=199913
WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
>>> "Hi Dave, Good to see you posting here [at The Education Forum]. Maybe you can answer my question. If Oswald ordered the pistol in early January, why was it shipped on March 20, the same day as the rifle, from a different company in a different city? What was the delay, did anyone bother to find out?" <<<
DVP SAID:
Hi Bill,
Good to talk with you again.
I don't have a definitive answer to your question there, Bill. But I
will offer up this possibility (which I think is a reasonable answer
to this mystery):
I think it's quite possible that Oswald mailed the order forms for
both the rifle and the revolver at about the same time--possibly
mailing them on the very same day (March 12, 1963).
Just because the Seaport Traders order form has a "January 27" date
written in by Oswald, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he mailed
that order form on that exact day in January. Maybe he waited and
mailed it in March. We can never know for sure.
>>> "And who was the witness again, D. F. Drittle [sic]? Was he pals with A. J. Hidell?" <<<
Oh, come now, Bill. You're tugging at my lower extremities here,
aren't you, you jokester you? :)
You and I both know that "D.F. Drittal" is another invented name that
was created out of thin air by Lee H. Oswald. Just as "A.J. Hidell"
was created out of thin air.
So, Drittal and Hidell were pals with nobody--except their inventor,
Lee Harvey.
>>> "And another thing, if Oswald could have bought the pistol and the rifle with cash from any sporting goods or department store in Texas without a record, why did he buy them through the mail?" <<<
I doubt very much that Oswald could have walked into any store in
Texas and bought a gun without any record being left behind. I'm
pretty sure that's Conspiracy Myth #884, and is one that Oliver Stone
propped up as the truth in his 1991 fantasy film too.
Just recently, Jean Davison posted some interesting information at the
link below, which deals with this very subject regarding tracing guns
that were purchased in brick-and-mortar stores in Texas in 1963:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2fd0d
Albert Yeargan's July 1964 affidavit (which is referenced by Davison
in the post linked above) certainly indicates that RECORDS WERE KEPT
of the sale of firearms at the H.L. Green Sporting Goods store in
1963.
This whole topic is something that I very recently started thinking
about more and more, and via Jean Davison's post linked above, it
certainly looks to me as though Oliver Stone (and other CTers) have
been peddling a myth regarding Texas gun shops, circa 1963.
I first brought up this topic just last month in fact, in this post
(excerpted below):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2d55d21d970ad0f3
"I'd like to know if conspiracists are right when they say that
Oswald could have walked into any gun shop or department store in
Texas in 1963 and bought a gun that could never be traced?
"No paperwork was required at a gun shop in Texas in '63? No
signature from the purchaser? Nothing? Just grab the gun and run?
"I'm not saying that perhaps that wasn't how it worked in Texas
gun stores, circa 1963, but I'm just wondering if it really was that
cut-&-dried--even back in '63? I've never really ever seen that
confirmed anywhere (that I can think of).
"Could that be just another of the many conspiracy myths that
we've been saddled with since the JFK assassination--with Oliver Stone
giving it a handy push in his blockbuster movie too? I just wonder.
"~~Thinking about the "Benavides' Brother" myth that was
destroyed recently, with Domingo's brother really being killed in
1965, not 1964~~" -- DVP; July 21, 2010
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200095
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "1. Seaport Traders sent REA [Railway Express Agency] a different priced gun than that which was ordered." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Wrong.
Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) ordered a .38 revolver for $29.95.
And Seaport Traders mailed him a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver worth
that exact amount -- $29.95. Michaelis Exhibit No. 2 proves this fact:
Jim DiEugenio apparently thinks that because there's a ".38 S&W
Special" listed for $39.95 on the order form that Oswald used to
purchase his .38 revolver [below], this must mean (per Jim D.) that
Seaport shipped the wrong gun to Oswald/Hidell:
Jim, as usual, is wrong. Quite obviously, BOTH the $29.95 gun that
Oswald ordered and the $39.95 gun marked as a "Special" in the above-
linked advertisement were BOTH considered to be Smith & Wesson
"Specials".
Jim D., as always, is focusing on the wrong information, as well as
twisting other information into his liking, to serve his pathetic
"Anybody But Oswald" purposes.
>>> "2. There is no evidence LHO went to REA to pick up the gun, which was normal procedure." <<<
There was very likely no need for Oswald to go to the Railway Express
office to pick up the revolver. The gun itself was physically shipped
by REA to Oswald's Dallas P.O. Box. We know that via Michaelis Exhibit
No. 4 and the testimony of Heinz W. Michaelis [at 7 H 378]:
JOSEPH BALL -- "I will show you another document here which is a slip
of red paper marked "Railway Express Agency" which has been heretofore
identified with an FBI Exhibit No. DL-29 [which was marked by the
Warren Commission as "Michaelis Exhibit No. 4"]. What is that
document?" ....
HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "That is a copy of the receipt which we got from
the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one carton
with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.
It shows, furthermore, that Railway Express is instructed to collect a
c.o.d. fee of $19.95. And it shows furthermore the number of the
original receipt, which is 70638."
So the merchandise itself (the revolver) was shipped by REA to
Oswald's Dallas post office box. And if REA's procedure was to collect
the C.O.D. and service fee directly from the purchaser (in this case,
Oswald/Hidell), then why would they ever actually physically ship the
merchandise to a POST OFFICE BOX in the first place? They would
obviously realize that the purchaser would likely not be standing
beside his P.O. Box waiting for the REA truck to come by.
There are, btw, special instructions for "Agent At Destination" and
"Agent At Shipping Point" on the REA C.O.D. shipping document
(Michaelis Exhibit No. 5, linked below).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0320a.htm
The "Agent At Shipping Point" instructions would obviously apply to
the post office workers who would ultimately be handling the gun
package that was shipped to P.O. Box 2915 by REA.
And the post office workers would place in Oswald's P.O. Box a slip of
paper telling him he has a C.O.D. package at the front desk. The post
office would then collect the proper C.O.D. charges from Oswald/
Hidell.
I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of "COD"
transactions worked when companies shipped merchandise to P.O. Boxes,
but if the PHYSICAL ITEM itself was actually shipped to P.O. Box 2915
(and Heinz Michaelis said it was in his WC testimony), then it means
that the post office employees would be initially handling the money
from Oswald (since, quite obviously, Oswald didn't set up camp and
live right there inside his post office box as he waited for the
delivery truck to show up with his pistol).
But, then too, only conspiracy theorists actually believe that all of
this chaff about the REA paperwork is the slightest bit important.
Reasonable people, however, can easily determine that Lee Harvey
Oswald received revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in March 1963
and he killed Officer J.D. Tippit with that gun on 11/22/63
(regardless of any paperwork and red tape that might be missing from
the official records of the Railway Express Agency).
>>> "3. There is no evidence of a notification card telling LHO to do this [i.e., go to REA to pick up the gun]." <<<
And that's very likely due to the fact that Oswald didn't need to go
to the Railway Express office to pick up the revolver. He picked it up
right there at the post office.
Plus: Even if Oswald was required to go to the REA office to get the
gun, why on Earth would the slip of paper telling him to do so need to
be retained by anybody? That type of paperwork would very likely get
thrown away after Oswald picked up his merchandise.
>>> "4. There is no signed receipt in evidence." <<<
And that's because Oswald didn't need to sign anything, as explained
by Heinz W. Michaelis [at 7 H 377]:
HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "The order received by mail is written up and
invoiced in quadruplicate on a snap-out form. .... The fourth copy is
the acknowledgment of the order copy and lists on the back side a
statement which has to be signed by the respective customer."
JOE BALL -- "What statement?
MR MICHAELIS -- "A statement to the effect, I believe that it said
that the buyer states that he is a citizen of the United States, and
that he has never been convicted in any court of the United States,
territories, possessions, et cetera."
MR. BALL -- "Well, now, this fourth copy that has on the back this
statement by the customer, is that mailed to the customer?"
MR. MICHAELIS -- "It is mailed to the customer, but not in this
particular case. Indicated on the invoice are three X's, which
indicates that we have already a statement to this effect on file
because this particular mail order coupon has already the statement,
and the name of the witness."
>>> "5. There is no 5024 form in evidence." <<<
Here again, to a conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio, the stuff
that ISN'T in evidence (which the CTer thinks should be in evidence)
is always much more important than what IS in evidence.
In this instance, Jim is much more concerned about a "5024 form" not
being in evidence than he is about the fact that Oswald had on him the
EXACT GUN that Seaport Traders mailed to "A.J. Hidell" at Oswald's
P.O. Box.
In other words, chaff always trumps wheat if you're a conspiracy
theorist the likes of James DiEugenio.
>>> "6. In the WC, the wrong price is added up on the exhibit." <<<
Oh, good heavens! Tell me it ain't so, Jim!
I guess this must mean we should let Oswald off the hook for shooting
Tippit then.
And, btw, if you're referring to Michaelis Exhibit 5, the amount
written in the "Amount To Be Paid" box ($19.95) is not incorrect at
all. That is the correct amount to be remitted to Seaport Traders. The
other amount (the $1.27 C.O.D. service charge) goes to Railway
Express, not Seaport Traders.
>>> "7. There is no evidence of a certificate of good character being produced, even though it was state law." <<<
No certificate was required in this case, because Oswald had already
provided that information via his fake "D.F. Drittal" endorsement on
the mail-order coupon that he sent to Seaport Traders. (Also see my
response to your #4 item above.)
>>> "8. There is no evidence of a payment deposited by REA or transferred to Seaport." <<<
You're wrong. And Heinz Michaelis provided that information in his
Warren Commission testimony [at 7 H 378-379]:
JOE BALL -- "Is there anything in your files which shows that the
Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?"
HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "The fact that the exhibit number...was attached to
the red copy of the invoice...indicates that the money was received."
Plus: The word "Paid" is written right on the invoice too (via
Michaelis No. 2, below).
>>> "9. No documentation that the transaction ever happened was in Oswald's belongings." <<<
I guess Jim DiEugenio thinks that Oswald should have kept every
receipt he ever had in his possession for everything he ever purchased
throughout his life. LOL.
And as indicated earlier, it's very likely that no "receipt" was ever
given to Oswald (by anybody) regarding his purchase of the revolver.
Therefore, of course, no receipt is going to be found among Oswald's
possessions after the assassination.
>>> "10. There is no evidence the ammo was ever purchased." <<<
This is just too silly to talk about.
Oswald quite obviously DID purchase some bullets to go into his Smith
& Wesson revolver. We know he acquired several bullets to go into that
gun, because he fired at least four (and maybe five) of those bullets
at Officer Tippit on Tenth Street. Plus, LHO had five bullets in his
pants pocket and six additional bullets inside the chamber of the gun
when he was arrested in the theater just thirty-five minutes after
Tippit was slain.
The math's pretty easy to figure out here (except if you're in the
"Anybody But Oswald" club, of course).
>>> "The first reports were of automatic shells found at the scene." <<<
But those early (and inaccurate) reports weren't as a result of a cop
actually examining the shells themselves. The initial confusion about
the shells possibly being from an automatic came mainly from
eyewitness Ted Callaway, who told the police that the gunman he saw
leaving the Tippit crime scene was carrying the gun in such a manner
that he thought the gun was an automatic (which could be loaded
through the handle of the weapon). Hence, the incorrect information
was broadcast about the killer being armed with an "automatic".
Plus, this whole "automatic" argument is really, really stupid in the
first place (even if you're a conspiracy believer).
Why?
Because if an automatic gun had really been used to kill Officer
Tippit, then the bullet shells that were recovered at the crime scene
would have been found right next to Tippit's patrol car, instead of
where we know they all were found--in the Davises' yard at the corner
of 10th & Patton.
Does Jim DiEugenio really believe that the real killer of Tippit
picked up his four spent "automatic" cartridges and then tossed them
into the bushes at the corner of Tenth and Patton? There's not a
single witness who ever said anything like that occurred. The gunman
was physically dumping shells out of his gun at the corner, which MUST
mean that the killer shot Tippit with a revolver and not an automatic.
>>> "What happened to Poe's initials?" <<<
Let's have a look at what Dallas Police Officer J.M. Poe told the
Warren Commission on April 7, 1964 [at 7 H 68]:
JOE BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."
So, as we can see via the above testimony, Officer Poe told the Warren
Commission that he wasn't sure whether or not he marked the two bullet
shells that Domingo Benavides handed him.
But, naturally, anything that anybody told the evil, rotten Warren
boys is supposed to flushed down the toilet. Right, Jim D.?
DiEugenio pulls this same trick with Darrell Tomlinson too (the man
who found Bullet CE399 on Governor Connally's stretcher at Parkland
Hospital). Tomlinson told the Warren Commission over and over again
that he wasn't sure which of the two stretchers he had taken off of
the elevator at Parkland. He said he wasn't sure about TEN different
times during his WC session. But, naturally, that testimony means
zilch to an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorist like James
DiEugenio.
Plus, the two "Poe" bullet shells aren't even needed in order to know
with 100% certainty that ALL FOUR shells found at the Tippit murder
scene were shells that came out of Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver.
Why is this so?
Simple:
Because we know from the weight of the witness testimony that ONLY ONE
GUNMAN was ejecting shells out of ONE SINGLE GUN near the corner of
Tenth Street and Patton Avenue just after Officer Tippit was killed.
And since we know for a fact that the OTHER TWO SHELLS FROM OSWALD'S
GUN that were found by TWO additional witnesses on that same day of
November 22 have absolutely no problems or question marks hanging over
them regarding the chain of custody....this, therefore, must mean that
ALL FOUR of the shells had to have been left at the scene by the one
gunman who was dumping shells out of ONLY ONE GUN at the crime scene.
Conspiracists never seem to want to perform the above common-sense
math. (Gee, I wonder why?)
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/hilarious-defense-of-oswald.html
http://groups.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200117
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Are you really saying that when a money transaction is involved and the post office is the fiduciary, there is no signed receipt necessary? Or are you saying the check or money order is the receipt?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'll admit--I have no idea. I would think a receipt would be issued at
the post office if a cash transaction was involved. But on OSWALD'S
end, not finding any such receipt among his possessions eight months
later doesn't seem strange in the slightest. Why would he keep such a
receipt for 8 months? I doubt he would.
But on the POST OFFICE side of the transaction, I'm not sure. Would
they be required to keep on file a copy of any such receipt for eight
months (or forever)? I just do not know.
>>> "The problem here is that there is no check or money order in evidence. So there is no proof of payment made." <<<
Well, Jim, I think it's quite likely that Oswald paid cash. That's why
we have no money order in evidence. And we couldn't have any check
either, since Oswald had no checking account.
>>> "In these types of situations, the FBI goes to bank receipts. They then trace the daily deposit and find the individual deposits that made that day's grand total. They then locate this particular transaction from that day. That did not happen. Why?" <<<
I have no idea. But if Oswald paid with cash (which I think is quite
likely), then obviously there could be no tracing of a particular
money order or check via such an FBI investigation.
And if he paid with cash, there almost certainly would be no possible
way to trace Oswald's $21.22 that he gave to the post office clerk,
because that cash would have gone into a cash drawer and then would
have merely been part of that day's "cash" deposit, along with the
cash given to the post office that day by many other customers who
bought stamps, etc.
>>> "I have given you every benefit of the doubt. Ok, let us say that LHO did not have to go to REA offices. Let us say that in this particular case, normal procedure was not followed. If so, 1.) How did LHO get the merchandise if his name was not on it? and 2.) Where is there any proof of the money transaction?" <<<
Well, there is no "proof" of the money transaction, other than Heinz
Michaelis' testimony, in which he verified to the Warren Commission
that the $19.95 COD payment was made to them at Seaport Traders.
And WHO would have made that payment? My guess would be it was the
same guy who mailed the order form for the revolver (along with a $10
bill) to Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.*
* = And, btw, as I mentioned to William Kelly in another post, it's my
belief that Oswald very likely mailed the order form for the revolver
on the exact same day he mailed [via Air Mail, btw] the order form for
the rifle--March 12, 1963--even though Oswald wrote the date "1/27" on
the revolver order form. But that doesn't mean he had to actually drop
it in the mailbox on January 27.
I think he might very well have mailed the two forms together, and
both via Air Mail, which is why we find "March 13" dates on the
invoices at both Klein's in Chicago and Seaport Traders in Los
Angeles.
As for Oswald getting the revolver, even though it wasn't mailed under
his name---well, the exact same thing happened with the Carcano rifle
at about the same time in late March of 1963, with the only difference
being: the rifle package was paid in full with no COD attached to it.
I.E.:
1.) Oswald finds a card or piece of paper in P.O. Box 2915 at the
Dallas Post Office.
2.) LHO then takes this card to the front desk.
3.) The clerk at the front desk then goes and gets the package.
4.) Oswald then pays the clerk $21.22 (the $19.95 COD plus the REA
$1.27 service charge).
5.) Oswald is then given his Smith & Wesson revolver.
And the reason OSWALD was given the package, even though the package
was mailed to HIDELL is because when a person takes a card/slip to the
front desk that he got out of a P.O. Box, the clerk at the post office
assumes that the person with the card/slip is entitled to the package
because that person must have had access to the P.O. Box in the first
place -- which is exactly the same scenario that occurred with the
rifle too, as explained by Harry D. Holmes, the postal inspector whom
Jim DiEugenio loves to call a liar and a document-tamperer, such as
when Jim made this ridiculous and unprovable statement about Mr.
Holmes earlier tonight:
"Holmes obviously faked the money order after the fact." -- J.
DiEugenio
So, the post office doesn't automatically assume that the person
wanting to claim a package has stolen the key to someone else's post
office box. Instead, the post office assumes that the person with the
slip of paper is a person who rightfully gained access to the P.O.
Box. So, the package is given to the person who produces the slip of
paper to the clerk.
Maybe the post office (circa 1963) should have checked everyone's I.D.
to make sure they weren't giving merchandise to people who weren't
entitled to it. But they obviously did not do that. Hence, Oswald got
his rifle....and his revolver.
Plus, even if some identification had been required at the post
office, Oswald could have easily provided it. He had "Hidell" fake
I.D. cards. He could have flashed one of those (with his picture on it
too). I'm sure that would have satisfied the postal clerk at the desk.
In fact, Harry Holmes suggested that Oswald might have done that very
thing when he picked up his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle:
"And on the other hand, he had this identification card of
Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the
window clerk. Either way, he got it." -- Harry D. Holmes
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=199908
>>> "David, I have asked this question a few times on here but as yet no one has dared to give an answer. Even a ridiculous one! Maybe you could tell me when YOU think Oswald first made the decision to kill Kennedy." <<<
The answer to that question can never be known. You know that.
Everybody knows it's an unanswerable question, and different people
will have different opinions about it.
My own "opinion" is that he probably made the decision to try to make
an attempt on JFK's life sometime on Wednesday evening, November 20th.
He then asks Wes Frazier for the unusual ride to Irving on Thursday
morning and LHO invents his "curtain rod" lie at that time.
So it's pretty clear that by Thursday AM, he had it in his mind to
make an attempt on JFK's life.
But on Thursday night, per Marina, LHO says that he would get an
apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" if she would agree to come back to
Dallas with him to live right away. So it's highly unlikely he would
have taken that rifle to work with him on Friday if Marina had said
"Yes".
The rest is history, of course. LHO took his rifle to work on Nov. 22
and got extremely lucky when he found himself completely alone on the
sixth floor at exactly 12:30.
If Bonnie Ray Williams (or other employees) had been up there on the
sixth floor at 12:30, there is no way, IMO, that Oswald would have
fired a single shot at JFK.
So, yes, Oswald was one LUCKY Presidential assassin on November 22,
1963. No question about that. But he WAS a Presidential assassin that
day. There's no question about THAT either.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=199933
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=199938
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Only in the world of 'Reclaiming History' could such silliness be accepted." <<<
DVP SAID:
And only in the world of conspiracy-giddy theorists could such things
like OSWALD BEING CAUGHT WITH THE MURDER WEAPON ON HIM within 35
minutes of the murder of a policeman be considered "silliness".
You're doing great, Jim. Please continue. And I want to hear more
about your fantasy about Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle being forced by
the rotten and corrupt DPD to make up the "bag" story out of whole
cloth.
That's a tale Aesop would reject out of hand.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200098
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200104
Jim DiEugenio's last batch of answers [top link above] are just as
hilarious and goofy as his others.
1.) First off, Belin didn't examine Heinz Michaelis--Joe Ball did.
(Ball's a rotten evil cover-up agent too, no doubt; right Jim?)
2.) The $19.95 in the "Amount" box on Michaelis No. 5 is correct --
because it's only reflecting the amount to be remitted by the post
office to SEAPORT TRADERS, not the REA fee.
3.) Oswald was given exactly what he ordered--a $29.95 .38 Smith &
Wesson Commando, and Michaelis #2 proves the COMMANDO was a gun that
was being sold by Seaport for $29.95, not $39.95. Why DiEugenio thinks
otherwise is a mystery.
4.) Railway Express didn't just merely "hope" that the customer
(Oswald) would pay them, for Pete sake. They shipped the gun to the
address provided by Oswald (PO Box 2915), and then the post office
undoubtedly made sure that the COD charges were paid by the customer
(Oswald) before the post office employee handed over the gun to LHO.
The post office then must have remitted the $1.27 service charge to
REA, plus they remitted the $19.95 that was owed to Seaport Traders.
If Oswald didn't fork over the cash, he doesn't get the gun. (Duh.)
5.) Gerald Hill never said that the SHELLS themselves were examined
before a radio report was made regarding the "automatic". Get away
from Hurt, Jim. He hurts.
6.) Why would anyone believe there was more than one gunman at the
Tippit murder? Not even Acquilla Clemons said that. She never said TWO
GUNS were involved. And every single witness other than Acquilla said
ONE PERSON and only one person was involved in the shooting. Hence,
ONE GUN was used. And the LONE GUNMAN was seen physically dumping
shells out of that ONE gun at the corner of 10th & Patton. Hence, no
automatic could have possibly been involved in the Tippit murder.
Jim, you're really looking desperate by pretending Oswald was innocent
of shooting Tippit too. Only a CTer in the farthest-out regions of
Conspiracy Land could possibly begin to think Oswald didn't kill
Tippit after evaluating the wealth of evidence in the case that proves
he was guilty.
I'll repeat my "bottom line" that I posted earlier, because it applies
in this post too:
"The key bottom-line fact: The Tippit murder weapon was in the
possession of Oswald on 11/22/63, and he was caught red-handed with it
in the Texas Theater just half-an-hour after that same gun was used to
murder J.D. Tippit."
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200108
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200109
I never said you were lying when you quoted Hurt, Jim. I merely said
for you to get away from Hurt because he hurts. (Just like you told me
to get away from VB & RH.)
The AMOUNT TO BE PAID line I think refers to the amount to be remitted
to SEAPORT TRADERS. And Seaport was only due $19.95, not the full
$21.22.
Now, yes, I'll admit it's possible that the post office might remit
the whole $21.22 to Seaport, and then Seaport gives REA its $1.27
service charge. I really don't know with 100% certainty how that would
work. But we can know for certain that Oswald did pay somebody the
$21.22 to get his gun. Otherwise, as I said, the post office would not
let him have the gun, because it had a COD balance due on the package.
Do you think they'd just say--"Here you go, Mr. Hidell. Just pay the
$21.22 whenever you can, but you can have the gun now anyway"??
I kinda doubt it.
There's no "signed receipt" for Oswald picking up his C2766 rifle at
the very same post office either. Big deal. Happens every day. People
pick up packages at their local post offices and don't have to sign
anything to get them.
On several occasions, I have found one of those yellow slips of paper
in my mailbox telling me I have an oversized package to pick up at the
post office.
I then take the slip to the counter, the clerk gets the package from a
back room, and the clerk hands me the package. No signature. No
receipt. Nothing. And I would guess that the yellow piece of paper
that I gave them gets tossed in the trash right away too, because it
serves no purpose after I've already picked up the package.
And the CTers who love to talk about how Oswald could have walked into
a gun shop and bought an untraceable gun are apparently the same
people who have a big problem with Oswald doing the same basic thing
at the post office when he picked up his mail-order rifle.
In other words, why weren't the very same "firearms forms" required at
a brick-and-mortar gun shop? Were such firearms forms only required
during a MAIL-ORDER transaction? That's silly.
>>> "I want to check up on the revolver a bit more." <<<
But whatever you do, Jim DiEugenio, please remember to never use any
common sense when assessing the totality of the evidence in the JFK &
Tippit murder cases. Otherwise you'll run the risk of having your ABO
[Anybody But Oswald] membership revoked.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=199932
James R. Gordon,
The photo linked below was (purportedly) taken on the afternoon of the
assassination by LIFE Magazine's Allan Grant. There are curtains and
curtain rods in place:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/room.htm
Also -- Hugh Aynesworth told me last year that he saw the curtains and
curtain rods in Oswald's Beckley room on the afternoon of Nov. 22nd:
"David: I was in that rooming house -- Oswald's room -- within
two hours of him leaving it that day and there were good curtains and
rods there. Absolutely no reason to replace them." -- Hugh Aynesworth;
September 15, 2009 [E-Mail]
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200041
>>> "Yes David, of course patsies have incriminating evidence on them. if not they wouldn't be patsies would they?" <<<
Oh, sure. And the police in the Texas Theater just shoved the S&W .38
into Oswald's hands in the theater and whispered to him --- "Hey, Lee,
would you be kind enough to go along with this patsy plot we're
undertaking today, and take this gun and act like you want to shoot a
bunch of us cops with it? How 'bout it, buddy? Will you help us out
with this thing? I'll buy you a beer (or a Dr. Pepper) if you do."
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&view=findpost&p=200267
>>> "Is DVP actually going to use those phony DPD line ups?" <<<
Oh, goodie! More stuff that Jim DiEugenio thinks is "phony".
Does it ever end?
Is Marguerite next?
How about Junie Oswald? Surely little June was part of the plot to
frame her father too--right Jim?
>>> "Question: Who dropped Oswald's wallet at the scene of the Tippit murder if the wallet was taken from him after he was apprehended at the Texas Theater?" <<<
Nobody dropped Oswald's wallet on Tenth Street, because Oswald's
wallet was never found on 10th Street. There are a bunch of possible
explanations for "the 10th St. wallet". Naturally, Jim D. believes in
the version that frames the "patsy". Big surprise there, huh?
More Wallet Talk:
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-2.html
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-3.html
>>> "Second question: Why are Oswald's prints not on the police car? They are someone else's." <<<
Because Oswald's fingers never touched the police car, that's why.
And the fact that some unidentified prints were lifted off of Officer
Tippit's patrol car mean nothing.
You actually think it was impossible for some other person who wasn't
connected at all with Tippit's murder to have touched that car fender
at some point prior to about 1:15 PM CST on November 22?
But according to conspiracy theorists, those prints HAD to have been
left there by the "real killer". That's silly beyond belief.
Footnote ----
I know that conspiracy kooks hate Helen Markham with a passion (except
when she says something they really like--like her "1:06" timing for
the Tippit murder--CTers love her for that, of course)....but in one
of the videos linked below [Part 10], Mrs. Markham tells how Oswald
leaned against Tippit's police car. She says he folded his arms and
then put his elbows on the door of the car. So, why would Oswald have
left any fingerprints on the car at all?
Plus, why would Oswald have touched the FRONT RIGHT FENDER of the car
at all? And I believe it was near the front right headlight where the
prints were found. [Correct me if I'm wrong.] Why would Tippit's
killer have had any reason at all to touch that part of the police
car?
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/05/1964-cbs-special-warren-report.html
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16326&view=findpost&p=199758
A fellow by the name of Brendan (who originally posted this
information at the JFK-Lancer forum [at the second link above]) has
made a very good video about the general operation of a Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle (equipped with the exact same type of cheap Japanese
telescope that was on Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle).
I don't know if Brendan is a conspiracy believer or not, but this
video is quite good at showing some of the basic properties of the
Carcano rifle.
Brendan gets a few facts wrong in the video (the head shot was at 88
yards, not 77), but overall I was impressed by the things I saw in
this video presentation:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/mannlicher-carcano-video.html
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=30&p=199930&#entry199930
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=30&p=199931&#entry199931
Jim DiEugenio,
All of those "problems" that you think exist regarding Lee Oswald's
revolver evaporate immediately when you take one good look at CE790
[in conjunction with the last paragraph in this post].
CE790 is a Seaport Traders order form that was filled out by Lee
Harvey Oswald himself. Hence, he ordered the gun.
COMMISSION EXHIBIT 790:
http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/CE790.jpg?t=1280967117
Was Oswald's handwriting forged onto that Seaport Traders order form
too, Jim? And how did the unknown/unseen "they" do that, Jim?
"They" were sure good at duplicating Lee Oswald's handwriting and
handprinting on a myriad of documents associated with this case,
weren't they, Jim?
All of this "did he order it or didn't he?" business is just another
of the thousands of smokescreens put up by conspiracy theorists who
are desperate to exonerate a double-murderer named Oswald.
And in the revolver instance, it's especially silly.
Why?
Because even if we didn't have CE790 to confirm that Oswald himself
ordered Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210, so what?
We know for a fact that S&W revolver #V510210 was the Tippit murder
weapon (and CTers can't use the "Poe didn't mark the shells" excuse;
I'll explain to you why if you want me to), and we know for a fact
that Oswald was brandishing that same gun in his own hands just 35
minutes after Tippit was slain.
So that's the key bottom-line fact: The Tippit murder weapon was in
the possession of Oswald on 11/22/63, and he was caught red-handed
with it in the Texas Theater just half-an-hour after that same gun was
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16336&view=findpost&p=200278
The "Trade Mart poster" linked below is definitely a fake. There can
be no doubt that this thing is not genuine, because the photo in the
poster shows JFK and Jackie arriving at Love Field on 11/22/63!
So, whoever was selling this fake "poster" on E-Bay was really pulling
a fast one (and pulling a few people's legs too). I hope nobody paid
very much for this obvious forgery:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TFoIuPGHTyI/AAAAAAAAE-g/Q7taMPY8_2s/s400/trade+mart+poster.jpg
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16329&view=findpost&p=200185
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16329&view=findpost&p=200288
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "The idea that JBC and JFK were hit at z 224 is nothing but a fiction. The purpose of which is to salvage the SBT. Why? Because at around this time, in the Z film, you have JFK just barely emerging from behind the sign and he has clearly been hit. There is a grimace on his face, and his hands begin to go upwards to grab his neck. There is no noticeable reaction in JBC. As Mili Cranor once wrote, this single frame destroys the SBT. (Which, BTW, is why Dale Myers had to lie about it and distort it in his fake simulation.)" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Talk about "making stuff up". Jim DiEugenio has just done quite a bit
of that in the above paragraph.
For starters, in Zapruder Film frame #224 (which is a frame of the Z-
Film that DiEugenio actually is silly enough to say "destroys the
SBT"), President Kennedy is just barely visible as he starts to emerge
from behind the Stemmons road sign, as we can see here:
Yes, folks, it's the above frame (#224) that Jim DiEugenio thinks
"destroys the SBT", even though we can't even see John F. Kennedy's
face in Frame 224!
I think a good question for Jim D. to answer is this one:
If JFK had been hit as early as Z190 to Z195 (as you have said on
Black Op Radio, and probably in your online articles as well), then
why are JFK's hands as low as they are in Z224 and Z225?
DiEugenio thinks the same way the HSCA did in 1978 apparently....i.e.,
Kennedy was hit a about Z190, but then LOWERED his arms to where we
can see them in Z224 and Z225, before very rapidly moving those same
arms upward toward his neck and mouth, which is an UPWARD movement
that does not even begin until Z226, as we can see here:
A delayed reaction perhaps, Jim?
But I doubt very much that you would like to endorse any kind of a
"delayed reaction" explanation, in light of the fact that you seem to
think that any similar delayed reaction on the part of Governor
Connally around frames Z224-Z226 is out of the question. Right, Jim?
Of course, in reality, there is no delayed reaction on the part of
EITHER of the victims, with everything we see happening to John B.
Connally just a split second AFTER Z224 being perfectly consistent
with a bullet striking him in the upper back at precisely Z224 --
e.g., Connally's right shoulder pitches slightly downward and forward
at exactly Z224 (the moment-of-impact frame, IMO); Connally's mouth
opens at Z225 (it was closed at Z224; just a coincidence?); Connally's
shoulders "hunch up" at Z225, in what is an obvious involuntary
reaction to having been hit by the bullet; and, of course, there's the
key "hat flip", which begins at Z226, which is a very quick and rapid
movement of Connally's right arm (the same one that was hit by a
bullet; coincidence?).
(And I didn't even mention the "lapel flip" above. But the lapel/coat
movement is really just a "bonus". Because even without that coat
movement, there is ample evidence via the Zapruder Film that Connally
is INVOLUNTARILY reacting to a bullet hitting him at Z224.)
And all of the above-mentioned signs of Governor Connally being hit at
Z224 are totally ignored by most conspiracy theorists...even though
they can watch these JBC reactions over and over again, as many times
as they like, in the Zapruder Film, such as the toggling clip seen
below:
DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "DVP borrowed this phony idea over at Lancer, evidently not bothering to check it out in advance. I nailed him on it in my essay on him. .... So now he has to say both men are hit here, even though it's plain as day they are not." <<<
DVP SAID:
This is a classic example of a person who simply has no capacity
whatsoever for properly evaluating evidence (in this instance, the
Zapruder Film).
When a reasonable person who isn't buried in "THE SBT IS IMPOSSIBLE"
lore, it couldn't be more obvious that the two victims in the
limousine (JFK & JBC) are reacting at precisely the same time to a
bullet hitting each of them in their respective upper backs.
Only a person who is completely blind could possibly look at the
following toggling Z-Film clip a few times in a row and then say this
to themselves --- "Nope, those guys are definitely not reacting to a
bullet at the same time."
Incredibly, James DiEugenio apparently is one of those blind people:
DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Click the link [below] to see that essay and get to know the true DVP." <<<
DVP SAID:
And when you're done reading DiEugenio's article (plus the addendum to
it), be sure to take a look at my five rebuttal articles and my eight-
part audio/video series about Mr. DiEugenio. Perhaps a new picture of
Jim's outlandish theories will emerge:
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16329&view=findpost&p=200295
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16329&view=findpost&p=200311
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "I guess you know more than Connally's doctor, Robert Shaw? Shaw said there was no evidence that JBC was hit until around Z 237." <<<
DVP SAID:
LOL. This is beyond hilarious!
OF COURSE I know just as much about what I can see in the Zapruder
Film as Dr. Robert R. Shaw!
You're kidding with this silliness about SHAW'S interpretation of the
Z-Film, right James?
Anyway -- EVERYBODY who continues to say there isn't a shred of
evidence in the Z-Film for Connally being hit prior to the Z230s is
simply delusional (including LNers Mark Fuhrman and Jim Moore) --
because my last post illustrates HEAPS of stuff indicating that
Connally is reacting to a gunshot well before the Z230s. (Even if my Z-
frames that I've downloaded from Bill Miller at JFK-Lancer are "mud",
per DiEugenio; but thanks for the great gifs anyway Bill; I've always
appreciated them; and I've always been glad I downloaded them to my
computer before they went AWOL from the Lancer files, which they now
have.)
>>> "What DVP does here is about as low as what Myers does in his phony "simulation". He does not show you the still frames. He puts together a gif to make believe that Connally turning around is Connally getting hit! LOL" <<<
Oh, goodie! More "phony" shit! This time it's Dale Myers' "phony"
stuff! Tomorrow--McGeorge Bundy will be "in" on the plot and cover-up!
For those who care to see it again, I'll offer up this excellent gif
clip, showing Connally undoubtedly "reacting" to an external stimulus
(i.e., a bullet) in the Z220s of the Zapruder home movie:
To Jim D., Connally's hunching up his shoulders and grimacing and
opening his mouth at precisely Z225 and jerking that RIGHT arm skyward
at Z226 is stuff that's considered to be CONNALLY NOT GETTING HIT BY A
BULLET. According to James D., JBC was merely "turning around" in that
gif clip. Meh.
And, Jim, are you actually saying that the tiny sliver of JFK's head
that is visible in Z224 is enough for you to make a determination that
JFK is reacting to a bullet hitting him??
If so, you'd better get busy on that new book of yours....because you
are apparently the only person on the planet who can SEE THROUGH A
ROAD SIGN.
>>> "Now let us quote another good witness. Connally himself. After seeing the Z frames up to Z 230: "You can see the grimace in the President's face. You cannot see it in mine. There is no question about it. I haven't been hit yet." " <<<
John B. Connally's opinion regarding the Z-Film is no better (or more
valid) than Dr. Shaw's. And, btw, these people were looking at the
film YEARS before the best-quality copies became available (via MPI
Home Video's "Image Of An Assassination" in 1998), and before anyone
had the great advantage that we have today to examine the Z-Film
frames via toggling gif clips on our computer screens.
If John Connally were alive today to look at the gif clip I posted
above, do you really think he would still maintain an opinion that he
had not been hit until after frame 230?
Plus, Jim likes to ignore another quote of John Connally's, one he
made in 1967 on CBS-TV:
GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my
memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-
Bullet Theory is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit
us both."
EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first
bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the
third one hit President Kennedy?"
CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."
--------
So much for Connally ALWAYS denying the "possibility" of the SBT.
(Let's watch as DiEugenio spins the above 1967 Connally quote into an
advertisement for how corrupt, rotten, and evil CBS News and Walter
Cronkite were in June of 1967 when they aired the JBC quote I just
excerpted. Don't let me down, Jim.)
<snipping the rest of Kook DiEugenio's nutty diatribe>
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16329&view=findpost&p=200340
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "I was waiting for the "where did the bullets go?" BS. You use it at the Pigpen, right? Doesn't work here. .... We have read the Al Maddox testimony about that bullet, we know about the 7.65 shell the FBI recovered and deep-sixed, and Day's testimony in the papers about another bullet. So we know what happened to the bullets." <<<
DVP SAID:
And we have all of these EXTRA BULLETS (from NON-Oswald guns), even
though Oswald was being set up and framed as the LONE PATSY in the
Book Depository--right Jimbo?
What a great "patsy" plot that was, huh? Shoot from a variety of guns
and many different locations--and then just hope and pray all the
evidence funnels back on your one patsy (and hope and pray the U.S.
Government and the Dallas Police want to frame the VERY SAME PATSY the
pre-assassination goofball plotters were trying to frame)!
Totally logical, Jim. (If you're a nutcase and you love ridiculous and
impossible-to-pull-off conspiracy plots, that is. And it's obvious Jim
D. favors those types of plots, vs. an average run-of-the-mill "SHOOT
ONLY FROM WHERE THE PATSY IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOCATED" type of one-patsy
frame-up job.)
LOL. Oh, my bladder!
>>> "BTW, what happened to the Tague bullet?" <<<
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/missed-shot-controversy.html
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16340&view=findpost&p=200342
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "He [Todd Leventhal] uses Bugliosi's book in his portrait of Oswald. Doesn't he know that VB didn't even write that part? Fred Haines did." <<<
DVP SAID:
Bullshit.
It looks like DiEugenio is "making stuff up" (again). What a surprise!
To hear Jim tell it, Fred Haines wrote the ENTIRE Oswald biography
chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History". But such a claim
regarding Haines is total nonsense.
Yes, Haines helped write portions of the Oswald bio chapter and
Chapter #1 ("Four Days In November"), and Fred helped Vince with the
narrative style of writing that exists in both of those extensive
chapters of the book. But Haines certainly was not responsible for the
whole Oswald bio chapter.
Quoting from "RH":
"The other person [besides Dale Myers] who played a writing
role, though a smaller one, was Fred Haines. .... Fred's fine hand has
survived in several places of the 'Lee Harvey Oswald' and 'Four Days
in November' sections." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1515 of "Reclaiming
History"
It sounds like DiEugenio has possibly been listening to too much of
David Lifton's "ghostwriting" crappola, which is a rumor that Lifton
started about Bugliosi's book on the May 24, 2007, Black Op Radio show
[http://Box.net/shared/xlmn60qxxn] -- and it's a stupid rumor that was
very quickly debunked as pure nonsense by both Patricia Lambert and
Vince Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) in early July of 2007, as
I discuss at length in the blog entry linked below:
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&view=findpost&p=200473
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16357&view=findpost&p=200497
>>> "You can't really discuss the JFK Assassination without discussing the role of the media and academia in the cover up of the assassination of John Kennedy. A perfect example of that is the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas which promotes the Big Lie as they protect the murderers and conspirators of John Kennedy. Currently Nicola Longford and Gary Mack are the ones who are using the Sixth Floor Museum as a propaganda tool to promote the Big Lie..." <<<
This is undoubtedly another of the hundreds of silly myths started by
conspiracy theorists.
I've never been to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas, but I'd be
willing to bet the farm that there are plenty of displays and exhibits
(etc.) within the museum that talk about "conspiracy" and the various
conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists connected to the JFK
assassination.
I know that the Sixth Floor Museum rotates its visual displays and
exhibits that visitors can see there, and it's highly likely that
"conspiracy" works its way into some of those exhibits and displays
throughout the museum.
I'm just wondering if many of the conspiracy theorists who continually
love to ramble on and on about how "one-sided" and biased the Sixth
Floor Museum is have ever even been there to see the displays and
exhibits?
My guess is that a whole lot of those whining CTers have not been
there at all. And even if they have, they probably have no idea what
type of exhibits are being "rotated" in and out by the Museum's
staff.*
* = Yes, I know I just said that I myself have never been to the
Museum either, which is true. So I'll admit that what I just said
about the conspiracy theorists never having been there (and, hence,
having no idea at all as to the content of the exhibits that are
available at the Museum from day to day and week to week) is nothing
but sheer guesswork and speculation on my part, and I want to identify
it as such before going any further.
And in addition to the physical museum itself at 411 Elm Street in
Dealey Plaza, the Sixth Floor Museum
also runs this Internet website -- http://jfk.org -- which includes
multiple "Oral History" interviews that definitely contain comments
that lean toward "conspiracy", such as the interviews with Bill and
Gayle Newman and Gordon Arnold (linked below):
http://jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1993.011.0004
http://jfk.org/go/collections/item-detail?fedoraid=sfm:1989.128.0001
http://jfk.org/go/collections/online#rQEQ_1__MQAAAAAAEAcc
Footnote---
I also always get a big kick out of the whining and bitching
conspiracy theorists who take great pleasure in calling Sixth Floor
Museum curator Gary Mack just about every derogatory name this side of
Hitler and Charles Manson.
It's utterly ridiculous, particularly the way "Black Op Radio" host
Len Osanic tears down Mr. Mack on almost a weekly basis on his
Thursday-night Internet radio program. Truly despicable behavior,
especially due to the fact that Gary Mack is not really a so-called
"Lone Nutter" at all. He's more of a "Fence Rider".
Gary M. certainly believes Lee Oswald was a gunman firing his Carcano
at JFK from the sixth floor of the TSBD, that's true enough. (But,
given the undeniable evidence of Oswald's guilt--what else COULD a
reasonable person like Gary Mack believe when it comes to the topic of
"Lee Harvey Oswald" and his participation in the crime on Elm Street?)
But Mack, as far as I am aware, has not discounted ALL notions of a
possible conspiracy in the case either. And why some (or most) of the
Internet conspiracy whiners seem to think Mr. Mack is "All LNer" is a
mystery to me.
I guess perhaps we can chalk that one up as Conspiracy Myth #2,119.
>>> "There is a teeny tiny ghetto for conspiracy theory [at The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza]...And attention and weight and credence is given to the...HSCA report [which is a U.S. Government Committee that endorsed a CONSPIRACY in the assassination of President Kennedy]." <<<
Thanks, Robert [Morrow], for confirming what I always thought to be
true:
"Conspiracy" is a part of the Sixth Floor Museum's world.
Thank you.
>>> "They have this radio report playing OVER and OVER again: "3 shots fired in Dallas", "3 shots fired in Dallas", or something like that." <<<
Well, it would be a little difficult to find any of the first
bulletins that DIDN'T say "Three shots were fired" -- because every
one of those initial radio and television reports said that 3 shots
were fired.
In fact, I always encourage people to listen to (or watch) the first-
day radio and TV coverage -- because when you perform that task, you
will be saying to yourself (as I always do):
"Where in the heck do the conspiracy bozos like Oliver Stone get
the crazy idea that SIX SHOTS were fired from THREE DIFFERENT
LOCATIONS in Dealey Plaza?! That's nuts! And this original, as-it's-
happening 11/22/63 footage that I've been watching proves that those
conspiracy-happy bozos are nuts!"
Everybody should try it. It works wonders for curing the "Oliver Stone
Triangulation Of Crossfire Disease" that many people currently are
afflicted with:
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=105&p=200794&#entry200794
JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Question for Davey: About LHO having the revolver in question in his hand at the theater. Are you ignoring all the info posted above from people who don't think LHO had that revolver on him at the theater?" <<<
DVP SAID:
Some of the people might not have actually SEEN the gun. But there can
be no doubt the gun was in LHO's hands. Johnny Brewer's testimony
PROVES that fact. And Brewer was NOT A COP. Hence, you can't place
Brewer into your basket of cops who you want to pretend were framing
Oswald for the murder of their fellow police officer--all the while
those same cops DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ALLOWING THE REAL KILLER OF
THEIR FELLOW POLICEMAN TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE.
Johnny Brewer:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html
>>> "And also the fact that a revolver does not eject automatic shells?" <<<
Right. It doesn't. Hence, not a single "automatic" shell is in
evidence in this murder case. Only shells from Oswald's S&W revolver
are in evidence in this murder case.
>>> "And all the evidence that indicates someone dropped Oswald's wallet at the scene--and that wallet cannot be Tippit's." <<<
There is confusion about whose wallet it was. And, yes, it most
certainly COULD have been Tippit's. Ron Reiland, who filmed the wallet
for WFAA-TV, even says on live TV on Nov. 22 that the wallet was
Tippit's:
Ron Reiland's 11/22/63 Film:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html
"If I had to wager, I'd conclude it was Tippit's wallet, and the
reason Reiland stated that it was Tippit's wallet is that the police
had informed him at the scene that it was. .... It makes no sense to
me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were
Tippit's friends, would keep from the world that his killer's wallet
was found near his body." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 453 and 456 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
And that last sentence by Bugliosi -- "It makes no sense to me that
the Dallas police and detectives...would keep from the world that his
killer's wallet was found near his body" -- makes even more sense when
you factor in the theories of some conspiracists, who think some of
those very same Dallas police officers were FRAMING Oswald for
Tippit's murder!
Under those "frame-up" conditions, why on Earth wouldn't the rotten
cops advertise to the world with a megaphone that "OSWALD'S WALLET WAS
FOUND NEXT TO TIPPIT'S BODY!"
Did ANY of the evil cops do this? No.
>>> "Davey: Because they realized that they already had his wallet from his apprehension at the theater, and that no one could be so dumb as two carry two wallets with full ID on the day they were planning to kill the president. Not even your buddy Dan Rather could say that without laughing on TV. You probably could though." <<<
Boy, what a bunch of goofball, halfwit Patsy Framers you've got there,
Jim.
They planted a wallet that's supposed to be Oswald's on Tenth
Street....and yet -- SLAPS FOREHEAD! -- they forgot about the wallet
that Oswald probably was carrying with him in the theater!
Great plan there.
Of course, why this little "2 Wallets" snafu would bother your
crackerjack team of DPD frame-up artists is a mystery to me --- they
could have merely pretended that the 10th Street wallet near Tippit's
body was the ONLY wallet associated with their patsy Oswald that day!
Just get rid of the "theater" wallet and pretend that the 10th Street
wallet was Oswald's lone wallet that he was carrying on November 22,
1963.
That's a piece of cake for these DPD patsy framers. Right, Jim?
Bottom Line ---- Not a single cop put in their official reports that
Oswald's wallet was found near Tippit's body on Tenth Street. Why that
very important fact doesn't bother Jim DiEugenio is a good-sized
mystery to me.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html
Sean Smiley
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=105&p=...
>
> JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>
> >>> "Question for Davey: About LHO having the revolver in question in his hand at the theater. Are you ignoring all the info posted above from people who don't think LHO had that revolver on him at the theater?" <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Some of the people might not have actually SEEN the gun. But there can
> be no doubt the gun was in LHO's hands. Johnny Brewer's testimony
> PROVES that fact. And Brewer was NOT A COP. Hence, you can't place
> Brewer into your basket of cops who you want to pretend were framing
> Oswald for the murder of their fellow police officer--all the while
> those same cops DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ALLOWING THE REAL KILLER OF
> THEIR FELLOW POLICEMAN TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE.
>
> Johnny Brewer:http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html
>
> >>> "And also the fact that a revolver does not eject automatic shells?" <<<
>
> Right. It doesn't. Hence, not a single "automatic" shell is in
> evidence in this murder case. Only shells from Oswald's S&W revolver
> are in evidence in this murder case.
>
> >>> "And all the evidence that indicates someone dropped Oswald's wallet at the scene--and that wallet cannot be Tippit's." <<<
>
> There is confusion about whose wallet it was. And, yes, it most
> certainly COULD have been Tippit's. Ron Reiland, who filmed the wallet
> for WFAA-TV, even says on live TV on Nov. 22 that the wallet was
> Tippit's:
>
One of the first officers to the scene, Sgt Kenneth Croy, testified
that a witness or witnesses saw a cab driver leaving the scene with a
gun & thought that he might have been the killer. The first FBI agent
to the scene was told that the wallet was perhaps the killer's. At
that time, then, WW Scoggins was the main suspect. 2+2: The wallet
was Scoggins'....
dcw
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, there would be no reason for that. Scroggin's never said he was
missing a wallet, and since the wallet Croy found was given to Sgt.
Calvin Owens, and Owens was first at the Tippit murder scene, then at
the Texaco, it would make sense that the wallet went over there for
the Reiland camera. The Reiland camera also shot the wallet at the
Tippit murder scene as is found on the Bradford Inventory of the day.
Croy never left the Tippit murder scene, and went home or to pick up
his wife directly from there.
DVP is always all over the place and even tries here to make Harry
Holmes innocent in all the Postal/Hidell anomolies. The main issue is
the rifle. JFK was not hit with a revolver and the revolver used on
Tippit can't be tied to Oswald. The money order that Harry Holmes had
to pick out for convenience of establishing a papertrail was obtained
from a box from his P.O. that had a money order number that if done in
sequence which is the way all money orders are handled in a P.O system
as well as any other system, would have been coming up in 1965. That
is, and always will be the smoking gun in the framing of Oswald, even
though many other things are easily proved with a little more detail-
orientation.
The Croy/Wallet thing and some of the events/people at Tippit are
discussed in a previous thread, 'Dusting The Fingerprints'.
CJ
David Von Pein
The 3/12/63 money order to Klein's had Oswald's writing all over it.
So, quite obviously, he wasn't "framed" there.
Nobody knows whose wallet was found on 10th Street. That will forever
remain a mystery. All anyone can do is guess. Plus, Oswald's wallet
was positively removed from his back pocket at the Texas Theater. So,
he wasn't being "framed" regarding the wallet either.
As always, CTers lose.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-2.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-3.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html
curtjester1
> The 3/12/63 money order to Klein's had Oswald's writing all over it.
> So, quite obviously, he wasn't "framed" there.
>
money orders have a process to go through and many stamps on the back
before they find a happy home. They forgot to go through that process
with their 'fake' money order. You'll have to start reading my posts
on that. I won't hold my breath, as you never read or discuss beyond
your 'limit's', DVP.
> Nobody knows whose wallet was found on 10th Street. That will forever
> remain a mystery. All anyone can do is guess. Plus, Oswald's wallet
> was positively removed from his back pocket at the Texas Theater. So,
> he wasn't being "framed" regarding the wallet either.
>
OF course it's a mystery when a wallet is being shown on local TV and
nobody says anything about it!!
It's not such a mystery when that TV wallet was discussed as having
Hidell info in it by the 'careless' Agent Barrett, huh? And he
testified it was found where? ATTMS (at the Tippit murder
scene)...as in NOT TEXACO.
> As always, CTers lose.
As always, DVP, is on the prowl for another loser.
CJ
David Von Pein
>>> "You'll have to do better than 'his' writing." <<<
Why? His verified handwriting proves he made out the money order. Duh.
>>> "As always, DVP is on the prowl for another loser." <<<
The search is over--CurtJester's here.
Sean Smiley
But he did say that he left the scene in a cop car. He had
interaction with the police, more so than, say, Callaway.
dcw
, and since the wallet Croy found was given to Sgt.
> Calvin Owens, and Owens was first at the Tippit murder scene, then at
> the Texaco, it would make sense that the wallet went over there for
> the Reiland camera. The Reiland camera also shot the wallet at the
> Tippit murder scene as is found on the Bradford Inventory of the day.
> Croy never left the Tippit murder scene, and went home or to pick up
> his wife directly from there.
>
> DVP is always all over the place and even tries here to make Harry
> Holmes innocent in all the Postal/Hidell anomolies. The main issue is
> the rifle. JFK was not hit with a revolver and the revolver used on
> Tippit can't be tied to Oswald. The money order that Harry Holmes had
> to pick out for convenience of establishing a papertrail was obtained
> from a box from his P.O. that had a money order number that if done in
> sequence which is the way all money orders are handled in a P.O system
> as well as any other system, would have been coming up in 1965. That
> is, and always will be the smoking gun in the framing of Oswald, even
> though many other things are easily proved with a little more detail-
> orientation.
>
> The Croy/Wallet thing and some of the events/people at Tippit are
> discussed in a previous thread, 'Dusting The Fingerprints'.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> CJ
curtjester1
> >>> "You'll have to do better than 'his' writing." <<<
>
> Why? His verified handwriting proves he made out the money order. Duh.
>
the old signature trick eh? Ever hear of "follow the money". Banking
with money orders, checks, and such have a process. The simple way is
to pull that process out and show everyone. It didn't happen because
there was nothing they could show. Period. Did anyone ever read the
Great Z Film Hoax? There was a signature of Oswald (who had called in
to Mae Brussell's Show) and wanted to meet with her and some folks.
His alias, that was almost exactly the same as his MC handler, Donald
O. Norton, had a very close writing pattern to many Oswald
signatures. Nice try DVP trying to pull that stunt.
> >>> "As always, DVP is on the prowl for another loser." <<<
>
> The search is over--CurtJester's here.
That's because the EVIDENCE is here. That's a big 10-4 Lil' Buddy.
CJ
curtjester1
So? What is the likelihood someone getting involved in the tail end
of a murder having the odds of losing his wallet #1, and never telling
about it #2? If it were Tippit's wallet, they would have seen the
contents and told about it. They didn't, Barrett said the contents
were of A.Hidell.
CJ
> , and since the wallet Croy found was given to Sgt.
>
>
>
> > Calvin Owens, and Owens was first at the Tippit murder scene, then at
> > the Texaco, it would make sense that the wallet went over there for
> > the Reiland camera. The Reiland camera also shot the wallet at the
> > Tippit murder scene as is found on the Bradford Inventory of the day.
> > Croy never left the Tippit murder scene, and went home or to pick up
> > his wife directly from there.
>
> > DVP is always all over the place and even tries here to make Harry
> > Holmes innocent in all the Postal/Hidell anomolies. The main issue is
> > the rifle. JFK was not hit with a revolver and the revolver used on
> > Tippit can't be tied to Oswald. The money order that Harry Holmes had
> > to pick out for convenience of establishing a papertrail was obtained
> > from a box from his P.O. that had a money order number that if done in
> > sequence which is the way all money orders are handled in a P.O system
> > as well as any other system, would have been coming up in 1965. That
> > is, and always will be the smoking gun in the framing of Oswald, even
> > though many other things are easily proved with a little more detail-
> > orientation.
>
> > The Croy/Wallet thing and some of the events/people at Tippit are
> > discussed in a previous thread, 'Dusting The Fingerprints'.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
You're hopeless if you can't see that Barrett was a liar.......
curtjester1
Your hopeless that you won't believe something a Fed had no REASON to
lie about before they had to get their stories straight! Not that we
need Barnett, since all the logical conclusions with all the available
evidence show that the wallet found was found at the Tippit murder
scene and transported (as the trail shows with the timelines and
places the investigators went) a block away to the Texaco station.
There is ZERO evidence that the wallet was found at the Texaco or any
other place. There is ZERO evidence that the wallet at the Texaco
could belong to officer Tippit, since he was already gone in ambulance
to Methodist Hospital. Only an LNT'er would cling to the hope that
the wallet found was not Hidell/Oswald's and not be found at the
Tippit Murder Scene.
CJ
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16378&st=0&p=201032&#entry201032
>>> "What reason would [Officer Marrion L.] Baker have had to hold Oswald?" <<<
Well, hindsight is certainly always pretty much twenty-twenty -- but,
good grief, Officer Baker pretty much KNEW that the assassin was still
in the TSBD when he rushed into that building within a minute of the
assassination. He saw the pigeons flying off the roof and thought the
shooter was probably up on the roof.
So, quite obviously, he knew the assassin MUST still be inside (unless
the killer committed hari-kari after shooting the President by jumping
to his death from the roof).
Therefore, Baker SHOULD NOT HAVE LET ANYONE LEAVE THE BUILDING--
PERIOD.
And I'm guessing that Marrion L. Baker has probably had nightmares
about letting Oswald leave that second-floor lunchroom that day.
Because if Baker had held onto Oswald, then Officer Tippit would
certainly have lived to see the next day's sunrise.
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/marrion-baker.html
robcap...@netscape.com
CJ, you know you are on the right track when Walt calls you a
liar! :-)
robcap...@netscape.com
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16378&st=0&p=20...
>
> >>> "What reason would [Officer Marrion L.] Baker have had to hold Oswald?" <<<
>
> Well, hindsight is certainly always pretty much twenty-twenty -- but,
> good grief, Officer Baker pretty much KNEW that the assassin was still
> in the TSBD when he rushed into that building within a minute of the
> assassination. He saw the pigeons flying off the roof and thought the
> shooter was probably up on the roof.
>
> So, quite obviously, he knew the assassin MUST still be inside (unless
> the killer committed hari-kari after shooting the President by jumping
> to his death from the roof).
So if you believe Baker believed a shooter was on the roof why do you
scoff at the idea that the police found a rifle on the roof?
> Therefore, Baker SHOULD NOT HAVE LET ANYONE LEAVE THE BUILDING--
> PERIOD.
They should NOT have forced people back into a building they believed
had an assassin in it either, so what is your point?
> And I'm guessing that Marrion L. Baker has probably had nightmares
> about letting Oswald leave that second-floor lunchroom that day.
Why, LHO did NOT shoot anyone?
> Because if Baker had held onto Oswald, then Officer Tippit would
> certainly have lived to see the next day's sunrise.
LOL!! Of course DVP has NO evidence to show any of this correct.
David Von Pein
http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html
JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>>> "I thought you buffs believed that Hoover was intent on convicting Oswald as the lone assassin? This memo [linked above] shows him to be quite prudent and restrained." <<<
DVP SAYS:
Excellent observation, John.
According to many conspiracy theorists, J. Edgar Hoover is supposedly
at the top of the list amongst the "Let's Frame Oswald" cover-up
operatives. And yet the next minute (when a document like the above-
linked 12/12/63 letter surfaces), Hoover is supposedly CONVINCED that
a conspiracy did exist to kill JFK.
But then we have to ask: What happened to the "LET'S FRAME OSWALD AS
THE LONE PATSY" mindset that so many CTers think FBI Director John
Edgar Hoover possessed?
So, once again, we're treated to the willy-nilly, scattershot world of
CT lore and CTer imagination.
Plus, I've said for years that it's my belief that J. Edgar Hoover
would have been THE LAST MAN ON EARTH who would have had any desire
whatsoever to want to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone
patsy for the murder of President Kennedy. Here's why (in a nutshell):
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Rob, it's all one can do, just lash out, instead of being
truthful and looking at the hard facts. These hard facts can lead to
how extensive the patsyism was with pre-assassination to during the
assassination and how it needed to be done to make it look good to
catch 'their suspect' so as not to draw suspicioun to the American
Public. So intense it was, it would even make DPD quiet (no one said
boo after such a vital piece of evidence/event), and get the ball
rolling for the execution of Oswald, and more Hidell stuff to tie him
with the rifle.
CJ
Walt
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16378&st=0&p=20...
>
> >>> "What reason would [Officer Marrion L.] Baker have had to hold Oswald?" <<<
>
> Well, hindsight is certainly always pretty much twenty-twenty -- but,
> good grief, Officer Baker pretty much KNEW that the assassin was still
> in the TSBD when he rushed into that building within a minute of the
> assassination.
Hey STUPID..... Do you believe officer Marrion Baker was
clairvoyant??? HOW would he have known that JFK had been
murdered??? He heard what he though was a rifle shot, looked up and
saw pigeons bursting into flight from behind the billboard on the roof
of the TSBD, and headed for the roof of that building..... He never
heard anything about the President being murdered BEFORE he entered
the TSBD..... So WHY would you expect him to seal off the building and
start searching for a murderer?? You are a very poor "Monday
morning quarterback".
David Von Pein
>>> "Do you believe officer Marrion Baker was clairvoyant??? HOW would he have known that JFK had been murdered??? He heard what he though was a rifle shot, looked up and saw pigeons bursting into flight from behind the billboard on the roof of the TSBD, and headed for the roof of that building..... He never heard anything about the President being murdered BEFORE he entered the TSBD..... So WHY would you expect him to seal off the building and start searching for a murderer??" <<<
LOL. Another classic piece of investigative work by Walt Cakebread,
the Resident Retard.
But, just so Walt will know he's got competition for the "Retard Of
The Week" award, take a look at my next post below this one. It's a
bladder-buster for sure. I think I'm going to frame it.
David Von Pein
http://jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1291&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=135#p27560
At Wim Dankbaar's house of CT idiots, "Dealey Joe" said this:
"Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he
has always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown
everyone for a loop, his plan exactly.
"According to my findings, he is very well educated. One
university he likely either attended or taught, maybe both, was a
Quaker college, Guilford. Remember he was from the town that Ruth
Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana, a
strong Quaker town.
"Von Pein would only have been a couple years old in '63, but he
had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family knew Ruth
Paine. He may have set on her lap? Now since he is found out, he has
decided to come out of the closet as far as his picture. We already
knew what he looked like. He thrives on controversy because it keeps
everyone off guard. I suspect he is a disinfo agent."
[End Quote.]
===================================
The above post by "Dealey Joe" is another example of how conspiracy
theorists will, to quote Vincent Bugliosi, "leap from the most
minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions".
Here's how Dealey Joe came to the grand conclusion that my "family
knew Ruth Paine" (which I guess, if true, must mean my mom and dad
were in cahoots with Mrs. Paine in a plot to frame Oswald in 1963):
In a blog I created in 2009 about Ruth Paine [located at
http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com], I discuss a rather strange and
interesting coincidence that occurred in the summer of 1963: Mrs.
Paine visited some friends in my hometown of Richmond, Indiana (Ruth
had also attended a Quaker conference at Earlham College in Richmond
back in 1947, which happened to be the very first "Young Friends"
conference she ever attended).
I remarked in my blog that I thought that was a rather strange
coincidence for a key person in the JFK-assassination saga to have at
least a few ties to my own hometown in eastern Indiana, which is a
pretty small town.
So, apparently from those comments that I made about this "connection"
between myself, my hometown of Richmond, and Ruth Paine, "Dealey Joe"
has leaped to the grand conclusion that my family and Ruth knew each
other. And Joe also has concluded that I attended (or taught at) a
Quaker university too.
Dealey Joe's investigative skills are a perfect example of why the
conspiracy community has been having trouble solving the JFK murder --
i.e.: the community is populated with idiots when it comes to the
topic of the assassination of President Kennedy.
Anyway, to keep Dealey Joe's illusion of me alive, I'll be sure to
give Ruth Paine a call tonight. She'll want to know that crackerjack
researchers like Dealey Joe have finally unearthed the sinister "Von
Pein/Paine" connection. (Hey, even our names are similar. Maybe Joe
can work that fact into his next theory.)
I also want to remind Ruth to never travel anywhere ever again.
Because if she does, she is bound to stop in a town that has as one of
its residents a 2-year-old boy who will have an interest in the JFK
murder case in the year 2040. And a deep "connection" like that will
be impossible for any LNer to deny.
Walt
> >>> "Do you believe officer Marrion Baker was clairvoyant??? HOW would he have known that JFK had been murdered??? He heard what he though was a rifle shot, looked up and saw pigeons bursting into flight from behind the billboard on the roof of the TSBD, and headed for the roof of that building..... He never heard anything about the President being murdered BEFORE he entered the TSBD..... So WHY would you expect him to seal off the building and start searching for a murderer??" <<<
>
> LOL. Another classic piece of investigative work by Walt Cakebread,
> the Resident Retard.
Is this the best you can do Von Pea Brain???....An adhominem
attack.... I'm sure you're smart enough to know that my post was true,
and Baker didn't know that JFK had been murdered at the time he jumped
of his motorcycle and ran into the TSBD. So you stuck your ignrant
head in the guillotine.....and I trip the blade.
David Von Pein
So, per Walt the Retard, I guess Marrion Baker should have waited
around and confirmed that JFK had been "murdered" before chasing after
the person Baker thought had fired the shots from the top of the TSBD.
After all, maybe the gunman atop the Depository didn't actually HIT
the President (or anyone) in Dealey Plaza. Which means that Baker
should have IGNORED THE ASSASSIN until he confirmed 100% that JFK had
been "murdered".
Right, Cakebread?
You just might beat out "Dealey Joe" for that Retard Of The Week award
yet, Walt.
Walt
> So, per Walt the Retard, I guess Marrion Baker should have waited
> around and confirmed that JFK had been "murdered" before chasing after
> the person Baker thought had fired the shots from the top of the TSBD.
>
> After all, maybe the gunman atop the Depository didn't actually HIT
> the President (or anyone) in Dealey Plaza. Which means that Baker
> should have IGNORED THE ASSASSIN until he confirmed 100% that JFK had
> been "murdered".
Here's your words Von Pea Brain....Eat em....
"Officer Baker pretty much KNEW that the assassin was still in the
TSBD when he rushed into that building within a minute of the
assassination. He saw the pigeons flying off the roof and thought the
shooter was probably up on the roof.
So, quite obviously, he knew the assassin MUST still be inside"
Where did you get the idea that Baker KNEW that JFK had been murdered
at the time he jumped off his motorcycle and ran into the TSBD?? At
the time that Baker entered the TSBD he only THOUGHT that the shot
that he heard had come from the ROOF of the TSBD. He entered the TSBD
and charged up the stairs to the roof as fast as he could go, only to
discover that the roof level was well below the wall surrounding the
roof and no average man could have fired over that wall on the roof.
Upon discovering his erroneous thinking, he immediately returned to
ground level climbed aboard his motorcycle and proceeded to Parkland
hospital. Later that afternoon when he was told he might possibly
have encountered the assassin in the TSBD he immediately thought of
the man he's seen on "either the third or fourth floor" who was
"walking away from the stairs". This man was in his early thirties,
about 5'9'' tall, with dark hair, and wearing a tan ot khaki colored
jacket ( or shirt) Baker recalled that he called to the man and told
him to "come here", whereupon the man approached Baker and
Truly.....Truly vouched for the man and told Baker that he was an
employee of his.
David Von Pein
http://Amazon.com/review/R14MK6H8NB7DEZ
IN THE "RECLAIMING HISTORY" BOOK REVIEW LINKED ABOVE,
GREGG WAGER SAID:
>>> "Bugliosi writes the following: "... there is no bottom to the pile in the Kennedy case." (p. 1513) and "... there simply is no end to the case...." (p. 1518). Finally Bugliosi admits what he should have admitted at the beginning: that this case is nowhere near being solved and probably never will be solved, even after decades of industrious research. Not even a former district attorney is superman enough to look down on this large community of Kennedy researchers and call them a bunch of "zanies" or "loony birds"." <<<
DVP SAID:
Vincent Bugliosi never once said (or even implied in his book) that
the JFK case is "nowhere near being solved and probably never will be
solved" [to use Wager's quote again].
Bugliosi believes quite the opposite, of course, with Vince believing
the case is definitely solved and is "a very simple case at its core--
Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone" [Bugliosi's quote, via various
2007 radio and television interviews].
What Gregg Wager has done here is to imply that Bugliosi's remark on
page 1518 ("there simply is no end to the case") means that Vince is
of the opinion that the case is not solved.
But nothing could be further from the truth. Bugliosi's "no end to the
case" comment was merely referring to the fact that conspiracy
theorists have seen to it that there is no bottom to the pile in the
JFK case. In other words, it is the conspiracy "zanies" of the world
who have complicated the case and made the pit a bottomless one.
But Vince certainly isn't implying on page 1518 that the case will
never be solved. That's just silly, Gregg, in light of everything else
Bugliosi says in the first 1517 pages of "Reclaiming History".
In the final analysis, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt was firmly
established by the Dallas Police Department within 24 hours of
President Kennedy's murder, and Oswald's lone guilt in the
assassination of the 35th U.S. President (and in the murder of Dallas
Police Officer J.D. Tippit as well) has been reinforced and solidified
via the ocean of evidence presented by Vincent T. Bugliosi in his
exemplary 2007 tome, "Reclaiming History".
As Mr. Bugliosi states so well and succinctly on page 969 of "RH":
"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the
future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill
Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald
or simply a very silly person. Indeed, any denial of Oswald's guilt is
not worthy of serious discussion."
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=150&p=201304&#entry201304
BILL KELLY ASKED:
>>> "But is D. F. Drittal written in the same handwriting [on the mail-order coupon for the Smith & Wesson revolver]? It doesn't appear to be to me." <<<
DVP SAID:
The FBI's James Cadigan said it is, yes. (Just as I said in the post
below, where I quote Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony.)
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=150&p=201301&#entry201301
But, of course, the "D.F. Drittal" portion of the coupon is really
supposed to be written by someone other than the person who is
ordering the gun.
So, if Oswald had any sense at all, he would have written the name
"D.F. Drittal" in a slightly different writing style from that of his
own handwriting--in order to fool the people at Seaport Traders into
thinking that this fictitious person named "Drittal" had really signed
the order coupon and was really vouching for this guy "A.J. Hidell".
But, per James Cadigan's testimony, Oswald obviously didn't disguise
his handwriting well enough to fool a questioned documents expert like
Cadigan.
Why is there this extreme need by conspiracy theorists such as Jim
DiEugenio to pretend that Oswald never ordered the revolver from
Seaport Traders? What a bizarre notion.
Even if the order coupon never existed--who cares? It doesn't matter
one bit. Because Oswald was caught red-handed with Revolver #V510210
in his hands in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after somebody
killed Officer J.D. Tippit with Revolver #V510210.
This is kindergarten math here. Oswald's guilty.
Footnote---
Here's a composite photo I just now put together, showing the words
"Dallas, Texas" printed on two different Warren Commission exhibits --
CE790 and CE794 -- the latter being a change-of-address card that
Oswald filled out in 1963. Notice any similarities?:
lazu...@webtv.net
the debate Peiny, but it doesn't quite work that way...Laz
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=165&p=201314&#entry201314
WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
>>> "And why "Drittal"?" <<<
DVP SAID:
Why not Drittal?
>>> "And why fill out the forms at all? You make it seem like Jimmy D is some sort of idiot for not putting two and two together and acknowledging that Oswald owned the pistol said to have been used to kill Tippit." <<<
I think your next four words that you wrote below should tell you
something....
>>> "Okay, it's his gun." <<<
So, you're admitting that Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 WAS Lee
Harvey Oswald's gun?
That's a good start to realizing that the OWNER OF THAT GUN (who had
that same gun ON HIM when he was arrested) is very likely the person
who used it to fire the bullets FROM THAT GUN into the body of Officer
Tippit.
And please don't say: But the bullets couldn't be matched to that
V510210 revolver, David. Because that fact doesn't mean Oswald's gun
did not murder Tippit, and every reasonable person knows it.
And the lack of J.M. Poe's initials on two of the shells doesn't prove
anything either -- because there are TWO MORE SHELLS at that crime
scene that conspiracists love to ignore completely. And those OTHER
two shells were ejected from the ONLY GUN that was being dumped of its
shell casings on Tenth Street right after Tippit's murder.
>>> "He [LHO] had it on him when he was arrested in the theater, and acknowledged it to interrogators, but how come we don't have any evidence - records or witnesses of him picking it up at the Post Office, or the rifle for that matter, and when did he do it if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?" <<<
Why do conspiracy seekers think that Oswald HAD to pick up his guns at
a specific time of the day? Maybe he got the guns BEFORE work
hours...or AFTER work. Nobody can know for certain. But there's
certainly at least a few minutes of a few different days when there
was a window of opportunity for Oswald to collect his guns from the
post office and the REA Express office. Or: maybe Oswald ducked out of
worked for a short time one day. Who can know?
>>> "Did somebody pick up the weapons for him?" <<<
There was no need for that. See my last comments above.
>>> "And why did he go through the whole rigeramorall of ordering the pistol and the rifle through the mails and the PO box with the aliases and money orders, when he could have gone to Green's down the street and bought both with cash and no records of his identification to purchase them?" <<<
Can you PROVE that H.L. Green's in Dallas didn't keep records on the
PEOPLE who bought guns from them in 1963?
This issue of Oswald being able to walk into any gun store or
department store in the state of Texas and buy a gun without a speck
of paperwork being left behind is something that I do not think has
been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is: it's another silly
myth created by conspiracy theorists.
Maybe SOME stores didn't keep records of their gun transactions. But I
think that SOME did keep full records of such firearms purchases. And
Jean Davison has been recently looking into this matter more deeply,
and has posted some interesting information on it, such as the two
posts below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2fd0d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/cbbb155031f51c94
>>> "So he's [LHO] guilty in your mind, but you still haven't figured out how he got the guns from the Post Office, or where he got the bullets from, or where the rifle and pistol were when he went to New Orleans and Mexico City, and what's with that strap--the one on the rifle said to have been used to kill the President? Where'd that come from? The US AF officer holster strap. I know, it doesn't matter, as long as Oswald is guilty, all the other questions are meaningless." <<<
I want to know if there's ever been a murder case in U.S. history
where it has been mandatory to find out WHERE the accused killer
acquired his BULLETS to put into his gun(s)?
And has there ever been a case in history where it's been required to
know with 100% certainty where the accused murderer got the strap that
he put on his rifle?
And has there ever been a case where it's been a requirement to know
WHERE the murder weapon was stored for a certain period of time TWO
MONTHS BEFORE the murder was committed?
You're concentrating on all the wrong things, William Kelly. You're
looking right at the killer who practically has a smoking gun in his
hand (in the case of the Tippit murder anyway, with Oswald trying to
kill more cops in the theater with the very same gun he had just used
to kill Officer Tippit) and you are, in essence, ignoring the obvious
and asking unimportant and trivial questions instead.
You might just as well ask this --- Gee, I wonder where Oswald got
those shoes he was wearing when he was arrested in the Texas Theater?
I really don't think he could have done all that walking on November
22 while wearing those particular shoes. They look too uncomfortable.
Walt
> http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=165&p=...
>
> WILLIAM KELLY SAID:
>
> >>> "And why "Drittal"?" <<<
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> Why not Drittal?
>
> >>> "And why fill out the forms at all? You make it seem like Jimmy D is some sort of idiot for not putting two and two together and acknowledging that Oswald owned the pistol said to have been used to kill Tippit." <<<
>
> I think your next four words that you wrote below should tell you
> something....
>
> >>> "Okay, it's his gun." <<<
>
> So, you're admitting that Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 WAS Lee
> Harvey Oswald's gun?
>
> That's a good start to realizing that the OWNER OF THAT GUN (who had
> that same gun ON HIM when he was arrested) is very likely the person
> who used it to fire the bullets FROM THAT GUN into the body of Officer
> Tippit.
>
> And please don't say: But the bullets couldn't be matched to that
> V510210 revolver, David. Because that fact doesn't mean Oswald's gun
> did not murder Tippit, and every reasonable person knows it.
Hmmmm.... What country do you live in?? In the US the exact
opposite applies.... If the bullets can't be positively identified as
having been fired from a specific gun then they can't be used to
convict the accused. It's not the reverse ya moron......
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/cbbb155031f5...
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=120&p=201971&#entry201971
>>> "The guy Myers quoted did not even testify to the WC." <<<
LOL. So what?
It's still a quote from the REA VP.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html
>>> "Davey, did the WC call anyone who worked at the REA office in Dallas to the stand? If not, why not?" <<<
Probably because the Warren Commission knew that the question of "How
Did LHO Pick Up His Revolver?" was merely a side/peripheral matter (at
best).
IOW--Who cares how he got the gun? The WC knew for a FACT that
Revolver V510210 was Oswald's gun and that that same gun was in
Oswald's hands at 1:50 PM on Nov. 22 and that that same gun was the
gun that killed Tippit.
Case closed on this issue. And it doesn't make a damn bit of
difference which precise method was utilized by Oswald to obtain that
gun in March. And it also doesn't make a bit of difference WHERE and
WHEN he purchased the four bullets that he pumped into Tippit's body
with that V510210 revolver.
Only in the world of "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy mongers is such
trivial information the slightest bit important. But to reasonable
people--no.
>>> "Trivial?" <<<
Yes, Steve, the two items I mentioned above are, indeed, trivial when
it comes to the Tippit case.
The two trivial items (questions) being:
1.) Where did Oswald pick up his S&W revolver--the post office or the
Railway Express office?
2.) Where did Oswald get the bullets for his S&W revolver?
We do not need to know the answer to the above two questions in order
to solve the Tippit murder (and in order to figure out that Lee Oswald
was guilty of that murder).
>>> "Dave, if Ruby hadn't shot him, you would have been waiting outside with a rope and a posse of L/N's. Innocent until PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I would bet money you own a white Stetson." <<<
Ian,
Why not try following the ACTUAL EVIDENCE in the case to where it
leads sometime, instead of following the pack of Anybody-But-Oswald
evidence-manglers?
And if there was ever a case where the ACTUAL EVIDENCE has been
mangled and misrepresented beyond all tolerance by conspiracy
theorists, it's certainly the JFK/Tippit case.
Heavens to Murgatroyd--some people in this forum are actually
suggesting Oswald never sent in EITHER one of his order forms for the
rifle and revolver!
The people who suggest such a ridiculous thing must certainly realize
that they have to say that KLEIN'S in Chicago is "in" on a plot to
frame Oswald too. The CTers who take this stand have no choice BUT to
believe the Klein's people are conspirators, because the Klein's
records indicate that they received an order from HIDELL in March '63
and they shipped a rifle to HIDELL in March '63.
I wonder how the WC got William Waldman to tell lie after lie about
KLEIN'S OWN RECORDS regarding the sale of Rifle C2766 to HIDELL?
And the same type of allegations of misconduct have to be directed
toward Seaport Traders too, because Seaport has records of THEIR OWN
that indicate they received a mail order from HIDELL for a revolver
and that they mailed Revolver V510210 to HIDELL at OSWALD'S Dallas
post office box.
According to these silly conspiracy kooks who think Oswald never even
ordered his guns, there is evidently no end to the number of people
that the police and/or Warren Commission were able to get to tell lie
after lie in their never-ending desire to paint Lee Oswald as the
murderer of both JFK and J.D. Tippit.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=135&p=202159&#entry202159
>>> "Dave, O.K. you got me. Just show me the order for the 40" rifle and I and many others will disappear." <<<
It doesn't matter that an order for a "40-inch" rifle wasn't sent in
by Oswald to Klein's.
The key fact is that Oswald's/(Hidell's) order for a 36-inch rifle was
filled with a FORTY-INCH gun (#C2766). Regardless of what Oswald
ordered, Klein's sent him C2766. We know that beyond all doubt (thanks
to Waldman Exhibit No. 7 below, which many CTers have no choice but to
think is a phony document).
But, then too, if Waldman #7 is phony/fake, then why in the world
didn't the people faking all of this stuff (such as Waldman #7 and
Oswald's order form, etc.) see to it that the LENGTHS OF THE RIFLES
matched up? Looks like, once again, we're confronted with a group of
totally inept goofballs who were serving as the patsy-framers.
But what really happened is much less sinister, of course -- i.e.,
Klein's was very likely out of stock of the 36-inch Carcano rifles,
and they shipped Oswald/Hidell a 40-inch model instead. And I'd be
willing to bet the farm that Oswald never even noticed the difference.
BTW, even if I could provide you with a 40-inch rifle order from
Oswald, it wouldn't make the CTers give up on this issue. Not by a
longshot. Because a bunch of them also think ALL of the other
documents that prove Oswald ordered his Mannlicher-Carcano from
Klein's Sporting Goods have been faked and manufactured too (e.g., the
Klein's order form and the money order for $21.45).
Of course, as mentioned before, this type of thinking begs the
question: Why didn't the brain-dead plotters make sure they "sent" the
patsy the same rifle that they wanted everybody in the world to think
he ordered--a 36-incher? I guess maybe the dumber-than-dirt plotters
ran out of 36-inch rifles too, huh? Otherwise, they'd have "sent"
their patsy a 36-inch Carcano instead of the 40-inch gun they framed
him with. Right?
Waldman No. 7:
====================================================
Gary Mack of The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, who has evidently
been monitoring the Education Forum thread linked at the top of this
post, sent me the following e-mail:
Date: 8/17/2010 9:56:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
----------
Dave,
I looked up the Klein's ads for 1963 and found that the next issue
after February 1963 and all the issues afterward showed the 40" rifle.
I don't have my notes here at the house, so the April 1963 issue,
which would have mailed in mid-March so the ad had to have been
changed prior to that, may be the first with the 40" weapon.
So that is exactly what must have happened. Klein's ran out of 36"
rifles very quickly and substituted the longer weapon. They may have
notified customers ahead of time, but there's no record of that
happening.
Gary
====================================================
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=150&p=202190&#entry202190
AN ASSORTMENT OF POSTS BY VARIOUS CONSPIRACY KOOKS
AT THE EDUCATION FORUM (AND MY REPLIES):
>>> "Anything based on "must haves" and "may haves" deserves to be ignored. Just like Bugliosi's crappy book." <<<
LOL. Hilarity at its best here.
Bugliosi writes a book with 4,000 more citations than the Warren
Report and yet it's a "crappy" book filled with nothing but "must
haves" and "may haves".
(Oh, my bladder!)
I was expecting a higher-class batch of conspiracy mongers at this
forum. Obviously, I was expecting way, way too much.
Incredibly, per CTers, John Armstrong's "may have" book of tripe is
supposed to be considered a great masterpiece of JFK literature, but
Vince Bugliosi's book of solid facts and evidence is supposed to be
"ignored".
What a topsy-turvy world CTers live in.
>>> "Why are you cross posting from other forums, Dave? Has Rob given you his permission? Is Rob Caprio here to defend himself? I once cross posted your work from assassinationforum.com to this forum after asking you, politely, by PM. Have you been doing the same? In fact, I don't remember you asking me if it was okay to cross my posts from assassinationforum.com to the McAdams forum, where I'm not a member and couldn't respond. It's just not cricket, old boy." <<<
I don't need your permission to copy something you've written on a
public forum, Lee. And I don't ever intend to ask permission to cross-
post from forum to forum. If it's on the Internet, it's fair game.
BTW, before you ask me about posting Gary Mack's e-mails sans
permission:
Gary expects that to happen. I've done it for years. And so have many
other people who think Gary's e-mails contain an abundance of good
info (and common sense, to boot). I know Gary doesn't mind his mails
getting posted at forums. In fact, he encourages it most of the time.
BTW #2,
Please explain to me the difference between cross-posting something
written at another forum and the CTers who enjoy trashing Vincent
Bugliosi's book at a public forum like this one? Is there a big
difference between the two?
Bugliosi certainly isn't a member of The Education Forum (or any other
forum); therefore, he can't "defend" himself from the onslaught of
sewage that is slung at his exemplary book every single day on the
Internet.
In fact, anyone who uses quotes from Bugliosi's book on the Internet
is technically breaking the law, because I've noticed that VB's
"Reclaiming History" is one of the very few books that I own that
doesn't allow ANYTHING (not even a single sentence) to be copied and
reprinted without the express permission of the publisher, W.W.
Norton.
So, in a way, it's much worse (legally-speaking) to trash Bugliosi's
book (via specific quoted passages) on a public Internet website like
The Education Forum or James DiEugenio's CTKA.net site, because it's
illegal to do so without express permission (which I'm pretty sure
DiEugenio never obtained from Starling Lawrence or W.W. Norton &
Company).
F.Y.I. Footnote -- I, however, did obtain express permission (in 2007)
from Vincent Bugliosi's publisher/editor, Starling Lawrence, to use
extensive quotes from Bugliosi's book in my lengthy book review. (It
took me months to get that permission from W.W. Norton, too.)
>>> "I'm shaking in my boots. If I ever post a passage from RH ["Reclaiming History"], I will mark the time of the post, so we can clock how long it takes the Swat Team to break down my door and arrest me and my family for quoting VB." <<<
LOL. Exactly, Dean. :)
But before citing VB, please make sure that you hide all the bootleg
whiskey that you, Sparky, and Lee Harvey are consuming prior to the
SWAT team's arrival.
Ten-Four?
BTW, your humorous post above is kind of proving my point from my
previous post about quoting people from other websites -- IOW, who
cares?
Obviously, nobody cares about actually breaking a copyright law by
citing thousands of words from a book like "Reclaiming History" on
their websites (or hundreds of other books that have strict rules on
not reprinting material). And yet Lee Farley expects me to garner
specific permission from someone on another PUBLIC FORUM before I can
post his ALREADY PUBLIC words on another website.
Meh.
>>> "'Reclaiming History' provides extensive examples of evidence that demonstrates beyond doubt that a conspiracy existed to murder President Kennedy and that the Warren Commission showed no desire to explore that possibility. Most of the examples had been covered earlier by others, but Bugliosi deserves credit for including so many of them in one volume." <<<
That previously-mentioned "topsy-turvy" world that conspiracy
theorists call home once again rises to the surface via Michael
Hogan's last idiotic Education Forum post above.
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16235&st=150&p=202210&#entry202210
DVP SAID:
What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy
theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have
walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any
paperwork being involved at all.
I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various
gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or
the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners
DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.
I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a
gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver
Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet
another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since
JFK's assassination.
NOTE -- To protect myself from future abuse by the Anybody-But-Oswald
conspiracy theorists on the Internet, I will conclude this message
with this addendum: I could be wrong about the last paragraph I just
wrote above concerning the topic of buying guns in gun stores in 1963.
DVP THEN LATER SAID:
Relating to my comments above, I received the following e-mail from
Gary Mack:
Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
--------------------
Dave,
Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal
regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For
example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log
showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police
detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's
told me long ago that they must keep such records.
Gary
aeffects
<snip the troll nonsense>
tweet-tweet little guy.... folks are getting bored with your nonsense
trivia.... best stick with selling that KFC gar-baaaage... LMFAO!
David Von Pein
http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16327&st=300&p=202250&#entry202250
>>> "I asked a question of the "other side" regarding the "fast frisk" of Oswald in the Texas Theater. The one that Gerald Hill stated was performed to try and find anything as small as a razor blade in case the suspect hurt himself or one of the arresting officers. The question that I've never had an answer to was: why didn't they find the five .38 caliber bullets in his left pocket after performing a fast frisk? I finally received an answer from a prominent researcher. Here's the definitive answer, courtesy of the Sixth Floor museum. Drum roll please..."The police found them. And then they put them back." .... There you have it folks. The end of the line. The "thinking" behind this is that they weren't a danger to Oswald or the Officers because they'd taken his revolver away, so they left them on his person." <<<
Yes, That's exactly right. How can anyone deny that fact? (Duh.)
So, we're faced with another of the hundreds of "Big deal" situations
raised by the conspiracy mongers. So they left the bullets in his
pocket. Who cares?
Do you think Lee's bullets (without the gun to put them in) WERE, in
fact, a danger to anyone? Was he going to throw the bullets at the
cops and kill them? (And how could he even do that? He was in
handcuffs.)
You Anybody-But-Ozzie CT retards are pitiful.
Oswald is caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon on him
(while attempting to murder still more Dallas police officers with
that same gun), and you conspiracy nuts are more concerned with why
the cops left the five bullets in Ozzie's pocket...or where Oswald
purchased his cop-killing bullets.
You make me want to vomit. (And I'm pretty sure Francois Carlier has
his puke bucket by his side after reading the CT tripe on this forum
too.)
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b10405815cc740e
Follow-up to the above-linked post:
Date: 8/17/2010 3:18:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
----------------------
Hi again Gary,
Earlier today, you said this:
"Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing
the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe
Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long
ago that they must keep such records."
Question:
Can you tell me if Ray's records from that 1/19/60 revolver purchase
positively show the name of "Joe Cody" as the purchaser of the
revolver that ended up in the hands of Jack Ruby on 11/24/63?
Thank you.
David V.P.
=========================================================
Date: 8/17/2010 4:42:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
---------------------
They do not, they show only Ruby's name. I have seen a scan of the
record which was sent to me by Ray's Hardware. Cody has spoken about
it many times over the years including, as I recall, in the Museum's
oral history.
It was quite legal and, since Joe was a cop, he could purchase the gun
without having to pay sales tax, thus saving Ruby a few dollars. But
Ruby was listed as the purchaser, and Federal law, from what Ray's
told me, requires gun dealers to keep that record.
Gary
=========================================================
David Von Pein
Another Gary Mack Follow-up:
Date: 8/17/2010 10:06:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
-----------------------
Hi Dave,
Smear Gary Mack at all costs! McCarthyism is alive and well in Buff
World.
Anyway, in case you had even the tiniest doubt, take a look at this
11/24/63 FBI doc which references a visit with Ray Brantley who
actually checked his records. That page is the same page I saw some
35 years later. Yes, gun dealers did keep records of who received
guns:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0268a.htm
And there's also this obit story mentioning the gun transaction:
I may not bat 100%, but I do OK.
Gary
==================================================
Plus:
Also check out CE2994 (below), in which Mrs. Lillian Brantley, co-
proprietor of Ray's Hardware Store in Dallas, "attested to an entry in
the books of the store which show that Jack Ruby purchased a Colt
Cobra revolver from Ray's" in 1960:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0268b.htm
aeffects
<snip the lone nut troll lunacy>
no advertising asshole.....
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8cb5e65c1fb5722b
Date: 8/18/2010 3:28:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
--------------------
Dave,
Thanks to The Sixth Floor Museum’s collection, today I examined all
1963 issues of the American Rifleman and here is what I found:
Jan 63 -- p. 61 -- 36” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with
scope)
Feb 63 -- p. 65 -- Same ad as above
Mar 63 -- No ad
Apr 63 -- p. 55 -- 40” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with
scope)
May 63 -- Missing pp. 63-66
Jun 63 -- p. 59 -- 40” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with
scope)
Jul 63 -- p. 67 -- 40” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.78 -- $19.95 (with
scope)
Aug 63 -- p. 79 -- Same ad as above
Sep 63 -- p. 89 -- Same ad as above
Oct 63 -- p. 85 -- Same ad as above
Nov 63 -- No ad
Dec 63 -- No ad
So as I suggested earlier, Oswald ordered the 36” rifle but, probably
due to Klein’s running out of stock, he received the 40” model
instead. The price remained the same, so Klein’s may have just sent
him the newly available model instead. They would certainly accept a
return if he didn’t want it.
The Museum’s copy of the May 1963 issue is missing four pages and,
since Klein’s ads normally ran in the back half of the magazine, it
was likely on one of those pages. But as you can see, the ad for the
months before and after May showed the exact same 40” rifle.
I don’t know when the American Rifleman normally went to press, but I
would think they’d want the new issue to appear on the newsstands and
in subscriber’s mailboxes at or shortly before the beginning of each
month. That would mean all ad copy must be ready and in the hands of
the publisher at least 30 days ahead of time, maybe more.
If Klein’s ran out of 36” rifles in January, they might not even have
enough time to get a corrected ad in by the March deadline. Maybe
that’s why there was no ad in the March issue? Perhaps Klein’s sold
out of the Carcano and other weapons and just couldn’t update their
new ad before the deadline?
Gary Mack