RIFLE NUMBER "C2766"
David Von Pein
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
I've taken a look at James DiEugenio's lengthy review of Vincent
Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book, "Reclaiming History". And although I
completely disagree with almost everything Jim has written in his
review, I must say that I did enjoy reading it.
DiEugenio is 100% wrong about a whole bunch of conclusions he has
reached with respect to the way John Kennedy died in 1963. There can
be no doubt about that fact.
Jim, possibly, could best be categorized as a "hair-splitter". And
then, to borrow a phrase from my favorite of all authors (Mr.
Bugliosi, of course), after Jim has split each hair, he then proceeds
to "split the split hairs", until the end result is a great-big mess
of unanswerable questions and totally-incoherent plots and reasoning.
(IMHO, that is.)
And here's just one of several examples of this (again, IMO, that is):
In his critique of Vince Bugliosi's book, Mr. DiEugenio seems to imply
that many, many different Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles (like
Lee Harvey Oswald's) were manufactured with the exact same serial
number (C2766)....which, according to Robert Frazier of the FBI (via
his Warren Commission testimony) is not the case at all.*
* = And by way of footnote, when ordinary common sense is applied to
this topic (i.e., the main REASON for "serial numbers" to be stamped
on rifles--or ANY piece of merchandise for that matter) it seems
fairly obvious to me that Frazier would be correct when it comes to
the fact that Oswald's "C2766" MC 91/38 rifle was the ONLY weapon of
that exact TYPE and MODEL to have been stamped at ANY factory with
that unique serial number.
Because, isn't the #1 reason to put specific serial numbers on
products this one: So that the product in question has its own UNIQUE
identifying mark on it for later easy tracing and/or identification?
If that's not the main reason for all of the long serial numbers I see
on a lot of products I own...then what is the #1 reason to have serial
numbers on these things? ....
SERIAL NUMBER (Merriam-Webster definition) -- "A number indicating
place in a series and used as a means of identification."
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/serial%20number
SERIAL NUMBER (Wikipedia) -- "...A unique number assigned for
identification which varies from its successor or predecessor by a
fixed discrete integer value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_number
But, let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several
different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of
"C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence
in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one:
So what?
Since we know beyond every speck of a doubt that the major pieces of
bullet evidence in the JFK case (CE399, CE567, CE569, and the three
shells found under the Depository's 6th-Floor window) can be
irrevocably tied and linked to CE139 (i.e., the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle that is in evidence in this case with serial number C2766 on it,
and with Oswald's prints on it, to boot), what difference does it
really make if OTHER rifles of the same make and model also sported
the exact same serial number?
Do the conspiracy theorists who like to occasionally bring up this
argument about possible "other rifles with the same serial number"
somehow think that any of those OTHER rifles bearing a "C2766"
identifier (which, btw, nobody has ever produced, at least as far as I
know) would have had the EXACT SAME RIFLING/STRIATION MARKS that the
barrel of CE139 possesses?
It's really a huge non-issue in the first place.
Also:
The theorists who think there might be something "conspiratorial" or
"shady" connected with the issue of the Carcano serial numbers have a
pretty big "How Did They Do This, And When?" hurdle to climb (it seems
to me) when it comes to the detailed documentation of the "C2766"
rifle that was shipped by Klein's Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago to "A.
Hidell" of "P.O. Box 2915; Dallas, Texas" on March 20, 1963.
Do some CTers actually think that Klein's shipped a DIFFERENT rifle
with the serial number "C2766" to "Hidell"/Oswald?
In other words, via this make-believe "conspiratorial" episode I'm
concocting here just for the sake of concocting it, Klein's would have
shipped a rifle with the number C2766 on it to Oswald in March 1963
(which we know they did, via the internal Klein's document linked
below), but the rifle that ended up in evidence in the JFK murder case
(CE139) is a DIFFERENT rifle from the one that Klein's mailed to
Hidell/LHO....but they both JUST HAPPENED to have the exact same
serial number on them.
Because, lacking the above type of "coincidental" scenario, where can
the CTers take this type of argument at all? I guess they'd have to
believe that Klein's was "in" on a cover-up involving the rifle too.
And, apparently, the document shown below (Waldman Exhibit No. 7) is a
total "fake" of some kind, with the "C2766" that appears on this
document being written in after the assassination, in trying to link
the weapon to Oswald:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
But when we get back into the world of "Reality" and "Common Sense",
it's fairly obvious (even to a half-blind individual) that CE139 is,
indeed, the very same "C2766" rifle that Klein's mailed to Lee Harvey
Oswald's post-office box in March of '63.
To believe otherwise is to dive into the bottomless pit of conspiracy-
oriented absurdity....a pit that has been dug by the conspiracy
theorists themselves.
===============================================
Jim DiEugenio discusses Bugliosi's book on "Black Op Radio":
www.blackopradio.com/black389a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black389b.ram
Related links:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d85fa965035f8722
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
===============================================
Gil Jesus
"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number
C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four power telescope
exactly like Oswald's."
John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln (New York:Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, 1980)
pg.250.
Von Pein knows this because this is a book that Von Pein reviewed ar
amazon.com.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2Y8HMTWRF6L2Q?ASIN=0151522812
So again, he is caught misleading the readers.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8d7b0a93-3458-47da...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7134b41e-0404-49dd...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Gil The Kook, as usual, wants to misrepresent stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
If Lattimer makes "mistakes" about his own pposessions, just imagine how
many mistakes he makes
about a subject he knows Nothing about! ! ! (JFK Assassination)
Lattimer's a "Pisser" ain't he! ! ! >>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Lattimer's a "Pisser"!!!
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b2b09068-71b5-4b50...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Gil The Kook, as usual, wants to misrepresent stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
>
>
> Excerpt from above message:
>
>
> "As I said before, Lattimer's "C2766" remark was obviously an
> error....because (as I shall provide below) Lattimer tells us MULTIPLE
> times elsewhere in his book "Kennedy And Lincoln" that he was NOT
> using Oswald's exact rifle. Heck, even the very page cited by Tom R.
> (Page 250) contains info that contradicts Tom's "C2766" claims.....
>
> ...Exactly like Oswald's. This {scope} was mounted exactly as on
> the rifle from the same lot (Warren Commission Exhibit 139) that was
> demonstrated unequivocally by the Warren Commission to have been used
> to fire both of the bullets..." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 250 of
> "Kennedy And
> Lincoln" (c.1980)
>
> The overall language used on the VERY PAGE TOM R. SAYS PROVES
> LATTIMER IS A LIAR shows a reasonable person that Mr. Lattimer was
> merely in error re. his one "C2766" remark.
>
> And when coupled with the following FOUR additional rifle
> references scattered throughout Lattimer's K&L publication, it's quite
> clear that Lattimer wasn't using Oswald's exact rifle.....
>
> "I used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine of the same model as
> that used by Oswald (model 91-38)..." -- JKL; Page 232
>
> "I had examined Oswald's rifle at the National Archives..." --
> JKL; Page 292
>
> "We had procured four rifles of exactly the same type used by
> Oswald. .... We then selected, from our four sample rifles, the one
> that most closely resembled his {Oswald's}, in both condition and ease
> of operation, for use in our firing tests." -- JKL; Page 295
>
> Although we had to be content with four rifles of the same model
> as used by Oswald, the FBI used his actual rifle, and always with the
> same results: none of the bullets ever tumbled {unless they struck
> something else prior to striking a simulated Connally target}." --
> JKL; Pages 271 &
> 276
David Von Pein
Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
stuff.
Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
Footnote --- The 2006 post above was written mainly in response to Tom
Rossley's idiotic claim made on his ridiculous "Who Killed JFK?"
website, wherein he says this:
"He [Dr. John K. Lattimer] claims that he owns the same rifle
[CE139]. REPEAT..."THE SAME RIFLE"."
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Excerpt from my 2006 message re. "C2766":
================
Additional Footnote --- Mr. DiEugenio, in his review of Bugliosi's
book, uses CE2562 (an April 1964 letter from J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee
Rankin concerning rifles that had very similar, but not IDENTICAL,
serial numbers) as partial defense of his argument that there were,
indeed, multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles manufactured
with the exact same "C2766" serial number on them.
But CE2562 really doesn't buttress DiEugenio's argument (or anyone's)
at all in this "Same Serial Number" respect. Because in CE2562, as I
just mentioned above and as we can plainly see spelled out by Mr.
Hoover in his correspondence to Rankin of the WC, Hoover makes
reference to two different rifles with DIFFERENT unique numbers on
them -- one with the number "C2766" on it (which was Oswald's), and a
separate reference to a rifle with just the number "2766" on it
(lacking the "C" prefix).
CE2562 goes on to reveal that the same serial "number" might
occasionally be stamped on different Carcano rifles that were
manufactured at different MC plants, but the key is: These duplicate
serial numbers were not really FULL duplicate serial numbers at all,
because some of these so-called duplicates would have a "letter"
prefix in front of the four-digit number, while others would not have
the prefix.
I have yet to see anyone produce an exact duplicate of a Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle that has the exact same FULL serial number
that was stamped on Lee Oswald's rifle ("C2766").
Has anyone ever seen proof that such a second (or third) gun with that
FULL serial number ("C2766") ever existed?
To date, I have certainly not seen such proof. Nor, I doubt, will I
ever see such proof produced.
CE2562:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0415b.htm
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
And, YOU'RE Stuck with it.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ea9a0a6c-893e-4170...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> Gil The Kook, as usual, wants to misrepresent stuff.
> them -- one with the number "C2766" on it (which was Oswald's, and a
> separate reference to a rifle with just the number "2766" on it
> (lacking the "C" prefix).
>
> CE2562 goes on to reveal that the same serial "number" might
> occasionally be stamped on different Carcano rifles that were
> manufactured at different MC plants, but the key is: These duplicate
> serial numbers were not really FULL duplicate serial numbers at all,
> because of the information in CE2562, when referring to these
> duplicate numbers, that some would have the letter prefix, while
tomnln
What proof can you offer that Lattimer made "an innocent error"????
Tell us if Lattimer was an Asshole or a "LIAR"???
This is from Lattimer's own words from his own book>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
To call this "an innocent error" makes YOU an Asshole or a LIAR.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Lattimer's words from his own book!!!
And You're STUCK with it! ! !
No wonder you RUN from issues of the authorities Destroying Evidence>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:0d2c01e4-15d6-4002...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
Gil Jesus
Of course Von Pein wouldn't KNOW if Lattimer made an error. Did Von
Pein ever examine Lattimer's rifle ?
Can he produce documentation that proves that Lattimer was in error ?
No.
Von Pein describes Lattimer's rifle in his "review" in detail, but
avoids mentioning that the serial number was the same as Oswald's,
even if it is to point out Lattimer's "error".
Typical DVP deception.
Everyone makes mistakes when they post here. But when you post
something that you KNOW is not true, that's a lie.
And when evidence is revealed to you to be the opposite of what you
post and the source is cited, you can be a man and accept it, or you
can be a child and resort to name-calling.
ANY of us could argue that ANY source we don't like is "in error".
Does that make it so ?
Proving it is another matter.
Whatever credibility this dunderhead had before his made this
ridiculous post is damaged, for sure.
Gil Jesus
> Gil The Kook and Tom The Nutsack, as usual, want to misrepresent
> stuff.
>
> Dr. Lattimer's reference to "C2766" on HIS OWN rifle was obviously
> merely an innocent error. And I fully explain why this is obviously
> the case in the December 2006 post linked below:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/93ecc15549c00996
>
Yes Von Pein:
Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do.
So tell us, what is it ?
Gil Jesus
>
> If Lattimer makes "mistakes" about his own pposessions, just imagine how
> many mistakes he makes
> about a subject he knows Nothing about! ! ! � (JFK Assassination)
Agreed Tom. There is a credibility issue here.
Either Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle ( which
would cause one to ask why he bothered to include it in the book if he
never even looked at it ) , or Von Pein is a liar.
I guess it's easier for some people to throw a dead man under the bus
than it is to admit they lied.
But the lurkers know.
Gil Jesus
> HiYa, you old KOOK-SUCKER;
>
> What proof can you offer that Lattimer made "an innocent error"????
>
> Tell us if Lattimer was an Asshole or a "LIAR"???
>
> This is from Lattimer's own words from his own book>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> To call this "an innocent error" makes YOU an Asshole or a LIAR.
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
>
> Lattimer's words from his own book!!!
>
> And You're STUCK with it! ! !
>
> No wonder you RUN from issues of the authorities Destroying Evidence>>>
>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altering_evidence.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Tom, Von Pein would like us to believe that Lattimer
a.) didn't know the serial number of his own rifle.
b.) never looked at the serial number of his rifle.
c.) put the serial number in his book without checking it first.
Boy that Lattimer was some researcher.
cdddraftsman
>
> But when we get back into the world of "Reality" and "Common Sense",
> it's fairly obvious (even to a half-blind individual) that CE139 is,
> indeed, the very same "C2766" rifle that Klein's mailed to Lee Harvey
> Oswald's post-office box in March of '63.
>
> To believe otherwise is to dive into the bottomless pit of conspiracy-
> oriented absurdity....a pit that has been dug by the conspiracy
> theorists themselves.
>
> ===============================================
>
> Jim DiEugenio discusses Bugliosi's book on "Black Op Radio":www.blackopradio.com/black389a.ramwww.blackopradio.com/black389b.ram
>
> Related links:www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/d85fa965035f8722www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>
> ===============================================
It's been quite evident for many years that Jim DiEugenio has been a
squack puppet for Conspiracy Apologists for no other reason than he
long ago stuck his foot in his mouth and is now unable to extract it .
Reviewing 'Reclaiming History' and getting a straight evaluation by
the same people who 'Hi-Jacked' it in the beginning is like asking yer
dog 'Fido' if he's sorry for having torn that rag doll into a billion
peices .
It's totally worthless .
Good job DVP !
tl
David Von Pein
>>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
of shit you kooks love to focus on).
For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself
a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's (which,
as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there
aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world
would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that
Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?
=============================================
"William Suchur, the owner of International Firearms Company of
Montreal, informed the FBI on March 12, 1964, per a letter from J.
Edgar Hoover to the Warren Commission of April 22, 1964, that “in the
1930’s Mussolini ordered all arms factories to manufacture the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. Since many concerns were manufacturing the
same weapon, the same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by
more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not” (CE
2562, 25 H 808).
"However, no other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of
C2766 has ever surfaced, although one with a serial number of 2766
without any prefix did. That Carcano was sold by a Montreal firm to a
firm in St. Albans, Vermont, which in turn sold it on July 5, 1962, to
a firm called Aldens in Chicago. The weapon’s history beyond this
point was not determined by the FBI because Alden’s records were not
available. (CE 2562, 25 H 801–803, 807–811)
"However, even if another Mannlicher-Carcano did surface with
the same serial number as Oswald’s, C2766, it would be irrelevant
since we know one with that serial number was sold and sent to Oswald,
was found in the sniper’s nest*, and was proved to be the murder
weapon." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGE 340 OF ENDNOTES IN "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (c.2007)
* = Slight error on VB's part here. Vince knows the gun wasn't found
"in the sniper's nest". He obviously meant to say "on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository" instead of "in the sniper's nest".
=============================================
Gil Jesus
Oswald's "C2766" MC 91/38 rifle was the ONLY weapon of that exact TYPE
and MODEL to have been stamped at ANY factory with that unique serial
number.
I responded:
Dr. John K. Lattimer reported he had a "C2766" in his possession:
"In l974 and l975, my sons and I had conducted a series of experiments
using a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, model 91-38, serial number
C2766, equipped with an Ordinance Optics Company four power telescope
exactly like Oswald's."
John K. Lattimer, Kennedy and Lincoln (New York:Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, 1980) pg.250.
Von Pein knows this because this is a book that Von Pein reviewed at
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein
>>> "Dr. John K. Lattimer reported he had a "C2766" in his possession..." <<<
"No other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has
ever surfaced." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
cdddraftsman
pantyweight non-researchers Gildoa and Sack'O'nuts !
Like you said if it weren't for non-issues they'd have no issues at
all !
Good Work !
tl
Gil Jesus
ROFLMAO...WELL, IF BUGLIOSI SAID IT, IT MUST BE TRUE, RIGHT ?
I guess Da Bug is calling Lattimer a liar..
David:
You can't possibly know if Lattimer was "in error" unless you know the
correct serial number, so.....
If Lattimer was "in error" about the serial number on his own weapon,
what is the REAL serial number ?
Gil Jesus
oh good a liar supporting another liar.
Introducing the lies, immaturity and "stewpidity" of cdddraftsman (aka
JLeyden900 -- JGL) :
He imagines that Tom Rossley has a "book" that "tanks" at Amazon.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aacf79056f9a6756
He then imagines a book written by me
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bfce2d51e6179de
He posts a make-believe dialog between RicLand, Rossley and myself.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/075708938537b3fe
Then he makes up a list of names and comments and calls them my
"supporters"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/25521ac145f6cea5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ce22f3ba414a25a9
He shows his hatred and why he's against justice for JFK:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/370aa4abb01e1163
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6420beb13a5376c1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4bdc285bed3a4def
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1d69f58ab2d019e9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/afd21af2753e983e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0719dfc2770f537a
Then shows his prowess for American History by claiming JFK caused 500
deaths at the Bay of Pigs:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c041bcb3bf033e7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2844c9bc6603c20c
He claims that the famous Al Thomas "wink" at LBJ aboard Air Force One
was because Thomas and Johnson had a game of "tic-tac-toe" on the back
of Lady Bird's coat.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/08c9c6c187dd09b1
He displays his knowledge of Kennedy history by calling Peter Lawford
RFK's "cousin" when in fact he was his brother-in-law:
He posts: "U.S. Attorney General Kennedy was never questioned about
his role and his cousin actor Peter Lawford who "cleaned up" the
murder scene ...."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/332ff3402b4ea17b
-------------------------------------------------------
CDDRAFTSMAN DISPLAYS HIS RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL PREJUDICE:
ON JEWS:
why do you tow the CT line like a Barmitsva gone bad .
Your name sounds Jewish .
" That Jew Scoundrel Mark Lane Who Stole My Thunder "
"Stop posting with a Jewish sounding name , your giving them a bad
rap . Their must be other
ways to assauge your anger at not being born a gentile or even better
yet a Philistine ."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/213701fa7ae1abcd
"the worse has happened , you are A Jew ! .......tl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d6efebf398dbebca
ON HISPANICS:
Lying taco bender from wetback mountain mexico
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8aa3349ed746f833
...Mexican has been wannabe taco bender !
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c5e1447a090c8955
ON AN AFRICAN AMERICAN AS PRESIDENT:
"Obama is too chocolate faced to be president"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ab5e5f670b49b2ff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, CDDDRAFTSMAN PROVES that he is "JLeyden" by mistakenly
signing one of his "cdddraftsman" posts at the bottom as "JGL".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b24f67146c9fed7
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For anyone who takes cdddraftsman seriously, this Bud's for you--
cdddraftsman in all his childish "Tom Foolery" glory :
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5b96bc6c08e82bb3
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a4db9f9728545a27
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/306785ac8468b4e2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/74ff5b4ad65a52b6
Gil Jesus
"Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, THE SAME
SERIAL NUMBER APPEARS ON WEAPONS MANUFACTURED BY MORE THAN ONE
CONCERN. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not."
J. Edgar Hoover
April 30, 1964
Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix ?
Gil Jesus
> But, let's assume for the sake of argument that there were/are several
> different MC 91/38 rifles with the exact same serial number on them of
> "C2766"....my next logical question (based on the totality of evidence
> in THIS Kennedy murder case) is this one:
>
> So what?
You ARE kidding right ?
I mean, you can't see the significance of evidentiary value in an
exclusive serial number ?
> Do the conspiracy theorists who like to occasionally bring up this
> argument about possible "other rifles with the same serial number"
> somehow think that any of those OTHER rifles bearing a "C2766"
> identifier (which, btw, nobody has ever produced, at least as far as I
> know) would have had the EXACT SAME RIFLING/STRIATION MARKS that the
> barrel of CE139 possesses?
1. You have no PHYSICAL proof that any of the bullet fragments were
fired in Dealey Plaza.
Show us the photographs of the fragments in their locations as found.
2. You have no PHYSICAL proof that CE 399 was fired in Dealey Plaza.
Show us the traces of bone particles on CE 399.
Show us the clothing fibers from the victims on CE 399
Show us the blood from either victim on CE 399
3. You have no PHYSICAL proof that the rifle was even fired in Dealey
Plaza.
Show us where the rifle was examined to determine if it had been
fired.
Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers
indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and
what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in
this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet.
You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David.
aeffects
more and more questions and comments the Lone Nuts run from, Gil.
Great job!
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:68112ac1-892f-4109...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do.
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:943bf37f-ff8e-40c6...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
>
>>>> "Dr. John K. Lattimer reported he had a "C2766" in his possession..."
>>>> <<<
>
>
> "No other Mannlicher-Carcano with a serial number of C2766 has
> ever surfaced." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
BUGLOISI AIN'T TOO SMART
tomnln
"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e610ec6c-e51f-4c02...@l33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Only a Criminal would consider the Destruction of Evidence as a non-Issue.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
>
> Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
> of shit you kooks love to focus on).
When one of their lies blow-up in their faces, then it is "Who
cares?" IT is not a non-issue as the WC and other officials claimed
only one rifle had the same serial number on it. Lattimer stating his
rifle had the same serial # (C2766) exposes this lie.
Riva's contract called for the removal of all ID's and serial numbers
so it is highly unlikely the weapon found at the TSBD was ever worked
on by his shop, thus, the weapon was NOT obtained via Klein's Sporting
Goods.
> For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself
> a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's (which,
> as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there
> aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world
> would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that
> Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?
So you are NOW calling one of your WC defenders a liar? Why would he
lie and say his rifle had the serial number as the alleged murder
weapon? There is NO reason he would do this as it only hurts the
official theory's side. Prove he lied.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:8862c90a-80b0-4af3...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Bud
wrote:
> On Sep 9, 7:54 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
>
> > Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
> > of shit you kooks love to focus on).
>
> When one of their lies blow-up in their faces, then it is "Who
> cares?"
When LN see an obvious error, they call it such, and move on. CT
stare at it slack-jawed for decades, never advancing the issue one
iota.
> IT is not a non-issue as the WC and other officials claimed
> only one rifle had the same serial number on it. Lattimer stating his
> rifle had the same serial # (C2766) exposes this lie.
Touching to see you kooks express such confidence in Latimer`s
infallibility. Does that extend to the rest of his book?
> Riva's contract called for the removal of all ID's and serial numbers
> so it is highly unlikely the weapon found at the TSBD was ever worked
> on by his shop, thus, the weapon was NOT obtained via Klein's Sporting
> Goods.
<snicker> Klein`s just happened to have the same serial number in
their records.
> > For, even if Lattimer miraculously was able to somehow secure himself
> > a Carcano rifle with the EXACT SAME serial number as Oswald's (which,
> > as I've mentioned in earlier posts would be impossible, since there
> > aren't two MC 91/38s with the same serial number), how in the world
> > would that fact change any evidence in this case which shows that
> > Oswald's C2766 killed JFK in '63?
>
> So you are NOW calling one of your WC defenders a liar? Why would he
> lie and say his rifle had the serial number as the alleged murder
> weapon? There is NO reason he would do this as it only hurts the
> official theory's side. Prove he lied.
No, you don`t still don`t understand how these things work. That
someone has a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald`s is an
extraordinary claim. You would need to back up such an amazing
occurrence with something more substantial than someone saying this is
so.
Gil Jesus
>
> > >>> "Lattimer didn't know the serial number of his own rifle, but you do. So tell us, what is it?" <<<
>
> > Who cares? It's a non-issue entirely (which is just exactly the kind
> > of shit you kooks love to focus on).
>
It IS an issue. You said Lattimer was wrong about the serial number of
his rifle, but you are unable to prove it.
You cannot KNOW if Lattimer was wrong or lied about the serial number
unless you KNOW the correct number. Otherwise, Von Pein, you're
talking out of your ass and making assumptions about Lattimer's serial
number without any factual basis.
That you seem to be avoiding telling us the REAL number of his rifle
indicates that you don't KNOW for a fact what that number was, and
thus, only assume he was in error.
The longer this thread goes on, the more full of sh*t you look.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:5e03d0a1-1df2-4707...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Are you suggesting that Lattimer was in addition to being Stupid, he was
also Blind.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Gil Jesus
> That someone has a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald`s is an
> extraordinary claim. You would need to back up such an amazing
> occurrence with something more substantial than someone saying this is
> so.
Hey Bud:
Gil Jesus
> � �No, you don`t still don`t understand how these things work. That
> someone has a rifle with the same serial number as Oswald`s is an
> extraordinary claim. You would need to back up such an amazing
> occurrence with something more substantial than someone saying this is
> so.
Bud:
Tell us what the serial number of Lattimer's rifle is or sit down.
Bud
Since two rifles having the same number is an extraordinary
occurrence, you should back it up with something more substantial than
a person`s say-so. Do you have anything more substantial?
tomnln
Bud:
The "OWNER" of the rifle said it was.
The OWNER's name was John Lattimer.
robcap...@netscape.com
> "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com> wrote in message
Tom, I realize Lattimer is full of crap, but in this case he presented
something that is a hinderance to DVP, so Dave wants to just throw it
off as a "mistake" or a "lie", so I am asking him to disprove the
statement Lattimer himself claimed.
Bud
This isn`t getting you any closer to establishing as fact that
Lattimer`s rifle had the same serial number as Oswald`s. Perhaps kooks
believe everything they read in books, but LN do not, especially when
it comes to extraordinary claims. Put your tiny brain to work on
this... even if there was another rifle with the same number as
Oswald`s, out of the tens of thousands of this rifle manufactured,
what would be the chances of Lattimer getting one with the same number
as Oswald`s? This is why I can reject the idea that Lattimer had such
a rifle with confidence, leaving only the possibility that he misspoke
the concept (which obviously was that the rifle he had was identical
to C2766).
Bud
David Von Pein
>>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
You're a moron.
Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
involving the murder of JFK.
Let's see if Gil The Mega-Kook can figure out why the above paragraph
is 100% accurate on his own (even though I've already told him the
reason in an earlier post....and so did Vince Bugliosi, via a quote I
provided from his book on this same topic).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
>>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
Walt
> >>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
>
> You're a moron.
>
> Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
> argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
> completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
> involving the murder of JFK.
>
> Let's see if Gil The Mega-Kook can figure out why the above paragraph
> is 100% accurate on his own (even though I've already told him the
> reason in an earlier post....and so did Vince Bugliosi, via a quote I
> provided from his book on this same topic).
>
>
> >>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
>
> You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
> around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
Hey Von Pea brain.... Everybody knows that you're a liar, and you have
zero credibility.... So why do you persist in wasting your time by
attempting to peddle the same old BS that's been rejected by 90% of
the American people. Do you think you're smarter than 90% of the
population?
David Von Pein
>>> " "Since many concerns were manufacturing the same weapon, THE SAME SERIAL NUMBER APPEARS ON WEAPONS MANUFACTURED BY MORE THAN ONE CONCERN. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." J. Edgar Hoover; April 30, 1964 .... Now, where did he say that no two weapons bore the same letter prefix?" <<<
Yes, you're correct here (in a way), Gil. I'll admit that.
I.E.,
The above passage which you quote from CE2562 can, indeed, be
interpreted this way:
The exact same 5-character serial number can appear on multiple
Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at
different plants, which would include the same prefix letter as well
as the same four numbers that follow the prefix letter.
But I also think the above quote from CE2562 can be interpreted
another way, which is probably the correct way of interpreting it,
especially when factoring in two things as a prerequisite:
1.) Hoover's comments to Rankin on Page 1 of that 20-page document
that makes up Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2562, wherein Hoover is
telling Rankin about two specific rifles of interest to the
Commission, rifles which bear similar serial numbers, but not serial
numbers that are exactly the same, because one of them doesn't bear
the "C" letter prefix.
And:
2.) The fact that nobody, to date, has produced a single example of
another Model #91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that bears the exact
same 5-character serial number as the one that was shipped by Klein's
to Hidell/Oswald in March 1963. And, as far as I am aware, nobody has
ever come up with ANY two separate MC 91/38 rifles that bear the exact
same 5-character serial number, regardless of whether the number is
"C2766" or some other number.
Given the above two facts, I believe that the above quote that you
cited from CE2562 could reasonably be interpreted in the following
manner:
The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0
through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38
rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very
same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these
rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number,
while the other rifle will not have this prefix.
In my opinion, the above explanation is a reasonable one, given the
comments by J. Edgar Hoover on Page #1 of CE2562. And it's also a very
reasonable explanation when factoring in the following comments
regarding this topic of serial numbers that were made by the FBI's
Robert A. Frazier to the Warren Commission in 1964:
MR. EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the
placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined
to one weapon of a given type?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign
weapons particularly? The serial number consists of a series of
numbers which normally will be repeated. However, a prefix is placed
before the number, which actually must be part of the serial number,
consisting of a letter."
MR. EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number
on this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0415b.htm
David Von Pein
An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was [an] error:
"...the book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too
late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
====================
This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably
won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004).
Gil Jesus
Davison.
They both seem to take credit for asking him.
I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing ?
Gil Jesus
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...-
Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
Joey take note.
David Von Pein
>>> "Too bad Lattimer can't tell us himself which one asked him, Canal or Davison. They both seem to take credit for asking him." <<<
You're nuts. They do no such thing.
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
Where in the above short thread does Jean Davison take any "credit"
for having asked John Lattimer herself about the issue regarding the
serial number?
Answer: Nowhere.
When Jean said: "It was I who asked, John...", she was responding to
John Canal's comment in his first post, when John said: "I can't
recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer...". She wasn't
implying that it was she, herself, who had asked John Lattimer any
questions. This is quite obvious when reading the two Canal/Davison
posts back-to-back.
Gil can't even interpret a short three-post thread correctly.
Incredible.
Anyway, this is just another "So what?" issue raised by Gil "Chaff
Always Trumps Wheat" Jesus.
As if the person who initially did the "asking" re. the serial number
on Lattimer's rifle would have changed Dr. Lattimer's response of:
"The book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late
to correct it".
Gil is simply....well....amazing.
>>> "I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing?" <<<
Like I said....he's amazing.
And what did I tell you, folks....just one hour ago:
"This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it
probably won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in
2004)." -- DVP; 09/09/2008; 8:03 PM EDT *
* = IOW -- Somebody said something that a CT-Kook doesn't want to
hear, therefore somebody must be telling tales out of
school....whether it be Lattimer himself, or maybe Canal just made the
whole thing up about asking Dr. Lattimer the question re. the serial
number and then getting a response directly from the doctor.
A new fitting slogan:
"A conspiracy kook's mind is a terrible thing to waste (if it
could only be located in the first place, that is)."
tomnln
Maybe you can scan it & post it here.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:052ce032-1377-46ae...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Excellent find, Bud. Excellent.
>
> This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it probably
> won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in 2004):
>
>
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
>
>
>
> "I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
> notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
> used for his tests was C-2766 (the same ser# as the Mannlicher-Carcano
> found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and today I received a
> letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It was a error: "...the
> book was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late to
David Von Pein
>>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
Just like I said:
"This should shut the kooks up about this for good (but it
probably won't; they'll just say that Lattimer lied to Canal in
2004)." -- DVP
REPRISE:
>>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:80d0eaac-ecec-4244...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
NOT that I've ever seen.
Maybe this is just Another LN'r "Claim".
BUT;
Does it matter?
Lattimer's own book Destroys his credibility.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
tomnln
If you're so good at telling the future, why don't you explain the
destruction of evidence HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Unless you're just Bullshitting AGAIN! ! ! .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
TRANSLATION:
David Can't produce ! ! !
David Von Pein
As if the serial number on Lattimer's rifle makes a lick of
difference.
You kooks do nothing but spin endlessly in a bottomless pit of
minutiae.
What Rossley really dislikes is the idea of taking down his anti-
Lattimer remarks regarding "C2766" on his crap-filled website, so
he'll continue to argue in favor of Lattimer having a rifle with
"C2766" stamped on it till the cows come a-knockin'.
Pitiable, but to be expected....because we're dealing with conspiracy-
happy retards here at The Asylum.
tomnln
#1 It's from Lattimer's own book.
#2 You still represent only 10% of the American people.
#3 It's YOU who Rejects your ownb evidence/testimony.
#4 That website is filled with YOUR evidence/testimony.
http://whokilledjfk.net/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
#5. It's you (The Nutsack) who is a conspiracy-thirsty kook.
Bud
> On 9 Sep, 17:59, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
>
> > You're a moron.
>
> > Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
> > argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
> > completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
> > involving the murder of JFK.
>
> > Let's see if Gil The Mega-Kook can figure out why the above paragraph
> > is 100% accurate on his own (even though I've already told him the
> > reason in an earlier post....and so did Vince Bugliosi, via a quote I
> > provided from his book on this same topic).
>
> >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> > >>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
>
> > You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
> > around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
>
> Hey Von Pea brain.... Everybody knows that you're a liar, and you have
> zero credibility....
Says the man who have continuously lies about what witnesses said
for years and years, despite being corrected on these issues on
numerous occasions.
>So why do you persist in wasting your time by
> attempting to peddle the same old BS that's been rejected by 90% of
> the American people. Do you think you're smarter than 90% of the
> population?
DVP has a greater percentage of people believing him than you have
believing the stupid shit you believe, Walt.
Bud
> Too bad Lattimer can''t tell us himself which one asked him, Canal or
> Davison.
Too bad you are an idiot. It`s clear that Canal relayed Jean
Davison`s question to Lattimer. Here is the initial post, where Canal
mentions that he is in correspondence with Lattimer, and Jean (under
the header name "walter.jeffries") asks Canal to ask Lattimer about
this issue...
> They both seem to take credit for asking him.
What a crackerjack researcher you are. Fucking dope.
> I wonder, did either of them get his response in writing ?
Canal says he "received a letter from him".
Bud
> On Sep 9, 3:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
> Joey take note.
Bud
> All ya gotta do is Produce that letter in Lattimer's own handwriting.
Why would you think the letter was handwritten? Would you recognize
Lattimer`s handwriting if you saw it? Best you stick to your squawking
points, and the leave the thinking to those better equipped.
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:80d0eaac-ecec-4244...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
> > that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
>
> > I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
> > posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
> > topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
> > was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
> > Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
> > have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
> > might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
> > about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
> > 2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/63765...
Bud
> An excellent find in the forum's archives, Bud. Great job of using
> that good ol' search engine. Thank you.
Jean Davison and John Canal get the real credit. When John mentioned
he was in correspondence with Lattimer, Jean pounced on the
opportunity to resolve this issue. That is the difference between LN,
who want the truth, and the kooks who are more than willing to fixate
and build monuments on obvious error. One Jean Davison is worth more
than all these kooks combined. Here is the initial exchange where Jean
(under the name "walter.jeffries") asks John Canal relay her question
to Lattimer...
> I should have also thought about searching the vast archive of forum
> posts here for possible information about this "C2766/Lattimer" sub-
> topic; but, I'll admit, it never once occurred to me to do so....which
> was, indeed, a silly oversight, especially in light of the fact that
> Dr. Lattimer was still living up until May 10, 2007, and it should
> have occurred to me that at least one person who posts at the forums
> might very well have actually talked to Dr. Lattimer and asked him
> about this "C2766" mix-up. And that's exactly what did occur in April
> 2004, as dug out of the archives by Bud:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/63765...
Gil Jesus
>
> � �Canal says he "received a letter from him".
Then you'll have no problem producing the letter.
We'll be waiting to see it.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
>
> What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
That's your standard answer every time you can't produce evidence
"what good would it do ?".
If you want to prove your point, produce the letter.
Otherwise you have no PHYSICAL proof, as usual.
"He tells us that he told him" isn't evidence, it's heresay.
Gil Jesus
>
> > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> � It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
No Bud, that's heresay. Research would be the letter.
So produce it.
muc...@gmail.com
Heresay isn't even a word. Did you mean heresy?
Gil Jesus
> >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
>
> What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
Common sense would dictate that if you produced the letter that you'd
also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity.
Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me.
Gil Jesus
> Heresay isn't even a word. Did you mean heresy?
No I mean hearsay. Geesh, that's the best you got ? A spelling error ?
You're grasping YOYO. A sign of desperation.
Gil Jesus
> > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> � It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as
evidence:
"Most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as
laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines
hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while
testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the
truth of the matter asserted." Rule 801, 28 U.S.C. App. See Rule for
Courts-Martial 801, Manual for Court Martial, United States (2005
ed.)."
David Von Pein
>>> "Common sense would dictate that if you produced the letter that you'd also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity. Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me." <<<
So, Gil, you're of the opinion that John Canal just might have been
telling a tall tale when he said he got a letter from Dr. John K.
Lattimer in April of 2004....is that correct, Mister Kook?
The CTers' fictional "Oswald Was A Patsy" cause would be better served
if Gilbert and his fellow Anybody-But-Oz kooks would just keep silent
from now on about this matter regarding Lattimer's obvious "C2766"
serial-number error now that the whole matter has been cleared up.
(And it was cleared up four years ago, as it turns out.)
Because the more you goofs argue about this meaningless minutiae--and
it certainly is meaningless (even if Lattimer's gun WAS stamped
"C2766", which it wasn't)--the more you look like the desperate
conspiracy-seeking kooks that we all know you are.
And Gil's meaningless and chaff-riddled argument for tomorrow will be
--- The "Dial Ryder incident", which will be re-hashed for the 99th
time.
Gil Jesus
> >>> "Your comment of "so what" to the issue of multiple serial numbers indicates that you have no knowledge of what constitutes evidence and what doesn't. You are not qualified to even discuss the evidence in this case, let alone spread your disinformation all over the internet." <<<
>
> You're a moron.
Gee, isn't ANYONE who disagrees with you either a moron or a kook ?
> Waldman Exhibit Number 7 (below), all by itself, proves that any
> argument regarding "Multiple MC Rifles With Serial Number C2766" is a
> completely moot argument with respect to this particular case
> involving the murder of JFK.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
Yeah the receipt really says "this is the only rifle with this serial
number" I think I can see it in code.
> >>> "You have no proof that that rifle was fired in Dealey Plaza, David." <<<
> You're a total brain-deficient moron who shouldn't even be walking
> around if you truly believe the shit I just quoted above.
Von Pinhead cannot prove that the rifle was ever fired from the 6th
floor.
1. The rifle was never examined to see if it had been fired.
2. The FBI did NOT find Oswald's prints on the rifle on the night of
the assassination.
3. The Spectrographic Test and the Neutron Activation Analysis of the
bullet fragments were "matched" to CE 399 by using flawed data that
the FBI stopped using in the 90's.
4. The bullet fragments allegedly found in the limousine were never
photographed in their places as discovered.
5. CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and NO BLOOD on
it
from EITHER victim.
6, There is NO CONTINUITY in the evidence and thus there is NO PROOF
that Oswald's rifle was fired from the TSBD.
This is what I mean by "continuity":
You have to put the rifle in the hands of the accused
Next, you have to have a bullet fired from that rifle.
Then you have to prove the bullet hit the victims
But in this case, we have this:
1. The rifle not examined to see if it had been fired
2. Oswald's prints not on the rifle
3. A test of the fragments that was inconclusive
4. No physical proof that the fragments were in the car
5. A bullet that contained no proof that it passed through any human
bodies
Sounds like a pretty solid case, huh ?
Gil Jesus
>
> So, Gil, you're of the opinion that John Canal just might have been
> telling a tall tale when he said he got a letter from Dr. John K.
> Lattimer in April of 2004....is that correct, Mister Kook?
>
> The CTers' fictional "Oswald Was A Patsy" cause would be better served
> if Gilbert and his fellow Anybody-But-Oz kooks would just keep silent
> from now on about this matter regarding Lattimer's obvious "C2766"
> serial-number error now that the whole matter has been cleared up.
> (And it was cleared up four years ago, as it turns out.)
>
> Because the more you goofs argue about this meaningless minutiae--and
> it certainly is meaningless (even if Lattimer's gun WAS stamped
> "C2766", which it wasn't)--the more you look like the desperate
> conspiracy-seeking kooks that we all know you are.
>
> And Gil's meaningless and chaff-riddled argument for tomorrow will be
> --- The "Dial Ryder incident", which will be re-hashed for the 99th
> time.
Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the
letter and prove its authenticity ?
David Von Pein
>>> "No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as evidence..." <<<
Gil thinks we're all in "court" here at The Asylum.
This is just one more reason to know that Gilbert shouldn't be looking
into this case at all. He's not interested in finding out the identity
of JFK's killer (which, of course, couldn't be more obvious if it had
been sky-written by The Lord Jesus Christ Himself on 11/22/63)....Gil
wants to play Judge Judy instead.
====================================
BUGLIOSI FOOTNOTE RE: "ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE" (this doesn't deal
with "hearsay" specifically, but it's a VB quote worth repeating
nonetheless)......
"I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if
Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal
technicality. There is no problem with the chain of custody of much of
the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only
that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of
custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical
evidence in this case would be admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page
442 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes (c.2007)
======================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Gee, isn't ANYONE who disagrees with you either a moron or a kook?" <<<
Yes. You're both. I thought I made that clear.
(See what leaving out just one simple word -- "Not" -- will do to you?)
Bud
> On Sep 10, 3:26 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Canal says he "received a letter from him".
>
> Then you'll have no problem producing the letter.
There will be no problem, because I will make no attempt. This
issue shows that when given a choice between two bits of information,
you will cling tenaciously to what you want to believe, and disregard
an obvious truth.
> We'll be waiting to see it.
Try holding your breath. If you had half a brain, you wouldn`t need
a formal explanation from Lattimer, you could figure out that the
passage in his book was in error by yourself. Like I pointed out, even
if there was another rifle with the same number as Oswald`s, the odds
that one, out of all the tens of thousands of this rifle produced,
would happen to fall into the hands of a researcher writing a book
about Oswald`s rifle would be astronomical. Whereas human error is a
common occurrence we see all around us everyday, not the least of
which is the mistake your father made by not pulling out of your
mother in time when you were conceived.
David Von Pein
>>> "Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the letter and prove its authenticity?" <<<
Of course I'm not going to produce John Canal's letter from Lattimer.
You know that. I don't have access to it, Mr. Kook. And I have no
interest in seeing the letter. John's word is perfectly adequate here.
But I guess Judge Judy-Jesus wants to put Mr. Canal on the witness
stand and cross-examine him over this piece of wholly-irrelevant
evidence.
Why not just admit that you and your fellow kooks blew this one, Gil?
Have you ever done that before?
I have. Well, at least partially anyway....when Gary Mack convinced me
that Ruby could have entered the DPD basement via a different route
other than the Main-Street ramp. I still think the ramp is the likely
route for Ruby--but Mr. Mack's scenario and facts are quite solid.
Plus, there was another instance when a CTer (Bill Miller) actually
got me to admit, via some excellent toggling gif clips, that John
Connally's lapel was probably flopping around in the breeze PRIOR to Z-
Film frame 223.
But has Gil ever admitted he was wrong about anything in this case?
Just curious.
I wonder if Tom The Nutsack has ever admitted to a defeat either?
Gil Jesus
You people claim that there's a letter out there somewehere in which
Lattimer writes that he made an error in his book with the claim that
he owned or used a rifle with serial number C2766.
Okay, fine.
All I've done is ask you to see the letter. Show this forum the letter
and provide us with some evidence of autheticity SO THERE IS NO DOUBT
to your claim.
I don't think that is an unreasonable request. Apparently you do.
Anyone's claims are subject to proof, John Canal is no exception.
All I'm asking is for you to convince us and put the issue to rest
once and for all.
My understanding is that you are declining to do so. You'd rather
respond with childish name-calling and insults.
You really are an embarrassment.
Bud
> On Sep 10, 3:28 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> > It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
>
> No Bud, that's heresay.
"hearsay".
> Research would be the letter.
No, idiot, research is what Canal and Davison did. Canal went to the
source, and got the information that Davison requested.
> So produce it.
Why would I do that? This is much better, it is a good illustration
that you kooks are idiots who are not interested in the reality of
things, but are playing a game, clinging to points well after they are
lost. I mean, if you concede this, it might cause a domino effect of
all your precious stupid beliefs, and Tom would have nothing left to
display in his Museum of Stupidity.
Bud
> On Sep 9, 11:40 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "I sure would like to see that letter. Maybe you can scan it & post it here." <<<
>
> > What good would that do, kook? You'd merely say it was a fake.
>
> Common sense would dictate that if you produced the letter that you'd
> also be able to produce evidence of its authenticity.
<snicker> Like what, idiot? Another letter from Lattimer vouching
for the first one`s authenticity?
> Otherwise, it's just words on a screen to me.
And Lattimer`s words in his book are what?
David Von Pein
No "letter of confirmation" is even needed. It's so obvious that
Lattimer's "C2766" statement in his 1980 book was a simple error/typo,
that even a CTer like Gil should be able to figure out why.
I'll admit that I might not be the sharpest tool in the shed either,
but I had said many, many times on this forum that Lattimer's C2766
remark was an "obvious error"....and that was years before Bud
confirmed the innocent error yesterday on this forum by digging up
John Canal's 2004 post to verify Lattimer's mistake.
Heck, if I can figure it out on my own (sans any letter of
confirmation)....why can't you CTers?
(Is that a silly question, Bud? Well, maybe so.) <chuckle>
Gil Jesus
> >>> "Can we take that as a "NO" that you're going to provide us with the letter and prove its authenticity?" <<<
>
> Of course I'm not going to produce John Canal's letter from Lattimer.
> You know that. I don't have access to it, Mr. Kook. And I have no
> interest in seeing the letter. John's word is perfectly adequate here.
You obviously, by your own admittance, have damaged your own
credibility. You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims
as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical
evidence.
Unlike the many Dealey Plaza witnesses whose word you WON'T take, even
though they exceed in number this lone witness, Mr. Canal.
I'm done with this thread David, I'm letting you off the hook.
You've proven yourself to be a liar, a con-artist, a deceiver and a
phony. You twist things around and put your own little spin on them.
You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete
evidence. You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without
doing any background research.
The lurkers can see what a fraud you are.
David Von Pein
>>> "I don't care what Bugliosi says." <<<
Of course you don't. Because he makes too much sense. You'd rather
promote the likes of Marrs, Garrison, Fetzer, Armstrong, and Lane.
Bud
> On Sep 10, 3:28 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Now THATS an example of heresay evidence.
>
> > It`s an example of research. Take note, Gil.
>
> No Bud, that's an example of hearsay, not admitted in court as
> evidence:
We aren`t in court, idiot. You may as well be applying NFL drafting
guidelines. We are looking into things is all, an investigation, in
the loosest sense of the word. As usual, it comes down to "what is
reasonable to believe", with kooks clinging to an unreasonable belief.
DVP and myself, and probably many others, were able to come to the
correct conclusion about that passage from the book without Lattimer`s
confirmation. It is much, much more reasonable to believe that it was
an written error than to believe Lattimer somehow got ahold of a rifle
of the same model and serial number as Oswald`s. But you kooks, with
no ability to reason, are stuck once again worshiping an error.
Bud
What would you consider proof of it`s authenticity, Gil?
David Von Pein
>>> "You obviously, by your own admittance, have damaged your own credibility. You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims as fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical evidence." <<<
Oh, dear Lord up in heaven! Somebody tell me that I'm dreaming and
that a kook named Gil didn't write the above paragraph?? Because that
paragraph up there from Gil is just too darn deliciously ironic and
hilarious to be believed. Even for Gilbert.
Let's bask in its Pot/Kettle irony once more.....
"You admit that you are willing to absorb unproven claims as
fact, accepting them as "perfectly adequate", without physical
evidence."
As Rochester Van Jones was wont to say to Jack Benny -- Yep...he
really did say that! He said it alright!
Gil evidently thinks that he never "absorbs unproven claims as fact".
What about the entire "Oswald As Patsy" claim, Gil?
What about the whole notion of those extra bullets entering JFK & JBC
on 11/22?
What about the whole notion of the huge police and WC "cover-up" that
you kooks believe is 100% true, Gil?
What about those "unproven claims"? (And a hundred more like them.)
Let's see what's next out of this kook's mouth that will undoubtedly
make him look like a bigger idiot.....
>>> "Unlike the many Dealey Plaza witnesses whose word you WON'T take, even though they exceed in number this lone witness, Mr. Canal." <<<
More stupid shit cherry-picked from Gil's own fruit trees, I see.
What about all the Dealey Plaza witnesses that you discard as being
wrong and/or untruthful, Gil? What about Howard Brennan? Do YOU take
his "word" as the truth?
What about Robert Jackson and Mal Couch and Charles Brehm and Jim
Altgens and Harold Norman and Junior Jarman and many others that go
against the "CT grain" in many different ways? Are they to be
discarded?
Gil doesn't practice what he preaches. He types a Pot/Kettle
post...THEN thinks about it afterward (maybe).
>>> "I'm done with this thread David..." <<<
Wanna bet?
>>> "I'm letting you off the hook." <<<
If this post of Gil's gets any funnier, my bladder will not support
the onslaught. (And everybody here knows of its weak status. So, if
you have ANY mercy, Gil, you'll stop pretty soon.)
>>> "You've proven yourself to be a liar, a con-artist, a deceiver and a phony." <<<
You left out: "WC shill", "VB butt-kisser", "CIA disinfo agent", and
"baby-killing psycho".....right?
>>> "You twist things around and put your own little spin on them. You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete evidence. You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without doing any background research." <<<
Oh....my bladder!
Can this "Pot Meets Kettle" post get any more ridiculous? Is that
physically possible at this point?
A CT-Kook is actually telling an LNer these things, folks:
"You twist things around and put your own little spin on them."
"You make wild claims and refuse to back them up with concrete
evidence."
"You accept the assertions of like-minded individuals without
doing any background research."
It just can't get any better than this.
If everybody reading this isn't currently laid out on the floor from
laughing so hard, it can only be because they died from laughing at
having seen the first half of Gil's post.
>>> "The lurkers can see what a fraud you are." <<<
Pot...here comes a great-big Kettle (once again).
Now that Gil has stepped several inches deeper into his CT-Kook
Quicksand via this latest post of his, I'd like to thank him for
today's bawdy entertainment here at The Asylum.
My bladder burst several times during Gil's soliloquy, but it was
worth the extra trips to the bathroom.
As for my never doing any "background research" ..... www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com