>>> "David, I'd like to discuss your points with you, I like to see facts referenced. Opinions are OK but need to be stated as such. Show evidence, ADMISSIBLE evidence. I honestly do not think Oswald would have been convicted, had he lived." <<<

Yeah, he probably needed to kill three people in order to convince
most juries he was a murderer. Two murders weren't enough. If he had
been successful in killing Officer McDonald in the theater, do you
think perhaps the jury would have thought twice about setting him
free?

>>> "I do not care about the Tippit case, it is a sideshow. One does not prove nor disprove the other (Kennedy's and Tippit's murder), so it is irrelevant." <<<

Mrs. Tippit will be thrilled to hear that.

>>> "Burden of proof is on the accuser. Let's take your first 4 points. 1. The rifle. How do we know it was Oswald's?" <<<

Oswald positively ordered it. CE773 and CE788 prove that
Oswald/"Hidell" ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in March
1963. And Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that Klein's received that
order for a rifle from Oswald/"Hidell", and Waldman Exhibit #7 also
proves for all time that Klein's shipped an Italian 6.5mm. carbine
with the serial number C2766 to Oswald/"Hidell" on March 20th, 1963.
Are all three of these documents supposedly faked (including the two
that have Lee Harvey Oswald's provable handwriting on them)?:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/WaldmanExhibitNo7.jpg?t=1279170764

>>> "We all know that it was ordered thru the mail. Why didn't he just walk into a gun shop and anonymously buy one? What? Was it because he was not a lone nut until after he bought it?" <<<

Shame on the Presidential assassin named Lee Harvey for not meeting
the rigid expectations of the conspiracy theorists of the world!

Lee doesn't deserve to be recognized as the assassin he is, because he
didn't obtain the gun he used to murder the President in the way that
CTers demand! Dammit, Lee! You should have known better!

And what about the commonly-heard argument about how no other
President in history had been killed with a rifle. It was always a
handgun being used to kill Presidents prior to November 1963.

So maybe you should also ask me this question too --- Why did Oswald
use a clumsy and crappy rifle to kill JFK, when he could have walked
right up to the limousine on Elm Street in from of the Book Depository
Building and shot the President with his Smith & Wesson revolver?

Again: Shame on Oswald for doing it the way HE wanted to do it!

>>> "We also all know that this rifle was too big to fit in his P.O. Box, so he must have had to come in and sign for it, right? Where is the record of this?" <<<

There was no need for Oswald to sign anything in order to get his
rifle package at the post office. He merely took the card/slip out of
P.O. Box 2915 and took it to the front desk, and a postal clerk would
hand over the package. Happens every day.

And as far as Oswald having to sign some type of specific firearms
form that Klein's should have included on the rifle package -- Well,
perhaps that form SHOULD have been included on Oswald's package. I've
never been sure whether or not that was a fact or not. But even if the
firearms form was supposed to be included, evidently it WASN'T in this
particular Oswald transaction. So if anybody was at fault regarding
the forms, it would have been Klein's. It wasn't Oswald's fault if no
forms were attached to his package. And it wasn't the fault of the
Dallas Post Office either.

Also -- Regarding this topic of "firearms forms":

You and many other people have claimed that Oswald could have waltzed
into any gun shop in Texas and walked out with a rifle that could
never be traced to the purchaser. But what about that "firearms form"
that you CTers keep insisting that Klein's was supposed to attach to
Oswald's mail-order rifle package? Didn't a brick-and-mortar gun shop
have to fill out any kind of firearms forms or paperwork when they
sold a customer a rifle in Texas in 1963?

Why would only a MAIL ORDER company like Klein's be required to
include any sort of paperwork? Surely, if a mail-order firm was
required to abide by certain rules regarding a rifle's paperwork, then
why wouldn't a gun shop in Dallas have been required to abide by
similar rules? Wouldn't a gun shop have required their customers to
SIGN SOMETHING before walking out the door with a firearm?

I'll admit, I don't know the answer to that last question I just
asked. But it sure seems like a common-sense inquiry to me.

In any event, it would appear as if no firearms form was included with
the rifle package that Klein's shipped to Oswald/Hidell.

Or, as an alternative answer, perhaps the proper form WAS included
with Oswald's package, but somehow the form became detached from the
package in transit, and nobody at the post office examined the
contents carefully enough to KNOW FOR A FACT that a firearm was inside
the package.

~shrug~

But one thing is a certainty -- Klein's shipped Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle #C2766 to "A. Hidell" in Dallas....and Klein's DID NOT GET THAT
PACKAGE BACK.

Therefore, somebody must have picked up that rifle at the Dallas Post
Office.

And who is more likely to have picked up a rifle that was ordered and
paid for by Lee Harvey Oswald -- Oswald himself? Or some unknown
person who did not order and pay for that rifle?

Not really a tough question. Is it?

>>> "Is there testimony of a PO employee?" <<<

Only Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes, as far as I am aware.

Conspiracy theorists expect way too much from the postal employees
concerning this matter. But, realistically, how could anyone expect
any of the clerks at the Dallas Post Office to remember giving a
specific box to a specific person MONTHS earlier?

The postal clerks hand out hundreds of packages a week, no doubt. It
was just one more package picked up by one more nameless face in the
crowd. If a postal employee HAD specifically remembered Oswald picking
up that package in March, I would have been very surprised.

In fact, I just envision what the conspiracy kooks would be saying if
some postal employee had recalled Oswald picking up the rifle -- the
kooks would probably say that the clerk was just part of the
continuing "cover up", and was lying when he/she said he/she
remembered giving Oswald the package.

You see, with the kooks who desperately want to take that rifle out of
Oswald's hands, no amount of evidence will be enough to prove LHO took
possession of C2766. That's fairly obvious already--just take another
look at the three official Warren Commission documents linked above.
The CTers have decided to totally ignore ALL THREE of those items.

>>> "Anyone see him with that specific rifle in his hands at any time?" <<<

Not at the post office, no. But a few days later--yes. That person was
Marina Oswald. She took multiple photographs of Lee Harvey while he
was holding that rifle in his hands.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos.html

>>> "How did a weapon, addressed to A. Hidell, which was LHO's PO box, get picked up by LHO without violating Postal Regulations?" <<<

I'll let Postal Inspector Harry Holmes answer that one:

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Now, supposing that Oswald had not, in fact,
authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and
that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact,
one did at Post Office Box 2915; what procedure would be followed when
that package came in?"

HARRY D. HOLMES -- "They would put the notice in the box."

MR. LIEBELER -- "Regardless of whose name was associated with the
box?"

MR. HOLMES -- "That is the general practice. The theory being, I have
a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my
same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not
too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service
for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a
little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It
depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would
be all right."

MR. LIEBELER -- "So that the package would have come in addressed to
Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in
the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive
mail from it?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Actually, the window where you get the box is all the
way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the
people that box the mail, and in theory--I am surmising now, because
nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no
recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on
this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He
comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What
box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this
by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him,
he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it."

MR. LIEBELER -- "Ordinarily, they won't even request any
identification because they would assume if he got the notice out of
the box, he was entitled to it?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Yes, sir."

MR. LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that, in fact, is what
happened in this case?"

MR. HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what
happened."

MR. LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald
had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Could have been. 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."

[Source for above WC testimony: 7 H 527-528.]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0268a.htm

>>> "We know the FBI tracked the serial number of the gun, but...as many as 5 different rifles could have the exact same serial number." <<<

This is total nonsense. What's the use of even stamping a unique
serial number on a particular item if there are several other items
with the exact same "unique" number on them (especially a firearm,
which could conceivably be used in a felony and, hence, would need to
be traced by the authorities)?

That's just silly/dumb.

I've gone a few rounds with other conspiracy theorists on this "serial
number" topic. Here's a sampling:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a7b86e1d6eb077b

>>> "2. The bullet shells. They ballistically match the rifle. OK. I don't care if one was dented. The only question here is, who fired it? Evidence?" <<<

Oswald fired it (of course).

All the evidence points to Oswald as being the person who fired at the
President from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest, including Howard
Brennan's positive identification of Oswald as the gunman.

Plus, Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were located in the EXACT
SAME PLACE WHERE THE ASSASSIN WAS LOCATED.

But that last piece of evidence doesn't sway the Anybody-But-Oswald
nuts one bit, even though those three prints of Oswald's were found
DEEP INSIDE THE SNIPER'S NEST (not just on the OUTSIDE boxes that
comprised the Nest).

Those prints were just a nice convenient coincidence for the people
who were setting up Oswald as their patsy, right? Meh.

In addition, I'd like to ask this common-sense question:

On ANY given day (November 22, 1963, or any other day on the
calendar), who is MORE LIKELY to have been firing shots from LEE
OSWALD'S RIFLE -- Lee Oswald or somebody else who DIDN'T own Rifle
#C2766?

If anybody answers that last question with "somebody else", they
should seek mental help as soon as they can.

>>> "3. CE-399. I can see the possibility of a single bullet striking both Kennedy and Connally. But I cannot see CE-399 doing it, as there was no fabric nor human matter that could prove this bullet passed thru either victim." <<<

As far as I am aware, CE399 was never even tested for "fabric" or
"human matter". So how do you (or anyone) know for certain that CE399
didn't have those things on it at some point in time?

Answer: You don't know.

>>> "Is there evidence that I do not know about? If not, then CE-399 is irrelevant to this case." <<<

Oh, sure. It's only a bullet that is tied to the VERY SAME RIFLE that
was found on the Depository's sixth floor right after the shooting.
And that SAME RIFLE is also tied to JFK's murder via other ballistics
evidence besides CE399 -- namely, the three shells underneath the
assassin's window and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat
of JFK's limo.

So, apparently CORROBORATING evidence such as CE399 is "irrelevant" if
you're a conspiracy theorist. A very strange policy there.

>>> "4. Fragments: another ballistic match to the rifle, but again, who fired them?" <<<

Already answered. See above.

You see, only ONE PERSON could have fired Carcano rifle C2766 during
the 8.36 seconds when President Kennedy was being subjected to rifle
fire in Dealey Plaza. And that person, via just garden-variety common
sense ALONE, was almost certainly Lee H. Oswald.

Unless you'd like to postulate a really goofball theory that has TWO
gunmen sharing Oswald's Carcano in the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, with
the first gunman firing one of the shots at the President and then
handing off the gun to a second shooter, who then fired the last two
shots. (Or maybe it was 2 shots for the first killer, and only 1 shot
for the last shooter. Take your pick.)

>>> "Fragments removed form Connally cannot have come from CE-399 because of the total weight issue of the fragments and CE-399." <<<

You're wrong.

Granted, there is some confusion in the existing record and testimony
as to exactly how many metal fragments were removed from Governor
Connally's body during surgery, and the precise weight of those
fragments.

We do know, however, that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn tested three of
Connally's wrist fragments (CE842) for NAA tests in the late 1970s.

But as far as I know, only one of the Connally bullet fragments was
actually weighed, and it weighed one-half of a grain [per the WC
testimony of FBI agent Robert A. Frazier; see 5 H 72].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0041b.htm

But another thing we do know is that ALL of the metal fragments that
were inside John Connally's whole body were very, very small
(including the fragments removed from his wrist by Dr. Charles Gregory
during surgery).

Also: From the available evidence and testimony, I can present a good
case for there being only two very tiny bullet fragments being left
inside Governor Connally's entire body at the time of Connally's death
in 1993. That case is presented in the article below:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

>>> "While we are talking about the rifle, is there evidence that Oswald even brought the rifle into the TSBD?" <<<

Plenty. It's just that the conspiracists don't want to ADD UP the
evidence and take it to its logical destination:

Oswald was seen by Buell Wesley Frazier carrying a large brown bag
into the TSBD at about 8:00 AM CST on November 22nd.

"I saw him [Oswald] go in the back door at the Loading Dock of
the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his
arm." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit [24 H
209]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0114a.htm

Later that same day, an EMPTY brown paper bag with two of Oswald's
prints on it was found on the floor of the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.
Oswald's rifle was also found on that same sixth floor.

The empty paper bag was 38 inches long. The lengthiest part of
Oswald's disassembled rifle measured 34.8 inches. [See WCR, p. 133.]

The empty bag (CE142) also contained fibers that were consistent with
the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. Oswald's rifle was known to have
been stored inside that exact blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage. [See
WCR, p. 136.]

This math is easy to do -- the bag Frazier saw Oswald carrying into
the Depository contained Rifle #C2766.

If you arrive at any other answer, you've flunked math class.

>>> "Witness testimony does not point to this as we should already know due to the bag length issue." <<<

The "bag length issue" has been overblown by conspiracy theorists.
It's just plain silly to think that the "bag length issue" trumps all
of the things I just talked about above associated with the paper bag
and Oswald's prints being on the bag found in the Sniper's Nest, etc.

There are also the following comments made by Wesley Frazier at the
1986 TV docu-trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald":

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he [Lee Oswald] was carrying
the bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his
body."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on
the right side?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."

BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think
you've said that in the past."

FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his
body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, LINNIE MAE RANDLE, AND THE PAPER BAG:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb8cfb984a9b889c

>>> "How did more than one Sheriff's deputy identify the rifle as something other than the one supposedly owned by Oswald? Were they simply mistaken?" <<<

Of course they were simply mistaken. In 1967, Seymour Weitzman said
this on CBS-TV:

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on
my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there
it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser,
which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a
glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out
as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type
gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw,
was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement
was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."

>>> "Why were none of these officials even shown the rifle and asked to confirm it as the one found, under oath, by the WC? They were only shown photos and to my knowledge, none could identify it." <<<

Let's listen to what Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone had to say on this
"Mauser" matter in 1986:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-1986.html

>>> "If I were on a Grand Jury, it's not looking good as of now. I would have to see more evidence than this, more DEFINITIVE evidence to move to trial. I will, of course, wait for any evidence you may have countering anything I have said or evidence that I have requested from you before we move on. One does not have to be a lunatic, or lone nutter, or tinfoil hat wearer to start looking at the evidence and at least begin to feel that something does not seem quite right." <<<

I doubt it will matter to you what I have to say about the huge pile
of evidence that proves Oswald's guilt. Most conspiracy theorists WANT
a conspiracy, and it doesn't make any difference how much evidence
they are forced to sidestep in order to achieve their goal. Because if
a CTer wants something to exist badly enough, he can always pretend
that all the evidence that points to Oswald as the lone assassin is
fake.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

David Von Pein
July 15, 2010

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 16, 2010, 8:35:29 PM7/16/10

BUD SAID:

>>> "For one thing, way too much attention has been given to conspiracy theorists and WC critics. For another, CTers sites aren`t worth reading because they have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot Kennedy, you`ve identified yourself as someone not worth listening to." <<<

DVP SAYS:

It looks like Bud is striving to reach my "Quoting Common Sense" hall-
of-fame.

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Jul 17, 2010, 3:40:20 AM7/17/10

On Jul 16, 5:35 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising asshole.....

aeffects

unread,

Jul 17, 2010, 3:41:27 AM7/17/10

On Jul 15, 5:01 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

aren't you full of yourself YET?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 18, 2010, 1:21:20 AM7/18/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16200&view=findpost&p=197565

Time to straighten out some more of Jim DiEugenio's bullshit (yet
again).

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (ON THE EDUCATION FORUM):

>>> "DVP was promoting that Dale Myers goofiness [in July 2006, during my 4-day tenure at The Education Forum]. BTW, McAdams' forum is so bereft of any ideas or new info that what they do is not just reattach posts from here, they also post articles from CTKA, almost as soon as they go up. For example, Reitzes just posted the Wikipedia article there. In the following discussion, McAdams (who DVP said hardly ever posts there--what a liar) tried to concentrate on the Tague hit. Saying that somehow it really was not a bullet. LOL." <<<

DVP SAYS:

DiEugenio is the liar when it come to John McAdams' posting frequency.
I never once said that Professor McAdams "hardly ever posts" at the
alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, which is the forum moderated (in
large part) by Mr. McAdams.

I have fully explained to DiEugenio in past posts (which I know he's
seen, he just doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that ACJ and AAJ are
two separate forums entirely) that McAdams hardly ever posts at the
ACJ newsgroup.

And my guess is that the only reason any of John's posts ever show up
at the now-nearly-deserted asylum known as alt.conspiracy.jfk is due
to the fact that John just simply doesn't want to take the time to
delete the group "alt.conspiracy.jfk" from the box marked "Newsgroups"
when he's sending a post that just happens to be cross-posted to both
forums. Therefore, that post will show up at both aaj and acj. But
John probably couldn't care less if it shows up at the acj asylum or
not.

Below is an excerpt of what I said to DiEugenio in April of this year
concerning Mr. McAdams' posting habits at the newsgroups (and, btw,
contrary to what my quote says below, I later learned that DiEugenio
does seem to know that acj is unmoderated, but he still seems to
believe it is totally "controlled" by John McAdams, which always makes
me smile broadly when I hear Jimbo say such garbage):

"In addition to believing in some very curious things regarding
President Kennedy's assassination, Mr. DiEugenio is also of the false
impression that the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup is a MODERATED group
that is completely controlled by Professor John McAdams. Jim, of
course, has his Usenet newsgroups mixed up, because alt.conspiracy.jfk
is not a moderated group at all; and, in fact, Mr. McAdams very rarely
ever even makes a post on that forum. It's at the
alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup where McAdams serves as moderator. I
find it quite funny that Jim DiEugenio seems to think that I have to
have all of my Internet posts screened (and hence, approved) by Mr.
McAdams. Hilarious." -- DVP; April 13, 2010

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a3ac48b4703ba1b1

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "These guys, like I said elsewhere in speaking of Duncan M[acRae], like to rearrange scenarios so often that you really don't know what their case is. The WC, Posner, and VB have all said this Tague hit was generated by a bullet. And those are the leading lights of the SBF [Jim's shorthand for "Single Bullet Fantasy"] club. So what does McAdams do? (And he does this every so often) He goes over to the WC critics' side and borrows [Josiah] Thompson's idea about the Tague hit maybe being made by a fragment from the head shot. This was always, I thought, one of the worst parts of SSD ["Six Seconds In Dallas"]. The idea that a fragment would go that far, and have the kinetic energy to displace a chunk of curbstone and then in turn, the curbstone would have the torque to jump up in the air and hit Tague in the face? Uh uh." <<<

DVP SAYS:

I could be wrong about this, but my guess is that John McAdams has
likely believed in the possibility of a head-shot fragment causing the
slight injury to James Tague's cheek for quite some time now. And it's
also very likely that Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what the hell he's
babbling about (yet again).

In any event, such a theory about Tague's injury resulting in a
fragment from the head shot is certainly NOT going over to "the WC
critics' side" at all. In fact, right there on Page 117 of the Warren
Report itself, the Warren Commission acknowledges the possibility of
the Main St. curb damage (and, hence, Tague's injury too) being a
result of a stray bullet fragment that exited JFK's head.

I wonder if DiEugenio has ever read Page 117 of the WCR? It's a great
page, because it's a page that destroys multiple conspiracy myths,
including the myth that still persists among many conspiracy theorists
about how the Warren Commission was hogtied to a 5.6-second timeframe
for the assassination, which is just simply not true at all, as Page
117 amply illustrates:

WR; Page 117:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "But its actually worse than that. Because if you go with the Clark Panel, just where did the chunk of bullet come from? The head and tail were supposed to be in the car. The middle of the bullet was supposed to be in JFK's skull. Where did one get the chunk to deflect that far, from what is already, as I described elsewhere, this second magic bullet. (BTW, this is why more sensible WC advocates, like John Canal, reject the Clark Panel. They know its untenable.) But McAdams wants this second magic bullet to be even more magical than it is already and pull of another miracle. Just incredible. And this kind of crackpot reasoning passes without notice at what I call the Pigpen." <<<

DVP SAYS:

DiEugenio, as usual, is nuts. And he's not following through on this
matter with any common sense at all -- unless Jimbo really wants to
believe that the unknown artifact that we see in one of JFK's autopsy
X-rays is really a metal fragment that weighs upwards of 100 grains!

We know that the two largest bullet fragments recovered from the front
seat of the Presidential limousine (CE567 and CE569) weighed a total
of only 65.6 grains (CE567 weighed 44.6 grains, and CE569 weighed 21.0
grains). [See Warren Commission testimony of Robert A. Frazier.]

And the other smaller fragments that are associated with also coming
from the head shot (CE840 and CE843) weighed very little altogether.

So, that leaves approximately 90 to 95 grains of the head-shot bullet
unaccounted for. And even if we are to believe that the "6.5-
millimeter object" on JFK's X-ray is really a bullet fragment (which I
have serious doubts about; I doubt it's a bullet fragment at all),
unless that fragment on the X-ray weighs nearly 100 grains itself,
then there would still be plenty of unaccounted-for bullet fragments
from the head-shot bullet to have caused the damage to the curb on
Main Street and Tague's cheek injury.

I personally don't think a head-shot fragment caused the curb damage
or Tague's nick on the cheek. I think it was probably Oswald's first
bullet fired (which missed the limousine entirely) that was the bullet
that did the damage to both Tague and the curb on Main Street.

But, to stress again, the idea of a head-shot fragment causing the
Main St./Tague damage is certainly not an idea that comes from only
"WC critics", as DiEugenio suggested above. And Page 117 of the Warren
Report proves my point quite well. Maybe Jim D. ought to read that
page more closely sometime. Perhaps it would dispel another myth or
two if he did.

David Von Pein
July 18, 2010

aeffects

unread,

Jul 18, 2010, 3:47:48 PM7/18/10

On Jul 17, 10:21 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

nonsense...

> David Von Pein
> July 18, 2010

no advertising Gloria.....

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 19, 2010, 6:01:56 AM7/19/10

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c618998dc2fa0327/a95d302aee466781?#a95d302aee466781

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Your rant is intriguing, but you seem to have overlooked one minor factor. There was no copper in the smear on the curb, so it was hit by a fragment composed only of bullet lead core." <<<

DVP SAID:

We have no idea how large of a fragment hit the Main St. curb. And we
can't know the chemical make-up of that fragment either.

Why couldn't a portion of the bullet (after striking the tree and
fragmenting) have hit the curb and just simply not left any copper
trace elements? Why is that totally impossible?

You seem to know for a fact that copper had to have been deposited on
the curb by a stray fragment.

But...why?

Given all of the "unknowns" and "unknowables" surrounding the shot
that missed, you're putting to much of a "IT HAD TO BE THIS WAY" stamp
on things, Tony.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 19, 2010, 6:22:45 AM7/19/10

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4dadb858c6858e46/02f68c3091f98e35?#02f68c3091f98e35

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4dadb858c6858e46/12260ff2474526c9?#12260ff2474526c9

BILL KELLY SAID:

>>> "Okay, Dave, I'll back off the March 25 date to pick up the rifle and pistol packages, I'm only using that date because it's the one that is used in the official chronology and generally accepted by LNs." <<<

DVP SAID:

What "official chronology" has "March 25" as THE EXACT DATE that
Oswald picked up BOTH the rifle and pistol? I've never heard or seen
such an "official chronology" in my life.

(You wouldn't be pulling stuff out of your hat, now would you Bill?)

>>> "So you acknowledge that my first, number one assertion that there is no evidence, witness or record of Oswald picking up the weapons, right?" <<<

There's no "witness" or "record", no. To that I agree. Naturally.

But there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to establish as
rock-solid FACT that Oswald did pick up Rifle C2766 from HIS OWN POST
OFFICE BOX. (I emphasize those last words for a reason--because just
ordinary common sense and ODDS are going to suggest that the person
who ordered and paid for the rifle and pistol and had them mailed to
his own PO Box, is probably also the person who fetched them from HIS
OWN POST OFFICE BOX.)

Oswald was photographed with the Carcano within days of it being
mailed to OSWALD'S POST OFFICE BOX.

Does a person need to be an expert in high mathematics to figure this
one out, William? I think not.

P.S. -- You're obviously a sharp man, Bill. So let me ask you this --
Why on Earth do you spend so much time trying to prove something that
is so obviously stupid--i.e., the notion that Oswald himself did not
pick up the rifle and pistol, even though those two items were
positively ordered and paid for by LHO and were positively shipped by
two separate companies to LHO's own PO Box?

>>> "David, I just wanted you to know that on your Ruth Paine page [http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com] you have the wrong date - 11/22/63 twice of when she went into the garage on the night before the assassination and found the lights on, evidence used to indicate that Oswald went to Irving that night to pick up the rifle. That had to be 11/21/63, right?" <<<

Thank you for noticing that error, Bill. (It's nice to know that
someone is actually reading some of my JFK ramblings on the Internet.)

I have corrected the mistake about the date, although I only found one
such error in my Ruth Paine blog, not two. If you could point out the
second error, I'll fix that one too. The one I fixed is in this
passage (which has the corrected date here):

"And here we have some additional deeply-detailed data and info
being revealed by way of Albert Jenner's "in Ruth's house" WC session
with Mrs. Paine -- this segment of testimony dealing with the precise
wattage of the light bulb that was left burning in Paine's garage on
the night of 11/21/63..."

http://Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com

>>> "I say there is no evidence Oswald actually picked up the weapons at the Post Office, not that he didn't do it, though it is certainly a possiblity that someone else did. Say Gary Taylor. His address is on the PO box application, and whoever took the note from the box and went into the back of the Post Office to pick up the packages and hand them over the counter - that person would have to give the packages to Oswald posing as Hidell, or someone else posing as Hidell, or someone with a key to the PO Box who Oswald had asked to pick up the packages - which could be done if the PO clerk just thought that if the guy had a key to the box to get the notice he had to be okay and didn't ask for any id. What other possibilities are there, especially any non-conspiratorial possibilities, like Oswald at a different time, Gary Taylor - or even Marina?" <<<

Okay. But by far the MOST LIKELY answer is that the PERSON WHO ORDERED
AND PAID FOR THE GUNS AND WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTING THOSE GUNS TO
ARRIVE IN LATE MARCH 1963 AT HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is probably the
person who went to the Post Office himself to pick them up.

Why bring Gary Taylor into the mix needlessly? He didn't order and pay
for the rifle and the revolver. Oswald did.

>>> "I believe the back yard photos are real. I don't think the Z-film has been altered, and I don't blame the government for anything. JFK was killed by individual human beings with names, not generic government acronym agencies." <<<

Congrats, Bill! Welcome to the world of LNers!

Via your last comments above, it almost looks like you've been
converted (except for the pluralization you utilized when you said
"individual human beings with names"). There's no need for the plural
to be used there, of course. Oswald was only ONE single person. Not
two or more. :)

>>> "They don't really have to fake anything. All they had to do was name Oswald the suspect and kill him before they [he?] went to court. Once JFK got to Dealey Plaza, all they had to do was kill JFK and blame Oswald, and whatever happened, happened." <<<

But why the need to complicate the uncomplicated, Bill?

It was OSWALD'S rifle, OSWALD'S shells, OSWALD'S bullet fragments in
the limousine, OSWALD'S prints deep inside the Sniper's Nest, OSWALD'S
lies that he told to the police, OSWALD left the building within
minutes of the shooting, OSWALD shot Tippit, OSWALD was acting "funny"
in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store, and it was OSWALD who pulled a
gun on Officer McDonald in the theater.

If those are the actions of an innocent patsy....please wake me up
when sanity has been restored. Because given the above laundry list,
OSWALD is as guilty as he can possibly be.

>>> "Lee Harvey Oswald was not a double-murder[er]..." <<<

DVP SAID:

Oh, shucks! Just when Bill Kelly was making a little headway toward
seeing the obvious truth, he goes and says something silly again.

>>> "The questions are whether or not Oswald was an assassin or patsy, and whether he acted alone or with others. I can accept Oswald was the lone assassin, but if he was, I reject your profile of him being a lone nut loser, because he must have been really good to fool so many people all by himself." <<<

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Bill. Oswald didn't "fool"
anybody. (Except perhaps a bunch of conspiracy theorists; Oswald
certainly fooled them into actually believing him when he said he was
"just a patsy".)

But he certainly didn't "fool" any of the authorities or investigative
committees that looked into the murders. Far from it. Oswald signed
his name to both of his murders by leaving his popcorn trail of
evidence for both the JFK and Tippit slayings.

So, besides the gullible CTers, who was it that you think Oswald was
"fooling" in November 1963?

Or are you possibly referring to Oswald being able to mask his
identity as "Future Presidential Assassin" in the days/weeks/months
leading up to 11/22/63? Is that what you mean by Oswald being able to
"fool so many people all by himself"?

>>> "Not a hobby, a civic duty." <<<

You have a civic duty to embrace silly ideas?

That's weird, Bill.

>>> "And I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist." <<<

You could've fooled me.

>>> "I hate CTs more than you do, especially those who claim the Cubans, the Mafia or the CIA is behind the assassination. There are endless possible scenarios one can imagine, but it only happened one way, and that is what should be detected and determined." <<<

That's already been done -- back in '63 and '64. You just don't want
to believe that the DPD, FBI, and WC got it right. You prefer your own
explanations over the perfectly reasonable ones supplied by the Dallas
Police, FBI, and Warren Commission.

Right, Bill?

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Jul 19, 2010, 6:14:43 PM7/19/10

On Jul 19, 3:22 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

dipsey-dodo... no advertising, hon!

mucher1

unread,

Jul 20, 2010, 4:40:12 AM7/20/10

Sigh. I'm still waiting for the day you post something that's remotely
intelligent, insightful, interesting or relevant. Do you think you can
do that? Don't be shy.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 21, 2010, 11:47:10 AM7/21/10

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/baeda0b811c74be3/2d55d21d970ad0f3?#2d55d21d970ad0f3

Something rather remarkable happened at the above-linked
alt.assassination.jfk thread this morning (July 21, 2010), concerning
three separate posts made by three different LNers -- myself, Bud, and
Jean Davison.

In that very same aaj thread, there are three consecutive posts made
by those three aforementioned LNers, which all bring up the very same
thing concerning the question of whether it would have been possible
for Lee Harvey Oswald (or anyone) to have walked into a Texas gun
store in 1963 and bought a rifle which could never be traced (which is
the claim we constantly hear being made by conspiracy theorists, such
as in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie "JFK", which contains a scene that has
Jim Garrison and one of his investigators talking about how Oswald
could have gone into a Texas gun shop and walked out with a rifle that
could never be traced).

Anyway, I just thought that this was somewhat of a remarkable
coincidence today, to have three different people bringing up the
exact same thing regarding this potential "conspiracy myth" concerning
Texas gun shops and so-called untraceable weapons.

And another odd part about this "triple" post is the fact that (as far
as I can recall) this subject of challenging the CTers about this
potential myth regarding gun shops hasn't really come up very much at
JFK forums in the past.

In fact, it's been during just the last two or three days that I had
started thinking about this subject myself, and I started wondering if
the CTers were right, or if it was just another unfounded myth.

Below are the three posts that I was referring to, which appear back-
to-back on the aaj newsgroup over an eight-hour time period on July
21, 2010.

I wonder if DVP, Bud, and Jean will now be accused of comparing notes
before posting messages on the newsgroup? Or maybe we'll all be
accused by some of the conspiracy theorists of being the very same
person.

=====================================

"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; 7/21/10; 12:24 AM EDT

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2d55d21d970ad0f3

=====================================

"I'm not sure your claim that there is no record made when
purchasing a rifle in 1963 Dallas [is true?]. In any case, if Oswald
is forced to discard the weapon, it's easily traced to where it was
sold. If you think this makes for an impossible connection to the
person who purchased the weapon, I'd say you are likely wrong." --
Bud; 7/21/10; 12:25 AM EDT

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6e38cb6847e5d2ee

=====================================

"Once again I ask, what's the evidence that a rifle could've
been bought in Dallas "with no records"?" -- Jean Davison; 7/21/10;
8:34 AM EDT

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2fd0d

=====================================

bigdog

unread,

Jul 21, 2010, 3:28:57 PM7/21/10

On Jul 21, 11:47 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2d55d21d970a...

>
> =====================================
>
> "I'm not sure your claim that there is no record made when
> purchasing a rifle in 1963 Dallas [is true?]. In any case, if Oswald
> is forced to discard the weapon, it's easily traced to where it was
> sold. If you think this makes for an impossible connection to the
> person who purchased the weapon, I'd say you are likely wrong." --
> Bud; 7/21/10; 12:25 AM EDT
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6e38cb6847e5...

>
> =====================================
>
> "Once again I ask, what's the evidence that a rifle could've
> been bought in Dallas "with no records"?" -- Jean Davison; 7/21/10;
> 8:34 AM EDT
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c48f641f72e2...
>
> =====================================

David,

I responded in aaj but the moderators have not yet posted the reply.
Based on the affadavit Jean provided from a Dallas gun store owner, it
sounds like procedures in 1963 were similar to those specified in the
1968 Gun Control Act. That law specified that any gun purchaser must
fill out a form 4473 and the dealer must record the 4473 data in a log
which must be kept permanently on file. If the dealer goes out of
business, he must turn over his log book to the BATFE so a permanent
record of a gun purchase is kept. It is the dealer, not the government
who keeps records of a gun purchase. If the government kept these
records, it would amount to gun registration which has never been
accepted at the federal level. If a law enforcement agency finds a
firearm that it believes was used in a crime, it can request BATFE to
trace the gun by its serial number. The manufacturer will provide the
name of the distributor or dealer that particular serial number was
sold to. The dealer would then have the record of the person it was
sold to. Current law requires that the purchaser fill out the form
4473 in person and provide a picture ID as well. Obviously, that was
not a requirement in 1963 since Oswald was able to purchase the rifle
via mail order. However, I believe the rest of the paper trail would
have existed. That is why the FBI was quickly able to trace Oswald's
MC back to Crescent Firearms, who in turn provided the trail to
Klein's, who in turn provided the record of the purchase order, PO Box
it was shipped to, and the Alex Hidell alias under which the weapon
was purchased. Although I haven't found definitive information on gun
laws in effect in 1963, it seems likely to me that had Oswald
purchased the rifle through a Dallas gun store, they would have a
record of the purchase. He may well have used an alias when filling
out the form and would not have been required to provide a picture ID,
but there would have been a record of the purchase at the gun store. I
am 95% certain that the gun dealer would have been required to keep
the same purchase record that Klein's did and therefore the same trace
could have been performed.

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 21, 2010, 9:17:27 PM7/21/10

Thanks, bigdog.

I also found the following info today, which talks about the same Form
4473 you mentioned. This data comes from a post-1968 source, but it's
quite possible that similar laws and procedures were in place in Texas
in 1963, although I haven't verified that for a fact:

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/523/523.F2d.371.74-2051.html

Excerpts from above link:

26 C.F.R. § 178.124 reads in relevant part as follows:

(a) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer
shall not sell or otherwise dispose, temporarily or permanently, of
any firearm to any person, other than another licensee, and a licensed
collector shall not sell or otherwise dispose of any curio or relic to
any person, other than another licensee, unless he records the
transaction on a firearms transaction record, Form 4473. . . .

(b) A licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or
licensed collector shall retain in alphabetical (by name of
purchaser), chronological (by date of disposition), or numerical (by
transaction serial number) order, and as a part of his permanent
records, each Form 4473 he obtains in the cause of transferring
custody of his firearms.

(c) Prior to making an over-the-counter transfer of a firearm to a non-
licensee who is a resident of the State in which the licensee
maintains his business or collection premises, the licensed importer,
licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector so
transferring the firearm shall obtain a Form 4473 from the transferee
showing the name, address, date and place of birth, height, weight,
and race of the transferee, and certification by the transferee that
he is not prohibited by the Act or Title VII of the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (82 Stat. 236; 18 U.S.C.
Appendix) from receiving a firearm in interstate or foreign commerce.
The licensee shall identify the firearm to be transferred by listing
in the Form 4473 the name of the manufacturer, the name of the
importer (if any), the type, model, caliber or gauge, and the serial
number of the firearm. Before transferring the firearm described in
the Form 4473, the licensee (1) shall cause the transferee to identify
himself in any manner customarily used in commercial transactions (E.
g, a driver's license), and shall note on the form the method used,
and (2) if satisfied that the transferee is lawfully entitled to
receive the firearm, shall sign and date the form.

0 new messages