David Von Pein Asks A Simple Question...

[Ben Holmes]

> How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?

It didn't *NEED* to be handled by anyone at Klein's.

It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.

The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.

Do I have to explain this in any more detail?

Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?

Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?

[David Von Pein]

But you see, Ben, you have a different way of approaching and evaluating evidence in the JFK case than I have. You and many other conspiracy theorists approach ALL of the evidence in this entire case with a jaundiced eye and a feeling that every piece of evidence is probably fake or manipulated by *somebody* (the FBI or whoever).

I, on the other hand, knowing that each and every piece of physical evidence in this case FITS LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT LIKE A WELL-TAILORED GLOVE don't feel the need to put on my "Jaundiced" and "It Must Be Fake" hats every time I discuss a piece of evidence -- like Oswald's money order, for example. That particular piece of evidence perfectly blends in with all the other pieces of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder investigations. And that simple fact *alone*, IMO, makes the money order much more likely to be a genuine and "real" (i.e., non-faked) piece of evidence in this case.

1.) That U.S. Postal Money Order has got LEE OSWALD'S writing on it (as indicated by the expert testimony of multiple witnesses).

2.) That money order was made out for the exact amount of money ($21.45) that we find on Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which is the Klein's internal invoice for the sale of a rifle to "A. Hidell".

3.) "A. Hidell" was a known alias used by LEE OSWALD.

4.) The "C2766" rifle was shipped to "P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas", the same exact post office box we know was rented and used in 1963 by LEE OSWALD.

5.) The Waldman #7 internal invoice has the notation "M.O." on it, indicating the person who mailed in that rifle order to Klein's paid for it with a money order.

6.) The money order has a "Pay To The Order Of" ink stamp on the back side of it, with the words "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." included within that stamped marking, indicating that Klein's Sporting Goods definitely DID have that money order in their possession, resulting in it being deposited into their First National Bank account in Chicago.

7.) And finally, that money order has a "File Locator Number" stamped on the front of it in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on PAID checks and money orders only AFTER it has been received by the Federal Reserve Bank. That Locator Number is the absolute proof, in my view, that indicates that the CE788 money order did go through the proper banking and processing channels prior to ending up in the place where we would EXPECT an ordinary (i.e., non-faked) U.S. Postal Money Order to end up --- in a building in Alexandria, Virginia (7 miles outside Washington, D.C.) where such federal documents are normally stored for a period of time after they have been cashed and processed.

Now, Ben Holmes and other conspiracists apparently want to believe that all of the various things I just discussed above are phony or fraudulent or suspicious in some manner. Well, they can believe that if they want to, but don't expect me to travel down that rocky road, because I'm never going to.

Much more on "The Money Order" debate here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:05:51 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:20:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?
> >
> > It didn't *NEED* to be handled by anyone at Klein's.
> >
> > It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.
> >
> > The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.
> >
> > Do I have to explain this in any more detail?
> >
> > Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?
> >
> > Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?
>
> But you see, Ben, you have a different way of approaching and evaluating evidence in the JFK case than I have. You and many other conspiracy theorists approach ALL of the evidence in this entire case with a jaundiced eye and a feeling that every piece of evidence is probably fake or manipulated by *somebody* (the FBI or whoever).

Nope.

I look at evidence the same way any reasonable person does... I see how it fits into the case, what it's corroborated with, and judge whether or not it makes sense.

There's a range of evidence showing that Oswald was framed with this rifle - and they all fit with EACH OTHER to show he was framed.

I note for the record that you were unable to publicly admit that your challenge was easily, AND CREDIBLY answered.

> I, on the other hand, knowing that each and every piece of physical evidence in this case FITS LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT LIKE A WELL-TAILORED GLOVE don't feel the need to put on my "Jaundiced" and "It Must Be Fake" hats every time I discuss a piece of evidence -- like Oswald's money order, for example. That particular piece of evidence perfectly blends in with all the other pieces of physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder investigations. And that simple fact *alone*, IMO, makes the money order much more likely to be a genuine and "real" (i.e., non-faked) piece of evidence in this case.

Ah! But it *DOESN'T* "blend well"... what is noticeable is all the evidence for a frameup.

Such as all the missing evidence after the FBI swept through it...

> 1.) That U.S. Postal Money Order has got LEE OSWALD'S writing on it (as indicated by the expert testimony of multiple witnesses).

Nope.

This has been previously refuted.

Even handwriting experts will tell you that without working with ORIGINALS, their opinion is vastly reduced in it's ability to judge.

You know this... yet it's left up to critics to bring these facts to the table.

That alone tells the tale.

> 2.) That money order was made out for the exact amount of money ($21.45) that we find on Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which is the Klein's internal invoice for the sale of a rifle to "A. Hidell".

That was, indeed, the final figure that everyone agreed on - but you know quite well that other numbers were bruited about.

INDEED, YOU'VE POSTED YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THESE OTHER NUMBERS...

Which, of course, make perfect sense in a frameup, and virtually no sense at all in your theory.

Why would investigators give any number other than that on the money order or internal invoice?

> 3.) "A. Hidell" was a known alias used by LEE OSWALD.

Nope.

He was saddled with it in the frameup. But the EVIDENCE shows he didn't have the ID that was later claimed he had.

When arrested, he refused to give his name - yet the DPD had no problem figuring out that he was Oswald. Quite the mind-reading trick if he actually had multiple ID's on him.

And, as I've recently posted, the Warren Commission *LIED* about "Hidell"... you refused to address that issue - but it's still there.

> 4.) The "C2766" rifle was shipped to "P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas", the same exact post office box we know was rented and used in 1963 by LEE OSWALD.

Nope.

Oswald was one of just roughly 300 Americans who were having all their mail intercepted and read. It's simply not possible that they missed documenting a rifle.

You can't explain this... so you run from it.

> 5.) The Waldman #7 internal invoice has the notation "M.O." on it, indicating the person who mailed in that rifle order to Klein's paid for it with a money order.

I daresay that payment by M.O. was quite common.

Interesting, you know the problems with the authenticity of Waldman #7 as well as I do... and mention none of them.

Why is that, David Von Pein?

> 6.) The money order has a "Pay To The Order Of" ink stamp on the back side of it, with the words "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." included within that stamped marking, indicating that Klein's Sporting Goods definitely DID have that money order in their possession, resulting in it being deposited into their First National Bank account in Chicago.

Nope. It indicates no such thing. I can produce any paperwork you want with a stamp of "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." far quicker than you will ever credibly answer the points raised in this post.

It would mean just as much, too.

> 7.) And finally, that money order has a "File Locator Number" stamped on the front of it in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on PAID checks and money orders only AFTER it has been received by the Federal Reserve Bank. That Locator Number is the absolute proof, in my view, that indicates that the CE788 money order did go through the proper banking and processing channels prior to ending up in the place where we would EXPECT an ordinary (i.e., non-faked) U.S. Postal Money Order to end up --- in a building in Alexandria, Virginia (7 miles outside Washington, D.C.) where such federal documents are normally stored for a period of time after they have been cashed and processed.

All of which has already been refuted in long debates in the Education Forum.

The money order was never cashed, it has no bank endorsements... as you well know.

> Now, Ben Holmes and other conspiracists apparently want to believe that all of the various things I just discussed above are phony or fraudulent or suspicious in some manner. Well, they can believe that if they want to, but don't expect me to travel down that rocky road, because I'm never going to.

You cannot explain why most originals disappeared while under FBI control.

That *ONE* fact makes sheer nonsense of all your arguments, and you'll NEVER answer it.

> Much more on "The Money Order" debate here:

Nope... you gave an URL to a thoroughly one sided argument.

Here's just one of many such URLS that could be given, that deal with the topic more completely:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22439-yes-postal-money-orders-do-require-bank-endorsements/

Now, tell us David Von Pein - why is it that you COMPLETELY IGNORED the point raised in this thread - that your nonsensical argument that the money order had to have been at Kleins in order to be stamped is just that, nonsense...

You've spouted a tremendous amount of words here (that will no doubt appear on one of your websites without any critical review) - yet failed to address the fact that I COMPLETELY refuted your assertion... why is that?

[Ben Holmes]

Notice that David Von Pein ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to acknowledge that I gave an easy & credible answer to his question.

Of course, this simply shows the basic dishonesty in all believers... they cannot acknowledge even the most obvious - if it contradicts their faith.

There's *NO* evidence based question I cannot provide a reasonable and credible answer for... but the converse is not true... believers run from questions on the evidence ALL THE TIME...

The evidence is something that believers just HATE!

For example - the tests that Guinn did, and that David undoubtedly knows about, yet refuses to help "Bud." (indeed, just as I suspected, David Von Pein wrote about this exact topic, and knows that "heavy deposits" were *ALWAYS* left on the hands & cheek of someone who fired a Mannlicher Carcano.)

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:22:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:05:51 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:20:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?
> > >
> > > It didn't *NEED* to be handled by anyone at Klein's.
> > >
> > > It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.
> > >
> > > The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.
> > >
> > > Do I have to explain this in any more detail?
> > >
> > > Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?
> > >
> > > Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?
> >
> > But you see, Ben, you have a different way of approaching and evaluating evidence in the JFK case than I have. You and many other conspiracy theorists approach ALL of the evidence in this entire case with a jaundiced eye and a feeling that every piece of evidence is probably fake or manipulated by *somebody* (the FBI or whoever).
>
> Nope.
>
> I look at evidence the same way any reasonable person does... I see how it fits into the case, what it's corroborated with, and judge whether or not it makes sense.

If this is really your approach I can only say you suck at every aspect you just outlined.

> There's a range of evidence showing that Oswald was framed with this rifle - and they all fit with EACH OTHER to show he was framed.

Retards have been playing with the evidence of this case like toddlers playing with building blocks for decades now. They have arranged it into a shape they find appealing, but it has only been a stupid hobby all along.

Retards contest everything. But if they ever had the balls to put their scenario of what they suggest occurred, the sheer amount of times they relied on the fantastic (fabricated evidence, coerced witnesses, ect) would betray that they are only playing silly games with this case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 7:53:04 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:22:11 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:05:51 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 12:20:41 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?
> > > >
> > > > It didn't *NEED* to be handled by anyone at Klein's.
> > > >
> > > > It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.
> > > >
> > > > The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.
> > > >
> > > > Do I have to explain this in any more detail?
> > > >
> > > > Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?
> > > >
> > > > Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?
> > >
> > > But you see, Ben, you have a different way of approaching and evaluating evidence in the JFK case than I have. You and many other conspiracy theorists approach ALL of the evidence in this entire case with a jaundiced eye and a feeling that every piece of evidence is probably fake or manipulated by *somebody* (the FBI or whoever).
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > I look at evidence the same way any reasonable person does... I see how it fits into the case, what it's corroborated with, and judge whether or not it makes sense.
>
> If this is really your approach I can only say you suck at every aspect you just outlined.

Ad hominem simply shows everyone that my statement was so true and so powerful that you were completely unable to answer it with facts & logical argument.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:41:40 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?
> >
> > It didn't *NEED* to be handled by anyone at Klein's.
> >
> > It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.
> >
> > The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.
> >
> > Do I have to explain this in any more detail?
> >
> > Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?
> >
> > Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?
>
> Notice that David Von Pein ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to acknowledge that I gave an easy & credible answer to his question.

You gave an incredible answer.

incredible [adj] difficult to believe; extraordinary.

> Of course, this simply shows the basic dishonesty in all believers... they cannot acknowledge even the most obvious - if it contradicts their faith.
>
> There's *NO* evidence based question I cannot provide a reasonable and credible answer for... but the converse is not true... believers run from questions on the evidence ALL THE TIME...

I questions your assertions all the time, and all you do is run.

> The evidence is something that believers just HATE!
>
> For example - the tests that Guinn did, and that David undoubtedly knows about, yet refuses to help "Bud." (indeed, just as I suspected, David Von Pein wrote about this exact topic, and knows that "heavy deposits" were *ALWAYS* left on the hands & cheek of someone who fired a Mannlicher Carcano.)

Quote Guinn taking the position you just assigned him. Quote from his report where he assert this. Do something beside spouting weasel words.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 8:00:55 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 10:41:40 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago?
> > >
> > > It didn't *NEED* to be handled by anyone at Klein's.
> > >
> > > It WAS PROVABLY handled by the FBI.
> > >
> > > The same FBI that sent three agents to Klein's on the evening of 11/22/63. This was roughly 24 hours BEFORE the money order was allegedly found.
> > >
> > > Do I have to explain this in any more detail?
> > >
> > > Can David Von Pein actually ask a question that cannot be answered CREDIBLY by a knowledgeable critic?
> > >
> > > Can David Von Pein PUBLICLY ADMIT that there's an easy, credible answer to his challenge?
> >
> > Notice that David Von Pein ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to acknowledge that I gave an easy & credible answer to his question.
>
> You gave an incredible answer.

You can't pick up a stamp and stamp something with it?

What a moron!!!

[David Von Pein]

BUD SAID:

...you [Ben Holmes] suck at every aspect you just outlined.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Boy, you're sure right about that, Bud. In spades!

Ben and other CTers will take a CONCLUSIVE FACT---such as Oswald positively buying and possessing the C2766 rifle---and totally mangle and misrepresent the evidence associated with that conclusive fact to the point where it's utterly laughable and comical. The way CTers are now ignoring the File Locator Number and pretending that that number was faked on the money order too is a prime example of CTers in complete denial.

I asked some of the CTers at the EF forum this question (and maybe Ben would like to answer it as well):

"At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the [money order] make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?" -- DVP; Circa 2015

Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission, during a debate in 1964 against Mark Lane, summed up the situation regarding Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle very well when he said to Lane:

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64

But it seems as though hard, documented "facts" mean very little to CTers. Like that pesky File Locator Number on the money order. When something like that crops up for the first time (as the FLN did when Lance Payette discovered it in 2015), the CTers will just move their goal posts and simply claim: "Well, Dave, a File Locator Number can be faked too!"

That leads me back (yet again) to the question I posed above.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-992.html

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 11:53:44 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BUD SAID:
>
> ...you [Ben Holmes] suck at every aspect you just outlined.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Boy, you're sure right about that, Bud. In spades!

If this were actually true, you'd be able TO ANSWER MY POST.

But you can't...

And it's this reliance on ad hominem that demonstrates your cowardice.

> Ben and other CTers will take a CONCLUSIVE FACT---such as Oswald positively buying and possessing the C2766 rifle---and totally mangle and misrepresent the evidence associated with that conclusive fact to the point where it's utterly laughable and comical.

There you go again...

Assuming what you need to prove.

> The way CTers are now ignoring the File Locator Number and pretending that that number was faked on the money order too is a prime example of CTers in complete denial.

You're lying again, David.

> I asked some of the CTers at the EF forum this question (and maybe Ben would like to answer it as well):
>
> "At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the [money order] make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?" -- DVP; Circa 2015

If *YOU* wanted to fake a money order - would you do so by trying to do the best you could to duplicate a real one?

Or would you intentionally foul it up?

You won't answer, because an HONEST answer demolishes your faith asserted above.

Forgeries are not intended to be discovered.

This is why virtually no original paperwork still exists that tied "Oswald" to the "rifle".

It's difficult indeed to forge something so well that it cannot be judged for what it is with modern science... let alone whatever science will figure out in the future.

> Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission, during a debate in 1964 against Mark Lane, summed up the situation regarding Oswald's ownership of the C2766 rifle very well when he said to Lane:
>
> "I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64

Joseph Ball isn't here to defend his assertion, and *YOU* refuse to do so.

That fact tells the tale, doesn't it?

Rather than ADDRESS MY POST - you've basically changed the topic...

> But it seems as though hard, documented "facts" mean very little to CTers. Like that pesky File Locator Number on the money order. When something like that crops up for the first time (as the FLN did when Lance Payette discovered it in 2015), the CTers will just move their goal posts and simply claim: "Well, Dave, a File Locator Number can be faked too!"

Strawman...

DEBATE ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW!!!

You can start by taking my response to your post, AND ANSWER IT POINT FOR POINT.

Right now, it seems that you pretty much ran away from everything...

Leading right back to proving yourself a coward...

> That leads me back (yet again) to the question I posed above.
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-992.html

I can quite easily demolish the nonsense I see at that location... but you haven't even answered my first response.

Believers prefer to continue changing the topic, because then it appears to the lurkers who aren't paying attention that believers are actually engaged in debate - EVEN AS THEY RUN AWAY CONSISTENTLY.

Why the cowardice, David?

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, February 15, 2017 at 9:20:41 AM UTC-8, Ben Holmes wrote:

Anyone notice that even though David Von Pein has replied again to this thread, he refuses to touch the questions raised?

The cowardice shown by believers is simply amazing!!!

[David Von Pein]

So, let me understand your position, Ben....

You think the FBI stole a rubber stamp off of William Waldman's (or somebody's) desk at Klein's in Chicago and it was *the FBI* who stamped the CE788 money order? Is that what you want me to believe instead of simply believing that the "Pay To The Order" stamp got there in March 1963 by way of a Klein's employee doing his job after receiving LHO's M.O. in the mail?

Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the FBI stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of a Klein's employee. I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, Ben? Thank you.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:09:47 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> So, let me understand your position, Ben....

It's a simple one...

You ask questions... and I provide CREDIBLE and reasonable answers that are corroborated by other evidence.

I ask questions... you run.

It's just that simple.

> You think the FBI stole a rubber stamp off of William Waldman's (or somebody's) desk at Klein's in Chicago and it was *the FBI* who stamped the CE788 money order? Is that what you want me to believe instead of simply believing that the "Pay To The Order" stamp got there in March 1963 by way of a Klein's employee doing his job after receiving LHO's M.O. in the mail?

Either they used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.

This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)

> Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the FBI stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of a Klein's employee.

Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.

> I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, Ben? Thank you.

I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.

(But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)


And once again, you've evaded the very first questions I posed to you... why is that, David? Why are you so COMPLETELY afraid to answer questions?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.

This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)

Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.

I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.

(But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).

And you must have been half crocked when you said this:

"Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI."

Hilarious stuff there, Ben. Only a rabid CTer in the "Everything's Fake" club could possibly make such a ludicrous statement. The fact that there is a Klein's inked stamp on the back of the CE788 money order in the first place is, all by itself, at least the "HALF-proof" (if not more than "half") that indicates it was placed there in the course of the normal business practices engaged in by someone employed by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois. That's the most logical explanation to begin with, of course, so therefore it's also THE MOST LIKELY TO BE TRUE explanation as well.

To suggest that it's JUST AS LIKELY as not that the FBI stamped the money order (or even more likely that the FBI stamped it, as Ben Holmes believes) is outrageous and irrational thinking. And such a wholly unproven and unfounded claim against the Federal Bureau of Investigation merely demonstrates, yet again, the degree of desperation exhibited by CTers like Ben who are always anxious to pretend that certain pieces of evidence connected to the JFK case are fraudulent and untrustworthy. Such overzealous thinking regarding alleged fakery and fraud in the Kennedy murder case can more accurately be labelled with the following word --- paranoia. Because, let's face it, that's precisely what it is.

And it continues to amaze me (to some degree) that many conspiracy theorists can continue to argue (with a straight face) that Lee Harvey Oswald never owned or possessed EITHER ONE of the murder weapons that Oswald ended up using to kill President Kennedy and police officer J.D. Tippit, even though we know for an absolute fact that representatives from BOTH of the mail-order companies involved in the two Oswald gun transactions (William Waldman of Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago and Heinz Michaelis of Seaport Traders in Los Angeles) verified via their testimony that their companies each shipped a gun to the post office box in Dallas that we know was being rented in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that both Klein's and Seaport Traders each mailed guns to Oswald's P.O. box in March of '63 is not even a disputable or debatable point. It's a proven, undeniable fact that each of those companies DID mail those guns to P.O. Box No. 2915 in Dallas, Texas. And P.O. Box 2915 was, without a doubt, Lee Oswald's post office box.

How can any CTer continue to dispute that fact about the two guns being mailed by separate companies to Oswald's post office box? Do the CTers want to now claim that both William Waldman and Heinz Michaelis were liars and were part of some kind of plot to fake all of their paperwork in order to frame Mr. Oswald? It's absurd.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
>
> This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
>
> Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
>
> I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
>
> (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).

Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).


Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared, HAS SCARED YOU INTO ABSOLUTE SILENCE. (Anyone care to bet if that statement ever appears on any of David's websites?)

That fact tells the tale - that you KEEP RIGHT ON RUNNING FROM THE POINTS I RAISE.

> And you must have been half crocked when you said this:
>
> "Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI."
>
> Hilarious stuff there, Ben. Only a rabid CTer in the "Everything's Fake" club could possibly make such a ludicrous statement.

Actually, it's *YOUR* statement, with merely the persons involved changed.

The fact that it's so reasonable that Kleins did it, and so "ludicrous" that anyone else did, simply shows that you actually DO realize how bad your position is...

So instead of answering, or at least publicly acknowledging the point I made, or even attempting to refute it, you have nothing better than ad hominem.

Which is a recognition on your part that you've lost.

> kill President Kennedy and police officer J.D. Tippit, even though we know for an absolute fact that representatives from BOTH of the mail-order companies involved in the two Oswald gun transactions (William Waldman of Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago and Heinz Michaelis of Seaport Traders in Los Angeles) verified via their testimony that their companies each shipped a gun to the post office box in Dallas that we know was being rented in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald.

If this were true, then the government has iron-clad proof of it... yet refuses to release it.

I know you're familiar with the fact that ALL of Oswald's mail was being intercepted and read.

Yet there's no indication that any such weapons were shipped to the P.O. box.

I've dealt previously with some of the outright lies told about that P.O. box by the Warren Commission...

> The fact that both Klein's and Seaport Traders each mailed guns to Oswald's P.O. box in March of '63 is not even a disputable or debatable point. It's a proven, undeniable fact that each of those companies DID mail those guns to P.O. Box No. 2915 in Dallas, Texas. And P.O. Box 2915 was, without a doubt, Lee Oswald's post office box.

Nope. It's CERTAINLY disputable. The fact that you cannot address the points I raise by anything other than ad hominem means that *YOU* recognize this too.

> How can any CTer continue to dispute that fact about the two guns being mailed by separate companies to Oswald's post office box? Do the CTers want to now claim that both William Waldman and Heinz Michaelis were liars and were part of some kind of plot to fake all of their paperwork in order to frame Mr. Oswald? It's absurd.

What's "absurd" is your cowardice.

If this were as simple a case as you keep implying, then why do you keep running away from the evidence I refer to?

Why do you keep demanding from me that which YOU ABSOLUTELY REFUSE TO PROVIDE?

Why are you so afraid of the fact that I answered your challenge?

WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I CREDIBLY AND REASONABLY ANSWERED YOUR CHALLENGE?

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> >
> > Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
> >
> > This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
> >
> > Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
> >
> > I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
> >
> > (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
>
> Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
>
>
> Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,

What does this corroborate? If the paper work is missing you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn`t.

[David Von Pein]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 5:24:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
> > >
> > > This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
> > >
> > > Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
> > >
> > > I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
> > >
> > > (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> >
> > Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> >
> >
> > Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,
>
> What does this corroborate? If the paper work is missing you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn`t.
>

I'm confused about what "paperwork" Ben thinks has "disappeared" at the hands of the evil FBI. As I understand Klein's policy, they always destroy the "original" items they receive from a customer in the mail (e.g., the order form and the envelope) after Klein's photographs those items on microfilm, which was done in this case with Oswald's order form and envelope (CE773).

So Ben can't be perplexed about why the "originals" aren't available for those items---it's because we know that the normal policy of Klein's Sporting Goods is to get rid of such paperwork immediately after receiving a customer's order (obviously in order to save space).

And the same thing apparently applies to Waldman Exhibit No. 7 too (the internal Klein's invoice for Oswald's rifle order). That form that exists today is a copy produced from Klein's microfilm reader for the Warren Commission. William Waldman confirmed that fact in his WC testimony (at 7 H 366):

DAVID BELIN -- "Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is."

BILL WALDMAN -- "This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of Dallas, Tex. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine."

MR. BELIN -- "This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the micro- film negative which we just viewed upstair; is that correct?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0187b.htm

Therefore, once again, this likely means that the "original" piece of paper for Waldman #7 evidently was *never* available for the Warren Commission or the FBI to view because the invoice was placed on microfilm after it was originally generated by Klein's in March of '63. So why would Ben even *expect* any "original" to exist when it comes to Waldman #7 (or the other items mentioned above)?

As far as the "original" microfilm records are concerned, I'm guessing those items were returned to Klein's after the WC and/or FBI created the photographs of the items they needed for their exhibits in this case.

Why *wouldn't* that have been the case here? Seems logical to me to do that, since those microfilm strips contained a lot more orders on them than just the "Hidell/Oswald" order information. So the microfilm records were simply given back to Klein's after they had served their purpose to the U.S. Government in this case.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:24:22 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > >
> > > Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
> > >
> > > This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
> > >
> > > Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
> > >
> > > I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
> > >
> > > (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> >
> > Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> >
> >
> > Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,
>
> What does this corroborate? If the paper work is missing you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn`t.

Said the coward who REFUSES to explain these facts.

I'm sure you're simply pretending not to understand that if the FBI forged paperwork, then by copying it, and putting ONLY THE COPIES into evidence, they stop cold most methods of detecting forgeries.

If the paperwork were *NOT* forged & altered, and was ACTUALLY evidence against Oswald - why would *ANYONE* other than an Oswald family member have any reason to destroy it?

WHY CAN'T YOU COME UP WITH A CREDIBLE REASON FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SO MUCH OF THE PAPERWORK IN THIS CASE?

So yes, this *corroborates* forgery. You cannot provide a more credible explanation... it's *YOUR* BURDEN TO DO SO... and you've failed.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 6:43:09 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 5:24:22 AM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
> > > >
> > > > This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
> > > >
> > > > Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
> > > >
> > > > I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> > >
> > > Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,
> >
> > What does this corroborate? If the paper work is missing you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn`t.
> >
>
> I'm confused about what "paperwork" Ben thinks has "disappeared" at the hands of the evil FBI. As I understand Klein's policy, they always destroy the "original" items they receive from a customer in the mail (e.g., the order form and the envelope) after Klein's photographs those items on microfilm, which was done in this case with Oswald's order form and envelope (CE773).

Denial isn't going to do the job, David. You know for a fact that many researchers have noted the missing paperwork.

Have I gone to NARA and demanded the originals?

Nope.

Do I trust those who have?

Yep.

> So Ben can't be perplexed about why the "originals" aren't available for those items---it's because we know that the normal policy of Klein's Sporting Goods is to get rid of such paperwork immediately after receiving a customer's order (obviously in order to save space).

You're a liar, David. You know quite well that I'm not speaking of one or two pieces of paper.

> And the same thing apparently applies to Waldman Exhibit No. 7 too (the internal Klein's invoice for Oswald's rifle order). That form that exists today is a copy produced from Klein's microfilm reader for the Warren Commission. William Waldman confirmed that fact in his WC testimony (at 7 H 366):

Produced by WHOM?

No, it was *NOT* produced at Kleins, as you rather desperately try to imply.

> DAVID BELIN -- "Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is."
>
> BILL WALDMAN -- "This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of Dallas, Tex. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine."
>
> MR. BELIN -- "This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the micro- film negative which we just viewed upstair; is that correct?"
>
> MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct."
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0187b.htm
>
> Therefore, once again, this likely means that the "original" piece of paper for Waldman #7 evidently was *never* available for the Warren Commission or the FBI to view because the invoice was placed on microfilm after it was originally generated by Klein's in March of '63. So why would Ben even *expect* any "original" to exist when it comes to Waldman #7 (or the other items mentioned above)?

I see you're preparing to post this nonsense on your website.

But denial of the facts won't get you anywhere.

In fact, why don't you simply produce the original microfilm from Kleins?

But you can't - IT WENT MISSING WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI.

> As far as the "original" microfilm records are concerned, I'm guessing those items were returned to Klein's after the WC and/or FBI created the photographs of the items they needed for their exhibits in this case.

You're a liar, David. Speculation isn't evidence...

Speculation cannot replace the evidence either... you either produce paperwork from the FBI showing that they returned the missing microfilm - OR TELL THE TRUTH MINUS YOUR SPECULATION.

The microfilm is missing... PERIOD.

It went missing WHILE IT WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI.

It was an ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL bit of evidence.

Those are FACTS.

You lose!

> Why *wouldn't* that have been the case here? Seems logical to me to do that, since those microfilm strips contained a lot more orders on them than just the "Hidell/Oswald" order information. So the microfilm records were simply given back to Klein's after they had served their purpose to the U.S. Government in this case.

You're a liar, David.

There would be paperwork generated *for* the government showing that they'd returned the microfilm.

No such paperwork has ever been discovered...

You clearly know this... it's clear that you're aware that the microfilm simply disappeared, yet you're too dishonest to simply state the facts.

You have to speculate.

Now tell us David - WHAT ORIGINAL PAPERWORK EXISTS THAT HAS TIED OSWALD TO THE RIFLE?

WHY HAS SO MUCH PAPERWORK IN THIS CASE DISAPPEARED WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI?

As John Armstrong has noted, and NEVER BEEN REFUTED:

"All original records, the original microfilm, and the original money order used to pay for the rifle, disappeared while in FBI custody."

There's no reason that you can offer for this fact.

THERE'S NO *CREDIBLE* REASON THAT YOU CAN OFFER FOR THIS FACT!

(And it's a fact that will never appear in your censored websites)

> > > HAS SCARED YOU INTO ABSOLUTE SILENCE. (Anyone care to bet if that statement ever appears on any of David's websites?)
> > >
> > > That fact tells the tale - that you KEEP RIGHT ON RUNNING FROM THE POINTS I RAISE.
> > >
> > >
> > > > And you must have been half crocked when you said this:
> > > >
> > > > "Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI."
> > > >
> > > > Hilarious stuff there, Ben. Only a rabid CTer in the "Everything's Fake" club could possibly make such a ludicrous statement.
> > >
> > > Actually, it's *YOUR* statement, with merely the persons involved changed.
> > >
> > > The fact that it's so reasonable that Kleins did it, and so "ludicrous" that anyone else did, simply shows that you actually DO realize how bad your position is...
> > >
> > > So instead of answering, or at least publicly acknowledging the point I made, or even attempting to refute it, you have nothing better than ad hominem.
> > >
> > > Which is a recognition on your part that you've lost.
> > >
> > >
> > > > kill President Kennedy and police officer J.D. Tippit, even though we know for an absolute fact that representatives from BOTH of the mail-order companies involved in the two Oswald gun transactions (William Waldman of Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago and Heinz Michaelis of Seaport Traders in Los Angeles) verified via their testimony that their companies each shipped a gun to the post office box in Dallas that we know was being rented in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald.
> > >
> > >
> > > If this were true, then the government has iron-clad proof of it... yet refuses to release it.
> > >
> > > I know you're familiar with the fact that ALL of Oswald's mail was being intercepted and read.
> > >
> > > Yet there's no indication that any such weapons were shipped to the P.O. box.
> > >
> > > I've dealt previously with some of the outright lies told about that P.O. box by the Warren Commission...
> > >
> > >
> > > > The fact that both Klein's and Seaport Traders each mailed guns to Oswald's P.O. box in March of '63 is not even a disputable or debatable point. It's a proven, undeniable fact that each of those companies DID mail those guns to P.O. Box No. 2915 in Dallas, Texas. And P.O. Box 2915 was, without a doubt, Lee Oswald's post office box.
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope. It's CERTAINLY disputable. The fact that you cannot address the points I raise by anything other than ad hominem means that *YOU* recognize this too.

Notice that David had nothing to say...

Anyone care to bet that *THIS* won't appear on any of his websites?

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're a liar, David. You know quite well that I'm not speaking of one or two pieces of paper.

[...]

Why don't you simply produce the original microfilm from Klein's?

But you can't - IT WENT MISSING WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI.

[...]

You're a liar, David. Speculation isn't evidence...

Speculation cannot replace the evidence either... you either produce paperwork from the FBI showing that they returned the missing microfilm - OR TELL THE TRUTH MINUS YOUR SPECULATION.

The microfilm is missing... PERIOD.

It went missing WHILE IT WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI.

It was an ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL bit of evidence.

Those are FACTS.

You lose!

[...]

There would be paperwork generated *for* the government showing that they'd returned the microfilm.

No such paperwork has ever been discovered...

You clearly know this... it's clear that you're aware that the microfilm simply disappeared, yet you're too dishonest to simply state the facts.

You have to speculate.

Now tell us David - WHAT ORIGINAL PAPERWORK EXISTS THAT HAS TIED OSWALD TO THE RIFLE?

WHY HAS SO MUCH PAPERWORK IN THIS CASE DISAPPEARED WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI?

As John Armstrong has noted, and NEVER BEEN REFUTED:

"All original records, the original microfilm, and the original money order used to pay for the rifle, disappeared while in FBI custody."

There's no reason that you can offer for this fact.

THERE'S NO *CREDIBLE* REASON THAT YOU CAN OFFER FOR THIS FACT!

--------------------------------

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no idea why John Armstrong would make this claim:

"The original money order...disappeared while in FBI custody."

Is Armstrong trying to imply that the original money order "disappeared" way back in the 1960s "while in FBI custody"? Or does he think it "disappeared" many years after the Warren Commission went out of business? ~shrug~

Anyway, the original money order (CE788) most certainly DID exist in its "original" form as recently as 1978 when it was examined by various questioned documents experts for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, of course, was some 14 years after the WC had also examined the original money order. Here's the HSCA testimony pertaining to that topic provided by handwriting expert Joseph McNally [at 4 HSCA 355]....

MR. KLEIN -- "Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?"

JOSEPH McNALLY -- "They did."

MR. KLEIN -- "What was that conclusion?"

MR. McNALLY -- "That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm."

MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?"

MR. McNALLY -- "It was; yes."

MR. KLEIN -- "And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?"

MR. McNALLY -- "That is right."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0180a.htm



DAVID VON PEIN SAID (REPRISE):

Waldman Exhibit No. 7...is a copy produced from Klein's microfilm reader for the Warren Commission.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

Produced by WHOM?

No, it was *NOT* produced at Klein's, as you rather desperately try to imply.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong, Ben. I suggest you look at Commission Document No. 75 (Page 667), which is an FBI FD-302 report filed by Chicago Secret Service Special Agent Robert J. Dolan on November 23, 1963, in which he wrote these words:

"William J. Waldman...made available from a safe in his control one reel of microfilm contained in a cardboard box bearing the following identifying information:

Filmfill number 83
269688-270596
General Files

This microfilm contains photographs of numerous business documents including one Klein's Sporting Goods "ORDER BLANK" bearing a stamped date of March 13, 1963, on transaction number 270502 showing the purchase of one Italian carbine, 6.5 with a four power scope, control number VC 836, and serial number C 2766 which was shipped to the purchaser on March 20, 1963.

[...]

Mr. Waldman was furnished a receipt for the above identified microfilm, which receipt was dated November 23, 1963, at Chicago, Illinois. The described cardboard container containing the microfilm reel was sealed in the presence of Mr. Waldman, dated, and initialed. Mr. Waldman also at this time affixed his initials thereon." -- CD75 (p.667)

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10477#relPageId=671

Also see Commission Document No. 7 (Pages 187-188), which is another 11/23/63 FBI report, saying this:

"William J. Waldman...made available for review records of his firm regarding the purchase, sale, and inventory control of merchandise handled by that concern.

[Next page...]

Upon location of these records, described reel of microfilm was placed by Mr. Waldman in a sealed envelope in a safe in his control. He advised that same would be maintained in his control only as long as desired."
-- CD7; Page 187 and Page 188

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194

Do you still want to maintain that Waldman Exhibit No. 7 "was *NOT* produced at Klein's", Ben?

Of course, since Ben doesn't trust anything written in an official FBI FD-302 report because he distrusts the FBI so much, all he now has to do is claim that SA Dolan of the Chicago FBI office just MADE UP all the information we find in those FBI reports. Right, Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> You're a liar, David. You know quite well that I'm not speaking of one or two pieces of paper.
>
> [...]
>
> Why don't you simply produce the original microfilm from Klein's?
>
> But you can't - IT WENT MISSING WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI.
>
> [...]
>
> You're a liar, David. Speculation isn't evidence...
>
> Speculation cannot replace the evidence either... you either produce paperwork from the FBI showing that they returned the missing microfilm - OR TELL THE TRUTH MINUS YOUR SPECULATION.
>
> The microfilm is missing... PERIOD.
>
> It went missing WHILE IT WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI.
>
> It was an ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL bit of evidence.
>
> Those are FACTS.
>
> You lose!
>
> [...]
>
> There would be paperwork generated *for* the government showing that they'd returned the microfilm.
>
> No such paperwork has ever been discovered...
>
> You clearly know this... it's clear that you're aware that the microfilm simply disappeared, yet you're too dishonest to simply state the facts.
>
> You have to speculate.
>
> Now tell us David - WHAT ORIGINAL PAPERWORK EXISTS THAT HAS TIED OSWALD TO THE RIFLE?

No answer...

> WHY HAS SO MUCH PAPERWORK IN THIS CASE DISAPPEARED WHILE IN THE HANDS OF THE FBI?

No answer...

> As John Armstrong has noted, and NEVER BEEN REFUTED:
>
> "All original records, the original microfilm, and the original money order used to pay for the rifle, disappeared while in FBI custody."
>
> There's no reason that you can offer for this fact.
>
> THERE'S NO *CREDIBLE* REASON THAT YOU CAN OFFER FOR THIS FACT!

No answer...

> --------------------------------
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I have no idea why John Armstrong would make this claim:
>
> "The original money order...disappeared while in FBI custody."
>
> Is Armstrong trying to imply that the original money order "disappeared" way back in the 1960s "while in FBI custody"? Or does he think it "disappeared" many years after the Warren Commission went out of business? ~shrug~
>
> Anyway, the original money order (CE788) most certainly DID exist in its "original" form as recently as 1978 when it was examined by various questioned documents experts for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, of course, was some 14 years after the WC had also examined the original money order.

You're lying again, David.

Anyone who has the resources can look up HSCA 8, pg. 234, 239 - where it's EXPLICITLY STATED that the money order was a "Xerox copy".

EXPLAIN THIS - OR RUN AWAY AGAIN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE!!!

[David Von Pein]

But that's not what McNally told the HSCA "explicitly" at 4 HSCA 355, is it Ben?

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:

> Do you still want to maintain that Waldman Exhibit No. 7 "was *NOT* produced at Klein's", Ben?

Yep... that's what the evidence shows. As John Armstrong notes: "KLEIN'S MICROFILM. The FBI's Chicago office sent 3 agents to Klein's late in the evening of November 22. These agents arrived at Klein's at 10:00 PM and were met by Klein's Vice-President William Waldman. These agents were likely told to search Klein's records (microfilm) and determine both the name and address of the person who purchased C2766 from Klein's in 1962, and determine if another rifle bearing serial number C2766 had been sold. Seven hours later, at 5:00 AM in the morning, the FBI agents advised Waldman that they had found records relating to C2766 and asked if they could take the microfilm."

You presume that it was then returned to Kleins, where the exhibits were printed, then the microfilm taken again by the FBI... then despite NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, the film was again returned to Kleins.

I consider that rather silly...

Now, PUBLICLY ADMIT THAT THE MICROFILM HAS DISAPPEARED WHILE UNDER *FBI* CONTROL, AND THAT THERE'S **NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER** THAT IT WAS EVER RETURNED TO KLEINS.

Or demonstrate yet again your cowardice & dishonesty.

[Jason Burke]

Bennie-boy. *Still* o-fer-life.

[Ben Holmes]

It's *YOUR* problem to explain the obvious contradiction - not mine. Someone was clearly lying. Or perhaps no-one bothered to tell McNally that he was looking at a Xerox.

The fact that you cannot shows that you understand quite well that once again, you lost.

You believe the original still exists - IT'S UP TO *YOU* TO PROVE IT.

Run David... RUN!!!

[David Von Pein]

The handwriting expert HIMSELF (McNally) said he examined the original M.O. in 1978. That's part of his testimony. Sure, there's a contradiction elsewhere in the records. But contradictions happen a lot in real life, don't they? It doesn't mean McNally DIDN'T examine the original. His own testimony trumps the contradiction, IMO. (YMMV.)

[Ben Holmes]

On what basis?

TELL ME WHY A WITNESS WHO CONTRADICTS THE HSCA IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE HSCA.

Be careful with your answer, because I'm going to use it to examine what other witnesses said.

Your inability to prove that the original money order still exists is quite damning, isn't it?

[David Von Pein]

Well, just in a general sense, I would think that a handwriting "expert" would know whether he was looking at an original item or a Xerox photocopy. That just seems pretty basic and routine for his line of work. And McNally seemed pretty sure he examined the original document.

Plus, the HSCA questioner (Kenneth Klein) certainly seemed to think that the M.O. was an "original" document, otherwise he would never have asked McNally this question in this manner....

MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?"

So, were BOTH Klein AND the expert examiner (McNally) BOTH duped into thinking a Xerox copy was really an original document?

[David Von Pein]

Wait a second! Since there is a contradiction in the record, why is it up to only ME to reconcile it? Why don't YOU (i.e., the CTers) have to do any reconciling of the contradiction to prove that you're on the correct side of the issue?

[David Von Pein]

FYI....

More info about the "Original vs. Xerox" contradiction regarding the money order:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1065.html#The-Money-Order

[Bud]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:53:23 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:24:22 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
> > > >
> > > > This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
> > > >
> > > > Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
> > > >
> > > > I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> > >
> > > Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,
> >
> > What does this corroborate? If the paper work is missing you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn`t.
>
> Said the coward who REFUSES to explain these facts.

Shifting the burden.

> I'm sure you're simply pretending not to understand that if the FBI forged paperwork, then by copying it, and putting ONLY THE COPIES into evidence, they stop cold most methods of detecting forgeries.

Retard figuring.

> If the paperwork were *NOT* forged & altered, and was ACTUALLY evidence against Oswald - why would *ANYONE* other than an Oswald family member have any reason to destroy it?
>
> WHY CAN'T YOU COME UP WITH A CREDIBLE REASON FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SO MUCH OF THE PAPERWORK IN THIS CASE?

Shifting the burden. Whenever you do this you are admitting you can`t establish what you are claiming occurred.

> So yes, this *corroborates* forgery.

<snicker> How does your retarded figuring corroborate anything?

> You cannot provide a more credible explanation...

Shifting the burden.

> it's *YOUR* BURDEN TO DO SO... and you've failed.

I never tried. I have no burden. You are asserting this takes you somewhere. From where I sit you`ve gone nowhere.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:45:39 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:27:56 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:18:15 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:12:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:07:37 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 12:03:52 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 8:54:51 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > > > Anyway, the original money order (CE788) most certainly DID exist in its "original" form as recently as 1978 when it was examined by various questioned documents experts for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which, of course, was some 14 years after the WC had also examined the original money order.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're lying again, David.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyone who has the resources can look up HSCA 8, pg. 234, 239 - where it's EXPLICITLY STATED that the money order was a "Xerox copy".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > EXPLAIN THIS - OR RUN AWAY AGAIN LIKE THE COWARD YOU ARE!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > But that's not what McNally told the HSCA "explicitly" at 4 HSCA 355, is it Ben?
> > > >
> > > > It's *YOUR* problem to explain the obvious contradiction - not mine. Someone was clearly lying. Or perhaps no-one bothered to tell McNally that he was looking at a Xerox.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that you cannot shows that you understand quite well that once again, you lost.
> > > >
> > > > You believe the original still exists - IT'S UP TO *YOU* TO PROVE IT.
> > > >
> > > > Run David... RUN!!!
> > >
> > > The handwriting expert HIMSELF (McNally) said he examined the original M.O. in 1978. That's part of his testimony. Sure, there's a contradiction elsewhere in the records. But contradictions happen a lot in real life, don't they? It doesn't mean McNally DIDN'T examine the original. His own testimony trumps the contradiction, IMO. (YMMV.)
> >
> > On what basis?
> >
> > TELL ME WHY A WITNESS WHO CONTRADICTS THE HSCA IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THE HSCA.

It's interesting that you refused to answer...

Quite the coward, aren't you David?

> > Be careful with your answer, because I'm going to use it to examine what other witnesses said.
> >
> > Your inability to prove that the original money order still exists is quite damning, isn't it?
>
> Well, just in a general sense, I would think that a handwriting "expert" would know whether he was looking at an original item or a Xerox photocopy. That just seems pretty basic and routine for his line of work. And McNally seemed pretty sure he examined the original document.

This is EXACTLY the sort of reasoning you reject.

Doctors should know how to correctly describe an Occipital-Parietal wound, right?

So we can see your vast dishonesty here... can't we?

Care to try again?

> Plus, the HSCA questioner (Kenneth Klein) certainly seemed to think that the M.O. was an "original" document, otherwise he would never have asked McNally this question in this manner....
>
> MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?"
>
> So, were BOTH Klein AND the expert examiner (McNally) BOTH duped into thinking a Xerox copy was really an original document?

Not my problem... It's *YOUR* problem.

You see, I can *WELL* understand why the HSCA would want to mislead people, AS THEY PROVABLY DID, but you can't explain the references to a Xerox copy...

This is *YOUR* burden... and you've failed to even try to answer it.

Why is that, coward?

(Oops... answered my own question again...)

[Ben Holmes]

Because it's this record that you rely on.

Critics CAN explain such inconsistencies, believer CONSTANTLY REFUSE TO DO SO.

I can well understand why you don't want this burden... but you CANNOT refuse to denigrate the Warren Commission, Clark Panel, and HSCA; then try to claim it's not your responsibility for their lies.

You either point out AND PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE the lies and inconsistencies of these official investigations - or you DEFEND THEM ENTIRELY.

There's no middle ground for an honest man.

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:42:47 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> FYI....
>
> More info about the "Original vs. Xerox" contradiction regarding the money order:

Nope...

QUOTE IT HERE...

Then defend it against my critical review.

Anything else is sheer cowardice...

[Ben Holmes]

On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 10:47:16 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 9:53:23 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Friday, February 17, 2017 at 2:24:22 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 9:25:49 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 5:29:24 PM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > BEN HOLMES SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > Either they [the FBI] used one of Klein's stamps, or they simply made one.
> > > > >
> > > > > This explains why most of the original paperwork disappeared once the FBI got their hands on it. (Something you've still not addressed.)
> > > > >
> > > > > Please provide some *PROOF* (even a HALF-proof) that the Klein employee stamped that M.O. with that rubber stamp instead of the FBI.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want to see what PROOF you have to offer in this regard. Okay, David? Thank you.
> > > > >
> > > > > (But of course, I shouldn't be thanking you - BECAUSE YOU'LL NEVER EVEN *TRY* TO PRODUCE SUCH PROOF.)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > Just as I thought, Ben. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the fakery you allege exists in this case. All you've got are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> > > >
> > > > Just as I thought David. You have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the authenticity you allege exists in this case. All you've go are empty claims and a lot of hot air (as usual).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course, *MY* assertion is actually corroborated in many different ways. Even the one corroboration - the fact that the original paperwork has disappeared,
> > >
> > > What does this corroborate? If the paper work is missing you need to establish the reason behind it. You think offering an explanation you are satisfied with is meaningful. It isn`t.
> >
> > Said the coward who REFUSES to explain these facts.
>
> Shifting the burden.
>
> > I'm sure you're simply pretending not to understand that if the FBI forged paperwork, then by copying it, and putting ONLY THE COPIES into evidence, they stop cold most methods of detecting forgeries.
>
> Retard figuring.
>
> > If the paperwork were *NOT* forged & altered, and was ACTUALLY evidence against Oswald - why would *ANYONE* other than an Oswald family member have any reason to destroy it?
> >
> > WHY CAN'T YOU COME UP WITH A CREDIBLE REASON FOR THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SO MUCH OF THE PAPERWORK IN THIS CASE?
>
> Shifting the burden. Whenever you do this you are admitting you can`t establish what you are claiming occurred.

The burden is in the original claim.

Despite the dreams of believers, the Warren Commission wasn't the final word.

[Bud]

The original claim is the original claim. If you want to advance the idea that something else occurred you better get on it. If you want to knock the original claim out you have to put something on the table besides imagination.

[Ben Holmes]

Produce the *ORIGINAL* claim.

But you won't...

[Bud]

What Ben removed...

[Ben Holmes]

And didn't...

What a coward!!!

[Bud]

We can talk about your failure to go anywhere with any of these issues all you like.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

I don`t need to do anything but observe you can`t advance your ideas.

[Ben Holmes]

You lost.