JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 166)

Some conspiracy theorists seem to believe that the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle with serial number C2766 on it (marked as CE139 by the Warren
Commission) is not the same rifle that is being held by Lee Harvey
Oswald in the famous "backyard photos".

I will mention just a few things here which re-confirm the obvious
fact that the backyard photos are definitely genuine (i.e., they have
not been faked) and the common-sense fact that the rifle Lee Oswald is
holding in those backyard pictures is most certainly the same rifle
found by police in the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63:

1.) Marina Oswald has ALWAYS maintained that she took the backyard
photographs. And we know LHO was holding a RIFLE in all of those
pictures she took.

2.) We know the pictures were taken in the early portion of the year
1963, probably on March 31, 1963, which was a time period when the
Oswalds were living at the Neely Street address in Dallas.

3.) We know for a rock-solid fact (despite the crazy theories of
conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and others) that Oswald was
shipped Carcano Rifle C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods on 3/20/63.
(And the timing of that shipment is in perfect harmony with Oswald
receiving the rifle [plus his revolver, which was also shipped on
March 20] in time for the March 31st backyard photo shoot.)

4.) The backyard pictures were determined by Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the
FBI and by the HSCA to be real and genuine and that the photos had not
been faked or manipulated by anyone.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0073b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0076b.htm

5.) There is absolutely no indication to show that Lee Oswald owned
more than just the one Carcano (C2766) rifle in the year 1963. This
fifth point is also crucial, when placed in conjunction with #1
through #4 above, because it indicates (logically) that the rifle
Oswald is posing with in the backyard pictures MUST be
C2766....because he owned no other rifle in 1963.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, can always argue that just because
Oswald OWNED only one rifle (C2766), this wouldn't necessarily have to
mean that C2766 is positively the rifle he is holding in the backyard
photos.

But that logic is about the same as making the following statement
(which, incredibly, some CTers have actually tried to say in the
past): Just because Lee Oswald was brandishing a pistol and trying to
kill policemen with it in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, this
doesn't have to mean it was THE SAME pistol that was used to kill
Patrolman J.D. Tippit.

That latter hunk of insanity is also nutty from a "ballistics"
standpoint too, of course, since we know beyond all doubt that the
revolver that was used to murder Officer Tippit is positively the same
gun that Seaport Traders shipped to Lee Harvey Oswald in March of
'63.

Which would mean that if that latter piece of "CT logic" were true, it
would mean that somebody OTHER than Oswald killed Tippit WITH OSWALD'S
OWN GUN, and then somehow managed to get Oswald to take his gun back
after the Tippit murder, with Oswald then proceeding to pull that gun
on policeman M.N. McDonald in the theater. (Yeah, right.)

Here's something else for conspiracy theorists to chew on and ponder
(which is something that probably should be "pushed" more often by the
conspiracists who think Oswald was just an innocent patsy):

CTers want to believe that some unknown force was trying to frame poor
Lee Oswald for President Kennedy's murder. And many of these
conspiracy buffs also acknowledge the fact that Oswald did own the
C2766 Carcano rifle. (Which, of course, couldn't be more obvious, with
Waldman Exhibit No. 7 being the PROOF-POSITIVE that Oswald was shipped
that exact rifle.)

Therefore, why wouldn't any plotters simply attempt to frame Oswald
WITH HIS OWN RIFLE IN THE FIRST PLACE -- vs. attempting to frame him
by using a Mauser rifle or some other weapon to kill JFK?

Conspiracy theorists cannot logically answer my last question, because
it would make no sense at all to leave a "Mauser" in the Book
Depository to frame Oswald if the C2766 rifle was REALLY OSWALD'S all
along (which it was, of course).

But I have found that conspiracists almost never ask such logical
questions of themselves. Instead, they are "piecemeal" investigators.
They look at one singular anomaly and apply that anomaly or
discrepancy (or whatever) to the case, without ever once looking at
the "totality" or the "whole" of the case, or the mere illogic of
their isolated, piecemeal theory.

Take the backyard photos as yet another example of this:

Many goofy conspiracy believers actually seem to think that the
"plotters" who supposedly faked the pictures would have WANTED and
NEEDED to fake up to THREE (or maybe even FOUR) different backyard
pictures....even though just ONE such "fake" photo would easily
suffice.

It's just silly beyond all belief to think that even if the photos had
been faked, that anyone would have felt the need to fake three or four
different pictures, when they all show the exact same thing--Oswald
holding weapons in the same backyard in Dallas.

To reiterate a key point:

When my above-mentioned "Point #5" is added into the mix regarding
this matter concerning the rifle, it then becomes even more crystal
clear that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald is holding in the backyard
photos can only be ONE particular rifle -- and that is Mannlicher-
Carcano Rifle #C2766.

David Von Pein
September 7, 2011

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
http://JFK-Assassination-As-It-Happened.blogspot.com

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 1:49:18 PM9/7/11

to

Take a magnifying glass and look closely at C-133 is that even Oswald?
Look at the eyes and face very closely, really strange looks like a
composite mask as Tom Wilson said in the book by Donald Phillips A Deep
Darker Truth, also look at the thick fingers on left hand brandishing
the rifle, in contrast to the really thin finger on left hand of
133-A....Laz

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 1:52:33 PM9/7/11

to

Oh, good Lord.

bigdog

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 2:23:49 PM9/7/11

to

On Sep 7, 1:49 pm, lazuli...@webtv.net wrote:
> Take a magnifying glass and look closely at C-133 is that even Oswald?

No, the conspirators decided to fake three Oswald photos and not even
use his face for the third one. BRILLIANT!!!

> Look at the eyes and face very closely, really strange looks like a
> composite mask as Tom Wilson said in the book by Donald Phillips A Deep
> Darker Truth,

And you believed them. BRILLIANT!!!

> also look at the thick fingers on left hand brandishing
> the rifle, in contrast to the really thin finger on left hand of
> 133-A....Laz

Damn you're gullible.

Stan moffett

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 2:51:36 PM9/7/11

to

I agree with you Laz, they look fake as hell to me too. But really I
can't think of a reason why Marina STILL claims that she took the
photos. Why would she lie about that?
Stan

aeffects

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 3:31:52 PM9/7/11

to

On Sep 7, 9:39 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

no advertising moron...

bigdog

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 3:32:03 PM9/7/11

to

This from a guy who thinks the motorcade backed up on Houston St and
parked for 20 minutes and nobody in the crowd noticed.

Stan moffett

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 3:46:40 PM9/7/11

to

Just being honest. ( Respecting your clean post)
Stan

bigdog

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 3:56:19 PM9/7/11

to

An honest dumbass.

Stan moffett

unread,

Sep 7, 2011, 5:03:54 PM9/7/11

to

On Sep 7, 2:32 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

They noticed, they just don't remember they noticed. A lot of the
witnesses just don't remember things that happened, they're not lying
either. At least not all of them. Some were threatened into their
silence.
Stan

Rob Caprio

unread,

Sep 8, 2011, 11:29:23 AM9/8/11

to

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE AND THE BACKYARD PHOTOS:

“Some conspiracy theorists seem to believe that the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle with serial number C2766 on it (marked as CE139 by the Warren
Commission) is not the same rifle that is being held by Lee Harvey

Oswald in the famous "backyard photos".”

It isn't, and IF you could see better you would know this too. Also,
if you knew the evidence better you would know this too.

“I will mention just a few things here which re-confirm the obvious

fact that the backyard photos are definitely genuine (i.e., they have
not been faked) and the common-sense fact that the rifle Lee Oswald is
holding in those backyard pictures is most certainly the same rifle

found by police in the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63:”

Oh boy, where to start? He is saying it is a "fact" they are genuine
when NO one has proven they are! He also claims as "fact" that LHO is
in them when again NO one has proven that he is! He is claiming as a
"fact" that the person is holding the same rifle that the authorities
found in the TSBD when it has NEVER been proven it is the same one!

He is basically blowing hot air your way!

“1.) Marina Oswald has ALWAYS maintained that she took the backyard

photographs. And we know LHO was holding a RIFLE in all of those

pictures she took.”

Marina is a documented distorter of what happened and even the HSCA
said so!

"Marina Oswald, because of her testimony, played a central but
troubling role in the investigation of the Warren Commission. A great
deal of what the Commission sought to show about Oswald rested on her
testimony, yet she gave incomplete and inconsistent statements at
various times to the Secret Service, FBI and the Commission. Marina's
role in the Committee's investigation was less central..." (HSCA
Report, Note II, p. 55)

So using her as evidence is highly risky, but what else do you have?
By the way, *we* don't know LHO is holding the rifle in the BYP's
since it was NEVER proven it was him!

“2.) We know the pictures were taken in the early portion of the year

1963, probably on March 31, 1963, which was a time period when the

Oswalds were living at the Neely Street address in Dallas.”

Well, Marina, your witness, said differently initially, didn't she?

“3.) We know for a rock-solid fact (despite the crazy theories of

conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and others) that Oswald was

shipped Carcano Rifle C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods on 3/20/63.”

Well, since it is a "rock-solid fact" like you claim then you can
provide the evidence showing me this occurred, right?

Well?

“ (And the timing of that shipment is in perfect harmony with Oswald

receiving the rifle [plus his revolver, which was also shipped on

March 20] in time for the March 31st backyard photo shoot.)”

Again, cite the evidence that shows this or it will be chalked up as
just another claim you can't support.

“4.) The backyard pictures were determined by Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the

FBI and by the HSCA to be real and genuine and that the photos had not

been faked or manipulated by anyone.”

These are opinions, NOT facts, and if you read Shanyefelt’s testimony
you would see a lot of issues. The biggest one is ALL his comments
are confined to CE-133B ONLY as he had NO negative for CE-133A to work
with, thus, he could NOT say the same camera was used to take it!

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind
of identification you have made for us earlier?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

This ID was regarding what camera was used. Since you can’t show the
same camera took CE-133A you are really out of luck in making any
claims about it. Also, he made a comment about not seeing any
inconsistencies in the photos and this is a crock as anyone can see
the shadows do NOT match the same time of day, and that is but one
example of an inconsistency.

The HSCA avoided measuring the chin area and basically avoided any
tricky areas. Show me their claim of them being genuine!

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA...

“5.) There is absolutely no indication to show that Lee Oswald owned

more than just the one Carcano (C2766) rifle in the year 1963. This
fifth point is also crucial, when placed in conjunction with #1
through #4 above, because it indicates (logically) that the rifle
Oswald is posing with in the backyard pictures MUST be

C2766....because he owned no other rifle in 1963.”

There is absolutely NO indication he owned ANY rifle either, but that
doesn’t stop you from claiming he did!

Don’t you love how he has to make “logic” arguments because he has NO
evidence to support anything he says? He can’t show LHO owned ANY
rifle, let alone one particular one!

“Conspiracy theorists, of course, can always argue that just because

Oswald OWNED only one rifle (C2766), this wouldn't necessarily have to
mean that C2766 is positively the rifle he is holding in the backyard

photos.”

Duh. He could have been lent one and he could have borrowed one IF he
was in the photos, but you can’t even show he was in the photos beyond
a reasonable doubt.

“But that logic is about the same as making the following statement

(which, incredibly, some CTers have actually tried to say in the
past): Just because Lee Oswald was brandishing a pistol and trying to
kill policemen with it in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, this
doesn't have to mean it was THE SAME pistol that was used to kill

Patrolman J.D. Tippit.”

What pistol? You can’t show LHO had a pistol on him beyond McDonald’s
word, and there is another witness who said the person who pulled a
pistol had on a “short-sleeved shirt” and we all know LHO did not have
one of these on!

“That latter hunk of insanity is also nutty from a "ballistics"

standpoint too, of course, since we know beyond all doubt that the
revolver that was used to murder Officer Tippit is positively the same
gun that Seaport Traders shipped to Lee Harvey Oswald in March of

'63.”

Sadly for you Dave, the FBI do NOT agree with you! They said they
could NOT match the bullets in JDT to CE-143. Too bad for you, huh?

“Which would mean that if that latter piece of "CT logic" were true,

it would mean that somebody OTHER than Oswald killed Tippit WITH
OSWALD'S OWN GUN, and then somehow managed to get Oswald to take his
gun back after the Tippit murder, with Oswald then proceeding to pull

that gun on policeman M.N. McDonald in the theater. (Yeah, right.)”

Sadly for you also, it has NEVER been proven CE-143 was LHO gun in the
first place so to claim he owned it is a bit much on your part.
Furthermore, you can’t show LHO was anywhere near the JDT murder
scene. IT would seem you lose all around.

“Here's something else for conspiracy theorists to chew on and ponder

(which is something that probably should be "pushed" more often by the
conspiracists who think Oswald was just an innocent patsy):

CTers want to believe that some unknown force was trying to frame poor
Lee Oswald for President Kennedy's murder. And many of these
conspiracy buffs also acknowledge the fact that Oswald did own the
C2766 Carcano rifle. (Which, of course, couldn't be more obvious, with
Waldman Exhibit No. 7 being the PROOF-POSITIVE that Oswald was shipped

that exact rifle.)”

He is off course again with claims he can’t support. Also, the ONLY
“buffs” I know are the one that defend the antiquated WC theory as
they even admit they are here for “fun” and “entertainment” for the
most part, whereas, most of the CTers (or folks who have doubts about
the WC’s theory) are here for more serious reasons. The use of the
term “buff” is used to make us sound like we also collect stamps or
something. It lessons, they think, the seriousness of this topic.

The evidence clearly shows an order for a 36” Carbine and you can’t
show a 40” Carcano with C2766 on it was shipped and RECEIVED by LHO at
his Dallas P.O. Box. You are sunk here too.

“Therefore, why wouldn't any plotters simply attempt to frame Oswald

WITH HIS OWN RIFLE IN THE FIRST PLACE -- vs. attempting to frame him

by using a Mauser rifle or some other weapon to kill JFK?”

Ah, because he had NO rifle like he said? The Mauser was NOT used to
frame him with either as it was ACUTALLY used in all likelihood in the
killing of JFK. The Carcano was the frame weapon and folks like you
have fell for it hook, line and sinker.

“Conspiracy theorists cannot logically answer my last question,

because it would make no sense at all to leave a "Mauser" in the Book
Depository to frame Oswald if the C2766 rifle was REALLY OSWALD'S all

along (which it was, of course). ‘

I have answered this question of yours many times so this is a lie
first of all, secondly, the Mauser was used and they could not leave
the building with it as that would draw attention so they left it
hidden to get later. Unfortunately for them it was found by the DPD
before that happened.

“But I have found that conspiracists almost never ask such logical

questions of themselves. Instead, they are "piecemeal" investigators.
They look at one singular anomaly and apply that anomaly or
discrepancy (or whatever) to the case, without ever once looking at
the "totality" or the "whole" of the case, or the mere illogic of

their isolated, piecemeal theory.”

Keep in mind this is being said by a man who believes in the WC’s
THEORY that includes magic bullets, magic photography, unsupporting
evidence at every turn, and evidence that has NO chain of custody in
almost every case!

I always laugh when someone who believes in the SBT claims to use
logic too! LOL!

“Take the backyard photos as yet another example of this:

Many goofy conspiracy believers actually seem to think that the
"plotters" who supposedly faked the pictures would have WANTED and
NEEDED to fake up to THREE (or maybe even FOUR) different backyard
pictures....even though just ONE such "fake" photo would easily

suffice.”

Wrong! They did fake four photos and the fact one was found in the
possession of a DPD cop shows this. Also, the DPD recreated the pose
in this one (the White version) and it was not “discovered” until the
early 1970’s! How did that happen?

The idea I guess was the more the better to make him look “rabid”, but
then they went with just two. Who knows, it is not for us CTers to
figure out as we just work with the evidence UNLIKE you!

“It's just silly beyond all belief to think that even if the photos

had been faked, that anyone would have felt the need to fake three or

four different pictures, when they all show the exact same thing—
Oswald holding weapons in the same backyard in Dallas.”

You can think all you want, but the truth is this is WHAT WAS DONE!
The evidence shows this to us!

“To reiterate a key point:

“When my above-mentioned "Point #5" is added into the mix regarding
this matter concerning the rifle, it then becomes even more crystal
clear that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald is holding in the backyard
photos can only be ONE particular rifle -- and that is Mannlicher-

Carcano Rifle #C2766.”

There you are folks – a long post with NO evidence supporting a thing
he said! He wants it to be LHO, he wants it to be the M-C with C2766
on it, but wanting and it actually being so are TWO different things!
Why does he want to hang LHO so bad? Did LHO do something to his
family?

Why do “buffs” like Dave go around full of hate for someone they never
met? Why do they hate LHO so much when there is NO evidence showing/
supporting he did what claimed he did?

What kind of “buff” is this?

> David Von Pein
 September 7, 2011

He is as clueless as he was in 2007!

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 8, 2011, 2:38:05 PM9/8/11

to

>>> "You can’t show LHO had a pistol on him [in the Texas Theater] beyond McDonald’s word." <<<

Now, folks, I want to use the above quote by Robert Caprio as a good
example of the type of off-the-wall, goofy conspiracy theorists who
are currently members of this acj newsgroup.

Caprio obviously wants to actually believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did
NOT pull a gun on Dallas Police Officer M.N. McDonald in the Texas
Theater on November 22, 1963.

Let me repeat --

Based on the implication of the above quote from his e-lips, R. Caprio
thinks that Oswald WAS NOT ARMED WITH A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER.

Now, I ask any reasonable person: Given that position being held by
Rob Caprio, should we really place a single ounce of trust in him
regarding ANY other portion of the JFK case?

I mean, if he's willing to believe that Oswald really didn't have a
gun on him in the theater, then he's probably willing to believe
almost any other crazy theory connected to the events of 11/22/63.

Plus, in order to believe that Oswald was unarmed in the theater,
Caprio has to believe that Oswald HIMSELF lied about it. Because we
know from the police interrogations that Oswald ADMITTED to being
armed with a pistol in the theater. (And it's only natural that he
would, indeed, admit to being armed in the theater. How could he
possibly deny it, since he was caught red-handed with a gun in his
hands.)

Oswald told the police these things shortly after his arrest (which
are quotes from Oswald that Caprio must think the DPD just made up
from whole cloth):

Paraphrasing Oswald's words [source: Mae Brussell's article, "The Last
Words Of Lee Harvey Oswald"]:

"The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie."

"I fought back there, but I know I wasn't supposed to be
carrying a gun."

"When I left the Depository, I went to my room, changed my
trousers, got a pistol, and went to a picture show."

"You know how boys do when they have a gun, they carry it."

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/liar-oswald-part-2.html

Plus, Caprio is forced to call ordinary Dallas citizen Johnny Brewer a
liar too, because Brewer said this during his Warren Commission
testimony:

"[Oswald] just knocked him [McDonald] down for a second and he
was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that,
and I saw this gun come up and--in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the
air. .... And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking
the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm

And there's also Brewer's similar 1986 remarks about Oswald being
armed:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html

In the final analysis, I think we can all safely say (without fear of
too much argument) that Robert Caprio is a certifiable idiot when it
comes to any and all matters dealing with the assassination of the
35th U.S. Chief Executive.

Rob Caprio

unread,

Sep 8, 2011, 3:49:01 PM9/8/11

to

>>> "You can’t show LHO had a pistol on him [in the Texas Theater] beyond McDonald’s word." <<<

“Now, folks, I want to use the above quote by Robert Caprio as a good
example of the type of off-the-wall, goofy conspiracy theorists who
are currently members of this acj newsgroup.

Caprio obviously wants to actually believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did
NOT pull a gun on Dallas Police Officer M.N. McDonald in the Texas
Theater on November 22, 1963.

Let me repeat --

Based on the implication of the above quote from his e-lips, R. Caprio

thinks that Oswald WAS NOT ARMED WITH A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER.”

Let me repeat – a witness that was there said the man who pulled a gun
had on a short-sleeved shirt! Let me use this as example of the “nail
LHO at any cost”, nutty WC theorists who are currently members of this
acj newsgroup.

Can you show me that LHO had on a short-sleeved shirt in the Texas
Theater?

“Now, I ask any reasonable person: Given that position being held by

Rob Caprio, should we really place a single ounce of trust in him

regarding ANY other portion of the JFK case?”

And of course Von Pein makes this about me instead of the evidence.
Typical LNer tactic. I would think the one who knows the evidence
(me) would be trusted more than the one who doesn’t (you).

“I mean, if he's willing to believe that Oswald really didn't have a

gun on him in the theater, then he's probably willing to believe

almost any other crazy theory connected to the events of 11/22/63.”

What evidence do you have to show he had CE-143 on him in the theater
beyond McDonald’s word?

“Plus, in order to believe that Oswald was unarmed in the theater,

Caprio has to believe that Oswald HIMSELF lied about it. Because we
know from the police interrogations that Oswald ADMITTED to being
armed with a pistol in the theater. (And it's only natural that he
would, indeed, admit to being armed in the theater. How could he
possibly deny it, since he was caught red-handed with a gun in his

hands.)”

Sorry, but I don’t accept claims with no support. Since the WC
claimed no notes or recordings were taken of LHO’s interrogations why
should I believe a word they told me LHO supposedly said?

“Oswald told the police these things shortly after his arrest (which

are quotes from Oswald that Caprio must think the DPD just made up

from whole cloth):”

Once again Von Pein forgets to use the word “allegedly” as we have NO
way of knowing what LHO actually did or did not say. IF the police
did their jobs (and we know Fritz lied when he claimed he did NOT take
notes as this was later discovered to be a lie) then it would be
impossible for me to say anything, right? So who’s fault is it?

“Paraphrasing Oswald's words [source: Mae Brussell's article, "The

Last Words Of Lee Harvey Oswald"]:

"The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie."

"I fought back there, but I know I wasn't supposed to be
carrying a gun."

"When I left the Depository, I went to my room, changed my
trousers, got a pistol, and went to a picture show."

"You know how boys do when they have a gun, they carry it."

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/liar-oswald-part-2.html

Plus, Caprio is forced to call ordinary Dallas citizen Johnny Brewer a
liar too, because Brewer said this during his Warren Commission
testimony:

"[Oswald] just knocked him [McDonald] down for a second and he
was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that,
and I saw this gun come up and--in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the
air. .... And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking
the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm

And there's also Brewer's similar 1986 remarks about Oswald being
armed:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html

In the final analysis, I think we can all safely say (without fear of
too much argument) that Robert Caprio is a certifiable idiot when it
comes to any and all matters dealing with the assassination of the

35th U.S. Chief Executive.”

In the final analysis we see Von Pein can’t show LHO had CE-143 on
him. He also ignored George Applin too!

Mr. BALL - Who pulled the pistol?

Mr. APPLIN - I guess it was Oswald, because--for one reason, that he
had on a short sleeve shirt, and I seen a man's arm that was connected
to the gun.

When did LHO have on a short-sleeved shirt again? I also love how he
picked this one thing to respond to when I made so many comments to
his first post! Talk about selective debating!

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 8, 2011, 3:58:59 PM9/8/11

to

I rest my case on what I said at the very end of my post here....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/02cafdfbfe2f0434

And, incredibly, Caprio (via the implication in his words about the
"short-sleeve shirt") now seems to want to believe that Oswald wasn't
even the person who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

If that's not as nutty as all get out -- what is?

http://Assorted-JFK-Assassination-Arguments.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Sep 8, 2011, 3:37:11 PM9/8/11

to

On Sep 8, 11:38 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "You can’t show LHO had a pistol on him [in the Texas Theater] beyond McDonald’s word." <<<
>
> Now, folks, I want to use the above quote by Robert Caprio as a good
> example of the type of off-the-wall, goofy conspiracy theorists who
> are currently members of this acj newsgroup.

you're nervous shithead.... simply write a book, let the world
decide.... but NOOOOOO, ya can't, you're a gutless wonder with an ego
out of control.... you keep coming back, we'll lead you to that
Camelot in the sky...

ROTFLMFAO

<snip the lone nut lunacy>

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 8, 2011, 11:40:20 PM9/8/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/1d2d4bd41d5ffd92/1828b6f752c4de6e?#1828b6f752c4de6e

>>> "This address information given to Fritz was before the DPD learned this address from Oswald. This fact was presented in Fritz's WC testimony by Fritz." <<<

At least it's good to know that Captain Fritz has been scratched off
your list of suspects in the frame-up of Oswald. Because if Fritz was
a liar and one of the people trying to frame poor LHO, he wouldn't be
so stupid as to tip his hand about the address snafu in his OWN
WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY...now would he?

This "address" thing is just one more road that leads nowhere for
CTers. It's another instance of CTers thinking that the cops had some
kind of foreknowledge of things. In reality, of course, there is
always a logical, non-conspiratorial explanation for things like this.
And "timing" discrepancies in the record couldn't be more common.

Take the differing times provided by Elmer Todd and Bob Frazier for
the time when CE399 was received by Todd and then turned over to
Frazier by Todd.

Conspiracists like James DiEugenio, naturally, always see "conspiracy"
in discrepancies like this, even when such a thing would be very easy
to eliminate, by just simply altering one of the times. CTers think
that tons of evidence WAS altered and eliminated, but they just
couldn't get the paperwork right evidently, is that it?

The fact that discrepancies such as the ones I just discussed exist at
all is much more indicative of normal human error than it is a sign of
conspiracy or cover-up. Because in a real cover-up, discrepancies like
these would NOT exist in the record at all.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 23, 2011, 11:28:52 PM9/23/11

to

>>> "How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS tells us so? Really?" <<<

Yes....really.

If a conspiracy theorist actually wants to postulate the idea that all
of the limo evidence is fake, they've got a very big hurdle to
overcome:

How (and when, and by whom) did the Secret Service (or the FBI) manage
to plant the two large bullet fragments from OSWALD'S RIFLE in the
limousine?

Oswald's rifle, we know, was in Dallas and was in the possession of
the DPD until about 11:45 PM (CST) on Fri., Nov. 22. Then it went to
the FBI in Washington. So neither the SS or the FBI had physical
possession of Oswald's Carcano until about 12 hours after the
assassination.

Do CTers actually think that the Secret Service and/or FBI just
INVENTED the notion that the fragments were found in the front seat
area of JFK's limousine? They just made that up out of thin air? Is
that it?

If that's the silly theory that conspiracists want to endorse, then
they should at least have the decency to tell the world what evidence
they've got to accuse the Secret Service (and maybe the FBI too) of
such a vile, despicable evidence-planting deed.

But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Earth can supply any
evidence to substantiate their continuing claims of evidence
manipulation in the JFK case. All we ever get are comments like this
one:

"How do we know the limo was not sanitized -- because the SS
tells us so?"

Footnote ----

The theory that CE567 and CE569 are fake/planted bullet fragments
almost certainly MUST be a theory that a lot of conspiracy theorists
endorse, whether they know it or not. Because if those two bullet
fragments are legitimate pieces of evidence in this case, it
positively means that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being fired at President
Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

And those two bullet fragments, in conjunction with Oswald's own
actions and all of the other many things of a physical nature, go a
long way toward incriminating the owner of the rifle that was
conclusively linked to those two front-seat bullet fragments. And that
owner's name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

When arguing with conspiracy theorists over the years, I've noticed
that those two limo bullet fragments don't very often come up in
conversation. And I think there's a very good reason why CTers like to
distance themselves from those two very important (and Oswald-
incriminating) pieces of bullet evidence.

The CTers can't possibly even begin to prove that those fragments
weren't really found in the front seat of JFK's car. And the CTers
can't begin to support their nutty idea that ALL of the physical
evidence against Oswald in the JFK and Tippit murders is fake,
planted, or phony.

So the conspiracists normally just ignore the two limo fragments from
LHO's gun. I guess maybe they think those fragments will just go away
if they don't talk about them very much.

But those fragments aren't going to suddenly disappear from the
official record in this murder case. They are there...and there to
stay. And those fragments indicate a very important thing:

Those fragments indicate that the rifle owned by Lee H. Oswald was the
weapon that killed President John F. Kennedy.

And that's a stubborn fact that many conspiracy theorists just simply
do not want to accept. And they never will.

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Sep 24, 2011, 11:42:14 PM9/24/11

to

You G D NAZI:
It ain't evidence until it passes the "Adversary Procedure" challenges.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 25, 2011, 12:12:22 AM9/25/11

to

>>> "It ain't evidence until it passes the "Adversary Procedure" challenges." <<<

So why did the WC and HSCA even bother talking about the "evidence" in
the JFK case at all then (seeing as how no "adversary procedure"
process was going to come to light, since Oswald was dead)?

Okay...listen up folks....Rossley's got an important announcement
here:

It's been declared by Rossley that Oswald's rifle, Oswald's pistol,
the shells from Oswald's guns, the bullets from LHO's guns, and
everything else connected with the JFK & Tippit murders is no longer
"evidence" because Oswald never went to trial.

So, I guess this means we should just ignore (and toss out the window)
all of that stuff that the WC and HSCA utilized to declare Oswald
guilty.

Geez, what a nutcase.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 25, 2011, 12:32:37 AM9/25/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/05f9c540ec6e0dcf/fe3cdceb1bafd341?#fe3cdceb1bafd341

TONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "Not MANY, MANY. You only say things like that to discredit all research." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bullshit. The vast majority of CTers who post regularly on Internet
forums that I have conversed with are totally convinced that Oswald
was an INNOCENT PATSY (i.e., he never fired a shot at anybody on
11/22/63).

Good heavens, even a very smart man like Mark Lane is convinced that
Oswald never shot JFK or Tippit. That's Mark Lane! A CT guru since
1963.

So, yes, my "many, many" statement is totally accurate when it comes
to INTERNET CTers--and you know it is. You just like to argue--as per
usual.

>>> "Secondly you make up this phony argument that if Oswald is guilty there was no conspiracy." <<<

Quote me saying that, Tony (in just exactly that manner). Of course,
you'll never find such a quote by me, because no such quote exists
with me stating that if Oswald is guilty there absolutely could not
have been a conspiracy. Marsh is making shit up--again.

>>> "The FBI and WC were convinced that Oswald was guilty AND part of a conspiracy." <<<

More pure bullshit from Marsh the Mangler.

>>> "We don't need your phony arguments and insults accusing researchers of trying to prove Oswald
innocent." <<<

What "phony arguments" are those, Marsh?

I would have thought you were aware by now that a huge number of your
fellow conspiracy clowns (especially on the Internet) do, indeed,
believe in Oswald's complete innocence.

I guess I was mistaken. Marsh seems to think that a vast majority of
Internet CTers believe that Oswald was GUILTY of killing JFK. But
Marsh, as usual, is wrong.

>>> "You didn't even read it when I posted it on my Web site." <<<

You're right. I didn't. (You've got a website, eh?)

>>> "You were too busy looking for videos of strippers to put on your YouTube page." <<<

More pure tommyrot from Marsh. Point to one stripper on my YouTube
channels. (Not counting Janet Conforto, who is interviewed by WFAA in
one of my videos.)

>>> "How about if you concentrate on doing actual research instead of insulting people?" <<<

I've done plenty of research to know that my LN position holds up just
fine....even under the scrutiny of such gallant and noble conspiracy-
seeking researchers as W. Anthony Marsh.

Now, show me those strippers. I need some entertainment before
beginning my next evil disinfo campaign.

Jason Burke

unread,

Sep 25, 2011, 5:32:37 AM9/25/11

to

On 9/24/2011 8:42 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> You G D NAZI:
> It ain't evidence until it passes the "Adversary Procedure" challenges.
>

Let's see. Rosstard calls folks Nazis. The true sign that his cause is lost.

aeffects

unread,

Sep 25, 2011, 1:40:39 PM9/25/11

to

still upset old Tom kicked .john's ass on that radio debate a few
years back eh, shithead? Or is it, you're still upset over your
horrible showing as Bugliosi's chief internet marketer of Reclaiming
(dog-do) History.... perhaps you should stick to filling up folks
arteries with saturated fats, eh?

aeffects

unread,

Sep 25, 2011, 1:43:56 PM9/25/11

to

On Sep 25, 2:32 am, Jason Burke <jason-bu...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/24/2011 8:42 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
> > You G D NAZI:
> > It ain't evidence until it passes the "Adversary Procedure" challenges.
>
> Let's see. Rosstard calls folks Nazis. The true sign that his cause is lost.

shithead we know who you are... the WCR "cause" was kicked to the
wayside years ago... you just can't deal with its demise, you're
pitied hon-- moron's such as yourself deserve nada but ridicule...
Carry on toots-e-roll...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

Ben Holmes

unread,

Sep 25, 2011, 1:50:36 PM9/25/11

to

In article <01b5738f-8eee-42c5...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On Sep 24, 9:12=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "It ain't evidence until it passes the "Adversary Procedure" challeng=

>es." <<<
>>
>> So why did the WC and HSCA even bother talking about the "evidence" in
>> the JFK case at all then (seeing as how no "adversary procedure"
>> process was going to come to light, since Oswald was dead)?
>>
>> Okay...listen up folks....Rossley's got an important announcement
>> here:
>>
>> It's been declared by Rossley that Oswald's rifle, Oswald's pistol,
>> the shells from Oswald's guns, the bullets from LHO's guns, and
>> everything else connected with the JFK & Tippit murders is no longer
>> "evidence" because Oswald never went to trial.

Sounds like he's been listening to Robert Caprio too much.

>> So, I guess this means we should just ignore (and toss out the window)
>> all of that stuff that the WC and HSCA utilized to declare Oswald
>> guilty.

Can we at least toss out the provable lies of the WC and HSCA? Is that okay?

>> Geez, what a nutcase.
>
>still upset old Tom kicked .john's ass on that radio debate a few
>years back eh, shithead? Or is it, you're still upset over your
>horrible showing as Bugliosi's chief internet marketer of Reclaiming
>(dog-do) History.... perhaps you should stick to filling up folks
>arteries with saturated fats, eh?

The *real* nutcases are those who proudly proclaim their allegiance to the WCR,
despite the fact that they can't provide credible and non-conspiratorial
explanations for the evidence that the WCR used.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 26, 2011, 12:41:25 AM9/26/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/05f9c540ec6e0dcf/5eb9925c01551e0d?#5eb9925c01551e0d

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "You can't find anyone who believes that all the evidence is fake." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me name just a few, for starters:

Jim DiEugenio.
Mark Lane.
Jim Garrison.
Bob Groden.

Those four men above think Oswald was totally innocent of shooting JFK
and J.D. Tippit. And since all of the evidence in those two murder
cases points directly at Oswald, the only choice those four men have
is to pretend that the evidence against Oswald is fake, phony, or
planted by somebody other than Oswald (or at least the vast majority
of the evidence at any rate, but most likely ALL the evidence has been
tampered with in some manner, per those CTers).

Because if they actually admit that any of the evidence is legit*,
then they are pretty much saying that Lee Harvey Oswald is the best
candidate for having committed the murders. And those CTers I just
mentioned definitely do not like the idea of having to admit that Mr.
Oswald could have possibly committed those crimes. They like their
Anybody-But-Oz fantasies too much to admit anything like that.

* = And by "any evidence" here, I'm talking about the physical
things, like guns, bullets, shells, prints, fibers, the paper bag, and
the eyewitnesses. I'm not talking about the backyard photos or the
Zapruder Film in this particular instance, because those things do not
prove Oswald killed anybody, although the backyard pictures do,
indeed, tend to incriminate Oswald in the sense that the pictures
prove (for all time) that Oswald possessed a bolt-action rifle in the
year 1963 which (of course) is yet another thing that conspiracy
clowns like DiEugenio and Lane (et al) wouldn't admit if their lives
hung in the balance.

You, Tony, naturally had to mention those two things (the backyard
photos and the Z-Film) when responding to an earlier post of mine
concerning this "All Evidence Is Fake" topic. And, naturally, you
chose two items that are only peripheral to proving Oswald's guilt,
while no doubt realizing that I was talking mainly about things that
DO go a long way toward proving Oswald's guilt -- e.g., the guns, the
bullets, the shells, the paper bag with LHO"s prints on it, and the
witnesses, etc.

I'd like to see a poll among Internet CTers, where they would answer
this question:

WHICH ITEMS IN EVIDENCE TODAY IN CONNECTION WITH THE JFK AND TIPPIT
MURDERS DO YOU BELIEVE ARE VALID, LEGITIMATE PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT
HAVE NOT BEEN FAKED, PLANTED, OR OTHERWISE MANIPULATED?

The list of items on any such list written by a conspiracy theorist
who frequently posts at Internet JFK forums is going to be mighty,
mighty short indeed. Because if such a list isn't mighty short--then
their patsy is probably guilty of murder, isn't he?

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

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Oct 10, 2011, 6:07:06 PM10/10/11

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/66c03b0d1a883834/ae4427ebe05865bc?#ae4427ebe05865bc

ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

>>> "No, you just posted a general link to your Web site. You make us guess and search for the specific video you were talking about. You need to learn how to post links which will take us directly to the thing you are talking about. If I have a few hours to waste this week I'll spend them searching your entire web site looking for 5 seconds of a clip." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More bullshit from Tony the Tiger. Tony needs to learn to read. Not
only did I provide a link to a specific individual page from a website
of mine that has hundreds of other pages on it, I even provided the
exact "Part" number and the exact TIME within the video where the
Summers clip can be found.

Here's exactly what I said when I linked to the Summers clip:

"Summers can be seen running toward the Depository and AWAY from
the picket fence area in the video below (see Part 3, at the 6:30
mark)..." -- DVP; 10/7/2011

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy.html

So when Marsh said this --- "You need to learn how to post links which
will take us directly to the thing you are talking about" --- he
apparently didn't realize (or care) that I did exactly that very thing
in my earlier post re this matter.

Tony, you're unbelievable.

Let me guess what Marsh's next response will be after seeing this post
of mine --- Tony will say that I should have taken the time and effort
to excise the short clip of Malcolm Summers running directly toward
the TSBD, and I should have uploaded that short clip separately and
then posted it to a new, separate page on my website--just for Tony's
convenience (IOW: because Tony's too lazy to advance the video to the
6:30 mark, which is exactly where I stated the clip could be found).

aeffects

unread,

Oct 11, 2011, 12:10:34 AM10/11/11

to

On Oct 10, 3:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

no advertising moron--do you suffer from density issues?