JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 135)

Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

Apr 18, 2010, 9:43:02 AM4/18/10














Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Apr 19, 2010, 2:16:23 AM4/19/10



>>> "What about the $19.95 COD? What do we know about how that was paid?" <<<

Lee Harvey Oswald paid the $19.95 COD that was due on the revolver. He
obviously had to pay that at the post office before they'd give him
his revolver package. In addition, he also paid another $1.27 for
freight charges (or "service" charge as it was officially called),
which was a fee retained by the Railway Express Agency.

So, LHO's total cost for the revolver was $31.22, which was almost $10
more than he paid for his 40-inch Carcano rifle.

Note -- Oswald, of course, ordered a 36-inch model rifle from the
magazine ad, but quite obviously what happened was this: Klein's
Sporting Goods Co. in Chicago was out of stock of the 36-inch
carbines, and so they sent Oswald/"Hidell" an almost-identical gun
instead--a 40-inch Model 91/38.

I'd wager to say that Lee Harvey never even knew the difference. I
doubt he got out a yardstick and measured his rifle after he got it.
Of course, a lot of conspiracy nuts--Jim DiEugenio among them--love to
prop up this irrevelant "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy as a big
hole in the "LN" case. Actually, it's not even a speed bump.

Plus, I'll also add this:

Many conspiracy theorists like to contend that a 36-inch Carcano is
considered to be a "carbine", while a 40-inch Carcano is not a
"carbine", but a "short rifle" instead.

Well, whether those terms are officially true or not for the two
different sizes of Mannlicher-Carcanos, it's totally immaterial. And
the reason it's immaterial and irrelevant is because KLEIN'S SPORTING
GOODS (the company that sold both types/lengths of Carcanos in the
year 1963) classified BOTH the 36-inch rifle AND the 40-inch model as
"CARBINES" in their respective magazine ads in 1963.

And the proof is in the 1963 Klein's ads themselves. The top ad shown
below is the one Oswald used from the February '63 American Rifleman
magazine. The bottom ad came from another magazine dated November 1963
(and for some reason, somebody has placed a circle around a .38 Smith
& Wesson revolver in the November ad too; but Oswald did not purchase
his S&W pistol from Klein's; he got the revolver from Seaport Traders
in Los Angeles).

And what do we find in the description in BOTH of those ads? We find
the words "6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE" in BOTH ads. And the February ad,
which is a bit difficult to read because of its smaller size,
specifically says "36 inches" for the overall length of the "carbine",
while the November ad says "40 inches" for the overall length for a
rifle which is ALSO described as a "carbine":



>>> "The word carbine means short rifle." <<<

Well, maybe a few conspiracy theorists ought to go tell James
DiEugenio that fact. He thinks they are two completely different
things. (And he never listens to a thing I say, of course.)



>>> "At the time of the mail order rifle purchase[,] Klein's did not have the 40-inch [rifle] in stock and could not (and did not) have sold a 40-inch then." <<<

Obviously, Miles [Scull] has a screw loose here. Klein's definitely
did have a 40-inch Mannlicher-Carcano carbine in stock as of 3/20/63.

How do we know this with 100% certainty?

Because Klein's shipped Carcano Rifle #C2766 to "A. Hidell" (Oswald)
on March 20th, 1963.

And what is the length of Carcano Rifle #C2766?

Answer: 40 inches. (Actually, it's 40.2 inches to be even more

I guess some off-the-wall conspiracy theorists/kooks (Miles?) want to
believe that the document pictured below (Waldman Exhibit No. 7),
which was filled out by Klein's Sporting Goods in March 1963, is a
"fake" document too, like all of the other documentation that exists
in the official record connected with the JFK-assassination
investigation which proves beyond all possible doubt that Lee Harvey
Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's in early 1963:


David Von Pein

Apr 21, 2010, 2:06:44 PM4/21/10


>>> "Students know where there [sic] bread is buttered and they know how McAdams thinks. What would you expect them to do?" <<<

You think John McAdams' students quake in fear at the sight of him
(and his opinions)? Do you also think that all of his students always
have a desire to tow the "LN" line?

If you want my opinion (which I'll readily admit could be an incorrect
opinion in this particular instance), I doubt that Burgundy even knew
that McAdams' poll about the earwitnesses was researched mostly
by .John's Marquette students when Burgundy said this on April 20,

"McAdams cherry picks. Anyone with any doubt he puts in one
camp[,] and anyone in any doubt who is in his camp[,] he counts. It's
like a greatly flawed focus group. Stewart Galanor's analysis is
vastly superior."


David Von Pein

Apr 22, 2010, 12:24:03 AM4/22/10


>>> "Pam, if I could interrupt your series of imaginative ruminations about me [Dave Reitzes], would you mind citing the source for your assertion that Oswald was downstairs watching the motorcade." <<<

Hopefully "Pam's" answer will be something along these lines ---
"Well, Bob Groden's got a new bombshell witness in his new JFK book
'JFK: Absolute Proof' that was supposed to be out about a year ago but
still hasn't come out yet and nobody seems to know what the delay is."

Of course, Groden's new bombshell witness doesn't say Oswald was
actually "watching the motorcade" when the assassination occurred, but
at least the new bombshell witness who never said a word about seeing
Oswald to anybody except Bob Groden can keep the fantasy of the
conspiracy theorists alive for a while longer.

I understand that Danny Arce is scheduled to come forward in the year
2022 and "fess up" to author John Armstrong that he was playing
billiards with Oswald in the Depository basement when the
assassination took place.

That bombshell news from Arce will clear up another mystery too --
What was in that brown paper bag Oswald carried to work on November

Answer -- A couple of pool cues and a small pool table.

Case closed (in 2022).

Footnote --- Since I'm posting this message shortly after Dave
Reitzes' last post ("late at night"), hopefully this will rekindle a
new wave of "Von Pein is really Reitzes" banter from "Pamela" (who has
apparently never believed that "DVP" was really "DVP", despite having
no logical or rational reason to think such a thing).


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Apr 23, 2010, 1:37:38 AM4/23/10


>>> "[Buell Wesley] Frazier is lying. He was definitely not out on the front steps with Shelley and Lovelady. 5 will get you 10 if he wasn't in the basement of the TSBD the whole time of the shooting playing with the power switches to the elevators. That's why Baker and Truly had to take the stairs." <<<

You're nuts.

Of course Wesley Frazier was on the steps of the TSBD. He has always
said that he was on those steps--from Day 1.

In front of the Warren Commission in 1964, Wesley Frazier said this:

WESLEY FRAZIER -- "I went out there to see him [JFK] and just like
everybody else was, I was standing on the steps there and watched for
the parade to come by and so I did and I stood there until he come

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you go out there with somebody?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; I did."

BALL -- "Who did you go out there with?"

FRAZIER -- "I stayed around there pretty close to Mr. Shelley and this
boy Billy Lovelady."

And in 1986, at the TV trial in London, Frazier talks extensively
about being on the steps:


>>> "Should be easy to prove. He's on the steps with those guys in Altgens 6 or in the Hughes film, right David?" <<<

Frazier is back up in the shadows on the TSBD stairs, just like he
told Gerry Spence in 1986.

You conspiracy kooks are just nuts.

>>> "And so [Buell Wesley] Frazier was telling the truth when he told [Gerry] Spence [at the 1986 TV docu-trial] he'd never been asked that before (23 years later)? Isn't this something that [Captain J. Will] Fritz [and] the FBI would have wondered about?" <<<

You're the kook who thinks Wesley Frazier lied about being on the
front steps of the Book Depository Building at the time of the
assassination. You figure it out.

>>> "Who was the lady he [Frazier] spoke with on the steps after looking around?" <<<

What's the difference? You wouldn't believe a word he said anyway.

I'll bet you think Frazier took a rifle out of his trunk and took it
into the TSBD on 11/22, don't you?

>>> "And he saw Oswald or his double leave the premises?" <<<

Probably not. That's something he never said to anybody until 2002:


I doubt that Frazier saw Oswald at all after 12:30 PM. Wesley, for
some unknown reason, added that falsehood to his story in 2002, which
is a story that completely contradicts these comments from his
11/22/63 affidavit:

"I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at
that time we were both working, and we were on the first floor."

BTW, Frazier also said this in his November 22nd affidavit:

"I was standing on the front steps of the building when the
parade came by, and I watched the parade go by. After President
Kennedy had got out of my sight, I heard three shots. I stood there,
then people started running by, and I turned, and went back in the
building and got my lunch and eat it."


>>> "How would he [Frazier] have managed to witness that [Oswald leaving] if he immediately ducked back into the basement before Hughes started filming?" <<<

Frazier didn't "immediately" go down into the basement. He stood on
the front steps for a short time. (Which means, of course, that Oswald
very likely walked right past him, but Wesley never saw him.)

And I think you're mixing up the Hughes film with Mark Bell's film.

Nobody else in the world that I know of thinks Frazier was lying about
his whereabouts at the time of the assassination. You're a lone kook
in that regard, Jim.

David Von Pein

Apr 23, 2010, 7:04:30 PM4/23/10


I think Governor Connally's lapel is moving. It's not just a shadow
(as some people have theorized).

Although, due to the apparent movement of that same part of Connally's
jacket at a point which I believe was PRIOR to the bullet passing
through JBC's body, I've revised my thinking on the "lapel flip" over
the years.

I now feel it's quite possible that a combination of the wind (which
was gusty that day) and Oswald's CE399 bullet are causing the movement
of Connally's lapel that we see in the Zapruder Film.

Something appears to be happening with the right side of John
Connally's suit coat in this Z222-Z223 toggling clip:


And then we get the bigger "bulging out" (for lack of a better term)
of that same area of Connally's jacket at the precise instant when I
think the bullet is striking Connally (at Z224). There is no way this
is only a shadow, IMO:


In the final analysis, the "lapel flip" or "jacket bulge" is probably
the LEAST compelling evidence on the Z-Film that proves the SBT is
occurring at precisely Z224. There are multiple other indicators that
show JBC is "reacting" to an external stimulus just after Z224, e.g.:

JBC opens his mouth at Z225 (his mouth is closed at Z224), and a
startled (or pained) look comes over his face; his shoulders "hunch"
up, or flinch, starting at exactly Z225.

This "hunching" is extremely important, IMO, because it's showing us
an involuntary reaction on the part of the Governor. So we don't need
to depend only on the CLOTHING (the lapel) of Connally to prove the
SBT. Connally's OWN BODY is telling us that the bullet has just
pierced him. Just look:


Here's another clip showing the very noticeable (but often overlooked)
"hunching" of Connally's shoulders and the distressed look that
crosses his face at Z225:


And then there's also the very important "hat flip" of JBC's, which
begins just an instant later, at Z226:


I challenge anyone to look at that last Zapruder Film clip above a few
times in a row and arrive at the following conclusion:

There's NO WAY that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were
struck by the same bullet! No way!

Anyone who could utter the above words after watching that Z-Film clip
must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone.


David Von Pein

Apr 23, 2010, 10:12:45 PM4/23/10


>>> "[John Armstrong's 2003 fantasy volume] "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald" [is] rare & pricey now, but worth every penny, if only minimally considered as a masterpiece of research." <<<

Somebody pinch me! There ARE really people out there who think John
"Two Oswalds & Two Marguerites" Armstrong is RIGHT about ANYTHING??

Pinch me...please!

Tell me people aren't really this stupid! Somebody!

Reality check below (courtesy of VB):

"John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in
2003 called "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald", in which he
carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
endnote. ....

"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....

"On the day of the assassination, Armstrong has both Lee Harvey
Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people who are spitting images of each
other, in the Depository. .... At the moment of the assassination,
HARVEY Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom having lunch and LEE
Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at Kennedy. ....

"Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn't tell
his readers what happened to him thereafter, though...he tells them
near the beginning of the book that he may be "very much alive". ....

"Not content to try to convince people that there was an
imposter impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald since he was a teen, the
remarkable Armstrong asserts in his book that Marguerite Oswald, the
short and stocky woman whom the rest of the world knows as Lee Harvey
Oswald’s mother, was not really his mother, but ALSO an imposter." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; Via the Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)


Does any reasonable (i.e., sane) person need to read any further?


Apr 24, 2010, 3:51:48 AM4/24/10
On Apr 23, 7:12 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the KFC nugget lunacy>

ya need a bath shithead, we can smell the chicken fat/grease all the
way out here..... P.U. TROLL! ! ! !

David Von Pein

Apr 24, 2010, 5:11:26 PM4/24/10

It was only a matter of time until some kook theorized that Jackie
Kennedy was an "accomplice" in her husband's murder. That day has

"It is well known that she [Jacqueline Kennedy] knew of JFK's
many mistresses and his lack of devotion as a husband. Maybe one day
she had enough? Enough to turn the other way or participate when her
husband had a target on his head? Maybe her children or herself were
threatened with death or injury? I don't think we should give Jackie a
free pass on JFK's death." -- Randy "Kook" Gunter; 04/24/10



Apr 24, 2010, 5:23:22 PM4/24/10
Come on Von Pein..you and yer buddies love to stir it up don't ya?...the
garbage that you guys swallow isn't fit for a pig, speaking of
garbage... you had that double down yet?

David Von Pein

Apr 24, 2010, 5:33:32 PM4/24/10

~big shrug~


Apr 24, 2010, 6:48:46 PM4/24/10
On Apr 24, 2:33 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ~big shrug~

gotta find the the sensationalism don't ya, ya dumb fuck.... that FKC
fat finally getting to ya, shithead?

David Von Pein

Apr 24, 2010, 7:12:38 PM4/24/10

~additional large-sized shrug~
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages