(PART 356)


>>> "First, any unbiased person would just label it [Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766] a suspect's or sniper's weapon." <<<


Why? Everybody knows that Rifle #C2766 (CE139) belonged to Lee H.
Oswald and was possessed by Oswald and was used by Oswald in the
calendar year of nineteen sixty-three.

Why would I have any desire to twist the evidence regarding LHO's
rifle into something it's obviously not?

>>> "You can't even prove any weapon was fired." <<<

Yeah, I guess JFK's and JBC's bullet wounds were caused by bows and
arrows (or maybe bricks and pop bottles).

>>> "You can't put Oswald there." <<<

Brennan does that for me.

Naturally, Howard must be dismissed as a fraud with horrible eyesight
by you ABO [Anybody But Oswald] kooks.

>>> "Mostly, what is done is to use Marina and [the Backyard] Photos." <<<

And Brennan.
And Fischer.
And Edwards.
And Rowland.
And Givens.
And Randle.
And B.W. Frazier.
And the fingerprints on C2766.
And the fibers on the rifle.
And the fingerprints on the boxes deep within the Sniper's Nest.
And the paper bag with LHO's prints on it.
And the fibers inside the paper bag.
And Oswald's obviously guilty actions after 12:30.
And Oswald's multiple lies about the rifle that he told to the police.

And on and on and on....

But apparently conspiracy kooks think it is wise to stop at Marina and
the backyard photos when it comes to tying Oswald to the murder of JFK
and the murder weapon.

And silly.

Lots of other stuff ties Lee Oswald irrevocably to the murder of John
Kennedy and to Rifle C2766 besides just Marina Oswald and the backyard

>>> "The [Backyard Photos] are so easily proved false..." <<<

Which is why the HSCA said this in 1978, right?:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials."
-- HSCA Report; Volume VI


>>> "...and Marina lied..." <<<

Yeah, it's always good to throw in a "s/he lied" declaration when
you've got no other evidence to back up your stupid way of thinking
about this whole murder case. Good job.

>>> "...and [Marina] waffled almost at will, and even the WC acknowledged that." <<<

But nobody at the WC or the HSCA thinks she waffled when it comes to
the central "Backyard Photos" question, which was:


The answer to that last question is an undeniable 'Yes'. Even most
conspiracy theorists now seem to acknowledge the fact that Marina took
at least ONE of the backyard snapshots. You know, the one that was
positively linked via its negative to the Imperial Reflex camera that

QUESTION -- "Was it on a day off that you took the picture?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "It was on a Sunday."

QUESTION -- "How did it occur? Did he [LHO] come to you and ask you to
take the picture?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with
the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera
and asked me to press a certain button."

QUESTION -- "And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was


>>> "Now, all one has to do is stick to evidence..." <<<

Which no conspiracy kook ever does, of course.

>>> "...whether it's a paper trail, or a bank statement, or a postal process, or a money order. All would have to connect, or all would damn the connection. There is no paper trail or viable evidentiary link to Oswald for 'that' rifle or any other rifle." <<<

You're an idiot. The paper trail that positively proves Oswald
ordered, paid for, and (logically) took possession of Rifle #C2766 is
a mile long.

A person has to be really, really stupid to believe otherwise.

>>> "And all they would have to have is [sic] bank statements with endorsements with a proper way for paying for it, and it's all EMPTY." <<<


You think Oswald's (??) bank statement should have detailed
information in it about whether or not he purchased a rifle from
Klein's by mail-order with a postal money order??

Or are you talking about Klein's bank statements? (I guess you must be
talking about Klein's bank statements, right?, seeing as how Oswald
didn't even have a bank account of any type in 1963, as far as I am
aware; hence, he never would receive any statements from any banks
at all.)

Or (more likely) are you merely barking at the ABO moon again, just
for the sake of barking at it?

>>> "Just pretend that two or more people involved themselves with his demise." <<<

Which is exactly what conspiracy theorists always do -- pretend that
very thing. They have to. Because without "pretending", where are

Answer -- Back to Oswald and that pesky C2766 rifle that you kooks are
so desperate to take out of his mitts.

>>> "They don't have to have names..." <<<

They never do....because they don't exist.

You're doing great here so far, Curt. Continue....

>>> "...just the approval consensus that people watching the motorcade said what happened." <<<

Which means Oswald's in the window with a gun. (Mr. Brennan was there;
he saw that.)

>>> "Once you fall into David's labelling scenarios, you've just negated the evidentiary and investigative process." <<<

No. Once you fall into my camp, you've become a non-kook -- i.e., a
reasonable person who looks at this murder case without feeling the
need to scream "It's Fake!" or "He Lied!" whenever confronted with
stuff that favors the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Conspiracy-thirsty kooks cannot (or will not) approach the case
without the compelling desire to label people "liars" or "cover-up
agents", etc.

They HAVE to do that, of course. Because if they didn't, where are

Answer -- Back to Oswald and that pesky C2766 rifle that you kooks are
so desperate to take out of his mitts.

David Von Pein
October 21, 2008