ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>> "Explain for us how he [Lee Harvey Oswald] got a 40" Carcano to allegedly pose for the [backyard] photos and allegedly shoot at JFK when it appears he would have ordered a 36" Carbine." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
He did order a 36-inch rifle. There is no doubt about that.
But, as I said before, the exact length of the rifle that he ORDERED
is meaningless. It's the rifle he ENDED UP WITH that matters here. And
it couldn't be more obvious (except to a kook who is buried under too
much Anybody-But-Oswald debris, like Rob C.) that Klein's shipped
Oswald/Hidell a 40-inch rifle INSTEAD of the 36-inch variant that
Oswald specifically ordered.
How could the above fact BE any more clear and obvious?
>>> "Bonus points: Explain what he [LHO] did with the 36" Carbine since it was NEVER found among his possessions." <<<
~sigh~
Oswald never possessed a "36-inch" rifle. Never. See my last answer,
Mr. Moron.
>>> "YOU are back to lying[,] Dave[,] since the 40" Carcano was NEVER termed a Carbine." <<<
You probably didn't even look at the Klein's ad I posted previously. Well,
here it is again anyway....to once again prove that you are dead wrong
about something:
So, via the ad above, it's obvious that Klein's Sporting Goods Company of
Chicago definitely DID consider the 40-inch variety of their 6.5-millimeter
Italian rifles to be "CARBINES". In fact, the word "carbine" is mentioned not
just once in the above advertisement for the 40-inch weapon--but TWICE.
But keep denying the word "CARBINE" is mentioned TWICE in that ad,
Robby. It's better for you if you never even look at it. (Or maybe you
can claim that the ad is a "fake/forgery" too, like everything else
you consider fraudulent about this murder case.)
>>> "I doubt very much Klein's was as confused about firearms as YOU obviously are! They ONLY had 36" Carbines in stock in March of 1963!" <<<
Klein's quite obviously had a 40-inch carbine with the serial number
C2766 in stock in late March of '63 -- because they shipped that
particular 40-inch carbine with that serial number on it to Lee Oswald
on March 20th, 1963:
It's also better, Rob, if you totally ignore Waldman Exhibit #7
(shown above). Because that particular document provides rock-solid
PROOF that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") was, indeed, shipped a
rifle with the serial number "C2766" on it....and (guess what?) the
rifle with that serial number stamped on it is a FORTY-INCH RIFLE.
~Mark VII~
>>> "Explain why the OFFICIAL Evidence photo has ONLY TWO shell casings in it?" <<<
It doesn't. You're an idiot. CE510 shows three spent cartridge cases
on the floor, plain as day:
Yes, there is one particular photograph taken of the Sniper's Nest by
the DPD (looking toward the east) that only shows two of the bullet
shells on the floor (CE511). But that's quite obviously due to
the angle of the photo seen in CE511, you moron. The third shell is there,
it's just simply not visible in the picture.
>>> "Please explain why a photo [in Jesse Curry's 1969 book]...would show just two [bullet shells] if three were found [in the Sniper's Nest]?" <<<
I believe that Captain J. Will Fritz initially put one of the three
shells in one of his desk drawers in his office at the DPD. That's
probably why there are only two in the picture you're referring to.
>>> "YOU can call him [Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig] a liar all you want[,] BUT you have FAILED to prove he did lie." <<<
I can prove that Roger Craig was a liar by typing out just the
following words:
STAMPED ON THE RIFLE WAS '7.65 MAUSER'.
Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him
a liar. And there's NOTHING that Robert C. can do to UNDO Deputy
Craig's blatant and obvious lie with respect to the rifle found on the
sixth floor of the Book Depository.
And Craig also later told another whopper of a lie when he said that
the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated
in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than
"an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by
the police. (LOL.)
Let's have another look at Warren Commission Exhibit No. 510.
So, who (or what) should a reasonable person believe? CE510 above? Or
Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig?
Not a tough choice really. But guess who a retarded person named Rob
is going to believe? That's not tough to figure out either.
>>> "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 40" CARBINE[,] DAVE!!" <<<
Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago disagrees with you.
What about the above ad, Rob, which is an ad that is advertising (in
big bold letters) a 40-inch "6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE"? What about it? Do
YOU know more about "carbines" than the company that sold these
weapons?
Please enlighten us with your firearms knowledge, oh great kook!
Carbine Footnote --- This whole silly "Carbine" vs. "Rifle" debate is
merely semantics anyway. The fact is a "carbine" is still considered a
"rifle" (by literal definition), whether James H. Fetzer or any other
conspiracy theorist likes it or not:
car·bine [noun]
1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
And a "RIFLE" (i.e., "CARBINE") is a weapon that fires bullets from its
barrel. And those bullets come out of that barrel really, really fast.
~Mark VII~
>>> "Can you show us when and how LHO picked up the 36" Carbine you admitted he purchased? I ask because the WC NEVER COULD!" <<<
Why would I (or the Warren Commission) need to show something that
obviously never happened? (Nor, of course, did it NEED to happen for
Oswald to be the lone assassin of President Kennedy.)
It's been explained to you before, but your head is too thick for it
to sink in:
Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle via a magazine ad. But Klein's shipped
him a nearly identical model that happened to be four inches longer
than the one LHO actually ordered via the magazine ad. The serial
number printed on Waldman Exhibit #7 proves this fact beyond any
doubt.
It couldn't be more obvious that the above scenario I just described
is 100% accurate. So why is that particular scenario so utterly
IMPOSSIBLE for you kooks to believe?
Well, I'll answer that last question myself -- it's because you belong
in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity. That's why.
>>> "THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM BEING INTRODUCED [to a jury in a court of law] IN THE FIRST PLACE!" <<<
Texas Judge Lucius Bunton had no problem with the evidence in the JFK
case being introduced into his court in July of 1986 -- i.e., evidence
that YOU insist would never be allowed in a U.S. court of law.
How come?
Was Judge Bunton an idiot, Rob? Or did he merely flush all court rules
regarding "admissibility of evidence" down the toilet because it was
only a "TV show"?
[2013 EDIT / ADDENDUM:
"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi (via a letter to David Von Pein); August 22, 2009]
>>> "Lie all you want Dave, but Finck testified to this FACT [re: the overall weight of the Connally wrist fragments] at the Shaw trial." <<<
LOL. And Dr. Finck (one of KENNEDY'S AUTOPSISTS) was supposedly MORE
knowledgeable about the Connally wrist fragments than was the person who
plucked those fragments from the body of Governor Connally (Dr. Gregory)?
That's hilarious.
>>> "YOU can prove me wrong by showing us the chain of custody for CE-399. Show me where Tomlinson said it was the bullet HE found. Show me were O.P. Wright said it was the bullet he saw." <<<
The fact that those men couldn't positively identify CE399 at a later
date is not proof that CE399 was not inside Governor Connally and
President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And you're an idiot if you think that
it does mean that.
But what I'd like for a CTer to do is to come up with a REASONABLE and
BELIEVABLE scenario that includes a bullet OTHER than CE399 being the
one that O.P. Wright and Darrell Tomlinson saw on November 22nd, 1963.
Can you do that? I'm positive you can't. Because ANY alternate
scenario that involves a substitute or a planted bullet (in lieu of
CE399) is a scenario that will ultimately collapse under the weight of
its own idiocy, absurdity, conjecture, and silliness.
But good luck trying.
RELATED ARTICLES:
DARRELL TOMLINSON AND CE399 (PART 1)
DARRELL TOMLINSON AND CE399 (PART 2)
>>> "AFTER LHO was dead[,] the good doctor [James J. Humes] felt a need to REWRITE his notes!" <<<
You're dead wrong about the chronology of when Dr. Humes burned his
autopsy notes. He testified that he burned both his notes and the
first draft of the autopsy report BEFORE Lee Oswald was killed, not
after. Let's have a gander:
"In [the] privacy of my own home, EARLY IN THE MORNING OF SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH [DVP's emphasis], I made a draft of this report which I later revised. .... That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1964; WC Testimony
--Plus:--
"When I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going to get them. So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my longhand of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then burned the original notes in the fireplace of my family room to prevent them from ever falling into the hands of what I consider inappropriate people. .... It was handwritten notes and the first draft that was burned [early in the morning on Sunday, 11/24/63; see 2nd link below for precise verbiage via Humes' ARRB session]." -- Dr. James J. Humes; February 1996; ARRB Testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
>>> "They had LHO in custody, they had his prints on file, they had access to his dead body after they allowed him to be shot, you can use your imagination." <<<
Nah. I'll leave the imaginary stuff to you conspiracy-giddy kooks.
After all, your "imagination" is pretty much all you've got to work
with in order to "solve" the case your way.
>>> "Who holds a heavy bag with two fingers anyway?" <<<
The bulk of the "heaviness" of Oswald's bag was being supported at the
bottom of the bag--hence, LHO's right palmprint is found on the bottom
part of the bag (the weight of his rifle was pressing downing on his
right palm as he carried it from Buell Frazier's car to the Depository
on the morning of the assassination).
But Rob, of course, will totally ignore the significance of that
right palmprint being on the empty paper bag, which is a palmprint
that perfectly matches the way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag --
i.e., "cupped in his right hand" (paraphrased Frazier quote).
>>> "[Oswald's prints were] ON two boxes, when he allegedly moved 20 or so...and the one he leaned on supposedly for the steadying of his rifle had NONE on it." <<<
It's quite obvious (to a reasonable person) that Lee Oswald definitely touched
and moved around all of the boxes that comprised the inside of the Sniper's Nest.
And regardless of whether or not any of his identifiable prints were found
on the bulk of those many SN boxes, it's obvious that Oswald MUST have
physically touched and handled all (or most) of those boxes.
Why?
Because:
Based on the sum total of evidence in the case, Lee Harvey Oswald was
the lone killer of John F. Kennedy and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald
was certainly the ONE AND ONLY person who constructed the Sniper's
Nest of boxes on Friday, November 22, 1963.
~Mark VII~
>>> "Anyone who has ever picked up a package at the P.O. knows they ask for YOUR ID!" <<<
LOL. Rob's displaying his "idiot" status again (as usual).
I've picked up many, many oversized packages at my local post office,
and I've never ONCE been asked to show I.D. Not once.
I merely give the yellow slip of paper that was in my mailbox to the
clerk behind the counter at the post office (and they have been clerks
I've never seen before in my life, btw), and then I get my package.
Simple as that. No identification is required. And no signature is
required on any documents either.
So, Rob (as usual) doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. But
that won't stop a kook like Robert C. -- because he's on an "Anybody
But Oswald" mission. And no amount of evidence against the "patsy" is
too much evidence for Rob to consider it ALL FAKED AND/OR MANIPULATED.
Right, Rob?
Right.
David Von Pein
March 17, 2009
