JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 803)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The following is a 2009 radio debate about the JFK assassination, with lone-assassin advocate John McAdams of Marquette University squaring off against conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio:


PART 1:




PART 2:


DAVID CARPENTER SAID:

This [the above debate] is essentially unlistenable. I had to give up around the 15-minute mark.

Although Mr. McAdams at least speaks coherently, Mr. DiEugenio does not provide useful information here. He spews out factoid after factoid, rapid-fire, without giving enough context to help you focus on any one.

He is not necessarily wrong in any given bit of information. Maybe every little thing he says is absolutely true, but he rushes along, not providing adequate context to help you figure out what that actually means.

I am starting to see that seems to be a somewhat common problem among the conspiracy people. It does not mean they are wrong, but they do not help themselves by doing it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I agree. DiEugenio's rambling is, indeed, almost unlistenable. Just terrible. But even a conspiracy clown like Jimbo D. should have his say. This is America, after all.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/The Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes


AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID:

Awful, just plain awful. The "host", a mindless conspiracy nut, and Mr. "All my Convenient Evidence" McAdams. Just another infuriating JFK pissing contest.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I totally agree with your comment about the host. That's Len Osanic. And you couldn't possibly find a worse radio show host if you looked for 500 years.

But as for the debate, CLICK HERE.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

Who is telling the truth? You judge…

Roger Craig [see this video].

Seymour Weitzman’s affidavit.

“From a glance” can you guess at the rifle caliber? Especially since most Mauser calibers were 8mm and not 7.65 mm? From a glance can you know the power of the scope?

Seymour Weitzman interview---watch his body language/eye contact:



Who’s lying?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's an easy one to answer, Brian. The liar is Roger D. Craig. Without a doubt. And here's the proof (in Craig's own words even).


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

If you can answer me this question, maybe I'll start rethinking this: where is this "article" from? It's not sourced, it appears in a blog. How do I know it's real? Also, why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser? Why?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You need to look at my three-page PDF file which shows more of the 3/1/68 edition of the "Los Angeles Free Press" newspaper with the Roger Craig interview. Here it is....

ROGER CRAIG -- MARCH 1, 1968

As for "Why would Roger Craig lie about the Mauser?" -- Well, I cannot answer that, because I can't get inside Craig's mind. But the facts are pretty clear that he DID lie in the Mark Lane film "Two Men In Dallas" when he said he saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the rifle that we see being taken off of the floor by Lt. J.C. Day in Tom Alyea's news film. And Craig's OWN WORDS in that 1968 newspaper article provide the proof that Craig later lied to Lane in the 1970s.

As for the L.A. Free Press being a "real" publication, there's this link about that newspaper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Free_Press

But, then again, maybe Wikipedia (or its contributors) are part of a "JFK Assassination" plot too. (I'm sure some conspiracy theorists might think so. You aren't one of them, though, are you Brian?)


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

I'M NOT SHOUTING WITH CAPITAL LETTERS, I'M MERELY DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN YOUR WORDS AND MINE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ MY RESPONSE:

WHEN I STUDIED POLITICAL SCIENCE FOR MY UNDERGRADUATE WORK AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION IN GRAD SCHOOL, WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE BECAUSE IT'S AN OPEN SOURCE ENCYCLOPEDIA THAT CAN BE EDITED BY ANYONE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT ISN'T A TRUSTED SOURCE OF INFORMATION IN ACADEMIA, SO WHY SHOULD I TRUST IT NOW? IS NOT TAKING AN OPEN SOURCE ENCYCLOPEDIA AS GOSPEL SOMEHOW INAPPROPRIATE EVEN THOUGH ACADEMICS WON'T DO IT EITHER?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Brian, I can fully agree with you about Wikipedia not always being a great source of information. But I have found it to be quite useful for quickly gathering information on some things I need to know. And within that Wikipedia article about the L.A. Free Press are OTHER sources of useful info on the given subject matter, such as the item linked below, which is a page about the "Los Angeles Free Press" that comes from the Library Of Congress website. Would you call this site trustworthy?....

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/79008348


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

John McAdams already lost all credibility in the first five minutes [of the 2009 debate against DiEugenio] talking about the Mannlicher Carcano vs the Mauser.

Mr. McAdams, I would love to debate you on this one issue.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is FILMED PROOF that a Carcano, not a Mauser, was found in the Book Depository on 11/22/63. Here's the proof.

Let's now see the silly CTers claim that the Alyea Film has been faked.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

What does that prove? We're talking about a cover up. How did Weitzman mistakenly identify the brand of rifle because he "glanced" at it, but he was able to identify the caliber as 7.65mm? How do you glance at the caliber? This is especially interesting because most Mausers were 8mm and not 7.65mm.

Once more, how did he identify the magnification of the scope (4x18) by––again––merely glancing at it? I'm a gun enthusiast, and I don't find his claim reasonable.

Weitzman swore on a notarized affidavit that it was a 7.65mm Mauser with a 4/18 scope. How do you do that merely glancing at the gun? Especially when Weitzman used to own a store where he sold guns?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Weitzman's detailed affidavit IS, indeed, very strange. I cannot deny its strangeness.

But do you REALLY think Weitzman was lying in my "Mauser Or Carcano?" video? He admits he was mistaken about the rifle type. And, btw, Eugene Boone, who was the very first police officer to see the rifle in the Book Depository on 11/22/63, also admitted later that he was mistaken when he too originally said he thought the rifle was a "Mauser". [See Boone's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-trial of Oswald, below.]



Plus, also see Tom Alyea's Film, which many gun experts have analyzed and have determined from the markings on the rifle that Lt. Day and Captain Fritz are handling a Mannlicher-Carcano weapon in the Alyea footage, not a German-made Mauser weapon. [See the link below for more info on this topic.]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/alyea-film.html


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

So what time did the camera roll on the sixth floor? 1:22 PM? Or sometime after that? Did the press follow the police upstairs and tag along as they went over the crime scene???


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Brian, that is exactly what happened. Two newsmen (Kent Biffle and WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea) got into the Depository before the police had sealed it off, and for some idiotic reason, Alyea was permitted to go up to the sixth floor and start filming everything that was going on.

Some job of a "cover-up" there by Will Fritz and his DPD police force, huh? They just let a TV news cameraman take a film of all of the (alleged) conspiratorial and sinister activity that the Dallas Police were engaging in right after the President's assassination. (At least there are many conspiracy theorists who think the cops were up there on the sixth floor tampering with all the evidence.)


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

I don't think you're getting my point. We have two "lies" going on here. One that involves a discrepancy between a sworn––signed––and notarized affidavit and a CBS interview where Weitzman appeared under duress, and a second "lie" where Roger Craig is said to have lied by corroborating Weitzman's original testimony, although he appears completely comfortable when delivering his account of what happened.

In the first discrepancy I have given you facts that can't be refuted that call Weitzman's changed account of the rifle first found into question (i.e. 7.65 vs 8mm Mauser & scope magnification). The only thing you've given me to support Weitzman's CHANGED testimony––where he couldn't even look the interviewer in the eye when asked when he first saw the rifle––is what you said about the film and the newspaper article.

The problem with the former deals with the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because the footage was taken after the rifle was found doesn't mean it's the rifle which shot JFK. The problem with the newspaper article wouldn't be so much of an issue if we were talking about a low level crime, but when we're talking about a successful cover up of the assassination of a president, and the forces that have been at work for half a century to cover it up, a poorly scanned article with no name of its author doesn't quite satisfy my curiosity. I don't care if the Library of Congress can somehow substantiate a now defunct "news" publication, especially when Operation Mockingbird is a matter of record.

So we're back to my original inquiry. Does it seem reasonable that Seymour Weitzman is telling the truth when he contradicts his sworn affidavit? The answer is no because I have reasonably demonstrated that he couldn't have possibly identified certain characteristics at a "glance".

If he mistook the Carcano for a Mauser, and if he didn't see 7.65 as stated by Roger Craig, then why would he provide 7.65 in his affidavit when Mausers sold in the U.S. and Germany were 8mm? Why would he provide such additional specificity like the 4/18 power objective lens of the scope? Neither of those things could have possibly been seen at a glance, yet they were stated in the affidavit.

I know guns, and I defy anyone to show me how that kind of mistake could happen, especially when another police officer is corroborating what was said in the affidavit. What are the chances? It's not like Roger Craig made up some hairbrained BS account of what they found, it's backed up by Weitzman's affidavit, and Weitzman clearly looks nervous as heck on video compared to the calm and cool policeman of the year Roger Craig. Wouldn't you agree? 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is filmed proof that the rifle being lifted up by Lt. Day is a Carcano, not a Mauser. Isn't that enough?

Or do you think there were TWO rifles placed in the TSBD that day in order to frame LHO? (Not very smart of the plotters to do that, was it?)

A Mauser looks like a Carcano. No question about it. Both Boone & Weitzman later said they were mistaken. The Alyea film shows a Carcano, not a Mauser. Lt. Day took ONE rifle from the building on 11/22/63 -- a Carcano. The HSCA examined the photos of Day carrying the rifle and determined that CE139 (Oswald's Carcano) was the same weapon being taken out of the building by Lt. Carl Day of the DPD.

Captain Fritz never mentioned a SECOND rifle being found in the Depository either. Nor did ANYONE else who was there.

So, what does the sum total of evidence tell a reasonable person, Brian? Does that sum total add up to both a Mauser and a Carcano being found in the TSBD (which would mean we've got many more lying police officers that just Seymour Weitzman)?

Or does the sum total add up to a Mannlicher-Carcano ONLY being found in the building, with a few policemen being mistaken about the exact make and model of the gun?

Guess which option I'm going to choose.

Also....

You should have read that first Google Newsgroup link I gave you a little more closely, because in that link I provided another link to Page #1 of the L.A. Free Press newspaper for March 1, 1968, including the name of the person who wrote the article featuring Roger Craig and Penn Jones. Her name is Jeanne Morgan. Here's the link again.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

AGAIN, MY COMMENTS ARE IN CAPS:

WAS ROGER CRAIG IN THE [Alyea] VIDEO? I NOTICED YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION ABOUT WHAT TIME THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN. I'VE ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT YOU KEEP SKIRTING MINE. I MENTIONED 1:22PM, THAT WAS THE TIME ON THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WEITZMAN SAID THEY FOUND THE GUN. WAS THE CAMERA CREW UP THERE FIVE MINUTES LATER? TEN? 20? 1/2 HOUR? AN HOUR?

[...]

I AGREE. AT A "GLANCE" THEY [a Carcano and a Mauser] DO LOOK SIMILAR. UPON CLOSER INSPECTION HOWEVER, A GUY WHO USED TO OWN A SPORTING GOODS STORE WOULD KNOW. HE'D ALSO LOOK CLOSE ENOUGH AT THE WEAPON THAT KILLED THE PRESIDENT TO KNOW IT WAS A 7.65 MAUSER WITH A 4X18 SCOPE. HE WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, KNOW THAT IF HE ONLY GLANCED AT THE RIFLE.

A GUY INTERESTED IN SPORTING ARMS WOULD HAVE WANTED TO TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THAT GUN, AND THE SPECIFICITY IN THE AFFIDAVIT SUPPORTS THAT, AND IT ALSO SUPPORTS ROGER CRAIG. IT DOES NOT, HOWEVER, SUPPORT LOOKING AT THE WEAPON AND MISIDENTIFYING IT AT A GLANCE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no idea why Weitzman thought the Carcano was a Mauser of exactly "7.65 mm". But, as you correctly pointed out earlier, Deputy Weitzman WAS a gun buff who had a sporting goods store. Ergo, he would be JUST the type of informed and knowledgeable "gun enthusiast" to KNOW that there were not just "8 mm" Mausers, but also "7.65 mm" Mausers too.

As for why he chose to place in his affidavit the detail about 7.65 Mauser, I cannot hazard a guess---other than to speculate that his familiarity with guns afforded him the luxury of GUESSING as to the exact "7.65 mm" size of the weapon that he assumed was a Mauser (but it wasn't). Couldn't that be a possible explanation, Brian?

As for the remainder of the details in Weitzman's affidavit -- Well, those things are accurate as far as OSWALD'S 6.5-millimeter Carcano are concerned. It DID have a 4-power scope on it, and it DID have a "thick leather sling" attached to it. So there's no problem there that I can see. Weitzman merely observed the correct scope and sling details....but he guessed wrong on the make and model.

As for when Tom Alyea took his film of the rifle being lifted from its hiding place by Lt. Day --- No, of course it wasn't as early as 1:22 PM. The gun wasn't even first discovered until that exact minute--1:22 PM CST. So, obviously, Alyea filmed the rifle a little bit later, probably about ten or fifteen minutes later, I would guess, because J.C. Day and Will Fritz had not yet arrived on the sixth floor as of 1:22. So it took them a little while to get up there after the gun was found.

But what difference does it really make WHEN Alyea filmed his footage? We know he did film it, and he then had to toss the undeveloped film out of a Depository window in order to get it to a co-worker on the street so it could then be quickly processed and put on the air in a "wet" form on WFAA-TV a short time later. (See my WFAA-TV video series if you want to see the initial airing of Alyea's film on the afternoon of 11/22/63.)


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

YOU HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM TO CONTEND WITH. I SUBMIT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ULTIMATELY COERCE WEITZMAN TO CHANGE HIS TESTIMONY.

THEY WEREN'T, HOWEVER, ABLE TO CHANGE THE MIND OF ONE OF DALLAS' FINEST (LITERALLY). AND THAT IS WHAT BROUGHT US TO THIS DISCUSSION. EVERYTHING ROGER CRAIG SAID ABOUT THE WEAPON ITSELF IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH WEITZMAN AND BOONE'S ORIGINAL OBSERVATIONS. BOTH MEN MADE THE MISTAKE?

AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE IDENTIFIED THE WEAPON AS AN OBSCURE 7.65 MAUSER, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN BOTH BOONE AND CRAIG MET WITH AN UNTIMELY DEATH. 


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The way I see it, Brian, you have an even bigger problem to contend with when it comes to the subject of the identification of the rifle. Because you've got to believe that not only were Seymour Weitzman and Eugene Boone liars when they each later said they were mistaken about their initial remarks about the TSBD rifle being a Mauser --- but you've got to ALSO believe that several other police officers also lied their eyes out in their official reports and in their subsequent testimony in front of the Warren Commission, including Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz and Lieutenant J.C. Day of the DPD's Identification Bureau.

Neither Capt. Fritz nor Lt. Day ever said a word about there being TWO rifles seen in the Book Depository. Many conspiracy theorists like to use Captain Fritz, however, to bolster their claims that a Mauser really was found in the building, because according to those conspiracy theorists, Fritz made a comment shortly after seeing the rifle to the effect that he too thought it looked like a Mauser.

As for Boone and Weitzman both saying the rifle was a "7.65" Mauser, my guess on that would be that one of those officers simply heard the other officer casually mention that he thought it looked like a "7.65 Mauser", and therefore the second officer agreed and started referring to it by that exact (inaccurate) description himself. A follow-the-leader type of thinking.

And Roger Craig--who was a proven liar, as I demonstrated previously via his 1968 newspaper interview--had plenty of time (about TEN YEARS) to rearrange his tall tale about seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the gun. By the time Craig told his bald-faced lie in Mark Lane's film in the early 1970s, he undoubtedly had studied the affidavit of Seymour Weitzman carefully, and therefore he crafted a large part of his "7.65 Mauser" lie around Weitzman's 11/23/63 affidavit.

Ergo, Craig's story in the 1970s is not really corroborative of Weitzman's affidavit in the slightest---particularly since we have Craig's own words from the 1968 L.A. Free Press article, where he says these words about the rifle that was found between boxes on the sixth floor of the Book Depository --- "I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

There were several mistakes made by various people (including police officers and the news media) immediately after President Kennedy's assassination, and one of the most widespread, and somewhat diverse, errors that spread throughout the world on television and radio on 11/22/63 was the topic we're discussing now---i.e., the question of "What kind of rifle was found in the Depository?"



And the errors regarding the rifle's identification weren't limited to just "German Mauser" either. As you can see in the above video, there were a lot of other erroneous reports concerning the make and model of the rifle, with some reporters referring to it as a gun made in Japan or Argentina or in Great Britain. The identifications were all over the map on Day 1. But they can't ALL be correct, can they? And somebody must have been supplying the news media with all of those false reports.


BRIAN MUMFORD SAID:

FRITZ ALSO DENIED THAT ROGER CRAIG WAS AT THE STATION WHEN THEY INTERROGATED OSWALD, BUT A PICTURE LATER EMERGED THAT SHOWED HE WAS THERE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the photos of Roger Craig don't show him inside Captain Fritz' office. Craig (or someone who looks like Craig) is seen in the outer office of the Homicide & Robbery Bureau. Big difference. Oswald was being interrogated INSIDE Fritz' private inner office. There is no corroboration of Craig having been in that inner office where Lee Oswald was.

And, again, the best evidence (by far) for the rifle being a Carcano is Tom Alyea's film, which you evidently want to pretend was taken at some much LATER time, even though we can see Carl Day picking the rifle up off the floor in the film.

In other words, the rifle had not been touched by anyone prior to Alyea shooting that section of his film. If you want to think otherwise, have at it. But don't expect to drag me down that murky "Everything's Fake And Phony" rabbit hole with you.

I guess you must believe Bob Groden's tale about Alyea filming a "re-creation" of the rifle being found--after the rifles were switched, right?

So that means more fakery, and more collusion, and more covering up. Heaps of alleged plotters, but no proof by any of the conspiracy theorists of the world. Merely unsupportable speculation. Like always.

In the final analysis, there is just too much evidence (including the important Alyea Film) which indicates that just ONE rifle was found in the Depository on 11/22/63, and that gun was a Mannlicher-Carcano, not a Mauser.

David Von Pein
September 2014