(PART 1083)


The Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Theory is so obviously true, we shouldn't even have to debate it anymore.

But then we have conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio who go on Internet radio week after week and spout exactly the opposite -- with Jimbo claiming that the SBT is such a farce and such a misguided lie invented by the WC that we shouldn't even BEGIN to believe that one bullet struck both limo victims at this point in time in the year 2011.

DiEugenio feels that so much "new" stuff has been unearthed since 1963 that everybody should realize that the SBT is not only wrong as a theory--but it's been PROVEN DEAD WRONG by the so-called "facts" brought forth by the conspiracy theorists since '63.

Of course, exactly what "facts" Jim is talking about, I have never been able to fully figure out. Because the bottom-line FACTS of the Single-Bullet Theory are still there, and still in place for everyone to evaluate.

It's not like some conspiracy theorist in Montana somewhere suddenly discovered proof that Governor Connally really was sitting in a totally different place in the limousine when he was shot, shooting down the workability of the SBT. No "new" breakthrough revelation like that has occurred since 1963, and people like James DiEugenio surely know this to be true.

And I've never quite understood just WHY so many conspiracy believers hate the Single-Bullet Theory so much. For, even if they were to accept the SBT as a fact (which it certainly is, given the totality of the evidence in the case), those same conspiracists could still scream "conspiracy" from their orange crates. They could still pretend that JFK was shot in the head from the Grassy Knoll (which they all do--save Pat Speer, God bless him).

But most conspiracists seem to want it all. They seem to want that make-believe Knoll gunman to exist AND they also want the SBT to be a myth and a lie. Again--I wonder why the CTers need to have BOTH of those things in their corner in order for them to be happy and content?

Anyway, I amply demonstrate at my Single-Bullet Theory website HERE (with some help from Jean Davison, who opened my eyes even wider in 2007) that the SBT is quite obviously the best explanation for the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally.

David Von Pein
March 31, 2011

(PART 1082)






Well, geez, you could at least have possessed the decency to tell me that BEFORE I did all that work with those "RH" statistics, which are statistics that prove that conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about when they (he) say stupid things like this:

"The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks." -- James DiEugenio


I don't need to read these reviews from book sellers on "Reclaiming History". Why should I?


Oh, I don't need to read the reviews either. In fact, I read none of them.

But that's not the point of my thread-starting post. The point was this:

When CTers say things like "The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks" [DiEugenio; 4/15/10], it showcases their lack of knowledge about what the "mainstream" reviewers (aka: the majority of regular people who buy books and write reviews for them at Amazon and elsewhere) are saying about Bugliosi's book.

I certainly don't need to read the reviews to debunk the above silly quote uttered by Jim DiEugenio. All I needed to do is exactly what I did do -- search the Internet book sites and check out what the ratings are for "Reclaiming History".

And when you do that, you'll find that the VAST MAJORITY of people who have chosen to write reviews for Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book have given a healthy "THUMBS UP" to that book (at least as of this writing on April 29th, 2010).

Simple as that. (Much to the chagrin of Mr. DiEugenio, I would surmise.)


I can only give you one person's review....[Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is] BORING!!!!


Yeah, the lone-assassin truth probably is considered "boring" to most conspiracy-happy, fantasy-craving individuals of Planet Earth.

OTOH, it's quite remarkable (to me anyway) that some people who obviously have a great deal of interest in the way JFK died in 1963 (otherwise, why the heck sign up to post messages on a "JFK Forum"?) can actually read Vince Bugliosi's masterpiece of logic, common sense, and REAL EVIDENCE and then say they were "bored" by it all.

That's absolutely incredible. (And absolutely silly, too.)


Judging by his [DiEugenio's] article title, using your name in it....there is some sort of vendetta goin' down.


Sort of looks like it, doesn't it?

I just wonder why DiEugenio cares what a nobody like me thinks.


I enjoy battling the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio, though. And that's because it is so easy to knock down their silly arguments.

As far as the big-ticket items are concerned, DiEugenio (and many others just like him) never get anything right when it comes to the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, which is plainly obvious by the fact that Jim D. believes Oswald shot no one on 11/22/63. And that's way below the Mendoza line. In fact, he's been batting .000 in the "How Many People Did Oswald Kill On November 22?" department for years.

Of course, Jim's not alone with that triple-zero batting average. Many CTers on the Internet share the same miserable average. Casey Stengel would be appalled.


Who cares about the booksellers' "star" system and James DiWhogivesadamn???? Rise above it Dave. Re-arranging your sock drawer would be a better use of time.


There's never a need for that, Martin. My sock drawer is always neat as a pin. In fact, I call it my "Roger Craig Sock Drawer" -- each pair of socks is always facing the same direction and is never more than an inch away from the pair beside it. ~grin~


David, Bugliosi's book does not even investigate the role of Jack Dougherty, who was closest to the assassin(s), ok?


No. Not okay. Dougherty played no "role" in the assassination. He was questioned by the Warren Commission, and the Commission got everything there was to get out of him, whether you want to believe that or not.

(More on Dougherty HERE.)


As long as you bore people on the internet with your one-sided propaganda and do not show real research effort, like demanding the exhumation of JFK, you are not credible.


Yeah, I can just hear myself making my pitch to the Kennedy family:

"Caroline, I have no doubt whatsoever that your father was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, acting on his own. However, since there are thousands of crazy conspiracy-thirsty kooks here on Earth who are more than happy to throw out all of the evidence in the case and believe that Oswald was set up as a patsy to take the fall for your dad's murder, I'm afraid I need to ask you a favor -- we need to dig up your father's body, so that these crazy conspiracy kooks can then say the following after a new autopsy reveals that your father was shot only twice and from behind: David Lifton was right after all. Somebody altered JFK's wounds, and the bastards were somehow able to totally mask all of those bullets that hit the President from the Grassy Knoll."

Ouch! My butt is sure sore after Caroline (rightly) just tossed me out the door.


As long as you...do not show real research effort, like demanding the exhumation of JFK, you are not credible.


Are you crazy, Chris? (Silly question, David.) Why in the world would I, a person who feels it's totally unnecessary, want to demand an exhumation of JFK's body?!

It is YOU, a person who thinks an exhumation is needed, who should be pounding on the door of every Kennedy family member in Massachusetts.

Don't expect me to look like a fool in front of Caroline. That's your job, Chris. Hop to it.

David Von Pein
April 29, 2010

(PART 1081)


Does anyone know where the forms are for the "Hidell" purchases of the rifle and handgun?


Another day at the office for the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists, I see.

To a CTer, the things we DON'T have in evidence are always much, much more important than the things we DO have in evidence. And, of course, it's always been that way for the ABO conspiracy crowd.

And the things we do have in evidence indicate--beyond all possible doubt--that Lee Oswald ordered, paid for, and was shipped the C2766 rifle from Klein's and the revolver from Seaport Traders.

And it wouldn't make a bit of difference if Forms 2162 & 1508 were in evidence concerning Oswald's gun purchases. Because even if those forms existed, people like Gil Jesus and James DiEugenio would merely be inventing new excuses to consider them ALL FAKE and planted. (Is there ANY doubt at all that this would be the attitude adopted by people like Gilbert and Jim?)

Conspiracists like Gilbert and James do it with EVERY piece of incriminating evidence against Oswald. EVERY piece, without exception.

Why do they do that?

Simple. Because if they don't, they have to admit that their precious patsy was guilty of the two murders he so obviously committed in Dallas.

A great example of this is Waldman Exhibit No. 7. That exhibit--all by itself--shatters the illusions of Gil and Jimbo, because it provides all the information anyone needs to KNOW FOR CERTAIN that Klein's DID receive an order form and a money order in the amount of $21.45 from the purchaser ("A. Hidell", who we all know is really Lee Oswald).

And Waldman 7 also tells us (for all time) that the rifle that Klein's mailed to the customer named Hidell was shipped to a P.O. Box in Dallas that we know was rented by Gil's favorite patsy--Lee Oswald.

And Waldman 7 also tells us that the rifle Klein's shipped to Hidell/Oswald wasn't just any old rifle -- no, it was Rifle #C2766, which just happens to be the exact rifle that was used to murder President Kennedy. (And if someone wants to resurrect the myth about there being a whole bunch of additional Carcano rifles with the number C2766 on them, they'll get a nice-sized argument from me -- because the fact is: there hasn't been a single additional "C2766" Carcano rifle ever seen by anyone on this planet that we know of. And not only that--I have never even heard of anyone coming forward to say that they have seen ANY TWO Carcanos with the same serial number--regardless of whether it's the number C2766 or any other number they'd care to pick out of a hat. It just hasn't happened. And it never will--because Oswald's C2766 rifle is the only Carcano ever made with that unique number on it. Which is, btw, the whole point of stamping a serial number on an item in the first place--to make it unique.)

So, unless the CTers can prove Waldman #7 is really a phony baloney document, then where does that leave the CTers who continue to want to pretend that Klein's never received payment from Oswald and that Klein's never shipped Rifle C2766 to LHO?

And, of course, nobody has ever come close to proving that Waldman #7 is a fake, and they never will be able to prove such a silly allegation--because Waldman 7 is a real document, with a real "Klein's" logo in the corner, and was verified as such by Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman in his 1964 WC testimony.


Waldman 7 is not a REAL DOCUMENT, it is a COPY from a microfilm copy.


It's a PHOTOGRAPH of a REAL DOCUMENT, Gil. It's as good as having the original document in our hands.

Or would you like to now pretend that the copy of Waldman 7 is a fake and that it does not represent a REAL DOCUMENT at all?

And would you also like to show us proof that Bill Waldman of Klein's is a liar when he testified to all kinds of important stuff relating to Exhibit No. 7, including the very important "M.O." marking on that document--which can only indicate one thing: Klein's received a money order for the full amount of $21.45 from "A. Hidell" for the purchase of one Italian carbine.

If you can't do either of the above things, then you've got a problem -- because, as I mentioned previously, Waldman Exhibit 7 is a great document for shooting down all kinds of crazy theories that have been spouted by conspiracy theorists regarding Oswald's 1963 rifle purchase.


And of course it's a fake [Waldman Exhibit No. 7]. And it's a fake for the same reason the order blank is a fake: It's got the wrong catalog number for the 40" rifle.

The idiots who faked them obviously didn't know there was a difference in catalog numbers between the 36" rifle and the 40" rifle.


More nonsense from Gilbert.

You have no proof whatsoever that Waldman 7 is a fake. Nor do have a speck of proof that the order form that Oswald used to order the weapon is a fake either. To the contrary, the order form has Oswald's own handwriting on it. (Naturally, you think his writing is phony too. Well, go tell that to the handwriting experts who testified for the WC and HSCA.)

The catalog number shown on Waldman #7 is exactly the correct catalog number relating to Oswald's/(Hidell's) March '63 rifle order....so, naturally, that's the exact number that Klein's stamped on the order (probably on March 13, since it was not written in by hand).

When it came time to ship Oswald's 36-inch rifle order seven days after the order form was received by Klein's in Chicago, Klein's undoubtedly realized they were out of stock of the 36-inch rifles, so they shipped him the 40-inch model, which is a model that Klein's had TOTALLY SWITCHED TO by the time of the VERY NEXT Klein's magazine ad.

Gary Mack did some great research on this matter last year (see the direct quote from Gary below), as he dug up copies of all the 1963 Klein's ads that appeared in American Rifleman magazine throughout that calendar year....with Gary discovering that the February ad (which Oswald used to place his order for a 36-inch rifle) was the last ad during the entire year for the 36-inch model carbine. All other ads after February advertised the 40-inch model.

It couldn't be more obvious what happened here: Klein's simply ran out of the 36-inch rifles, so they shipped Oswald the longer 40-inch rifle. I'm guessing that Oswald never even knew the difference.

Quoting Gary Mack:

"I looked up the Klein's ads for 1963 and found that the next issue after February 1963 and all the issues afterward showed the 40" rifle. I don't have my notes here at the house, so the April 1963 issue, which would have mailed in mid-March so the ad had to have been changed prior to that, may be the first with the 40" weapon. So that is exactly what must have happened. Klein's ran out of 36" rifles very quickly and substituted the longer weapon. They may have notified customers ahead of time, but there's no record of that happening."
-- Gary Mack; August 17, 2010


Gary then wrote me this follow-up e-mail on August 18, 2010:

Date: 8/18/2010 3:28:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Thanks to The Sixth Floor Museum’s collection, today I examined all 1963 issues of the American Rifleman and here is what I found:

Jan 63 -- p. 61 -- 36” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)

Feb 63 -- p. 65 -- Same ad as above

Mar 63 -- No ad

Apr 63 -- p. 55 -- 40” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)

May 63 -- Missing pp. 63-66

Jun 63 -- p. 59 -- 40” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope)

Jul 63 -- p. 67 -- 40” “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.78 -- $19.95 (with scope)

Aug 63 -- p. 79 -- Same ad as above

Sep 63 -- p. 89 -- Same ad as above

Oct 63 -- p. 85 -- Same ad as above

Nov 63 -- No ad

Dec 63 -- No ad

So as I suggested earlier, Oswald ordered the 36” rifle but, probably due to Klein’s running out of stock, he received the 40” model instead. The price remained the same, so Klein’s may have just sent him the newly available model instead. They would certainly accept a return if he didn’t want it.

The Museum’s copy of the May 1963 issue is missing four pages and, since Klein’s ads normally ran in the back half of the magazine, it was likely on one of those pages. But as you can see, the ad for the months before and after May showed the exact same 40” rifle.

I don’t know when the American Rifleman normally went to press, but I would think they’d want the new issue to appear on the newsstands and in subscriber’s mailboxes at or shortly before the beginning of each month. That would mean all ad copy must be ready and in the hands of the publisher at least 30 days ahead of time, maybe more.

If Klein’s ran out of 36” rifles in January, they might not even have enough time to get a corrected ad in by the March deadline. Maybe that’s why there was no ad in the March issue? Perhaps Klein’s sold out of the Carcano and other weapons and just couldn’t update their new ad before the deadline?

Gary Mack



BTW, speaking of e-mails from Gary Mack and the subject of Oswald's rifle purchase, I received the following two e-mails from Gary within the last few days:

Subject: RE: Buying the Money Order
Date: 3/12/2011 11:01:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Oswald could have left JCS [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall] at any time between 8am and 10:30 IF there was no work for him to do. Oswald was given simple tasks as they came in, so if no orders were waiting, all he could do was sit and wait.....and get paid for doing so.

I assume he'd have to check with his supervisor about taking a few minutes to go to the post office, but his time card certainly does not confirm that he was on the job every single minute. It merely shows that he was at the office and "on the clock" all day.

And maybe, just maybe, he went over there on JCS business? Or perhaps a co-worker — his supervisor? — also needed something from the PO so Oswald went and took advantage of the opportunity? In short, there are many reasons Oswald's PO visit was entirely legitimate.

It would not surprise me to learn that the Main Post Office opened at 7am, but I don't know that to be the case. I'd have to check the 1963 directories, but I sort of remember doing that years ago. Anyway, I can take a look when I get back to the office on Monday.



Subject: Main Post Office hours
Date: 3/17/2011 5:28:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein

Hi Dave,

None of the directories at the Museum show the hours at the main post office in Dallas in 1963. However, the USPS online search service shows the main distribution center today opens at 7am. But that building wasn’t there in 1963. The main post office, and presumably the distribution center, was at 400 N. Ervay in 1963 and it would likely have had the early business hours. The Ervay PO is the one that was just a few blocks from J-C-S which was located at 522 Browder. According to Google maps, the two are only 8 blocks, or ½ mile, apart.

Oswald could have walked or run, or probably ridden the bus, since Ervay was a main north-south street. For that matter, he could have bummed a ride from a co-worker.

In short, I don’t see anything that prevents Oswald from getting to the post office, then buying and sending his money order to Klein’s. As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone [it probably wasn't, as discussed here], I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary.



Subject: Delivery Receipts for the "Hidell" weapons
Date: 3/25/2011 2:54:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


The responses [on The Education Forum by conspiracy theorists] to what I clearly stated was speculation are truly inept. Let me demonstrate why:

1) I have no idea why the envelope was postmarked in a different zone than the main post office. Perhaps Oswald bought the money order, took it back to the office and gave it to someone else to mail and it [got] sent from somewhere else? Or is there some standard post office explanation for such things? Just because some questions have remained unanswered doesn't mean sinister explanations are always the reason.

2) So what if Oswald turned down rides from time to time? Did he always refuse? No one knows. Did he accept rides from other than the two who asked him? Same answer. Since the walking distance was 30-35 minutes from J-C-S to the main post office, odds are he accepted the ride from someone or rode the bus unless, of course, he ran which would cut the time roughly in half. According to Marina's testimony, Oswald had a bus schedule and studied it a few days earlier, though that may have been for his plan to shoot Walker. So far, there's no reason to suspect a sinister answer.

3) While I don't have access to a 1963 bus schedule, I do know the city runs more buses in morning and afternoon drive than it does midday, so taking a bus was a reasonable alternative.

4) True, there's no evidence showing Oswald to have been anywhere but J-C-S that day, but do his time sheets list his working hours AND breaks - including lunch - NO. Of course not, they just show that he was paid to be at J-C-S for a full day.....and he was.

5) As for Oswald's J-C-S times sheet, researcher Mary Ferrell, whom I had great respect for, wrote, "OSWALD'S time sheet for March 12 is evidence that he probably lied sometimes about his hours. On the day he ordered the rifle, he signed in from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., (Exhibit no. 1855, Vol. 23, p. 605)." She then wrote that the post office opened at 8am, after noting Harry Holmes' testimony that the envelope was mailed in the early morning. The simple fact that Marina and Marguerite both admitted back then and for years later - I've heard the story directly from both women - that he posed for pictures with the guns he ordered trumps everything else.

6) Did Klein's send Oswald the larger rifle without asking? Maybe, or perhaps they enclosed a note explaining the substitution and Oswald threw it away?

7) However, I'm baffled at Gil Jesus' question about my credibility from the Jesse Ventura show. I simply told him - assuming he would ask - what I've said for years: I have questions about parts of the story, but I can't prove any of them. My honesty apparently went over his head. :)



[End Gary Mack Quotes.]


Gary's #1 explanation doesn't seem very likely (or logical) at all. Because why would Oswald have purchased the money order at the post office and then give it to someone else to mail when he himself (Oswald) was right there in the post office already? That makes no sense at all.

I'm not saying that Gary's #1 explanation is totally impossible--of course it's not impossible, but it doesn't seem very likely or reasonable either.

Everything else on Gary's above list, however, makes perfect sense to me, particularly his very good #6 point about the possibility of Klein's notifying Oswald in some manner that the rifle being shipped was not the exact same 36-inch model he had ordered. That, to me, seems very reasonable. And it also seems reasonable to think that Oswald would have had no really good reason to even care that the rifle he ultimately received from Klein's was four inches longer (and slightly heavier) than the thirty-six version he had originally ordered.


Regarding the U.S. Postal Money Order that Lee Harvey Oswald used to order his rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods --- I'm just curious to know how it has been verified that Oswald purchased the money order from the MAIN STREET Post Office branch in Dallas, Texas -- vs. possibly buying it at a different U.S. Post Office branch?

Is it the stamped "G.P.O." marking on the money order which signifies that the item was purchased (and stamped) at the Main Street Post Office? And does "G.P.O." stand for "General Post Office"? And would that mean he could have ONLY purchased it at the Main Street branch?

I'm not saying that Oswald didn't get the money order at the Main Street Post Office, I'm just wondering the method by which it was positively proven he did get it there?

I can find no specific reference in Harry Holmes' Warren Commission testimony as to how this fact was determined concerning where the money order was purchased. Holmes does indicate in his testimony, however, that it was obtained "at the main post office" [7 H 295]. But I can't find any info in his testimony about HOW that fact was specifically determined.

Did the Main Street Post Office possibly retain a receipt of Oswald's $21.45 money order transaction? If so, I can't find anything concerning such a record of receipt in Holmes' testimony.

I did, however, take note of this interesting section of Harry Holmes' testimony, which is a statement that conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio must certainly think is nothing but a bald-faced lie. Harry Holmes said this:

"Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said...they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20. So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub to show which would designate, which would show the number of the money order, and that is the only way you could find one. I relayed this information to them and told them to start on the 13th, because he could have bought it that morning and that he could have gotten it by airmail that afternoon."

So, what U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes is saying there is that the money order that Oswald purchased on the morning of March 12, 1963, could actually have been sent via air mail (which it was) the NEXT DAY--on March 13th--and still have gotten to Chicago on the "afternoon" of March 13, the very same day it was mailed by air mail.

Conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio, however, believe that such fast mail service, circa 1963, was simply impossible, as the all-knowing Jimbo told us on March 8th:

"You cannot mail a money order over 700 miles from Dallas to Chicago, then have it delivered to Klein's, then have it sorted, picked up and then delivered to the bank and then have it deposited in 24 hours. Pre zip code and pre computer scanning. You cannot do that even today. Simply not possible." -- Jim DiEugenio; March 8, 2011

But, quite obviously, Jimmy's beliefs do not square with the facts. And while the business about the money order arriving and being processed and deposited by Klein's in 24 hours is, indeed, a fast transaction, the testimony of Harry Holmes (who was a UNITED STATES POSTAL INSPECTOR, so I think he should know what he's talking about when it comes to MAIL, AIR MAIL, and DELIVERY TIMES) indicates that Oswald's money order could, indeed, have been delivered to Chicago and properly processed in just 24 hours (or even less, per Holmes' testimony shown above).

Now, Jim, was Harry Holmes lying when he said what I just quoted him as saying above? (We all know what Jimmy's answer to this question is going to be, don't we now?)

David Von Pein
March 22-26, 2011

(PART 1080)


I was going over the 2nd floor plan of the TSBD earlier, and something struck me as I was looking at it.

In the upper left corner, we have the 2nd floor landing, with the stairs coming from the 1st floor and the stairs going to the 3rd floor shown. There is a door on each stairwell that must be opened. Roy Truly was ahead of Officer Marrion Baker, and Baker would likely have seen Truly making a hard left onto the 2nd floor landing as Baker was coming up to the 2nd floor landing; in other words, he was trying to keep up with Truly, and would have made an identical hard turn.

Now look at the diagram where it shows the vestibule door, leading to the hallway, and the lunch room door just beyond it (follow the solid line into the lunch room). As the WC apologists would have us believe, Baker, on his way to follow Truly to the 3rd floor stairwell, just happened to glance through the small window, in the upper part of the vestibule door, to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the lunch room, walking away from him.

One small problem, though. If you look again at the top of the stairs Baker was exiting, it is plain to see that, if Baker was making a hard left, in pursuit of Truly, he was not in a position for the window in the upper part of the vestibule door to line up with the lunch room door.

How could he have seen Oswald? If Oswald was just the other side of the door, why did Baker not report seeing the door still closing by means of its automatic closer?

Many of the WC apologists will say that Baker did not go directly to the 3rd floor stairwell but, rather, made a wide sweep of the 2nd floor landing, looking for bad guys. Well, there is a bit of a problem here, too, as the photo below shows.

Think the boxes are stacked only in view of the camera? I doubt it, in fact, I'll bet the mess of stacked boxes gets worse as you get into the corner, out of view to the camera's right. The corner, as the diagram shows, is a completely untravelled piece of floor, and that attracts clutter like nothing else in a warehouse.

Baker would have to be 2-3 feet to the right to get any kind of view into the lunch room and, unless he deliberately was attempting to look into the lunch room, why would he climb over a bunch of boxes? His testimony clearly states he saw Oswald quite by accident.

Once again, if Oswald had not travelled the 5 feet between the vestibule door and the lunch room door, would the vestibule door not still be in the process of closing itself, and would Baker not have stated this in his testimony?

As there was no window on the lunch room door, the diagram shows us another potential problem. See how the lunch room door is almost closed in the diagram? Think about that for a bit.



Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....


Wow! Who knew it was against the law to lie on NATIONAL television? Round every politician in the U.S. and lock 'em up!

Btw, David... this is an appeal to incredulity. A logical fallacy -- which is one of many logical fallacies you employ, but quite obviously one of your favorites.


If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?

For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (Warren Report; Pages 600 and 619).

But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?


The lunchroom incident either happened, or it did not happen. Thanks to the multi-year efforts of Sean Murphy & Greg Parker, a school of thought has emerged that contends that the incident was hoaxed.

They refuse to acknowledge that every item of evidence relating to the lunchroom incident has a mundane explanation, readily available, that supports the incident's reality.

They refuse to acknowledge that there is a set of items, an aggregate — the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's news story, the Martha Jo Stroud document — and every item of this aggregate has to be contorted, beyond common sense, in order to be construed as supporting the hoax.

Even if the researcher successfully un-contorts one of these items, there are four more to justify, and all of them must be justified in order to support a hoax interpretation, i.e. its chances are infinitesmal (if that).

Which means that you, the researcher, must evaluate this Bakerview problem through the lens of the lunchroom incident's reality.

Sean Murphy & Greg Parker are zealots in regards to this issue. They cannot and will not be reasoned with. To admit defeat would entail a loss of their sycophants, and an extreme loss of face. After all, they are the co-discoverers and marketers of this pernicious school of thought.

They might seem progressive, but are actually regressive. In this arena they are sophists extraordinaire.


Plus, Richard, as I said in my last post, if Baker and Truly were just going to MAKE UP an "encounter" with the person they were trying to frame for JFK's assassination, they would have made the encounter occur on the sixth floor, not the second floor (which was four floors away from the Floor Of Death).

Placing Oswald on the SECOND floor 90 seconds after the murder doesn't do anything to make LHO the patsy in JFK's killing. In fact, most CTers utilize that exact argument to try and get Oswald OFF the hook--not ONTO the hook. Those CTers will tell me --- Well, Dave, we know Oswald must be innocent--because there's no way he could have gotten down from the sixth floor to the second floor in only 90 seconds.

But now, the conspiracists in the "Baker & Truly Lied About The Lunchroom Encounter" club can never use the above argument ever again, because they think B&T just invented the 2nd-floor incident from whole cloth.

And another oft-heard theory that many CTers must now dump by the roadside is the "Bag Is Too Short" theory. Many Internet CTers now want to pretend that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story. But it doesn't bother those CTers that Frazier and Randle decided to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG too short to hold Oswald's rifle (even though, of course, Buell and Linnie COULD have made their imaginary bag ANY length they wanted to make it).

But such massive illogic regarding the Baker/Truly encounter and the paper bag never even faze a veteran Internet CTer. They'll just pretend the logic gaps don't even exist. Go figure.


As I wrote in Reclaiming Parkland (p. 193):

​"...the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. On that day Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He described going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

"As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9', 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

(p. 194...)

"In the affidavit, there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."


And let us not leave out that Baker signed this affidavit not once but twice. And further he made out the handwritten version in the witness room--with Oswald sitting about five feet away from him. He almost had to fall over him to walk out.

And you are going to say that he never once asked this guy, "Didn't I stick a gun in your stomach in the lunchroom of the TSBD earlier today?"

Can you imagine at that phony baloney trial in London if that ingenue Spence had waited for Bugliosi to go ahead and take Baker through his paces. He then stood up and looked at Bugliosi, and said something, like "Vince, you are about to be taken to school." Walked over to the witness, put this affidavit in front of Baker, asked him if he recognized it, waited until he said yes, and then turned, walked over to the prosecutor and started reading it right in front of Bugliosi.

I would have paid a lot of money to have been there for that. When Lee Oswald really would have had a defense.


As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview.

And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.

DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James?

As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE.

Re: this comment made by DiEugenio....

"And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

....as I told Hank Sienzant recently:

"I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP


"I rushed into the building with a policeman. He thought the shooting came from the roof, and we ran up the stairway. On the second floor, he stuck his head into a snack bar we have, and saw Oswald sitting at one of the tables. "Does this man work here?", the policeman asked. I said, "Yes he does". We continued up the stairs. That was when Oswald left the building." -- U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 8, 1963

Egads! According you, DVP, Truly LIED to the national media!!!!


So, Greg, do you want to throw Truly under the bus because he (allegedly) said that Oswald was sitting at a table?

Does that discrepancy mean the "encounter" never took place at all?

Egads indeed!


Ah... so it's okay for him to lie to the media all of a sudden? Your double standards would embarrass a lesser mortal!


If you take multiple statements made by the same witness to the same event, you'll likely find some minor differences in how they tell their story with each re-telling. Your inability to account for this reality would embarrass any reasonable and fair-minded mortal.

But, let's face it, your mind has been made up on this thing for years. You're going to toss Roy Truly under the bus no matter what. And to hell with common-sense inquiries like this one that I offered up earlier today:

If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?


In various statements, Truly and Baker between them had Oswald walking away from the stairway, sitting in the lunchroom, leaning on the table, and standing beside the coke dispenser.


And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie a half-a-dozen times??

And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?

How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all?


But you do have something right. Roy Truly is going under the bus. No "ifs" no "buts".


Gee, what a shocker.


Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious!

The Headline:



Building superintendent arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter.


Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?)

Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply....



You think Jim Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619 too, right?


No I don't.


Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor.

It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks.


Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are [a] different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those.


Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?


Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him?


No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor).


The number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity. It's just policy and nothing personal, you understand.


Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"?

But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily.

Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.


Refute that Truly was full of it when he said he was ahead of Baker, when two newspaper interviews clearly state he was behind him!


Refute that Baker can't keep his story straight for one second!

Refute that Reid did not lie her sorry arse off, with Hine being inside the office clearly stating that between 12:25-12:35 no one was in that office and the first person that came in was a cop!


Refute that Truly spoke to Brennan!

[...snipping remainder of fantasy-filled nonsense...]


I can go on till the cows come home DVP, this matter has bypassed you and taken you over again leaving you a full lap behind, seriously this whole thing has moved on big time!

Oh and there's a 30 odd page update in a few weeks, so get ready and refute that torrent of evidence.


I know I shouldn't be the least bit surprised anymore when I see Internet conspiracy fantasists travelling to the ends of the Earth digging up things to try and justify their bizarre beliefs (like their super-nutty fantasy about the second-floor Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never occurring at all), but the level of denial about certain things relating to President Kennedy's assassination that exists within some quarters of the "JFK Conspiracy Community" on the World Wide Web has just about reached levels of unparallelled proportions in the last few years (IMO). And, frankly, it's just plain crazy.

David Von Pein
December 24-26, 2015
January 29, 2017

(PART 1079)


When the 2nd bullet hit Tague, which bullet hit the manhole cover and which the windshield and which the frame then?


The second bullet definitely didn't hit Tague. You picked the ONLY shot that couldn't have struck Tague--the 2nd shot, which was the SBT/CE399 bullet, of course.

And there was definitely no "manhole cover" bullet. No bullet hit any manhole, and nobody can prove otherwise. Not every "mark" in the Plaza was caused by a bullet (despite what CTers believe).

The windshield and chrome strip were struck by CE567 and CE569, which were the fragments that came out of JFK's head after Oswald's third bullet hit Kennedy's head, killing him.

Hence, we have TWO damaged limo areas in the front of the car, and TWO bullet fragments (from Oswald's rifle) in the same front-seat area. A perfect fit.

Tague was hit by either the first or third shots. I favor Shot #1, which was probably deflected by the oak tree. But if it was Shot #3, it would have been a large fragment that exited JFK's head and then hit the curb/Tague.

BTW, Dr. John Lattimer did many tests with Oswald's type of 6.5mm MC/WCC ammunition. Lattimer fired about 700 rounds from the four lots of bullets exactly like Oswald's, and Lattimer found that "the jacket of the bullet usually separated from the core" after striking a very hard object, like the various test skulls that Lattimer used in his shooting experiments in 1974 and 1975.

[The above quote comes from page 253 of Dr. Lattimer's 1980 book, "Kennedy And Lincoln".]

It's not unreasonable, therefore, to believe that Oswald's first shot could have struck the oak tree in front of the Book Depository, with the core and jacket becoming separated, with the lead core striking the Main Street curb (resulting in James T. Tague's slight cheek injury), while the copper jacket portion of the bullet hit Elm Street behind the limousine (hence, some witnesses reported seeing "sparks" coming off the street to the rear of the car).

Also -- If the telescopic sight attached to Oswald's Carcano rifle was really misaligned at the time of the assassination (with the first shot ending up "high and to the right" of the intended target, as was the case in post-assassination tests with the scope), this fact could conceivably be a very strong reason for Oswald missing with his first shot, with that bullet striking the tree, which was, after all, located to the RIGHT of the target at the time (at circa Z160), as we can see in this Warren Commission exhibit.

David Von Pein
April 27, 2010

(PART 1078)


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 [or at the Railway Express 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 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 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":



Good info.

The word carbine means short rifle. So, yes, it is the same thing.


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.)




The 40-inch short rifle is NOT a Carbine. Different species.


Not according to the Klein's ads. Just look here.

The ads for the FORTY-inch gun clearly say "6.5 Italian CARBINE". Are you suggesting that Klein's was wrong when they put the word "CARBINE" in those ads for the 40-inch gun? Was the mail-order company that stupid, Tony?

And the whole "Carbine" vs. "Short rifle" argument is just semantics anyway. And, IMO, it's an incorrect argument being made by the CTers. According to several online dictionaries [like the two I referenced above], the literal definition of "carbine" IS, in fact, "short rifle".


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 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 precise.)

I guess some off-the-wall conspiracy theorists (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
April 18, 2010
April 19, 2010
April 1, 2017

(PART 1077)


DVP's reality gets weirder and weirder. Now he's suggesting that there has never been an occasion where somebody has ever had their signature forged.


I never suggested any such thing. And why you say I am suggesting such a silly thing is beyond me.

But in this (Kennedy) case, I'm saying that there was positively no "forgery" of the Oswald documents, because of the testimony of the experts in the field of identifying writing on questioned documents (e.g., Alwyn Cole and Joseph McNally).

Naturally, though, expert testimony means zilch to people like Lee Farley (especially if it means having to admit the obvious--that Farley's favorite patsy actually ordered rifle C2766).






The whole business about the bank stamps is actually a situation where CTers are attempting to close the barn door after the horse has already escaped.


Since we know Oswald definitely signed the 3/12/63 money order (verified by multiple handwriting analysts for the Warren Commission and the HSCA)....and since we know that that money order was definitely RECEIVED and STAMPED FOR DEPOSIT by Klein's Sporting Goods (verified by the stamp on the money order and by Klein's Vice President William Waldman, who CTers must certainly think is either a huge liar or as dumb as a stump about his own company's procedures and operations)....and since we positively know that Klein's DID ship Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell on 3/20/63.....

It, therefore, doesn't make any difference what happened to the money order after First National Bank in Chicago received it from Klein's. Whether the bank stamped it or not is immaterial for the purpose of determining whether Klein's handled that money order and whether Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald.

The main point is: We know Klein's received that money order in the mail from Oswald. And as a result of receiving payment (in full) for the ordered rifle, Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to LHO (as confirmed for all time by Waldman Exhibit #7, which is a document that CTers must ALSO believe is a total forgery).

Do you see the sheer outlandish NUMBER of hoops and contortions a conspiracy theorist must go through in order to take that rifle out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald? I sure do, whether any conspiracist sees them or not.

With respect to the bank stamps that conspiracy theorists insist should be on the back of Oswald's money order (CE788), I'll offer up the following thoughts and observations:

This question suddenly popped into my head today:

I wonder if my bank puts stamps or other markings on the back of every one of my checks that I have deposited into my personal bank account?

This question became very easy to answer (at least as far as my last several deposits are concerned), since I can check my recent deposits online and I can even see (and enlarge) the front and back of every cancelled/processed check that has been a part of a recent deposit.

I found that only SOME of my cancelled checks have ANY bank markings on them at all, while some others are COMPLETELY VOID of any and all bank stamps.

This discovery suggests to me that it's quite possible that this same "hit and miss" type of activity regarding the stamping of cancelled checks (and money orders) could have been the reason we find no official bank markings on the back of CE788.

For proof of this, I offer up the following two images of the front and back of one of my own cancelled checks from November 2010. This check was deposited (by mail) into my account at a major U.S. bank. And please note the back side of the check, which doesn't have any bank markings on it whatsoever (nor does the front). It merely has my own signed endorsement (much like what we see in CE788, which has just the Klein's rubber stamp marking and account number on it).

And, btw, in case anyone wants to accuse me of "faking" or "whiting out" some of the markings on this cancelled check--I have not altered this image in any way (other than to remove my account number under the words "Deposit Only" on the back side of the check):

It's my feeling, too, that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit is made which includes many checks and money orders (which would certainly have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's Sporting Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only the DEPOSIT TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank after it is received.

That last part about "bulk deposits" with a lot of checks and money orders shouldn't be too hard to verify at some point in the future. (Are there any bank employees posting at this forum?)


So, this is a "cancelled" cheque? Not a "processed" cheque? What do the back of your "processed" cheques look like? I just find it strange that you chose a "cancelled" cheque. At what point in the transaction did you cancel it?

Or are we at cross-purposes as to what terminology you are using here? Plus I think it best if we stick to the evidence from the time period, Dave.



You misunderstood my terms. When I said "cancelled" check, I didn't mean that I had literally CANCELLED it. I meant "processed". It's a check from late last year that I deposited, and it was positively PROCESSED and added to my personal account by a major U.S. bank via a Bank By Mail deposit ticket.

And that's not the only example I have either. I can dig up at least one or two more "processed" checks that went into my bank account that don't have a single marking or stamp on them from the bank where it was deposited.

But, as I also said, SOME of the checks DO have a stamp on them from my bank, but not all of them.

It's possible (I suppose) that the check in question was stamped by my bank only AFTER they had taken a digital image of it to put online for me to see. I'll admit that's possible. But all I can go by is what the digital image shows right now--and there's no bank stamp on it anywhere.


I did work in a bank back then, but here in Canada. .... I do not know if the process was the same, in the states, but here, every cheque, money order, [or] whatever, in a deposit was stamped, as it was also with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented, on the back.



Thank you, Bernice. I appreciate the info on that.


Here is what Davey is ignoring and it's crucial:

The FBI never found the money order in that 13,000 [dollar] deposit.

So in addition to never being stamped, it was never found, period.

This is what I mean by taking things in isolation.


Then what is this a picture of, Jimbo? A figment of my imagination?....

In short:

DiEugenio doesn't have the PROOF that Oswald's $21.45 money order [CE788] is a fraud. In fact, the BEST EVIDENCE tells us just the opposite -- OSWALD'S WRITING IS ON THE DAMN THING.

Naturally, this BEST EVIDENCE means zilch to conspiracy mongers like DiEugenio. He WANTS Oswald to be innocent (for some reason), so he'll jump through every impossible hoop and turn himself (and the evidence) into an unidentifiable pretzel in order to achieve that silly goal.

Another great example of DiEugenio's Mister Salty pretzel twists comes in the form of what he's done to totally misrepresent and mangle the "paper bag" evidence.

There's way, way more evidence to tell us that Oswald WAS carrying that paper bag on the morning of November 22 than there is to suggest a reasonable doubt that he didn't. But DiEugenio WANTS that paper bag to vanish off the planet--so, by God, he'll do and say anything to make that happen. Even to the point of accusing two completely innocent people (Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old kid Buell Wesley Frazier) of just MAKING UP the bag from whole cloth.

This, you see, is the fantasy world DiEugenio lives in every day regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. And he relishes it. He basks in it daily. Well, he can have it. I like EVIDENCE instead of silly speculation about people like Buell and Linnie Mae.


Okay. I thought I may have mistook your terminology. As I added to my previous post -- I think it best if we stick to evidence and procedures from 1963 here unless you can identify and list the procedures followed in the 1960's and the difference and similarities of those that exist in 2011. What with computers, logistics, timescales and all...

Not quite apples and oranges but still...

Why not just give in? There are soooooo many problems with the order and the delivery that it's getting a bit embarrassing for you to have to defend it all.


Because Oswald's handwriting is on the money order.

Why that extremely powerful fact isn't good enough for you is a mystery. But it IS good enough for me (and probably for most other reasonable people).

Plus, there's the fact that Klein's positively had that money order in its possession in March 1963. We know that to be the case, because if they didn't, they would have never processed the sales order for Rifle C2766 to "A. Hidell", as seen in Waldman #7. (Oh, yes, Waldman 7 is yet another fake document, isn't it, Lee?)

And Klein's STAMPED the money order with their own company stamp, for Pete sake.

Why do you think EVERYTHING is a fake--even that Klein's stamp on the back of the Oswald money order?

Nothing is ever what it seems to be, is it Lee (and Jimbo)?


I mean when you have to flash forward a half century to 2010 and online banking, I mean that takes the cake.


Sorry I had to use 2010 stuff to illustrate my point, Jimbo (my simple point being: not all processed checks that are deposited by bank customers have bank markings on them), but all of my 1963 cancelled checks are currently locked up at CIA headquarters in Langley until 2039. (Hoover ordered it; I didn't.)


The Money Order was not the only item that was void of bank s[t]amps. Look at the Bank Deposit slip dated Feb 15 (not the tally of the various deposits, but the Bank Deposit slip). It has no Bank Stamp. Have you ever deposited money, check, MO, etc to a bank without the bank teller stamping the date on the deposit slip??


That is very likely because that was merely an "extra copy" of the deposit ticket, and my guess would be that that extra copy never made it to First National Bank at all. Or, if it did go the bank, perhaps the bank only stamped the FIRST copy, and not the "extra copy". But if it never went to the bank in the first place, of course it wouldn't have any "First National Bank" markings on it.

[EDIT: Other possibilities abound as well, as discussed HERE and HERE.]


Finally, after the microfilm was taken from Klein's at about 5:00 am on 11/23/63, it was in FBI custody. Now, without showing the microfilm to Klein's or getting any additional help from Klein's on Nov 23, how did the FBI determine that payment to Klein's had been made with a postal money order??


First off, how does Armstrong know that Klein's provided no "additional help" at all regarding the money order?

But even if Armstrong is correct here, it could have merely been an educated, logical guess on the FBI's behalf. By that time on early Saturday morning, the FBI likely knew a whole lot about Oswald's financial state, and they likely knew he had no personal checking account at all. And they certainly knew that the rifle was ordered via MAIL ORDER. That left only CASH and a MONEY ORDER for the most likely methods by which Oswald would have paid for the rifle. (And we know he paid for it, because Klein's wouldn't have had a record of the SALE [Waldman 7] if the rifle had not been paid in full by the purchaser.)

So, to the Post Office the FBI went.

Pretty simple tracking method, IMO, given what the FBI likely knew about Oswald and his finances as of early on November 23, 1963.

But I'd like to also know where Armstrong got the info about Klein's providing the FBI no help at all regarding the money order on 11/23/63 AM. Can that be documented somewhere in the record?

[EDIT: Plus, Waldman Exhibit No. 7 provides the information the FBI would have needed to determine that Oswald/"Hidell" used a money order to pay for the rifle, because the initials "M.O." [for "Money Order"] are written right on Waldman #7 below the box marked "Total Amount Enclosed". And almost anybody could have easily figured out what the initials "M.O." stood for.]


Please note how the number of LIARS continues to grow upon reading these John Armstrong book excerpts that Jack White posted in 2005.

Start counting up the number of people who surely must be liars in the eyes of the conspiracy mongers when it comes to just the issue of Oswald's money order alone, including the various people from the banking institutions and the post office and the FBI and the Secret Service who saw and/or physically handled the Oswald money order.

The FBI must have been doing a lot of strong-arming at the banks and at Klein's and at the post office regarding JUST this money order thing alone, in order to get various people to say they saw and handled a money order that many conspiracy theorists think is a total fraud.

Another question -- Did the Feds PLANT a fake money order somewhere (after perfectly mimicking Lee Oswald's handwriting on it too, of course--and all within less than 24 hours of the assassination), so that a legitimate banking employee or a post office employee could conveniently "find" it later on? Or did the FBI just MAKE UP all the names of the bank officials and post office people that Jack White mentions in his 2005 post?

I'll reiterate this FACT one more time --- Waldman Exhibit No. 7 (which has never been proven to be a "fake" document by any conspiracy theorist in the world) proves for all time that Klein's received a paid-in-full rifle order from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas (who was really Lee Harvey Oswald, as we all know) in March 1963, and Klein's shipped a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to Oswald's Dallas mailing address on 3/20/63.

Any other conclusion is pure speculation that is not supported by the known documentary evidence connected with the JFK murder investigation.

~Mark VII~


Gil Jesus [who started this thread at The Education Forum on March 10, 2011] knows damn well that Oswald ordered, paid for, and was shipped Rifle C2766 from Klein's. He's merely pretending that ALL of the paper trail concerning that rifle purchase is phony/fake/worthless (which would be virtually impossible, given the sheer number of documents and PEOPLE who would have to be "in" on such fakery from the get-go).

The item that demonstrates for all time how completely void of relevance and validity Gil's theory is about the ENTIRE paper trail leading to the rifle is Waldman Exhibit No. 7 -- which (of course) is another document that Gil must pretend is a fraud in order to take that gun out of Lee Oswald's hands.

Waldman No. 7 is the completed order form that was filled out in March of 1963 by the people at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and it's a document that includes the important date of "MARCH 13, 1963" at the very top of the document -- which is a stamped date on the order form that indicates, per Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman, that that was the exact date when Oswald's/Hidell's $21.45 money order [signified by the letters "MO" on the same order form, btw] was put through the Klein's cash register, indicating that the PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED from the purchaser, Oswald/"Hidell".

Waldman Exhibit No. 7, all by itself, makes EVERYTHING that Gil Jesus has ever said totally moot and irrelevant concerning his claim that everything associated with Oswald's rifle order is phony/fake/forged.

Why is this so?

Because William Waldman himself testified in front of the Warren Commission while he was looking right at a copy of that completed order form for Oswald's rifle purchase (Waldman #7). And Waldman pointed out, in detail, what all of the various markings and stamps indicated on that document, which is a document that has a "Klein's Sporting Goods" logo in the upper-left corner.

So, unless Gil Jesus (and other conspiracy theorists who also think there's something phony about Oswald's rifle purchase) is prepared to provide some kind of proof that William J. Waldman was lying through his teeth when he talked about all of the details associated with Waldman Exhibit No. 7, then (IMO) Gil Jesus doesn't have a (reasonable) leg to stand on when it comes to the topic of Oswald's rifle order and the money order which paid for that rifle.

David Von Pein
March 6, 2011
March 7, 2011
March 11, 2011
March 16, 2011
December 21, 2015

(PART 1076)


Now, you know all the issues regarding the autopsy -- I ask again: are you completely satisfied with the autopsy and its findings?


Yes. I am.

That's not to say the autopsy was perfect. Hardly.

The biggest and most stupid mistake, IMO, made at the autopsy was when Dr. Humes refused to call Parkland Hospital in Dallas WHILE JFK WAS STILL IN THE MORGUE. Instead...he waited until 10 AM the next morning to call Dr. Perry at Parkland. (I guess Humes was worried he would interrupt Perry's slumber or something by calling late on Friday night. Just silly.)

But the final autopsy results are positively accurate.

How can we be absolutely sure of this?


Because the photographs and X-rays that were taken of President Kennedy's body at his autopsy "had not been altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41].

And a major reason the HSCA's photographic panel was able to arrive at that definitive "HAD NOT BEEN ALTERED" conclusion was because the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authenticated via the use of "stereo pairing" of the pictures. And all experts agree: it would be virtually impossible for anyone to fake a series of photographs that currently corroborate EACH OTHER by way of stereoscopic pairing.

Therefore, even if some autopsy pictures (or X-rays) are, indeed, missing from the current inventory of photos, the "stereo" pairing of the pictures we currently DO have prove for all time that any "missing" photos cannot possibly show something completely DIFFERENT than the current stereo pairs show. It's simply impossible for that to happen.

And what do these stereo pairs of autopsy photos tell us?:

Answer: They tell us that President Kennedy was shot TWO times and only two times, with both shots coming from ABOVE AND BEHIND the President.


We, of course, could argue from now until the 100th anniversary of JFK's death about the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. I have presented scads of common-sense views regarding my thoughts on that controversial subject. In my view, the SBT is a rock-solid, provable fact. All conspiracy theorists disagree, and likely always will. So be it.

But I'd like an anti-SBT theorist to answer this logical question for me:

If the SBT is a total crock of feces, how likely then do you suppose it would be for BOTH President Kennedy AND Governor Connally to have been shot with rifle bullets in their UPPER BACKS at just about the exact same point in time in Dealey Plaza (as they, of course, were), and then to have NO BULLETS WHATSOEVER show up in their respective bodies right after this shooting event?

And if we're to believe James Fetzer's line of insanity, there are at least FOUR bullets that go completely AWOL right after the assassination (and possibly even FIVE, because Fetzer has postulated that Connally was hit at least TWICE and perhaps by as many as THREE bullets), with all of these bullets magically vanishing off the Earth immediately. (And keep in mind that Connally couldn't be whisked away from the hospital by evil forces for a "covert" autopsy someplace, because Connally did not die from his wounds. So he stayed in the care of the doctors at Parkland Hospital.)

Arlen Specter was right, and he utilized a good deal of ordinary common sense when considering this matter too, when he once said that the main thing (above all others) that convinced him, in the end, that the Single-Bullet Theory was true was the LACK OF BULLETS being found in JFK's body. Hence, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back travelled completely through him and then it went on to hit the only thing it could have possibly hit (given the seating arrangement of the SS-100-X limousine) -- it hit the upper back of Governor John B. Connally Jr.

It's so simple it's almost embarrassing to have to point out the obviousness of this stuff, year after year.

David Von Pein
April 16, 2010


(APRIL 4, 1963):

(JULY 27-29, 1963):

(AUGUST 14-30, 1963):

(AUGUST 29—SEPTEMBER 2, 1963):

(SEPTEMBER 6-8, 1963):

(SEPTEMBER 12-15, 1963):

(NOVEMBER 10-11, 1963):




(PART 1075)


Jim DiEugenio knows a phenomenal amount about the assassination of JFK -- he, like David [Von Pein], is a true scholar re everything JFK. Most of us, especially myself, are armchair amateurs when it comes to comparing to the knowledge that someone like Jim or David possess. I enjoy reading about what BOTH of them have to say. I, for one, am very grateful for the excellent JFK material that David has on his web site -- it truly is remarkable.

However, please do not -- under any circumstances -- try to diminish the work done by Jim DiEugenio in terms of asking deep probing questions re the JFK assassination as well as other topics. The debate [between DiEugenio and John McAdams in September and Ocober 2009] was very informative and civil. Len [Osanic] allowed no interjection or talking over one another and gave both debaters plenty of time to put their points across.

A debate between Jim and David would be incredible because EACH person has an incredible knowledge base that puts most of us to shame. Thought provoking questions allows one to go off and do private research to see why there is so much conflict in this case.

In regards to the so-called "bags", Jim is absolutely correct -- read the WC testimonies yourself. Frazier and his sister couldn't identify the "correct" bag.


Now you know that when one encounters a crime scene, you do not touch anything and photograph the scene--correct? So where was the rifle bag in a photograph taken by the crime scene investigators? I am still looking for one.


Thanks, Tony.

About the paper bag:

It's certainly true that there is no photo of the paper bag in the Sniper's Nest. And if the DPD had to do it over again, I think we can all agree that they would have certainly photographed that bag in that Nest before anybody picked the damn thing up off the floor.

But, then too, we must look at that great thing called "THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE". And the "totality" of the evidence with respect to the paper bag specifically is certainly telling any reasonable person that the brown bag in evidence (CE142) is the very same bag that was taken into the Book Depository Building by Lee Harvey Oswald on the morning of 11/22/63.

That "totality" includes:

1.) Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle BOTH saw Lee Oswald with a large-ish brown paper bag that morning (November 22).

2.) Oswald's prints (a palmprint and a fingerprint) were found on the CE142 paper bag after the assassination.

3.) A brown viscose fiber consistent with the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage was found inside the CE142 bag. And that same blanket was known to be the place where Oswald stored his rifle prior to November 22.

4.) Oswald lied to the police about taking ANY large type bag into work that day. (And is it more reasonable to think Oswald, the accused assassin, was telling lies about the bag or people like Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle? But don't ask Jim DiEugenio that question. Because what you'll get is an answer that is totally UNreasonable....and laughable.)

So, even without a picture of the bag in the Sniper's Nest, it's quite clear to me (as it should be to all reasonable individuals of Planet Earth) that the bag with OSWALD'S PRINTS on it (CE142) was, in fact, the bag that Frazier and Randle saw in Oswald's hands on November 22, 1963.

And lots of other "totality" concerning Oswald's Carcano rifle tells a reasoned-thinking person that Commission Exhibit No. 142 was the bag that Oswald used to carry his rifle into work on the day he killed the President with it.


I will admit that I am not nearly as well-versed in several aspects of the JFK case as Mr. DiEugenio is. And one of those areas is "New Orleans/Jim Garrison", which is an area where DiEugenio excels--no doubt about that.

But even though Jim D. has far more knowledge than I about various aspects of the New Orleans and Garrison subjects, I am still very confident in saying the following (and I'll just do a bit of copying-and-pasting at this point, because these words from 2009 certainly still apply now; and these comments actually can be applied to not only the so-called "New Orleans plot", but also to many other theories and purported "conspirators" relating to JFK's assassination too):

"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).

In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this --- LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER --- to this --- SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous."
-- DVP; July 31, 2009

David Von Pein
April 14, 2010