(PART 97)

THE "C2766" RIFLE:








(PART 947)



Either Marina's husband ordered the alleged murder weapon or someone went to lengths to make it appear he did.

If someone did go to such lengths, what did that involve? Answer: [1] forging Oswald's handwriting, [2] fabricating Waldman Exhibit 7, [3] connecting Oswald to the alias Hidell. I have to say, all of this could have been accomplished pretty easily by individuals who were trained in such matters.

The back yard photos don't prove Oswald ordered any rifle. If the BYP are genuine, all they establish is that he possessed, when the BYP were taken, a rifle. A rifle, some argue, is different in certain ways from the alleged murder weapon.

I say reasonable doubt exists that Oswald ordered the alleged murder weapon.


And I say you are wrong and that absolutely not a SHRED of a doubt exists regarding Oswald's rifle purchase. You, Jon, are thumbing your nose at all of the corroborative items I mentioned earlier.

The evidence shows that Lee Oswald definitely DID order a rifle from Klein's, with Klein's then shipping Rifle C2766 to Oswald ("Hidell") on 3/20/63. That fact is proven in Waldman Exhibit 7. And that document was dug out of the Klein's files in Chicago on the morning of 11/23/63. So if the FBI (or whoever) was framing Oswald with a "fake" Waldman #7, they sure did take action in a hurry to start framing the sap named Lee.


Before someone brings this up, I'll pre-empt the defense's (CTers') argument about the missing bank stamps on the back of the $21.45 money order that Oswald mailed to Klein's (Commission Exhibit No. 788).....

That "No Stamps" argument, it seems to me, is a weak one. Why? Because we know (and can prove via Waldman 7 AND William Waldman's testimony) that Klein's in Chicago positively DID have that $21.45 money order in their hands on March 13, 1963 (the date stamped at the top of Waldman 7), because of the mere EXISTENCE of that document--Waldman Exhibit No. 7....

The above document provides the proof that two things occurred:

1.) Klein's received an order for a rifle from a certain "A. Hidell" in March of '63.

2.) In connection with the order from "A. Hidell" mentioned in #1, Klein's received PAYMENT VIA MONEY ORDER in the amount of $21.45 (the exact same amount that would be needed for a Klein's customer to purchase the Italian carbine with the scope via the Klein's magazine ads).

Number 2 above is confirmed on Waldman 7 via the written-in amount "$21.45" and the initials "M.O." that appear in the box marked "Total Amount Enclosed".

So we KNOW from Waldman 7 that Klein's did receive a mail-order coupon and a money order in the amount of 21 dollars and 45 cents from Oswald/Hidell and we know that Klein's acted upon receiving that order form by generating Waldman #7 and then mailing a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas (Oswald's box, of course) seven days later on March 20th.

So, in order for the "No Bank Stamps = The Money Order Is A Fake" argument to be an accurate one, we'd have to completely ignore the two relevant facts above. So I'd say to CTers --- Go gripe to First National Bank in Chicago about the lack of stamps on the money order. But don't blame Klein's. Because Klein's DID stamp the back of that money order. It's clearly stamped with a Klein's stamp -- "Pay to the order of The First National Bank of Chicago".

And: That money order has Lee Oswald's writing all over it. It's the HANDWRITING OF THE SO-CALLED "PATSY". That fact was determined by more than one handwriting expert.

So we know that Oswald had possession of that money order AND Klein's had possession of that money order. And even with the "No Stamps On The Back" argument that CTers love so much, I don't see how those conspiracists can UNDO those two basic facts about both Klein's and Oswald being in possession of the money order at some point in time.

Plus, as I also mentioned, there's William Waldman's Warren Commission testimony on this matter. Waldman confirmed that Waldman No. 7 was found amongst the Klein's files in Chicago and confirmed what all the various numbers and codes mean on Waldman No. 7.

So, am I supposed to believe that Bill Waldman was just flat-out LYING to the Warren Commission when he testified about these matters? Why would I believe that? Why SHOULD I believe such a thing? I don't think any conspiracy believer can give me a good enough reason to totally dismiss and toss in the gutter all of the CORROBORATIVE things I just talked about above, which are things that indicate, when added together, the undeniable fact that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased (and was shipped) Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods in 1963.



Would it have been easy to fabricate Waldman Exhibit 7? That's the only question.


But a lot more than just Waldman 7 would need to be fabricated in order for the CTers to be correct in this matter.

There needs to be a fake mail-order coupon to Klein's (with "fake" Oswald handprinting on it) [CE773].

There also needs to be a fake money order (with "fake" Oswald writing all over it).

And another part of CE773 (the envelope) needs to be fake too, because that envelope has Oswald's writing all over it too.

And then we'd have to have the Vice President of Klein's Sporting Goods, William J. Waldman, lying through his teeth in his WC testimony....

From 7 H 366...

DAVID BELIN -- "Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is."

WILLIAM WALDMAN -- "This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of an order received by Klein's from a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box No. 2915, in Dallas, Texas. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine."


Please tell me, Jon Tidd, with Bill Waldman's testimony staring me in the face, why should I even begin to believe that Waldman Exhibit No. 7 might have been "fabricated"?

You really think William Waldman of Klein's was part of a plot to frame Oswald? Really??

Or do you think the FBI (or some other nefarious plotter/conspirator) somehow managed to plant the document known as Waldman 7 into the Klein's files prior to 4:30 AM on November 23, 1963?

If either of those above things did NOT happen, then the rifle order shown in Waldman 7 is legitimate.

Jon, your earlier observation is a very good (and accurate) one. You said:

"Either Marina's husband ordered the alleged murder weapon or someone went to lengths to make it appear he did."

Now, with those two options in mind, in conjunction with all of the things that I've been talking about in my posts in this thread (including the testimony of the Klein's Vice President)....which of those two options should a reasonable person embrace as the likely truth?

In my opinion, it's not a very difficult choice. In fact, it's not even close. Marina's husband purchased the rifle from Klein's.

~~Mark VII~~


Two of the rifles found in the TSBD on 11/22 were Mausers...


Great. Now we've got TWO make-believe "Mausers" (plural) being found in the Depository.

I guess the plotters were trying to frame that schnook Oswald by planting two rifles in the building. Did they figure Lee would be holding a gun in each hand simultaneously as he shot Kennedy?


...and there certainly is no evidence of anyone anywhere ever ordering a Mauser associated with this case.


And yet your goofy patsy-framers arranged so that TWO Mausers would be left inside the Depository, eh?

Brilliant work!


Everyone in the world that was watching television on 11/22 saw the Mauser being held up with the 7.65 Mauser stamped on it.


It might be nice if you stopped making things up, Ken.

FYI, here's the film showing the rifle in the TSBD. It's a Carcano. Not a Mauser....


...one mauser without a scope was found on the roof of the TSBD.


Here's a 1993 audio clip with Tom Alyea (the cameraman who filmed the video posted above).

"There was no rifle on the roof. We looked everywhere." -- Tom Alyea; Nov. 20, 1993



The number of already-debunked conspiracy myths and inaccuracies in this post of yours is staggering.

You totally disregard OSWALD'S handwriting on all of the various documents relating to the rifle purchase order.

You totally dismiss and/or disregard the two large bullet fragments (CE567 & 569) that were found in the front seat of the limo. And those fragments came from Rifle C2766 and no other gun (and that's the same gun with OSWALD'S prints on it and the same gun Klein's mailed to OSWALD'S post office box). I wonder how bullet fragments from the gun shipped to LHO's P.O. Box by Klein's managed to find their way into JFK's car? Any ideas on that?

You totally disregard OSWALD'S prints being on the C2766 rifle itself (the palmprint and the two fingerprints on the trigger guard; the latter were said to be OSWALD'S prints by Vincent Scalice in 1993).

You totally cast aside the fact that OSWALD had at least one card in his wallet on Nov. 22 bearing the name "Hidell" (with OSWALD'S picture on it, to boot). And yet you claim there's no evidence at all that Oswald used the name Hidell. Was this Selective Service card planted on him?

You totally ignore Volume 6 of the HSCA regarding the backyard photos, in which it is said that the gun Oswald is holding in the pictures is the C2766 rifle.

In short, you are dead wrong about----everything.

A perfect .000 batting average. Not even a foul tip. Congratulations.




Why are you trying to jam the word "Argentine" into Kenneth Drew's mouth and posts? Kenneth never said anything about his TWO make-believe "Mausers" specifically being "Argentine" Mausers. He just said Mauser, period.

And in most of the early November 22 reports on TV and radio, the commentators are calling the TSBD rifle a "German Mauser". (Except for a couple of references made by Ron Reiland and Bob Clark, who call it an "Argentine Mauser" at one point.)

It's true that one of the Dallas deputies who first saw the gun on the sixth floor on November 22, Seymour Weitzman, said in his affidavit on November 23 that the rifle was a "7.65 Mauser".

But Weitzman, of course, was incorrect about the type of gun it was, and he later said he was mistaken, as everyone can hear him say for themselves in the 1967 video presented below, which includes a statement by Weitzman that a large number of conspiracy theorists have completely ignored. And the CTers who haven't ignored it usually say that Weitzman was lying in that 1967 interview with CBS. The CTers can see the shiftiness in Weitzman's eyes. But the things a CTer can "see" don't usually have any relation to reality at all.



You frustrate me almost as much as some of these other half-baked researchers. Do you ever actually read anything completely through?

Why do I call it an Argentine Mauser? For the simple fact that Seymour Weitzman identified the rifle in his statement as a "7.65 Mauser", and the only Mauser on the planet chambered for the 7.65 x 53mm cartridge just happens to be known worldwide as the "Argentine Mauser".

Do you get it now or do you want me to draw pictures for you?


Ron Reiland and Bob Clark were obviously the only ones who knew their butts from a hole in the ground when it came to rifles.


Yeah, right. Reiland and Clark got some inaccurate info from either the newswires or from some other source, and that suddenly makes them world-class rifle experts, right? Too funny.


This is precisely what everyone on this forum cannot stand about you. Even when you are obviously wrong, you cannot admit it, and resort to childish taunts.


So, Bob, you actually think Ron Reiland and Bob Clark examined the rifle THEMSELVES before reporting that an "Argentine" Mauser had been found in the Depository?

Neither one of those men examined the rifle for themselves. They were merely repeating the incorrect information they received from another source (or sources).

When the facts were finally confirmed via the DPD about what type of rifle it was (at approximately 6:16 PM CST on 11/22/63, as the CBS-TV footage shown below proves), everyone then began reporting it correctly as an "Italian" rifle. The words "Mannlicher-Carcano" weren't heard until the afternoon of November 23rd, however.


Hi Dave,

You are quite correct about Reiland and Clark regarding the "Argentine" weapon. One has to read the AP and UPI wire reports - and I certainly have - to know that they distributed the misinformation early that afternoon. No individuals were named as sources, but they certainly weren't Reiland and Clark who were, respectively, in a news car on the way to Oak Cliff and [at] Parkland when the Carcano was found in the TSBD.

The only newsmen on the TSBD sixth floor when the rifle was found were Tom Alyea of WFAA and Kent Biffle of the Dallas Morning News. Weitzman identified the rifle as a Mauser while it was still on the floor and partially hidden by boxes. Later, when Lt. Day lifted it out for Capt. Fritz, Day found the rifle was an Italian weapon.

Unfortunately, either Alyea or Biffle had already gotten word out to their newsroom and the misidentification went around the world only to be repeated by Reiland and Clark before corrections appeared. Such problems are quite normal in the news profession to this day but inaccurate information gets corrected as soon as possible.



Thank you, Gary. As always.


I'll also add this note....

WFAA's Ron Reiland refers to the Depository rifle as an "Argentine 6.5 Mauser" in this WFAA-TV audio clip from the afternoon of 11/22/63 (below). He doesn't call it a "7.65" weapon at all.

So much for Mr. Reiland being one of only two people in Dallas on November 22nd "who knew [his] butt from a hole in the ground when it came to rifles".


The question shouldn't be whether Oswald ordered the rifle, the question should be if and when did he pick it up?


So you seem to accept the fact that Oswald (using his "Hidell" alias) did order the rifle. But you can't envision a situation where Oswald could have merely gone to the post office, handed the clerk the slip he found in his P.O. Box, and then have the rifle package handed to him by the clerk??

That scenario is played out in hundreds or thousands of post offices all over the USA every day.

Plus, let me ask this simple, common-sense question.....

Why would somebody order something by mail-order and have it shipped to their post office box (whether it be a rifle or any other item) and then never go to the post office to pick up the merchandise? Why would anybody do that, Bill?


How come not one Post Office employee recalls handing a rifle over the counter to Oswald and taking the balance of payment for the pistol?


You think a clerk should have instant recall regarding every package he/she gives out to every John Doe in Dallas---even after eight months have passed? Come on.



Von Pein is the prime example of the Warren Commission Crazies or kamikazes. I mean, see there was never any evidence that Oswald ever picked up the handgun used to shoot Tippit at Railway Express. In fact, even more exculpatory, there was never any evidence that the FBI even went there. So how did the transaction happen?


How about that for sterling logic and razor-sharp evaluation of the evidence against Oswald in the Tippit murder, folks? DiEugenio is much more concerned about the lack of a paper trail that would connect Lee Harvey Oswald to the Smith & Wesson revolver that killed Officer J.D. Tippit than he is about the PROVABLE FACT that Oswald had that very same gun ON HIM (as he was trying to shoot more policemen with it) when he was arrested inside the Texas Theater just a half-hour after Officer Tippit was gunned down.

There are no words left for me to use to describe how utterly preposterous DiEugenio's thinking is regarding this matter concerning Oswald's revolver and the Railway Express.

To DiEugenio, Oswald being caught red-handed with the murder weapon in his very own hands in the movie theater on 11/22/63 is of far less importance than being able to answer the following question --- When and where did Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail order in early 1963?


David, too many questions...



IMO, there are no unanswered "questions" with respect to Oswald's rifle purchase at all. To the contrary, it couldn't BE any more crystal clear from the paperwork that Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's and Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald's PO Box. How much more straightforward can it get? And the testimony of the Klein's representative (Waldman) seals the deal on the transaction---that rifle WAS shipped by Klein's in Chicago to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

The rifle transaction is, in a sense, ON FILM --- microfilm records.

Sure, anybody can pretend that all the documents are fakes. But that's just a cop-out. No CTer has ever proved that ANY of the documents connected with LHO's rifle have been manufactured. And yet many CTers seem to think they ALL were faked.

As they have done in so many other areas of the JFK murder case, conspiracy advocates have invented any number of flimsy reasons to disregard the perfectly solid evidence that proves Oswald ordered the rifle and that Oswald (aka Hidell) was shipped the eventual Kennedy murder weapon by Klein's.

In addition, I think one of the silliest and dumbest and lamest of all the theories put forth over the years by CTers is the throry that has a group of unknown plotters creating all of the rifle documents from whole cloth in order to have what looks like a solid trail for the rifle purchase. A much much better "CTer theory" would be to just accept what is obviously the truth about Oswald ordering and possessing the C2766 rifle --- and then the CTers can pretend that the plotters went about the much easier task of framing Oswald with his own rifle, versus having the conspirators having the need to invent the rifle trail from the ground up themselves.

But that's what usually happens when CTers go down these silly paths to conspiracy --- they end up looking mighty foolish when the truth (and the paperwork and the testimony of William Waldman) is stacked up alongside the weak-sister "Everything's Phony" excuse that is always propped up by the conspiracy believers.


So where are those microfilm records TODAY? Can you produce them? Can you tell us where in the National Archives they might be found?

Because if that microfilm CANNOT be found today...then its evidentiary value is greatly diminished.



The WC exhibits known as Waldman 7 and CE788 and CE773 are photographic copies made from the original Klein's microfilmed records. That's practically the same thing as having the original microfilms. Although for handwriting anaylsis, it is always better to have an "original". But that argument certainly doesn't apply to Waldman #7, which has no "Oswald" writing on it at all. So that excuse won't work for CTers regarding the crucial document known as Waldman Exhibit No. 7.

Plus there is the testimony of Bill Waldman, who verified that what we see in Waldman #7 is a copy of the original.

Those things don't meet your requirements for "proof", Mark? You MUST see the "originals" in order to believe the documents are authentic, is that it?

In order for the rifle paper trail to be a falsified trail, CTers have no choice but to call William Waldman a big fat liar. There IS no way around that.

Now, somebody please tell me WHY I should think William J. Waldman was a liar and a person who wanted to frame Oswald?

Should I have a reason to think everybody EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is a suspect in this crime?


I don't know that anyone called Waldman a liar; those are YOUR words, not mine.

I'm pretty sure you won't find anything in my post above saying the paper trail is falsified. I haven't made that accusation.

I just asked about where that microfilm is today. Because if the microfilm cannot be produced today, then it cannot be examined.

And if it cannot be examined, we can no longer determine whether or not any evidence allegedly taken from the microfilm is what it is represented to be.

SHOULD a grand jury ever be convened to examine the evidence--which has NEVER been done in this case, and which folks like Bill Kelly are trying to bring about--the admissibility of the Waldman evidence might be challenged successfully.


We have the copies of the rifle documents preserved for all time in the WC volumes (and now online, of course). But I'm not sure where the "original" Klein's microfilms are located (or even if they were preserved at all).

But regardless of where the originals are located, the notion that the copies we currently have are tainted in some way is just another way the CTers have of pretending that the various pieces of incriminating evidence against Oswald have been manufactured or manipulated in order to frame LHO.

And, I will stress again, unless William Waldman of Klein's was lying through his teeth to the Warren Commission (and why should anyone believe he was?), then this document is exactly the same thing as having the original document in our possession right this minute, because it represents a photographic reproduction of the original microfilm, just as Bill Waldman said in his Warren Commission testimony at 7 H 366.


Hi Dave,

What happened to the microfilm record with Oswald's purchase? Well, the original was certainly given back to the company. If Klein's was my company, I'd insist on having it returned, for I'd need those records for accurate information about the hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of transactions it contains. Would I have let the FBI copy it if they wanted? Sure, but give it back ASAP.

Did the FBI ask to copy it? I don't know. There's no indication they were interested in anything other than finding out who ordered that particular rifle. Once the purchaser was located, everything else on the microfilm was probably thought to be irrelevant. And it was.

Oswald placed his order during the crucial, documented period when Klein's changed from offering shorter Carcanos to longer ones. Then, once Klein's confirmed the receipt of payment, they shipped the rifle. The company wouldn't ship a rifle to anyone without having payment, would it? And that means waiting for a check to clear or a money order to clear. Oswald's money order must have cleared since Klein's records show it and also that the shipment was made.

The lack of a money order stamp on the back would, it seems to me, be unimportant since it is clear Klein's knew the payment was made. That's all that mattered to them. Did a clerk somewhere screw up, or did a machine pinch roller misfeed a money order so it bypassed the stamp? Did the ink supplier go dry or become disconnected or clogged as Oswald's MO went down the line? Any of those and other explanations could be the mundane answer, it seems to me.



Hi Gary,

You could be correct on all of your above points, but I'm wondering if Klein's would have worried at all about a U.S. Postal Money Order clearing before Klein's mailed the rifle to Oswald?

I doubt they would have delayed shipping the merchandise in this instance because it wasn't a private check that needed to be cleared; it was, in essence, an official document issued by the U.S. Government (via the U.S. Post Office).

If it had been a private check that Oswald had paid with, then I'd say that Klein's would definitely have waited for the check to clear. But why would Klein's need to wait for a U.S. Postal M.O. to clear? They know that's going to clear, since Oswald has already paid the post office the $21.45.

But, then too, Klein's did wait seven days to ship LHO the gun (a delay from March 13 to the 20th). And the M.O. surely did "clear" in that amount of time. But I just wonder if the 7-day delay had anything to do with the M.O. waiting to clear? I don't know.

Anyway, these are just random "Money Order" thoughts this morning.



I don't know the PO procedure either, but I have to think that when a customer buys an MO, it is issued immediately. At some point the recipient would want to ascertain whether the MO was good or not. But you're right, this is an area that needs some exploration. There must be a reason why Klein's waited a week before shipping.



My guess is that Klein's might have been extra busy at that time and had a backlog of orders to fill, and they didn't get to Oswald's order for another seven days.

The Klein's deposit for 3/13/63 was for $13,827 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 10]. That sounds like a lot of sporting goods sales to me for one day in 1963. So they must have been busy indeed—based on those numbers.


There is an exhibit which shows a photo of the microfilm which had the envelope and orders from which they were supposedly printed.

That roll of microfilm is no longer in the archives... even though it was indeed deposited there back when. There was also a matter of who had it - in one report Waldman gives it to the FBI, in another he places it in a safe from where it is removed and provided later...

There is of course a little problem of Authentication David... if there is no original to look at, there is no way to confirm they are the same, other than taking someone's word for it. The FBI's word - which has a terrible record of messing with evidence.

If they hadn't been manufactured, there would be no need to lose the originals. Kinda like losing the negative to 133-A. It was found, recorded and inventoried at the DPD - and then disappears either before it gets to the FBI or after... but it disappears as did the Klein's microfilm.

That you can't see a legal problem with not having originals to authenticate the copies is par for the course, Dave...

And without a shred of June 1962 shipment evidence, how does Chapman know the serial number is wrong?


David Josephs,

We're not in a court of law where a strict "chain of possession" for every last thing that you CTers think is mandatory needs to be produced. So why pretend we are in such a court?

You know, as do I, that there's no GOOD ENOUGH reason to actually think somebody was running around forging and faking all the documents associated with LHO's rifle purchase. It's frankly dumb, IMO, to even begin to consider such an outlandish idea regarding the rifle paperwork.

Plus, you also know, as do I, that there was no good reason for the FBI to have wanted to examine a whole bunch of OTHER unrelated Klein's orders, just to prove that the Oswald order was legit. The FBI undoubtedly didn't have that frame of mind. And I doubt the FBI has such a frame of mind about similar evidence even today.

As I mentioned to you in another discussion on a related matter that seems to concern you so much (although I've never heard of anyone else who has expressed the slightest bit of concern over this issue) —— all other Klein's orders were completely irrelevant to the FBI on 11/22 and 11/23/63. They were searching for the paperwork connected with ONE particular rifle---the one with the "C2766" stamped on it. No other Klein's order mattered. And why should it have mattered? Those OTHER non-C2766 Klein's sales weren't of any importance to anyone on Nov. 22. But they sure are important things to David Josephs in 2015....and that's because he's a conspiracy hobbyist who loves to invent new (and more) reasons to pretend Oswald never fired a shot, plus new ways to pretend the FBI was incompetent.

But, as I've said many times, the things a JFK conspiracy theorist believes couldn't possibly matter less in the long run. Lee Harvey Oswald will be forever identified (and rightly so) as President Kennedy's lone assassin by reasonable men and women everywhere --- even without ever seeing a single other Klein's order for the Italian carbine that Oswald made so famous.


I noticed [Deputy Sheriff Eugene] Boone, at the mock trial [in 1986], said he learned the rifle was a Carcano only after the FBI had their hands on it and said it was a Carcano. He did not know Lt. Day was parading the rifle in front of the press telling them it was an Italian rifle made in 1940 on the early evening of 11-22-63...I guess.


As far as I know, Lt. J.C. Day of the DPD never uttered a word while parading around holding the rifle over his head at 6:15 PM on November 22. Day was never interviewed by the press. He merely carried the gun in silence.

As I said in one of my forum posts recently, I don't think very many people at the DPD had an up-close look at the rifle at all on Day #1. Lt. Day, in fact, *might* have been the only person who had a really good look at it (and perhaps Captain Fritz too, who we can see via Tom Alyea's film was examining the gun up close in the TSBD).

But it was Lt. Day who took possession of the gun inside the TSBD, and it was Day who carried it out of the building, and it was Day who then locked it up in a lock box at City Hall for a few hours while he went back to the Depository to take pictures.

Lieutenant Day then went back to City Hall and started examining the rifle in greater detail. Then, close to midnight, he was told to stop working on the rifle and to turn it over to Vincent Drain of the FBI, which he did.

Ergo, the initial incorrect "Mauser" reports coming from Dallas County Deputies Weitzman and Boone became the "facts" as far as many people (and reporters thirsty for details) were concerned.


I've seen a couple clips of the rifle traveling through the DPD, but never see the whole thing like I wish we did. When asked what kind of rifle it was, Day said, "6.5, apparently made in Italy 1940".

I [saw] it aired, and heard him say it on a CNN show called "The Assassination of President Kennedy" on 11-21-13.

I recorded it and just watched it again.


I don't recall that clip with Lt. Day saying something to the press. I wonder if I have it in my video collection? I'm not sure, but I'm sure going to look for it. Thanks, Michael. And my apologies for saying that Lt. Day never spoke to the press in the DPD corridors. I guess you just proved me wrong in that regard. Thank you.


Why that is not included in the clips of this historic event, I do not understand.


Perhaps it is buried in my collection someplace. I don't know. But thanks for the info nonetheless.


I watched the CNN program he [Michael] mentions, and can verify that the quote of Day is accurate.


Thanks, Pat.

I just did a little digging into my video archives and verified for myself that at least one TV network (CBS) was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd.

In the video clip below, which was aired live on CBS-TV on the evening of 11/22/63, Dan Rather of CBS News clearly calls the rifle being held up by Lt. J.C. Day an "Italian 6.5-millimeter" gun. We can't hear Lt. Day say anything; we only hear Rather's narration in this clip, but it is clear from the video that Lt. Day definitely is speaking to the members of the press at the crowded City Hall. He's probably identifying the rifle in just the manner confirmed by Michael Giampaolo and Pat Speer:

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to say that everybody on radio or television was labelling the murder weapon as a Mauser all the way through Day 1 (November 22nd) are proven wrong (just as I was proven wrong on this issue too) by the above video alone. And if CBS was reporting that the assassination weapon was a 6.5mm. Italian rifle during the evening of November 22nd, you can bet that most of the other TV and radio networks were reporting the very same thing at that same time as well.

Thanks again to Michael and Pat. Your confirmation of Lt. Day's statements in the 2013 CNN program prompted me to dig further myself. And the digging paid off. Much obliged.

[2019 EDIT: I have now acquired a copy of this 2013 CNN program discussed earlier. And, sure enough, the identification of the "Italian" rifle can indeed be heard being announced by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day (fast forward to 20:10).]



The original KRLD-TV video tape of Day holding the rifle is in The Sixth Floor Museum's permanent collection and it has been licensed to many documentaries over the years. The audio track includes Day's first words which were, "There's no name on it." From there, going by memory, he says, "6.5mm, made in Italy, 1940."

As Day said in his museum's oral history, he was taking the rifle back to his office and held it overhead so reporters couldn't touch it. As the clock shows, the scene happened at 6:16pm on Friday and both AP and UPI wire services soon fed his words around the world.

Boone and Weitzman, who both worked for the Sheriff's Department, never saw the rifle again after they or it left the TSBD. One of the two reporters present, either Tom Alyea/WFAA-TV or Kent Biffle/Dallas Morning News, presumably reported the ID information to their offices, so that must be how the Mauser story started.


Thanks, Gary.


By the way, the video of Day was not shown live; the scene was recorded at KRLD and fed to CBS soon thereafter for Rather to narrate on the network.


Yes, I know. It's obvious that Dan Rather isn't narrating a LIVE scene taking place at Dallas City Hall. That's why I phrased a portion of my forum post in this manner (knowing full well that the clock on the wall behind Lieutenant Day was showing a time of 6:16):

"CBS was most definitely identifying the assassination weapon as a 6.5-millimeter Italian rifle as of approximately 7:00 PM (Dallas time) on Friday, November 22nd."


David Von Pein
January 2014
March 2015
May 2015

(PART 946)


The Mafia had it done. Really, guys, think about it -- they helped JFK to be elected. When the Mob does you a favor, they want one in return. Robert Kennedy went after the Mob. You don't do this to the Mob and get away with it.


Very common misleading assertion.

The Mafia *COULD NOT* have done what was done in this case... for example, they could *NOT* have spirited JFK's body away from Dallas and controlled the military autopsy.


President Kennedy's body being removed from Dallas and being flown back to Washington, D.C., immediately after he was assassinated on November 22, 1963, was not the slightest bit sinister. Nor was it really very surprising under the circumstances.

Ben Holmes, whether he wants to admit it or not, has implied in his post above that all of the following people were part of a plot to "spirit" JFK's body away from Dallas and/or to "control" the autopsy at Bethesda....

Jacqueline Kennedy
Kenneth O'Donnell
Larry O'Brien
Dr. James Humes
Dr. J. Thornton Boswell
Dr. Pierre A. Finck

Given Holmes' absurd statement above, he has no choice but to accuse each one of the above individuals of some kind of sinister, underhanded activity.

But, of course, since the notion that any of those people were involved in any kind of plot or conspiracy is preposterous, we can, instead, totally dismiss yet another one of Ben Holmes' posts as being nothing more than the usual unsupportable guesswork (aka: dreck) being spouted by an Internet conspiracy clown who doesn't have the slightest idea which way is up when it comes to the topic of the John F. Kennedy assassination.

David Von Pein
May 24, 2015 (EDT)

(PART 945)


Abraham Zapruder, Bill Newman, Gayle Newman, and Z317. In perfect harmony....


That is true...and what is this good for?


Apparently nothing, if you ask any CTer.

But let me add one more corroborative item to the prior list which included Zapruder, the Newmans, and Z317....

Let me add this autopsy X-ray, which is more corroboration. But, like always, such MULTI-LEVEL CORROBORATION (eyewitnesses, filmed evidence, plus an autopsy X-ray) means zilch to the conspiracy crowd.....

And, of course, I can also add still more "corroboration" of President Kennedy's head wound being located just where we see it in the Zapruder Film --- the autopsy photos and the autopsy report and the testimony of all three of JFK's autopsy surgeons.

At what point does CORROBORATION on multiple levels equal PROOF if you're a conspiracy theorist? (Or is that a dumb question?)

David Von Pein
May 22, 2015

(PART 96)














(PART 944)


That [Mac] Wallace print most certainly DID NOT come from any of the boxes in the Texas School Book Depository Building. And that fact is confirmed via Commission Exhibit No. 3131.



That fingerprint had to come from somewhere and why did it take the FBI 18 months to come to the conclusion that it wasn't a match? In addition, all of us know that there is NO WAY that ANY official body would ever admit to a Wallace fingerprint being anywhere near Dallas, let alone the sniper's nest. The implications of that are staggering.



I'm just going by THE EVIDENCE (which CE3131 certainly represents). And CE3131 says that all prints lifted off of the TSBD boxes were identified EXCEPT FOR ONE PALMPRINT, which the FBI was still trying to identify as of the date of the letter to the Warren Commission which is seen in CE3131 (and that date was September 18, 1964).

Anybody can CLAIM anything they want.

Who was it who first claimed that an "unidentified" print in the National Archives belonged to Malcolm Wallace anyway? Do you know?

I would say that the reason for any prints still being marked "unidentified" in the National Archives is due to the fact that there was a large gap in time between the time the TSBD box prints were photographed and the time the FBI finally got around to acquiring comparison prints of the various DPD officers. The FBI didn't get those DPD prints until August and September of '64 -- nine months after the assassination.

So it wasn't until AUGUST and SEPTEMBER that the "unidentified" prints on the TSBD boxes could be compared with the people to whom almost all of them actually belonged--members of the Dallas Police Department. And that's why fingerprint expert Arthur Mandella had to tell the Warren Commission on April 2, 1964 (4 to 5 months before most of the prints [save one palmprint] were positively identified), that he just simply did not know whose prints those "unidentified" prints belonged to. How could he have known as of 4/2/64? Nobody had even compared the prints with all the Dallas cops who touched the boxes until months after Mandella's testimony.

Why the delay? I have no idea.

But, regardless of the reason for that delay, CE3131 STILL EXISTS and is still the BEST EVIDENCE to this day regarding the prints on the Depository boxes.

If you want to believe that CE3131 is nothing but a con job--feel free. It won't be the first time (or the last) that a conspiracy theorist is willing to throw out the official evidence in the JFK case in favor of conjecture and unsupportable theories.

David Von Pein
January 15, 2010




(PART 95)










(PART 943)


My suggestion would be that you show us something from your vast knowledge that you think we do not know.


Heck, you CTers can't even figure out the super-easy stuff, like:

Oswald shot Tippit.
Oswald shot Kennedy.
Oswald shot at Walker.
Oswald told many provable lies after his arrest.

Is that enough "new" stuff for you today, Ian?

You don't believe a single one of those four things, do you Ian? If you believe in even ONE of the four, I'll faint from the massive shock.


So, there were three Magic Bullets then!


The CTers of the world are the only people with any bullets with any "magic" in them.

In fact, the conspiracy nuts have at least FOUR magic bullets when you think about it for two seconds:

1.) The bullet that conspiracists think entered JFK's upper back but never exited.

2.) The bullet that conspiracists think entered JFK's throat but never exited.

3.) The bullet that hit John Connally but was never entered into the official record.

4.) The bullet that hit JFK in the head from the front, with every single portion of this bullet also vanishing, leaving behind (incredibly) portions of a bullet FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE in the front seat (CE567 and CE569).

And, if you feel like crawling into bed with a nut named Fetzer--you can add at least two more "magic bullets" to the above list:

5.) The SECOND bullet that Fetzer says hit Connally and disappeared.

6.) The SECOND bullet that hit JFK in the head, leaving behind, incredibly, only Oswald-incriminating fragments in the front seat from Mannlicher-Carcano [MC] Rifle #C2766 (which is a gun Fetzer insists could not possibly have been involved in the assassination at all, because Fetzer--being the mega-kook he is--likes to pretend that Oswald's Carcano rifle was too "low powered" to cause the damage to Kennedy's head that was done to his head).

This is despite, of course, the various MC tests that have been performed by the Warren Commission [at Edgewood Arsensal by Dr. Olivier] and tests by Dr. John K. Lattimer in the 1970s, which all prove that Oswald's MC rifle could easily create the type of skull damage that was done to JFK's cranium on November 22nd, 1963.

Now, what were you saying about "magic" missiles?

David Von Pein
April 27, 2010

(PART 942)


The only thing Martin Hinrichs did is to slide JFK to the right in that photo [below]. That's all. Nothing else. Big deal.

So, what is that supposed to prove? Especially since we all know that JFK was sitting three inches higher than Connally.

Connally is also much more "scrunched up" in that awful jump seat that he had to sit on during the Dallas motorcade, giving the false impression that JBC was smaller than he really was.

Just take a look at this photograph of the SS-100-X limousine and imagine the large frame of John Connally sitting on this jump seat. Heck, he was practically sitting on the car's floorboard:


Yeah, I don't see why we need a 3D animation at all really. This is easy stuff. Apparently no professional 3D expert is willing to take the job on of showing us exactly where that shot came from. Too bad, as I am sure we would all like to know how it ends up.


Seeing as how the only shots came from Oswald's sixth-floor window in the Book Depository (and the wounds on both victims--not to mention the THREE spent bullet shell casings found right underneath Oswald's window--fully bear this out) -- the only place any accurately rendered 3D animation could conclude the shots came from is the sixth floor of the TSBD.

More CTers ought to read how detailed and accurate Dale Myers' animation truly is. For Pete sake, he used the actual blueprints of the TSBD, Dealey Plaza, and the limousine! How much more accurate could anyone hope to get?



You have to appreciate the significance of changes to both men [in Dale Myers' computer animation]. Particularly the downsizing of JBC (or upsizing of JFK).


The difference in the sizes of the two victims (JFK & JBC), in real life, wasn't all that much. Kennedy was 6-feet, 0.5-inch tall (72.5 inches). Connally was apparently 6-feet-2. (I'm relying on unconfirmed CT reports on his height, which probably isn't a good idea for ANYTHING, but the 6'2" figure sounds about right.)

Plus: Dale Myers' animation was originally done without any of the facial features or other physical characteristics of the victims being included in his model. It was a "wireframe" version of the model that Myers started with in 1995. He later added the clothing and all of the physical/facial features to his animation, just to make it look nicer. But those physical features, for the most part, are meaningless and not required at all.

In addition, as Myers himself has told his critics in the past, you could literally REMOVE the limousine from the animation too. It wouldn't make a bit of difference if the two victims were faceless blobs of animated clay and it wouldn't matter a bit if the Lincoln limousine was eliminated entirely. The computer still knew the most important details (based on the fact the animation was "key framed" to the Zapruder Film itself) -- the trajectory of the bullets and the two "blobs" (victims) in the path of those two bullets.


Did you say Z-Axis did the proofing on this?

Does Z mean ZZZZzzzzzZZZZzzzz?


I didn't say it. Dale Myers did. I was quoting Myers.

Are you saying Z-Axis is a crappy outfit, Colin?

If not, then what's your point of bringing up Z-Axis at all?


How do we explain a "gross inaccuracy" in the car.....using scale models and all?


There is no "gross inaccuracy", Colin. That's merely an allegation coming from conspiracy theorists (like you) who think you can achieve TO-THE-INCH, 3D accuracy when looking at flat 2D photos and screen captures.

You surely aren't implying that YOU know more about computer animation and photogrammetry than Dale K. Myers....are you Colin?

David Von Pein
April 27, 2010

(PART 941)


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

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

Anyone who could utter the above words after watching this Z-Film segment must either be blind or closely related to Oliver Stone:

Plus, the following clip from the Zapruder Film is always worth posting several times a day. It's a moving two-frame picture of a man named John Connally who is IN DISTRESS at Z225.

Now, considering the fact that that same man (John B. Connally Jr.) was shot in the upper back by a bullet at just about this exact same time in Dealey Plaza, what are the odds of this reaction being displayed by Mr. Connally being the result of SOMETHING ELSE BESIDES THE RIFLE BULLET THAT HIT HIM IN THE UPPER BACK AT ALMOST THIS EXACT SAME INSTANT ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?:


I would tend to agree with you, David. You make a reasonable case. The problem for you is that there is no way that Connally's [right] armpit is to the left of JFK's midline. Connally is not far enough to the left of the jumpseat or twisted to the right for alignment to occur. So a win for the single bullet. But it was not fired from the TSBD.


You're wrong, Colin:

The above image is based almost exclusively on THE SAME FILM that conspiracy theorist Colin Crow says is showing John Connally too far to JFK's right when the SBT occurred. Dale Myers has done computerized "key framing" in order to synchronize the Zapruder Film to his 3D computer animation.

In other words -- What we see in the above "From The Sniper's Nest" image is exactly what Abraham Zapruder would have seen and filmed with his Bell & Howell camera if he had been taking his movie from the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository.

Myers' entire computer model is LOCKED IN to the Zapruder Film, regardless of the particular angle we are looking at at any particular time. The 3D computer imagery allows us to leave Zapruder's pedestal and look at the limousine and the victims from any vantage point in Dealey Plaza--including the above POV through Oswald's rifle in the Sniper's Nest.

And Connally's right armpit area is perfectly in line to accept Bullet CE399 at Z-Frame 224 after that bullet exits John Kennedy's throat. Myers has the crosshairs aimed a little bit too low on JFK's back in the above image, however. The entry wound in Kennedy's back wasn't quite that low, as we can easily see here:

And for additional SBT confirmation (of a more "low tech" variety), we've got my all-time favorite Warren Commission exhibit--CE903--which is an exhibit that I never get tired of talking about, mainly due to the fact that this single photograph taken on May 24, 1964, by the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt totally destroys the persistent myth spouted by conspiracy theorists that has the evil Warren boys deliberately misrepresenting the location of JFK's upper-back wound in order to support the SBT.

But such an allegation/myth is just simply not true, and it NEVER WAS, as CE903 clearly illustrates -- because Arlen's Specter pointer is NOT being placed in the "neck" of the JFK stand-in here. In fact, if Specter had moved the metal rod UP INTO THE NECK of the stand-in--and still maintained the 17.72-degree downward angle of the rod that was required in order to approximate the angle leading back to Oswald's window (subtracting the 3.15-degree street grade of Elm Street for this picture in CE903, since the car here wasn't sitting on a street with a 3.15-degree slope to it)--it would have meant that the exit point for the bullet would have been around JFK's chin, instead of the correct "tie knot" exit location....


Hi David, is Dale [Myers] able to show us this [SBT] frame from the Zapruder position? That would resolve the issue. I would be convinced then. If it's a true 3D model, it should be possible. Until then, I'll be convinced by the vision of Jackie's pink sleeve. You can see it quite clearly in the graphics you posted. I have used correctly scaled versions of JFK and JBC in their positions over the HSCA scale model [see the image below; click to enlarge it]. Both men had similar shoulder widths. That was the problem with Dale Myers' image overhead. JFK's shoulders were 25% wider than JBC. Grossly inaccurate.


Yes, Colin, I would certainly think that such a view would be available via Dale Myers' computer animation.

Here's a freeze-frame screen capture taken from Dale Myers' DVD preview. This image would equal Z-Frame 225:

Myers was supposed to release his "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation on DVD. On his website, Dale still says it is "planned for the near future".

I'd very much like to see more of Dale's animation, with the interactive ability to be able to see the Z-Film frames from a variety of different perspectives in Dealey Plaza. Hopefully it will come out on DVD sometime down the road (maybe for the 50th anniversary).

Also See:


Allow me to take this opportunity to post a few important comments concerning Dale Myers' 3D computer model ("Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination"). The following comments come from Dale Myers himself in 2008, in response to criticism about various aspects of his computer animation, which was criticism that was coming from two conspiracy theorists in particular--Pat Speer and Robert Harris.

I'm quite sure that none of this information imparted by Mr. Myers is going to be believed by any hardline conspiracists of Planet Earth, but I felt the need to provide Mr. Myers with at least a little bit of "equal time" here in this thread at the JFKAssassinationForum, as some of these things being discussed by Myers below relate to the material in this forum thread:


Thursday, May 8, 2008
Con Job: Debunking the Debunkers


"It’s been thirteen years since I released my preliminary computer-generated JFK assassination reconstruction and five years since an updated version was broadcast world-wide, although you’d never know it given the frequency with which the History and Discovery Channels re-broadcast the two programs my work appeared in.

And consequently it’s no wonder that conspiracy theorists continue to hammer at my work in the hopes of convincing mainstream America that my computer reconstruction is nothing more than a carefully constructed sham designed to further a supposed cover-up in the murder of President Kennedy.

The newest crop of debunkers push their warped ideas about my work with graphic illustrations and self-produced YouTube videos which purport to show the “obvious” lies and distortions these theorists have supposedly discovered among sequences of my work aired by the History and Discovery Channels.

One of the more vocal and equally off-base debunkers is Patrick J. Speer, a self-acknowledged wanna-be poet, turned wanna-be-musician, turned record buyer for the music industry who eventually became “obsessed with recent American history.”

Mr. Speer’s graphic intensive website promises “a new perspective on the Kennedy assassination” and while some newcomers to the subject may be impressed with the eye-candy, there’s nothing really there that rises above the same old, tired arguments and misinformation kicked around by conspiracy theorists for better than four decades.

It’s the same old shoe with new laces.

There are plenty of identical websites that offer up the same kind of misinformation for those who don’t know any better and if visitors to these kinds of websites are willing to get their facts about American history from wanna-be poets and the like, who am I to spoil the party?

In fact, I’ve largely avoided confronting this army of wackiness, outside of addressing a few of their more frequent allegations, because doing so proves time and again to represent a colossal waste of time.

It doesn’t take long to figure out that one could waste a lifetime attempting to hammer a little common sense into these people who for one obsessive reason or another find it their calling to opine about something they know very little about, or in the case of Mr. Speer, know absolutely nothing about.

I’m referring of course to the multitude of vile and reckless charges concerning my computer reconstruction of the Kennedy assassination which are featured as part of Mr. Speer’s “new perspective” on the case.

Utilizing screen grabs lifted from the two television programs I participated in, Mr. Speer pretends to debunk my work using graphic overlays that break every rule of photogrammetry accompanied by childish headlines like Dale Myers’ House of Mirrors; Murder by Cartoon; and Cutting the Crap.

I pointed out Mr. Speer’s photographic follies on my FAQ page over three years ago (without using his name in order to save him embarrassment), yet Speer continues to use the same deceptive photographic techniques to – get this – claim that he has evidence of my deception.

For instance, Speer uses overlays of images taken from two different angles and claims that because they don’t align I am being deceptive; or, Speer draws lines of trajectory on a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional scene and claims that because the two-dimensional line doesn’t line up with the three-dimensional scene (an impossibility due to the basic rules of photogrammetry) that I am being deceptive.

Forget about convincing Mr. Speer that one cannot draw a rational conclusion from an irrational premise; I’ve tried. Suffice it to say that Mr. Speer prefers to live in a land of illusion where physical realities don’t hold a candle to obsessive conspiracy theories.

I’m not going to spend a lot of time here pointing out the ridiculous nature of each and every one of Mr. Speer’s goofy assertions. But here are just two to make the point, as well as the truth of the matter:

Charge: Myers shrunk the model of Governor Connally and his jumpseat 25% in order to get the single bullet theory to work.

Truth: Mr. Speer used a frame grab from the Discovery Channel’s “Beyond the Magic Bullet” to make his point, but failed to note that the image he used was taken from a portion of the program in which my computer work was being displayed on a computer monitor which was at a significant angle to the camera – the effect being that the computer images of Kennedy and Connally were compressed horizontally and consequently the Connally image appeared smaller than the actual model.

When Mr. Speer was informed that wide-angle sequences from the Discovery program showed the relationship of the computer monitor to the program camera (and therefore the fallacy of his argument), he wrote on his website, “I must admit I did not realize this footage was shot at an angle. I mean, why would they do that?” Believe it or not, Mr. Speer than proceeded to claim that the producers of the program and I conspired to deceive viewers (and presumably the hapless Mr. Speer) about the true alignment of the single bullet theory by purposely shooting the monitor on an angle!

In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle from a computer monitor.”

Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident – namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.

Can it get any sillier? I’m afraid it can.

According to Mr. Speer, “By admitting the images used in the program were distorted, Myers is as much as admitting that his whole presentation in 2004's Beyond the Magic Bullet was irrelevant. No, it's actually much worse. Since the program's creators added a trajectory angle onto Myers' distorted figures that lined up perfectly with their wounds, Myers is as much as admitting that the single-bullet theory--which he set out to prove some years ago--and which he calls the 'single-bullet fact,' does not work on undistorted figures.”

The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms, the path of the bullet) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.

It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory, such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations. I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this area.”)

Charge: Myers misplaces Connally’s jumpseat in order to ensure the alignment of the single bullet theory.

Truth: The location of the jumpseat has no bearing on the alignment of any trajectory plotted in my computer reconstruction. The figures of JFK and JBC were matched to the Zapruder film perspective, not to the location of the jumpseat. Frankly, you could eliminate the entire limousine from the reconstruction and the alignments of JFK and JBC would still be valid since their position in space is based on Zapruder's view of the scene and the relationship of JFK to JBC, and their combined relationship to the TSBD and the surrounding buildings. In short, the position and size of the jumpseat has no bearing on the single bullet theory.

All of this means little to Mr. Speers who now writes, “As he is now asserting that the limousine model had nothing to do with his positioning of Connally, only measurements taken from the Zapruder film, I decided to put the seat in the correct location on Myers' undistorted over-view, and see how it matched up with Connally….”

Does it matter that Mr. Speer cannot really move the jumpseat to the “correct” location within my computer rendering (i.e., move a two-dimensional image in three-dimensional space)? Apparently not, because Mr. Speer then proceeds to once again break the Cardinal Rule of photogrammetry (i.e., draw two-dimensional lines on a three-dimensional image) to “demonstrate” that Connally doesn’t align with the single bullet trajectory, concluding, “Myers undoubtedly knows this. Which fuels my suspicion that the distorted animation used in ‘Beyond the Magic Bullet’ was no ‘mistake’.”

Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.

According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”

I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit. Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5 inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.

To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery Channel.

The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the television time available – especially given the fact that the position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory.

But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the marytyr for his fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven something, writing, “While I've given Myers a hard time, and have received a substantial amount of abuse in return, I believe Myers' acknowledgment of the failure of his animation to demonstrate the single-bullet theory, was probably worth it. Now we can all stop pretending the alignment of Kennedy and Connally, and thus the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, has been ‘proven’.”

One can only feel sorry for Mr. Speer after reading such nonsense. The only one being conned by such addled thinking is Mr. Speer himself who despite all efforts is determined to prove just how thick-headed conspiracy theorists can truly be.

Anyone who wants to pretend my reconstruction work is false or doesn't matter is free to do so. As I’ve said before, in the final analysis, the truth doesn't require anyone's belief.

I don't respond to posts on the many Internet newsgroups because of the sophomoric nature of the vast majority of the postings (and I know many respected experts on the assassination who feel the same way). It is the insipid name-calling and disrespect for honest research and work that I (and others) find the most appalling. It is worse than a kindergarten sandbox.

Too bad. The Internet promised to bring people of common interests together. Instead, it gives a global soap box and a megaphone to those who have the least amount to say.

On occasion, I feel the need to defend my work against these childish armchair detectives if only to plant a little sanity in a field of nonsense. Unfortunately, whenever I speak up, it only seems to bring more nuts out of the woodwork for yet another round.

It's a never ending cycle of lunacy; one ridiculous argument after another to see who can be the top fool.

Congratulations, Mr. Speer! You’re tops with me."

Posted by Dale K. Myers at 4:05 PM [05/08/2008]


Monday, August 18, 2008
YouTube Pied Pipers


"I’ve gotten more than one email in the last few days asking about a video posted on YouTube over the weekend claiming to debunk my computer animation work on the validity of the single bullet theory.

This latest video posting, entitled “Dale Myers or Voodoo Geometry 101,” arrives courtesy of conspiracy advocate Robert Harris who manages to prove how little he knows about my computer work, photography and geometric relations, and the Kennedy assassination in general in less than six minutes.

The crux of Mr. Harris’ argument is that yours truly (that’s me) falsified the geometric positions of Kennedy and Connally in order to make it appear that the single bullet theory was valid and that the single bullet shot traced back to Lee Harvey Oswald’s firing position on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. In short, according to Mr. Harris, my computer work is a transparent lie.

Never mind that Mr. Harris’ charges have been made numerous times in the past by equally ignorant detractors and rebutted in detail on my own website (see, FAQ: Computer Reconstruction of the JFK Assassination) and here in this forum (see, Con Job: Debunking the Debunkers).

The modern day pied pipers of the YouTube generation count on the short attention spans and general ignorance of their audience to sell their own brand of snake-oil and promote themselves as reliable purveyors of truth via video on the Internet.

Of course, anyone can point a webcam at their own mug a pretend to be someone of knowledge and responsibility. Hence, the wisdom of the ancient axiom, “You get what you pay for.”

In this case, those who buy Mr. Harris’ free offerings are getting a pig in a poke.

For instance, Mr. Harris makes the foolish claim that he can measure a two dimensional still frame of a computer rendering of the presidential limousine and its occupants (as culled from the Discovery Channel program, “Beyond the Magic Bullet”) and determine the angle of a three-dimensional trajectory from the sniper’s nest.

Apparently Mr. Harris never heard of (or understands) the underlying principle of photogrammetry, which in essence shows that it is impossible to project three dimensional lines in space onto two dimensional photographs without taking into account the location and angle of both known vantage points. By some wizardry unknown to human science, Mr. Harris is able to do both.

Conspiracy guru Jack White found out the lessons of photogrammetry the hard way when he took a beating in 1978 while trying to convince the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that multiple press photographs of Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle depicted multiple rifles of differing lengths. The “proof” Mr. White offered of the multiple rifle cover-up were measurements he made on two-dimensional press photographs.

As the HSCA photograph experts called to rebut Mr. White rightly pointed out, the former advertising photographer failed to take into account the relationship between the camera making the photograph and the tilt of the rifle in three dimensional space. In fact, White had never heard of the principle of photogrammetry.

Apparently, Mr. Harris never heard of Jack White’s boo-boo, because he makes the same error. And he makes it more than once.

For instance, Mr. Harris claims that a comparison of a photograph of the presidential limousine made early in the parade route with a computer rendering of my limousine model shows that “Myers has jammed the two men much more closely together than they really were.” Mr. Harris claims that the distance between the back seat where the president was seated and Governor Connally’s jumpseat were compressed in my computer model by “a little over fifty percent.”

What is the evidence for the charge that I manipulated the dimensions of the limousine to better serve the single bullet theory?

Mr. Harris offers nothing more that his own self-proclaimed expertise at visually aligning two different photographs made from two completely different angles in three dimensional space – a virtual impossibility – along with an unsupported declarative statement: “There is no way JFK’s legs could have been up against the back of Connally’s car seat.”

In fact, Mr. Harris’ credibility on this last point is effectively destroyed by the existence of numerous photographs taken throughout the motorcade (a photograph on the back dust jacket of Bill Sloan’s JFK: Breaking the Silence to name one) which shows exactly the opposite to be true – Kennedy’s knees were comparatively tight to the back of Connally’s jump seat.

In addition, Mr. Harris’ claim that “when the House Select Committee on Assassinations depicted the victims they had to move Connally considerably [more] to his left” than he appeared to be in other photographs suggests that Mr. Harris doesn’t know that the HSCA Photographic Panel mistakenly based Connally’s position on a line of sight as seen in a photograph made by Hugh Betzner and that the HSCA analysis failed to take into account the fact that Connally’s right shoulder was below Betzner’s line of sight (as proven by the Altgens’ photograph) and hence Connally might have been seated further right than the HSCA believed. My three dimensional analysis of the Zapruder film bears this fact out.

Most importantly, Mr. Harris states, “The next scene from [Mr. Myers’] presentation includes an amazing sleight of hand or pixels or whatever. Watch closely folks, as Mr. Myers tries to hide the evidence of his deception by slipping the victims back into a proper position.”

Here, Mr. Harris shows a clip from the Discovery program which features my computer work in which the moment of the single bullet is shown in wireframe and in solid form as the camera circles the limousine and its occupants.

Mr. Harris then adds this, “Okay, notice two things here. First the car and the background are all wireframes. Also, he still has Kennedy and Connally close together, so that 18 degree bullet trajectory looks pretty reasonable. But as the car rotates, notice that something happens. The wireframes disappear and right in the middle of the rotation, Mr. Myers switches to a totally different video. In this video he positions President Kennedy and Governor Connally correctly.”

What Mr. Harris doesn’t know is that the two renderings (wireframe and solid form) depict the same model.

That’s right folks, the wireframe model that he claims has been “jammed together” in order to mislead the American public and perpetuate the cover-up, is the exact same model (and in the same position) as the solid form model which Mr. Harris says depicts Kennedy and Connally correctly.

For you tech junkies, the model of the single bullet moment was simply rendered in a 360 degree rotational view multiple times with a variety of surface settings (wireframe, solids, etc.), and then combined with simple dissolves pulled between the various layers.

At the end of his presentation, Mr. Harris proudly boasts, “People like Myers have been playing this same game for years, misconstruing the positions of the President and Governor Connally to make it appear that the shot was fired from the sixth floor of the depository. But the angles from there just don’t work.”

Of course, the only game players in this case are the conspiracy diehards like Mr. Harris who refuse to accept the reality of what happened in Dealey Plaza and prefer instead to prey on the young and na├»ve who are more than happy to follow any video pied piper willing to tell them whatever they want to hear about the Kennedy assassination – truth be damned."

Posted by Dale K. Myers at 3:37 PM [08/18/2008]


AUGUST 25, 2008:

"Part of the process of aligning the model with the film involved creating a frame-by-frame match of the wireframe models to the Zapruder film. This alignment sequence has been seen by a number of individuals including the team from Z-Axis Corporation who vetted the process.

Other points of view matching other films and still images were also created during the reconstruction process.

I have not made these sequences available on the Internet due to copyright restrictions.

While making these sequences available would certainly aid those having a tough time visualizing in three dimensions, I don't believe the die hard conspiracy crowd would be among them."

Posted by Dale K. Myers at 12:19 AM [08/25/2008]


David Von Pein
April 26, 2010