JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1030)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I would like some reasonable explanation for...why it took the DPD more than a day to identify the rifle as a Carcano?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's incorrect, Garry. It took less than six hours for the DPD to label the rifle an Italian rifle. HERE'S the proof of that.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I read most of your link, Davey-poo, but I'm even more puzzled now.

I hate to keep repeating this, but I have no problem with a mistaken identification. It's how this mistake was handled.

You say, "It took less than six hours for the DPD to label the rifle an Italian rifle," but in your blog you have people telling you (and you agreeing) that Day identified the rifle as Italian 6.5mm right there in the TSBD. If this is true, your statement is extremely misleading and makes the affidavits even weirder.

And I could not find anywhere in your blog (I don't like videos so I didn't watch them) that explained when the DPD made a formal announcement that the rifle was a Carcano. Am I wrong in thinking that was done on the 23rd? If I'm not, then my statement is not incorrect. I was referring to when they announced it, not when they found out. Why would they not correct the Mauser story immediately anyway, on the 22nd? Were they so clueless that they did not know what was being reported?

And why are there no affidavits for a found Carcano from any DPD employees?

And one thing you really have to stop doing is posting videos of people claiming that they made mistakes. You do see why, don't you? If not, give it a little thought. It will come to you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But mistakes WERE certainly made....and then videos were made of those people CORRECTING their mistakes. Such as Seymour Weitzman's mistake-correcting video in 1967 for the CBS-TV Warren Report special. And Eugene Boone's in 1986 at the mock trial.

video

But what difference does it really make when the DPD "officially" announced to the press that the rifle was an Italian (Carcano) rifle? We have the proof---on FILM (via that CBS video I provided that you, for some reason, won't watch because you've decided you "don't like videos" ~shrug time again~)---that Lt. Day of the DPD was calling the rifle an "ITALIAN 6.5 MM." gun as early as 6:16 PM CST on Nov. 22, just 5 hrs. and 45 minutes after JFK was shot with that exact gun.

And you're missing out on a lot of informative "first-day" reports and interviews if you won't watch any videos from the Nov. 22 TV and radio coverage. Sure, there are, indeed, some "mistakes" in the first-day reports and interviews. But I would certainly EXPECT there to be some errors and incorrect reporting after such an unexpected and chaotic event (multiplied by two murders, including Tippit's).

But, overall, as I have said many times, it's my opinion that after watching or listening to a lot of the first-day television and/or radio coverage of the assassination aftermath, one conclusion becomes quite clear (if you evaluate the coverage reasonably and honestly) --- and that is: The first-day coverage suggests the assassination was carried out by ONE person who was firing from the TSBD, with almost certainly exactly THREE shots being fired....

JFK-Archives/becoming-lone-assassin-believer

Also see:
JFK-Archives/dvp-interview-about-television-and-jfk


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You seem to think I'm arguing that a Mauser was found, Davey-poo. Stop it, please.

If Day said on TV on 11/22 that the rifle was a Carcano, fine, but as I say, that makes the affidavits even weirder. Why was the confusion not cleared up by Friday evening then? You seem to not be able to understand what the problem is here, and your info makes the problem even worse.

And I have to laugh at this:
"5 hrs. and 45 minutes after JFK was shot with that exact gun."

So here:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Actually, Garry, I don't think anybody at the DPD was really all that concerned about revealing to the press what exact model or make of rifle was used to kill the President.

In hindsight---what with the confusion and rumors that would ultimately be caused by the early "Mauser" errors reported by Deputies Weitzman and Boone---yes, it would have been nice if Lieutenant Day had IMMEDIATELY identified the rifle after pulling it from its sixth-floor hiding place and shouted out to everybody on the sixth floor --- "It's an Italian 6.5 rifle, fellas; made in Italy in 1940".

Unfortunately, it would seem to me that Lieutenant Day and the DPD just didn't seemed too concerned about releasing that "Make and Model" information right away. So they didn't. Hence, some officers (like Boone and Weitzman) had to GUESS about what kind of rifle it was. And they guessed incorrectly. It's as simple as that, as far as I can see.

Hindsight, though, as we all surely know, is always perfect and blemish-free.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Davey-poo writes:

"Plus, we have the conclusions reached by the HSCA in 1978 regarding the authenticity of the Backyard Photos [previously quoted above]. Did the 20 members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel just make all of that stuff up out of thin air as part of a continuing cover-up?"

[End DVP Quote.]

So you DO believe the panel when they concluded boxes had been moved a few minutes after the shooting, which Oswald could not have done because, according to you guys, he was hustling downstairs right after the final shot.

Please let us know who was moving boxes, Davey-poo. Thanks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry,

The quote of mine you cited has nothing to do with the topic of the alleged "moved boxes". So why did you even bring that up after quoting me talking about the HSCA's conclusions re: only the backyard photos?

~shrug time~

I guess it's one of those "SINCE YOU ACCEPT THE HSCA ON THIS POINT, YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT THEM ON *ALL* OTHER POINTS TOO" type of arguments. Is that it, Garry?

As for the "moving" boxes....GO HERE.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

We are supposed to believe that a panel of 20 experts could not figure out what some guy named John Mytton figured out on his own. Was it because animated GIFs had not been invented in 1978?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. Exactly. The technology we have now to examine various things is better by leaps and bounds when compared with the available technology in 1964....or even 1978 for the HSCA.

Take, as another example, the way we can toggle back and forth between any two Z-Film frames via the "gif clip" invention. That is the thing that (visually) cements the SBT in stone, in my opinion.

If I could have shown the following Zapruder Film clips to Vincent Bugliosi, Nellie Connally, and John Connally (and some of the HSCA members too), I'm pretty sure I could have convinced all of those people that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were most certainly hit with a bullet at circa Z224. After watching these isolated GIF clips, how can there even be a shred of a doubt about it?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Silly argument. GIFs or not, the photo panel undoubtedly understood perspective well enough to make a judgment. You simply don't like their judgment.

To be fair, the panel was also wrong about the backyard photos. You don't even need to be a photo expert to know THAT. The DeMohrenschildt photo proves they were faked.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Garry, somebody forged a perfect "To my friend George....Lee Oswald" signature on the DeMohrenschildt backyard photo? Is that what you think happened? Otherwise, how did Oswald's own handwriting manage to get onto the back of the DeMohrenschildt backyard picture?

David Von Pein
September 17-18, 2015