(PART 1271)


Lee Harvey Oswald Ordered The Rifle....

The C2766 Carcano rifle was positively mailed by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago to Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box in Dallas. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact.

And the money order was stamped by Klein's. So Klein's was definitely PAID the $21.45 for the rifle (with William Waldman of Klein's verifying this fact in his Warren Commission testimony).

And Klein's did the processing on their end by depositing the "Hidell" money order into their bank account. And that money order has Oswald's writing all over it.

So Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") definitely ordered that rifle. There is no REASONABLE doubt about that fact.

Klein's shipped that rifle to Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas.

Klein's received payment for that rifle (otherwise, of course, they never would have generated the order form which became Waldman Exhibit No. 7).

More here:


Please explain in detail how Waldman 7 proves that the rifle was mailed to the P.O. Box?

Even if true, what exactly would be the implication of such a purchase?


Now you're just being silly, Martin. As if you can't even imagine what the "implication" would be of LHO's buying and owning the weapon that killed the President. A kindergartner knows the answer to that one (and the one about Waldman 7 too), but (incredibly) Martin Weidmann needs these simple things explained to him with an easel and a diagram. Geesh.


Oh, that's why postal inspector Holmes was told by the FBI to go look for a money order in the amount of $21.95 and that the purchase date was March 20, 1963.


Good! Tom Sorensen is now going to pretend that there isn't a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation for the "21.95" and "March 20" discrepancies.

And the March 20th thing is hardly a discrepancy or a mistake in the first place, because March 20th WAS the date of shipment for the rifle by Klein's. That's hardly a reason to conclude there's something suspicious about the rifle order. But apparently it's enough of a reason for some CTers to cry foul.


Do you admit, David, that Waldman 7 holds not a shred of proof that any rifle was actually mailed to the P.O. Box?


I do not agree with that statement at all, Martin.

Waldman #7 is the internal order form created by the seller--Klein's--and it shows that Hidell/(Oswald) ordered 1 Italian Carbine in March '63, and it also shows that the order was PAID FOR via a money order ("MO") in the amount of $21.45.

It's true that Waldman 7 doesn't have these specific words written on it --- "THIS RIFLE WAS MAILED VIA THE USPS". But it does, however, provide the shipping date---March 20. And it also indicates that the rifle was sent via "Parcel Post" (denoted by the "PP" being circled at the top). But that's not good enough for you either, is it Martin?

Plus, there's William Waldman's testimony, which certainly indicates that Klein's did MAIL rifle number C2766 to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas on the 20th day of March in 1963. Or do you think Waldman was lying through his teeth here?....

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record [Waldman Exhibit No. 7]?"

WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.

MR. BELIN -- "Does it show by what means it was shipped?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP.""

MR. BELIN -- "Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here."

MR. BELIN -- "Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes."

MR. BELIN -- "Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order."


And, if somebody (under false name or pretenses) orders, pays for and receives a rifle by mail in late March 1963, what exactly would be the implication of that purchase? No theories about what could have happened to and with the rifle at a later date, please. Just the only true implication of that purchase.... do you think you can answer that, David?


It implies that "Hidell" (aka Lee Oswald) ordered a rifle under an alias. But apparently you think the rifle order implies that someone was framing Oswald and wanted to only make it LOOK like he had ordered a rifle from Klein's in March of '63 (which means the orchestrators of such a plan perfectly faked Oswald's handwriting as well).

But, IMO, it's much more reasonable to believe the rifle evidence is just what it appears to be---an order placed by Oswald himself and not by plotters attempting to frame him.

Oswald didn't buy the rifle to shoot the President, that's true enough. He purchased the gun to kill General Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting makes that fact pretty clear. And with that illegal activity in Oswald's mind, it makes perfect sense that he would want to use an alias to order the rifle by mail in March.

In short....

It was OSWALD'S rifle, and there is no indication at all that he ever loaned that weapon to anyone else the entire time he owned it. And there certainly is not a shred of evidence to indicate anybody stole the gun from Ruth Paine's house in September, October, or November of 1963.

And, as I've asked conspiracy theorists in the past --- Who is MORE likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on any day of the week (11/22/63 or any other day)---the rifle's owner himself or someone else? That simple and basic observation, all by itself, makes OSWALD much more likely to be JFK's murderer than any other person on the planet.

David Von Pein
January 8-14, 2018

(PART 135)



(PART 1270)


The autopsy photos show that the wound from behind JFK was in his back, but WC defenders keep saying neck. Or is it possible that the WC defenders don't know the difference between the back and the neck.


Why are you stating that LNers "keep saying neck"? They do no such thing. LNers know the wound was in JFK's upper "back" (14 centimeters below the mastoid process), not in the "neck".

Can you, Tony, post some messages of LNers saying "neck" repeatedly, in order to back up your statement that LNers "keep saying neck"? (I doubt you can.)


WTF are you talking about? We had this long discussion about how Gerald Ford had changed it from Upper Back to NECK. Didn't you see the document?

Or maybe you never read the WC.

[Quoting from Page 87 of the Warren Report....]

"The President's Neck Wounds ---- During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the source of the shots."


I thought you were implying that "WC defenders" ON THE INTERNET "keep saying neck", which is not true at all (of course).

Yes, I know the Warren Commission kept calling it a "NECK" wound (as did Arlen Specter for years in his TV interviews and debates).

But mostly the WC (and Specter) were referring to the COMBINATION of the BACK and NECK (THROAT) wounds when they used the word "neck" (and the bullet did, in fact, pass through an area that would qualify as the NECK, so in that regard, the Warren Commission was correct to say "neck" when they talked about the entry and exit holes as a UNIT).

I think the Warren Commission should have used the words "upper back" more often (to differentiate between the entry wound in the upper back and the exit wound in the neck/throat), but regardless of the words utilized, the Commission knew the entry wound was "14 cm. below the mastoid process", and that's not the neck, it's the upper back.

If it makes you happy to think the Warren Commission lied when it constantly said "NECK" in the Warren Report when "upper back" is probably technically more appropriate for the entry wound ALONE, go ahead and do cartwheels. But the entry wound never moved—it was always "14 cm. below the mastoid" (just like it says it the autopsy report)—and the Warren Commission knew this full well.

In my opinion, it's been a 50-year debate over semantics for the most part.

David Von Pein
January 5-13, 2018




Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head".

OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it?

So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.)

And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head".


The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy") position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or any other body landmark.

Do you, Martin [Hay], think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)

While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew it.

So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he said this:

"The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says."

The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's back wound was most certainly located and all sensible people know it.

David Von Pein
March/April 2015