JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1241)

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

It is my claim that we see no other Klein's orders that identify any one other rifle from the lot of 100 included with C2766 as SOLD on orders listing the Item # as C20-T750 as the LNers claim occurred for the Hidell order because there NEVER WERE ANY. I contend that every other order for C20-T750 was shipped something OTHER than M91/38FC rifles and that every order that was shipped an M91/38FC rifle shows us a completely different Item #.

In fact, we are not shown a single other order where a M91/38FC was shipped to ANYONE, for either a C20-T750 order or an order for its item number either.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Been having yet another email conversation with G[ary] Mack... He [doesn't] like that I want to see OTHER KLEIN'S ORDERS to substantiate the claim that Klein's was shipping a M91/38FC rifle for C20-T750 orders for months....

Any single order with a M91/38FC serial # on it next to an Item # C20-T750 would PROVE that Klein's was shipping the bigger rifle for the "TS" rifle in the ad.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth would the FBI care about OTHER orders in the Klein's files other than the paperwork connected with the purchase of ONE particular rifle with the serial number C2766 on it (which was purchased by Oswald, of course)?

That's the only gun purchase the FBI was looking for -- the one with C2766 attached to it. And that's because they knew that the JFK murder weapon was a gun with "C2766" on it. Any other Klein's order was useless and immaterial to the FBI's investigation. Isn't this obvious?

You, David Josephs, are merely concentrating on all the wrong things (again), in order to make Oswald blameless.

Of course there were many other order forms in the Klein's files that looked similar to Waldman #7. But none of those other orders had the serial number "C2766" written on them, and therefore none of those many other Klein's orders had any bearing whatsoever on the JFK murder case.

So why in the world would those other forms for non-Oswald gun purchases be propped up in any FBI report, or the Warren Report, or anyplace else (outside a forum like this one, which is filled with people who look for excuses 24/7 to exonerate a guilty double-murderer)?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Find some [Klein's Sporting Goods] order with FC serial #'s on them and SEE WHAT WAS ORDERED.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This gives me a perfect opportunity to utilize this same type of "YOU FIND IT" argument in a related "rifle" area of the case:

For years, conspiracy advocates like Thomas H. Purvis (and others) have claimed that there are very likely a whole bunch of additional 91/38 Carcano rifles in existence with the serial number C2766, other than just CE139 (Oswald's rifle).

Purvis, in fact, has stated in the past that there could be as many as "30 to 50" Carcano rifles floating around with the exact same serial number of C2766 adorning them. (Which is totally insane, to begin with.)

But, to date, I have never ever seen any conspiracy theorist produce any proof at all that even TWO different Carcano rifles have the exact same serial number -- and that goes for the number "C2766" or ANY other serial number. I've never seen anyone show proof that there were two rifles of ANY make or model that have an identical serial number.

The whole idea of identical serial numbers on any products is an absurd notion on its face. And it's particularly nutty to think that there are as many as "30 to 50" Carcano 91/38s floating around with C2766 on them.

The whole idea of a serial number in the first place is to give that ONE item uniqueness, which sets it apart from all others in its general class. And particularly rifles, which are often used in crimes and would require tracing via unique serial numbers.

I can't show David Josephs any other Klein's order forms for rifles (other than Waldman 7, which is the form that hangs Oswald in a number of ways). But that's not because no other forms exist. Of course similar forms did exist in the Klein's files in 1963. For Pete sake, the Klein's people were scouring those forms and records until the wee small hours of 11/23/63 looking for one specific form with "C2766" on it -- which, of course, they found. And that's the ONLY form the FBI was interested in in November 1963. Other rifle orders were meaningless then, just as they are meaningless now.

But in my "SHOW ME THE RIFLE" example, I feel the reason we haven't seen any other "C2766" Carcano rifles is because none of those do exist (other than the one marked CE139 in the National Archives).

But, maybe in the year 2499, some old gun buff will produce another ancient Mannlicher-Carcano with the number C2766 stamped on it. I'm not holding my breath, however. (Are you?)

Of course, even if I'm dead wrong, and there are 150 additional Carcano 91/38 rifles in the world today with the number "C2766" on them, it's totally immaterial anyway.

Why?

Because we know that only ONE particular Carcano rifle with C2766 on it was the weapon that killed President Kennedy in Dallas. And that one particular C2766 rifle is CE139, the one with Lee Oswald's prints on it that was found in the building where Lee Oswald worked.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Hang on a second here DVP... hijack some other thread...

This is NOT about the number of C2766 rifles ....

This is about any one of the other 99 FC rifles with serial numbers being sold as C20-T750 by Klein's from April 62 thru Feb 63...

so that the SINGLE AND ONLY EXAMPLE of this ever happening does not become the cornerstone of your evidence....

This is very simple and you are trying to confuse the issue.

[...]

I just want to see examples of other C20-T750 orders and you and GMack come flying out of the woodwork with your non-sequitor [sic] and ad hominem....

He does not see the value of reviewing the shipping patterns of Klein's related to this Item #, as expected...

You simply change the subject... also as expected....

[...]

HIDELL's order sticks out like a sore thumb.

Even you should be able to follow that... right?

DJ


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why are you so obsessed with this, David?

I don't find it unusual in the least that we have never seen OTHER (non-Oswald) orders from Klein's files. I wouldn't EXPECT to see any non-LHO orders from Klein's ... because, as stressed previously, any non-C2766 orders were IMMATERIAL when it came to the FBI's investigation into the JFK murder case. They were searching for ONE specific serial number. No other number or order mattered. I wonder why it matters to you so much? It's crazy.

In a related topic, has anybody ever seen any other order forms filled out by Seaport Traders for other revolvers shipped to non-Oswald customers? I never have. Have you, David? And if you haven't, are you going to start belly-aching about fake evidence in the Seaport files regarding the revolver that Oswald ordered?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Thanks again Dave... you're like a broken clock, well maybe not.... even a broken clock is right twice a day....

The FBI did not want to show us any other C20-T750 orders because .... wait for it......

They would show that FC rifles were NEVER sent for orders of the Item #, until the April 1963 order... 2 months after HIDELL's order coupon.

And since they NEVER sent FC rifles -- except as recorded, IN HANDWRITING, on HIDELL's order form -- wait for it again Dave.....

We can conclude that the Klein's order form... of which the original no longer exists, and is a copy of a microfilm print... was CREATED to link HIDELL to C2766...

Unless of course, we can show the PATTERN from these Klein's orders that they were shipping the FC rifles based on Waldman writing the serial #'s and VC #'s on the orders....

What are you so afraid of Dave? These orders have just as much chance of supporting the FC shipment hypothesis, as it does refuting it.

Does evidence that MAY exonerate Oswald terrify you LNers that much?

I could actually HEAR GMack peeing his pants thru the emails when considering the implications of there not being a single other Klein's order that lists a FC rifle for a C20-T750 shipment.... that the HIDELL order was the one and only....

So rather than continue HIJACKING THIS THREAD over the serial #..... PROVE THAT KLEIN'S SENT FC RIFLES FOR ALL C20-T750 ORDERS...

Or [are] you gonna pee your pants as well and change the subject... and avoid answering even the most basic common sense questions?

Let us know where you stand on this Dave... answering these questions will not make you look any less the shill LNer than you are...

but they may teach you something about logic....

1) Do you believe C20-T750 was ordered and purchased by anyone other than HIDELL between 4/62 and 2/63?

2) Do you believe that any orders for said Item # would have the Serial # and VC # written on it JUST LIKE THE HIDELL ORDER?

3) Do you contend that starting with the cancellation of the TS order, C20-T750 orders were shipped a scoped 40" FC EACH TIME and that 40" FC rifle serial numbers would be written on these orders?

4) Do you understand that if they WERE SHIPPED FC RIFLES this would prove that Klein's WAS shipping the FC and you can now prove it?

5) Do you also understand that if the rifles shipped for C20-T750 orders was NOT the 40" FC but some other rifle(s), your case for Klein's having shipped a FC to HIDELL is severely weakened?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A CTer who thinks LHO never ordered a rifle by mail order in '63 and who thinks ALL of the paperwork connected with that rifle purchase is fake and fraudulent is preaching to me about "logic".

Oh, my weak bladder! Have at least some pity on it, will ya Davey!




DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Only a fool would believe the HIDELL order was the only C20-T750 ordered in all those months...

Do you believe that any orders for said Item # would have the Serial # and VC # written on it JUST LIKE THE HIDELL ORDER?

C'mon now Dave.... since there HAD to be other C20-T750 orders... did Waldman write the serial # shipped on ALL of them?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

OF COURSE Klein's wrote the same information (serial # and VC #) on their other orders they received from other customers. Why WOULDN'T they?

But the bigger question continues to be:

Why would you, David Josephs, EXPECT the FBI to have saved or extracted from Klein's files any OTHER orders that WEREN'T for the "C2766" rifle they were specifically searching for? It makes no sense whatsoever for the FBI to say to themselves:

Well gee, guys, we'd better pull out a bunch of other order forms in these Klein's files besides just this one for the C2766 rifle, because if we don't show that other similar orders were processed in the same manner by Klein's, then a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theorists in the future just might claim that we FBI guys faked this C2766 order form. So let's pull this form here for another C20-T750 order which says that Klein's shipped a rifle with the serial number of D4577 on it; and let's save this random form too, with the serial number P9027. Neither of these rifles means a damn thing as far as the C2766 gun is concerned, but we can't be too careful, because those rabid CTers can be brutal, you know! Of course, I'm sure those same crazy CTers will now say we faked the D4577 and P9027 order forms too. So it really won't make any difference even if we saved every C20-T750 order in the Klein's files, because, as we all know here in the Bureau, the crackpot CTers of the world think the FBI would go to ANY LENGTHS to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, regardless of how many dozens of Klein's orders they had to fake and manufacture from whole cloth to do it.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

I would expect the microfilm to have the other few hundred orders from that time period... or any of the other films Klein's had to store their orders.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And that microfilm no doubt did contain that very thing (i.e., lots and lots of orders from non-"Hidell" customers). Why would you think the microfilm DIDN'T contain such orders?

You think that just because we haven't SEEN all of the other order forms on the microfilm, this means those orders never existed at all? Why would you think that?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Finding a C20-T750 order, shipped and received as a 40" FC rifle supports their assertion, that it was happening that way.

Again Dave... not a single of the other 99 rifles has ever been SEEN, let alone shipped on a real order.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what? You think the other 99 customers should have come forward and exclaimed: Look! I also purchased a rifle from Klein's by mail order! ?

Maybe many people in the past DID make such an exclamation about getting a Carcano from Klein's. I don't know. But I certainly don't think it's suspicious that you and I don't have personal knowledge of such a declaration from a former Klein's customer.

And I have no idea why you're saying this:

"...let alone shipped on a real order."

How on Earth did you acquire enough guts to make such a loony claim, David J.? "A real order"??? WTF?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

And, as we both know, the microfilm is gone from the canister at the archives... Waldman was given a copy in early December, according to the FBI.

You think that still exists?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the slightest idea. But I have no reason whatsoever to think that William J. Waldman of Klein's Sporting Goods was lying when he testified about the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase.

And let's face facts, David --- if Bill Waldman WASN'T a big fat liar, then Klein's definitely DID mail the C2766 rifle to "A. Hidell" in Dallas on March 20, 1963. And that's a FACT that most conspiracy theorists simply do not want to face.

My guess would be that the original microfilm was eventually returned to Klein's. It was, after all, the property of Klein's and it contained mostly material that had no bearing whatsoever on the JFK murder investigation. So why wouldn't such documents be returned to Klein's under those circumstances?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

The FBI cannot find or possess any of these 100 rifles...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would they have even TRIED to locate any of those other 99 rifles? Why would they even CARE?

Answer: They wouldn't care. And that's because NONE of those other 99 rifles had the serial number C2766 on them. Ergo, those rifles had NO RELATION TO THE JFK ASSASSINATION INVESTIGATION.

Only a rabid conspiracy theorist would even begin to care about this type of thing. It's just one more example (among hundreds) of CTers obsessing over something that is totally meaningless.

And I'll ask once again this related question (which went unanswered five years ago when I first posed it)....

"Has anybody ever seen any other order forms filled out by Seaport Traders for other revolvers shipped to non-Oswald customers? I never have. Have you, David [Josephs]? And if you haven't, are you going to start belly-aching about fake evidence in the Seaport files regarding the revolver that Oswald ordered?" -- DVP; August 8, 2012


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Because DVP is so much enamored of his mentor Bugliosi, he now even copies not just his invective, but also his upside down JFK logic. Which goes like this: the critics, even though they are arguing for Oswald's defense, have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of their case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'd be satisfied if the conspiracy theorists could just prove ONE TINY ELEMENT of their "case for conspiracy" in the John F. Kennedy murder case, let alone "all elements of their case".

To date --- Nada!

It's also interesting to note that Jim DiEugenio seems to think everybody looking into the JFK case has to pretend we're inside a courtroom. The "Oswald was never proven guilty in a courtroom" defense is always a convenient excuse for staunch CTers to use, even though those CTers know they can't prove a conspiracy existed in the JFK case if their lives depended on it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I won't even reply to the above in any particular way, since it's nothing but a typical Von Peinian non sequitur.

But let me ask DVP this:

Do you understand why the point Josephs is trying to make is important to your side?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't consider it important to the "Lone Assassin side" at all, quite obviously.

Because even without seeing and examining various other non-Oswald "C20-T750" rifle orders in the Klein's files, there is ample proof from the available documents that were photographed by the FBI and the Warren Commission that Klein's Sporting Goods positively and without doubt did obtain Rifle C2766 in a shipment from Crescent Firearms in New York City in February of 1963 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 3 (Carton No. 3376; Line 3) and Waldman Exhibit No. 4 (Line 836) and Waldman Exhibit No. 5], with that exact rifle then being sold by Klein's to "A. Hidell" (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) on 3/20/63 [see Waldman Exhibit No. 7].

Do conspiracy theorists think that ALL of those Waldman exhibits are fake documents? I guess many CTers (including David Josephs) must, indeed, think that every one of those Klein's documents was manufactured by the FBI in order to frame Oswald. An incredibly silly notion, to be sure.

If, Jim, you mean: Is this topic important to Lone Assassin believers, because by examining other C20-T750 Klein's orders, it would prove that the Oswald/Hidell rifle order is then legitimate? Well, since I don't think the same way CTers do, I have no reason to believe that there was any fakery or monkey business involved with the Klein's microfilmed files in the first place. So my opinion about all those Waldman exhibits I just linked above would not have changed one bit---with or without the ability to see additional Klein's rifle orders.

To me, the "suspicion" being raised by David Josephs concerning the Klein's microfilm is just another example of a conspiracist attempting to insert doubt and controversy and potential fakery into the JFK evidence where none exists (and never did exist) in the first place.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey:

Let us make it simple.

The rifle in evidence is not the rifle that the WC says Oswald allegedly ordered. You know that, so did Gary Mack.

When confronted with this serious problem in the record, which David Belin knew about and concealed, you and Gary would say, well they ran out of one and sent him the other. I personally thought that was pretty much so lame it needed two crutches. In my experience, when that happens the merchant gets back to me and gives me the option, he does not just send me something I did not order.

What David [Josephs] is saying is this: let us assume for the sake of your argument that Klein's did this weird practice. Both the FBI and the WC knew the wrong rifle was in evidence. They knew sooner or later someone would point it out. If this had happened before, then should they not have said in the record, "Well see, when they ran out of 36 inch rifles, they then sent out the 40 inch model."?

So when you say it's irrelevant, that is simply more bloviation on your part. It is directly relevant to the argument you and Gary made. In fact, it goes to the heart of the matter.

So where is the evidence that it happened?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The evidence that it happened, Jim, is contained in Waldman #7 (in conjunction with CE773). Those two documents, in tandem, provide the PROOF that the following two things happened....

1. Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A. Hidell) ordered a 36-inch rifle from Klein's via mail order in March 1963.

2. Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago mailed a 40-inch rifle to Oswald/Hidell on March 20th, 1963.

Regardless of the REASON for #2 happening, #2 above definitely DID happen nonetheless.

~Mark VII~







DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

I'm curious Dave... all the FBI reports between March 1963 and Nov 1963 and not one mention of a rifle... or Judyth Baker for that matter... both figments of an overactive imagination. The FBI does not mention a rifle during that time because there was no rifle to talk about...

Prove otherwise.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's tons of proof that Oswald owned and possessed a rifle and a revolver as of March 1963. Tons! You just refuse to believe ANY of it is legitimate. ALL of this stuff is fake (or flat-out wrong), per many CTers:

1. All (or most) of the "Waldman Exhibits" that are available in Volume 21 of the WC volumes.

2. Commission Exhibit No. 773.

3. The backyard photographs (which show Oswald with a rifle and a pistol).

4. 6 HSCA 146 (verifying the legitimacy of the backyard photos).

5. Marina Oswald's testimony where she talks about seeing the guns Lee owned.

6. Marina Oswald's testimony where she admits that she herself took the backyard photographs.

7. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt's testimony where she states that she saw a rifle in the closet of Lee Oswald's apartment on Neely Street in Dallas....

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?"

8. The testimony of William J. Waldman, in which he testified that Klein's definitely did ship the C2766 Carcano to Oswald's post office box in Dallas in March of '63.

9. The handwriting on both the money order (CE788) and the order coupon and envelope for the rifle purchase (CE773). That handwriting and handprinting was positively identified as the writing of LEE HARVEY OSWALD by multiple handwriting experts for the Warren Commission and the HSCA. But CTers want to now pretend that all of those experts got it wrong (or were just flat-out lying, take your pick).

So, as we can see, there is ample proof to show that Lee Oswald ordered, paid for, and possessed the Kennedy murder weapon (and the Tippit murder weapon as well).

Do conspiracy theorists really think the FBI "planted" all of those records in BOTH the Klein's files in Chicago AND the Seaport Traders files in Los Angeles prior to each of those companies finding the pertinent "Hidell" purchase records for both the rifle and the revolver on November 23, 1963? Can CTers REALLY believe they planted all of those records---right under the noses of the various Klein's and Seaport personnel who were performing the physical searches for those documents on 11/23/63? Such a notion is absurd, of course. But I guess many conspiracists must buy it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

...let us grant, for the sake of argument only, that the Klein's records are real (which I do not buy at all)...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More liars! And more "fake" stuff!

Continue, Jimmy....


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

...why could the FBI not find any instance in which Klein's did what DVP is saying happened: they sent a customer the 40.2 inch rifle because they were out of the 36 inch rifle. The FBI had the records to do this with. But they did not show a precedent.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why would they have felt the NEED to perform such a meaningless task? Just to please you conspiracy clowns? (Yeah, right.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP never replied to the rather bizarre photos of handwritten over records [Waldman #4], which did not even bother to insert an underline.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh good! Jimmy thinks still MORE stuff is fake! Lovely!

Any end to the fakery in this case, Jimbo? Any end at all?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And [DVP] never asks the question of why it was Waldman testifying anyway.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Waldman was the Vice President of Klein's. And Waldman himself even told the FBI that he (Waldman) was, indeed, the proper person to subpoena if testimony became necessary (with respect to the microfilm, at any rate). So what's your beef now, Jimmy?

Shall I add Bill Waldman to your "Liars List" too? (I'm sure he's already high up on your list anyway, right James? Why of course he is. Otherwise, Klein's sent the rifle to Oswald. And you'll never admit that fact in a billion years.)


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

No Dave, the evidence was not PLANTED... it was CREATED AFTER THE FACT.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But it was employees of KLEIN'S and SEAPORT TRADERS who did the actual "digging up" of the "Hidell" documents. It wasn't the FBI who did that digging [see WCR, p.118 and WCR, p.174]. They wouldn't have had the slightest idea where to look. So, do you think some of the Klein's and Seaport employees were part of a cover-up plot too?

As for Ruth Paine's "No" answers....

She simply did not see the rifle when it was unpacked from her car. Why is that impossible? She had no reason to take INVENTORY of every last item owned by Lee and Marina. You're expecting too much from Ruth.

But we KNOW, via Marina's testimony, that there WAS definitely a rifle in that blanket in Ruth Paine's garage in October of '63. (But you don't believe a word uttered by Marina, do you?)

BTW, if Ruth was REALLY out to frame Oswald, then why on Earth didn't she attempt to FRAME him further by saying "Yes, I saw the rifle" when she was asked? Any idea why her patsy-framing efforts were so anemic in this regard?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

No Dave... it was Waldman and Scibor at Klein's.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just as I said --- it was KLEIN'S people doing the actual search for documents. Not the FBI.

So both Waldman and Scibor are cover-up operatives and liars, eh?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Gee Dave, how much BS from Marina's mouth will you believe?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think a better question is this one:

How many people do CTers want to label as "liars" and/or "cover-up operatives" in the JFK case?

The number must surely be approaching triple digits by now.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

DVP: Just as I said --- it was KLEIN'S people doing the actual search for documents. Not the FBI.

Mr. Josephs just wrote that the FBI was there until four o'clock! Were they just drinking coffee or listening to baseball games?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But it was the KLEIN'S people searching through their OWN files. Not the FBI. The FBI agents probably WERE just sitting around drinking coffee and waiting for the Klein's employees to find the right "C2766" order (which, of course, they eventually did find).

BTW, there's no baseball in late November, Jimmy. But if you like to listen to baseball games, I can help with that, here.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ok, how about basketball Davey?

Speaking of which--another nice pivot by you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's better, Jimmy. (But I'm not a very big hoops fan, so I don't have any classic basketball contests archived. Sorry.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why is the canister empty today if it backs up the official story?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the slightest idea why it's empty. (But are we SURE that the "empty canister" story is the absolute truth? Forgive me if I don't take everything said by a CTer as Gospel. Although I did earlier speculate that the FBI returned the original microfilm to Klein's at some point in time. So an "empty canister" would be perfectly consistent with that theory.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why are the entries blanked out and written over?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Every single entry seen in Waldman #4 looks identical on all pages. You think the evil-doers faked EVERY line on all pages of Waldman 4? Please, Jim, tell me WHY they needed to fake EVERY serial number on those pages, when only ONE shows "C2766"?

And is this "C2766" reference a fake too, Jim?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And why would the Vice President be there of all people? Like he was handling this stuff on a day to day basis?

They might do that at a local KFC, but not a company as big as Klein's.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Jimmy, maybe it was because this was the investigation into the murder of THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Ya think THAT might mean a person kinda "high up" in the Klein's executive chain just MIGHT want to get involved?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ever heard of a guy named J. A. Mueller?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

OK, Jim. I'll bite. Who is J.A. Mueller?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ok, you don't know.

He was in charge of the receiving department at Klein's.

He could have helped on the whole issue of when did C2766 come into Chicago.

Since he signed off on incoming shipments.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay, Jim. Thanks for the info. I don't think I had heard that name (J.A. Mueller) in the past. If I ever did hear of him, I've forgotten about it. :)

But, anyway, I'd say the people that Klein's utilized to locate the Oswald rifle order on the morning of 11/23/63 did a very effective job --- even without the assistance of Mr. Mueller. By 4:00 AM, they had the information the FBI was seeking. Not too bad, I'd say.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

DVP, Josephs posted a photo above showing the empty canister at the NA [National Archives] of all places.

I know you love the OJ story, so that would be like the NA showing a gift box containing the bloody glove....but there's no glove in it :)

I just cannot get over the fact that when the FBI was looking at the files, and if they were all kosher two months before and after, that they would have shown all of those files to strengthen their case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Where did Josephs do that? I don't see any picture of an EMPTY film canister.

If you're talking about Cadigan Exhibit No. 1 (which Josephs did post previously), that's not a picture of an empty canister. That's a 1964 picture for WC volume 19. The microfilm is there in that photo.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Now you can see thru metal Dave?

We have a canister... that's it. FBI #D-77. Whether there is film in there or not isn't anything you can know Dave.... but nice try.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What do you think the thing inside the white circle is, David J.? What does that look like to you?....




W. TRACY PARNELL SAID:

Good catch DVP, I didn't even notice it. Only makes sense if they were going to get rid of the microfilm why not just get rid of everything? Why put an empty spool and box into evidence?


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

Good catch dvp. I still would love to see what's on the film.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

IDK Dave... that you think it's film is amusing enough.

[...]

Notice the order #'s written on the box? Too bad we don't have that film so we can see what's on those other orders.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only you care about such meaningless trivia. The other orders on the Klein's microfilm are not important in the slightest way in trying to determine whether or not Oswald was shipped Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766. You're obsessing over things that mean nothing.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

That you don't understand the entire case is about the details and minutia is your problem, not mine.

Why Tracy? So those with less initiative would think the film was in there.


W. TRACY PARNELL SAID:

But you say [John] Armstrong saw the empty canister, so anyone could go there and see it and reveal the plot. Just get rid of it all and say it's lost.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

FWIW....

There's also this Warren Commission testimony of FBI agent James Cadigan
(at 7 H 419; emphasis is DVP's):

MELVIN A. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you an item consisting of a roll of microfilm labeled D-77, and ask you whether you are familiar with that roll of microfilm?"

JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "Yes; I am."

MR. EISENBERG -- "That microfilm will be marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1."

(The article referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 1.)

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cadigan, was Exhibit No. 773 developed from a negative contained in Cadigan Exhibit No. 1?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; it was printed from that roll."


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

FWIW #2....

There is also this photo of the D-77 roll of microfilm, Waldman Exhibit No. 6. And, as you can easily see, there is no "canister" shown in this picture at all. Just a box and the reel of microfilm:



Plus, there's this Warren Commission testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman (starting at 7 H 365; DVP's emphasis):

DAVID W. BELIN -- "I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is?"

WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "This is a microfilm record of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963."

MR. BELIN -- "Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation."

MR. BELIN -- "You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes."

MR. BELIN -- "And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes."

MR. BELIN -- "I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22."

MR. WALDMAN -- "Yes."

(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.)

MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "That's a number which we assign for identification purposes."

MR. BELIN -- "And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped to?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex."

MR. BELIN -- "And does it show any serial number or control number?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766."

[...]

MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, I'm going to mark what has FBI Exhibit D-77 on it as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 6, being the container with your initials and the microfilm record itself, which you placed on the microfilm reader and about which you have just testified upstairs."

[...]

MR. BELIN -- "Now, Mr. Waldman, perhaps we'd better further identify the microfilm which show your control numbers. We marked the microfilm as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 6. Do you have any control numbers on this at all which indicate which microfilm this is?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "This is our film No. 38, which covers our transactions Nos. 269688 through 270596."

MR. BELIN -- "And I believe that you already testified to the control number or transaction number that appears on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 as being number what?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "270502."

MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you, and Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 5, which is the invoice from Crescent Firearms which has stamped on it that it was paid by your company on March 4, is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C2766 was included in that shipment. .... Those forms are your exhibit captioned Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3. Now, our payment voucher No. 28966 of March 1, 1963, which is your Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 5, shows in the lower portion, second column from the left, the number 3178, which ties in with Crescent Firearms invoice No. 3178."

MR. BELIN -- "And you have before you a carbon copy of a check that was written by your company to Crescent Firearms in the amount of $850, and attached to it, the attachment that shows it's for invoice No. 3178?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct."

MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, do your records show whether or not the rifle was shipped with the scope mounted on it, or is there any way that you know whether or not it was?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "Our catalog No. C20-T750, which was the number indicated on the coupon prepared by A. Hidell, designates a rifle with scope attached. And we would have so shipped it unless the customer specifically specified that he did not wish to have it attached. There is nothing in our records to indicate that there was any request made by the customer, and therefore we would have every reason to believe that it was shipped as a rifle with scope mounted."

MR. BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not the rifle would have been broken down in shipment, or whether or not it would have been shipped fully assembled?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "It was customary for us to ship all of these rifles and scopes fully assembled, and I would have no reason to believe that this particular one would have been shipped otherwise."

[...]

MR. BELIN -- "Mr. Waldman, when we testified upstairs in front of the microfilm machine, was the microfilm itself more clear or less clear than the photostats or prints that have been made from it?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "More clear."

MR. BELIN -- "So it would be possible to read items on the microfilm itself that might not come out clear on the printed copies?"

MR. WALDMAN -- "That's correct."


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

So who stole the film from the Archives, Dave...and why?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What makes you think anybody "stole" it?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

I still find it quite amazing that in all these years we've NEVER heard about a Klein's Carcano with any one of the other 99 serial numbers. You'd think that would have been quite a find... and would prove they existed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, David, we know that Klein's was selling Carcano rifles to customers well PRIOR to the time when Oswald purchased his Carcano from Klein's. Waldman Exhibit No. 1 proves that fact.

So we could also ask:

Why hasn't anybody ever come forward, AT ANY POINT IN TIME, to say that they purchased a gun from Klein's that is similar to the C2766 Oswald rifle?

As far as I know, no one has ever come forward to make such a claim about purchasing ANY RIFLE from Klein's Sporting Goods, regardless of whether it was a gun that was part of the "100 rifles" in the Crescent-to-Klein's February 1963 shipment or not. And you surely aren't going to claim that ALL Klein's rifle sales that PRE-DATE the date of the Oswald/Hidell sale in March of '63 are tainted or faked in some manner, are you?

So, since we can't really explain the total LACK of people coming forward to say they bought ANY similar Mannlicher-Carcano rifle from Klein's back through the years, even though you and I both know that Klein's positively DID sell many hundreds (maybe thousands?) of Carcano rifles to various mail-order customers prior to (and for several months after) March of 1963, then that fact would seem to severely diminish your argument when you claim that many people should be coming out of the woodwork to say they purchased a rifle from Klein's that was specifically part of the Crescent-to-Klein's shipment of 100 rifles that also included Oswald's C2766 weapon.

David Von Pein
August 5-8, 2012
April 9-12, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1267)

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

In Warren Commission Document 442, we find a telegram from Mexico City to Sec. of State Rusk stating the records show on October 3, 1963, a Lee HENRY Oswald left Mexico by automobile.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

I recall seeing on the live CBS broadcast Harry Reasoner saying something like "The suspect is Lee Henry Oswald..."

Does this throw anything above out of whack?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Guess that depends on whether you're remembering correctly or not...

I doubt very highly anyone outside of Mexico used the name HENRY.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

DJ,

Watch "4 Days in November" [1988 CBS-TV documentary with Dan Rather]. DVP confirmed "Henry" was used by the talking head. You're wrong about it being some top-secret code name or whatever you think it was. It was just a mistake; and yes, secret agents DO make mistakes.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Then explain this....

If the name HENRY gets to CBS, the source had to have known something about this file... not a mistake... just the trail of who got what info from where.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

The most I can say is maybe it's similar to what Bill Simpich said in State Secret - how back when LHO defected, the legend they created for him and Webster was inter-changeable. And then, 15 minutes after the shooting on 11/22, the first broadcast that goes out is "5-10 165...", that same legend created 3 years before.

I don't know. I'm speculating here of course. But I DO know Henry was used on CBS. And DVP also said that he heard Cronkite also call LHO "Leo." Pat Speer goes into great detail about the misinformation and BS coming out by the media during the hours after the murder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To hear Walter Cronkite's "Leo" remark, go to the 2:29:15 mark in the video below. That "Leo" reference, btw, is the first time LHO was mentioned on CBS-TV after the assassination. I haven't been able to locate Cronkite's "Lee Henry" reference, but it's definitely located somewhere within the CBS Nov. 22-25 coverage....




RICHARD PRICE SAID:

I'm not sure, but I think the "Lee Henry" remark is the one made by DA Henry Wade to reporters in a video I saw some time ago. Whether or not Cronkite repeated it, I don't know.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Wade... ex FBI. Wonder if he got it from Hosty, who got it 10/18 from Woosley... who got it from Win Scott...

Should an I&NS agent be relaying CIA memo to FBI? Marked card gives that away....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I finally found the CBS footage showing Cronkite saying "Lee Henry Oswald". It's at the 25:35 mark in my video below, and it occurred on Monday, November 25th (after JFK's funeral)....




DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Thanks Dave....

What significance do you attach to this - if any?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolutely none (of course). Cronkite merely got LHO's middle name wrong in that one instance on 11/25/63. And, as I previously said in July 2016, Walter messed up LHO's name on other occasions that weekend too—first calling him "Leo H. Oswald", and one other time calling him "Lee Harvey Osburn".

So, should I now attach some kind of conspiratorial "significance" to those two other incorrect monikers too (Leo and Osburn)?

And should I also think there was something fishy about the fact that KRLD reporter Bob Huffaker kept calling Oswald "Lee HAROLD Oswald" on November 24th? (Huffaker, btw, said he got the "Harold" name from Glen King of the Dallas Police Department.)


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Of course not.... I can chalk it up to a simple mistake as well.... and a mighty coincidence that this 201 file would be opened with HENRY and used to describe the Mr. Oswald in the cables.

We do agree, though, that Angleton and Egerter could have had a reason for entering HENRY on the 201...

I also understand that most 201 files have a secret counterpart which contains files not allowed in the "public" one... "Public" to other CIA personnel, that is.

News tended to get fact-checked... So I do find it somewhat strange.... the word "Henry" appears on his cards or prompter? IDK

Yes, people make mistakes.... people also plan covert assassination...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David J.,

All of the various botched versions of Lee Harvey Oswald's name that we heard coming out of the mouths of different reporters during the weekend of JFK's assassination—which included, btw, ALL THREE of LHO's names (his first, middle, and last), and not just his middle name—can, in my opinion, be categorized as plain ordinary non-sinister errors.

And you'll notice that each time somebody got LHO's name wrong, they managed to get the first letter correct in the botched version of his name, e.g., Leo H. Oswald and Lee Henry Oswald and Lee Harold Oswald and Lee Harvey Osburn. So each reporter seemed to know the correct three initials (L, H, and O), but at various times just couldn't recall the exact name.

David Von Pein
November 30—December 1, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 984)

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Ruth Paine IDs March 20 as the day Oswald ordered the rifle.

Except the order was sent March 12th.

Klein's deposit is March 13, and only on the Order Blank do we see the date March 20, 1963.

We have no idea what day the rifle was supposedly picked up and transported home.

Does anyone have any proof that the date MARCH 20, 1963 was broadcast related to the rifle purchase date? I can't imagine them broadcasting THAT date, this given the timeline and who had what info.

Only the FBI had access to that item of evidence until later in the afternoon on the 23rd when the SS arrives at Klein's.

I will continue looking, yet some of you are very intuned with what was broadcast - if you could help out, I think we can prove here that Ruth knows something on the 23rd that no one could know...

But I'm not sure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The date "March 20th" was definitely announced on television on Saturday, 11/23/63. It was announced to the press by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry during one of his many hallway interviews with reporters on November 23 [at 27:55 in the video below]....




And the March 20 date was also mentioned by Frank Reynolds on WBKB-TV in Chicago on the evening of November 23rd....




Plus, here's a third news report with the March 20 date being revealed. This one was broadcast by KLIF-Radio in Dallas shortly after 7:00 PM (CST) on November 23, 1963....




DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Thanks David. I knew if anyone had that info, it would be you.

Maybe you can help explain something then...

The FBI and SS both knew the order date was the 12th and that Klein's stamped the 13th at the top of the order blank.

March 20th is when they shipped the rifle. Was this just Curry's generality or do you think he was told the 20th by the FBI/SS?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think that is an extremely minor and peripheral point. When the FBI examined the Klein's internal order blank for the rifle---Waldman Exhibit No. 7---they undoubtedly noticed the written-in date of "3/20/63" on the form, and they might have taken no notice at all of the smaller stamped date of "Mar-13-63" at the top of the order blank. Or perhaps the FBI just didn't know what the March 13th date really signified. So they just decided to go with the March 20 date as the "Order Date", even though that was really the "Shipping Date".

But I can't see that it makes much difference one way or the other regarding the dates. The most significant thing that was being revealed to the press and to the world on 11/23/63 was that the FBI was able to positively tie Lee Harvey Oswald to the ownership of the weapon that was used to kill President Kennedy, by way of the handwriting on the "order letter", as Chief Curry called it (CE773).


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Thanks again for the assist - if nothing else you have one of the best collections of video and ability to recall what's on them around.

Now if I could only appeal to you to use them for good instead of evil. :-)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You've got things backwards, David. You're the one on the "dark side". Not me. :)

And I have, for years, been using my video and audio archive for "good instead of evil". The original first-day and second-day TV and radio broadcasts can be very useful in debunking any number of conspiracy myths. Such as the persistent myth that still exists in some quarters even today about how Jack Ruby must have personally been acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald due to the fact that Ruby was one of the people who shouted out the name "Fair Play For Cuba" during Henry Wade's late-night press conference at City Hall on the night of November 22nd. (The conspiracy theorists, of course, completely ignore the fact that one or two OTHER people, besides just Ruby, shouted out the "Fair Play For Cuba" name at the exact same time Ruby did. But I don't hear the CTers accusing those OTHER people of knowing Oswald prior to the assassination. Go figure.)

Anyway, the early live TV reports can come in handy when various unwarranted allegations surface, such as the aforementioned "How Could Ruby Have Known About The FPCC?" conspiracy theory, which I debunk here.

I've been searching my video files trying to unearth the "Smoking Gun" news broadcast in which a witness goes on live television a few hours after the assassination and boldly declares, "I saw Jimmy Files firing a Fireball pistol at the President from behind the fence atop the Grassy Knoll!"

But, unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that broadcast as yet.


TOM SCULLY SAID:

Sorry, but I am posting a link to an FBI report page. It contains details counter to [David Josephs'] analysis, so I can presume it is fake, fabricated, unreliable?

The search results yielded on my first attempt, prompted by reading the opening post of this thread, displayed a link to a Weisberg file that included this:

http://maryferrell.org/Commission Document 735

(Update: Now, I see you've posted the same elsewhere and Von Paine [sic] has already shared the details displayed [above] with you.)


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

David Von Pein had the info and the video and the spot it was broadcast - wanted to say thanks to him for that.

We argue a bit, he and I, yet he still has the class to help me out... albeit just to prove me wrong...


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

[Quoting DVP]: "I think that is an extremely minor and peripheral point."

LOL, oh really Davey? Who cares when the rifle was ordered? Who cares who picked it up. Who cares how Oswald sent the order in.

Don't go near the mysteries of Ruth Paine's calendar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Once again, Jim DiEugenio sees "mysteries" and sinister activity and evil wickedness everywhere he looks --- even in the ordinary and innocuous calendar owned by Mrs. Ruth Paine [Commission Exhibit 401].

Jimmy and I thrashed this out a year or two ago. Here are some excerpts highlighting Jim's ravenous appetite for believing in absurd things that never happened....

[DVP Quotes On:]

"Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?

Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?

Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.

Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.

So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?

But, then too, James DiEugenio actually thinks Lee Harvey Oswald had NO LARGE PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT ALL when he entered Buell Wesley Frazier's car on November 22nd. So, given such absurd notions, it should be fairly obvious that this previous statement of mine concerning Jimmy's conspiratorial beliefs in the JFK case is 100% accurate:

"No theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate." -- DVP; January 4, 2013

[...]

I'll tell you one piece of physical evidence that points AWAY from the direction of Ruth's involvement in a conspiracy plot: And that's the entry that Ruth made on her March 1963 calendar (talked about earlier), where she wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle".

In a situation where Ruth Paine would surely have every reason to believe she would be thoroughly questioned by the authorities (or at Oswald's trial, had he lived to see one), can you think of a single reasonable explanation for why Mrs. Paine, if she had been a conspirator trying to frame Oswald in the weeks and months prior to November 22, would have wanted to write that "purchase of rifle" entry on her calendar at a time (October 23, not November 23) when she has stated she had no idea that Oswald even owned a rifle? (And it's fairly obvious that DiEugenio DOES think Ruth wrote those words PRIOR to November 22; otherwise, there would be no need for him to bring up that particular item at all.)

Plus: Via such a pre-11/22 theory, WHERE did Ruth get the information about the rifle purchase in the first place? How could she have possibly known--PRIOR to 11/22--that Lee Oswald had bought a rifle on March 20th? (Which, of course, was merely the Klein's shipping date for the rifle; it wasn't the actual "purchase" date, nor was it the date he actually took possession of the rifle, which also makes it pretty clear WHEN Ruth heard about that March 20 date. She heard about it when Jesse Curry mentioned that exact date on live TV on 11/23/63.)

That "purchase of rifle" thing is just one small example of how CTers will twist the evidence in this case to suit their needs. In this instance, DiEugenio labels the calendar entry as being "the most bizarre point of all" when it comes to the topic of Ruth Paine. But he will completely disregard Ruth's own testimony about that calendar entry.

In other words, Jimbo's eager to disbelieve ANYTHING uttered by Mrs. Ruth Paine. Even though, as mentioned, placing such an entry on her calendar PRIOR to the assassination really doesn't make much sense either. In fact, it would have been utterly stupid for Mrs. Paine to have done that, because it, in effect, would expose a part of the plot -- i.e., her pre-November knowledge about a specific date--March 20th--which was not generally revealed to the public until November 23rd." -- DVP; circa 2013—2014

More here ----> DVP-vs-DiEugenio-Part-87/Ruth Paine's Calendar


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Someone called Curry to tell him this date. Who, when and why did they get it wrong? Or did Curry?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why do you insist upon nitpicking the Klein's dates to death?

When looking at the dates that were available to the FBI on 11/23/63 via the Klein's microfilm records, and given a choice of which date to choose for a press release to Chief Curry and to the world (if I had to pick only ONE date, that is) -- I think I, too, might very well have told America (and Jesse Curry) that the rifle transaction had taken place on March 20, 1963. Because from the available information supplied by Klein's Sporting Goods on November 23rd, the March 20 date is the date that confirms that the sale of the rifle to Oswald/Hidell had been completed (i.e., shipped by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell). So what's wrong with using the shipping date in the press releases?

Yes, Chief Curry told reporters that "This purchase was made on March 20th", which technically is not quite 100% accurate, since Oswald had actually dropped his order form for the rifle in the mailbox on March 12th, but we're really only talking about a very tiny difference in terms here -- with the "ordering" of the gun by Oswald occurring on March 12th, and the "shipping" of the gun taking place on March 20th.

But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing? You think that by saying the rifle was "purchased" on March 20, this somehow means the rifle transaction between Oswald and Klein's is all shot to hell -- even though that exact date (March 20) is on the Klein's internal order blank?

This entire argument about the March 20 date is just another example of a totally frivolous argument being made by CTers in a feeble attempt to cast doubt (somehow) on a piece of evidence connected to JFK's assassination. And this particular frivolous argument concerning the March 20 date is even more useless and nonsensical than most other arguments put forth by CTers. (And that's really saying something.)


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

The conversation has to change.... CTs don't need to prove his innocence and shouldn't try. LNers need to prove guilt.

Anything else is tap dancing around the issues and denying the core fundementals of the law - innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


GLENN NALL SAID:

This is the point that is so frequently and conveniently forgotten, it seems. The zealots have forgotten that THEY are the ones who have leveled the charge and are therefore obligated to provide the proof.

Instead, they continually berate the populace and demand that his innocence be proven when he is, in fact and in spirit, already and STILL innocent. This basic practice has been in place since the beginning of the written language.

For a reason.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn,

The only way a person can believe in Lee Harvey Oswald's "innocence" is for that person to just completely ignore (or misrepresent) the dozens of pieces of evidence (and Oswald's own actions) which point unwaveringly to Oswald's guilt in the two murders he was officially charged with in November of 1963.

Do you, Glenn, wish to ignore all of that evidence? And if so---why?


GLENN NALL SAID:

As predicted, your overuse of inconsequential adjectives and adverbs weakens your argument even more than its clear lack of any factual basis.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Great response there, Glenn. Your useless reply has most certainly convinced me that all the evidence against Oswald was faked.



David Von Pein
July 28-29, 2015

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 935)

B.A. COPELAND SAID:

David, given [author John] Armstrong's proving the broken chain of custody of the rifle, from order to shipment, you honestly believe somehow it still ended up with LHO?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you believe this document below is really a fake document? Because if you don't, then Klein's positively shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63 (regardless of the fact Oswald had actually ordered from a coupon advertising a 36-inch gun)....





Waldman No. 7 pictured above sinks every conspiracist who has ever uttered these words:

"Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered any rifle from Klein's and was never shipped any rifle by Klein's."


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Funny thing....

The name Lee Harvey Oswald does not appear on this order [Waldman #7].

A C20-T750, a 36" carbine with a scope did not exist at Klein's. That order was never shipped.

Where is the evidence that the $1.50 in postage was ever sent in?

What happened to the C2766 rifle Feldscott [sic] says was shipped to Klein's in June 1962 right after the ads for a C20-T750 had been running a couple of months and they needed rifles to fulfill C20-T750 orders thru Feb 1963?

Why is there no federal banking stamp on the back of the MO?

Why was it found in VA and not KS?

How, if there is no specific evidence of what Rupp took out of Harborside to send to Klein's, can you connect a rifle from Rupp thru Klein's and to Oswald when all the orders from that time period are gone?

Why is there no proof that Oswald or Hidell ever got the rifle from the Post Office or that it ever arrived at a post office?

Why won't the FBI or Klein's let us see another order for C20-T750 to see what was shipped?

Why has not a single person EVER come forward claiming to have ordered a C20-T750 36" scoped carbine and say they got the same rifle Oswald used? That would be pretty exciting and there should be tens if not a hundred of these floating around...?

What about the rest of the inventory from that shipment... did the FBI ever check the remaining stock to see if the other 99 rifles were also 40" FC rifles and not TS and/or where they were shipped?

When the rifle is supposedly in New Orleans on Sept 23, 1963 with the rest of the Oswald belongings and Ruth takes Marina and children back to Irving, they see the loading and unloading of her car and repeatedly tells us that she does not see that rifle until shown to her at the DPD. Did he take it with him to Mexico? To Odio? Was it ever seen at the Paine house? No.

So what happened to it? How did it get from Magazine [Street in New Orleans] to Irving?

When he arrived at the TSBD - where do you say he put the rifle to retrieve it later?

You might want to read thru this. If he had a plan, THIS is the plan he had to follow.

When did he have time to disassemble the rifle?

Make the paper bag?

Get the bag home - (he only asks Wesley [Frazier] for a ride Thursday afternoon).

Get the rifle into the bag before going to sleep at 9pm?

Get the rifle and bag in the morning?

Get a 34" piece of rifle into a 27" bag with clip, bullets, and trigger mechanism - and still not leave a trace inside said bag?

Mr. Pein [sic], your attempts at offering WCR evidence and WCR conclusions with the same tired old fraudulent evidence from 50 years ago is terribly lame for someone with your skills.

Fashion a paper as I did at that link that illustrates the PLAN your Lone Nut had to employ to accomplish this amazing feat. PROVE he did it, since he is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

No one including you have been able to offer a convincing argument supported by facts which is not destroyed just by looking at the Evidence of the Conspiracy left behind.

Posting a single doc [Waldman #7] and proclaiming King of the Hill is premature Dave... even you can follow that. Post an argument that isn't so easily pulled apart... you have all the evidence - same as I do...

If you're going to waste our time and offer an argument - can you at least make it worth looking at?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Therefore, David Josephs, you think KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS of Chicago, Illinois, played a large part in the "plot" to frame Lee Oswald. Is that correct?

You do realize how goofy that accusation is, don't you David?

And why would anybody think it strange that the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" doesn't appear on Waldman 7 when Oswald used his alias Hidell to order the rifle? Should Klein's have shipped the gun to "Oswald" even though the name on the order form said "Hidell"?

Video concerning Klein's and the rifle:




B.A. COPELAND SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, B.A., do you really think Klein's is a co-conspirator in this thing? Really?

If so....for what possible purpose? Coerced by the FBI to do so?

Or don't you consider that a valid question for me to ask?


JON G. TIDD SAID:

Questions about the order form:

[1] Were such blank forms intended to be filled out, at least in part, by the purchaser?

[2][a] Was the form in question, Waldman 7, filled out in part by an individual employed by Klein's? [b] If so, what part(s)?

[3] If the answer to [2][a] is yes, who was that individual, and was he or she interviewed by the Warren Commission?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jon,

Waldman #7 is an internal Klein's form. The customer never sees that form at all. It's generated by Klein's after they receive the order form in the mail from the customer.

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 J. 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."

~~~~~~~~~

I do wonder why William Waldman refers to Hidell as "Mister"? The order coupon that Oswald mailed to Klein's says simply "A. Hidell", which could be a female ordering the gun for all Klein's knew at the time in March 1963. (Although I suppose it might be a bit unusual for a woman to be ordering firearms from Klein's Sporting Goods; but it certainly could happen.)

Obviously, though, Mr. Waldman would have later become aware that "A. Hidell" was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was, of course, a "Mister". But I just wanted to put that out there before a conspiracist jumps all over Waldman for improperly addressing Hidell as "Mr. A. Hidell".

Perhaps some CTers think that the "Mister" indicates William Waldman had advanced knowledge of who "Hidell" was prior to Waldman's Warren Commission session and, therefore, Waldman was part of the alleged "plot" to frame "Mr. Hidell". I've never heard that theory before---but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it resides in some CTer's mind right now.


IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION, DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

An open letter to Gary Mack and DVP:

Are you going to now try and say that the HIDELL ORDER was the only one in which a rifle serial # and VC # were written? That Klein's would not keep track of who bought what, when and where? As they did on the HIDELL ORDER?

Are you claiming that you've NEVER SEEN ANOTHER KLEIN'S order…EVER?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth would the FBI care about other orders in the Klein's files other than the paperwork connected with the purchase of one particular rifle with the serial number C2766 on it (which was purchased by Oswald, of course)?

That's the only gun purchase the FBI was looking for -- the one with C2766 attached to it. And that's because they knew that the JFK murder weapon was a gun with "C2766" on it. Any other Klein's order was useless and immaterial to the FBI's investigation. Isn't this obvious?

You, David Josephs, are merely concentrating on all the wrong things (again), in order to make Oswald blameless.

Of course there were many other order forms in the Klein's files that looked similar to Waldman #7. But none of those other orders had the serial number "C2766" written on them, and therefore none of those many other Klein's orders had any bearing whatsoever on the JFK murder case.

So why in the world would those other forms for non-Oswald gun purchases be propped up in any FBI report, or the Warren Report, or anyplace else (outside a forum like this one [The Education Forum], which is filled with people who look for excuses 24/7 to exonerate a guilty double-murderer)?

David Von Pein
August 6, 2012
April 27-28, 2015

DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 131)

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Oswald was not in MC [Mexico City].

Anyone who in this day and age tries to make the case that Oswald was in MC is simply not aware of the latest research on that subject.

David Josephs made a very good presentation at Gary Aguilar's private seminar on December 15th [2018] in SF.

[...]

As I said many months ago, his work on this subject is going to make a new paradigm in the field. What he does is called real research. He is one of the very few guys who is going through the newly declassified files. In some ways, he has gone beyond the Lopez Report.

[...]

LHO was not in MC, and a false trail was later set up by Phillips, Ochoa, and Echeverria. The latter got a big payoff: he became president of Mexico.

Let us never forget what Hoover wrote six weeks after the assassination. In his personal marginalia he wrote that he would not trust the CIA anymore due to the snow job they gave him on Oswald in MC. That is one of the single most important discoveries of the ARRB.

And it has turned out to be true.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When I first saw this thread title, my first thought was that Jim was trying to say....

Oswald was not in the Marine Corps.

I was all ready to get out this icon --- --- when I then realized that "MC" was short for "Mexico City".

Maybe Jim should change the title so that others like me won't be confused and want to pull out the eyeroll emoji. :)

Although, the eyeroll icon can most certainly still be used even though the initials MC = Mexico City. Because it couldn't be clearer from the bulk of the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald definitely DID travel to Mexico City in September of 1963.

More facts HERE and HERE.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

It appears that Oswald was a good little soldier in this charade and did not give away his alliances. Does anyone then ask - if you were not in Mexico, where were you?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You bet someone's been asking that question --- Me!

I've been asking conspiracy theorists that very question for at least eight years now, including this post from 2010. No CTer has ever provided any kind of a reasonable or sensible answer to my inquiry either. And I can't even recall any CTer even TRYING to provide a reasonable answer. My question is usually just ignored entirely.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

A worthy reprise.....

"Question for conspiracy theorists:

If Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico between the dates of September 25 and October 3, 1963, then where was Lee Harvey Oswald during that time period?

Nobody that I am aware of places Oswald anywhere EXCEPT in Mexico (or on the busses going to and from Mexico) during that eight- to nine-day period in question.

Marina Oswald certainly didn't say that her husband was with her during that period of time. In fact, quite the opposite. Marina knew darn well that Oswald was going to Mexico City at that time.

And Ruth Paine has never said she saw Oswald during that period just prior to his returning to the Dallas/Irving area on October 3rd.

This might seem like a minor point to some people, but I think it deserves some attention and is a valid and reasonable question that I just asked. I mean, everybody's got to be SOMEWHERE.

So, if Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico from Sep. 25 to Oct. 3, 1963, then where the heck was he concealing himself for those eight or nine days after he was last seen in New Orleans?" -- DVP; September 18, 2010


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Oh please. This is the problem with you guys, you do not do any research. You do not know what it is.

1. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Cuban embassy.

2. There is no photo of Oswald either coming or leaving at the Soviet embassy.

3. At least ten chances for a photo--negative result. We actually have the CIA checks on this today. This is why Goodpasture lied about the Mystery Man photo. She could not find a pic of LHO.

4. The voice on the tapes is not LHO. Complete mismatch. This was so bad the CIA later lied about the tapes being destroyed prior to the assassination. They were not!

5. Duran's description is not LHO.

6. The Saturday call had to be phony per reasons stated above.

7. The two CIA plants in the Cuban embassy were shown the picture of LHO. Both said he was not there. The CIA did not want to accept this, so they tried again, came up empty twice.

8. David [Josephs'] new discovery is the CIA monthly phone bank summary. No listing of anyone who matches Oswald's description in the calls at the Cuban embassy.

9. David [Josephs] has demolished the WC story of how Oswald was allegedly transported down and back up. Wrong passport, wrong buses.

10. I Love that visa card [CE2564]. The FBI tried to find the picture company where Oswald took it. Recall, he did not have it for Duran. They visited every picture shop in a five mile radius of the embassy, could not find anyone who saw Oswald there.

[...]

You guys should have left well enough alone.


ROBERT CARD SAID:

Why did Duran refer to Oswald in her interrogations as "blonde and short"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet you CTers think that this "blonde" person was supposedly IMPERSONATING the dark-haired Lee Oswald??

Only three words are needed now....

WTF???


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

That is the reason she was abused because that was her first description of LHO.

It was almost funny when Ed Lopez asked her how tall he was.

She asked Cornwell to stand up. This got a laugh since Cornwell is quite diminutive. She said, about that tall. Maybe 5' 5".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All the more reason to know your make-believe Oswald Patsy Framers must have all been total morons! Because only a complete idiot would want to have a blond guy who was 5-feet-5 try to impersonate a guy who had dark hair and was 5-9.

Just how stupid were your Mexico City plotters in 1963, Jim?

Regardless of any goofy description Silvia Duran came up with after the fact, we know she processed a visa application for the one and only LEE HARVEY OSWALD (see Commission Exhibit No. 2564). That application has Oswald's own signature on it.

Let me guess---BOTH the picture and the signature are forgeries on the above document, right?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

BTW, let me reply to these diversionary tactics...

First, they say, well, where the heck was he? Look, we do not have a police force. We cannot issue subpoenas. We cannot cross examine witnesses. That is what their side did. And they swallowed this whole canard about LHO in Mexico City. BTW, you should have heard Willens down there after Echeverria shut him down over examining Duran (he knew what was up). He could not understand why the FBI waited so long to try and find any trace of Oswald after the CIA gave up.

Well, as David [Josephs] can prove, when the FBI did try and find a trace, they came across Ochoa's handiwork in putting together a phony trail. But they were stuck with it. If they exploded it, that would have meant they would have demolished the whole myth about LHO in MC. Which as I showed, Hoover knew was BS, but could not say it.

Second, oh a blond guy. Like somehow it mattered. With no photos, and the wrong voice--and the tapes then said to be destroyed, which they were not--why did you need an impersonator? You did not. Completely unnecessary.

All that mattered was the WC swallowed it. And they did. DVP and FC [Francois Carlier] have no problem with that. Like water off their back in a shower.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So why did "they" use some blond guy in the first place?

You, Jim, are just inventing excuses so you can ignore the best evidence --- which is: CE2564 and CE15 and Marina's testimony about Lee going to Mexico City.

And I'd still like to see a good answer from a CTer to my prior question....

If Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't in Mexico City from Sept. 25 to Oct. 2 of 1963, then where the heck was he?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Did you not hear what I said about the FBI?

Or do you just want to ignore it as you always do.

Meanwhile, can you reply to the other nine points:

Why is there no photo? At either embassy? Why is there no voice match? Why did both informants say he was not there? Twice. Why was there an alleged call on Saturday? Why is there no indication of the calls on the newly decalcified CIA summary per month? Why is it the wrong buses and wrong passport?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can't answer all those questions, Jim. And neither can you (or any other CTer).

Part of the answer is almost certainly bungling and probably some carelessness (and, no doubt, mistakes) on the part of the people at the embassies who should have been recording and/or photographing Oswald. And part of the answer could be faulty equipment at the time Oswald visited the embassies/consulates. Plus, some incorrect assumptions were also made regarding the topics of the photographs and the tape recordings.

I don't know all the answers to these discrepancies. I don't think anybody knows everything about it.

But, IMO, Warren Commission Exhibit No. 15 (Oswald's 12/9/63 letter that he typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter), which has Lee Oswald's own signature on it (another "fake" signature, Jim?), trumps any and all theories about Oswald not travelling to Mexico City in September '63.

And CTers have to claim that Ruth Paine lied about the above CE15 letter of Oswald's too, because Ruth said she read the "draft" of that letter that Oswald (for some reason) left behind on Ruth's desk. So, was Ruth lying about the "draft" of the letter, Jim? (I'm pretty sure you'll have no trouble labelling Ruth a liar once again, right?) But don't expect me to follow you down that path of fantasy. Because I won't do it.

Therefore, in addition to all of the other things I've mentioned (and Francois has repeated as well) that prove LHO went to Mexico City in '63, there's also that testimony of Ruth Paine concerning the "draft" of the letter (CE15), in which Ruth said that Lee lied about the FBI "no longer having any interest in me", etc.

How many liars were there in JUST this "Mexico City" area of the case, Jim? Give me a number. I want to know just HOW MANY people I'm expected to call LIARS regarding this Mexico topic. Just "for the record". Thanks in advance for providing me with those numbers.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I will not hold my breath in wait for you to reply to these. You have an unseemly habit of ignoring real evidence. (Yawn)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mr. Pot/Kettle strikes again!

A man who believes in all 22 of these fantasies is preaching to me about "ignoring real evidence".

Ya gotta love the thick irony of it all! (I sure do.)


ROBERT CARD SAID:

How can we tell where LHO was every day of his life? Straw man created.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't consider it a strawman when the CTers are alleging that LHO was positively NOT in Mexico City, when the hard evidence (i.e., CE2564 and CE15) is indicating just the opposite. I think the "Where Was Oswald If He Wasn't In Mexico?" question is a perfectly valid inquiry in light of the continual "LHO Was Not In MC" refrain we are always getting from the conspiracy theorists, especially since we're talking about an EIGHT- or NINE-day period. It's not just a few hours or just one single day. It's eight or nine days. And nobody sees him (except in Mexico, of course).


ANDREJ STANCAK SAID:

A very interesting hypothesis popped up recently attempting to explain Lee Oswald's whereabouts during the period he was supposed to be in Mexico City. The new book by Paul Smith: JFK and the Willard Hotel Plot: The Explosive New Theory of Oswald in D.C., Lee Oswald took a bus for Houston but did not travel to Mexico City, his imposter(s) did. Lee Oswald stopped in Austin and Dallas (Silvia Odio) and reached Washington, D.C. on the 27th of September.

According to this hypothesis, Lee stayed at the pricy Willard Hotel and was readying for an assassination attempt on October 1. On that day, a motorcade took place with JFK and Haile Selassie parading in an open limousine and taking a sharp turn around Willard Hotel.

There were allegedly two opportunities to shoot at a motorcade, one during the parade on 14th Street and another on the south lawn of the White House which was visible from Willard Hotel back then.

Besides the August letters by Lee Oswald in which he signalled he would be moving to Baltimore/Washington, D.C. for a job in October, there is a Secret Service report (dated December 1963) stating that Lee Oswald was indeed seen by a driver of an official's limousine, by a SS agent (Hicks?) and a local police officer. All three men were convinced that the man they saw coming out from Willard Hotel and causing disturbance there was Lee Harvey Oswald. The evidence is circumstantial, however, the author [does] a good job in connecting the dots.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Andrej. I don't buy his scenario for a single solitary second (of course), but at least author Paul Smith has put something on the table to try and answer the "Where Was Oswald?" question.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I don't know how many times I have to go through this about Marina.

I mean, really. This gets so tiresome with a guy who has a middle name of Denial. But this is his game. He just keeps on coming back with stuff he knows is wrong. For the simple matter that he has no life. This is his life.

For about the 89th time, let us refer to the first SS interview with Marina by Special Agent Charles Kunkel on 11/24.

This is summarized in Whitewash 2 by Harold Weisberg.

Marina was asked about Oswald in Mexico City in that interview, she replied she knew absolutely nothing about that. (p. 20)

And OMG, the Ruth Paine letter!

About a week ago, I noted all the problems with it. Please. Everyone here should keep this following URL in their folder for the next time Davey brings up this letter which has more holes than the Oklahoma defense.

http://peternewburysblog.wordpress.com/oswalds-kostikov-letter

And this is the difference. You cannot answer why there are no photos. Or why it's the wrong voice. Or why the calls are not on the CIA monthly summary. Etc etc.

Whereas I can answer yours very easily.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure, it's easy to just pretend all the various documents are fake and phony. And it's easy to label someone a liar. But the fact is: No Warren Commission critic has ever come close to actually PROVING that those two important documents (CE15 and CE2564) are fake documents (with Oswald's own signature forged on BOTH of them).

To me, such a notion of wholesale fakery is just not reasonable (or realistic). But I've come to realize that JFK conspiracy theorists possess a unique mindset when it comes to the topic of "evidence". Many CTers seem to have no problem at all believing that dozens and dozens of pieces of physical evidence in this case were fabricated, fraudulent, forged, planted, tainted, etc.---including those two important "Mexico City" documents (CE15 & CE2564).

And if you want to believe that all of this "Mexico City" testimony provided by Marina Oswald on February 3, 1964, is nothing but a big fat lie being told by Marina, well, you go right ahead and believe that. But don't expect me to follow you down that rocky road either (despite the information that appears on page 20 of Harold Weisberg's "Whitewash 2").

David Von Pein
January 4-5, 2019