DiEugenio Caught LYING To Lifton @ Edu Forum !!!
Tim Brennan
Say, vis-a-vis the blue @ the Education Forum between Gil Jesus and Jim
Dieugenio on the one hand, trying to prop up their stupid
Postal-Inspector-Oswald-Never-Got-A-Rifle gig, and David Lifton on the other
hand, trying to debunk them, DiEugenio made the following very condescending
post after Lifton asked more detail of Gil re postal regulations:
QUOTE ON:
David:
Jerry Rose wrote about this issue many, many years ago. And Harry Livingstone
referenced his article in his book "The Radical Right and the Murder of John F.
Kennedy". In that book, on pages 208-9, he discusses the Rose article. . In
Rose's article he notes the whole regulation 846.5a etc and he refers to the
USPS code of March of 1963.
Can I make a little suggestion? Instead of doubting the work of people like Gil
and asking him to prove it, why don't you do your own research and try and find
out if its true or not.
I mean, its becoming pretty obvious to me that there are whole areas of the
Oswald affair that you seem not to be up to snuff on. That is kind of
understandable. (Although its hard to believe you missed this whole rifle
delivery issue.) But then when you run into something that jars you, you then
say, in effect, "Geez, I didn't see this addressed in the NY TImes. Do this
research for me and let me know if its accurate later."
Its not very becoming.
I mean all you had to do in this case was do a Google search for part of the
Livingstone book online. Then you find the book, or someone who has it like your
friend Valentino, and look up the annotation. THen, you look up Jerry's article.
Why should Gil have to do that? Its your book.
This post has been edited by Jim DiEugenio: 04 August 2011 - 01:52 PM
QUOTE OFF
Coupla problems here. First, DiEugenio tells Lifton the Jerry Rose article is
referenced in Livingstone's book. You think he could just cite the reference but
manners are not really a strong point for Jim. Trouble is, the footnote
DiEugenio is referring to is wrong. From page 583 of Livingstone's book:
QUOTE ON:
65. Jerry Rose, *In The Name Of Hidell.* The Fourth Decade, May, 1989, p. 5.
QUOTE OFF
The article is actually in the THIRD Decade, not the Fourth. If DiEugenio knew
this you think he might have told Lifton.
Second point, DiEugenio claims that Rose, and/or Livingstone, refers to the USPS
Code of March of 1963 as though it has been researched, but when we view the
actual article
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48748&relPageId=7
it becomes apparent that all Rose has done is look at the same page in Lane's
book as DiEugenio and Jesus did!
In other words, they've noted that 846.53a requires the retention of delivery
receipts for firearms and statements by shippers of firearms, Forms 2162 and
1508 respectively, for four years but taken the research no further than that!
The only person who appears to have done any decent research on the matter is
Jean Davison, who demonstrated back in March that forms 2162 and 1508 were
applicable to CONCEALABLE WEAPONS, not a rifle, thus blowing a HUGE hole in Gil
and DiEugenio's nonsense re Oswald never received a rifle.
No wonder DiEugenio is doing EVERYTHING he can to muddy the water and be
unco-operative.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Gil Jesus
> The only person who appears to have done any decent research on the matter is
> Jean Davison, who demonstrated back in March that forms 2162 and 1508 were
> applicable to CONCEALABLE WEAPONS, not a rifle, thus blowing a HUGE hole in Gil
> and DiEugenio's nonsense re Oswald never received a rifle.
Jean Davison is FOS.
Because Davison could only find reference to the forms in the section
called "Concealed Weapons" she ASSUMED that those were the only
"firearms" referred to ?
ROFLMAO
The regulation pertains to ALL firearms, Fatman, to which group rifles
are included.
That's why it ues the word FIREARMS rather than "Concealed Weapons" or
"Handguns" in the regulation.
Of course it applied to concealed weapons and handguns, but not to
those exclusively, otherwise the regulaton would have stated as such.
But it says NOTHING about pertaining to handguns or concealable
weapons ONLY.
Here's a copy of the regulation for the lurkers out there:
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Aug 7, 1:47=A0am, Tim Brennan <Tim_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> The only person who appears to have done any decent research on the matte=
>r is
>> Jean Davison, who demonstrated back in March that forms 2162 and 1508 wer=
>e
>> applicable to CONCEALABLE WEAPONS, not a rifle, thus blowing a HUGE hole =
>in Gil
>> and DiEugenio's nonsense re Oswald never received a rifle.
>
>
>Jean Davison is FOS.
>
>Because Davison could only find reference to the forms in the section
>called "Concealed Weapons" she ASSUMED that those were the only
>"firearms" referred to ?
>
>ROFLMAO
>
>The regulation pertains to ALL firearms, Fatman, to which group rifles
>are included.
>
>That's why it ues the word FIREARMS rather than "Concealed Weapons" or
>"Handguns" in the regulation.
>
>Of course it applied to concealed weapons and handguns, but not to
>those exclusively, otherwise the regulaton would have stated as such.
>
>But it says NOTHING about pertaining to handguns or concealable
>weapons ONLY.
>
>Here's a copy of the regulation for the lurkers out there:
>
>http://i54.tinypic.com/df7ki1.jpg
Citing the facts to repeated liars such as Timmy is useful...
It *does* inform the lurkers...
Gil - you should put together your questions about the evidence and repost 'em
too...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Rob Caprio
>
> Say, vis-a-vis the blue @ the Education Forum between Gil Jesus and Jim
> Dieugenio on the one hand, trying to prop up their stupid
> Postal-Inspector-Oswald-Never-Got-A-Rifle gig, and David Lifton on the other
> hand, trying to debunk them, DiEugenio made the following very condescending
> post after Lifton asked more detail of Gil re postal regulations:
Hey Tim,
Didn't I ask you for the evidence that shows LHO received a package at
his Dallas P.O. Box under the name Hidell before and you ran from
doing so? Why is that IF it did happen as you claim?
Baffled Regards,
Robert
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=487...
Rob Caprio
> In article <c55445ad-9fc2-4bfd-abb9-159d37a09...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
I find this hilarious since this guy claimed there WAS EVIDENCE
SHOWING LHO RECEIVED A RIFLE AT HIS P.O. BOX!
“Yet you claim there is WC evidence showing LHO ordered a 40" Carcano,
it was stamped with C2766, ***it was received by LHO***, that he owned
it, he posed with it and it was left and found in the TSBD after the
shooting! YOU also claim it was high-velocity!
YOU have lied on ALL COUNTS!” (Robert)
“Sorry stupid, none of those items are lies... they are merely the
truth. There is indeed evidence for each of those items.” (Allegedly
“Ben Holmes”—7/26/10)
And:
“And there's evidence that Oswald "received" a rifle - regardless of
your honesty in admitting it or not.” (Allegedly “Ben Holmes” to CJ—
12/17/09)
Now the lying chameleon is up to his old tricks again - he changes
colors whenever it suits him!
Gil Jesus
For those interested, Federal definition of the word "firearm"
includes rifles.
(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to
or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique
firearm.
18 USC 921 ( a.3 )
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html
Federal law considers rifles firearms.
The regulation covers firearms.
Therefore, the regulation covers rifles as well as handguns.
GAME OVER, FATMAN.
David Von Pein
>>> "I find this hilarious since this guy claimed there WAS EVIDENCE SHOWING LHO RECEIVED A RIFLE AT HIS P.O. BOX!" <<<
What I find even more hilarious, Rob, is that conspiracy nutcases like
Gil Jesus and James DiEugenio are trying so hard to prove that Lee
Harvey Oswald never purchased or took possession of the very same
rifle that the unnamed plotters then TRIED TO FRAME OSWALD WITH ON
NOVEMBER 22ND.
It seems to me that a much better argument for these conspiracy
theorists like Jesus and DiEugenio would be to just admit the obvious
truth regarding Oswald's rifle purchase (and his Smith & Wesson
handgun purchase as well) -- i.e., admit that Oswald did order and
receive Rifle C2766 (which, of course, he did purchase and receive
from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of '63).
And then the CTers could pretend that the plotters then framed Oswald
with HIS OWN GUN, which is a scenario that makes much more sense, and
is much less complicated and less impossible to achieve than the way
DiEugenio and Jesus (et al) have gone about the task of pretending
Oswald was framed with a gun that he never possessed at any time prior
to the assassination.
But apparently conspiracists are always happier when they can believe
in a larger number of impossible cloak-and-dagger theories, vs.
believing in fewer plot twists....even when believing in fewer plot
twists makes much more sense in the long run (as is the case when
discussing the "ownership of the rifle" topic).
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
Tim Brennan
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Aug 7, 1:47=A0am, Tim Brennan <Tim_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> The only person who appears to have done any decent research on the matte=
>r is
>> Jean Davison, who demonstrated back in March that forms 2162 and 1508 wer=
>e
>> applicable to CONCEALABLE WEAPONS, not a rifle, thus blowing a HUGE hole =
>in Gil
>> and DiEugenio's nonsense re Oswald never received a rifle.
>
>
>Jean Davison is FOS.
>
Translation: I can't deal with what Jean found so it's time for ad hominen.
>Because Davison could only find reference to the forms in the section
>called "Concealed Weapons" she ASSUMED that those were the only
>"firearms" referred to ?
>
Well if you have a different refernce, post it. She showed what forms 1508 and
2162 were for and demonstrated how they were NOT APPLICABLE to Oswald's rifle
purchase.
>ROFLMAO
>
The laughter of the panic stricken...
>The regulation pertains to ALL firearms, Fatman, to which group rifles
>are included.
>
Does it? Well you won't have any problem DEMONSTRATING that then, will you Gil?
Especially as, in the Code of Federal Regulations that Jean linked to, it shows
they only apply to CONCEALABLE firearms.
>That's why it ues the word FIREARMS rather than "Concealed Weapons" or
>"Handguns" in the regulation.
>
Huh? No, THAT regulation (846.53a) is referring to the required retention time
of forms 2162 and 1508, forms which the Code of Federal Regulations show
applying in respect of CONCEALABLE weapons only. You're getting mixed up with
the Files Maintenance and Records Disposition, which simply covers how long
particular forms, like 2162 and 1508 are held.
>Of course it applied to concealed weapons and handguns, but not to
>those exclusively, otherwise the regulaton would have stated as such.
>
Huh? No, 846.53a is a REGULATION pertaining to the Maintenance and Records
Dispostion of forms like 2162 and 1508. It doesn't DETERMINE what the forms
cover. The Code of Federal Regulations does that.
>But it says NOTHING about pertaining to handguns or concealable
>weapons ONLY.
>
That's because it deals with Files Maintenance and Records Disposition, Gil. It
has NOTHING TO DO with determining what forms like 2162 and 1508 cover. It's
purpose is to regulate how long they are maintained before disposal.
>Here's a copy of the regulation for the lurkers out there:
>
>http://i54.tinypic.com/df7ki1.jpg
No, Gil. That's simply a Files Maintenance and Records Disposition page you
found in Mark Lane's book. It simply deals with how long forms like 2162 and
1508 are retained by the Post Office before being discarded. The regulation you
are after is here, as supplied by Jean Davison, the researcher you derided
above:
That deals with what forms 2162 and 1508 cover, which is the mailing of
CONCEALABLE firearms, Gil.
Interestingly, it seems that there IS a form that covers the delivery of rifles
through the mail, however it seems that this didn't come into force until
September 27, 1968, a very long time after Oswald received his rifle.
Lurkers should read this thread by started by Jean Davison, Gil. They'll learn a
lot more doing that than swallowing your HOPELESS interpretation of the postal
regulations, Gil:
As I said before, time for you and DiEugenio to hand in your self-appointed
Postal Inspector badges, Gil. You'd really have to wonder at the veracity of
PROBE magazine over the years if Jim DiEugenio is regulary relying on *research*
of the standard YOU supply, Gil. GIGO sure comes to mind.
Informative Regards,
timstter
> In article <c55445ad-9fc2-4bfd-abb9-159d37a09...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
I wonder what *the lurkers* will make of you skulking behind your
killfilter, unable to read my COMPREHENSIVE reply to Gil, Ben.
THAT should inform the lurkers, Benny.
Tim Brennan
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Aug 10, 9:26=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 1:47=A0am, Tim Brennan <Tim_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The only person who appears to have done any decent research on the mat=
>ter is
>> > Jean Davison, who demonstrated back in March that forms 2162 and 1508 w=
>ere
>> > applicable to CONCEALABLE WEAPONS, not a rifle, thus blowing a HUGE hol=
>e in Gil
>> > and DiEugenio's nonsense re Oswald never received a rifle.
>>
>> Jean Davison is FOS.
>>
>> Because Davison could only find reference to the forms in the section
>> called "Concealed Weapons" she ASSUMED that those were the only
>> "firearms" referred to ?
>>
>> ROFLMAO
>>
>> The regulation pertains to ALL firearms, Fatman, to which group rifles
>> are included.
>>
>> That's why it ues the word FIREARMS rather than "Concealed Weapons" or
>>
>> Of course it applied to concealed weapons and handguns, but not to
>> those exclusively, otherwise the regulaton would have stated as such.
>>
>> But it says NOTHING about pertaining to handguns or concealable
>> weapons ONLY.
>>
>> Here's a copy of the regulation for the lurkers out there:
>>
>> http://i54.tinypic.com/df7ki1.jpg
>
>For those interested, Federal definition of the word "firearm"
>includes rifles.
>
>
>(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to
>or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an
>explosive;
>(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
>(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
>(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique
>firearm.
>
>18 USC 921 ( a.3 )
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000921----000-.html
>
>
>Federal law considers rifles firearms.
>The regulation covers firearms.
Er, but the regulation you've cited, 846.53a, covers retention periods for
postal forms like 2162 and 1508, Gil.
It has NOTHING TO DO with defining what those forms cover! That is covered by
the Code of Federal Regulations, which state that the forms are applicable to
the mailing of CONCEALABLE firearms! See it here:
>Therefore, the regulation covers rifles as well as handguns.
>
LOL! You can't use a regulation that is stipulating how long postal records need
to be kept for as a DEFINITIVE instrument for what each and every form it
mentions covers! That is what you have a Code of Federal Regulations for, Gil.
>GAME OVER, FATMAN.
Game just beginning, Gil! I don't think Postal Inspector DiEugenio is going to
be too amused when he finds out he has been touting the research of a bloke who
obviously has NO idea what he is talking about.
Concerned Regards,
David Von Pein
Question:
I'd like to know how the conspiracy theorists even know for certain
whether the official rifle forms DID NOT EXIST after the sales of the
handgun and the rifle to Oswald in March 1963?
I don't recall seeing any verification that those forms positively did
not exist.
Did the Warren Commission or anyone else ever even inquire about those
forms? If not, then they probaby did exist, and were then discarded
after four years (or whatever the term was of keeping such records).
Bottom Line:
The official rifle forms are not in the slightest way needed in order
to determine whether Lee Oswald ordered and took possession of BOTH
rifle C2766 and revolver V510210. We know he did order and possess
BOTH of those guns, beyond all possible doubt.
And particularly the revolver, since he was caught with that gun in
his hands on Nov. 22;. So who cares about the official paperwork? The
paperwork (or lack thereof) certainly can never change the fact that
Lee Oswald had in his possession the Tippit murder weapon just 35
minutes after J.D. Tippit was slain. And no conspiracy nutcracker will
ever be able to change that irrevocable fact.
Only rabid conspiracy clowns think that firearms forms 2162 and 1508
are the slightest bit important in this case.
And, again, I have a feeling deep inside me that is telling me that
those forms probably did exist in 1963, but the Warren Commission and
the FBI didn't investigate the matter, and that's because the Warren
Commission and the FBI (and the Dallas Police Department) didn't need
those forms to determine what they had to determine regarding Lee
Harvey Oswald's possession of both the JFK murder weapon and the
Tippit murder weapon.
The WC, FBI, et al, already had the proof that Oswald had ordered both
guns, via the paper trail that leads back to LHO for both weapons. So,
why would they even NEED to go into the issue of whether or not the
people who sold the guns to Oswald filled out and maintained the
appropriate paperwork or not? The firearms forms are things that are
not required in order to establish Oswald's ownership of those two
weapons.
timstter
Hi David,
All good points you make re Oswald and the possession of the handgun,
rifle etc and of course I agree but I think the SALIENT point here is
that Jean Davison has shown that forms 2162 and 1508 WERE NOT REQUIRED
to be completed in respect of EITHER firearm purchase that Oswald
made:
In fact, FURTHER examination of the materials that Jean has supplied
indicate that there WAS a requirement to make a record of rifles
received via post and this was Form 3761, *Notice of Delivery of
Firearms*, but this did not become applicable until September of 1968!
Obviously this doesn't gell with Gil and DiEugenio's ridiculous, self-
appointed Postal Inspector gigs but then their theories RARELY trouble
the facts, LOL!
Bottom line is, forms 1508 and 2162 were NEVER required in Oswald's
case, which certainly puts the lie to Gil's nonsense when he produces
RIDICULOUS *research* like this:
http://i55.tinypic.com/vpujp3.jpg
Egg on face time for both Gil AND DiEugenio, in my view.
aeffects
> >>> "I find this hilarious since this guy claimed there WAS EVIDENCE SHOWING LHO RECEIVED A RIFLE AT HIS P.O. BOX!" <<<
>
> What I find even more hilarious, Rob,
Rob....? you really are a dense moron aren't ya, shithead...... lmfao
At the very least moron you should recognize the troll by his real
alias.... what-a-dumb fuck.... is it any wonder you blew Bugliosi's
faith in you as his go-to internet guy.....
is that conspiracy nutcases like
> Gil Jesus and James DiEugenio are trying so hard to prove that Lee
> Harvey Oswald never purchased or took possession of the very same
> rifle that the unnamed plotters then TRIED TO FRAME OSWALD WITH ON
> NOVEMBER 22ND.
>
> It seems to me that a much better argument for these conspiracy
> theorists like Jesus and DiEugenio would be to just admit the obvious
> truth regarding Oswald's rifle purchase (and his Smith & Wesson
> handgun purchase as well) -- i.e., admit that Oswald did order and
> receive Rifle C2766 (which, of course, he did purchase and receive
> from Klein's Sporting Goods in March of '63).
>
> And then the CTers could pretend that the plotters then framed Oswald
> with HIS OWN GUN, which is a scenario that makes much more sense, and
> is much less complicated and less impossible to achieve than the way
> DiEugenio and Jesus (et al) have gone about the task of pretending
> Oswald was framed with a gun that he never possessed at any time prior
> to the assassination.
>
> But apparently conspiracists are always happier when they can believe
> in a larger number of impossible cloak-and-dagger theories, vs.
> believing in fewer plot twists....even when believing in fewer plot
> twists makes much more sense in the long run (as is the case when
> discussing the "ownership of the rifle" topic).
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...
David Von Pein
Tim,
To reiterate,
Do you know whether any of the official investigative committees (or
the DPD or the FBI) even attempted to track down any of the "firearms
forms" connected to Oswald's gun purchases (if any such forms were
even required in this case)? I sure haven't.
In fact, when I searched the testimony of some of the people who would
have likely testified about such forms (Heinz Michaelis, William
Waldman, and Harry Holmes), I found no reference at all to anything
relating to the firearms forms that conspiracy theorists are always
yammering on about.
So, what I should have added in my previous post is this:
IF ANY OF THE FIREARMS FORMS WERE REQUIRED in connection with Oswald's
gun purchases, then I have a feeling that they could very well have
existed for the proper time period (before being discarded, per
regulations), because I don't think anybody in officialdom even looked
into the matter in any detail.
But, of course, as you and Jean Davison have pointed out, if no such
forms were required in the first place, then obviously we're not going
to find any connected with Oswald's revolver and/or rifle purchases.
timstter
Hi David,
I'm not aware of any searches that were conducted for the forms. I
think if the forms were required then Holmes, in particular, would
have mentioned them. The evidence trail for the possession of the
rifle was pretty exhaustively researched by the FBI etc, so if the
forms were applicable I think they would have been recovered when
those searches were made.
In looking at the forms more it seems 1508 would definitely not have
been applicable. It seems to cover dealings between gun dealers, not
members of the public, like Oswald.
It seems many people, including Gil and DiEugenio, have simply looked
in Lane's book and taken what was there at face value. The
LaFontaine's also wrote on the matter. No one, before Jean, bothered
to do the research. Or if they did, concluded that it wasn't a strong
enough point to make.
Trust Gil to go around quoting it to Lifton as fact, with DiEugenio
yapping merrily at his heels, LOL! Boy, is HE ever in for a rude
awakening as to the research abilities of Mr Jesus.
timstter
Hi Rob,
I believe I gave you an answer. You just chose to ignore it.
Helpful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
ps Gil's Postal Inspector gig with Jim DiEugenio seems to be going
well! If you like disasters... TB
aeffects
my goodness the lone nut pussies are dancing.... does Slamin' Sam
know, hon?
Tim Brennan
aeffects says...
>
>On Aug 10, 3:42=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "I find this hilarious since this guy claimed there WAS EVIDENCE SHOW=
Does anyone know what Healy is gibbering about here? I'm lost.
Concerned Regards,
timstter
Say, you seen Gil lately, Dave?
He seems to be MIA.
Concerned Regards,
timstter
BUMP! DAVE?
Tim Brennan
Tim Brennan
You appear to have participated in a discussion about the very matter of DiEugoosio supporting Gil (Bald Goose) Jesus's CRACKPOT theory that Oswald NEVER received a rifle in the mail and DiEugoosio then attacking David Lifton over the matter at the Education Forum!
You know, the one YOU said NEVER happened?!
Memory failing you, Dave/Ringo?
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator
Tim Brennan
Tim Brennan
chucksch...@gmail.com
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>BUMP!
Bump what?
Go sit in the corner again!