THE POSTMARK ON OSWALD'S ENVELOPE

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 24, 2012, 9:07:28 PM7/24/12

to

I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald's order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.

I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.

Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute confirmation" he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.

But since this matter concerning the envelope's postmark and Oswald's order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I'd share this apparently "new" information regarding the postmark.

=====================================================

Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:

Hi David,

Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.

After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.

I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!

No mysterious journey required, it would seem.

I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.

The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.

I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.

Regards,
XXXXXXX
[Name deleted by DVP]

=====================================================

FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:

Here's a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If somebody were to dig hard enough, I'd be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.

And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio's "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.

So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.

Brilliant!

The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope (which has the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let's Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.

And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.

The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.

Why?

Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.

David Von Pein
March 25, 2011

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary." -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related Links:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 6:52:17 AM7/25/12

to

On Jul 24, 9:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald's order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.
>
> I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.
>
> Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute confirmation" he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.
>
> But since this matter concerning the envelope's postmark and Oswald's order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I'd share this apparently "new" information regarding the postmark.
>
> =====================================================
>
> Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:
>
> Hi David,
>
> Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.
>
> After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.
>
> I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!
>
> No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
>
> I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.
>
> The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.
>
> I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.
>
> Regards,
> XXXXXXX
> [Name deleted by DVP]
>
> =====================================================
>
> FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
>
> Here's a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "If somebody were to dig hard enough, I'd be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.
>
> And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio's "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.
>
> So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.
>
> Brilliant!
>
> The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope (which has the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let's Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.
>
> And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
>
> The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.
>
> Why?
>
> Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.
>
> David Von Pein
> March 25, 2011
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary." -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Related Links:
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
>

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking

===================

Since other evidence shows clearly that Oswald was not the shooter
on the fateful day, the postmark isn't of great importance. And
Marina said that Oswald liked JFK. Oswald also showed he was
politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker, a known hard
right type.

Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 8:09:50 AM7/25/12

to

with all the control his employer, the cia, had over oswald, what are the
chances oswald would do anything like shoot at walker unless oswald had
specific instruction from his employer, cia, to do so?

hint: none

Bud

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 8:28:04 AM7/25/12

to

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:52:17 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jul 24, 9:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald's order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.
> >
> > I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.
> >
> > Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute confirmation" he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.
> >
> > But since this matter concerning the envelope's postmark and Oswald's order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I'd share this apparently "new" information regarding the postmark.
> >
> > =====================================================
> >
> > Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.
> >
> > After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.
> >
> > I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!
> >
> > No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
> >
> > I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.
> >
> > The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.
> >
> > I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.
> >
> > Regards,
> > XXXXXXX
> > [Name deleted by DVP]
> >
> > =====================================================
> >
> > FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
> >
> > Here's a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):
> >
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > "If somebody were to dig hard enough, I'd be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.
> >
> > And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio's "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.
> >
> > So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.
> >
> > Brilliant!
> >
> > The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope (which has the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let's Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.
> >
> > And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
> >
> > The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.
> >
> > David Von Pein
> > March 25, 2011
> >
> > http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > "As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary." -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Related Links:
> >
> > http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
> >
> > http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking

>
> ===================
>
> Since other evidence shows clearly that Oswald was not the shooter

> on the fateful day, the postmark isn't of great importance.

To a retard, it isn`t important if evidence indicates that the number one suspect purchased the murder weapon.

> And
> Marina said that Oswald liked JFK.

So if someone said that LBJ or Hoover liked Kennedy they would be cleared by your retarded thinking.

> Oswald also showed he was
> politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,

Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.

> a known hard
> right type.

Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.

> Chris

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 2:48:53 PM7/25/12

to

YOU STUPID BASTARD;

ZIP CODES WERE NOT IN USE IN 1963 ! ! !

David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have

> correspo= nded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic
> of the post= mark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald
> mailed to Klei= n's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was
> an envelope that = contained Oswald's order form for the rifle which he
> eventually used to kil= l JFK in November.

>
> I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail,

> because = I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the

> Internet.
>
> Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to receive

> a=

> follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute

> confirmation" = he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have
> not received any ad= ditional correspondence from him.

>
> But since this matter concerning the envelope's postmark and Oswald's

> order=

> form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many

> consp= iracy theorists over the years, I thought I'd share this
> apparently "new" i= nformation regarding the postmark.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> 3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> 3D= =3D=3D=3D

>
> Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight

> T= ime:
>
> Hi David,
> =20

> Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had

> about = the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his
> coupon for=

> the rifle.
>
> After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up

> wit= h an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who
> maintain t= hat the number =9112=92 denotes a distant part of Dallas.
>
> I=92ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the
> U= SA) that the number =9112=92 which appears on the
> franking/cancellation mar= k does not indicate where the item was posted.
> It merely indicates that the=

> letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing

> plant, = which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where
> Oswald actuall= y bought the money order!=20

>
> No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
>
> I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking,

> 10:30, = does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means
> that the let= ter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection
> was made.=20

>
> The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at

> s= ome time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute,
> one hou= r, two hours, three hours, etc.=20
>
> I=92m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the
> USP= S historians and archivists. If you=92d like me to contact you
> again, when = I=92ve got the confirmations, I=92ll be delighted to let

> you know.
>
> Regards,
> XXXXXXX
> [Name deleted by DVP]
>

> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> 3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> 3D= =3D=3D=3D

>
> FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
>
> Here's a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No.
> 773):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a

> .h= tm

>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "If somebody were to dig hard enough, I'd be willing to bet that a postal

> z= one mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have
> been dif= ferent from the zone where the envelope had been physically

> mailed.
>
> And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of

> DiEug= enio's "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters doing things that only a
> total retard = would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the
> conspiracy kooks=

> like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at

> t= he main post office in Dallas.

>
> So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their

> o= wn patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a
> different = postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.

>
> Brilliant!
>
> The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope (which

> h= as the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right
> Jimbo? But= , instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry
> goofs like DiE= ugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO
> [Let's Frame Oswa= ld] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on
> the envelope containin= g the money order.

>
> And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to

> make=

> the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24

> hours= ), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.

>
> The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is

> probabl= y better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.

>
> Why?
>
> Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the

> ev= il plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio
> believes--because he t= hinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald's guilt in
> the Kennedy and Tippit mu= rders is phony), then NONE of these types of
> goofy anomalies would exist in=

> the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally,

> ALL= retarded.

>
> David Von Pein
> March 25, 2011
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> "As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no

> clue, = but there=92s no evidence such a practice was out of the
> ordinary." -- Gary=

> Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Related Links:
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-

> An= d-Other-Evidence
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 4:27:21 PM7/25/12

to

You ARE the world's biggest dumbfuck, Rosstard. No one said anything
about Zip Codes. You, uh, DO know that there were zones before Zip
Codes, don't you, Rosspussy?

aeffects

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 4:32:35 PM7/25/12

to

On Jul 25, 1:27 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/25/2012 11:48 AM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > YOU STUPID BASTARD;
>
> > ZIP CODES WERE NOT IN USE IN 1963 ! ! !
>

> >>http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...

> >>http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...

> >> An= d-Other-Evidence
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking
>
> You ARE the world's biggest dumbfuck, Rosstard. No one said anything
> about Zip Codes. You, uh, DO know that there were zones before Zip
> Codes, don't you, Rosspussy?

Paul May defends and takes another up the ass for the "gipper"... Way
to go Paul May, aka Jason Burker, Mark Ulrik... Yeoman's pud-pullin'
job! ROTFLMFAO! ! ! !

aeffects

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 4:28:47 PM7/25/12

to

only a fool or disinfo bot supports the WCR these days, what's your
excuse Dudster?

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 5:44:32 PM7/25/12

to

> > on the fateful day, the postmark isn't of great importance.

>
> To a retard, it isn`t important if evidence indicates that the number one suspect purchased the murder weapon.
>
> > And
> > Marina said that Oswald liked JFK.
>
> So if someone said that LBJ or Hoover liked Kennedy they would be cleared by your retarded thinking.

Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman's holiday? Where's your siamese
twin that left at the same time as you? :)

Nope. Won't do, little fella. I add that piece of information that
LHO liked JFK just as an addendum on the large amount of evidence
already quoted that says that LHO didn't do the shooting on the big
day. And if you're going to doubt what Marina said, then perhaps you
will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)

>
> > Oswald also showed he was
> > politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,
>
> Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.
>

Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
backup. Must not have happened. And if you're able to prove that he
shot at Walker, why didn't he hit him sitting still, since you think
he was good enough to shoot through trees at a 3 way moving target and
hit 2 out of 3? LOL!

> > a known hard
> > right type.
>
> Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.
>

Oh! Was Castro Oswald's idol? Or do you doubt some of the things
Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?

Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman's holiday? Where's your siamses
twin that left at the same time as you? :)

If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with
that. That doesn't mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it
takes to do it either.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 5:32:45 PM7/25/12

to

I agree that he wasn't likely to do it in any event, but I'm sure he
said he did just to keep looking like a leftist guerilla. That als
explains buying a cheap rifle and having his picture taken with it
too.

Chris

Bud

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 7:24:34 PM7/25/12

to

On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:44:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jul 25, 8:28 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:52:17 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 9:07 pm, David Von Pein &lt;davevonp...@aol.com&gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein&#39;s Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald&#39;s order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; I&#39;m going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I&#39;m not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I&#39;ve been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the &quot;absolute confirmation&quot; he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; But since this matter concerning the envelope&#39;s postmark and Oswald&#39;s order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I&#39;d share this apparently &quot;new&quot; information regarding the postmark.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; =====================================================
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Hi David,
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Regards,
> > > &gt; XXXXXXX
> > > &gt; [Name deleted by DVP]
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; =====================================================
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Here&#39;s a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &quot;If somebody were to dig hard enough, I&#39;d be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio&#39;s &quot;Let&#39;s Frame Oswald&quot; plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Brilliant!
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; The plotters could just as easily have stamped the &quot;fake&quot; envelope (which has the &quot;fake&quot; Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let&#39;s Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Why?
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald&#39;s guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; David Von Pein
> > > &gt; March 25, 2011
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &quot;As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary.&quot; -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Related Links:
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking
> >
> > > ===================
> >
> > > Since other evidence shows clearly that Oswald was not the shooter
> > > on the fateful day, the postmark isn't of great importance.
> >
> > To a retard, it isn`t important if evidence indicates that the number one suspect purchased the murder weapon.
> >
> > > And
> > > Marina said that Oswald liked JFK.
> >
> > So if someone said that LBJ or Hoover liked Kennedy they would be cleared by your retarded thinking.
>
> Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman's holiday? Where's your siamese

> twin that left at the same time as you? :)
>

> Nope. Won't do, little fella. I add that piece of information that

> LHO liked JFK just as an addendum on the large amount of evidence

> already quoted that says that LHO didn't do the shooting on the big
> day.

You are too stupid to understand the evidence.

> And if you're going to doubt what Marina said,

You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.

> then perhaps you
> will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
> pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
> when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)

> >
> > > Oswald also showed he was
> > > politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,
> >
> > Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.
> >

> Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
> backup. Must not have happened.

You are too stupid to figure out what happened.

> And if you're able to prove that he
> shot at Walker, why didn't he hit him sitting still,

You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.

> since you think
> he was good enough to shoot through trees at a 3 way moving target and
> hit 2 out of 3? LOL!

You are too stupid to figure anything out. Back to the 9-11 tardpit with you.

> > > a known hard
> > > right type.
> >
> > Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.
> >
> Oh! Was Castro Oswald's idol? Or do you doubt some of the things

> Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?
>

> Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman's holiday? Where's your siamses

> twin that left at the same time as you? :)
>
> If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with

> that. That doesn't mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it

Sam McClung

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 9:31:35 PM7/25/12

to

"mainframetech" wrote in message
news:d4a70106-de61-4ef8...@k21g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

are you referring to the photo on the cover of time magazine?

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 25, 2012, 9:37:36 PM7/25/12

to

Really ought to get that ass looked at, Ringo! Though I suppose you LIKE
the green runny shit that it emits.

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 2:16:38 AM7/26/12

to

HEY YOU FUCKING AIDS DISRIBUTOR;
DO OU REALLY WANNA TRADE INSULTS WITH ME..

BECAUSE THAT'S MY SECOND FAVORITE ENDEAVOR ! !

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 2:18:00 AM7/26/12

to

> >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> >>>> D=3D= 3D=
> >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3

OTHERWISW YOU WOULDDD STARV TO DEATH>>

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 7:46:54 AM7/26/12

to

Nope. Won't do. Too easy agimmick to get out of answering
difficult questions you can't answer. You need to try harder and
understand that when you can't answer a question, you are proving
either that you have no answer, or you don't understand the question.
Which is it this time?

> > And if you're going to doubt what Marina said,
>
> You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.
>

LOL! So you then admit that Marina was telling the truth when she
said Oswald liked JFK? :)

> > then perhaps you
> > will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
> > pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
> > when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)
> > >
> > > > Oswald also showed he was
> > > > politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,
> > >
> > > Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.
> > >
> > Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
> > backup. Must not have happened.
>
> You are too stupid to figure out what happened.
>

Ah! Another gimmick to avoid answering a question! I'm making hard
questions for you this time, I see. Since you think you're the answer
to everyone's dreams of the perfect person, why not give us the
benefit of your great intellect and just tell us what YOU think
happened? Did Oswald really shoot at Walker, or just say so to Marina
and a few people? If he did the shooting, did he intentionally miss
to keep his handlers happy? Was he saying he did the shooting at
Walker to get in good with someone? Oh god of knowing everything, do
you know that answer? Or any answer?

> > And if you're able to prove that he
> > shot at Walker, why didn't he hit him sitting still,
>
> You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
>

Hmm. Once again avoiding answering. Typical ad hominem attack to
out of having to say something constructive. Must not want anything
constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
will evaluate it carefully, but I see no links from you, so you must
not know anytrhing, and are just spouting the usual line of bull.

> > since you think
> > he was good enough to shoot through trees at a 3 way moving target and
> > hit 2 out of 3? LOL!
>
> You are too stupid to figure anything out. Back to the 9-11 tardpit with you.

A fourth time you try that gimmick! You are really in the dumper
today! You seem to know nothing, or are too afraid to answer lest you
get in over your head and get caught saying more stupid things...:)

> > > a known hard
> > > > right type.
> > >
> > > Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.
> > >
> > Oh! Was Castro Oswald's idol? Or do you doubt some of the things
> > Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?
>
> > Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman's holiday? Where's your siamses
> > twin that left at the same time as you? :)
>
> > If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with
> > that. That doesn't mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it
> > takes to do it either.
>

Hmm. Let's see. 4 questions answered with an insult ans giving NO
answer or information. No links provided, and no backup for
astatements made. Basicallty you'vehad a bad day today. Shiowed your
level of knowledge to be at low ebb, and even your insult level is not
up to par. Are you feeling OK? Do you miss your Siamese twin that
usually need to have nearby?

How about my question about you being on a busman's holiday? Not
related to your work or anything, certainly you could answer that
one. You must have altogether 9 answers pending that you have run
away from like a chicken in the night.

Oh! And don't forget my question about what oplatform you're on to
get here and post. Still in deep fear that somehow I'll do something
that will mess up your machine? Afraid it would give something away?
Why so scared and cowering?

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 7:48:41 AM7/26/12

to

The back yard photo with literature in one hand and the M-C rifle
in the other, revolver on hip.

Chris

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 10:23:32 AM7/26/12

to

Answer the question, Dipshit.

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 10:23:57 AM7/26/12

to

WTF, Rosstard.

Bud

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 1:12:17 PM7/26/12

to

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:46:54 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:24 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:44:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Jul 25, 8:28 am, Bud &lt;sirsl...@fast.net&gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:52:17 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; On Jul 24, 9:07 pm, David Von Pein &amp;lt;davevonp...@aol.com&amp;gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein&amp;#39;s Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald&amp;#39;s order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I&amp;#39;m going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I&amp;#39;m not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I&amp;#39;ve been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the &amp;quot;absolute confirmation&amp;quot; he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; But since this matter concerning the envelope&amp;#39;s postmark and Oswald&amp;#39;s order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I&amp;#39;d share this apparently &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; information regarding the postmark.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; =====================================================
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Hi David,
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Regards,
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; XXXXXXX
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; [Name deleted by DVP]
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; =====================================================
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Here&amp;#39;s a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;If somebody were to dig hard enough, I&amp;#39;d be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio&amp;#39;s &amp;quot;Let&amp;#39;s Frame Oswald&amp;quot; plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Brilliant!
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; The plotters could just as easily have stamped the &amp;quot;fake&amp;quot; envelope (which has the &amp;quot;fake&amp;quot; Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let&amp;#39;s Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Why?
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald&amp;#39;s guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; David Von Pein
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; March 25, 2011
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;quot;As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary.&amp;quot; -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Related Links:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; ===================
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; Since other evidence shows clearly that Oswald was not the shooter
> > > &gt; &gt; on the fateful day, the postmark isn&#39;t of great importance.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; To a retard, it isn`t important if evidence indicates that the number one suspect purchased the murder weapon.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; And
> > > &gt; &gt; Marina said that Oswald liked JFK.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; So if someone said that LBJ or Hoover liked Kennedy they would be cleared by your retarded thinking.
> >
> > > Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman&#39;s holiday? Where&#39;s your siamese
> > > twin that left at the same time as you? :)
> >
> > > Nope. Won&#39;t do, little fella. I add that piece of information that
> > > LHO liked JFK just as an addendum on the large amount of evidence
> > > already quoted that says that LHO didn&#39;t do the shooting on the big
> > > day.
> >
> > You are too stupid to understand the evidence.
> >
> Nope. Won't do.

The truth will always do.

> Too easy agimmick to get out of answering

> difficult questions you can't answer. You need to try harder and
> understand that when you can't answer a question, you are proving
> either that you have no answer, or you don't understand the question.

> Which is it this time?
>

> > > And if you&#39;re going to doubt what Marina said,
> >
> > You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.
> >

> LOL! So you then admit that Marina was telling the truth when she
> said Oswald liked JFK? :)

How would I know? I would say that it is likely that Oswald expressed a favorable opinion of Kennedy to her, but it is useless information without context. Being stupid you use this useless information to pretend it gives weight to your stupid ideas.

> > > then perhaps you
> > > will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
> > > pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
> > > when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; Oswald also showed he was
> > > &gt; &gt; politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.
> > > &gt;
> > > Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
> > > backup. Must not have happened.
> >
> > You are too stupid to figure out what happened.
> >

> Ah! Another gimmick to avoid answering a question!

Isn`t your stupidity just a gimmick to avoid figuring out what happened? Aren`t you just playing the same retard games that idiots have been playing for decades with the deaths of these men?

> I'm making hard
> questions for you this time, I see. Since you think you're the answer
> to everyone's dreams of the perfect person, why not give us the

> benefit of your great intellect and just tell us what YOU think
> happened? Did Oswald really shoot at Walker, or just say so to Marina
> and a few people? If he did the shooting, did he intentionally miss
> to keep his handlers happy? Was he saying he did the shooting at
> Walker to get in good with someone? Oh god of knowing everything, do
> you know that answer? Or any answer?

Why are you imagining handlers? Isn`t this just something stupid people do?

> > > And if you&#39;re able to prove that he
> > > shot at Walker, why didn&#39;t he hit him sitting still,
> >
> > You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
> >

> Hmm. Once again avoiding answering.

Why should I try to explain these things to you? You are being purposely stupid and you seem to enjoy being stupid and you have zero interest in determining how these things happened.

> Typical ad hominem attack to
> out of having to say something constructive.

What can I say that will make you smarter?

> Must not want anything
> constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
> will evaluate it carefully,

Looking for reasons to disregard everything that goes against what you want to believe.

> but I see no links from you, so you must
> not know anytrhing, and are just spouting the usual line of bull.
>

> > > since you think
> > > he was good enough to shoot through trees at a 3 way moving target and
> > > hit 2 out of 3? LOL!
> >
> > You are too stupid to figure anything out. Back to the 9-11 tardpit with you.

>
> A fourth time you try that gimmick! You are really in the dumper
> today!

You are even too stupid to count, it was five.

Went to the plate five times and I got five hits and you call it a slump.

> You seem to know nothing, or are too afraid to answer lest you
> get in over your head and get caught saying more stupid things...:)

You expect me to try to convince you not to be stupid? Whats in it for me?

> > &gt; &gt; a known hard
> > > &gt; &gt; right type.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.
> > > &gt;
> > > Oh! Was Castro Oswald&#39;s idol? Or do you doubt some of the things
> > > Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?
> >
> > > Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman&#39;s holiday? Where&#39;s your siamses
> > > twin that left at the same time as you? :)
> >
> > > If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with
> > > that. That doesn&#39;t mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it
> > > takes to do it either.
> >
>
> Hmm. Let's see. 4 questions answered with an insult ans giving NO

> answer or information. No links provided, and no backup for

> astatements made. Basicallty you'vehad a bad day today. Shiowed your

> level of knowledge to be at low ebb, and even your insult level is not
> up to par. Are you feeling OK? Do you miss your Siamese twin that
> usually need to have nearby?
>

> How about my question about you being on a busman's holiday? Not

> related to your work or anything, certainly you could answer that
> one. You must have altogether 9 answers pending that you have run
> away from like a chicken in the night.
>

> Oh! And don't forget my question about what oplatform you're on to
> get here and post. Still in deep fear that somehow I'll do something

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 3:26:49 PM7/26/12

to

THERE WERE NO ZIP CODES IN 1963.

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 5:20:27 PM7/26/12

to

WOW! An honest answer from Rossfuck! Of course, his original response
has just about as much to do with the original question as this response
one would:

"Because it was a purple Martian"

aeffects

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 5:29:24 PM7/26/12

to

On Jul 26, 2:20 pm, Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 7/26/2012 12:26 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 7/25/2012 11:16 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> >>> Jason Burke <Burke_Ja...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/25/2012 11:48 AM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> >>>>> YOU STUPID BASTARD;
>
> >>>>> ZIP CODES WERE NOT IN USE IN 1963 ! ! !
>

radio debate and defeat goes well with you eh, shithead? LMFAO!

Bud

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:37:26 PM7/26/12

to

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:26:49 PM UTC-4, tomnln wrote:
> Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 7/25/2012 11:16 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On 7/25/2012 11:48 AM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > >>> YOU STUPID BASTARD;
> > >>>
> > >>> ZIP CODES WERE NOT IN USE IN 1963 ! ! !
> > >>>
> > >>> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>>> I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have
> > >>>> correspo= nded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the
> > >>>> topic of the post= mark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee
> > >>>> Harvey Oswald mailed to Klei= n's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March
> > >>>> of 1963, which was an envelope that = contained Oswald's order form
> > >>>> for the rifle which he eventually used to kil= l JFK in November.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail,
> > >>>> because = I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the
> > >>>> Internet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to
> > >>>> receive a=
> > >>>> follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute
> > >>>> confirmation" = he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I
> > >>>> have not received any ad= ditional correspondence from him.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But since this matter concerning the envelope's postmark and
> > >>>> Oswald's order=
> > >>>> form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to
> > >>>> many consp= iracy theorists over the years, I thought I'd share this
> > >>>> apparently "new" i= nformation regarding the postmark.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > >>>> D= 3D= 3D=
> > >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > >>>> D= 3D= 3D= =3D=3D=3D
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern
> > >>>> Daylight T= ime:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hi David,
> > >>>> =20
> > >>>> Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had
> > >>>> about = the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted
> > >>>> his coupon for=
> > >>>> the rifle.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come
> > >>>> up wit= h an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those
> > >>>> who maintain t= hat the number =9112=92 denotes a distant part of
> > >>>> Dallas.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I=92ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians
> > >>>> (in the U= SA) that the number =9112=92 which appears on the
> > >>>> franking/cancellation mar= k does not indicate where the item was
> > >>>> posted. It merely indicates that the=
> > >>>> letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the
> > >>>> processing plant, = which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex
> > >>>> building where Oswald actuall= y bought the money order!=20
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking,
> > >>>> 10:30, = does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply
> > >>>> means that the let= ter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30
> > >>>> collection was made.=20
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was
> > >>>> posted at s= ome time before the timestamp shows. It could have been
> > >>>> one minute, one hou= r, two hours, three hours, etc.=20
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I=92m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from
> > >>>> the USP= S historians and archivists. If you=92d like me to contact
> > >>>> you again, when = I=92ve got the confirmations, I=92ll be delighted
> > >>>> to let you know.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> XXXXXXX
> > >>>> [Name deleted by DVP]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > >>>> D= 3D= 3D=
> > >>>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
> > >>>> D= 3D= 3D= =3D=3D=3D
> > >>>>
> > >>>> FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here's a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No.
> > >>>> 773):
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_
> > >>>> 03 31a .h= tm
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "If somebody were to dig hard enough, I'd be willing to bet that a
> > >>>> postal z= one mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven
> > >>>> to have been dif= ferent from the zone where the envelope had been
> > >>>> physically mailed.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples
> > >>>> of DiEug= enio's "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters doing things that
> > >>>> only a total retard = would want to do -- i.e., they are framing
> > >>>> Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks=
> > >>>> like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly
> > >>>> purchased at t= he main post office in Dallas.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of
> > >>>> their o= wn patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped
> > >>>> with a different = postal zone from the one where the money order
> > >>>> was purchased.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Brilliant!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope
> > >>>> (which h= as the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE,
> > >>>> right Jimbo? But= , instead, they apparently wanted to leave
> > >>>> conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiE= ugenio a whole bunch of bread
> > >>>> crumbs throughout their LFO [Let's Frame Oswa= ld] plan, by
> > >>>> deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containin= g
> > >>>> the money order.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding
> > >>>> to make=
> > >>>> the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in
> > >>>> 24 hours= ), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is
> > >>>> probabl= y better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of
> > >>>> CONSPIRACY.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Why?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by
> > >>>> the ev= il plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio
> > >>>> believes--because he t= hinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald's
> > >>>> guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit mu= rders is phony), then NONE of
> > >>>> these types of goofy anomalies would exist in=
> > >>>> the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were,
> > >>>> literally, ALL= retarded.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> David Von Pein
> > >>>> March 25, 2011
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.ht
> > >>>> ml
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no
> > >>>> clue, = but there=92s no evidence such a practice was out of the
> > >>>> ordinary." -- Gary=
> > >>>> Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce7736
> > >>>> 2b
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Related Links:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Ph
> > >>>> ot os- An= d-Other-Evidence
> > >>>>
> > >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> You ARE the world's biggest dumbfuck, Rosstard. No one said anything
> > >> about Zip Codes. You, uh, DO know that there were zones before Zip
> > >> Codes, don't you, Rosspussy?
> > >
> > > HEY YOU FUCKING AIDS DISRIBUTOR;
> > > DO OU REALLY WANNA TRADE INSULTS WITH ME..
> > >
> > > BECAUSE THAT'S MY SECOND FAVORITE ENDEAVOR ! !
> > >
> >
> > Answer the question, Dipshit.

>
>
> THERE WERE NO ZIP CODES IN 1963.

YAH, THERE WERE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZIP_code

"By the early 1960s a more general system was needed, and on July 1, 1963, non-mandatory ZIP codes were announced for the whole country."

Bud

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:46:34 PM7/26/12

to

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:26:49 PM UTC-4, tomnln wrote:
> Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 7/25/2012 11:16 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > > Jason Burke <Burke...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >> On 7/25/2012 11:48 AM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> > >>> YOU STUPID BASTARD;
> > >>>
> > >>> ZIP CODES WERE NOT IN USE IN 1963 ! ! !
> > >>>
> > >>> David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>>> I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have
> > >>>> correspo= nded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the
> > >>>> topic of the post= mark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee
> > >>>> Harvey Oswald mailed to Klei= n's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March
> > >>>> of 1963, which was an envelope that = contained Oswald's order form
> > >>>> for the rifle which he eventually used to kil= l JFK in November.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail,
> > >>>> because = I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the
> > >>>> Internet.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to
> > >>>> receive a=
> > >>>> follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute

> > >>>> confirmation" = he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I
> > >>>> have not received any ad= ditional correspondence from him.

> > >>>>

> > >>>> I=92ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians
> > >>>> (in the U= SA) that the number =9112=92 which appears on the
> > >>>> franking/cancellation mar= k does not indicate where the item was
> > >>>> posted. It merely indicates that the=
> > >>>> letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the
> > >>>> processing plant, = which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex
> > >>>> building where Oswald actuall= y bought the money order!=20

> > >>>>

> > >>>> No mysterious journey required, it would seem.

> > >>>>

> > >>>> I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking,
> > >>>> 10:30, = does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply
> > >>>> means that the let= ter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30
> > >>>> collection was made.=20
> > >>>>

> > >>>> The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was
> > >>>> posted at s= ome time before the timestamp shows. It could have been
> > >>>> one minute, one hou= r, two hours, three hours, etc.=20

> > >>>>

> > >>>> only a total retard = would want to do -- i.e., they are framing
> > >>>> Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks=
> > >>>> like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly
> > >>>> purchased at t= he main post office in Dallas.

> > >>>>

> > >>>> So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of
> > >>>> their o= wn patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped
> > >>>> with a different = postal zone from the one where the money order
> > >>>> was purchased.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Brilliant!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope
> > >>>> (which h= as the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE,
> > >>>> right Jimbo? But= , instead, they apparently wanted to leave
> > >>>> conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiE= ugenio a whole bunch of bread
> > >>>> crumbs throughout their LFO [Let's Frame Oswa= ld] plan, by
> > >>>> deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containin= g
> > >>>> the money order.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding
> > >>>> to make=

> > >>>> the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in
> > >>>> 24 hours= ), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.

> > >>>>

> > > BECAUSE THAT'S MY SECOND FAVORITE ENDEAVOR ! !
> > >
> >
> > Answer the question, Dipshit.

>
>
> THERE WERE NO ZIP CODES IN 1963.

Where do you see a zip code on the envelope DVP linked to?

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm

The "6" in "Chicago 6, Ill." refers to the postal zone within Chicago.

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:51:19 PM7/26/12

to

Kiss, kiss, Ringo! How's the bleeding asshole? Watch out for splinters
next time!

I wouldn't waste my time debating a fuckheaded retard like Rossshit.
See, you can't even keep three people straight here, yet you think you
know what's going on with those evil alterationists.

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 6:53:54 PM7/26/12

to

Yep. When you get some, I'll listen carefully.

> > Too easy a gimmick to get out of answering

> > difficult questions you can't answer. You need to try harder and
> > understand that when you can't answer a question, you are proving
> > either that you have no answer, or you don't understand the question.
> > Which is it this time?
>
> > > > And if you&#39;re going to doubt what Marina said,
> > >
> > > You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.
> > >
> > LOL! So you then admit that Marina was telling the truth when she
> > said Oswald liked JFK? :)
>
> How would I know? I would say that it is likely that Oswald expressed a favorable opinion of Kennedy to her, but it is useless information without context. Being stupid you use this useless information to pretend it gives weight to your stupid ideas.

Well, lessee...if Oswald took a favorable attitude to JFK as you
suggest is possible, then it could be that he wouldn't want to kill a
person he had a favorable attitude about. Seems to fit very well,
whether you can see it or not, the rest of us can...:) Thanks!

>
> > > > then perhaps you
> > > > will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
> > > > pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
> > > > when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; &gt; Oswald also showed he was
> > > > &gt; &gt; politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
> > > > backup. Must not have happened.
> > >
> > > You are too stupid to figure out what happened.
> > >
> > Ah! Another gimmick to avoid answering a question!
>
> Isn`t your stupidity just a gimmick to avoid figuring out what happened? Aren`t you just playing the same retard games that idiots have been playing for decades with the deaths of these men?
>

No, little fella. Don't you realize that the first playing around
with the persons of JFK and Connally were when the plan was hatched to
kill JFK, and then carrying it out and covering it up with the WCR?
Murder is the ultimate insult to the men in the presidential limo.
How come you refuse to answer any questions about the platform you're
working on? Is it a type I would recognize as not being a home model?

> > I'm making hard
> > questions for you this time, I see. Since you think you're the answer
> > to everyone's dreams of the perfect person, why not give us the
> > benefit of your great intellect and just tell us what YOU think
> > happened? Did Oswald really shoot at Walker, or just say so to Marina
> > and a few people? If he did the shooting, did he intentionally miss
> > to keep his handlers happy? Was he saying he did the shooting at
> > Walker to get in good with someone? Oh god of knowing everything, do
> > you know that answer? Or any answer?
>
> Why are you imagining handlers? Isn`t this just something stupid people do?
>

No, fool...:) It's something that occurs to folks that know that
Oswald was being handled by a government agency and was reporting back
to them on the stuff he was nosing into. The FBI is the first
probability, but his connection to de Mohrenschildt also suggests the
CIA was involved too. de Mohrenschildt was very upper crust Oswald
was very low crust. Why should they find time for each other? Many
meetings and visits between them. Too coincidental. Didn't you pick
up on that? Or did you miss it?

> > > > And if you&#39;re able to prove that he
> > > > shot at Walker, why didn&#39;t he hit him sitting still,
> > >
> > > You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
> > >
> > Hmm. Once again avoiding answering.
>
> Why should I try to explain these things to you? You are being purposely stupid and you seem to enjoy being stupid and you have zero interest in determining how these things happened.

Oh now that's false for sure. I'm interested in why these things
occurred, but I'm unsure that you have any lead on them. It's pretty
clear that you've been 'converted' by the mystery of the WCR and have
become one of the faithful along with your Siamese twin. You might
provide some useful information as to why you think a certain thing,
or why you can't allow certain things to be true, even though the
evidence is staring you in the face, and you can be helpful in
explaining how you think something went down.

>
> > Typical ad hominem attack to
> > out of having to say something constructive.
>
> What can I say that will make you smarter?

Only the truth...I guess there's not much hope for me...:)

>
> > Must not want anything
> > constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
> > will evaluate it carefully,
>
> Looking for reasons to disregard everything that goes against what you want to believe.

Nope, only anything that sounds contrived and phony like the WCR.

>
> > but I see no links from you, so you must

> > not know anything, and are just spouting the usual line of bull.

>
> > > > since you think
> > > > he was good enough to shoot through trees at a 3 way moving target and
> > > > hit 2 out of 3? LOL!
> > >
> > > You are too stupid to figure anything out. Back to the 9-11 tardpit with you.
>
> > A fourth time you try that gimmick! You are really in the dumper
> > today!
>
> You are even too stupid to count, it was five.
>
> Went to the plate five times and I got five hits and you call it a slump.

5 hits? Only if you were stepping in dog manure...:)

>
> > You seem to know nothing, or are too afraid to answer lest you
> > get in over your head and get caught saying more stupid things...:)
>
> You expect me to try to convince you not to be stupid? Whats in it for me?

Ah! Now we get to it! You could be 'cleared' of your abiding
beliefs that have been dragging you under for years now. I offer
freedom to shout to the treetops the truth and not be afraid to do
it! You can be converted back to a sane human and believe like the
rest of the nation in the folishness of the WCR! You can free! A
worthwhile goal, for sure...:)

> > &gt; &gt; a known hard
> > > > &gt; &gt; right type.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > Oh! Was Castro Oswald&#39;s idol? Or do you doubt some of the things
> > > > Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?
> > >
> > > > Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman&#39;s holiday? Where&#39;s your siamses
> > > > twin that left at the same time as you? :)
> > >
> > > > If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with
> > > > that. That doesn&#39;t mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it
> > > > takes to do it either.
> > >
>

> > Hmm. Let's see. 4 questions answered with an insult and giving NO

> > answer or information. No links provided, and no backup for

> > statements made. Basically you'vehad a bad day today. Showed your

> > level of knowledge to be at low ebb, and even your insult level is not

> > up to par. Are you feeling OK? Do you miss your Siamese twin that you

> > usually need to have nearby?
>
> > How about my question about you being on a busman's holiday? Not
> > related to your work or anything, certainly you could answer that
> > one. You must have altogether 9 answers pending that you have run
> > away from like a chicken in the night.
>

> > Oh! And don't forget my question about what oplatform you're on to

> > get here and post. Still in deep fear that somehow I'll do something
> > that will mess up your machine? Afraid it would give something away?
> > Why so scared and cowering?
>

I'm waiting.

Chris

Bud

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 8:52:46 PM7/26/12

to

On Thursday, July 26, 2012 6:53:54 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:12 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 26, 2012 7:46:54 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Jul 25, 7:24 pm, Bud &lt;sirsl...@fast.net&gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:44:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; On Jul 25, 8:28 am, Bud &amp;lt;sirsl...@fast.net&amp;gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:52:17 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; On Jul 24, 9:07 pm, David Von Pein &amp;amp;lt;davevonp...@aol.com&amp;amp;gt; wrote:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein&amp;amp;#39;s Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald&amp;amp;#39;s order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I&amp;amp;#39;m going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I&amp;amp;#39;m not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I&amp;amp;#39;ve been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the &amp;amp;quot;absolute confirmation&amp;amp;quot; he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; But since this matter concerning the envelope&amp;amp;#39;s postmark and Oswald&amp;amp;#39;s order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I&amp;amp;#39;d share this apparently &amp;amp;quot;new&amp;amp;quot; information regarding the postmark.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; =====================================================
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Hi David,
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Regards,
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; XXXXXXX
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; [Name deleted by DVP]
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; =====================================================
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Here&amp;amp;#39;s a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;quot;If somebody were to dig hard enough, I&amp;amp;#39;d be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio&amp;amp;#39;s &amp;amp;quot;Let&amp;amp;#39;s Frame Oswald&amp;amp;quot; plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Brilliant!
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; The plotters could just as easily have stamped the &amp;amp;quot;fake&amp;amp;quot; envelope (which has the &amp;amp;quot;fake&amp;amp;quot; Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let&amp;amp;#39;s Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Why?
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald&amp;amp;#39;s guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; David Von Pein
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; March 25, 2011
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;quot;As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary.&amp;amp;quot; -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt; Related Links:
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Pho...
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; &amp;amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; ===================

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Since other evidence shows clearly that Oswald was not the shooter
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; on the fateful day, the postmark isn&amp;#39;t of great importance.

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; To a retard, it isn`t important if evidence indicates that the number one suspect purchased the murder weapon.

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; And
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Marina said that Oswald liked JFK.

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; So if someone said that LBJ or Hoover liked Kennedy they would be cleared by your retarded thinking.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman&amp;#39;s holiday? Where&amp;#39;s your siamese
> > > &gt; &gt; twin that left at the same time as you? :)
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; Nope. Won&amp;#39;t do, little fella. I add that piece of information that
> > > &gt; &gt; LHO liked JFK just as an addendum on the large amount of evidence
> > > &gt; &gt; already quoted that says that LHO didn&amp;#39;t do the shooting on the big
> > > &gt; &gt; day.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; You are too stupid to understand the evidence.
> > > &gt;
> > > Nope. Won&#39;t do.
> >
> > The truth will always do.
> >
> Yep. When you get some, I'll listen carefully.

I did, you didn`t.

> > > Too easy a gimmick to get out of answering
> > > difficult questions you can&#39;t answer. You need to try harder and
> > > understand that when you can&#39;t answer a question, you are proving
> > > either that you have no answer, or you don&#39;t understand the question.
> > > Which is it this time?
> >
> > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re going to doubt what Marina said,
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.
> > > &gt;
> > > LOL! So you then admit that Marina was telling the truth when she
> > > said Oswald liked JFK? :)
> >
> > How would I know? I would say that it is likely that Oswald expressed a favorable opinion of Kennedy to her, but it is useless information without context. Being stupid you use this useless information to pretend it gives weight to your stupid ideas.

>
> Well, lessee...if Oswald took a favorable attitude to JFK as you

> suggest is possible, then it could be that he wouldn't want to kill a

> person he had a favorable attitude about.

"could be"? If you don`t know for sure the information can`t help you much.

> Seems to fit very well,
> whether you can see it or not, the rest of us can...:) Thanks!

Yah, you are idiot arranging information into shapes he finds personally pleasing. A retard`s pastime.

Against my better judgment let me waste a little time on you and explain why it`s meaningless without the context. You don`t know whether he liked him as opposed to Nixon when he was running against him. You don`t know if he liked him personally or politically. You don`t know whether he liked Kennedy`s handling of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs or the Missile Crisis, his opinion of Kennedy after these things might have changed without him notifying Marina about it. You don`t know whether liking him would prevent him from killing him for political reasons. You don`t know whether the attempts on Castro`s life by the Kennedy administration as reported in the commie literature he subscribed to changed his opinion of Kennedy. But for all you don`t know about this information him liking Kennedy is all you need to know to reach the conclusion you are desperate to arrive at. Your "this is all I need to know" approach is your go-to position when you latch onto something you like the sound of (meaning it sounds useful to Oswald`s defense). But since you have no ability to speak of when it comes to critically assessing information and are dumb as a stump besides aren`t you a poor candidate to be criticizing professionals who actually can do these things? Maybe this thinking stuff isn`t something you are suited for.

> >
> > > &gt; &gt; then perhaps you
> > > &gt; &gt; will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
> > > &gt; &gt; pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
> > > &gt; &gt; when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Oswald also showed he was
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
> > > &gt; &gt; backup. Must not have happened.
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure out what happened.
> > > &gt;
> > > Ah! Another gimmick to avoid answering a question!
> >
> > Isn`t your stupidity just a gimmick to avoid figuring out what happened? Aren`t you just playing the same retard games that idiots have been playing for decades with the deaths of these men?
> >
> No, little fella. Don't you realize that the first playing around

> with the persons of JFK and Connally were when the plan was hatched to
> kill JFK, and then carrying it out and covering it up with the WCR?

See? Same games retards have been playing for decades.

> Murder is the ultimate insult to the men in the presidential limo.

> How come you refuse to answer any questions about the platform you're

> working on? Is it a type I would recognize as not being a home model?

How would I know what you would recognize?

> > > I&#39;m making hard
> > > questions for you this time, I see. Since you think you&#39;re the answer
> > > to everyone&#39;s dreams of the perfect person, why not give us the
> > > benefit of your great intellect and just tell us what YOU think
> > > happened? Did Oswald really shoot at Walker, or just say so to Marina
> > > and a few people? If he did the shooting, did he intentionally miss
> > > to keep his handlers happy? Was he saying he did the shooting at
> > > Walker to get in good with someone? Oh god of knowing everything, do
> > > you know that answer? Or any answer?
> >
> > Why are you imagining handlers? Isn`t this just something stupid people do?
> >
> No, fool...:) It's something that occurs to folks that know that

> Oswald was being handled by a government agency and was reporting back
> to them on the stuff he was nosing into. The FBI is the first
> probability, but his connection to de Mohrenschildt also suggests the
> CIA was involved too. de Mohrenschildt was very upper crust Oswald
> was very low crust. Why should they find time for each other? Many

> meetings and visits between them. Too coincidental. Didn't you pick

> up on that? Or did you miss it?

It seems what you are saying is that yes, this is something stupid people do. Imaginary henchmen carrying out imaginary tasks, all for the purpose of creating a world where your ideas are valid.

> > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re able to prove that he
> > > &gt; &gt; shot at Walker, why didn&amp;#39;t he hit him sitting still,
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
> > > &gt;
> > > Hmm. Once again avoiding answering.
> >
> > Why should I try to explain these things to you? You are being purposely stupid and you seem to enjoy being stupid and you have zero interest in determining how these things happened.
>
> Oh now that's false for sure. I'm interested in why these things
> occurred, but I'm unsure that you have any lead on them. It's pretty
> clear that you've been 'converted' by the mystery of the WCR and have

> become one of the faithful along with your Siamese twin. You might
> provide some useful information as to why you think a certain thing,

> or why you can't allow certain things to be true, even though the

> evidence is staring you in the face, and you can be helpful in
> explaining how you think something went down.

It is clearly spelled out how things went down, stupid.

> >
> > > Typical ad hominem attack to
> > > out of having to say something constructive.
> >
> > What can I say that will make you smarter?
>
> Only the truth...I guess there's not much hope for me...:)

None that I can see.

> >
> > > Must not want anything
> > > constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
> > > will evaluate it carefully,
> >
> > Looking for reasons to disregard everything that goes against what you want to believe.

>
> Nope, only anything that sounds contrived and phony like the WCR.

Anything that indicates Oswald`s guilt sounds contrived to you. You jump on anything you think justifies your stupid thinking.

> >
> > > but I see no links from you, so you must
> > > not know anything, and are just spouting the usual line of bull.
> >
> > > &gt; &gt; since you think
> > > &gt; &gt; he was good enough to shoot through trees at a 3 way moving target and
> > > &gt; &gt; hit 2 out of 3? LOL!
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure anything out. Back to the 9-11 tardpit with you.
> >
> > > A fourth time you try that gimmick! You are really in the dumper
> > > today!
> >
> > You are even too stupid to count, it was five.
> >
> > Went to the plate five times and I got five hits and you call it a slump.

>
> 5 hits? Only if you were stepping in dog manure...:)

> >
> > > You seem to know nothing, or are too afraid to answer lest you
> > > get in over your head and get caught saying more stupid things...:)
> >
> > You expect me to try to convince you not to be stupid? Whats in it for me?
>
> Ah! Now we get to it! You could be 'cleared' of your abiding

> beliefs that have been dragging you under for years now. I offer
> freedom to shout to the treetops the truth and not be afraid to do
> it! You can be converted back to a sane human and believe like the
> rest of the nation in the folishness of the WCR! You can free! A
> worthwhile goal, for sure...:)

Choosing to be an idiot is not a worthwhile goal.

> > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; a known hard
> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; right type.

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.

> > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;

> > > &gt; &gt; Oh! Was Castro Oswald&amp;#39;s idol? Or do you doubt some of the things
> > > &gt; &gt; Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman&amp;#39;s holiday? Where&amp;#39;s your siamses
> > > &gt; &gt; twin that left at the same time as you? :)
> > > &gt;
> > > &gt; &gt; If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with
> > > &gt; &gt; that. That doesn&amp;#39;t mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it
> > > &gt; &gt; takes to do it either.

> > > &gt;
> >

> > > Hmm. Let&#39;s see. 4 questions answered with an insult and giving NO
> > > answer or information. No links provided, and no backup for
> > > statements made. Basically you&#39;vehad a bad day today. Showed your
> > > level of knowledge to be at low ebb, and even your insult level is not
> > > up to par. Are you feeling OK? Do you miss your Siamese twin that you
> > > usually need to have nearby?
> >
> > > How about my question about you being on a busman&#39;s holiday? Not
> > > related to your work or anything, certainly you could answer that
> > > one. You must have altogether 9 answers pending that you have run
> > > away from like a chicken in the night.
> >
> > > Oh! And don't forget my question about what oplatform you&#39;re on to
> > > get here and post. Still in deep fear that somehow I&#39;ll do something
> > > that will mess up your machine? Afraid it would give something away?
> > > Why so scared and cowering?
> >
> I'm waiting.

Try holding your breath, see if that helps.

> Chris

curtj...@hotmail.com

unread,

Jul 26, 2012, 10:07:48 PM7/26/12

to

Amusing that the non-conspiratist thinking is that the set up folk would never screw up. Unfortunately, the major gaffes in the ordering process never made any sense, so why get hung up on 'new found' evidence on the mailbox? Seems like the other bits that have proven the process of the 'order by Oswald' don't get the time. Why? It's known that money order was taken out of a box at the Post Office that was so out of order, it was about a year and a half out of order, and we know many postal faux pas that surrounded the order were not quite in sync with postal regulations, not to mention the Klein side of it. None of the money order went though any bank process which would have shown authenticity and right protocol either. Nevermind, the gun that was 'ordered' and that process which can prove fabrication, and many more issues that fall in line like ducks in a row. I am sure the only motive the CT's would have in proving the wrong mailbox, would be to show the impossibility of Oswald getting involved. Standard investigative procedure, IMO. Now that it came close to the post office where Holmes was a key figure in evidence + being invited to the interrogation of Oswald, should make a red flag go up, that stuff going on close to that post office would make more sense for conspiracy than away from that post office.

On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:07:28 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald's order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.
>
> I'm going to omit the name of the person who wrote me this e-mail, because I'm not sure if he would want his name revealed on the Internet.
>
> Since receiving this message on July 6, 2012, I've been hoping to receive a follow-up mail from this individual regarding the "absolute confirmation" he speaks of in his e-mail message, but thus far I have not received any additional correspondence from him.

>
> But since this matter concerning the envelope's postmark and Oswald's order form for the rifle has been a topic of considerable interest to many conspiracy theorists over the years, I thought I'd share this apparently "new" information regarding the postmark.
>
>

> =====================================================

>
>
> Quoting from e-mail message dated 7/6/2012, 2:12:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time:
>
>

> Hi David,

>
> Some months ago you very kindly helped me with a question that I had about the postmark on CE-773 - the envelope in which Oswald posted his coupon for the rifle.
>

> After a long (and intermittent) search, I think that I may have come up with an answer - and it conflicts with the claims made by those who maintain that the number ‘12’ denotes a distant part of Dallas.
>

> I’ve been told by a group of postmark collectors and historians (in the USA) that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the item was posted. It merely indicates that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order!
>

> No mysterious journey required, it would seem.
>

> I have also been advised that the time-stamp shown on the franking, 10:30, does not mean that it was posted at that time. It simply means that the letter was in the mailbox when the scheduled 10:30 collection was made.
>

> The only thing that can be said for sure is that the letter was posted at some time before the timestamp shows. It could have been one minute, one hour, two hours, three hours, etc.
>

> I’m currently seeking absolute confirmation of these matters from the USPS historians and archivists. If you’d like me to contact you again, when I’ve got the confirmations, I’ll be delighted to let you know.
>

> Regards,
> XXXXXXX
> [Name deleted by DVP]
>
>

> =====================================================
>
>
> FOOTNOTES AND RELATED COMMENTS:
>
> Here's a picture of the envelope in question (Commission Exhibit No. 773):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> "If somebody were to dig hard enough, I'd be willing to bet that a postal zone mark on an envelope could be found and could be proven to have been different from the zone where the envelope had been physically mailed.
>
> And by the way, this is just another (of the hundreds) of examples of DiEugenio's "Let's Frame Oswald" plotters doing things that only a total retard would want to do -- i.e., they are framing Oswald, per the conspiracy kooks like DiEugenio, with a fake money order that was supposedly purchased at the main post office in Dallas.

>
> So what do these brainless morons do this time to clog the works of their own patsy scheme? They decide to have the envelope stamped with a different postal zone from the one where the money order was purchased.
>

> Brilliant!
>
> The plotters could just as easily have stamped the "fake" envelope (which has the "fake" Oswald writing on it) with the CORRECT ZONE, right Jimbo? But, instead, they apparently wanted to leave conspiracy-hungry goofs like DiEugenio a whole bunch of bread crumbs throughout their LFO [Let's Frame Oswald] plan, by deliberately stamping the wrong zone on the envelope containing the money order.

>
> And then the retard plotters compound their idiocy by also deciding to make the money order arrive in Chicago at an impossibly early time (in 24 hours), per conspiracy theorists like Jim D.
>

> The fact that anomalies and discrepancies like this exist AT ALL is probably better proof of NO CONSPIRACY than they are of CONSPIRACY.
>

> Why?
>
> Because in a plot where EVERYTHING is fake and totally controlled by the evil plotters (which is certainly what James DiEugenio believes--because he thinks EVERYTHING connected with Oswald's guilt in the Kennedy and Tippit murders is phony), then NONE of these types of goofy anomalies would exist in the first place. Unless, as I mentioned, the plotters were, literally, ALL retarded.

>
> David Von Pein
> March 25, 2011
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-65.html
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

> "As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary." -- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011; Via e-mail to DVP
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4258f7d3ce77362b

>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> Related Links:
>
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/discussing-evidence.html
>

> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franking

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 7:42:30 AM7/27/12

to

Nope. Didn't happen, but in your mind there's no telling what you
thought happened...:)

>
> > > > Too easy a gimmick to get out of answering
> > > > difficult questions you can&#39;t answer. You need to try harder and
> > > > understand that when you can&#39;t answer a question, you are proving
> > > > either that you have no answer, or you don&#39;t understand the question.
> > > > Which is it this time?
> > >
> > > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re going to doubt what Marina said,
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > LOL! So you then admit that Marina was telling the truth when she
> > > > said Oswald liked JFK? :)
> > >
> > > How would I know? I would say that it is likely that Oswald expressed a favorable opinion of Kennedy to her, but it is useless information without context. Being stupid you use this useless information to pretend it gives weight to your stupid ideas.
>
> > Well, lessee...if Oswald took a favorable attitude to JFK as you
> > suggest is possible, then it could be that he wouldn't want to kill a
> > person he had a favorable attitude about.
>
> "could be"? If you don`t know for sure the information can`t help you much.
>

If it 'could be' that you will be run over by a bus tomorrow, you
might be more concerned...Ya see, some things mean more to some folks
and some folks just don't get it...:)

> > Seems to fit very well,
> > whether you can see it or not, the rest of us can...:) Thanks!
>
> Yah, you are idiot arranging information into shapes he finds personally pleasing. A retard`s pastime.

Sounds more like Arlen Specter and the WCR, though not so pleasing.

>
> Against my better judgment let me waste a little time on you and explain why it`s meaningless without the context. You don`t know whether he liked him as opposed to Nixon when he was running against him. You don`t know if he liked him personally or politically. You don`t know whether he liked Kennedy`s handling of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs or the Missile Crisis, his opinion of Kennedy after these things might have changed without him notifying Marina about it. You don`t know whether liking him would prevent him from killing him for political reasons. You don`t know whether the attempts on Castro`s life by the Kennedy administration as reported in the commie literature he subscribed to changed his opinion of Kennedy. But for all you don`t know about this information him liking Kennedy is all you need to know to reach the conclusion you are desperate to arrive at. Your "this is all I need to know" approach is your go-to position when you latch onto something you like the sound of (meaning it sounds useful to Oswald`s defense). But since you have no ability to speak of when it comes to critically assessing information and are dumb as a stump besides aren`t you a poor candidate to be criticizing professionals who actually can do these things? Maybe this thinking stuff isn`t something you are suited for.
>

Naah. After hearing your baloney, I know I'm cut out for schooling
you up right. Listen to yourself bathing in the glory of your own
words! Never realizing that you have just gone through a whole lot of
'maybe this' and 'maybe that' which you accuse many people here of
doing with evidence. Maybe this means something, or maybe that means
something. Maybe the WCR has some lost wisdom in it somewhere.
Somewhere amongst all the age old wrinkles in the WCR a tiny bit of
truth may be found. A problem here is that you think 'critically
assessing' information means looking at the ridiculous SBT and
proclaiming it real! When you are confronted with evidence that the
SBT makes no sense, you hide behind an insult and run away and
complain avout something else hoping it will change the subject. You
know how to be 'critical', but you lost your 'assessing' along the way
somewhere. Try and remember it this time.

> > >
> > > > &gt; &gt; then perhaps you
> > > > &gt; &gt; will want to doubt other things she said, like that she took the
> > > > &gt; &gt; pictures in the back yard of LHO with the rifle and literature, and
> > > > &gt; &gt; when she said that LHO said he took a shot at Walker...:)
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; Oswald also showed he was
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; politically left leaning by saying he had shot at Walker,
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Oswald showed he was willing to commit political assassination by shooting at Walker.
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > > &gt; &gt; Did he shoot at Walker? Is there some evidence for that? I see no
> > > > &gt; &gt; backup. Must not have happened.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure out what happened.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > Ah! Another gimmick to avoid answering a question!
> > >
> > > Isn`t your stupidity just a gimmick to avoid figuring out what happened? Aren`t you just playing the same retard games that idiots have been playing for decades with the deaths of these men?
> > >
> > No, little fella. Don't you realize that the first playing around
> > with the persons of JFK and Connally were when the plan was hatched to
> > kill JFK, and then carrying it out and covering it up with the WCR?
>
> See? Same games retards have been playing for decades.
>

You mean that you dunces have been playing the WCR game for decades
and don't realize it's the same thing in reverse? Ridiculous
evidence, in some cases no evidence, in other cases selected witnesses
that only said one thing and others that said differently left out,
in yet other cases evidence cherry picked to force a conclusion that
doesn't match the real evidence, the FBI going around and trying to
force testimony, or changing interviews to reflect the intended
scenario, and on and on into history. Evidence of gunfire on the GK
ignored. Face it little fella, you've been playing the WCR game for
decades. You might say it's because the WCR is so upstanding and
solid that it lasted all this time, but if you look under the edges,
you see the filthy smears of dirt from contrivance and corruption
leaking out slowly and steadily. Soon to be thrown open to the light
for all to see. Yep. Same game in reverse.

> > Murder is the ultimate insult to the men in the presidential limo.
> > How come you refuse to answer any questions about the platform you're
> > working on? Is it a type I would recognize as not being a home model?
>
> How would I know what you would recognize?
>

If it's called a 'home pc' or other machine, it tells you what it
is. Knowing also the operating system tells you the type of machine
sometimes. And it's capability such as supporting a word processing
application that has a dictionary to correct your erors in spelling
and grammar. For instance a Dell 920 Studio machine has high speed
and supports the Windows 7 operating system and can also support the
MS Word application that does the spell checking and grammar.

> > > > I&#39;m making hard
> > > > questions for you this time, I see. Since you think you&#39;re the answer
> > > > to everyone&#39;s dreams of the perfect person, why not give us the
> > > > benefit of your great intellect and just tell us what YOU think
> > > > happened? Did Oswald really shoot at Walker, or just say so to Marina
> > > > and a few people? If he did the shooting, did he intentionally miss
> > > > to keep his handlers happy? Was he saying he did the shooting at
> > > > Walker to get in good with someone? Oh god of knowing everything, do
> > > > you know that answer? Or any answer?
> > >
> > > Why are you imagining handlers? Isn`t this just something stupid people do?
> > >
> > No, fool...:) It's something that occurs to folks that know that
> > Oswald was being handled by a government agency and was reporting back
> > to them on the stuff he was nosing into. The FBI is the first
> > probability, but his connection to de Mohrenschildt also suggests the
> > CIA was involved too. de Mohrenschildt was very upper crust Oswald
> > was very low crust. Why should they find time for each other? Many
> > meetings and visits between them. Too coincidental. Didn't you pick
> > up on that? Or did you miss it?
>
> It seems what you are saying is that yes, this is something stupid people do. Imaginary henchmen carrying out imaginary tasks, all for the purpose of creating a world where your ideas are valid.

I bet you also deny the existence of Area 51...LOL! Actually, I've
seen you deny many things that aren't mentioned in your 'big book' the
WCR. Many legitimate items have been presented in front of your face
and you have turned away from ALL of them. Not some of them, but
ALL. The WCR has put you in denial...:)

>
> > > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re able to prove that he
> > > > &gt; &gt; shot at Walker, why didn&amp;#39;t he hit him sitting still,
> > > > &gt;
> > > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
> > > > &gt;
> > > > Hmm. Once again avoiding answering.
> > >
> > > Why should I try to explain these things to you? You are being purposely stupid and you seem to enjoy being stupid and you have zero interest in determining how these things happened.
>
> > Oh now that's false for sure. I'm interested in why these things
> > occurred, but I'm unsure that you have any lead on them. It's pretty
> > clear that you've been 'converted' by the mystery of the WCR and have
> > become one of the faithful along with your Siamese twin. You might
> > provide some useful information as to why you think a certain thing,
> > or why you can't allow certain things to be true, even though the
> > evidence is staring you in the face, and you can be helpful in
> > explaining how you think something went down.
>
> It is clearly spelled out how things went down, stupid.

You mean in the WCR? LOL! Fuhgeddaboutit...:)

>
> > >
> > > > Typical ad hominem attack to
> > > > out of having to say something constructive.
> > >
> > > What can I say that will make you smarter?
>
> > Only the truth...I guess there's not much hope for me...:)
>
> None that I can see.
>

So you agree that you are not going to give me any truth then?

> > >
> > > > Must not want anything
> > > > constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
> > > > will evaluate it carefully,
> > >
> > > Looking for reasons to disregard everything that goes against what you want to believe.
>
> > Nope, only anything that sounds contrived and phony like the WCR.
>
> Anything that indicates Oswald`s guilt sounds contrived to you. You jump on anything you think justifies your stupid thinking.
>

Oh, I think Oswald was guilty of a few things, but just not the
shooting of JFK. That was obvious to anyone not 'in the WCR faith'.

> > rest of the nation in the folishness of the WCR! You can be free! A

> > worthwhile goal, for sure...:)
>
> Choosing to be an idiot is not a worthwhile goal.

Ah, we agree once again. Now what about being free? Feel the
urge? Look at Don Adams and the freedom he must have felt when he
came out and told the truth about the FBI and their nefarious doings
related to the JFK mattter...:) For those that want to buy the book
or get it from their library, it's called: "From an office building
with a high-powered rifle" by Don Adams. It documents and proves the
many things the FBI did to screw up the investigations regarding the
JFK murder, and to let go a potential shooting suspect.

>
> > > &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; a known hard
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; &amp;gt; right type.
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; Kennedy in opposition to Oswald`s idol, Castro.
> > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt;
> > > > &gt; &gt; Oh! Was Castro Oswald&amp;#39;s idol? Or do you doubt some of the things
> > > > &gt; &gt; Oswald said too, like you do with Marina?
> > > > &gt;

> > > > &gt; &gt; Ah! Buddy boy! Back for a busman&amp;#39;s holiday? Where&amp;#39;s your siamese
> > > > &gt; &gt; twin that left at the same time as you? :)
> > > > &gt;

> > > > &gt; &gt; If Oswald bought the rifle I can see that. I have no problem with
> > > > &gt; &gt; that. That doesn&amp;#39;t mean he was the shooter, or that he had what it
> > > > &gt; &gt; takes to do it either.
> > > > &gt;
> > >
> > > > Hmm. Let&#39;s see. 4 questions answered with an insult and giving NO
> > > > answer or information. No links provided, and no backup for
> > > > statements made. Basically you&#39;vehad a bad day today. Showed your
> > > > level of knowledge to be at low ebb, and even your insult level is not
> > > > up to par. Are you feeling OK? Do you miss your Siamese twin that you
> > > > usually need to have nearby?
> > >
> > > > How about my question about you being on a busman&#39;s holiday? Not
> > > > related to your work or anything, certainly you could answer that
> > > > one. You must have altogether 9 answers pending that you have run
> > > > away from like a chicken in the night.
> > >
> > > > Oh! And don't forget my question about what oplatform you&#39;re on to
> > > > get here and post. Still in deep fear that somehow I&#39;ll do something
> > > > that will mess up your machine? Afraid it would give something away?
> > > > Why so scared and cowering?
> > >
> > I'm waiting.
>
> Try holding your breath, see if that helps.

I did, right after I closed my eyes and made a wish, but when I
opened them, you were still here wasting your vacation on me...:) And
BTW, that saving and editing program or whatever the hell it is that
puts out the previous postings, looks horible on the forum. There
must be a better product out there somewhere. Probably been using a
Linux or Unix product.

Chris

Sam McClung

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 10:46:39 AM7/27/12

to

i thought he was starting a new form of music

Bud

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 3:05:06 PM7/27/12

to

I can only tell the truth, I can`t get an idiot like yourself to accept it. You like your stupid fantasies too much.

>
> >
>
> > > > > Too easy a gimmick to get out of answering
>
> > > > > difficult questions you can&#39;t answer. You need to try harder and
>
> > > > > understand that when you can&#39;t answer a question, you are proving
>
> > > > > either that you have no answer, or you don&#39;t understand the question.
>
> > > > > Which is it this time?
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re going to doubt what Marina said,
>
> > > > > &gt;
>
> > > > > &gt; You are too stupid to realize that I didn`t take that position.
>
> > > > > &gt;
>
> > > > > LOL! So you then admit that Marina was telling the truth when she
>
> > > > > said Oswald liked JFK? :)
>
> > > >
>
> > > > How would I know? I would say that it is likely that Oswald expressed a favorable opinion of Kennedy to her, but it is useless information without context. Being stupid you use this useless information to pretend it gives weight to your stupid ideas.
>
> >
>
> > > Well, lessee...if Oswald took a favorable attitude to JFK as you
>
> > > suggest is possible, then it could be that he wouldn't want to kill a
>
> > > person he had a favorable attitude about.
>
> >
>
> > "could be"? If you don`t know for sure the information can`t help you much.
>
> >
>
> If it 'could be' that you will be run over by a bus tomorrow, you
>
> might be more concerned...Ya see, some things mean more to some folks
>
> and some folks just don't get it...:)

Oh, I get it alright, you took a piece of information and ran with it, never realizing what the information actually was. You retards can never critically analyze information and even when I do it for you it`s a wasted effort.

> > > Seems to fit very well,
>
> > > whether you can see it or not, the rest of us can...:) Thanks!
>
> >
>
> > Yah, you are idiot arranging information into shapes he finds personally pleasing. A retard`s pastime.
>
>
>
> Sounds more like Arlen Specter and the WCR, though not so pleasing.

I doubt Spector was pleased that Oswald took his rifle to his work and shot and killed Kennedy from there. But being a rational human being he was forced to accept it. You are free from such constraints.

> >
>
> > Against my better judgment let me waste a little time on you and explain why it`s meaningless without the context. You don`t know whether he liked him as opposed to Nixon when he was running against him. You don`t know if he liked him personally or politically. You don`t know whether he liked Kennedy`s handling of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs or the Missile Crisis, his opinion of Kennedy after these things might have changed without him notifying Marina about it. You don`t know whether liking him would prevent him from killing him for political reasons. You don`t know whether the attempts on Castro`s life by the Kennedy administration as reported in the commie literature he subscribed to changed his opinion of Kennedy. But for all you don`t know about this information him liking Kennedy is all you need to know to reach the conclusion you are desperate to arrive at. Your "this is all I need to know" approach is your go-to position when you latch onto something you like the sound of (meaning it sounds useful to Oswald`s defense). But since you have no ability to speak of when it comes to critically assessing information and are dumb as a stump besides aren`t you a poor candidate to be criticizing professionals who actually can do these things? Maybe this thinking stuff isn`t something you are suited for.
>
> >
>
>
>
> Naah. After hearing your baloney, I know I'm cut out for schooling
>
> you up right. Listen to yourself bathing in the glory of your own
>
> words!

I knew they`d be wasted on you.

> Never realizing that you have just gone through a whole lot of
>
> 'maybe this' and 'maybe that' which you accuse many people here of
>
> doing with evidence.

You are dumb as a stump. I wasn`t claiming to know the context of the information and I wasn`t using the information to support any idea. I was pointing out that even though you didn`t know the context of the information you still proceeded to use it in support of an idea. This speaks to why I don`t engage you on issues (or bother to elaborate on ideas, as you`ll get lost), you are too stupid to even understand the issues being discussed. I bring up a few possibilities (out of many) behind the context of Marina`s assertion that Lee like JFK and you proceed as if I am advancing these possibilities as positions I am taking. I was only pointing out what you *didn`t* know when you ran with this tidbit.

> Maybe this means something, or maybe that means
>
> something. Maybe the WCR has some lost wisdom in it somewhere.
>
> Somewhere amongst all the age old wrinkles in the WCR a tiny bit of
>
> truth may be found.

Not by you, you are an idiot. You should just find a hobby that doesn`t involve thinking.

> A problem here is that you think 'critically
>
> assessing' information means looking at the ridiculous SBT and
>
> proclaiming it real! When you are confronted with evidence that the
>
> SBT makes no sense, you hide behind an insult and run away and
>
> complain avout something else hoping it will change the subject.

Hard to imagine a bigger waste of time than arguing with an idiot over the merits of the SBT.

> You
>
> know how to be 'critical', but you lost your 'assessing' along the way
>
> somewhere. Try and remember it this time.

I`m too smart for you to school and you are way to dumb for me to school.

No, it`s really not. Your ideas don`t have what our ideas have.

> Ridiculous
>
> evidence, in some cases no evidence, in other cases selected witnesses
>
> that only said one thing and others that said differently left out,
>
> in yet other cases evidence cherry picked to force a conclusion that
>
> doesn't match the real evidence, the FBI going around and trying to
>
> force testimony, or changing interviews to reflect the intended
>
> scenario, and on and on into history. Evidence of gunfire on the GK
>
> ignored.

Same meaningless litany of retard gripes for decades. On examination, nothing.

> Face it little fella, you've been playing the WCR game for
>
> decades. You might say it's because the WCR is so upstanding and
>
> solid that it lasted all this time, but if you look under the edges,
>
> you see the filthy smears of dirt from contrivance and corruption
>
> leaking out slowly and steadily. Soon to be thrown open to the light
>
> for all to see. Yep. Same game in reverse.

I didn`t need the WCR to figure this crime out. It`s the simplest murder in the history of murder.

> > > Murder is the ultimate insult to the men in the presidential limo.
>
> > > How come you refuse to answer any questions about the platform you're
>
> > > working on? Is it a type I would recognize as not being a home model?
>
> >
>
> > How would I know what you would recognize?
>
> >
>
> If it's called a 'home pc' or other machine, it tells you what it
>
> is.

Are you sure about this? I just asked it and it didn`t respond.

The WCR was for people like you. Wasted, but written to talk down to idiots.

> >
>
> > > > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re able to prove that he
>
> > > > > &gt; &gt; shot at Walker, why didn&amp;#39;t he hit him sitting still,
>
> > > > > &gt;
>
> > > > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
>
> > > > > &gt;
>
> > > > > Hmm. Once again avoiding answering.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Why should I try to explain these things to you? You are being purposely stupid and you seem to enjoy being stupid and you have zero interest in determining how these things happened.
>
> >
>
> > > Oh now that's false for sure. I'm interested in why these things
>
> > > occurred, but I'm unsure that you have any lead on them. It's pretty
>
> > > clear that you've been 'converted' by the mystery of the WCR and have
>
> > > become one of the faithful along with your Siamese twin. You might
>
> > > provide some useful information as to why you think a certain thing,
>
> > > or why you can't allow certain things to be true, even though the
>
> > > evidence is staring you in the face, and you can be helpful in
>
> > > explaining how you think something went down.
>
> >
>
> > It is clearly spelled out how things went down, stupid.
>
>
>
> You mean in the WCR? LOL! Fuhgeddaboutit...:)

No, the evidence. What is known.

> >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > Typical ad hominem attack to
>
> > > > > out of having to say something constructive.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > What can I say that will make you smarter?
>
> >
>
> > > Only the truth...I guess there's not much hope for me...:)
>
> >
>
> > None that I can see.
>
> >
>
> So you agree that you are not going to give me any truth then?

No, but I do agree there isn`t much hope for you.

> > > >
>
> > > > > Must not want anything
>
> > > > > constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
>
> > > > > will evaluate it carefully,
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Looking for reasons to disregard everything that goes against what you want to believe.
>
> >
>
> > > Nope, only anything that sounds contrived and phony like the WCR.
>
> >
>
> > Anything that indicates Oswald`s guilt sounds contrived to you. You jump on anything you think justifies your stupid thinking.
>
> >
>
> Oh, I think Oswald was guilty of a few things, but just not the
>
> shooting of JFK. That was obvious to anyone not 'in the WCR faith'.

Still stumped by the easy ones.

No, this is why I am an atheist also. If I don`t see the necessary support for an idea I don`t get on board with it, even if it does promise to make me feel warm and fuzzy.

> Look at Don Adams and the freedom he must have felt when he
>
> came out and told the truth about the FBI and their nefarious doings
>
> related to the JFK mattter...:) For those that want to buy the book
>
> or get it from their library, it's called: "From an office building
>
> with a high-powered rifle" by Don Adams. It documents and proves the
>
> many things the FBI did to screw up the investigations regarding the
>
> JFK murder, and to let go a potential shooting suspect.

Same stupid people latching on to the same stupid things for decades. Well, it`s not like you are doing any harm, and it really isn`t like you are going to accomplish anything. You have my blessing to be a stump, and you can imagine all the handlers you want.

Not long enough.

tom...@cox.net

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 5:15:41 PM7/27/12

to

you're not smat nough to debate rossley

becaue you kno nothing about evidnce/testimony,

Jason Burke

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 7:18:54 PM7/27/12

to

On 7/27/2012 2:15 PM, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> you're not smat nough to debate rossley
>
> becaue you kno nothing about evidnce/testimony,
>

WTF, Rosscunt?
Well, I see we're back to flailing about madly on the keyboard again.

But, just for giggles, one question - maybe two:

Just why did you admit to Corbett that you have actually no evidence
that anyone other than Ozzie was involved? Especially since you always
whine about how much evidence / testimony you have?

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 27, 2012, 8:26:28 PM7/27/12

to

I don't know about that little fella, it seems it worked out very
well for old Arlen Spector after he helped concoct the idiot story
about the lone nut, with the FBI's help.

>
>
> > > Against my better judgment let me waste a little time on you and explain why it`s meaningless without the context. You don`t know whether he liked him as opposed to Nixon when he was running against him. You don`t know if he liked him personally or politically. You don`t know whether he liked Kennedy`s handling of Cuba during the Bay of Pigs or the Missile Crisis, his opinion of Kennedy after these things might have changed without him notifying Marina about it. You don`t know whether liking him would prevent him from killing him for political reasons. You don`t know whether the attempts on Castro`s life by the Kennedy administration as reported in the commie literature he subscribed to changed his opinion of Kennedy. But for all you don`t know about this information him liking Kennedy is all you need to know to reach the conclusion you are desperate to arrive at. Your "this is all I need to know" approach is your go-to position when you latch onto something you like the sound of (meaning it sounds useful to Oswald`s defense). But since you have no ability to speak of when it comes to critically assessing information and are dumb as a stump besides aren`t you a poor candidate to be criticizing professionals who actually can do these things? Maybe this thinking stuff isn`t something you are suited for.
>
> > Naah. After hearing your baloney, I know I'm cut out for schooling
>
> > you up right. Listen to yourself bathing in the glory of your own
>
> > words!
>
> I knew they`d be wasted on you.
>
> > Never realizing that you have just gone through a whole lot of
>
> > 'maybe this' and 'maybe that' which you accuse many people here of
>
> > doing with evidence.
>
> You are dumb as a stump. I wasn`t claiming to know the context of the information and I wasn`t using the information to support any idea. I was pointing out that even though you didn`t know the context of the information you still proceeded to use it in support of an idea. This speaks to why I don`t engage you on issues (or bother to elaborate on ideas, as you`ll get lost), you are too stupid to even understand the issues being discussed. I bring up a few possibilities (out of many) behind the context of Marina`s assertion that Lee like JFK and you proceed as if I am advancing these possibilities as positions I am taking. I was only pointing out what you *didn`t* know when you ran with this tidbit.

Oh, I know all the little ins and outs, but schooling you is not so
easy. It seems you can't follow me unless I slow down and do it step
by step. You see, I go past the baloney in the middle that you like
to argue about, and get to the meat at the end. Your use of various
examples can be used by me as well, and you will find that I often do
turn your examples around on you and stick them up your nose. You
just don't seem to recognize that its been done, so I'll have to go a
little slower next time.

>
> > Maybe this means something, or maybe that means
>
> > something. Maybe the WCR has some lost wisdom in it somewhere.
>
> > Somewhere amongst all the age old wrinkles in the WCR a tiny bit of
>
> > truth may be found.
>
> Not by you, you are an idiot. You should just find a hobby that doesn`t involve thinking.

LOL! I did! I talk to you...:)

>
> > A problem here is that you think 'critically
>
> > assessing' information means looking at the ridiculous SBT and
>
> > proclaiming it real! When you are confronted with evidence that the
>
> > SBT makes no sense, you hide behind an insult and run away and
>

> > complain about something else hoping it will change the subject.

>
> Hard to imagine a bigger waste of time than arguing with an idiot over the merits of the SBT.

Mmm. That would get tyou out of that problem. But it's too late.
You've been given all the pertinent facts that show that the SBT
doesn't work, but you just ran away and began on something else to
avoid the problem of not being able to explain your way out of the
hole you dug yourself into. Remember?

>
> > You
>
> > know how to be 'critical', but you lost your 'assessing' along the way
>
> > somewhere. Try and remember it this time.
>
> I`m too smart for you to school and you are way to dumb for me to school.

Well, if it makes you feel better to believe that, s'ok with me...:)

You mean all the mould and wrinkles found on the WCR? I admit, that
stuff smears off onto everything, and I for one, try to avoid it.

And while I'm at it, that editor or whatever you're using these days
sucks. It makes a mess out of any text it deals with. Can't you
upgrade or something? Maybe get a Windows product like Google Groups
and come here and have the power and ease available to you. Seems
silly to use your old crappy products...unless you're forced into
using them because they're not yours and you have to use what's
provided to you.

> > Ridiculous
>
> > evidence, in some cases no evidence, in other cases selected witnesses
>
> > that only said one thing and others that said differently left out,
>
> > in yet other cases evidence cherry picked to force a conclusion that
>
> > doesn't match the real evidence, the FBI going around and trying to
>
> > force testimony, or changing interviews to reflect the intended
>
> > scenario, and on and on into history. Evidence of gunfire on the GK
>
> > ignored.
>
> Same meaningless litany of retard gripes for decades. On examination, nothing.
>

Ah! 'Gripes' is it? So you feel it's just a gripe when so many
witnesses say the FBI tried to tell them to shut up, or tried to make
them change their testimony, or changed their reports and the words of
the witnesses? Too many of those complaints throughout all the
witnesses to be just 'gripes'. A commissioner who ADMITTED changing
the words in the record tro make it sound more like a lone nut case?
Of course, with your FBI-like attitude, they must indeed seem like
useless little gripes from the people that don't count and that aren't
considered in a big investigation like this was. Sheesh!
Fortunately, Don Adams had too much conscience, and let the cat out of
the bag. He blatted out the whole story that he looked into as an FBI
agent. All the manipulation, all the covering up, the lost documents,
letting suspects go because it would soil the 'lone nut wacko theory'
of the WCR. Yep. "Gripes'.

Of course you would try to cover them up and blow off your ancient
old WCR baloney and try to override the truth with noise and false
logic. And mind you, I'm only mentioning some of the FBI related
'gripes'. There are 'gripes' about the faked autopsy that Horne
proved was fake. There were 'gripes' about the ignoring of events on
the GK. There were 'gripes' about the complete screwing up of evidence
by various law enforcement agencies, including the chains of evidence
and of custody with the limo and the body. There were 'gripes' about
the false testing of the M-C rifle. There were 'gripes' about the
theft of the body and the limo from the legal jurisdiction they should
have remained in, where they would've been processed properly.

There were 'gripes' about practicaly everything surrounding the
case of murder, which was not only handled improperly allowing
evidence to be covered up or lost. Yep. There are no end of
'gripes', most of which would be considered a firing situation for
most officers of the various agencies in normal times. And I'm not
going into the many 'gripes' that still remain outstanding that I have
left for now. All of these 'gripes' you and your Siamese twin have
not been able to silence or talk away. Yep. Gripes. The government
tried 5 or more times to cover it all up and explain it away without
success, and here is the WCR like week old fish sitting in the middle
of a haze of stink in the air, making its ancient old self known to
all about which I'll lofge the biggest 'gripe' of all.

> > Face it little fella, you've been playing the WCR game for
>
> > decades. You might say it's because the WCR is so upstanding and
>
> > solid that it lasted all this time, but if you look under the edges,
>
> > you see the filthy smears of dirt from contrivance and corruption
>
> > leaking out slowly and steadily. Soon to be thrown open to the light
>
> > for all to see. Yep. Same game in reverse.
>
> I didn`t need the WCR to figure this crime out. It`s the simplest murder in the history of murder.

And yet if questioned, you would fall back on the WCR immediately as
if all the answers were in there. Well, there are indeed many answers
in there, it's just that most of them are wrong. It's been found
wanting given all the years it's been growing wrinkles and smelling up
the room. It's been looked at 6 ways from Sunday and has fallen apart
in the hands as all its failings are brought out day by day.

>
> > > > Murder is the ultimate insult to the men in the presidential limo.
>
> > > > How come you refuse to answer any questions about the platform you're
>
> > > > working on? Is it a type I would recognize as not being a home model?
>
> > > How would I know what you would recognize?
>
> > If it's called a 'home pc' or other machine, it tells you what it
>
> > is.
>
> Are you sure about this? I just asked it and it didn`t respond.

Welp, little fella, you must be losing it if you've come down to
talking to inanimate machines...:) Or you can't read what's printed
on it...:)

Or was written BY idiots and is the result of clapping anything
together in a hurry to shut people up, and then having to wallpaper it
and spackle it and do everything to make it appear like it was
actually true.

>
>
> > > > > > &gt; &gt; And if you&amp;#39;re able to prove that he
>
> > > > > > &gt; &gt; shot at Walker, why didn&amp;#39;t he hit him sitting still,
>
> > > > > > &gt;
>
> > > > > > &gt; You are too stupid to figure out how this occurred.
>
> > > > > > &gt;
>
> > > > > > Hmm. Once again avoiding answering.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Why should I try to explain these things to you? You are being purposely stupid and you seem to enjoy being stupid and you have zero interest in determining how these things happened.
>
> > > > Oh now that's false for sure. I'm interested in why these things
>
> > > > occurred, but I'm unsure that you have any lead on them. It's pretty
>
> > > > clear that you've been 'converted' by the mystery of the WCR and have
>
> > > > become one of the faithful along with your Siamese twin. You might
>
> > > > provide some useful information as to why you think a certain thing,
>
> > > > or why you can't allow certain things to be true, even though the
>
> > > > evidence is staring you in the face, and you can be helpful in
>
> > > > explaining how you think something went down.
>
> > > It is clearly spelled out how things went down, stupid.
>
> > You mean in the WCR? LOL! Fuhgeddaboutit...:)
>
> No, the evidence. What is known.
>

What is known is that the evidence was cherry picked, the evidence
was suppressed or 'lost'. The evidence was mixed up as to chain of
custody, and many other little crimes that should have been
prosecuted. The witness evidence was clearly testified to that it was
intentionally fouled yup by the FBI and others. Even today there
should be room for lawsuits in some few cases where the FBI did
nefarious things.

>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Typical ad hominem attack to
>
> > > > > > out of having to say something constructive.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > What can I say that will make you smarter?
>
> > > > Only the truth...I guess there's not much hope for me...:)
>
> > > None that I can see.
>
> > So you agree that you are not going to give me any truth then?
>
> No, but I do agree there isn`t much hope for you.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > Must not want anything
>
> > > > > > constructive to occur. I can say honestly, if you provide a link I
>
> > > > > > will evaluate it carefully,
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Looking for reasons to disregard everything that goes against what you want to believe.
>
> > > > Nope, only anything that sounds contrived and phony like the WCR.
>
> > > Anything that indicates Oswald`s guilt sounds contrived to you. You jump on anything you think justifies your stupid thinking.

Nope. The evidence shows that Oswald didn't pull the trigger on the
fateful day. That others did that. The evidence shows that Oswald
was being set up (including steps in advance) and that orders came
down from higher up and multiple shooters were used to do the deed.
With the evidence as it is, even what's left after stepping on it, it
shows that LHO was the patsy. It's part of your method to try and
pretend that people that complain about how the case was handled, or
how the investigation was thwarted, but the remaining evidence is
plentiful enough that much has been proving by just weeding out truth,
as with Douglas Horne and his 5 volume set of proof. Yep, just one
more new and improved book of information about the case, because of
the continuing interest that is always there. And now we have Don
Adams' book out too, with thefailings of the FBI in the case, and the
covering up of a real suspect and losing of information and documents
and too many criminal acts to count.

>
> > Oh, I think Oswald was guilty of a few things, but just not the
>
> > shooting of JFK. That was obvious to anyone not 'in the WCR faith'.
>
> Still stumped by the easy ones.

Not me, sounds like you're a fan of the WCR, so that immediately
means you've been snookered.

Hmm. You need to see support for an idea before getting on board
with it? So there was some popular support of the WCR at first, which
slowly dissolved over time...to the degree that the governmnet had to
concoct 5 or more panels to try and explain why the WCR was true,
What happens when many elements of something you have 'gotten on board
with', like the WCR, is proven to be false in many of its parts? Do
you lose the faith, Or go down with the ship?

>
> > Look at Don Adams and the freedom he must have felt when he
>
> > came out and told the truth about the FBI and their nefarious doings
>
> > related to the JFK mattter...:) For those that want to buy the book
>
> > or get it from their library, it's called: "From an office building
>
> > with a high-powered rifle" by Don Adams. It documents and proves the
>
> > many things the FBI did to screw up the investigations regarding the
>
> > JFK murder, and to let go a potential shooting suspect.
>
> Same stupid people latching on to the same stupid things for decades. Well, it`s not like you are doing any harm, and it really isn`t like you are going to accomplish anything. You have my blessing to be a stump, and you can imagine all the handlers you want.
>

Thanks for your kindness...LOL! So you think that that an FBI agent
coming out into the light with all the crimes and failings of the FBI
is something that is not new? I think you've ben hiding in the shadow
of the WCR for too long...but it's OK, there will always be some
misguided folks...maybe you'll want to try Scientology, I hear they've
got a good line...:)

> > puts out the previous postings, looks horrible on the forum. There

>
> > must be a better product out there somewhere. Probably been using a
>
> > Linux or Unix product.
>

Well, another wasted post. Haven't taught the little fella anything
yet. He doesn't listen well. Just think everyone 'gripes' too
much...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,

Jul 29, 2012, 6:51:39 AM7/29/12

to

On Jul 27, 8:26 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 3:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>

> > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 5:44:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 8:28 am, Bud &lt;sirsl...@fast.net&gt; wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > &gt; On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 6:52:17 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; On Jul 24, 9:07 pm, David Von Pein &amp;lt;davevonp...@aol.com&amp;gt; wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > &gt; &gt; &amp;gt; I recently received a very interesting e-mail from a person I have corresponded with a few times in the past. This mail concerns the topic of the postmark that was stamped on the envelope that Lee Harvey Oswald mailed to Klein&amp;#39;s Sporting Goods in Chicago in March of 1963, which was an envelope that contained Oswald&amp;#39;s order form for the rifle which he eventually used to kill JFK in November.