LET ME SHOVE THIS UP YOUR LN A**ES ONE MORE TIME SO YOU CAN REALLY ENJOY IT
Gil Jesus
The "Hidell" name was not on the application for the post office box
2915 and thus not authorized or "entitled to receive mail" at the box.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
Postal regulation 355.111b ( 4 ) said that any mail received at a post
office box addressed to someone not authorized to receive it, "shall
be marked 'addressee unknown' and returned to sender when possible."
http://i43.tinypic.com/25swy12.jpg
Under postal regulations, it was not possible for ANYONE to receive
mail at a post office box under a name that was not listed at the time
of the application.
THEREFORE, "HIDELL" NEVER RECEIVED ANY RIFLE AT BOX 2915 IN DALLAS.
David Von Pein
What in the world makes Kook Gil Jesus think that the name "Hidell"
was NOT listed on Oswald's 1962 application for P.O. Box #2915 in
Dallas, Texas?
The section of the application listing other people "entitled to
receive mail" was THROWN AWAY in May 1963 when Oswald closed that box.
So why is Gil Jesus (and other kooks like him) insisting he KNOWS that
"Hidell" was not one of the names listed on that application? (And
Page 4 of Warren Commission Exhibit #2585 is not enough proof to
discount the WR excerpt shown below.)
The following text is directly from the Warren Commission's Final
Report (which I can only assume Gil thinks is a total lie):
"It is not known whether the application for post office box
2915 listed “A. Hidell” as a person entitled to receive mail at this
box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the
application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant,
entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on
May 14, 1963. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes of the Dallas Post
Office testified, however, that when a package is received for a
certain box, a notice is placed in that box regardless of whether the
name on the package is listed on the application as a person entitled
to receive mail through that box. The person having access to the box
then takes the notice to the window and is given the package.
Ordinarily, Inspector Holmes testified, identification is not
requested because it is assumed that the person with the notice is
entitled to the package." -- WCR; Pg. 121
WR; Page 121:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0073a.htm
LET ME SHOVE THIS UP GIL'S ASS ONE MORE TIME, SO HE CAN REALLY ENJOY
IT:
"It is not known whether the application for post office box
2915 listed “A. Hidell” as a person entitled to receive mail at this
box."
ONE MORE TIME FOR KOOK JESUS:
"It is not known whether the application for post office box
2915 listed “A. Hidell” as a person entitled to receive mail at this
box."
Bud
> What in the world makes Kook Gil Jesus think that the name "Hidell"
> was NOT listed on Oswald's 1962 application for P.O. Box #2915 in
> Dallas, Texas?
I have an idea where he gets it, but it only shows him to be a
hypocrite. If you look at item "12" on this page, it says the FBI
investigated, and found "A. Hidell" could not receive mail at the
Dallas PO box.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do
I suggest you magnify it to 200 % to read it.
Obviously the only thing that could be used to determine this would
be the missing portion of the form. So Gil is willing to believe the
FBI when he knows they could not possibly have what they need to draw
the conclusion they did, yet uses that conclusion to support his
premise. But he chooses not to believe them in many other cases where
they do have evidence supporting their conclusions.
David Von Pein
Mark Lane's entire 1966 book, "Rush To Judgment", is available online
in PDF format [below]. Unfortunately, it appears that one of the few
parts of the book that is not reproduced in this PDF document is
"Appendix IX", which is the place where Lane says the postal
regulation in question can be found in its original form:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf
Now, Mark Lane is a conspiracy kook who loves to distort the known
evidence in the JFK case (as we all know), but I doubt very much that
he would go so far as to fake a U.S. Postal Service document for
Appendix IX of his 1966 book.
So, even though I can't see Appendix IX in the above PDF file, I think
Lane probably did re-print the post office document that backs up his
statements elsewhere in "RTJ".
I'm willing to eat a little bit of crow on this "entitled to receive
mail" postal regulation. It would appear that Mark Lane did his post
office homework on this issue (circa 1966).
But I'm NOT willing to call Harry D. Holmes an outright liar. Holmes
admitted to the Warren Commission that the postal workers were "NOT
TOO STRICT" when it came to delivering mail to P.O. boxes. Let's take
another look at that testimony (which is testimony that Mark Lane and
many other conspiracy theorists certainly think is a great-big
whitewash job--or perhaps merely a "CYA" snowjob by Holmes):
WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Now supposing that Oswald had not in fact
authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and
that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact,
one did at Post Office Box 2915, what procedure would be followed when
that package came in?"
HARRY HOLMES -- "They would put the notice in the box."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Regardless of whose name was associated with the
box?"
MR. HOLMES -- "That is the general practice. The theory being, I have
a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my
same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not
too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service
for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a
little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It
depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would
be all right."
David Von Pein
>>> "I have an idea where he gets it, but it only shows him to be a hypocrite. If you look at item "12" on this page, it says the FBI investigated, and found "A. Hidell" could not receive mail at the Dallas PO box." <<<
Right. That's part of page 4 of CE2585, below:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0445a.htm
But that determination by the FBI is something that the Warren
Commission obviously KNEW ABOUT...AND REJECTED (no doubt due to the
fact that in order to accept that determination, the FBI needed to see
Part 3 of Oswald's PO Box application, which DID NOT EXIST, since it
was thrown away in May of 1963).
How can we know that that particular FBI determination about "A.
Hidell" was rejected by the Warren Commission? Because the WC tells us
they rejected it--on page 121 of the Warren Report:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0073a.htm
"It is not known whether the application for post office box
2915 listed “A. Hidell” as a person entitled to receive mail at this
box." -- WR; Page 121
drummist1965
Spoken like a true follower of Christ.
Gil Jesus
>
> � �Spoken like a true follower of Christ.
Still not going to church, huh ?
drummist1965
Still lying about being a Christian, huh, Gil? "All 'Jesus" all
the time", huh? The "Jesus" you spoke of certainly isn't the Jesus of
the Holy Bible.
Threads like this one you started, prove that!
timstter
Hey Verm, how did Marina Oswald get this letter from the Soviet
Embassy, then?:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0018a.htm
Your whole reasoning is absurd, Gil.
Your *JFK research* isn't worth a knob of bat guano; it's as bogus as
your *Christian* credentials.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
> Mark Lane's entire 1966 book, "Rush To Judgment", is available online
> in PDF format [below]. Unfortunately, it appears that one of the few
> parts of the book that is not reproduced in this PDF document is
> "Appendix IX", which is the place where Lane says the postal
> regulation in question can be found in its original form:
>
> http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf
Mark provided this link to the book available online in pdf format
that has the appendix included...
http://nyc.indymedia.org/media/application/6/RushtoJudgment_MarkLane.pdf
Page 412 has the letter in question. Thanks again to Mark, it was
just was I was looking for.
Hmm, wait a minute, the link looks the same as yours David, yet I
was able to view the letter this morning in the link Mark provided.
> Now, Mark Lane is a conspiracy kook who loves to distort the known
> evidence in the JFK case (as we all know), but I doubt very much that
> he would go so far as to fake a U.S. Postal Service document for
> Appendix IX of his 1966 book.
>
> So, even though I can't see Appendix IX in the above PDF file, I think
> Lane probably did re-print the post office document that backs up his
> statements elsewhere in "RTJ".
>
> I'm willing to eat a little bit of crow on this "entitled to receive
> mail" postal regulation. It would appear that Mark Lane did his post
> office homework on this issue (circa 1966).
I`m waiting to see what the postal manual itself says. And I`m not
one to think that the way PO boxes are handled has changed much as far
as the general rules of their usage, they might tweak around the edges
to prevent fraud, but not drastically change the way they deliver.
Gil Jesus
> On Mar 14, 10:30�pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The "Hidell" name was not on the application for the post office box
> > 2915 and thus not authorized or "entitled to receive mail" at the box.
>
> >http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> > Postal regulation 355.111b ( 4 ) said that any mail received at a post
> > office box addressed to someone not authorized to receive it, "shall
> > be marked 'addressee unknown' and returned to sender when possible."
>
> >http://i43.tinypic.com/25swy12.jpg
>
> > Under postal regulations, it was not possible for ANYONE �to receive
> > mail at a post office box under a name that was not listed at the time
> > of the application.
>
> > THEREFORE, "HIDELL" �NEVER RECEIVED ANY RIFLE AT BOX 2915 IN DALLAS.
>
> Hey Verm, how did Marina Oswald get this letter from the Soviet
> Embassy, then?:
>
>
> Your whole reasoning is absurd, Gil.
>
> Your *JFK research* isn't worth a knob of bat guano; it's as bogus as
> your *Christian* credentials.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
Got any letters from the Russian Embassy with a letterhead ?
Bud
> >>> "I have an idea where he gets it, but it only shows him to be a hypocrite. If you look at item "12" on this page, it says the FBI investigated, and found "A. Hidell" could not receive mail at the Dallas PO box." <<<
>
> Right. That's part of page 4 of CE2585, below:
>
>
> But that determination by the FBI is something that the Warren
> Commission obviously KNEW ABOUT...AND REJECTED (no doubt due to the
> fact that in order to accept that determination, the FBI needed to see
> Part 3 of Oswald's PO Box application, which DID NOT EXIST, since it
> was thrown away in May of 1963).
>
> How can we know that that particular FBI determination about "A.
> Hidell" was rejected by the Warren Commission? Because the WC tells us
> they rejected it--on page 121 of the Warren Report:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0073a.htm
>
> "It is not known whether the application for post office box
> 2915 listed “A. Hidell” as a person entitled to receive mail at this
> box." -- WR; Page 121
Where would the retards be if they didn`t cherry-pick information?
I`m not convinced it matters whether it was or was not on the form,
I think it`s likely he would get a package addressed to his PO box
regardless.
Gil wants to present it as "impossible", as if a package addressed
to a PO box would come into possession of the person who had that PO
box is some sort of cosmic impossibility, making his idea of
conspiracy, which actually is a cosmic impossibility seem the only
alternative. They always reject the mundane answers (Markham was wrong
about the time, Frazier was wrong about the length of the package,
ect) for the extraordinary and fantastic. They want to pretend certain
information is absolute (when it is not) in order to take huge jumps
from it.
aeffects
everytime Mark Lane appears on BlackOp radio the lone nut wingnuts
froth at the mouth....
timstter
LOL! Aww, Verm's cutting up all rusty.
Say, Verm, ol' fella, how did Marina Oswald get that questionaire she
had to complete and send back to the Soviets if they didn't send it to
PO Box 2915.
Game OVAH, Baldman!
Keep the laffs coming, though!
Amused Regards,
Gil Jesus
It's gotta be terribly embarrassing for the Nutcases.
Every time they think they've "got me", there's just one more thing
for them to prove.
I find it amusing, actually.
tomnln
"drummist1965" <elpdr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73bbcb71-5a67-44ec...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Spoken like a true follower of cub scouts ! ! !
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:26fafe6c-5ec5-4d0b...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 14, 10:33�am, drummist1965 <elpdrum...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> � �Spoken like a true follower of Christ.
Still not going to church, huh ?
barber spends his Sunday mornings being a "true follower of cub scouts".
timstter
LOL! Hey Verm! You avoided the question about the questionnaire that
Marina filled in.
Where did she get it if the Soviets didn't mail it to her at PO Box
2915?
I think it's more embarrassing for YOU, Gil.
First you thought that people had their names on Dallas PO Boxes; now
we've got three letters from the Soviets to Marina at PO Box 2915.
Game OVAH!