FBI: "A.HIDELL" COULD NOT RECEIVE MAIL AT DALLAS BOX 2915
Gil Jesus
Commission Exhibit 2585:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
Bud
. Retards on the case!
BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
PO box on the mail.
Chuck Schuyler
Try a simple experiment, Gil.
Mail a letter or send a package to your home address or PO Box with a
name other than your own.
It'll get there.
Mail is sent to destinations, not names.
When I was a kid, I took a long vacation one summer with some of my
cousins. I sent several letters to my address back home addressed to
simply 'Mom & Dad'.
The letters arrived just fine.
Sam Brown
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:7226ece4-a786-4fa6...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
It'll get there.
This is the kind of simple reasoning and logic that is completely beyond
Girly. That's why he's unemployed and spends his time watching daytime tv.
He has the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
Gil Jesus
> But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> PO box on the mail.
And the purpose for naming other people on the application who'd
receive mail at the box....was ?
Gil Jesus
> � BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
But I thought you said they send mail to destinations, not names ?
Mr. HOLMES. .....when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he
used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons entitled to
receive mail in that box.
( 7 H 296 )
And the purpose for naming other people on the application who were "
entitled to receive mail in that box "....was ?
Bud
This shows why you are one of the least suited people on the planet
to engage in an investigation. The simplest things are beyond your
grasp, you can`t even figure out the difference between people who can
take mail out of the PO box and people whos name can be on the mail
that is sent to the PO box. Also, the post office would have an
interest in who was using their equipment for liability reasons, and
if disputes arose between two people using the same PO box over
missing mail.
Bud
> On Mar 9, 11:50 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
>
> But I thought you said they send mail to destinations, not names ?
That fact does not bring fictional characters to life.
> Mr. HOLMES. .....when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he
> used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons entitled to
> receive mail in that box.
>
> ( 7 H 296 )
>
> And the purpose for naming other people on the application who were "
> entitled to receive mail in that box "....was ?
That isn`t a quote from your source, is it Gil? Nothing about
"entitled" in the information you produced.
Gil Jesus
> On Mar 10, 6:04 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 11:50 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > And the purpose for naming other people on the application who'd
> > receive mail at the box....was ?
>
> take mail out of the PO box and people whos name can be on the mail
> that is sent to the PO box.
Fortunately, your senseless gibberish means nothing.
The evidence says that the names on the application were essential to
receiving mail at a post office box.
Mr. HOLMES. On the third portion is a box for him to indicate ......a
place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box
other than the applicant himself, and he fills in that. ( 7 H 527 )
Gil Jesus
> > Mr. HOLMES. .....when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he
> > used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons ENTITLED to
> > receive mail in that box.
>
> > ( 7 H 296 )
>
> > And the purpose for naming other people on the application who were "
> > entitled to receive mail in that box "....was ?
>
> � That isn`t a quote from your source, is it Gil? Nothing about
> "entitled" in the information you produced.
Maybe you should read the source again.
Gil Jesus
Half way down the page where it begins, "On the third portion" you'll
see
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL IN THAT BOX.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0268a.htm
Bud
> On Mar 10, 7:13 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 6:04 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 11:50 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > > And the purpose for naming other people on the application who'd
> > > receive mail at the box....was ?
>
> > you can`t even figure out the difference between people who can
> > take mail out of the PO box and people whos name can be on the mail
> > that is sent to the PO box.
>
> Fortunately, your senseless gibberish means nothing.
Not to you, anyway.
> The evidence says that the names on the application were essential to
> receiving mail at a post office box.
>
> Mr. HOLMES. On the third portion is a box for him to indicate ......a
> place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box
> other than the applicant himself, and he fills in that. ( 7 H 527 )
Where does he say it`s "essential to receiving mail at a post office
box". If I have a PO box, I can give the key to anyone on the planet
and they can get the mail out of it.
There are a variety of possible reasons why the Post Office would
want to know the names of the people using their equipment.
Culpability for damage. Disputes over missing mail. They need to know
the number of people using the box so they know how many keys to issue
(and get back).
Lets get back to basics, so you can drop this silly line of inquiry
and get back to your stalking. Two things are true, and you can easily
check these things with your local post office.
1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
delivered to the location written on the mail.
2) Any person with access to the PO box can take mail out that is
delivered to that PO box.
Bud
> On Mar 10, 7:28 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 7:19 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Mr. HOLMES. .....when he rented the post office box in New Orleans, he
> > > > used the name of A. J. Hidell as one of the persons ENTITLED to
> > > > receive mail in that box.
>
> > > > ( 7 H 296 )
>
> > > > And the purpose for naming other people on the application who were "
> > > > entitled to receive mail in that box "....was ?
>
> > > That isn`t a quote from your source, is it Gil? Nothing about
> > > "entitled" in the information you produced.
>
> > Maybe you should read the source again.
>
> Half way down the page where it begins, "On the third portion" you'll
> see
> ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL IN THAT BOX.
>
This isn`t the source you produced in your original post. If the
information exists somewhere else other than than specific source you
have to produce that also.
> And the purpose for naming other people on the application who were
> "entitled to receive mail in that box "....was ?
To differentiate them from the people who were not entitled to
receive mail from the PO box. If everybody in the world was entitled
to access to the PO box there wouldn`t be much use in putting locks on
them.
Gil Jesus
>
> � Lets get back to basics, so you can drop this silly line of inquiry
> and get back to your stalking. Two things are true, and you can easily
> check these things with your local post office.
>
> � 1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
> delivered to the location written on the mail.
>
> � 2) Any person with access to the PO box can take mail out that is
> delivered to that PO box
DANCE FATMAN DANCE
Let's limit ourselves to what the postal regulations were in 1963,
shall we ?
The evidence indicates that the application REQUIRED anyone "ENTITLED
TO RECEIVE" mail at the post office box other than the applicant to be
named on the application.
THAT'S why there was a box on the application for that information.
The application says nothing about naming others for any purpose other
than to receive mail.
We're talking about what the evidence says, not about your opinions.
Try using citations to the evidence.
1. The evidence indicates that the third portion of the application,
which named persons other than the applicant who were ENTITLED to
RECEIVE mail at that post office box, was destroyed in violation of
postal regulations effective March, 1963, which required the record to
be kept for two years after the box had been closed.
http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
2. The evidence indicates that that record was destroyed BEFORE the
assassination, after the box was closed. The box was closed in May,
1963
Mr. HOLMES. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been
closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has no
more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes
( 7 H 527 )
3. But the FBI indicated in their report of June 3, 1964 ( CE 2585 )
that they had examined the document during their investigation into
the assassination and that there was no name other than Oswald's on
the application.
http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
So how did the FBI examine the third portion of the post office
application AFTER the assassination, when it was destroyed BEFORE the
assassination ?
TROLLS ?
Chuck Schuyler
Why is this so baffling?
Try it yourself.
Gil Jesus
"Hidell" was never on the application.
Bud says it didn't matter. They shipped to location, not names.
But the evidence shows that the application required NAMES for those
ENTITLED to RECEIVE mail other than the applicant, information they
would not have needed if they simply shipped to location.
Not baffling to me at all.
"Hidell" was never on the application, meaning that he could NOT have
received a rifle through that post office box.
The record that showed that he was unable to receive at that box was
destroyed by the Dallas post office, but not before the FBI examined
it and found that fact to be true.
That means that the post office destroyed the record AFTER the
assassination and after the FBI examined it, making them guilty of
destroying evidence in a murder case.
Not baffling at all.
Chuck Schuyler
Wow. The Post Office screwed something up. There's a first time for
everything.
>
> http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
>
> 2. The evidence indicates that that record was destroyed BEFORE the
> assassination, after the box was closed. The box was closed in May,
> 1963
>
> Mr. HOLMES. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been
> closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has no
> more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
>
> Mr. HOLMES. Yes
>
> ( 7 H 527 )
>
> 3. But the FBI indicated in their report of June 3, 1964 ( CE 2585 )
> that they had examined the document during their investigation into
> the assassination and that there was no name other than Oswald's on
> the application.
>
> http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
>
> So how did the FBI examine the third portion of the post office
> application AFTER the assassination, when it was destroyed BEFORE the
> assassination ?
Where does claim #12 on CE 2585 state the FBI examined the third
portion of the application? Please reread CE 2585, point 12.
>
> TROLLS ?
Gil?
Gil Jesus
> Where does claim #12 on CE 2585 state the FBI examined the third
> portion of the application? Please reread CE 2585, point 12.
The only way they could know for sure if anyone was listed on the
application was to examine the third part because that was the only
part that listed other names.
Mr. HOLMES. ....part I of this application is simply the
instructions .....2 gives the applicant's name, the name of his
corporation or firm he represents, if applicable, the kind of
business, the business address, the home address, and the place for
his signature and the date. On the third portion is a box for him to
indicate ........a place for name of person entitled to receive mail
through the box other than the applicant himself, and he fills in
that.
( 7 H 527 )
"Our investgation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his
application that others, including an "A. Hidell" would receive mail
through the box in question, which was post office box 2915 in
Dallas...." ( CE 2585, pg.4 )
http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
They couldn't possibly have concluded that from examining parts 1 or
2.
It's not rocket science, Chuckles.
.
Bud
> On Mar 10, 7:45 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lets get back to basics, so you can drop this silly line of inquiry
> > and get back to your stalking. Two things are true, and you can easily
> > check these things with your local post office.
>
> > 1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
> > delivered to the location written on the mail.
>
> > 2) Any person with access to the PO box can take mail out that is
> > delivered to that PO box
>
> DANCE FATMAN DANCE
>
> Let's limit ourselves to what the postal regulations were in 1963,
> shall we ?
Ok retard, apply your vast knowledge of 1963 postal regulations to
the following question...
In 1963, if a post office received a piece of mail with the name "A
Hidell" on it addressed to the post office box 2915, the post office
would...
A) Destroy the piece of mail
B) Open the mail to see if there was anything good inside.
C) Put the piece of mail in the PO box 2915.
> The evidence indicates that the application REQUIRED anyone "ENTITLED
> TO RECEIVE" mail at the post office box other than the applicant to be
> named on the application.
>
> THAT'S why there was a box on the application for that information.
>
> The application says nothing about naming others for any purpose other
> than to receive mail.
>
> We're talking about what the evidence says, not about your opinions.
>
> Try using citations to the evidence.
It`s your opinion that mail with the name A.Hidell addressed to that
PO box wouldn`t be placed inside that PO box. What do you base this
opinion on?
> 1. The evidence indicates that the third portion of the application,
> which named persons other than the applicant who were ENTITLED to
> RECEIVE mail at that post office box, was destroyed in violation of
> postal regulations effective March, 1963, which required the record to
> be kept for two years after the box had been closed.
>
> http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
>
> 2. The evidence indicates that that record was destroyed BEFORE the
> assassination, after the box was closed. The box was closed in May,
> 1963
>
> Mr. HOLMES. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been
> closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has no
> more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
>
> Mr. HOLMES. Yes
>
> ( 7 H 527 )
>
> 3. But the FBI indicated in their report of June 3, 1964 ( CE 2585 )
> that they had examined the document during their investigation into
> the assassination and that there was no name other than Oswald's on
> the application.
>
> http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
>
> So how did the FBI examine the third portion of the post office
> application AFTER the assassination, when it was destroyed BEFORE the
> assassination ?
>
> TROLLS ?
Retard, there is a simple solution to your problem. Instead of
embarrassing yourself with these displays of ignorance, go to the post
office and ask them how mail addressed to a PO box is handled. It
should be a piece of cake for a crackerjack researcher like yourself.
Walt
Well I'll be dipped...Dud has finally gotten something right. You're
right Dud, The mail is elivered to the address not the name...
How many times a month do you receive mail addressed to your address
but addressed to "Dud Smith or current occupant"??
robcap...@netscape.com
YOU're a liar Bud, you can't DELIVER MAIL (or give out mail) to a box
a person is NOT indentified with! Tis that simple.
Gil Jesus
> � Retard, there is a simple solution to your problem. Instead of
> embarrassing yourself with these displays of ignorance, go to the post
> office and ask them how mail addressed to a PO box is handled. It
> should be a piece of cake for a crackerjack researcher like yourself
Postal regulations circa 2010 do not apply in this debate.
The evidence indicates that in Dallas in 1963, the NAMES of people
OTHER THAN the APPLICANT who were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL at that
post office box HAD to be included in the application. There was a box
for that information on part 3 of the application.
I don't give two sh*ts what you think or what you can or cannot do
down at your local post office in 2010.
The evidence indicates that they shipped to NAMES because the NAMES
were required on the application.
Otherwise, the NAMES weren't needed.
All of your denial doesn't change what the evidence says.
robcap...@netscape.com
I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
rifle??
“They have him receiving it when there is NO evidence showing
this!” (Robert)
“Of course there is.” (Ben Holmes – 3/17/09)
And:
“And there's evidence that Oswald "received" a rifle - regardless of
your honesty in admitting it or not.” (Ben Holmes to CJ—12/17/09)
Why is Ben lying to FRAME LHO if he is a CTer as he claims??? Hmmm.
robcap...@netscape.com
It also doesn't explain how they KNEW the rifle would go to LHO's box
when the name A. HIDELL was NOT listed in conjunction with that box!
I wonder how many boxes they had?? The odds have to be large that they
would select LHO's box out of the total number to associate an UNKNOWN
NAME with!
We haven't even brought up the issue of NO evidence showing LHO ever
received it from the Post Office yet, and it is already totally
UNBELIEVABLE!
Bud
> On Mar 9, 10:50 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 9:02 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> > >http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> > > Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> > > Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
> > . Retards on the case!
>
> > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
> > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > PO box on the mail.
>
> Well I'll be dipped...Dud has finally gotten something right. You're
> right Dud, The mail is elivered to the address not the name...
<snicker> This is explained to you retards every 3 months or so, is
it starting to sink in with a few of you?
> How many times a month do you receive mail addressed to your address
> but addressed to "Dud Smith or current occupant"??
More than half the mail that comes to me does not have my name on
it. Yet it still comes into my possession.
Bud
wrote:
Another retard heard from. All these ace investigators can`t even
figure out how the mail works.
Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
box?
Gil Jesus
> �Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> box?
No they have you fill out an application and list other people who are
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL AT THAT BOX because it didn't really matter.
RETARD
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Mar 10, 10:28 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 11:50 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 9:02 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> > > >http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> > > > Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> > > > Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
> > > . Retards on the case!
>
> > > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
> > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > YOU're a liar Bud, you can't DELIVER MAIL (or give out mail) to a box
> > a person is NOT indentified with! Tis that simple.
>
> Another retard heard from. All these ace investigators can`t even
> figure out how the mail works.
IT was a LAW to add names to the postal application in 1963 on PAGE
THREE! LHO did NOT add the name "A. Hidell", thus they would not know
a package for this person (which was never received anyway based on
the evidence) should be put into LHO's box.
> Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> box?
This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT! Tell us how they
would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
LHO's or anyone else's box??? Then tell us what the odds were that
this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
I will be waiting with bated breath for your reply!
Bud
> On Mar 10, 9:59 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Retard, there is a simple solution to your problem. Instead of
> > embarrassing yourself with these displays of ignorance, go to the post
> > office and ask them how mail addressed to a PO box is handled. It
> > should be a piece of cake for a crackerjack researcher like yourself
>
> Postal regulations circa 2010 do not apply in this debate.
>
> The evidence indicates that in Dallas in 1963, the NAMES of people
> OTHER THAN the APPLICANT who were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL at that
> post office box HAD to be included in the application. There was a box
> for that information on part 3 of the application.
That doesn`t speak to what mail would be DELIVERED to that PO box,
retard.
> I don't give two sh*ts what you think or what you can or cannot do
> down at your local post office in 2010.
Then produce 1963 postal regulations that preclude mail under a
different name other the the person listed on the form being put into
a PO box.
> The evidence indicates that they shipped to NAMES because the NAMES
> were required on the application.
Who cares about your opinion about what this information indicates?
You need to produce the 1963 postal regulation that says only mail
with the names of the people listed on the form can be delivered to a
PO address.
> Otherwise, the NAMES weren't needed.
It`s only your opinion that the post office could have no other use
for the names of the people using the box.
> All of your denial doesn't change what the evidence says.
Dance, retard, dance.
There is only one relevant question yet you focus on irrelevancies.
The relevant question is whether mail to A.Hidell addressed to
Oswald`s PO box would be put in Oswald`s PO box, thus coming into his
possession.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>>
>> http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>>
>> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>>
>> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
>I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
>rifle??
>
>this!=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Of course there is.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 3/17/09)
>
>And:
>
>=93And there's evidence that Oswald "received" a rifle - regardless of
>your honesty in admitting it or not.=94 (Ben Holmes to CJ=9712/17/09)
>
>Why is Ben lying to FRAME LHO if he is a CTer as he claims??? Hmmm.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Ben Holmes
>>
>> http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>>
>> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>>
>> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
>I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
>rifle??
Because, of course, there is.
>=93They have him receiving it when there is NO evidence showing
>this!=94 (Robert)
>
>=93Of course there is.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 3/17/09)
Still true.
>And:
>
>=93And there's evidence that Oswald "received" a rifle - regardless of
>your honesty in admitting it or not.=94 (Ben Holmes to CJ=9712/17/09)
Still true.
<moderated>
Gil Jesus
> a person is NOT indentified with! �Tis that simple.
HOLMES EXHIBIT 1-A IS A BLANK POST OFFICE BOX APPLICATION
On it, Part 3, it says :
NAMES OF PERSONS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL ( If box is rented to a
firm, include the full name of each of its members whose mail is to be
placed in box )
SEE IT FOR YOURSELF HERE:
http://i40.tinypic.com/b3r02s.jpg
It says this because ( according to Bud ) they mailed to locations,
not names in Dallas in 1963.
Yeah, right.
Bud
How did it matter, Gil? Thats the question, right? You show they
took the information, but you failing to show how it was used in
practice. You offer nothing but opinions where you need to be
producing 1963 postal regulations.
> RETARD
<snicker> Signing your posts now?
Gil Jesus
>You offer nothing but opinions where you need to be
> producing 1963 postal regulations.
I offer evidence and testimony from the 26 volumes.
You've cited NOTHING.
As usual.
The testimony is supplied by the Postal Inspector of Dallas, Harry
Holmes.
You challenge that, but you have nothing but opinion to challenge it
with.
It's time to get off your fat a** and do some work.
Bud
wrote:
> On Mar 10, 11:18 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 10:28 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 9, 11:50 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 9, 9:02 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> > > > >http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> > > > > Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> > > > > Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
> > > > . Retards on the case!
>
> > > > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
> > > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > > YOU're a liar Bud, you can't DELIVER MAIL (or give out mail) to a box
> > > a person is NOT indentified with! Tis that simple.
>
> > Another retard heard from. All these ace investigators can`t even
> > figure out how the mail works.
>
> IT was a LAW to add names to the postal application in 1963 on PAGE
> THREE! LHO did NOT add the name "A. Hidell", thus they would not know
> a package for this person (which was never received anyway based on
> the evidence) should be put into LHO's box.
So it`s your contention that the post office check against the
application to make sure that all mail put in the PO box has the names
of one of the people listed on the application, right? What did they
do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
addressed to that PO box?
> > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > box?
>
> This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
> See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT!
They sort by address, retard. Location.
> Tell us how they
> would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> LHO's or anyone else's box???
The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name. You think when
the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
lives there? What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
to locations, period.
>Then tell us what the odds were that
> this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package. If a package is
too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
houses you`d know these things.
timstter
> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
The only proof we need of him having received the rifle is the photo
of him holding it in his backyard, Gil.
And we got that.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d6390160-5967-4c4d-a9c5-8a126fe7a...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
> >> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> >>http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> >> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> >> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
> >I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
> >rifle??
>
> Because, of course, there is.
BUT he is AFRAID TO CITE IT! LOL!!
Coward, aren't you?
> >=93They have him receiving it when there is NO evidence showing
> >this!=94 (Robert)
>
> >=93Of course there is.=94 (Ben Holmes =96 3/17/09)
>
> Still true.
It was a lie then and it is a lie now. Otherwise you would cite it
for us.
> >And:
>
> >=93And there's evidence that Oswald "received" a rifle - regardless of
> >your honesty in admitting it or not.=94 (Ben Holmes to CJ=9712/17/09)
>
> Still true.
Still a lie is more like it.
Cat got your cite?
robcap...@netscape.com
Bud is a liar and a con man. He lies because the truth would sink
him. He is a con man because he knows he is lying, but but hopes
folks will fall for it.
robcap...@netscape.com
IF someone does NOT have authority to receive mail in a particular
P.O. Box (this is done via Page 3 of the postal app), why would they
get mail in that P.O. Box? Furthermore, how would the sorter know to
put it in that particular box (in this case a notice in LHO's box
allegedly) when the name A. Hidell is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BOX?
> What did they
> do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> addressed to that PO box?
They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box. Just like
if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
correct address. IF YOU open it when it was accidently put in your
box you have JUST VIOLATED A FEDERAL LAW!
> > > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > > box?
>
> > This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
> > See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT!
>
> They sort by address, retard. Location.
NOT for P.O. Boxes they don't moron! We are NOT discussing general
mail delivery to houses, but rather a delivery to a P.O. BOX SIGNED UP
FOR BY A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD TO LIST THE FOLKS ELIGIBLE FOR MAIL
AT THAT SITE!
YOU are trying to confuse this with general mail delivery con man and
it won't work.
> > Tell us how they
> > would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> > 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> > LHO's or anyone else's box???
>
> The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name.
They don't for a P.O. Box?? So anyone can go in and rent a box without
giving a name???? Why have anyone fill out an application then con
man?
> You think when
> the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
> lives there?
That is YOUR problem con man, we are NOT DISCUSSING A HOUSE, we are
discussing a P.O. Box!
> What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
> going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
> to locations, period.
We are discussing a P.O. Box that is RENTED liar, stick with the topic
at hand.
> >Then tell us what the odds were that
> > this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> > I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> > package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
>
> It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package.
IT is for P.O. Box if the name is NOT listed??? Cite for this. Then
show us when LHO picked up this package with evidence!
> If a package is
> too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
> the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
> houses you`d know these things.
How would they know who to send the notification to for the box?? NO
app said "A. Hidell" on page 3?? YOU make no sense you lying con man!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 10, 12:00=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d6390160-5967-4c4d-a9c5-8a126fe7a...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>>
>> >>http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>>
>> >> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>>
>> >> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>>
>> >I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
>> >rifle??
>>
>> Because, of course, there is.
>
>BUT he is AFRAID TO CITE IT! LOL!!
How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told you repeatedly that I'll do so as
soon as you define the term "evidence?"
Why is it so hard for you to cite?
<moderated>
>> >=3D93They have him receiving it when there is NO evidence showing
>> >this!=3D94 (Robert)
>>
>> >=3D93Of course there is.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 3/17/09)
>>
>> Still true.
<moderated>
>> >And:
>>
>> >=3D93And there's evidence that Oswald "received" a rifle - regardless of
>> >your honesty in admitting it or not.=3D94 (Ben Holmes to CJ=3D9712/17/09=
Bud
Did you give the post office "authority" to deliver mail to your
location?
> Furthermore, how would the sorter know to
> put it in that particular box (in this case a notice in LHO's box
> allegedly) when the name A. Hidell is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BOX?
As explained, they don`t deliver to people, they deliver to
locations. A PO box is a location.
> > What did they
> > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > addressed to that PO box?
>
> They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box.
This is just a retard asserting something he hasn`t a clue about.
> Just like
> if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> correct address.
The address is a location, retard, not a person.
> IF YOU open it when it was accidently put in your
> box you have JUST VIOLATED A FEDERAL LAW!
>
> > > > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > > > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > > > box?
>
> > > This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
> > > See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT!
>
> > They sort by address, retard. Location.
>
> NOT for P.O. Boxes they don't moron!
Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
> We are NOT discussing general
> mail delivery to houses, but rather a delivery to a P.O. BOX SIGNED UP
> FOR BY A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD TO LIST THE FOLKS ELIGIBLE FOR MAIL
> AT THAT SITE!
Not "eligible" retard.
> YOU are trying to confuse this with general mail delivery con man and
> it won't work.
>
> > > Tell us how they
> > > would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> > > 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> > > LHO's or anyone else's box???
>
> > The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name.
>
> They don't for a P.O. Box?? So anyone can go in and rent a box without
> giving a name????
They don`t give a fuck whos name is on the mail they deliver to the
PO box, they deliver any mail, no matter what the name is, as long as
it has that particular PO box number on it.
> Why have anyone fill out an application then con
> man?
So they know who to bill.
> > You think when
> > the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
> > lives there?
>
> That is YOUR problem con man, we are NOT DISCUSSING A HOUSE, we are
> discussing a P.O. Box!
We are discussing a location mail is delivered to.
> > What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
> > going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
> > to locations, period.
>
> We are discussing a P.O. Box that is RENTED liar, stick with the topic
> at hand.
>
> > >Then tell us what the odds were that
> > > this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> > > I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> > > package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
>
> > It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package.
>
> IT is for P.O. Box if the name is NOT listed??? Cite for this.
Why don`t you make an effort to cure your own ignorance for a
change? Go to the post office and ask them.
> Then
> show us when LHO picked up this package with evidence!
It doesn`t matter when he did it, it only matters that he did.
> > If a package is
> > too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
> > the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
> > houses you`d know these things.
>
> How would they know who to send the notification to for the box??
Same way they know where to send the bill for the PO box to.
Walt
> On Mar 10, 7:45 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Lets get back to basics, so you can drop this silly line of inquiry
> > and get back to your stalking. Two things are true, and you can easily
> > check these things with your local post office.
>
> > 1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
> > delivered to the location written on the mail.
>
> > 2) Any person with access to the PO box can take mail out that is
> > delivered to that PO box
>
> DANCE FATMAN DANCE
>
> Let's limit ourselves to what the postal regulations were in 1963,
> shall we ?
>
> TO RECEIVE" mail at the post office box other than the applicant to be
> named on the application.
>
> THAT'S why there was a box on the application for that information.
>
> The application says nothing about naming others for any purpose other
> than to receive mail.
>
> We're talking about what the evidence says, not about your opinions.
>
> Try using citations to the evidence.
>
> which named persons other than the applicant who were ENTITLED to
> RECEIVE mail at that post office box, was destroyed in violation of
> postal regulations effective March, 1963, which required the record to
> be kept for two years after the box had been closed.
Oh boy.... It's been a long time ago, but as I recall I discovered
that there was no portion destroyed.... The form was set up so the
names of others authorized to use the box was on the reverse side of
the form. I could be wrong because it's been a long time
ago.....But I believe this is just some of the bullshit that's been
propagated about this case.
timstter
Nothing but opinion and three photos of Oswald holding the rifle, eh
Verm?
You are INEFFABLY stupid Gil. No wonder you were run out of the police
force...
Stunned Regards,
Bud
> On Mar 10, 9:59 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Retard, there is a simple solution to your problem. Instead of
> > embarrassing yourself with these displays of ignorance, go to the post
> > office and ask them how mail addressed to a PO box is handled. It
> > should be a piece of cake for a crackerjack researcher like yourself
>
> Postal regulations circa 2010 do not apply in this debate.
Can you show that the post office changed the way they deliver mail
from using names to using locations between 1963 and now? Just because
that is what your silly ideas require does not mean that is what
occurred.
> The evidence indicates that in Dallas in 1963, the NAMES of people
> OTHER THAN the APPLICANT who were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL at that
> post office box HAD to be included in the application. There was a box
> for that information on part 3 of the application.
The question isn`t whether they took the information. The question
is what they took the information for. You haven`t shown your
interpretation to be correct using 1963 postal regulations.
The problem is, you read "entitled" and think it must mean a certain
thing. But the application is also a contract between the post office
and the customer. So the word "entitled" could mean that the post
office is guaranteeing access to the box to the people listed. In
other words, they can`t prevent the people named from getting mail
from the PO box because they are entitled by renting the box. This
wouldn`t have any impact on the names on the mail delivered to the PO
box.
> I don't give two sh*ts what you think or what you can or cannot do
> down at your local post office in 2010.
<snicker> You must have checked at the post office and found I was
right. Did they call you a retard?
> The evidence indicates that they shipped to NAMES because the NAMES
> were required on the application.
Don`t "indicate", show the 1963 postal regulation that shows you are
right.
> Otherwise, the NAMES weren't needed.
>
> All of your denial doesn't change what the evidence says.
As usual you show yourself inadequate for investigation. You really
need a new hobby.
Walt
An excellent example of your obtuseness.... Do you think the PO clerks
read the names on the envelope?..Or do they look at the ADDRESS and
place that mail in the PO box number on the envelope?
>
> > What did they
> > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > addressed to that PO box?
>
> They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box. Just like
> if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> correct address.
Duh!!...Nice going Quick Draw.....you've just shot yourself in the
foot.
"Just like if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you!
YOU can GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it
to the correct address."
You're right the mail would be sent to the correct..." ADDRESS"...
If the mail had your ADDRESS on it, the mail would be returned to the
sender.
> app said "A. Hidell" on page 3?? YOU make no sense you lying con man!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
> On Mar 10, 12:12 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >You offer nothing but opinions where you need to be
> > producing 1963 postal regulations.
>
> I offer evidence and testimony from the 26 volumes.
>
> You've cited NOTHING.
>
> As usual.
>
The testimony is supplied by the Postal Inspector of Dallas, Harry
Holmes.
The testimony is supplied by the Postal Inspector of Dallas, Harry
Holmes.
Gil, Harry Holmes was one of the conspirators,an FBI informant, and a
liar........ He had been watching Oswald's PO box and reported the
arrival of the rifle in the Dallas PO to the FBI.
On the night of the assination he took a copy of the Klein ad from the
November issue of Field & Stream to the FBI. Holmes had circled the
ads for the Carcano and the .38 S&W, then tore the page from F&S and
took it to Shanklin and told him that the guns had been bought at
Kleins, in Chicago. The FBI didn't need that info, they already knew
about the rifle order because holmes had notified them about the rifle
back on March 20 1963. Holmes just wanted to be sure they went after
Oswald.
Proir to 1963, I remember writing letters to a girlfriend who lived
with her grandparents.... I addressed the letters to Miss Julia
Smith C/O ( care of) Mrs Ethel Williams, at box 1234 Hootnholler
KY. She always received the letters. The name meant nothing to
the postal clerk ....he just put the letters in Box # 1234.
Bud
> On Mar 10, 12:12 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >You offer nothing but opinions where you need to be
> > producing 1963 postal regulations.
>
> I offer evidence and testimony from the 26 volumes.
But the evidence you produced did nothing to establish whether only
mail with the name of the people whos name appears on that form would
go into the PO box. This is what you need to support the idea you
advanced.
> You've cited NOTHING.
You advanced the idea that mail with the name Hidel could not be
placed in Oswald`s PO box. Since that was your idea it`s up to you to
provide support for it. As yet you have no produced the 1963 postal
regulations covering this.
> As usual.
>
> The testimony is supplied by the Postal Inspector of Dallas, Harry
> Holmes.
He said nohing about who`s name was required to be on the mail
placed in Oswald`s PO box retard.
> You challenge that, but you have nothing but opinion to challenge it
> with.
I didn`t challenge what Holmes said because it didn`t speak to your
claim that an item with Hidel`s name that had Oswald PO box number
would or would not be placed into Oswald`s PO box.
> It's time to get off your fat a** and do some work.
It`s idea retard, you support it. Find those 1963 postal regulations
yet?
Walt
Hey Gil, ...Do you honestly believe that the word "ass" is a vile and
obscene word? And do you think it makes any difference if you write
a** or ass? Do you use the asterisks because you can't spell ass.
aeffects
> On Mar 10, 6:04 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 9, 11:50 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > receive mail at the box....was ?
>
> This shows why you are one of the least suited people on the planet
> to engage in an investigation.
dudster, your fear is palpable.... simply play your tune, no side bars
shithead!
The simplest things are beyond your
> grasp, you can`t even figure out the difference between people who can
> take mail out of the PO box and people whos name can be on the mail
> that is sent to the PO box. Also, the post office would have an
> interest in who was using their equipment for liability reasons, and
> if disputes arose between two people using the same PO box over
> missing mail.
aeffects
> On Mar 10, 11:04 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 10, 9:59 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Retard, there is a simple solution to your problem. Instead of
> > > embarrassing yourself with these displays of ignorance, go to the post
> > > office and ask them how mail addressed to a PO box is handled. It
> > > should be a piece of cake for a crackerjack researcher like yourself
>
> > Postal regulations circa 2010 do not apply in this debate.
>
> > The evidence indicates that in Dallas in 1963, the NAMES of people
> > OTHER THAN the APPLICANT who were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL at that
> > post office box HAD to be included in the application. There was a box
> > for that information on part 3 of the application.
>
> That doesn`t speak to what mail would be DELIVERED to that PO box,
> retard.
fucking lone nut kook, simply play your tune, no sidebars
shithead.....
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <3f2192e6-d586-4e30-a8b2-eb6d43b90...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 10, 12:00=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <d6390160-5967-4c4d-a9c5-8a126fe7a...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.=
> >com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> >> >>http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> >> >> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> >> >> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
> >> >I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
> >> >rifle??
>
> >> Because, of course, there is.
>
> >BUT he is AFRAID TO CITE IT! LOL!!
>
> How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told you repeatedly that I'll do so as
> soon as you define the term "evidence?"
The coward known as Ben Holmes still hides behind this pathetic
defense. He said evidence existed, but he is too afraid to cite it
for us. What a scardy-cat he is, huh?
> Why is it so hard for you to cite?
YOU seem to be the one that can't cite the evidence YOU claimed
existed! LOL!
(snip moderation)
> >> >=3D93They have him receiving it when there is NO evidence showing
> >> >this!=3D94 (Robert)
>
> >> >=3D93Of course there is.=3D94 (Ben Holmes =3D96 3/17/09)
>
> >> Still true.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Mar 10, 2:29 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
> > > > > > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > > > > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > > > > > YOU're a liar Bud, you can't DELIVER MAIL (or give out mail) to a box
> > > > > > a person is NOT indentified with! Tis that simple.
>
> > > > > Another retard heard from. All these ace investigators can`t even
> > > > > figure out how the mail works.
>
> > > > IT was a LAW to add names to the postal application in 1963 on PAGE
> > > > THREE! LHO did NOT add the name "A. Hidell", thus they would not know
> > > > a package for this person (which was never received anyway based on
> > > > the evidence) should be put into LHO's box.
>
> > > So it`s your contention that the post office check against the
> > > application to make sure that all mail put in the PO box has the names
> > > of one of the people listed on the application, right?
>
> > IF someone does NOT have authority to receive mail in a particular
> > P.O. Box (this is done via Page 3 of the postal app), why would they
> > get mail in that P.O. Box?
>
> Did you give the post office "authority" to deliver mail to your
> location?
If I signed up for a P.O. Box I would have to con man. Why do you
keep trying to make this about something it is NOT about?
> > Furthermore, how would the sorter know to
> > put it in that particular box (in this case a notice in LHO's box
> > allegedly) when the name A. Hidell is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BOX?
>
> As explained, they don`t deliver to people, they deliver to
> locations. A PO box is a location.
NO it is not moron, it is RENTED TO A PERSON you idiot! IF the name
on the letter or package is NOT matched to the Box# they can't deliver
it!
Why do you tell such obvious lies?
> > > What did they
> > > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > > addressed to that PO box?
>
> > They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box.
>
> This is just a retard asserting something he hasn`t a clue about.
YOU are the one with NO clue as you keep associating a RENTED box with
a house delivery!
> > Just like
> > if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> > GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> > correct address.
>
> The address is a location, retard, not a person.
TRUE, but we are talking about a RENTED BOX moron, NOT LHO's
roominghouse! WHY tell such obvious lies?
> > IF YOU open it when it was accidently put in your
> > box you have JUST VIOLATED A FEDERAL LAW!
>
> > > > > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > > > > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > > > > box?
>
> > > > This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
> > > > See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT!
>
> > > They sort by address, retard. Location.
>
> > NOT for P.O. Boxes they don't moron!
>
> Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
The BOX IS RENTED you lying con man, and the NAME IS ON THE RENTAL
APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANYONE WHO CAN GET MAIL THERE!
A. Hidell was NOT on the Page 3 section of LHO's box, period. Folks
sign up for boxes as there are more safeguards for their mail than
regular house deliveries.
What a pathetic liar you are!
> > We are NOT discussing general
> > mail delivery to houses, but rather a delivery to a P.O. BOX SIGNED UP
> > FOR BY A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD TO LIST THE FOLKS ELIGIBLE FOR MAIL
> > AT THAT SITE!
>
> Not "eligible" retard.
Lying won't save you moron. Why lie when you claim to be telling the
truth?
> > YOU are trying to confuse this with general mail delivery con man and
> > it won't work.
>
> > > > Tell us how they
> > > > would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> > > > 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> > > > LHO's or anyone else's box???
>
> > > The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name.
>
> > They don't for a P.O. Box?? So anyone can go in and rent a box without
> > giving a name????
>
> They don`t give a fuck whos name is on the mail they deliver to the
> PO box,
Prove it. Cite some Postal regs that say this con man!
> they deliver any mail, no matter what the name is, as long as
> it has that particular PO box number on it.
Liar, aren't you?? Prove it with some cites as you don't expect folks
to take the word of a liar like you, do you?
> > Why have anyone fill out an application then con
> > man?
>
> So they know who to bill.
LOL!! So they can be billed for GETTING MAIL FOR A BUNCH OF OTHER
PEOPLE ACCORDING TO BUD!
> > > You think when
> > > the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
> > > lives there?
>
> > That is YOUR problem con man, we are NOT DISCUSSING A HOUSE, we are
> > discussing a P.O. Box!
>
> We are discussing a location mail is delivered to.
NO we are discussing a box that has to be rented and NAMES HAD TO BE
LISTED on the application!
> > > What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
> > > going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
> > > to locations, period.
>
> > We are discussing a P.O. Box that is RENTED liar, stick with the topic
> > at hand.
>
> > > >Then tell us what the odds were that
> > > > this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> > > > I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> > > > package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
>
> > > It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package.
>
> > IT is for P.O. Box if the name is NOT listed??? Cite for this.
>
> Why don`t you make an effort to cure your own ignorance for a
> change? Go to the post office and ask them.
NO cite as expected. He just spouts the lies his boss/handler tell
him. Too bad for NONE of them make a lick of sense to anyone!
> > Then
> > show us when LHO picked up this package with evidence!
>
> It doesn`t matter when he did it, it only matters that he did.
LOL!! Sure it does. Keep on believing in this dogma Bud, you are a
total loser. Show us evidence showing LHO received the rifle or admit
you are a liar who likes to frame LHO.
> > > If a package is
> > > too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
> > > the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
> > > houses you`d know these things.
>
> > How would they know who to send the notification to for the box??
>
> Same way they know where to send the bill for the PO box to.
Cite please. But he won't.
robcap...@netscape.com
Oh boy, Walt is LYING AGAIN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WC!!
The page 3 section was destroyed PER HOLMES! The FBI said so too! Why
lie Walt??
Why is Walt always defending the WC?? Oh that is right, because he is
a WC shill!
> >http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
>
> > 2. The evidence indicates that that record was destroyed BEFORE the
> > assassination, after the box was closed. The box was closed in May,
> > 1963
>
> > Mr. HOLMES. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been
> > closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has no
> > more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
>
> > Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
>
> > Mr. HOLMES. Yes
>
> > ( 7 H 527 )
>
> > 3. But the FBI indicated in their report of June 3, 1964 ( CE 2585 )
> > that they had examined the document during their investigation into
> > the assassination and that there was no name other than Oswald's on
> > the application.
>
> >http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
>
> > So how did the FBI examine the third portion of the post office
> > application AFTER the assassination, when it was destroyed BEFORE the
> > assassination ?
>
> > TROLLS ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
LOL!! What a moron you are! Of course they do for P.O. Boxes you
ignorant moron OR they wouldn't INCLUDE A SECTION FOR ADDITIONAL
NAMES!
Walt is defending the WC again!
> > > What did they
> > > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > > addressed to that PO box?
>
> > They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box. Just like
> > if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> > GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> > correct address.
>
> Duh!!...Nice going Quick Draw.....you've just shot yourself in the
> foot.
ONLY a lying, moronic WC shill would think so. IOW, YOU!
> "Just like if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you!
> YOU can GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it
> to the correct address."
>
> You're right the mail would be sent to the correct..." ADDRESS"...
> If the mail had your ADDRESS on it, the mail would be returned to the
> sender.
Walt sounds a lot like that other dumb con man Bud!! Hmmm.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:150b24c0-be06-480c...@q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 10, 4:15=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <3f2192e6-d586-4e30-a8b2-eb6d43b90...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Mar 10, 12:00=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d6390160-5967-4c4d-a9c5-8a126fe7a...@f8g2000yqn.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>>
>> >> >>http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>>
>> >> >> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>>
>> >> >> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>>
>> >> >I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
>> >> >rifle??
>>
>> >> Because, of course, there is.
>>
>> >BUT he is AFRAID TO CITE IT! LOL!!
>>
>> How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told you repeatedly that I'll
>> do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
<moderated>
For someone who demands that others post in a censored group, Robsie sure has a
tough time meeting the standards he demands of others...
Now, why not answer the question? How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told
you repeatedly that I'll do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
>> Why is it so hard for you to cite?
<moderated>
Why is it so hard for you to cite?
<Rest snipped due to Robsie's censorship...>
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <47aedb5f-e6e1-40b8-8b85-0184617ab...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 10, 4:15=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <3f2192e6-d586-4e30-a8b2-eb6d43b90...@z11g2000yqz.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >On Mar 10, 12:00=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> >> In article <d6390160-5967-4c4d-a9c5-8a126fe7a...@f8g2000yqn.googlegrou=
> >ps.=3D
> >> >com>,
> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> >> >> >> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>
> >> >> >>http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>
> >> >> >> Now you know why there's no proof that he ever received the rifle.
>
> >> >> >> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>
> >> >> >I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
> >> >> >rifle??
>
> >> >> Because, of course, there is.
>
> >> >BUT he is AFRAID TO CITE IT! LOL!!
>
> >> How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told you repeatedly that I'll
> >> do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
>
> <moderated>
>
> For someone who demands that others post in a censored group, Robsie sure has a
> tough time meeting the standards he demands of others...
Run coward, run! Who can blame you though, since YOUR OWN WORDS HANG
YOU CONSTANTLY! NO wonder you run!
> Now, why not answer the question? How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told
> you repeatedly that I'll do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
YOU claimed it existed liar, SO cite it. Why are you running and
playing games coward?? This is simple liar -- YOU claimed evidence
existed, I simply said cite it!
YOU ran from citing it and still are afraid to do so!!
Coward, aren't you?
(snip moderation)
> Why is it so hard for you to cite?
YOU seem to be unable to cite the stuff you claimed existed! LOL!!
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 11, 4:00=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <47aedb5f-e6e1-40b8-8b85-0184617ab...@t20g2000yqe.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >On Mar 10, 4:15=3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <3f2192e6-d586-4e30-a8b2-eb6d43b90...@z11g2000yqz.googlegro=
>ups=3D
>> >.com>,
>> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Mar 10, 12:00=3D3DA0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> >> In article <d6390160-5967-4c4d-a9c5-8a126fe7a...@f8g2000yqn.googleg=
>rou=3D
>> >ps.=3D3D
>> >> >com>,
>> >> >> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> >> >> >> Commission Exhibit 2585:
>>
>> >> >> >>http://i39.tinypic.com/2w7fleh.jpg
>>
>e.
>>
>> >> >> >> Now you know why that part of the application was destroyed.
>>
>> >> >> >I wonder why Ben said there was evidence showing he received the
>> >> >> >rifle??
>>
>> >> >> Because, of course, there is.
>>
>> >> >BUT he is AFRAID TO CITE IT! LOL!!
>>
>> >> How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told you repeatedly that I'll
>> >> do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
>>
>> <moderated>
>>
>> For someone who demands that others post in a censored group, Robsie
>> sure has a tough time meeting the standards he demands of others...
<moderated>
>> Now, why not answer the question? How can I be afraid to cite it when
>> I've told you repeatedly that I'll do so as soon as you define the
>> term "evidence?"
<moderated>
Now, why not answer the question? How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told
you repeatedly that I'll do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
Bud
wrote:
> On Mar 10, 4:18 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 2:29 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
> > > > > > > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > > > > > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > > > > > > YOU're a liar Bud, you can't DELIVER MAIL (or give out mail) to a box
> > > > > > > a person is NOT indentified with! Tis that simple.
>
> > > > > > Another retard heard from. All these ace investigators can`t even
> > > > > > figure out how the mail works.
>
> > > > > IT was a LAW to add names to the postal application in 1963 on PAGE
> > > > > THREE! LHO did NOT add the name "A. Hidell", thus they would not know
> > > > > a package for this person (which was never received anyway based on
> > > > > the evidence) should be put into LHO's box.
>
> > > > So it`s your contention that the post office check against the
> > > > application to make sure that all mail put in the PO box has the names
> > > > of one of the people listed on the application, right?
>
> > > IF someone does NOT have authority to receive mail in a particular
> > > P.O. Box (this is done via Page 3 of the postal app), why would they
> > > get mail in that P.O. Box?
>
> > Did you give the post office "authority" to deliver mail to your
> > location?
>
> If I signed up for a P.O. Box I would have to con man.
<snicker> You don`t give the post office authority to deliver mail,
retard. They deliver it to where it is addressed without any expressed
permission.
> Why do you
> keep trying to make this about something it is NOT about?
Read Gil`s initial post and report back on what it IS about.
> > > Furthermore, how would the sorter know to
> > > put it in that particular box (in this case a notice in LHO's box
> > > allegedly) when the name A. Hidell is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BOX?
>
> > As explained, they don`t deliver to people, they deliver to
> > locations. A PO box is a location.
>
> NO it is not moron, it is RENTED TO A PERSON you idiot!
It is a location with an address retard. The address is the PO box
number.
> IF the name
> on the letter or package is NOT matched to the Box# they can't deliver
> it!
Stop embarrassing yourself and go to the post office and ask. They
will confirm what I`m telling you.
> Why do you tell such obvious lies?
Why do you cling to an obviously false position? Is it retarded
desperation to pretend Oswald didn`t kill anyone?
> > > > What did they
> > > > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > > > addressed to that PO box?
>
> > > They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box.
>
> > This is just a retard asserting something he hasn`t a clue about.
>
> YOU are the one with NO clue as you keep associating a RENTED box with
> a house delivery!
No difference to the post office, they deliver to addresses, not
people. The PO box number is an address.
> > > Just like
> > > if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> > > GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> > > correct address.
>
> > The address is a location, retard, not a person.
>
> TRUE, but we are talking about a RENTED BOX moron, NOT LHO's
> roominghouse!
Both have addresses, and the post office delivers to addresses.
Where did you get "eligible" from, retard?
> > > YOU are trying to confuse this with general mail delivery con man and
> > > it won't work.
>
> > > > > Tell us how they
> > > > > would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> > > > > 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> > > > > LHO's or anyone else's box???
>
> > > > The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name.
>
> > > They don't for a P.O. Box?? So anyone can go in and rent a box without
> > > giving a name????
>
> > They don`t give a fuck whos name is on the mail they deliver to the
> > PO box,
>
> Prove it. Cite some Postal regs that say this con man!
Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
> > they deliver any mail, no matter what the name is, as long as
> > it has that particular PO box number on it.
>
> Liar, aren't you?? Prove it with some cites as you don't expect folks
> to take the word of a liar like you, do you?
I have nothing to prove, especially to a retard. It is Gil`s (and
your) contention that an item with the name A.Hidell addressed to
Oswald`s PO box would not be delivered to that PO box. I`ve seen no
support for that idea from either one of you. But apparently Gil took
me up on the challenge and went to the post office and asked them, so
he had to pretend that the way they handled the mail was somehow
different in 1963. Of course he couldn`t support that idea either.
> > > Why have anyone fill out an application then con
> > > man?
>
> > So they know who to bill.
>
> LOL!! So they can be billed for GETTING MAIL FOR A BUNCH OF OTHER
> PEOPLE ACCORDING TO BUD!
You rent the PO box, retard, you aren`t charged by the letter for
what mail is put in it.
> > > > You think when
> > > > the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
> > > > lives there?
>
> > > That is YOUR problem con man, we are NOT DISCUSSING A HOUSE, we are
> > > discussing a P.O. Box!
>
> > We are discussing a location mail is delivered to.
>
> NO we are discussing a box that has to be rented and NAMES HAD TO BE
> LISTED on the application!
A box with an address where mail with that address is delivered.
> > > > What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
> > > > going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
> > > > to locations, period.
>
> > > We are discussing a P.O. Box that is RENTED liar, stick with the topic
> > > at hand.
>
> > > > >Then tell us what the odds were that
> > > > > this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> > > > > I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> > > > > package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
>
> > > > It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package.
>
> > > IT is for P.O. Box if the name is NOT listed??? Cite for this.
>
> > Why don`t you make an effort to cure your own ignorance for a
> > change? Go to the post office and ask them.
>
> NO cite as expected. He just spouts the lies his boss/handler tell
> him. Too bad for NONE of them make a lick of sense to anyone!
Have mommy take you to the post office and have her ask the nice man
who works there how PO boxes work, I`m sure he will be happy to
provide this information.
> > > Then
> > > show us when LHO picked up this package with evidence!
>
> > It doesn`t matter when he did it, it only matters that he did.
>
> LOL!! Sure it does. Keep on believing in this dogma Bud, you are a
> total loser. Show us evidence showing LHO received the rifle or admit
> you are a liar who likes to frame LHO.
How about I show the lengths retards will go to pretend he is
innocent instead?
> > > > If a package is
> > > > too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
> > > > the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
> > > > houses you`d know these things.
>
> > > How would they know who to send the notification to for the box??
>
> > Same way they know where to send the bill for the PO box to.
>
> Cite please. But he won't.
No he wont. But he will tell you where you can go to enlighten
yourself. Just hold mommy`s hand when she crosses you, you`ll get
there fine.
Walt
wrote:
Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee....LOL... The stupid bastard is
regurgitating the lies of Harry Holmes and Hoover's goons and he
accuses me of being a Warren Commission schill....Aren't you
embarrassed to display your stupidity in front of God and everybody??
Gil Jesus
> � Can you show that the post office changed the way they deliver mail
> from using names to using locations between 1963 and now? Just because
> that is what your silly ideas require does not mean that is what
> occurred.
No Fatman, you're right.
The post office procedures haven't changed in 47 years.
The post office procedures haven't changed from when there were 160
million people to the present 300 + million people.
The post office box application required NAMES to be listed in part 3
because they had no intention of using that information.
Do you ever stop and realize how silly your arguments are ?
You tried to BS your way by saying that the names were listed for
liability purposes.
You're BS artist, Fatman, and not a very good one at that.
TRY POSTING EVIDENCE
Gil Jesus
> SEE>>> �http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
This cementhead "Bud" has posted 15 times to this thread and hasn't
posted one link, one piece of testimony or one piece of evidence.
Not a single citation.
And he STILL hasn't explained how the FBI was able to determine that
Hidell wasn't on the application when part 3 of that application was
destroyed in May, 1963.
The Fatman is a real loser, no matter what screenname he uses.
David Von Pein
From another thread about the same subject at Duncan MacRae's forum:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ad1bddd87b00dc8f
DVP SAID (on 3/10/2010):
The "entitled to receive mail" issue is always over-emphasized and
mushroomed out of all realistic proportion by conspiracy theorists. In
point of fact, it doesn't really make a bit of difference if the name
"A. Hidell" was on Oswald's PO Box application or not. And that's
because the post office delivers mail to ADDRESSES, not PEOPLE.
Since Oswald had the key to PO Box 2915, he could take the paper slip
for the oversized item (the Carcano rifle) to the desk inside the post
office. The clerk would then assume that the person who has the slip
of paper in his hands (in this case, Oswald) got it from the PO Box it
was placed in (naturally), and therefore the clerk assumes that the
person who handed him the slip is entitled to the package.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes said that exact thing, in fact:
Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way
around the corner and a different place from the box, and the people
that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because nobody
knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The
man would take this card out. There is nothing on this card. There is
no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says,
"I got this out of my box." And he says, "What box?" "Box number so
and so." They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and
whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him, he just hands him the
package, and that is all there is to it.
Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification
because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was
entitled to it?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. It is very possible that that in fact is what happened
in case?
Mr. HOLMES. That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes2.htm
I know from my own personal experience with oversized packages that
nobody at the post office is going to ask for any I.D. in such a
situation. I've picked up many packages from my post office with those
yellow "We Have A Package For You" slips, and never once have I been
questioned about my identification.
Do conspiracy theorists really believe that every single package or
letter that is delivered to every PO Box in America has the NAME OF
THE BOX HOLDER on it? That's silly. Lots of mail with other names
besides the box holder gets delivered--every day of the week, and
that's because, as mentioned, mail is delivered to ADDRESSES, not
PEOPLE. It's quite likely that the mailmen who place letters into PO
boxes don't have the slightest idea who has been "entitled" to receive
mail in those boxes. They couldn't possibly have the time to double-
check all the names on the box applications to make sure they match.
For example, if a letter had your home address on it (or your PO Box
number), but the name right above the address was "Quincy P.
Scumbag" (a non-existent person), it's still going to be put in your
mailbox by the mailman. The letter carrier doesn't give a damn who the
addressee is, because he delivers to ADDRESSES.
I think this whole "entitled to receive" topic has been skewed in
another way too -- because it's quite likely that the people who are
listed as "entitled to receive mail" from PO boxes are simply the
people who are entitled to physically take the mail out of the boxes
(i.e., the people who have the keys to the box, like Oswald).
I do realize that the delivery of firearms is supposed to include an
additional piece of paperwork that apparently was not included with
Oswald's gun package in March of 1963. But that's certainly not
Oswald's fault. Nor is it the fault of the Dallas post office. If such
a form was not included on Oswald's rifle package, it's the fault of
Klein's in Chicago.
And even if that extra paper was included with LHO's rifle, so what?
Oswald would have simply signed the form with his phony "A. Hidell"
signature, and he then would have been handed the rifle and Oswald
would have been on his way.
Why do conspiracy theorists continue to make huge mountains out of the
tiniest of anthills?
>>> "Wow, thats amazing to me in America that you can pick up packages without ID from the post office. .... I always value your opinion David, Thanks for the American postal info. Knowing you guys and dolls (Americans) are usually so careful with security, I had just assumed the postal system was the same." <<<
What's so amazing about it? The only thing different is the SIZE of
the package. Since many boxes are too big to fit INSIDE a person's PO
Box or regular mailbox at their home, the addressee has to go pick it
up.
But if the package HAD been small enough to fit in the mailbox or PO
Box, you can bet the mail carrier would have put it in the box,
thereby making any such "pick-up" at the post office window altogether
unnecessary (except in special circumstances when a signature is
mandatory, which probably should have been the case with Oswald's
rifle parcel in 1963, but apparently Klein's didn't include the proper
form).
To repeat, I have never ONCE been asked for I.D. when taking one of
those yellow slips to the post office.
Now it's true that I never had a gun come through the mail. But I did
have a large Sherman tank delivered to me one time. And the darn thing
just wouldn't fit in the mailbox. But they still didn't want my
signature. :)
Bud
> On Mar 11, 7:48 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Can you show that the post office changed the way they deliver mail
> > from using names to using locations between 1963 and now? Just because
> > that is what your silly ideas require does not mean that is what
> > occurred.
>
> No Fatman, you're right.
>
> The post office procedures haven't changed in 47 years.
> The post office procedures haven't changed from when there were 160
> million people to the present 300 + million people.
<snicker> When you call the retards on their nonsense, you always
get this hyperbole instead of support. If it is your contention that
the post office delivered to people in 1963, but somewhere along the
line they started delivering to locations instead you need to support
that idea, not jus say it must be true because it is what your silly
ideas require to be valid.
> The post office box application required NAMES to be listed in part 3
> because they had no intention of using that information.
>
> Do you ever stop and realize how silly your arguments are ?
It`s not my argument. This is your show Gil. I told you what you
needed to support the idea you were advancing, that you needed to show
that an item with the name A Hidell with Oswald`s PO box number would
not be delivered to Oswald PO box. It`s not about me, it`s your idea,
and you aren`t producing what you need to support it.
> You tried to BS your way by saying that the names were listed for
> liability purposes.
No I didn`t , retard. I offered possible reasons why the post office
would require the names of the people using their facilities.
> You're BS artist, Fatman, and not a very good one at that.
>
> TRY POSTING EVIDENCE
Try supporting your idea using 1963 postal regulations. What retards
think this information indicates is meaningless.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On Mar 11, 2:47=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 10:56=A0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 10, 7:59=A0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 10, 7:45 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > Lets get back to basics, so you can drop this silly line of inquiry
>ily
>> > > > check these things with your local post office.
>>
>> > > > 1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
>> > > > delivered to the location written on the mail.
>>
>> > > > 2) Any person with access to the PO box can take mail out that is
>> > > > delivered to that PO box
>>
>> > > DANCE FATMAN DANCE
>>
>> > > Let's limit ourselves to what the postal regulations were in 1963,
>> > > shall we ?
>>
>> > > The evidence indicates that the application REQUIRED anyone "ENTITLED
>e
>> > > named on the application.
>>
>> > > THAT'S why there was a box on the application for that information.
>>
>r
>> > > than to receive mail.
>>
>> > > We're talking about what the evidence says, not about your opinions.
>>
>> > > Try using citations to the evidence.
>>
>> > > 1. The evidence indicates that the third portion of the application,
>> > > which named persons other than the applicant who were ENTITLED to
>> > > RECEIVE mail at that post office box, was destroyed in violation of
>o
>> > > be kept for two years after the box had been closed.
>>
>> > Oh boy.... It's been a long time ago, but as I recall I discovered
>> > that there was no portion destroyed.... The form was set up so the
>> > names of others authorized to use the box was on the reverse side of
>> > ago.....But I believe this is just some of the bullshit that's been
>> > propagated about this case.
>>
>> Oh boy, Walt is LYING AGAIN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WC!!
>>
>> lie Walt??
>>
>> Why is Walt always defending the WC?? Oh that is right, because he is
>> a WC shill!
>
>Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee....LOL... The stupid bastard is
>regurgitating the lies of Harry Holmes and Hoover's goons and he
>accuses me of being a Warren Commission schill....Aren't you
>embarrassed to display your stupidity in front of God and everybody??
This is a perfect example of what a moron Robsie is. If, as Walt believes he
remembers, the other names authorized were on the reverse (and this would be a
fascinating fact, were someone to post the form used in 1963...) - this doesn't
benefit the WC *AT ALL*. Indeed, it would demonstrate the lengths to which they
lied about their own evidence in order to create their theory.
>> > >http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
>>
>> > > 2. The evidence indicates that that record was destroyed BEFORE the
>> > > assassination, after the box was closed. The box was closed in May,
>> > > 1963
>>
>> > > Mr. HOLMES. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been
>> > > closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has no
>> > > more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
>>
>> > > Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
>>
>> > > Mr. HOLMES. Yes
>>
>> > > ( 7 H 527 )
>>
>> > > 3. But the FBI indicated in their report of June 3, 1964 ( CE 2585 )
>> > > that they had examined the document during their investigation into
>> > > the assassination and that there was no name other than Oswald's on
>> > > the application.
>>
>> > >http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
>>
>> > > So how did the FBI examine the third portion of the post office
>> > > application AFTER the assassination, when it was destroyed BEFORE the
>> > > assassination ?
>>
>> > > TROLLS ?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Mar 11, 3:50=EF=BF=BDpm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> SEE>>> =EF=BF=BDhttp://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
>This cementhead "Bud" has posted 15 times to this thread and hasn't
>posted one link, one piece of testimony or one piece of evidence.
>
>Not a single citation.
>
>And he STILL hasn't explained how the FBI was able to determine that
>Hidell wasn't on the application when part 3 of that application was
>destroyed in May, 1963.
>
>The Fatman is a real loser, no matter what screenname he uses.
I wonder that anyone still bothers to respond to his nonsense. I kill-filed him
ages ago for precisely this. A refusal to cite, a refusal to support his own
assertions, and a refusal to admit when he'd been nailed to the wall with the
evidence.
Life is too short to play with trolls... (unless, I hasten to add, it's
amusing!)
Bud
> On Mar 11, 3:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> This cementhead "Bud" has posted 15 times to this thread and hasn't
> posted one link, one piece of testimony or one piece of evidence.
It`s your idea, retard, you need to support it. You are on record
that you think this form indicates something. How meaningless is
that?
> Not a single citation.
You quote Holmes, but none of what you quote speaks to your
contention that a rifle in Hidel`s name addressed to Oswald`s PO box
would not be delivered to Oswald`s PO box. It`s not about me, retard,
it`s not my fault, I didn`t make you an idiot.
> And he STILL hasn't explained how the FBI was able to determine that
> Hidell wasn't on the application when part 3 of that application was
> destroyed in May, 1963.
I haven`t tried. It`s only a diversionary tactic to draw attention
away from the fact that you can`t support the idea you originally
presented.
> The Fatman is a real loser, no matter what screenname he uses.
Retards on the Case! They think they are going to solve the "Crime
of the Century", but they can`t even figure out how mail works.
Bud
> In article <d02066f8-605b-4b50-b6d9-e1f48a188...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 11, 3:50=EF=BF=BDpm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> SEE>>> =EF=BF=BDhttp://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> >This cementhead "Bud" has posted 15 times to this thread and hasn't
> >posted one link, one piece of testimony or one piece of evidence.
>
> >Not a single citation.
>
> >And he STILL hasn't explained how the FBI was able to determine that
> >Hidell wasn't on the application when part 3 of that application was
> >destroyed in May, 1963.
>
> >The Fatman is a real loser, no matter what screenname he uses.
>
> I wonder that anyone still bothers to respond to his nonsense. I kill-filed him
> ages ago for precisely this.
Thats true, you killfiled me for telling the truth, and you kooks
hate the truth. But I would have given more credit than Gil when it
came to knowing a simple thing like how mail is handled.
> A refusal to cite, a refusal to support his own
> assertions, and a refusal to admit when he'd been nailed to the wall with the
> evidence.
<snicker> I don`t need to do anything. It`s Gil`s idea that a rifle
sent to Oswald`s PO box under a different name would not come into
Oswald`s possession. I only asked for him to support this idea, which
he hasn`t. Which he can`t, because he is wrong about how mail is
handled.
But since you kooks are crying for a cite, heres one (which will
have no impact on the preconceived notions of you kooks)....
Look at the bottom of this Wikipedia page on how to properly address
mail. Under the "United States" example, it has the following...
"Mail will be delivered to the line immediately above the city,
state, zip code line."
That is where either the address or PO box number goes.
But you retards don`t have to take my word for it, or Wikipedia`s,
just crawl out from under your rocks and head out to your local post
office and ask them. Or wait around until they fill the PO boxes with
mail. You will see that they consult no list with names of who the
boxes are owned and operated by, they merely match the PO box numbers
on the mail to the PO boxes.
> Life is too short to play with trolls... (unless, I hasten to add, it's
> amusing!)
Yah, you are much better suited to match wits with the likes of
robcap, anything more than that is out pf your league.
mucher1
So true :)
Gil Jesus
> �Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> box?
The names were on the boxes.
Gil Jesus
> You are on record
> that you think this form indicates something. How meaningless is
> that?
ROFLMAO
Bud
> On Mar 10, 11:18 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > box?
>
> The names were on the boxes.
Lets see you support that.
Gil Jesus
You're right, fatman. The form means nothing.
That's why they destroyed part 3 in Dallas in violation of postal
regulations and in New Orleans they didn't.
You're the one who claims that you know how postal procedure was done
in in Dallas in 1963 and that it was the same as today.
I've presented what the evidence shows. Now it's your turn.
Let's see some citations.
Bud
>
> > You are on record
> > that you think this form indicates something. How meaningless is
> > that?
>
> ROFLMAO
I know, I laughed when you said the evidence indicated your claim
also. You think the evidence indicates JFK was choking on a bullet.
You think the evidence indicates Connally shot JFK. You need a little
more support than what a retard thinks the evidence indicates.
Bud
> On Mar 12, 6:53 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > You are on record
> > > that you think this form indicates something. How meaningless is
> > > that?
>
> > ROFLMAO
>
> You're right, fatman. The form means nothing.
Why do you always misrepresent my position? I didn`t say it doesn`t
mean anything, it`s means Oswald had access to the mail that was sent
to that PO box, including the rifle that killed Kennedy. You just
haven`t shown that the form means what you claim it does.
> That's why they destroyed part 3 in Dallas in violation of postal
> regulations and in New Orleans they didn't.
>
> You're the one who claims that you know how postal procedure was done
> in in Dallas in 1963 and that it was the same as today.
No retard, you are are the one who said that procedures are
different now than they were then regarding PO boxes. The only reason
you want to believe that is because your silly idea requires it to be
so.
> I've presented what the evidence shows. Now it's your turn.
No, your still up, you haven`t shown that an item mailed to Oswald`s
PO box with his PO box number on it but with a name other than
Oswald`s wouldn`t be delivered to his PO box. Without that what you
presented doesn`t amount to anything.
> Let's see some citations.
I don`t need them. I only need to point out that nothing you`ve
produced speaks to the issue of whether a rifle with the name of Hidel
and Oswald`s PO box number on it would wind up in his possession. You
produce a lot of meaningless stuff, but nothing that speaks to the
central issue you raised.
Bud
Here Gil, heres a bank of PO boxes from 1910. See if you can see any
names on them...
http://www.telephonearchive.com/dmworkshop/assets/po_boxes/poboxes2_800wide.JPG
I suppose you`ll say that in 1910 they used numbers, but for some
reason they went to name in Dallas in 1963, then they went back to
numbers in the present. Whatever you need to pretend to think your
idea has merit.
Gil Jesus
> > Let's see some citations.
>
> � I don`t need them. I only need to point out that nothing you`ve
> produced speaks to the issue of whether a rifle with the name of Hidel
> and Oswald`s PO box number on it would wind up in his possession. You
> produce a lot of meaningless stuff, but nothing that speaks to the
> central issue you raised.
"Hidell's" name was not on the application in Dallas for persons who
were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL
at box 2915. That's a fact.
You say it doesn't matter and now you refuse to post citations
supporting your claim.
You're FOS Fatman. Now the world knows it.
I guess the debate ends there.
mucher1
Seems Bud wins by default.
Walt
> On Mar 12, 7:16 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Let's see some citations.
>
> > I don`t need them. I only need to point out that nothing you`ve
> > produced speaks to the issue of whether a rifle with the name of Hidel
> > and Oswald`s PO box number on it would wind up in his possession. You
> > produce a lot of meaningless stuff, but nothing that speaks to the
> > central issue you raised.
>
> "Hidell's" name was not on the application in Dallas for persons who
> were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL
> at box 2915. That's a fact.
You're right, Gil... There were NO other names on the box rental
form....and yet Marina received mail at that PO box. If Lee H oswald
was the ONLY person authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 then
Marina could not have received mail at that address.
This debate about whether Oswald could have received any mail if he
didn't use the EXACT name on the application is just a lot of
disinformation which is intended to bog down any meaningful
investigation. It was one of Hoover's favorite tricks..... He threw
so much disinformation in with factual information that the HONEST
Warren Commissioners were overwhelmed. Hoovers antics were twi-
fold.... (A) Overwhelm the bastards with nonsense information....and
(B) make it appear that the FBI was leaving no stone unturned in their
investigation.
Chuck Schuyler
Gil is still batting a perfect .000 since he's been posting here.
I think he's .000 for life.
Bud
> On Mar 12, 7:16 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Let's see some citations.
>
> > I don`t need them. I only need to point out that nothing you`ve
> > produced speaks to the issue of whether a rifle with the name of Hidel
> > and Oswald`s PO box number on it would wind up in his possession. You
> > produce a lot of meaningless stuff, but nothing that speaks to the
> > central issue you raised.
>
> "Hidell's" name was not on the application in Dallas for persons who
> were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL
> at box 2915. That's a fact.
That may be true, and it may not, since you haven`t established how
Holmes (the postal inspector, not the retard) was using the word
"entitled". It could very mean that if you rent a PO box, i cannot
demand to receive mail to that box because I am not entitled. There
are a lot of ways it could have been meant, you need to establish your
reading of it to be correct. But really, how likely is that, are you
ever right? I doubt you could hit water if you fell out of a boat.
In any case, this is all irrelevant, because what you really need to
show to support your idea is that mail with the name "Hidell"
addressed to Oswald`s PO box would not come into Oswald`s possession.
Nothing you have offered speaks to that.
> You say it doesn't matter and now you refuse to post citations
> supporting your claim.
I didn`t start this post, I didn`t present an idea I can`t support,
you did.
When you went down to the post office and asked them, what did they
tell you?
> You're FOS Fatman. Now the world knows it.
The people who can figure out how mail works know I am right. To the
CT retards that never venture forth from their hovels mail is some
sort of mysterious occurrence, with the post office tracking down
individuals to hand them their mail.
> I guess the debate ends there.
Cut and run, retard. Post your ignorance again in a few months, I`ll
be here.
Bud
> On Mar 12, 6:46 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:16 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Let's see some citations.
>
> > > I don`t need them. I only need to point out that nothing you`ve
> > > produced speaks to the issue of whether a rifle with the name of Hidel
> > > and Oswald`s PO box number on it would wind up in his possession. You
> > > produce a lot of meaningless stuff, but nothing that speaks to the
> > > central issue you raised.
>
> > "Hidell's" name was not on the application in Dallas for persons who
> > were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL
> > at box 2915. That's a fact.
>
> You're right, Gil... There were NO other names on the box rental
> form....and yet Marina received mail at that PO box. If Lee H oswald
> was the ONLY person authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 then
> Marina could not have received mail at that address.
OUCH!
What mail did Marina receive in the PO box, Walt?
> This debate about whether Oswald could have received any mail if he
> didn't use the EXACT name on the application is just a lot of
> disinformation which is intended to bog down any meaningful
> investigation. It was one of Hoover's favorite tricks.....
Are you saying Gil is a disinfo agent?
Walt
> On Mar 12, 8:37 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 6:46 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 7:16 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Let's see some citations.
>
> > > > I don`t need them. I only need to point out that nothing you`ve
> > > > produced speaks to the issue of whether a rifle with the name of Hidel
> > > > and Oswald`s PO box number on it would wind up in his possession. You
> > > > produce a lot of meaningless stuff, but nothing that speaks to the
> > > > central issue you raised.
>
> > > "Hidell's" name was not on the application in Dallas for persons who
> > > were ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL
> > > at box 2915. That's a fact.
>
> > You're right, Gil... There were NO other names on the box rental
> > form....and yet Marina received mail at that PO box. If Lee H oswald
> > was the ONLY person authorized to receive mail at PO Box 2915 then
> > Marina could not have received mail at that address.
>
> OUCH!
>
> What mail did Marina receive in the PO box, Walt?
She received letters from her friends in Russia, and she received mail
from Ruth Pain. ( photocopies of the envelopes are available in the
records.)
>
> > This debate about whether Oswald could have received any mail if he
> > didn't use the EXACT name on the application is just a lot of
> > disinformation which is intended to bog down any meaningful
> > investigation. It was one of Hoover's favorite tricks.....
>
> Are you saying Gil is a disinfo agent?
Yes he is..... Unwittingly I'm sure....but a disinformationalist for
sure.
>
>
>
> >He threw
> > so much disinformation in with factual information that the HONEST
> > Warren Commissioners were overwhelmed. Hoovers antics were twi-
> > fold.... (A) Overwhelm the bastards with nonsense information....and
> > (B) make it appear that the FBI was leaving no stone unturned in their
> > investigation.
>
> > > You say it doesn't matter and now you refuse to post citations
> > > supporting your claim.
>
> > > You're FOS Fatman. Now the world knows it.
>
> > > I guess the debate ends there.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <fcbec7ad-8750-47cc-8bd7-7201ec669...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip all moderation and game playing!)
> Now, why not answer the question? How can I be afraid to cite it when I've told
> you repeatedly that I'll do so as soon as you define the term "evidence?"
YOU said it existed. Let's see his WORDS!
“CE399 eminated (sic) from ***Oswald's rifle***;” (Brandon Alexander)
“True.” (Ben Holmes—8/27/03)
Ben AGREED with Brandon Alexander that there was SUCH A THING AS
OSWALD'S RIFLE!
Then he made us FAMOUS PRONOUNCEMENT that there was evidence showing
us LHO owned the alleged murder weapon (CE-139)!!
“YOU are a liar. There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned
CE-139.” (Robert)
“Untrue.” (Ben Holmes—2/4/10)
And:
“Yep... still untrue. There certainly *IS* evidence that shows that
LHO owned C-139.” (Ben Holmes—2/12/10)
And:
“I'll be *HAPPY* to cite the evidence... you see, it *DOES*
exist.” (Ben Holmes—2/16/10)
And:
“…why did YOU say there was evidence showing LHO owned the alleged
murder weapon again?” (Robert, edited by Ben)
“I said it because it's true.” (Ben Holmes—2/11/10)
NOW, he made this FAMOUS PRONOUNCEMENT BEFORE asking me MY definition
for the word evidence! He said this with nary a worry about HOW I
DEFINED EVIDENCE! SO when I asked him to cite this evidence he so
BOLDLY CLAIMED EXISTED, he began playing games like this!
“When you provide a cite for the meaning of the word (evidence) *THAT
YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT AS AUTHORITATIVE*, then I'll be happy to list
the evidence that Oswald owned CE-139.
You see, it *DOES* exist - and you've simply lied.” (Ben Holmes—
2/12/10)
Why did he NOT care about what MY definition of the word "evidence"
was BEFORE HE CLAIMED IT EXISTED??? He blames me for HIS INABILITY TO
CITE EVIDENCE SHOWING LHO OWNED THE ALLEGED MURDER WEAPON AS HE AND
THE WC CLAIMED!
“Because you'll simply deny that I've cited evidence, as you've
repeatedly done in the past.” (Ben Holmes—2/17/10)
Even in this statment he lies! I never deny he cites OFFICIAL
EVIDENCE, I simply DENY IT SUPPORTS OR PROVES THE CLAIM IT IS TIED TO!
There is NO evidence showing LHO ever owned ANY rifle, let alone the
alleged murder weapon! The reason for this is the WC's OWN evidence
is TIED TO A 36" Carbine! They also have NO evidence showing HE EVER
RECEIVED THE RIFLE at the P.O. Box as they claimed!
Their evidence is totally UNSUPPORTIVE of the claims they made (the
same claims Ben is making now!) and this has always been my point.
Ben likes to claim evidence does NOT have to support or prove anything
to be evidence! LOL! It doesn't have to, but let's be honest, what
value does it have if it doesn't?? NONE is the correct answer!
Ben is a liar who is here to frame LHO. Tis that simple. He is a
coward who won't even support or back up his OWN WORDS!
(snip all cheap hawking of goods and services on a board that is
designed to discuss the murder of our 35th President!)
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Mar 11, 3:37 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 4:18 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 2:29 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > BTW, Gil A.Hidell couldn`t receive mail anywhere, he didn`t exist.
> > > > > > > > > But any mail, no matter whos name was on it would be delivered to the
> > > > > > > > > PO box on the mail.
>
> > > > > > > > YOU're a liar Bud, you can't DELIVER MAIL (or give out mail) to a box
> > > > > > > > a person is NOT indentified with! Tis that simple.
>
> > > > > > > Another retard heard from. All these ace investigators can`t even
> > > > > > > figure out how the mail works.
>
> > > > > > IT was a LAW to add names to the postal application in 1963 on PAGE
> > > > > > THREE! LHO did NOT add the name "A. Hidell", thus they would not know
> > > > > > a package for this person (which was never received anyway based on
> > > > > > the evidence) should be put into LHO's box.
>
> > > > > So it`s your contention that the post office check against the
> > > > > application to make sure that all mail put in the PO box has the names
> > > > > of one of the people listed on the application, right?
>
> > > > IF someone does NOT have authority to receive mail in a particular
> > > > P.O. Box (this is done via Page 3 of the postal app), why would they
> > > > get mail in that P.O. Box?
>
> > > Did you give the post office "authority" to deliver mail to your
> > > location?
>
> > If I signed up for a P.O. Box I would have to con man.
>
> <snicker> You don`t give the post office authority to deliver mail,
> retard. They deliver it to where it is addressed without any expressed
> permission.
Explain the application con man! Why have folks fill out one and then
KEEP IT FOR TWO YEARS AFTER THEY CLOSE THE BOX if the name tied to the
box is irrelevant as YOU claim!
OF couse the con man won't.
> > Why do you
> > keep trying to make this about something it is NOT about?
>
> Read Gil`s initial post and report back on what it IS about.
IT is about a P.O. Box con man, NOT delivery to a house or business!
> > > > Furthermore, how would the sorter know to
> > > > put it in that particular box (in this case a notice in LHO's box
> > > > allegedly) when the name A. Hidell is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BOX?
>
> > > As explained, they don`t deliver to people, they deliver to
> > > locations. A PO box is a location.
>
> > NO it is not moron, it is RENTED TO A PERSON you idiot!
>
> It is a location with an address retard. The address is the PO box
> number.
Yes, and those boxes are RENTED to an individual, company or group of
people who have to be LISTED ON THE APPLICATION con man! NO one has
to go to the P.O. to say "This is who can receive mail at my house!"
> > IF the name
> > on the letter or package is NOT matched to the Box# they can't deliver
> > it!
>
> Stop embarrassing yourself and go to the post office and ask. They
> will confirm what I`m telling you.
NO they won't liar, and that is the sad part, EVERYONE with a working
brain (That leaves you and Walt out) knows you are the one lying. It
is quite obvious too.
> > Why do you tell such obvious lies?
>
> Why do you cling to an obviously false position? Is it retarded
> desperation to pretend Oswald didn`t kill anyone?
Why do you claim the P.O. delivers mail to folks who are not listed on
the Box application! DO you hate Postal employees too?
> > > > > What did they
> > > > > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > > > > addressed to that PO box?
>
> > > > They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box.
>
> > > This is just a retard asserting something he hasn`t a clue about.
>
> > YOU are the one with NO clue as you keep associating a RENTED box with
> > a house delivery!
>
> No difference to the post office, they deliver to addresses, not
> people. The PO box number is an address.
LOL!! Then why do you have to FILL OUT AN APPLICATION FOR THE BOX BUT
NOT FOR YOUR HOUSE??? YOU do hate Postal workers too, don't you?
> > > > Just like
> > > > if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> > > > GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> > > > correct address.
>
> > > The address is a location, retard, not a person.
>
> > TRUE, but we are talking about a RENTED BOX moron, NOT LHO's
> > roominghouse!
>
> Both have addresses, and the post office delivers to addresses.
Did you fill out an application for mail delivery to your house??
> > WHY tell such obvious lies?
>
> > > > IF YOU open it when it was accidently put in your
> > > > box you have JUST VIOLATED A FEDERAL LAW!
>
> > > > > > > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > > > > > > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > > > > > > box?
>
> > > > > > This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
> > > > > > See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT!
>
> > > > > They sort by address, retard. Location.
>
> > > > NOT for P.O. Boxes they don't moron!
>
> > > Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
>
> > The BOX IS RENTED you lying con man, and the NAME IS ON THE RENTAL
> > APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANYONE WHO CAN GET MAIL THERE!
>
> Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
I, unlike YOU, don't have to ask questions for COMMON SENSE THINGS!
Why do you hate Postal workers sooooo much?
> > A. Hidell was NOT on the Page 3 section of LHO's box, period. Folks
> > sign up for boxes as there are more safeguards for their mail than
> > regular house deliveries.
>
> Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
YOU are a pathetic con man.
> > What a pathetic liar you are!
>
> Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
YOU are as obvious as a three dollar bill liar.
> > > > We are NOT discussing general
> > > > mail delivery to houses, but rather a delivery to a P.O. BOX SIGNED UP
> > > > FOR BY A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD TO LIST THE FOLKS ELIGIBLE FOR MAIL
> > > > AT THAT SITE!
>
> > > Not "eligible" retard.
>
> > Lying won't save you moron. Why lie when you claim to be telling the
> > truth?
>
> Where did you get "eligible" from, retard?
From Page 3 moron. IF the name was not listed on that PART OF THE
APPLICATION they could NOT deliver mail for that person! THE NAME OF
A.J. HIDELL was NOT on that part of the application for LHO!
Answer this for me con man! Since LHO would be dumb enough to pose
with the rifle and leave it at the TSBD according to liars like you,
WHY DID HE NOT JUST USE HIS REAL NAME FOR THE DELIVERY????
See, IF he want anonymitiy, he could have WALKED INTO ANY NUMBER OF
STORES IN DALLAS AND PURCHASED THE RIFLE WITH NO TRACE!
> > > > YOU are trying to confuse this with general mail delivery con man and
> > > > it won't work.
>
> > > > > > Tell us how they
> > > > > > would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> > > > > > 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> > > > > > LHO's or anyone else's box???
>
> > > > > The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name.
>
> > > > They don't for a P.O. Box?? So anyone can go in and rent a box without
> > > > giving a name????
>
> > > They don`t give a fuck whos name is on the mail they deliver to the
> > > PO box,
>
> > Prove it. Cite some Postal regs that say this con man!
>
> Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
Just as I thought! YOU are a liar who can't support his words!
> > > they deliver any mail, no matter what the name is, as long as
> > > it has that particular PO box number on it.
>
> > Liar, aren't you?? Prove it with some cites as you don't expect folks
> > to take the word of a liar like you, do you?
>
> I have nothing to prove, especially to a retard.
The correct wording is YOU can't prove anything!
> It is Gil`s (and
> your) contention that an item with the name A.Hidell addressed to
> Oswald`s PO box would not be delivered to that PO box.
It is also the contention of Holmes, the Post Office and the FBI!
> I`ve seen no
> support for that idea from either one of you.
Liar, aren't you?? Gil posted support for this in the FIRST POST!
> But apparently Gil took
> me up on the challenge and went to the post office and asked them, so
> he had to pretend that the way they handled the mail was somehow
> different in 1963. Of course he couldn`t support that idea either.
Telling obvious lies won't win any converts to your side con man.
> > > > Why have anyone fill out an application then con
> > > > man?
>
> > > So they know who to bill.
>
> > LOL!! So they can be billed for GETTING MAIL FOR A BUNCH OF OTHER
> > PEOPLE ACCORDING TO BUD!
>
> You rent the PO box, retard, you aren`t charged by the letter for
> what mail is put in it.
I was kidding moron! I was having some fun at the expense of a con
man!
> > > > > You think when
> > > > > the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
> > > > > lives there?
>
> > > > That is YOUR problem con man, we are NOT DISCUSSING A HOUSE, we are
> > > > discussing a P.O. Box!
>
> > > We are discussing a location mail is delivered to.
>
> > NO we are discussing a box that has to be rented and NAMES HAD TO BE
> > LISTED on the application!
>
> A box with an address where mail with that address is delivered.
ONLY to folks LISTED ON THE APPLICATION. Liar, aren't you?? NOW tell
us why LHO would NOT just his own name since he was obviously not
worried about leaving a trail anyway.
But he won't.
> > > > > What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
> > > > > going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
> > > > > to locations, period.
>
> > > > We are discussing a P.O. Box that is RENTED liar, stick with the topic
> > > > at hand.
>
> > > > > >Then tell us what the odds were that
> > > > > > this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> > > > > > I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> > > > > > package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
>
> > > > > It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package.
>
> > > > IT is for P.O. Box if the name is NOT listed??? Cite for this.
>
> > > Why don`t you make an effort to cure your own ignorance for a
> > > change? Go to the post office and ask them.
>
> > NO cite as expected. He just spouts the lies his boss/handler tell
> > him. Too bad for NONE of them make a lick of sense to anyone!
>
> Have mommy take you to the post office and have her ask the nice man
> who works there how PO boxes work, I`m sure he will be happy to
> provide this information.
I know how they work, YOU seem to be the one with lack of knowledge
liar. Besides, what MY post office does in 2010 as NO bearing on what
the DALLAS post office did in 1963 con man!
> > > > Then
> > > > show us when LHO picked up this package with evidence!
>
> > > It doesn`t matter when he did it, it only matters that he did.
>
> > LOL!! Sure it does. Keep on believing in this dogma Bud, you are a
> > total loser. Show us evidence showing LHO received the rifle or admit
> > you are a liar who likes to frame LHO.
>
> How about I show the lengths retards will go to pretend he is
> innocent instead?
SO we have learned from this post that BUD HATES POSTAL EMPLOYEES AS
MUCH AS HE HATES LHO!
> > > > > If a package is
> > > > > too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
> > > > > the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
> > > > > houses you`d know these things.
>
> > > > How would they know who to send the notification to for the box??
>
> > > Same way they know where to send the bill for the PO box to.
>
> > Cite please. But he won't.
>
> No he wont. But he will tell you where you can go to enlighten
> yourself. Just hold mommy`s hand when she crosses you, you`ll get
> there fine.
What is it like to have to lie constantly?? I mean YOU can NEVER
support your words with cites!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Mar 11, 2:47 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 10, 10:56 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 10, 7:59 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 10, 7:45 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Lets get back to basics, so you can drop this silly line of inquiry
> > > > > check these things with your local post office.
>
> > > > > 1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
> > > > > delivered to the location written on the mail.
>
> > > > > 2) Any person with access to the PO box can take mail out that is
> > > > > delivered to that PO box
>
> > > > DANCE FATMAN DANCE
>
> > > > Let's limit ourselves to what the postal regulations were in 1963,
> > > > shall we ?
>
> > > > The evidence indicates that the application REQUIRED anyone "ENTITLED
> > > > named on the application.
>
> > > > THAT'S why there was a box on the application for that information.
>
> > > > than to receive mail.
>
> > > > We're talking about what the evidence says, not about your opinions.
>
> > > > Try using citations to the evidence.
>
> > > > 1. The evidence indicates that the third portion of the application,
> > > > which named persons other than the applicant who were ENTITLED to
> > > > RECEIVE mail at that post office box, was destroyed in violation of
> > > > be kept for two years after the box had been closed.
>
> > > Oh boy.... It's been a long time ago, but as I recall I discovered
> > > that there was no portion destroyed.... The form was set up so the
> > > names of others authorized to use the box was on the reverse side of
> > > ago.....But I believe this is just some of the bullshit that's been
> > > propagated about this case.
>
> > Oh boy, Walt is LYING AGAIN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WC!!
>
> > lie Walt??
>
> > Why is Walt always defending the WC?? Oh that is right, because he is
> > a WC shill!
>
> Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee....LOL... The stupid bastard is
> regurgitating the lies of Harry Holmes and Hoover's goons and he
> accuses me of being a Warren Commission schill....Aren't you
> embarrassed to display your stupidity in front of God and everybody??
Holmes told the TRUTH TO THE N.Y. TIMES A WEEK AFTER THE KILLING, WHO
MENTIONED THE WC BEYOND YOU?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <2083d914-abb3-4836-94bf-90dc25f7c...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
This is another example of how the WC shills defend each other's
ridiculous comments!
LOL! Do you have any idea of the evidence in this area Ben?? I smell
a new "Walt lies and Ben jives" post!
> If, as Walt believes he
> remembers, the other names authorized were on the reverse (and this would be a
> fascinating fact, were someone to post the form used in 1963...) - this doesn't
> benefit the WC *AT ALL*.
LOL!! HE is depending on Walt's memory! Walt COULDN'T CITE FOR THIS
BELIEF YOU IDIOT!
> Indeed, it would demonstrate the lengths to which they
> lied about their own evidence in order to create their theory.
The evidence shows us NO name of A.J Hidell was ever on LHO's page 3,
I suggest you go and learn the evidence before you show your WC shill
colors even more!
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d02066f8-605b-4b50-b6d9-e1f48a188...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
> >On Mar 11, 3:50=EF=BF=BDpm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> SEE>>> =EF=BF=BDhttp://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> >This cementhead "Bud" has posted 15 times to this thread and hasn't
> >posted one link, one piece of testimony or one piece of evidence.
>
> >Not a single citation.
>
> >And he STILL hasn't explained how the FBI was able to determine that
> >Hidell wasn't on the application when part 3 of that application was
> >destroyed in May, 1963.
>
> >The Fatman is a real loser, no matter what screenname he uses.
>
> I wonder that anyone still bothers to respond to his nonsense. I kill-filed him
> ages ago for precisely this. A refusal to cite, a refusal to support his own
> assertions, and a refusal to admit when he'd been nailed to the wall with the
> evidence.
He just SUMMED UP WALT'S BEHAVIOR TO A "T", yet he supports and
defends him at every opportunity! LOL!!
> Life is too short to play with trolls... (unless, I hasten to add, it's
> amusing!)
It is amusing dealing with a lying troll like YOU!
Walt
As I recall ...the reverse side of part #2 was set up to fill in the
names of others who were authorized to use the PO Box. The form was
perforated for easy detachment Pat #1 and #2 were on the face of the
card part number #3 was on the reverse side of part #2. Part #3 on
the reverse side of part #2 was primarily used for businesses who also
used other business names.
I believe I discovered this information when I compared a front and
rear photos of the form.... I can't remember where I saw that. The
authorities also used the same ruse when they presented Oswald's ID
cards ..... They pretended that One card was actually two separate
cards when in reality the photos were of the front and reverse of the
same card.
> > Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com-Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:24b452f1-a4fb-41de...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 11, 4:12=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <fcbec7ad-8750-47cc-8bd7-7201ec669...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.=
<Snipped due to Robsie's censorship>
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:fb0da682-1100-41ed...@d2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 11, 8:20=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <2083d914-abb3-4836-94bf-90dc25f7c...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>> >On Mar 11, 2:47=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> >wrote:
>> >> On Mar 10, 10:56=3DA0pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Mar 10, 7:59=3DA0am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Mar 10, 7:45 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>iry
>> >> > > > and get back to your stalking. Two things are true, and you can =
>eas=3D
>> >ily
>> >> > > > check these things with your local post office.
>>
>> >> > > > 1) Any mail, regardless of the name written on the mail, will be
>> >> > > > delivered to the location written on the mail.
>>
>s
>> >> > > > delivered to that PO box
>>
>> >> > > DANCE FATMAN DANCE
>>
>> >> > > Let's limit ourselves to what the postal regulations were in 1963,
>> >> > > shall we ?
>>
>LED
>> >> > > TO RECEIVE" mail at the post office box other than the applicant t=
>o b=3D
>> >e
>> >> > > named on the application.
>>
>.
>>
>> >> > > The application says nothing about naming others for any purpose o=
>the=3D
>> >r
>> >> > > than to receive mail.
>>
>s.
>>
>> >> > > Try using citations to the evidence.
>>
>n,
>> >> > > which named persons other than the applicant who were ENTITLED to
>f
>> >> > > postal regulations effective March, 1963, which required the recor=
>d t=3D
>> >o
>> >> > > be kept for two years after the box had been closed.
>>
>> >> > Oh boy.... It's been a long time ago, but as I recall I discovered
>> >> > that there was no portion destroyed.... The form was set up so the
>> >> > names of others authorized to use the box was on the reverse side of
>> >> > ago.....But I believe this is just some of the bullshit that's been
>> >> > propagated about this case.
>>
>> >> Oh boy, Walt is LYING AGAIN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WC!!
>>
> Why
>> >> lie Walt??
>>
>> >> Why is Walt always defending the WC?? Oh that is right, because he is
>> >> a WC shill!
>>
>> >Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee....LOL... The stupid bastard is
>> >regurgitating the lies of Harry Holmes and Hoover's goons and he
>> >accuses me of being a Warren Commission schill....Aren't you
>> >embarrassed to display your stupidity in front of God and everybody??
>>
>> This is a perfect example of what a moron Robsie is.
<moderated>
>LOL! Do you have any idea of the evidence in this area Ben??
What do you mean when you use the word "evidence?"
For otherwise, I cannot answer the question.
<moderated>
>> If, as Walt believes he remembers, the other names authorized
>> were on the reverse (and this would be a fascinating fact, were
>> someone to post the form used in 1963...) - this doesn't
>> benefit the WC *AT ALL*.
<moderated>
>> Indeed, it would demonstrate the lengths to which they
>> lied about their own evidence in order to create their theory.
>
>The evidence shows us NO name of A.J Hidell was ever on LHO's page 3,
I didn't expect *you* to understand.
<moderated>
>> >> > >http://i41.tinypic.com/2jfhyrn.jpg
>>
>> >> > > 2. The evidence indicates that that record was destroyed BEFORE th=
>e
>> >> > > assassination, after the box was closed. The box was closed in May=
>,
>> >> > > 1963
>>
>> >> > > Mr. HOLMES. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been
>> >> > > closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has=
> no
>> >> > > more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
>>
>> >> > > Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
>>
>> >> > > Mr. HOLMES. Yes
>>
>> >> > > ( 7 H 527 )
>>
>> >> > > 3. But the FBI indicated in their report of June 3, 1964 ( CE 2585=
> )
>> >> > > that they had examined the document during their investigation int=
>o
>> >> > > the assassination and that there was no name other than Oswald's o=
>n
>> >> > > the application.
>>
>> >> > >http://i39.tinypic.com/4io6km.jpg
>>
>> >> > > So how did the FBI examine the third portion of the post office
>> >> > > application AFTER the assassination, when it was destroyed BEFORE =
>the
>> >> > > assassination ?
>>
>> >> > > TROLLS ?
Bud
> Citation that Marina received mail at P O Box 2915?
A letter from the Russian Embassy to Marina...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1133&relPageId=45
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <67141007-585d-4dc8-bd43-167a8b13d...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
(snip old stuff)
> >> >> > Oh boy.... It's been a long time ago, but as I recall I discovered
> >> >> > that there was no portion destroyed.... The form was set up so the
> >> >> > names of others authorized to use the box was on the reverse side of
> >> >> > the form. =3DA0 =3DA0I could be wrong because it's been a long time
> >> >> > ago.....But I believe this is just some of the bullshit that's been
> >> >> > propagated about this case.
>
> >> >> Oh boy, Walt is LYING AGAIN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WC!!
>
> >> >> The page 3 section was destroyed PER HOLMES! =3DA0The FBI said so too!=
> > Why
> >> >> lie Walt??
>
> >> >> Why is Walt always defending the WC?? Oh that is right, because he is
> >> >> a WC shill!
>
> >> >Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee....LOL... The stupid bastard is
> >> >regurgitating the lies of Harry Holmes and Hoover's goons and he
> >> >accuses me of being a Warren Commission schill....Aren't you
> >> >embarrassed to display your stupidity in front of God and everybody??
>
(snip all moderation of my words)
> >LOL! Do you have any idea of the evidence in this area Ben??
>
> What do you mean when you use the word "evidence?"
Just as I thought, the TRAINED SEAL has no clue!
> For otherwise, I cannot answer the question.
YOU are supporting a lie, so who cares what you do!
(snip all moderation of my words)
> >> Indeed, it would demonstrate the lengths to which they
> >> lied about their own evidence in order to create their theory.
>
> >The evidence shows us NO name of A.J Hidell was ever on LHO's page 3,
>
> I didn't expect *you* to understand.
Run WC shill, run! Stepped in it again, huh?
(snip all moderation of my words)
(snip disgusting HAWKING of services!)
Chuck Schuyler
> On Mar 12, 1:25 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Citation that Marina received mail at P O Box 2915?
>
> A letter from the Russian Embassy to Marina...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1133&relPageId=45
Good find, Bud, but the kooks are going to claim that the letter was
actually sent to PO Box 2015. They are going to demand proof be
provided showing Marina didn't rent a PO Box 2015.
Looking on the right side of the letter, the kooks are going to claim
the letter was sent in 1063. Thus, this is proof to the kook mind that
the JFK asssassination was actually planned 900 years in advance and
actuallypredated the crowning of King William l the Conqueror, first
Norman King of England.
Bud
It`s an application, retard. Anything else you need explained?
> Why have folks fill out one and then
> KEEP IT FOR TWO YEARS AFTER THEY CLOSE THE BOX if the name tied to the
> box is irrelevant as YOU claim!
I didn`t make that claim, retard, I said that it was irrelevant to
the post office what name was on the mail that was put in the PO box.
A subtle difference your retarded mind will not grasp no matter how
many times I repeat it.
> OF couse the con man won't.
>
> > > Why do you
> > > keep trying to make this about something it is NOT about?
>
> > Read Gil`s initial post and report back on what it IS about.
>
> IT is about a P.O. Box con man, NOT delivery to a house or business!
Good, good, you were able discern something from Gil intitial post.
Now, what was Gil`s contention regarding that PO box?
> > > > > Furthermore, how would the sorter know to
> > > > > put it in that particular box (in this case a notice in LHO's box
> > > > > allegedly) when the name A. Hidell is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BOX?
>
> > > > As explained, they don`t deliver to people, they deliver to
> > > > locations. A PO box is a location.
>
> > > NO it is not moron, it is RENTED TO A PERSON you idiot!
>
> > It is a location with an address retard. The address is the PO box
> > number.
>
> Yes, and those boxes are RENTED to an individual, company or group of
> people who have to be LISTED ON THE APPLICATION con man!
Which is a different thing than the names on the mail that go into
the PO box.
> NO one has
> to go to the P.O. to say "This is who can receive mail at my house!"
Nor do you with a PO box.
> > > IF the name
> > > on the letter or package is NOT matched to the Box# they can't deliver
> > > it!
>
> > Stop embarrassing yourself and go to the post office and ask. They
> > will confirm what I`m telling you.
>
> NO they won't liar, and that is the sad part, EVERYONE with a working
> brain (That leaves you and Walt out) knows you are the one lying. It
> is quite obvious too.
Go and find out for yourself, retard. Go ask, they`ll confirm what
I`m telling you. They`ll probably be real polite for fear you`ll shoot
up the place once they realize what a retard they have on their hands.
> > > Why do you tell such obvious lies?
>
> > Why do you cling to an obviously false position? Is it retarded
> > desperation to pretend Oswald didn`t kill anyone?
>
> Why do you claim the P.O. delivers mail to folks who are not listed on
> the Box application! DO you hate Postal employees too?
Of course, don`t you? But they don`t write the regulations.
> > > > > > What did they
> > > > > > do with other mail that didn`t have one of those names, but was
> > > > > > addressed to that PO box?
>
> > > > > They would SEND IT BACK saying NO one was at that P.O. Box.
>
> > > > This is just a retard asserting something he hasn`t a clue about.
>
> > > YOU are the one with NO clue as you keep associating a RENTED box with
> > > a house delivery!
>
> > No difference to the post office, they deliver to addresses, not
> > people. The PO box number is an address.
>
> LOL!! Then why do you have to FILL OUT AN APPLICATION FOR THE BOX BUT
> NOT FOR YOUR HOUSE???
So they know who to bill for renting the PO box for one thing.
>YOU do hate Postal workers too, don't you?
>
> > > > > Just like
> > > > > if YOU get mail for a person who lives somewhere near you! YOU can
> > > > > GIVE IT BACK to the mailperson and they will then DELIVER it to the
> > > > > correct address.
>
> > > > The address is a location, retard, not a person.
>
> > > TRUE, but we are talking about a RENTED BOX moron, NOT LHO's
> > > roominghouse!
>
> > Both have addresses, and the post office delivers to addresses.
>
> Did you fill out an application for mail delivery to your house??
I don`t rent space from the post office at my house.
> > > WHY tell such obvious lies?
>
> > > > > IF YOU open it when it was accidently put in your
> > > > > box you have JUST VIOLATED A FEDERAL LAW!
>
> > > > > > > > Do you think that when they put mail into a PO box, they carry a list
> > > > > > > > of names to check against to see who "entitled" to get mail in each PO
> > > > > > > > box?
>
> > > > > > > This comment sums up Bud's lack of knowledge of the world perfectly.
> > > > > > > See Bud, they SORT mail BEFORE THEY DELIVER IT!
>
> > > > > > They sort by address, retard. Location.
>
> > > > > NOT for P.O. Boxes they don't moron!
>
> > > > Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
>
> > > The BOX IS RENTED you lying con man, and the NAME IS ON THE RENTAL
> > > APPLICATION ALONG WITH ANYONE WHO CAN GET MAIL THERE!
>
> > Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
>
> I, unlike YOU, don't have to ask questions
> for COMMON SENSE THINGS!
You should take any help you can get.
> Why do you hate Postal workers sooooo much?
They killed my dog Moppy.
> > > A. Hidell was NOT on the Page 3 section of LHO's box, period. Folks
> > > sign up for boxes as there are more safeguards for their mail than
> > > regular house deliveries.
>
> > Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
>
> YOU are a pathetic con man.
If I was lying, why would I urge you to take a simple course of
action that anyone could take that would prove me wrong?
> > > What a pathetic liar you are!
>
> > Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
>
> YOU are as obvious as a three dollar bill liar.
What is stopping you?
> > > > > We are NOT discussing general
> > > > > mail delivery to houses, but rather a delivery to a P.O. BOX SIGNED UP
> > > > > FOR BY A PARTICULAR PERSON WHO HAD TO LIST THE FOLKS ELIGIBLE FOR MAIL
> > > > > AT THAT SITE!
>
> > > > Not "eligible" retard.
>
> > > Lying won't save you moron. Why lie when you claim to be telling the
> > > truth?
>
> > Where did you get "eligible" from, retard?
>
> From Page 3 moron.
Quote where it uses the word "eligible".
> IF the name was not listed on that PART OF THE
> APPLICATION they could NOT deliver mail for that person!
Repeating the same stupid claim over and over isn`t supporting the
claim, retard.
> THE NAME OF
> A.J. HIDELL was NOT on that part of the application for LHO!
>
> Answer this for me con man! Since LHO would be dumb enough to pose
> with the rifle and leave it at the TSBD according to liars like you,
> WHY DID HE NOT JUST USE HIS REAL NAME FOR THE DELIVERY????
I don`t think he had any intention of leaving it in the TSBD after
killing Kennedy with it when he purchased it under the name "A.
Hidell".
> See, IF he want anonymitiy, he could have WALKED INTO ANY NUMBER OF
> STORES IN DALLAS AND PURCHASED THE RIFLE WITH NO TRACE!
Could have but he didn`t. Perhaps he liked the anonymity of the mail
better than dealing with a person face to face who might remember him.
Hard to criticize his thinking, he was able to use the same rifle in
two assassination attempts, had he bought it at a gun shop he might
have been busted for the Walker attempt.
> > > > > YOU are trying to confuse this with general mail delivery con man and
> > > > > it won't work.
>
> > > > > > > Tell us how they
> > > > > > > would know a package sent to a person who did NOT exist (per the page
> > > > > > > 3 section of all the postal apps they had on file) should be put in
> > > > > > > LHO's or anyone else's box???
>
> > > > > > The post office doesn`t give a fuck about the name.
>
> > > > > They don't for a P.O. Box?? So anyone can go in and rent a box without
> > > > > giving a name????
>
> > > > They don`t give a fuck whos name is on the mail they deliver to the
> > > > PO box,
>
> > > Prove it. Cite some Postal regs that say this con man!
>
> > Go to the post office and ask them, retard. Learn something.
>
> Just as I thought! YOU are a liar who can't support his words!
Stay stupid, rob, it`s better that way for both of us.
> > > > they deliver any mail, no matter what the name is, as long as
> > > > it has that particular PO box number on it.
>
> > > Liar, aren't you?? Prove it with some cites as you don't expect folks
> > > to take the word of a liar like you, do you?
>
> > I have nothing to prove, especially to a retard.
>
> The correct wording is YOU can't prove anything!
To a retard.
> > It is Gil`s (and
> > your) contention that an item with the name A.Hidell addressed to
> > Oswald`s PO box would not be delivered to that PO box.
>
> It is also the contention of Holmes, the Post Office and the FBI!
Don`t forget leprechauns.
> > I`ve seen no
> > support for that idea from either one of you.
>
> Liar, aren't you?? Gil posted support for this in the FIRST POST!
No actually he didn`t. He has yet to produce anything that shows
that an item addressed to Oswald`s PO box under the name "Hidell"
wouldn`t come into Oswald`s possession.
> > But apparently Gil took
> > me up on the challenge and went to the post office and asked them, so
> > he had to pretend that the way they handled the mail was somehow
> > different in 1963. Of course he couldn`t support that idea either.
>
> Telling obvious lies won't win any converts to your side con man.
My side knows how the mail works.
> > > > > Why have anyone fill out an application then con
> > > > > man?
>
> > > > So they know who to bill.
>
> > > LOL!! So they can be billed for GETTING MAIL FOR A BUNCH OF OTHER
> > > PEOPLE ACCORDING TO BUD!
>
> > You rent the PO box, retard, you aren`t charged by the letter for
> > what mail is put in it.
>
> I was kidding moron!
I should have known, it was one of the more sensible things you`ve
said.
> I was having some fun at the expense of a con
> man!
>
> > > > > > You think when
> > > > > > the postman delivers to a house he knows the names of everybody that
> > > > > > lives there?
>
> > > > > That is YOUR problem con man, we are NOT DISCUSSING A HOUSE, we are
> > > > > discussing a P.O. Box!
>
> > > > We are discussing a location mail is delivered to.
>
> > > NO we are discussing a box that has to be rented and NAMES HAD TO BE
> > > LISTED on the application!
>
> > A box with an address where mail with that address is delivered.
>
> ONLY to folks LISTED ON THE APPLICATION. Liar, aren't you?? NOW tell
> us why LHO would NOT just his own name since he was obviously not
> worried about leaving a trail anyway.
He obviously was trying not to be connected to incriminating
evidence.
> But he won't.
>
> > > > > > What about apartment buildings, with people coming and
> > > > > > going all the time? The post office doesn`t track people, it delivers
> > > > > > to locations, period.
>
> > > > > We are discussing a P.O. Box that is RENTED liar, stick with the topic
> > > > > at hand.
>
> > > > > > >Then tell us what the odds were that
> > > > > > > this UNKNOWN person's mail (allegedly) was put into LHO's box (by this
> > > > > > > I mean the slip the person would take to the window to redeem the
> > > > > > > package) to the exclusion of all other boxes!!
>
> > > > > > It`s delivered to the PO box written on the package.
>
> > > > > IT is for P.O. Box if the name is NOT listed??? Cite for this.
>
> > > > Why don`t you make an effort to cure your own ignorance for a
> > > > change? Go to the post office and ask them.
>
> > > NO cite as expected. He just spouts the lies his boss/handler tell
> > > him. Too bad for NONE of them make a lick of sense to anyone!
>
> > Have mommy take you to the post office and have her ask the nice man
> > who works there how PO boxes work, I`m sure he will be happy to
> > provide this information.
>
> I know how they work, YOU seem to be the one with lack of knowledge
> liar. Besides, what MY post office does in 2010 as NO bearing on what
> the DALLAS post office did in 1963 con man!
Ah, you must have went and they informed you that what I said was
right. So now you use the same tact that Gil tried, that they USED to
deliver to people, but somewhere along the line they switched to
delivering to locations. Whatever your retarded ideas require, that is
what you will believe.
> > > > > Then
> > > > > show us when LHO picked up this package with evidence!
>
> > > > It doesn`t matter when he did it, it only matters that he did.
>
> > > LOL!! Sure it does. Keep on believing in this dogma Bud, you are a
> > > total loser. Show us evidence showing LHO received the rifle or admit
> > > you are a liar who likes to frame LHO.
>
> > How about I show the lengths retards will go to pretend he is
> > innocent instead?
>
> SO we have learned from this post that BUD HATES POSTAL EMPLOYEES AS
> MUCH AS HE HATES LHO!
About the same.
> > > > > > If a package is
> > > > > > too big to fit in the box, a notification is sent out to the owner of
> > > > > > the box to come get it at the window. If you guys ever left your
> > > > > > houses you`d know these things.
>
> > > > > How would they know who to send the notification to for the box??
>
> > > > Same way they know where to send the bill for the PO box to.
>
> > > Cite please. But he won't.
>
> > No he wont. But he will tell you where you can go to enlighten
> > yourself. Just hold mommy`s hand when she crosses you, you`ll get
> > there fine.
>
> What is it like to have to lie constantly?? I mean YOU can NEVER
> support your words with cites!
Don`t be afraid to go outside, rob, you might learn something in
that big wide world out there.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Mar 12, 1:47=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <67141007-585d-4dc8-bd43-167a8b13d...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups=>> >> >> > Oh boy.... It's been a long time ago, but as I recall I discovere=
>d
>> >> >> > that there was no portion destroyed.... The form was set up so th=
>e
>> >> >> > names of others authorized to use the box was on the reverse side=
> of
>> >> >> > the form. =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0I could be wrong because it's been a lon=
>g time
>> >> >> > ago.....But I believe this is just some of the bullshit that's be=
>en
>> >> >> > propagated about this case.
>>
>> >> >> Oh boy, Walt is LYING AGAIN TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WC!!
>>
> too!=3D
>> > Why
>> >> >> lie Walt??
>>
>> >> >> Why is Walt always defending the WC?? Oh that is right, because he =
>is
>> >> >> a WC shill!
>>
>> >> >Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee....LOL... The stupid bastard is
>> >> >regurgitating the lies of Harry Holmes and Hoover's goons and he
>> >> >accuses me of being a Warren Commission schill....Aren't you
>> >> >embarrassed to display your stupidity in front of God and everybody??
>>
>
>(snip all moderation of my words)
<Censorship snipped>
Bud
> On Mar 12, 1:34 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 12, 1:25 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Citation that Marina received mail at P O Box 2915?
>
> > A letter from the Russian Embassy to Marina...
>
>
> Good find, Bud,
Actually I have to thank my fellow LNer Walt for providing me with
that lead.
>but the kooks are going to claim that the letter was
> actually sent to PO Box 2015. They are going to demand proof be
> provided showing Marina didn't rent a PO Box 2015.
>
> Looking on the right side of the letter, the kooks are going to claim
> the letter was sent in 1063. Thus, this is proof to the kook mind that
> the JFK asssassination was actually planned 900 years in advance and
> actuallypredated the crowning of King William l the Conqueror, first
> Norman King of England.
<snicker> Yah, they might. But I think it`s more likely that they
will amend their "only the person on the form" rule to include spouses
(like the post office is going to track who is married to who). One
thing is for sure, they won`t abandon the idea, it would be considered
losing ground if they were to relinquish one of this kook talking
points.
In any case, here is the translation to that letter...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1133&relPageId=46