QUESTION # 68
Gil Jesus
mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
curtjester1
> 68. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive
> mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
When you say approved, Gil, do you mean clerk/post office approval via
paperwork, like amount of money given, receipt's such as that?
Could it be possible that LHO never got a P.O box(es) there at all,
and someone just went there and feigned it was him?
I do know that for the so-called Nov. 2 obtaining of 6225, the big
Postal officianado, I think Stephens was his name, was going to write
a Letter of Commendation for the clerk who was able to come up with
the wanted piece of 'evidentiary process' but well, when the look was
over there was NO ONE! Suspect: Harry D. Holmes making up another
story.
CJ
Bud
> 68. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive
> mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
You show you are still ignorant about how post office boxes work.
You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box, any mail that has the
proper PO Box number will be delivered to it, regardless of what name
is on the mail. The kooks have themselves in a quandary over this
issue. I doubt I can walk an idiots like Gil or robcap through it, it
seems beyond their capacities. Their are two completely different
aspects to the PO box issue, putting mail in, and taking mail out. The
post office will put ANY mail in that is addressed to that box,
REGARDLESS of the name, because mail is sent to locations, not to
individuals. So, mail addressed to anyone by name will go in if the PO
Box number is correct, but only those authorized can take it out
without breaking the law. Those are the people listed on the
application.
curtjester1
So anybody could have rented the box and subscribed to newspapers and
had them picked up. And it could have worked for mail too. Do you
think you got any grey matter functioning by thinking a rifle could be
picked up that way??
CJ
Bud
> On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:16 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > 68. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive
> > > mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
>
> > You show you are still ignorant about how post office boxes work.
> > You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box, any mail that has the
> > proper PO Box number will be delivered to it, regardless of what name
> > is on the mail. The kooks have themselves in a quandary over this
> > issue. I doubt I can walk an idiots like Gil or robcap through it, it
> > seems beyond their capacities. Their are two completely different
> > aspects to the PO box issue, putting mail in, and taking mail out. The
> > post office will put ANY mail in that is addressed to that box,
> > REGARDLESS of the name, because mail is sent to locations, not to
> > individuals. So, mail addressed to anyone by name will go in if the PO
> > Box number is correct, but only those authorized can take it out
> > without breaking the law. Those are the people listed on the
> > application.
>
> So anybody could have rented the box and subscribed to newspapers and
> had them picked up.
I try one more time, I know you kooks are a stupid bunch. The
person or people whos name is on the application can take mail OUT of
the box. Mail going into the box can have any name under the sun on
it, because it is mailed to the location, not to a particular
individual.
Heres a true story that happened on my block. Two brothers lived
together, had a falling out, and one moved out. The one brother told
the mail carrier not to deliver mail addressed to his brother to his
house anymore. The mailperson (a woman) explained to him that by law
she had to deliver any mail addressed to that house to that house,
regardless of the name on it (how would the mailperson know who was in
the house anyway?). The brother in the house is a bit of a psycho,
and made some dire threat to the mailperson, something about cutting
off her head if she put any of his brother`s mail into his mail slot
ever again. Later that day a small army of federal postal police
turned up, and explained to him the regulations regarding mail
delivery, and the dire laws involved with threatening a federal
employee.
> And it could have worked for mail too. Do you
> think you got any grey matter functioning by thinking a rifle could be
> picked up that way??
You are aware that Klein`s was selling rifles through the mail,
right? Who do you think handled these deliveries, elves? It was mail,
idiot. It gets delivered to the location written on them. The person
renting the box picks up the mail delivered to his box. I know this is
all over your heads, which is why investigation is best left to
professionals, and not random idiots.
> CJ
Gil Jesus
> On Oct 18, 5:16 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > 68. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive
> > mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
>
> � You show you are still ignorant about how post office boxes work.
> You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box, any mail that has the
> proper PO Box number will be delivered to it, regardless of what name
> Box number is correct, but only those authorized can take it out
> without breaking the law. Those are the people listed on the
> application.
Every time I think I've figured out just how stupid you are, you just
take it down another notch.
You said:
"You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box"
Now who said Hidell was going to put mail in the box ?
Then you said:
" only those authorized can take it out without breaking the law.
Those are the people listed on the application"
Isn't that RECEIVING, Bud ? The act of TAKING IT OUT and possessing
it ?
Don't you understand English, or do you, like so many of the trolls
here, have a reading comprehension issue ?
Where the hell were you educated, in the South ?
So answer the question, Bud:
What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive ( TAKE
OUT ) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or
6225 ) ?
David Von Pein
>>> "Now who said Hidell was going to put mail in the box ?" <<<
LOL.
Gil really doesn't get it. Really.
This idiot named Gil is hilarious.
Gil Jesus
David Von Pein
It doesn't seem to matter how many times this is explained to the
kooks, it never sinks in.
Gil The Kook thinks "take out" and "receive" (as in: "a package or
letter with Hidell's name on it is delivered to the P.O. Box") are the
exact same thing.
As Bud has explained, a package delivered to PO Box 2915 in Dallas
could have ANYBODY'S name on it, including "A. Hidell", and Oswald
wouldn't have had a bit of trouble picking it up legally. Because when
an oversized package is sent to a PO Box (or a residence), and the
clerk is presented with the bona fide document left in the PO Box
related to that delivery, the clerk assumes that the person with the
receipt is entitled to the package. And no signature is needed either.
I've picked up many oversized packages this way myself at my post
office. I've never once had to identify myself as the person whose
name appears on the package, and I've never once been asked to sign
anything to get the package either. I just hand them the yellow slip
of paper, and they give me the package. Period.
So, the name "Hidell" appearing on the front of Oswald's rifle package
from Klein's is meaningless to the post-office workers. They couldn't
care less about who the package is addressed to. It's the ADDRESS
itself that is important. And that's the ONLY thing that matters. The
name on the package is totally irrelevant.
Oswald would have gotten his Carcano package if the name on the label
had said Nikita Khrushchev.
Bud
> On Oct 18, 5:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:16 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > 68. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive
> > > mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
>
> > You show you are still ignorant about how post office boxes work.
> > You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box, any mail that has the
> > proper PO Box number will be delivered to it, regardless of what name
> > is on the mail. .... So, mail addressed to anyone by name will go in if the PO
> > Box number is correct, but only those authorized can take it out
> > without breaking the law. Those are the people listed on the
> > application.
>
> Every time I think I've figured out just how stupid you are, you just
> take it down another notch.
<snicker>
> You said:
>
> "You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box"
No, idiot, there is no approval necessary to receive mail, because
it goes to a location. I can send mail to any PO box or address in
the United States. I can buy any item from any catalog, and have it
shipped to any location in the United States. I can open a PO Box, and
order anything under any name I want to, and have it sent to that box.
Lets say I have a PO box number 100. I can send a money order to TV
guide under the name "Gil Jesus is a fucking idiot", and give the PO
box number 100 as the location I want the TV guide delivered. I will
get TV guides in my PO box. I will be able to take these TV guides out
of the PO box, even though my name is not "Gil Jesus is a fucking
idiot".
> Now who said Hidell was going to put mail in the box ?
Nobody. The fucking postal employees put the mail in the PO box,
you retard.
> Then you said:
>
> " only those authorized can take it out without breaking the law.
> Those are the people listed on the application"
>
> Isn't that RECEIVING, Bud ? The act of TAKING IT OUT and possessing
> it ?
I walked you through it, explaining the two different aspects
(getting mail delivered, and taking mail out) and you are still
stumped.
> Don't you understand English, or do you, like so many of the trolls
> here, have a reading comprehension issue ?
>
> Where the hell were you educated, in the South ?
You aren`t in a position to denigrate any region, Gil.
> So answer the question, Bud:
>
> What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive ( TAKE
> OUT ) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or
> 6225 ) ?
He doesn`t exist, idiot. Mail went to Oswald`s box in that name, but
Oswald received the goods. Lets say Hidell existed, and he and Oswald
shared the box. How would the post office know if Oswald was taking
only Oswald`s mail, and Hidell was taking only Hidell`s mail? They
don`t get involved, their responsibility ends in getting the mail to
the location on the item. Now, if Hidell complained that Oswald was
opening his mail, then their might be a problem, as this is against
the law. but there would have to be a complaint. The only reason I can
think of that the post office would require the name of people having
access is so if a dispute does arise, they can say "Well, you gave him
access". But really, from what I see, anyone with the key to the PO
box can access it, the boxes are in the lobby, and no one checks ID.
I`ll tell you what I will do, Gil. I will look into opening up a
small PO box. If I do this, I will put the PO box # number here. You
can send a letter to the PO box in any name you can think of, and in
the letter you can put a phrase. If I can repeat the phrase here, you
will start a post stating "I am Gil Jesus, and I am the stupidest man
on the face of the Earth." You game?
If you want, you can send a box that won`t fit in the PO box,
address it to "Santa Clause" or whatever you like, and if it has my PO
box number on it, they will hold the box for me and give it to me,
even if it isn`t in my name (because it was sent to my box).
Bud
These are the people who think they have some special talent for
looking into things, flatter themselves that they are investigators.
Holmes spelled it out, and robcap was "LOL"ing at the explanation,
because he couldn`t understand the explanation.
Gil Jesus
question and I always have to ask you these questions over and over
and over again.
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE
What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved ( by Oswald the
applicant ) to receive ( TAKE OUT ) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas
Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
Is that question too hard for you to understand ?
Or are you just into jerking people ?
Bud
> Bud , it seems that you'd rather insult people than answer the
> question and I always have to ask you these questions over and over
> and over again.
Long after they`ve been answered. You are just too stupid to
understand the answers, so you keep repeating the question.
> JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE
>
> What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved ( by Oswald the
> applicant ) to receive ( TAKE OUT ) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas
> Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
A.J Hidell is an fictitious person, created by Oswald, idiot.
Imaginary people cannot pick up mail, idiot. Any mail that went to
that PO box was likely picked up by a real person, Oswald. Oswald had
access to the PO Box, therefore had access to any items sent to it,
REGARDLESS OF THE NAME ON IT, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Apparently Oswald put the Hidell name on the application as a person
entitled to receive mail on his New Orleans PO box. It is possible he
had the same trouble grasping the nuances of getting mail out of the
box sent in a different name as you are exhibiting. Once he had the
New Orleans box, he may have realized that he didn`t need the Hidell
name on it at all, he only needed to put the Hidell name on the stuff
being sent to him (weapons and newspapers), and he could get these
things without Hidell`s name on the PO box at all. In any case,
Hidell, being non-existent, was handicapped from getting the stuff
sent in his name. Now tell me again how I haven`t answered the
question, and I`ll get a gradeschooler from the South to attempt an
explanation.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
(...Gil quietly fuming as Bud has just spoiled Gil's upcoming YouTube
project...)
Gil Jesus
>
> (...Gil quietly fuming as Bud has just spoiled Gil's upcoming YouTube
A lot of running, a lot of dancing, but no answers.
Just answer the question.....What proof do you have that "Hidell" 's
name was on either of the Dallas post office box applications ?
Bud
> On Oct 19, 1:07 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > (...Gil quietly fuming as Bud has just spoiled Gil's upcoming YouTube
> > project...)-
>
> A lot of running, a lot of dancing, but no answers.
I gave you all the relevant information. You are fixated on an
irrelevancy.
> Just answer the question.....What proof do you have that "Hidell" 's
> name was on either of the Dallas post office box applications ?
As I pointed out, it isn`t needed, idiot. Mail in ANY name
(including Hidell) could be sent to the PO box, regardless of whos
name is on the application, and Oswald would be entitled to any mail
delivered to his PO box.
curtjester1
one's disputing that anybody can open up a P.O. box with a key and
take envelopes out.
> Heres a true story that happened on my block. Two brothers lived
> together, had a falling out, and one moved out. The one brother told
> the mail carrier not to deliver mail addressed to his brother to his
> house anymore. The mailperson (a woman) explained to him that by law
> she had to deliver any mail addressed to that house to that house,
> regardless of the name on it (how would the mailperson know who was in
> the house anyway?). The brother in the house is a bit of a psycho,
> and made some dire threat to the mailperson, something about cutting
> off her head if she put any of his brother`s mail into his mail slot
> ever again. Later that day a small army of federal postal police
> turned up, and explained to him the regulations regarding mail
> delivery, and the dire laws involved with threatening a federal
> employee.
>
Now tell how the Fed's kidnapped you to a MK Ultra camp.
> > And it could have worked for mail too. Do you
> > think you got any grey matter functioning by thinking a rifle could be
> > picked up that way??
>
> You are aware that Klein`s was selling rifles through the mail,
> right? Who do you think handled these deliveries, elves? It was mail,
> idiot. It gets delivered to the location written on them. The person
> renting the box picks up the mail delivered to his box. I know this is
> all over your heads, which is why investigation is best left to
> professionals, and not random idiots.
>
>
He doesn't understand that a rifle has to be picked up over the
counter and has special needs with special forms that have to be gone
through via the sender, the post office and the receiver which a valid
picture ID would be necessary.
CJ
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
> On Oct 18, 4:08 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 5:30 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 18, 2:05 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 18, 5:16 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > 68. What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive
> > > > > mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?
>
> > > > You show you are still ignorant about how post office boxes work.
> > > > You don`t need approval to get mail in a PO box, any mail that has the
> > > > proper PO Box number will be delivered to it, regardless of what name
> > > > is on the mail. The kooks have themselves in a quandary over this
> > > > issue. I doubt I can walk an idiots like Gil or robcap through it, it
> > > > seems beyond their capacities. Their are two completely different
> > > > aspects to the PO box issue, putting mail in, and taking mail out. The
> > > > post office will put ANY mail in that is addressed to that box,
> > > > REGARDLESS of the name, because mail is sent to locations, not to
> > > > individuals. So, mail addressed to anyone by name will go in if the PO
> > > > Box number is correct, but only those authorized can take it out
> > > > without breaking the law. Those are the people listed on the
> > > > application.
>
> > > So anybody could have rented the box and subscribed to newspapers and
> > > had them picked up.
>
> > person or people whos name is on the application can take mail OUT of
> > the box. Mail going into the box can have any name under the sun on
> > it, because it is mailed to the location, not to a particular
> > individual.
>
> No, Bud, don't try one more time. You're too thick to understand no
> one's disputing that anybody can open up a P.O. box with a key and
> take envelopes out.
Than what is the point, Curt? You accept that mail under any name
can go into the box, right? You accept that Oswald had access to all
items mailed to the box, right? So what the fuck is the point you
retards are reaching for?
> > Heres a true story that happened on my block. Two brothers lived
> > together, had a falling out, and one moved out. The one brother told
> > the mail carrier not to deliver mail addressed to his brother to his
> > house anymore. The mailperson (a woman) explained to him that by law
> > she had to deliver any mail addressed to that house to that house,
> > regardless of the name on it (how would the mailperson know who was in
> > the house anyway?). The brother in the house is a bit of a psycho,
> > and made some dire threat to the mailperson, something about cutting
> > off her head if she put any of his brother`s mail into his mail slot
> > ever again. Later that day a small army of federal postal police
> > turned up, and explained to him the regulations regarding mail
> > delivery, and the dire laws involved with threatening a federal
> > employee.
>
> Now tell how the Fed's kidnapped you to a MK Ultra camp.
Well, first they shot me with a sleep dart fired from an umbrella.
Then they replaced me with a double, so that no one would know I was
gone. They put me in a cell with a TV that only showed Disney films
24/7. They said that if I didn`t co-operate, they feed my nuts to
rabid weasels. They told me my country needed my services, that the
CTers in this newsgroup, although comprised mainly of the stupidest
folks on the planet, were somehow getting close to cracking the JFK
conspiracy (something about retardation in it purest form having
powers far beyond that of the rational mind). So, I signed on to
thwart that process, by pointing out to them how mail works.
> > > And it could have worked for mail too. Do you
> > > think you got any grey matter functioning by thinking a rifle could be
> > > picked up that way??
>
> > You are aware that Klein`s was selling rifles through the mail,
> > right? Who do you think handled these deliveries, elves? It was mail,
> > idiot. It gets delivered to the location written on them. The person
> > renting the box picks up the mail delivered to his box. I know this is
> > all over your heads, which is why investigation is best left to
> > professionals, and not random idiots.
>
> He doesn't understand that a rifle has to be picked up over the
> counter and has special needs with special forms that have to be gone
> through via the sender, the post office and the receiver which a valid
> picture ID would be necessary.
He wouldn`t have to do this if the package fit in the box, would he?
Why would it be any different if the package didn`t fit in the box?
The notice that there was an oversized package at the desk would be
placed inside the PO box, so him having that notice would be poof that
he had access to the box.
curtjester1
curtjester1
so designated, that's why you sign up, to designate name(s) to go in
it. And the postal clerk has those names pasted to these boxes
because if he doesn't have them memorized a fill in clerk would know
what mail would be allowable to go in.
If a package fits in the box, it would go, of course if the names
matched. If it didn't get in the box you just go up to the counter
and show them the slip and show ID. So if it was addressed to a A.
Hidell he would have to produce that ID. Of course he should have
produced it when he signed up for it, at least for a primary name for
the box. As for a rifle, that is not just 'a' package. It has all
sorts of added regulations, for OBVIOUS reasons. The sender, the
rifle company is required to fill out a 2162 form upon sending it to
the destination, and the receiving post office is to fill one out when
the person with the slip comes up to the counter. There are then
three copies for accountability, in this case, a Klein's (if they sent
it), the Dallas post office, and the recipient, all should have copies
of the 2162. Of course nobody did, and the 'investigators' just
glossed over that. And a Klein's as well as a post office are
supposed to keep those on file for years. But you WC Shills are too
agenda bound or lacking in thinking abilities to understand or care
about what I already posted before. Now as far as accepting a
secondary designated, approved name, and a rifle, besides, for sure
having the names match from rifle company to post office would have to
be the same, but don't know if they could send a rifle to a secondary
name and have it comply with all the possible regulations surrounding
that. So, there could have been a rifle sent with numerous of
regulations circumvented, with a team of people lying their asses off,
or it was just a ruse with a papertrail they conjured up, with no
rifle sent at all. Take your pick. Actually if you look for the
origin of the money order you won't have a pick.
CJ
CJ
Bud
Still don`t get it, do you. If it is addressed to the box, mail goes
to the box no matter what name is on it.
> If it didn't get in the box you just go up to the counter
> and show them the slip and show ID.
No need to show ID. How could you have the slip if you didn`t have
access to the box? How could you have access to the contents of the
box unless it was your box?
> So if it was addressed to a A.
> Hidell he would have to produce that ID.
And if he didn`t, what would they do with it? The post office would
end of with loads of merchandise on it`s hands, and would be stuck
trying to find the rightful owners. That is why mail is sent to a
location, not to individuals.
> Of course he should have
> produced it when he signed up for it, at least for a primary name for
> the box. As for a rifle, that is not just 'a' package.
Why wouldn`t it be in this case? Do postal employees have x-ray
vision?
> It has all
> sorts of added regulations, for OBVIOUS reasons. The sender, the
> rifle company is required to fill out a 2162 form upon sending it to
> the destination, and the receiving post office is to fill one out when
> the person with the slip comes up to the counter. There are then
> three copies for accountability, in this case, a Klein's (if they sent
> it), the Dallas post office, and the recipient, all should have copies
> of the 2162. Of course nobody did, and the 'investigators' just
> glossed over that.
If Klein`s didn`t adhere to the law on shipping it`s rifles, what
bearing does that have on the issue of whether Oz can get mail shipped
to his PO box in Hidell`s name?
> And a Klein's as well as a post office are
> supposed to keep those on file for years.
Can you show Klein`s ever did this with any of the hundreds of
rifles it shipped? As far as the post office is concerned, it`s a
package. If Klein`s didn`t alert them to the contents, they wouldn`t
know what was inside, would they?
> But you WC Shills are too
> agenda bound or lacking in thinking abilities to understand or care
> about what I already posted before.
It`s a no-issue to whether Oswald can get items sent to his PO box
in Hidell`s name. If Klein`s broke some postal regulations when it
shipped rifles, what does that have to do with Oswald getting this
rifle in Hidell`s name?
> Now as far as accepting a
> secondary designated, approved name, and a rifle, besides, for sure
> having the names match from rifle company to post office would have to
> be the same, but don't know if they could send a rifle to a secondary
> name and have it comply with all the possible regulations surrounding
> that.
What does it matter if Klein`s wasn`t following the letter of the
law? What they should have done is irrelevant, what is important is
what did occur.
> So, there could have been a rifle sent with numerous of
> regulations circumvented, with a team of people lying their asses off,
> or it was just a ruse with a papertrail they conjured up, with no
> rifle sent at all. Take your pick. Actually if you look for the
> origin of the money order you won't have a pick.
The fact remains that despite all your blather, you aren`t offering
anything to counter the idea that Oswald could recieve a rifle sent in
Hidell`s name to his PO box.
curtjester1
> >>> "He [Bud] doesn't understand that a rifle has to be picked up over the counter and has special needs with special forms that have to be gone through via the sender, the post office and the receiver which a valid picture ID would be necessary." <<<
>
> Curt, of course, is another of the many idiots who populate this
> asylum.
>
> Curt's dead wrong about "special forms" and a "picture ID" being
> required in order for somebody to receive an oversized package out of
> a P.O. Box.
>
> How can we know that Curt doesn't have the slightest fucking idea what
> he's rambling on about?
>
> Because Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes told us so on July 23rd,
> 1964. Let's take a gander:
>
> WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Now, supposing that Oswald had not, in fact,
> authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and
> that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact,
> one did at Post Office Box 2915; what procedure would be followed when
> that package came in?"
>
> HARRY D. HOLMES -- "They would put the notice in the box."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "Regardless of whose name was associated with the
> box?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "That is the general practice. The theory being, I have
> a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my
> same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not
> too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service
> for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a
> little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It
> depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would
> be all right."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "So that the package would have come in addressed to
> Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in
> the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive
> mail from it?"
>
> 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 [this] case?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what
> happened."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald
> had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this
> identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have
> produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes2.htm
>
> ===================
>
> HARRY HOLMES' ADDENDUM (RELATED TOPIC):
>
> 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 [in Dallas]."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "They have thrown part 3 away?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "Yes; as it so happens, even though they closed the box
> in New Orleans, they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for
> Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell was good in the box. They hadn't
> complied with regulations. They still had it there."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "It was a lucky thing."
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "We wish they had here."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be
> torn off and thrown away; is that a general regulation of the Post
> Office Department?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to
> employees; yes, sir."
>
> MR. LIEBELER -- "So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from
> the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized
> to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was
> here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that
> correct?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "Other than Oswald himself and his name on the
> application."
>
> ===================
>
> Harry Holmes, naturally, must be a lying bastard, right kooks?
>
> And since Mr. Holmes, as a postal inspector, was employed by the U.S.
> Government already (prior to the assassination), I imagine that fact
> probably clinches the "He Was A Liar" deal for most of the kooks in
> here.
'Exposing Harry D. Holmes' which exposes WC Shills
CJ
David Von Pein
RE: OSWALD'S MAIL AND POST OFFICE BOX 2915......
>>> "What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved (by Oswald, the applicant) to receive (TAKE OUT) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes (2915 or 6225)?" <<<
Let's take a gander at what U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes told
the Warren Commission on July 23rd, 1964:
Bud
The only point you are making is that you are dumber than a stump.
> A name could go in the box if
> so designated, that's why you sign up, to designate name(s) to go in
> it.
No, idiot, they don`t need the name to know whos mail goes in the
box, mail under any name will go in the box that has the PO box number
of that box.
> And the postal clerk has those names pasted to these boxes
> because if he doesn't have them memorized a fill in clerk would know
> what mail would be allowable to go in.
<snicker> There are no names pasted on the PO box doors, idiot, only
the number of the box. Haven`t you ever been in a post office?
curtjester1
sorted first then it goes to a postal box and a package stays in a bin
if too big. A clerk if it rec'd a foreign name (e.g. relative,
vacationer) might ask the party about a piece or might write a note
inquiring, but they are supposed to deliver exactly as the
instructions are on the card. The only exception would be a Corporate
Box.
> > If it didn't get in the box you just go up to the counter
> > and show them the slip and show ID.
>
> No need to show ID. How could you have the slip if you didn`t have
> access to the box? How could you have access to the contents of the
> box unless it was your box?
>
Depends on familiarity. Most postal employees are long-term career
employees and know all on their routes to a tee. Like I said, before,
what's already sorted into the box is accessible to one with the
key. Like Ferrie's library card, a key could be loaned out. Of
course, they're not going to get a big package unless they offer proof
or the clerk knows who their giving the package to. It's really just
common sense.
> > So if it was addressed to a A.
> > Hidell he would have to produce that ID.
>
> And if he didn`t, what would they do with it? The post office would
> end of with loads of merchandise on it`s hands, and would be stuck
> trying to find the rightful owners. That is why mail is sent to a
> location, not to individuals.
>
"Return To Addressee". No, Bud, it's sent to individuals, that's why
they have change of address cards, and postal box cards.
> > Of course he should have
> > produced it when he signed up for it, at least for a primary name for
> > the box. As for a rifle, that is not just 'a' package.
>
> Why wouldn`t it be in this case? Do postal employees have x-ray
> vision?
>
Well, that one would be highly suspect, but like I said, they have
extra paperwork and that would be put on the package like Express Mail
or like Certified Mail would have.
> > It has all
> > sorts of added regulations, for OBVIOUS reasons. The sender, the
> > rifle company is required to fill out a 2162 form upon sending it to
> > the destination, and the receiving post office is to fill one out when
> > the person with the slip comes up to the counter. There are then
> > three copies for accountability, in this case, a Klein's (if they sent
> > it), the Dallas post office, and the recipient, all should have copies
> > of the 2162. Of course nobody did, and the 'investigators' just
> > glossed over that.
>
> If Klein`s didn`t adhere to the law on shipping it`s rifles, what
> bearing does that have on the issue of whether Oz can get mail shipped
> to his PO box in Hidell`s name?
>
They have people inspecting their business and they had a pattern for
doing so and kept files. It's just how blatant they went to cover up,
strong-arm, to create a paper trail. Nobody in the investigative
process questioned anybody about it, and they all went out of their
way's not to offer the 2162's. Holmes should have done jail time.
> > And a Klein's as well as a post office are
> > supposed to keep those on file for years.
>
> Can you show Klein`s ever did this with any of the hundreds of
> rifles it shipped? As far as the post office is concerned, it`s a
> package. If Klein`s didn`t alert them to the contents, they wouldn`t
> know what was inside, would they?
>
No, they as far as I know have never been confronted. It's part of
U.S. Postal Regulation 846.53a if you want to look that up. They
weren't a small outfit, they were the largest mail order gun dealer in
the U.S. and were required to keep the 2162 for four years.
> > But you WC Shills are too
> > agenda bound or lacking in thinking abilities to understand or care
> > about what I already posted before.
>
> It`s a no-issue to whether Oswald can get items sent to his PO box
> in Hidell`s name. If Klein`s broke some postal regulations when it
> shipped rifles, what does that have to do with Oswald getting this
> rifle in Hidell`s name?
>
What rifle? It was never ordered, never sent, never received.
Everything you say is an assumption that can't be backed up.
> > Now as far as accepting a
> > secondary designated, approved name, and a rifle, besides, for sure
> > having the names match from rifle company to post office would have to
> > be the same, but don't know if they could send a rifle to a secondary
> > name and have it comply with all the possible regulations surrounding
> > that.
>
> What does it matter if Klein`s wasn`t following the letter of the
> law? What they should have done is irrelevant, what is important is
> what did occur.
>
Good Bud, "what did occur"
> > So, there could have been a rifle sent with numerous of
> > regulations circumvented, with a team of people lying their asses off,
> > or it was just a ruse with a papertrail they conjured up, with no
> > rifle sent at all. Take your pick. Actually if you look for the
> > origin of the money order you won't have a pick.
>
> The fact remains that despite all your blather, you aren`t offering
> anything to counter the idea that Oswald could recieve a rifle sent in
> Hidell`s name to his PO box.
>
I rather concentrate on the issues that would surround that to prove
that a non-possibility rather than depend on something that is 99%
improbable. Think about it Bud, they already supposedly have a 'Red
Flag' on that box because of it receiving a Commie Newspaper turned
already into the FBI by Holmes. It would have been the talk of the
post office. Do you think they are going to turn over a mail order
rifle to 'him' without strongly scrutinizing it?
CJ
David Von Pein
Curt must think that a PO Box is entirely different from a home
mailbox, right Curt?
Because the NAME on a piece of mail has absolutely no bearing on if it
gets delivered to a person's home mailbox. Why on Earth would a "PO
Box" have different rules in this regard? It's stupid to think a PO
Box has different rules in this regard.
And how on Earth can the post office employees know for certain WHO is
living at a particular residence at any particular time and,
therefore, might get mail delivered there? They can't, of course.
The mail is delivered to the ADDRESS...not the INDIVIDUAL, you kook.
And WHY would a PO BOX be ANY different at all?
I've picked up many large boxes at the P.O., too, and have never been
asked for ID of any kind. The P.O. assumes that the person who has the
yellow slip in their hand is entitled to receive the package
associated with that yellow slip of paper.
Bud
You need to show that what Holmes said about PO boxes is wrong,
idiot. Can you do that?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> CJ
Bud
<snicker> You are just talking shit now. Any mail sent under any
name will go into the PO box it is addressed to, regardless of the
name.
> > > If it didn't get in the box you just go up to the counter
> > > and show them the slip and show ID.
>
> > No need to show ID. How could you have the slip if you didn`t have
> > access to the box? How could you have access to the contents of the
> > box unless it was your box?
>
> Depends on familiarity. Most postal employees are long-term career
> employees and know all on their routes to a tee. Like I said, before,
> what's already sorted into the box is accessible to one with the
> key. Like Ferrie's library card, a key could be loaned out. Of
> course, they're not going to get a big package unless they offer proof
> or the clerk knows who their giving the package to. It's really just
> common sense.
You`re really just an idiot. DVP produced Holmes explaining how they
work, did you read it? Do you have another source that contradicts
Holmes, or are you going to continue to babble stuff off the top of
your head?
> > > So if it was addressed to a A.
> > > Hidell he would have to produce that ID.
>
> > And if he didn`t, what would they do with it? The post office would
> > end of with loads of merchandise on it`s hands, and would be stuck
> > trying to find the rightful owners. That is why mail is sent to a
> > location, not to individuals.
>
> "Return To Addressee". No, Bud, it's sent to individuals,
Ask a postman, idiot, stop flaunting your ignorance.
> that's why
> they have change of address cards, and postal box cards.
You`re an idiot. When you move, you change your location. You alert
the post office to your new location.
> > > Of course he should have
> > > produced it when he signed up for it, at least for a primary name for
> > > the box. As for a rifle, that is not just 'a' package.
>
> > Why wouldn`t it be in this case? Do postal employees have x-ray
> > vision?
>
> Well, that one would be highly suspect, but like I said, they have
> extra paperwork and that would be put on the package like Express Mail
> or like Certified Mail would have.
You are just a babbling idiot, aren`t you?
> > > It has all
> > > sorts of added regulations, for OBVIOUS reasons. The sender, the
> > > rifle company is required to fill out a 2162 form upon sending it to
> > > the destination, and the receiving post office is to fill one out when
> > > the person with the slip comes up to the counter. There are then
> > > three copies for accountability, in this case, a Klein's (if they sent
> > > it), the Dallas post office, and the recipient, all should have copies
> > > of the 2162. Of course nobody did, and the 'investigators' just
> > > glossed over that.
>
> > If Klein`s didn`t adhere to the law on shipping it`s rifles, what
> > bearing does that have on the issue of whether Oz can get mail shipped
> > to his PO box in Hidell`s name?
>
> They have people inspecting their business and they had a pattern for
> doing so and kept files. It's just how blatant they went to cover up,
> strong-arm, to create a paper trail. Nobody in the investigative
> process questioned anybody about it, and they all went out of their
> way's not to offer the 2162's. Holmes should have done jail time.
Blah, blah, blah. Can you show that Klein`s ever filled these forms
out on any of they rifles they mailed to people? It may have been a
law that wasn`t enforced, or abided by. Has nothing to do with the
post office, they move packages, they don`t open them. If there was a
postal regulation being broke, someone would have to alert them to it.
> > > And a Klein's as well as a post office are
> > > supposed to keep those on file for years.
>
> > Can you show Klein`s ever did this with any of the hundreds of
> > rifles it shipped? As far as the post office is concerned, it`s a
> > package. If Klein`s didn`t alert them to the contents, they wouldn`t
> > know what was inside, would they?
>
> No, they as far as I know have never been confronted. It's part of
> U.S. Postal Regulation 846.53a if you want to look that up.
<snicker> You can find this, but you can`t remedy your ignorance
about how mail delivery works?
> They
> weren't a small outfit, they were the largest mail order gun dealer in
> the U.S. and were required to keep the 2162 for four years.
Has what to do with Oswald receiving a rifle in his PO box under
the name Hidell?
> > > But you WC Shills are too
> > > agenda bound or lacking in thinking abilities to understand or care
> > > about what I already posted before.
>
> > It`s a no-issue to whether Oswald can get items sent to his PO box
> > in Hidell`s name. If Klein`s broke some postal regulations when it
> > shipped rifles, what does that have to do with Oswald getting this
> > rifle in Hidell`s name?
>
> What rifle? It was never ordered, never sent, never received.
> Everything you say is an assumption that can't be backed up.
How would you know, you can`t even figure out how mail works. You
kooks are the dumbest stumps on the planet, and the things you can`t
figure out have been shown for decades. How did Klein`s come to have
Oswald PO box number? Why was there a transaction between Klein`s and
that PO box if a rifle wasn`t sent? How did Klein`s have a rifle with
the serial number C2766, and a rifle with that number end up being
used to kill someone with it from Oswald`s work? You don`t have
anything to replace "Oswald ordered a rifle under the Hidell name and
had it sent to his PO box" that covers what is in evidence.
> > > Now as far as accepting a
> > > secondary designated, approved name, and a rifle, besides, for sure
> > > having the names match from rifle company to post office would have to
> > > be the same, but don't know if they could send a rifle to a secondary
> > > name and have it comply with all the possible regulations surrounding
> > > that.
>
> > What does it matter if Klein`s wasn`t following the letter of the
> > law? What they should have done is irrelevant, what is important is
> > what did occur.
>
> Good Bud, "what did occur"
What did occur is that Oz got the rifle from Klein`s sent to his PO
box. How do you think his wife came to photograph him holding it?
> > > So, there could have been a rifle sent with numerous of
> > > regulations circumvented, with a team of people lying their asses off,
> > > or it was just a ruse with a papertrail they conjured up, with no
> > > rifle sent at all. Take your pick. Actually if you look for the
> > > origin of the money order you won't have a pick.
>
> > The fact remains that despite all your blather, you aren`t offering
> > anything to counter the idea that Oswald could receive a rifle sent in
> > Hidell`s name to his PO box.
>
> I rather concentrate on the issues that would surround that to prove
> that a non-possibility rather than depend on something that is 99%
> improbable. Think about it Bud, they already supposedly have a 'Red
> Flag' on that box because of it receiving a Commie Newspaper turned
> already into the FBI by Holmes. It would have been the talk of the
> post office. Do you think they are going to turn over a mail order
> rifle to 'him' without strongly scrutinizing it?
Blah, blah, blah. When you start claiming to know what people you
don`t know would do, you are pretty much running on empty. Regardless
of any FBI or Postal interest in the box, they still would have to
follow procedure regarding mail sent to the box.
curtjester1
You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have
never ordered a firearm before. By your biased scenarioizing MO,
people could just order a rifle from 7-11 as there would be no
restrictions on getting one as it would be like any other product.
CJ
curtjester1
rather just say he avoided the biggie by not discussing procedure for
dealing with firearms. Why didn't he ever offer talking about Postal
Form 2162?
This was typical of Holmes: "I was feeding change of addresses and
bits of information to the FBI and SS and sort of coordinating a deal
on it, but then about Sun. morning about 9:20..." then Belin came in
and stopped him and *went off the record*. Obviously, Holmes was
spilling too much and had to be CURTAILED. It's obvious he was
revealing too much about postal stuff that would open up a can of
worms. So, where was this A. Hidell anyway for them to be sloppy?
Didn't they say that the form was thrown away? How does one give
something to a name not on the form to a person that was receiving a
Commie periodical??
CJ
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
Bud
<snicker> "in a Postal way"? Why not just prove you know more about
postal regulations than the person who enforced them, and cite the
regulations that show he lied under oath about the way mail was
delivered to PO boxes?
> but I
> rather just say he avoided the biggie by not discussing procedure for
> dealing with firearms. Why didn't he ever offer talking about Postal
> Form 2162?
What does this form have to do with whether Oswald could have a
rifle delivered to his PO box under the name Hidell?
> This was typical of Holmes: "I was feeding change of addresses and
> bits of information to the FBI and SS and sort of coordinating a deal
> on it, but then about Sun. morning about 9:20..." then Belin came in
> and stopped him and *went off the record*. Obviously, Holmes was
> spilling too much and had to be CURTAILED.
Yah, yah, what kooks don`t have is always what proves them right.
> It's obvious he was
> revealing too much about postal stuff that would open up a can of
> worms. So, where was this A. Hidell anyway for them to be sloppy?
> Didn't they say that the form was thrown away? How does one give
> something to a name not on the form to a person that was receiving a
> Commie periodical??
Blah, blah, blah. Nothing there about whether an item with Hidell`s
name would be delivered to Oswald`s PO box if it had Oswald`s PO box
number on it. Still stumped on this, stump?
David Von Pein
>>> "You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before." <<<
Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.
As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every
package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it
contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the
recipient?
Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or
something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think
Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a
potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.
Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE
supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of
the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers.
The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between
the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).
Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and
responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it
from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't
fulfill its legal obligations?
Also:
Do the CTers of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not
meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell)
the rifles they were ordering in 1963?
>>> "By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product." <<<
Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to
do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway).
And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes that I supplied
earlier proves that fact.
The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any
laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.
=================
RIFLE-RELATED ADDENDUM:
Whenever the topic of Oswald getting a gun through the mail comes up,
I'm always reminded of an episode of a TV show ("The Fugitive"), made
in 1966, not too many years after the JFK assassination.
Now, I know I'll probably get blasted by the CTers for even mentioning
a "TV show" script when talking about John Kennedy's murder, but this
episode of "The Fugitive" always pops into my mind anyway when
thinking about the subject of "mail-order rifles".
The TV episode I'm talking about is called "In A Plain Paper Wrapper",
and it co-stars a young Kurt Russell as the leader of this local gang
of kids in a small U.S. town.
Kurt and his buddies send away for a rifle by mail-order (and then
they use it to try and capture "the fugitive", Dr. Richard Kimble).
One of the kids in the gang, a 12-year-old boy, goes to the local post
office and comes out with the mail-order rifle in his hands.
A 12-year-old boy picked it up. (And the box was marked "firearms"
too, if my memory serves correctly. I have the episode on VHS tape,
but it's been a while since I've watched it.)
Now, I'm guessing that famed producer Quinn Martin (who helmed "The
Fugitive" from 1963 to 1967) probably always aimed for a certain sense
of realism and accuracy in the scripts that ended up ultimately being
filmed for the TV audience to watch.
So I can't help but wonder if the script for "Paper Wrapper" wasn't
actually pretty accurate with respect to the scene which has this
small boy able to walk out of a U.S. post office with a rifle in his
arms.
Yes, this "TV" example of a boy picking up a rifle at the post office
is proof of NOTHING with respect to this forum discussion about Lee
Oswald's rifle. I'll readily admit that. And I'll even stress that
fact.
But I also can't help but wonder if that very same gun-purchasing and
gun-obtaining scenario hasn't played itself out in just that way in
hundreds of post offices around the USA over the years.
And, as CTers like to point out so often when discussing Oswald and
his mail-order rifle, evidently Oswald could have gone into any gun
shop in the state of Texas and walked out with a rifle that "could
never be traced" (to quote from Oliver Stone's movie).*
* = BTW, I've always found that so-called fact to be very hard to
believe. Didn't gun-shop owners, even in 1963, require purchasers to
present any kind of I.D. at all? Seems very strange to me. But, I'll
admit, I don't have the slightest idea what the regulations were in
Texas for purchasing firearms in the year 1963.
But if it, in fact, is true that Oswald could have bought a rifle that
"could never be traced" at a gun store in Texas, then what did Klein's
do that was any different than what the gun-shop owners were doing,
circa 1963, when it came to gun purchases (from the standpoint of
ensuring that the weapon being sold was going to end up in the hands
of the right person)?
Seems to me that the answer to that last question is --- Nothing.
Bud
> >>> "You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before." <<<
>
> Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.
>
> As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every
> package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it
> contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the
> recipient?
>
> Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or
> something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think
> Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a
> potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.
Doubtful whether the post office had the right to open and inspect
or withhold packages even if it had something written on the outside
indicating it held a rifle.
> Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE
> supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of
> the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers.
> The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between
> the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).
>
> Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and
> responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it
> from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't
> fulfill its legal obligations?
It seems possible to me that it`s a question of it not being
enforced. Here in Philadelphia it is punishable by a fine if a
recyclable item is found in your general trash. I doubt anyone has
ever gotten a fine, and I doubt that a general trash can has ever been
collected that didn`t have recyclable items in it. If something is not
enforced it will likely be ignored. And the feeling was probably
mutual, the Post Office likely wouldn`t want to be buried in forms any
more than Klein`s would want to be. Likely hundreds of thousands of
rifles were sold and shipped via the mail, meaning tons of paperwork.
With so little crime being committed with rifles, it may have been
back-burnered. Likely the Postal police were busy enough with mail
fraud. The back of every comic book had dozens of examples of mail
fraud (remember those x-ray specs?), and these things went on year
after year.
> Also:
>
> Do the CTers of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not
> meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell)
> the rifles they were ordering in 1963?
Knowing Curt, this is something he picked up on one of those
kooksites he reads and treats as gospel.
> >>> "By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product." <<<
>
> Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to
> do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway).
> And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes that I supplied
> earlier proves that fact.
>
> The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any
> laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.
>
> BTW, upon looking a little further into this (albeit very briefly), it
> appears that it is now illegal to send a firearm through the mail
> across state lines:
>
> www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/fa1996102
>
> So, evidently, if Oswald/"Hidell" (in Texas) had tried to order his
> rifle through Klein's in Chicago in 2008, he'd be out of luck, because
> it is apparently now illegal to mail a gun from state to state.
> hundreds of post offices around the USA over the years (at least prior
> to the "No Firearms Shipped By Mail" rule being passed).
>
> And, as CTers like to point out so often when discussing Oswald and
> his mail-order rifle, evidently Oswald could have gone into any gun
> shop in the state of Texas and walked out with a rifle that "could
> never be traced" (to quote from Oliver Stone's movie).*
>
> * = BTW, I've always found that so-called fact to be very hard to
> believe. Didn't gun-shop owners, even in 1963, require purchasers to
> present any kind of I.D. at all?
I looked into partial prints being used to solve a crime in
response to something robcap had said, and I found a cold case that
had been solved by making a composite from two partial thumb prints
(something robcap claimed could not be done) on a steering wheel.
Anyway, the show about this very crime I referenced to was on last
week, so I watched it. it was case of two cops being killed, I think
around 1957. The murder weapon was found years after the murder, and
it was traced to a sale made at Sears. It turned out that the name the
gun was purchased under was a false one, and it seemed that no ID was
shown, you just signed like staying at a motel. That matched it to the
guy when they caught him by his handwriting (after the fingerprint
identified him).
>Seems very strange to me. But, I'll
> admit, I don't have the slightest idea what the regulations were in
> Texas for purchasing firearms in the year 1963.
Probably extremely lax for rifles. Rifles are chiefly hunting
weapons, not generally used to commit crimes.
> But if it, in fact, is true that Oswald could have bought a rifle that
> "could never be traced" at a gun store in Texas, then what did Klein's
> do that was any different than what the gun-shop owners were doing,
> circa 1963, when it came to gun purchases (from the standpoint of
> ensuring that the weapon being sold was going to end up in the hands
> of the right person)?
>
> Seems to me that the answer to that last question is --- Nothing.
It`s just kooks barking at the moon, trying to draw attention away
from the Patsy. Blame Holes, blame the USPS, blame anybody but the
double murderer.
David Von Pein
A "GUNS THROUGH THE MAIL" footnote....
Bud responded to a message I have since deleted. It was deleted due to
the fact it contained incorrect information about U.S. gun laws. I had
erroroneously stated in my deleted post that it was currently illegal
to ship guns via US Mail, which is not a correct statement at all.
It's still perfectly legal to ship guns/rifles through the Mail/UPS/
FedEx. I made an error on that in my earlier deleted post. I was
linking to an Australian website regarding gun restrictions.
Evidently, in Australia, sending guns through the mail is, indeed,
illegal.
Just wanted to make that clarification re. my deleted post, before I
get jumped on by the CT-Kooks for posting blatantly-inaccurate
information about mail-order policies.
David Von Pein
>>> "It seems possible to me that it`s a question of it not being enforced. Here in Philadelphia it is punishable by a fine if a recyclable item is found in your general trash. I doubt anyone has ever gotten a fine, and I doubt that a general trash can has ever been collected that didn`t have recyclable items in it. If something is not enforced, it will likely be ignored." <<<
Oh, boy, Bud....you might have set yourself up for a Kook Attack here,
with a kook coming back with:
"Bud, you dipshit, how can possibly have the 'nads to compare a
seldom-enforced law about recycled trash with a law that deals with
firearms?"
This whole topic has now reminded me of the hilarious "Weird Laws"
that are still on the books of many U.S. states....laws that quite
obviously are never ever enforced (and for good reason).
I've jotted down a few of my favorites (from the "hilarious" POV) that
I found at an Internet website. It's hard to believe that some of
these aren't just made up out of whole cloth. But, here they are
anyway:
IN SOUTH DAKOTA:
No horses are allowed into Fountain Inn unless they are wearing
pants.
If there are more than 5 Native Americans on your property, you
may shoot them.
IN NEW MEXICO:
Idiots may not vote.
[Hopefully, Walt and Robcap aren't from Albuquerque.]
IN OHIO:
Women are prohibited from wearing patent leather shoes in
public.
It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
[On Saturdays, though, you're allowed to land all the whales your boat
can handle. LOL.]
It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
[Now, all we need to figure out is WHY anyone from the Buckeye State
would have a desire to make a mackerel tipsy? ~shrug~]
It is illegal to mistreat anything of great importance.
[Too bad I'm not from Ohio.] :)
IN NEVADA:
It is illegal to drive a camel on the highway.
[Don't worry, driving giraffes and bison ARE permitted in Vegas,
however.]
IN WASHINGTON:
It is illegal to pretend that one’s parents are rich.
All motor vehicles must be preceded by a man carrying a red flag
(daytime) or a red lantern (nighttime) fifty feet in front of said
vehicle.
When two trains come to a crossing, neither shall go until the
other has passed.
[Huh????]
IN GEORGIA:
It is illegal to use profanity in front of a dead body which
lies in a funeral home or in a coroners office.
Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.
[Rossley?? Are you listening to this?!]
IN MASSACHUSETTS:
At a wake, mourners may eat no more than three sandwiches.
[No restrictions on cole slaw and potato salad, though.]
All men must carry a rifle to church on Sunday.
[But only if the weapon was purchased through Klein's in Chicago, and
shipped (sans the proper papers) to A. Hidell in Dallas.]
Hunting on Sundays is prohibited.
[This law is obviously on the books in conjunction with the one I
posted right above it. It's to protect the preacher who gave a silly-
sounding sermon during church services.]
Tomatoes may not be used in the production of clam chowder.
No gorilla is allowed in the back seat of any car.
Bullets may not be used as currency.
[Bullet SHELLS, however, CAN be used in lieu of cash. Two 6.5mm shells
= $2.25.]
Children may smoke, but they may not purchase cigarettes.
[Kennedy's home state sure has some beauts on the books, huh?]
IN PENNSYLVANIA:
A special cleaning ordinance bans housewives from hiding dirt
and dust under a rug in a dwelling.
It it illegal to sleep on top of a refrigerator outdoors.
[In your kitchen, okay. But on the front porch, forget it.]
It is contrary to Pennsylvania law to discharge a gun, cannon,
revolver or other explosive weapon at a wedding.
[At the wedding REHEARSAL, however, it's perfectly okay to shoot off
your cannon. I'm not sure about a funeral, though. I'll check that out
and get back to y'all.]
Any motorist driving along a country road at night must stop
every mile and send up a rocket signal, wait 10 minutes for the road
to be cleared of livestock, and continue.
[LOL. If you haven't wet your pants by this time after reading this
one....you must be dead.]
IN MAINE:
Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a
Native American attack.
IN NEW YORK:
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
[And if the penalty doesn't kill you, the thing you did wrong
certainly will.]
While riding in an elevator, one must talk to no one, and fold
his hands while looking toward the door.
IN ARIZONA:
You may not have more than two dildos in a house.
[Rossley?? Are you hearing this??]
It is illegal to manufacture imitation cocaine.
[But if it's the real McCoy....you're in the clear.]
When being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only
protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person possesses.
[A dandy and logical little law here. This one was added to the books
by members of the "Funeral Directors Association Of Arizona, Inc.", in
order to boost sagging sales.]
IN OKLAHOMA:
Females are forbidden from doing their own hair without being
licensed by the state.
[Enforcing this one must be a bitch!]
Dogs must have a permit signed by the mayor in order to
congregate in groups of three or more on private property.
[Rossley????]
Oklahoma will not tolerate anyone taking a bite out of another’s
hamburger.
[What about a cheeseburger?]
It is against the law to read a comic book while operating a
motor vehicle.
["War & Peace", okay. "The Archies", no way.]
It is illegal to have the hind legs of farm animals in your
boots.
[~sigh~ Rossley????]
Fish may not be contained in fishbowls while on a public bus.
[A cab, fine. On a bus, uh-huh.]
Tissues are not to be found in the back of one’s car.
[A Kleenex in the front seat is okay however. Remember this, Tulsa-
ites.]
IN OREGON:
It is illegal to place a container filled with human fecal
matter on the side of any highway.
[Rossley??? Get that shit off the highway. You know better!]
Dishes must drip dry.
[Enforcing this one must be a bitch too. .... (knock on door) --
"Excuse me, ma'am, I'm Officer Taylor with the Dish Police. We need to
inspect your drainboard please."]
One may not bathe without wearing "suitable clothing".
[Quite a built-in quandary with this one, huh?]
IN KANSAS:
Rabbits may not be shot from motorboats.
IN CONNECTICUT:
In order for a pickle to officially be considered a pickle, it
must bounce.
IN ALASKA:
It is considered an offense to push a live moose out of a moving
airplane.
[If the moose has already expired, however.....Geronimo!!!]
IN INDIANA:
Hotel sheets must be exactly 99 inches long and 81 inches wide.
Baths may not be taken between the months of October and March.
[Whew!]
If any person has a puppet show, wire dancing or tumbling act in
the state of Indiana and receives money for it, they will be fined $3
under the Act to Prevent Certain Immoral Practices.
[I think a "WTF??" is overdue....don't you?]
AND MY ALL-TIME FAVORITE --- (drum-roll please) --- IN IDAHO:
It is illegal for a man to give his sweetheart a box of candy
weighing less than 50 pounds.
[No wonder there were so many blimps in Boise the last time I was
there.]
Lots more hilarity at:
curtjester1
and I as a former employee of the U.S.P.S. would just say the same.
Just grab your mailman next time and ask him these questions. Holmes
lied so deeply so often and that I just hang with that. And if you
don't respond to my 'Exposing Postal Inspector' posts, I am not going
to cast my pearls before the uncaring.
> > but I
> > rather just say he avoided the biggie by not discussing procedure for
> > dealing with firearms. Why didn't he ever offer talking about Postal
> > Form 2162?
>
> What does this form have to do with whether Oswald could have a
> rifle delivered to his PO box under the name Hidell?
>
Because it's a procedure. It's like if certified mail is delivered,
there is a special attachment to the item and a signature of the party
may be required as part of the paid for transaction by the customer.
There would have been a 2162 attached to the wrapping for the parties
to attend to. Just another postal procedure. Look in line the next
time your in the post office for all the things one can sign up for
and their costs. Things are just not broken down to mere package and
envelope deals. So, Hidell wouldn't have been able to pick it up as
his name wasn't on the P.O. box card no matter if it was Oswald
picking it up and showing Hidell ID.
> > This was typical of Holmes: "I was feeding change of addresses and
> > bits of information to the FBI and SS and sort of coordinating a deal
> > on it, but then about Sun. morning about 9:20..." then Belin came in
> > and stopped him and *went off the record*. Obviously, Holmes was
> > spilling too much and had to be CURTAILED.
>
> Yah, yah, what kooks don`t have is always what proves them right.
>
You have to say that when 'Harry is your man'.
> > It's obvious he was
> > revealing too much about postal stuff that would open up a can of
> > worms. So, where was this A. Hidell anyway for them to be sloppy?
> > Didn't they say that the form was thrown away? How does one give
> > something to a name not on the form to a person that was receiving a
> > Commie periodical??
>
> Blah, blah, blah. Nothing there about whether an item with Hidell`s
> name would be delivered to Oswald`s PO box if it had Oswald`s PO box
> number on it. Still stumped on this, stump?
>
>
Sieg Heil, PostMASTER!
CJ
curtjester1
> >>> "You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before." <<<
>
> Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.
>
to prove Klein's even sent one.
> As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every
> package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it
> contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the
> recipient?
>
It's not a golf club. It's a firearm. Things with special needs are
dealt with differently like volatile chemicals....
> Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or
> something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think
> Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a
> potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.
>
Like I said to Bud, the procedures vary to quite a degree and many
things are added to in paperwork right onto the envelope or parcel.
The avoidance by Holmes and Klein's is what's eye-opening. They
should have explained up front without hesitation the law and
procedure for it, and DIDN'T. Their silence is deafening. I would
assume that the form 2162 would have been added to the parcel. Maybe
one could ask on their trip to the post office or stop a mailman, or
ask a gun mail order dealer.
> Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE
> supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of
> the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers.
> The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between
> the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).
>
I am sure UPS has just as many regulations. The question to ask
would have been, could a mail-order gun dealer send a rifle directly
to a residence and by-pass anything at the post office? I sincerely
doubt it. Or if they could, would the carrier have to deal with the
form 2162 paperwork?
> Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and
> responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it
> from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't
> fulfill its legal obligations?
>
Wouldn't there be plenty of liability potential on both sides?
> Also:
>
> Do the CTers of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not
> meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell)
> the rifles they were ordering in 1963?
>
I don't think I have ever seen where one could just by a gun like one
would purchase a grocery item. Have you?
> >>> "By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product." <<<
>
> Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to
> do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway).
> And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes that I supplied
> earlier proves that fact.
>
Harry D. Holmes a proven liar, and should have done bigtime jail time.
> The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any
> laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.
>
That's why if I mail a book they wonder what's in my package. There
could be a revolver or drugs in there, and they can and do check
what's inside. I think they would be wholly interested in a 10 lb.
package that was 4-5 feet long.
CJ
Gil Jesus
>�So, Hidell wouldn't have been able to pick it up as
> his name wasn't on the P.O. box card no matter if it was Oswald
> picking it up and showing Hidell ID.
Excellent point, CJ.
David Von Pein
You kooks will go to the ends of the Earth to keep that rifle out of
the double-murderer's hands, won't you?
Insanity.
Sieg Heil, Saint Oswald!
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive ( TAKE OUT ) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes ( 2915 or 6225 ) ?" <<<
>
> It doesn't seem to matter how many times this is explained to the
> kooks, it never sinks in.
It does sink in - you are lying - we get it. Now lie to us some more.
> Gil The Kook thinks "take out" and "receive" (as in: "a package or
> letter with Hidell's name on it is delivered to the P.O. Box") are the
> exact same thing.
NO they are not as Hidell could have a key to the P.O. Box if he was a
different person, but the scenario of receiving is even harder on you
folks (LNers). See, the staff would have to look at the box number -
2915 - to see if a A. Hidell was AUTHORIZED to receive mail at that
box. They would have pulled out Part 3 of the application and lo and
behold they would have seen he was NOT authorized to receive mail so
the package would have been sent back to the sender.
End of story.
> As Bud has explained, a package delivered to PO Box 2915 in Dallas
> could have ANYBODY'S name on it, including "A. Hidell", and Oswald
> wouldn't have had a bit of trouble picking it up legally.
So why does the post office make someone fill out an application and
include a part for others and aliases then? I mean, if a package can
come in any name to my box and they just give it to me, why make me
fill out a long application then?
If this is the case why did the WC have serious trouble PROVING he was
given the rifle then? They never proved this part did they Dave? NO,
once they saw NO Hidell was listed the weapon would have been sent
back to the sender.
> Because when
> an oversized package is sent to a PO Box (or a residence), and the
> clerk is presented with the bona fide document left in the PO Box
> related to that delivery, the clerk assumes that the person with the
> receipt is entitled to the package. And no signature is needed either.
This is an out-and-out lie Dave!!! Aren't you embarrased? Why make
people fill out the application, including Part 3, if a receipt alone
entitles them to the package? Why do you lie about even having to sign
for it as it is standard P.O. policy, you have to sign for a package
so you can't claim you did NOT get it later on.
> I've picked up many oversized packages this way myself at my post
> office. I've never once had to identify myself as the person whose
> name appears on the package, and I've never once been asked to sign
> anything to get the package either. I just hand them the yellow slip
> of paper, and they give me the package. Period.
So you live in Mayberry, what is your point? You P.O. staff are
breaking the law if they do these things. Dallas was a big town, not
a one light town, so they would have been following the rules. You
are lying poorly here.
> So, the name "Hidell" appearing on the front of Oswald's rifle package
> from Klein's is meaningless to the post-office workers.
Then why have P.O. employees and not just a regular minimum wage
worker since you are saying NOTHING needs to be checked against postal
regs?
>They couldn't
> care less about who the package is addressed to. It's the ADDRESS
> itself that is important. And that's the ONLY thing that matters. The
> name on the package is totally irrelevant.
Prove this statement. I want the of the Postal service in a quote
too.
> Oswald would have gotten his Carcano package if the name on the label
> had said Nikita Khrushchev.
Sure he would, that is why the WC was UNABLE TO PROVE IT!
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Oct 18, 8:37 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Now who said Hidell was going to put mail in the box ?" <<<
>
> > LOL.
>
> > Gil really doesn't get it. Really.
>
> > This idiot named Gil is hilarious.
>
> These are the people who think they have some special talent for
> looking into things, flatter themselves that they are investigators.
> Holmes spelled it out, and robcap was "LOL"ing at the explanation,
> because he couldn`t understand the explanation.
Wow, Bud is backing Ben now too!
Bud
Of course you do. It is the kook M.O. to diregard any information
that goes against what they want to believe.
> And if you
> don't respond to my 'Exposing Postal Inspector' posts, I am not going
> to cast my pearls before the uncaring.
You have no pearls to cast. You are just another kook desperate to
believe something that isn`t true.
> > > but I
> > > rather just say he avoided the biggie by not discussing procedure for
> > > dealing with firearms. Why didn't he ever offer talking about Postal
> > > Form 2162?
>
> > What does this form have to do with whether Oswald could have a
> > rifle delivered to his PO box under the name Hidell?
>
> Because it's a procedure. It's like if certified mail is delivered,
> there is a special attachment to the item and a signature of the party
> may be required as part of the paid for transaction by the customer.
> There would have been a 2162 attached to the wrapping for the parties
> to attend to.
You`re just making shit up again. This 2162 form is not something
that would be attached to the item, idiot.
> Just another postal procedure. Look in line the next
> time your in the post office for all the things one can sign up for
> and their costs.
It`s 2008, retard, most of those services didn`t exist in 1963. What
I can do while I`m in line is look at the PO boxes, and see they have
no names on them like some idiot claimed.
> Things are just not broken down to mere package and
> envelope deals. So, Hidell wouldn't have been able to pick it up as
> his name wasn't on the P.O. box card no matter if it was Oswald
> picking it up and showing Hidell ID.
Would it help you if I explained how mail works again for you? Or
have DVP quote Holmes on how PO boxes work? You are just retarded, CJ,
and you are just trying to get reality to conform with your retarded
viewpoints.
> > > This was typical of Holmes: "I was feeding change of addresses and
> > > bits of information to the FBI and SS and sort of coordinating a deal
> > > on it, but then about Sun. morning about 9:20..." then Belin came in
> > > and stopped him and *went off the record*. Obviously, Holmes was
> > > spilling too much and had to be CURTAILED.
>
> > Yah, yah, what kooks don`t have is always what proves them right.
>
> You have to say that when 'Harry is your man'.
Yah, Holmes went on record under oath and lied about postal
regulations that can be checked by anyone. Why is it you haven`t
responded in a "Postal way" with regulations that contradict what
Holmes asserted? So far, we have a expert on postal matters saying one
thing, and a retard saying something else. I don`t see any need to go
for a tie-breaker.
> > > It's obvious he was
> > > revealing too much about postal stuff that would open up a can of
> > > worms. So, where was this A. Hidell anyway for them to be sloppy?
> > > Didn't they say that the form was thrown away? How does one give
> > > something to a name not on the form to a person that was receiving a
> > > Commie periodical??
>
> > Blah, blah, blah. Nothing there about whether an item with Hidell`s
> > name would be delivered to Oswald`s PO box if it had Oswald`s PO box
> > number on it. Still stumped on this, stump?
>
> Sieg Heil, PostMASTER!
I guess thats a "yes".
Bud
> On Oct 19, 6:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before." <<<
>
> > Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.
>
> They would be equally connected in a transaction. Of course you need
> to prove Klein's even sent one.
No, you need to show that Klein`s ever used this form in a rifle
transaction.
> > As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every
> > package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it
> > contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the
> > recipient?
>
> It's not a golf club. It's a firearm. Things with special needs are
> dealt with differently like volatile chemicals....
This is only a kook saying stuff.
> > Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or
> > something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think
> > Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a
> > potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.
>
> Like I said to Bud, the procedures vary to quite a degree and many
> things are added to in paperwork right onto the envelope or parcel.
> The avoidance by Holmes and Klein's is what's eye-opening. They
> should have explained up front without hesitation the law and
> procedure for it, and DIDN'T. Their silence is deafening. I would
> assume that the form 2162 would have been added to the parcel. Maybe
> one could ask on their trip to the post office or stop a mailman, or
> ask a gun mail order dealer.
It`s irrelevant, idiot. It like pointing out that Klein`s didn`t
pay the proper taxes on the rifles it sells. It has no bearing on
whether Oswald could order a rifle from Klein`s and have it shipped to
his PO box.
> > Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE
> > supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of
> > the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers.
> > The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between
> > the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).
>
> I am sure UPS has just as many regulations. The question to ask
> would have been, could a mail-order gun dealer send a rifle directly
> to a residence and by-pass anything at the post office? I sincerely
> doubt it. Or if they could, would the carrier have to deal with the
> form 2162 paperwork?
These are things for you to look up idiot, you are the one making
claims and assumptions. When you learn how mail works, and PO boxes
work, and how rifles were shipped in 1963, than you won`t come off
sounding so ignorant.
> > Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and
> > responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it
> > from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't
> > fulfill its legal obligations?
>
> Wouldn't there be plenty of liability potential on both sides?
>
> > Also:
>
> > Do the CTers of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not
> > meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell)
> > the rifles they were ordering in 1963?
>
> I don't think I have ever seen where one could just by a gun like one
> would purchase a grocery item. Have you?
You have seen the Klein ad, haven`t you, idiot? You send them a
check or money order. They mail you a rifle. You have to show there is
more to it than that, and you haven`t shown anything.
> > >>> "By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product." <<<
>
> > Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to
> > do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway).
> > And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes that I supplied
> > earlier proves that fact.
>
> Harry D. Holmes a proven liar, and should have done bigtime jail time.
<snicker> Of course, anyone who gave information implicating poor Oz
should be thrown in the slammer.
> > The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any
> > laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.
>
> That's why if I mail a book they wonder what's in my package.
You think postal employees are standing around your mail, looking
at it and wondering? Seek help, curt.
> There
> could be a revolver or drugs in there, and they can and do check
> what's inside. I think they would be wholly interested in a 10 lb.
> package that was 4-5 feet long.
It doesn`t matter what you think, Curt, you`re retarded. What can
you show? So far, you just keep saying a bunch of ignorant shit.
> CJ
Bud
As Harry Holmes explained, there was no showing of ID to pick up
items that were too large to fit in the PO boxes. Do try to keep up,
idiots.
curtjester1
According to your thinking, Harry Holmes was the one who pioneered the
not filling out of postal box forms, so they could just throw the key
at the box buyer. No need for anything else, right?
CJ
curtjester1
You gotta watch out for those poison darts in small packages....bdea,
bdea, bdea....:D
Gil Jesus
>
> � As Harry Holmes explained, there was no showing of ID to pick up
> items that were too large to fit in the PO boxes. Do try to keep up,
> idiots.
No one's talking about showing ID, moron. CJ said that because
"Hidell's name" wasn't on the application, even Oswald wouldn't have
been able to pick up a package with a Hidell ID.
Holmes was a liar. To think the larger packages were just handed off
to whoever came looking for them without any verification of identity
is nothing but BS.
Whoever heard of anything so ridiculous ?
And it's the kind of BS you LN morons believe as gospel.
curtjester1
OR, Gil, they don't ACTUALLY believe it, but want OTHERS, to believe
it.
CJ
muc...@gmail.com
Easy now, tough guy. Are you saying that the rifle was sent by
registered mail?
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
Easy now? It's even more than retarded to think any mail without a
name much less a foreign name is going to get delivered in the post
office box or the home, period!
As far as firearms, it would even be more retarded as they go through
just that, sign 2162 forms sent by the gun dealer and the post office
as well as the recipient and is held for four years by the post
office.
Harry Holmes lied when he said that post office info is trashed when a
box is vacated. If he would do that he would certainly lie about the
'registered-type' of mail with the firearm process. He did there too
as their was no 2162 found here at all. He didn't even offer that as
a postal process. Obstruction of Justice and big time jail, just for
that.
No mail is treated at the post office as address only. Even third
class mail must have 'occupant'. That's why experienced mail carriers
and clerks sort their mail each day piece by piece. Anything, not
addressed correctly and foreign names are just put in their Nixie
piles where they do the proper paperwork of stamping and sorting that
mail process EVERY DAY (along with certified mail, priority
packagings..e.g.). They spend about 10-30 minutes after their routes
doing this and documenting it. Harry Holmes' picture of making mail
delivery cavalier with his big package scenario is a HUGE LIE.
I was just perusing the net and found a hit for a Livingstone book
with the 'Radical Right' in the title. Looks like the whole 2003 book
is online, and the part that I got at least gave the Postal Reg that
surrounds Form 2162 for firearms via mail.
CJ
Bud
They knew who`s PO box it was. Oswald`s. Oswald could get mail sent
to it in any name he invented.
> No need for anything else, right?
>
> CJ
<snicker> C`mon, Curt, I thought you were going to show what Holmes
said was wrong "in a Postal way". Where are those regulations about PO
boxes that contradict what Holmes told the WC?
Bud
> On Oct 20, 3:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As Harry Holmes explained, there was no showing of ID to pick up
> > items that were too large to fit in the PO boxes. Do try to keep up,
> > idiots.
>
> No one's talking about showing ID, moron. CJ said that because
> "Hidell's name" wasn't on the application, even Oswald wouldn't have
> been able to pick up a package with a Hidell ID.
It`s tough to keep explaining these things to idiots. What did
Holmes say about picking up packages too large to fit in the PO box,
idiot. Have you offered anything that shows what he said to be wrong?
> Holmes was a liar.
That should b easy enough to prove. Just cite a regulation
concerning mail sent to a PO box that contradicts him.
>To think the larger packages were just handed off
> to whoever came looking for them without any verification of identity
> is nothing but BS.
Again, we have an expert stating the regulations and procedures.
Again, an idiot says he doesn`t like what the expert said, offering
nothing of substance to contradict the expert.
It has been explained to these idiots that a ticket is placed
inside the PO box. This ticket does two things... it alerts the person
renting the box that there was a package too big for the box sent to
it, and the ticket verifies to the people at the desk that they are
holding an oversized box for the person with access to that PO box (if
they didn`t have access to the PO box, they wouldn`t have the ticket).
> Whoever heard of anything so ridiculous ?
Idiot, if the box could fit in the box box, who would get it? The
person with access to the box, in this case, Oswald. Why would it be
any different if the box didn`t fit in the PO box?
> And it's the kind of BS you LN morons believe as gospel.
What this issue proves once again is that you kooks are clueless
idiots. And you do nothing to cure you ignorance, you just keep saying
"I can`t believe this".
Bud
It has already been show what the rules were concerning PO boxes.
Other than denial, a gnashing of teeth, and jabber, you`ve offered
nothing of substance to rebut the information produced.
> CJ
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:bce74318-6b19-4c75...@l76g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Right HERE Bud>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
Thanks for asking! ! ! (snicker)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "No one's talking about showing ID, moron. CJ said that because "Hidell's name" wasn't on the application, even Oswald wouldn't have been able to pick up a package with a Hidell ID." <<<
Oswald wouldn't even NEED to show any "Hidell" ID, idiot. He was the
owner of the P.O. box at that time, and therefore he had the right to
ANY package delivered to that box--including a rifle package mailed to
"Hidell".
But keep on ignoring Harry Holmes' testimony. It's always better for
the kooks if they ignore the testimony of someone who's in authority
to know the rules better than acj retards.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Oct 20, 7:02 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 12:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 8:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 20, 7:33 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > So, Hidell wouldn't have been able to pick it up as
> > > > > his name wasn't on the P.O. box card no matter if it was Oswald
> > > > > picking it up and showing Hidell ID.
>
> > > > Excellent point, CJ.
>
> > > As Harry Holmes explained, there was no showing of ID to pick up
> > > items that were too large to fit in the PO boxes. Do try to keep up,
> > > idiots.
>
> > According to your thinking, Harry Holmes was the one who pioneered the
> > not filling out of postal box forms, so they could just throw the key
> > at the box buyer.
>
> They knew who`s PO box it was. Oswald`s. Oswald could get mail sent
> to it in any name he invented.
What a bunch of bull. The package comes in, it says A. Hidell on it
along with the box number. They look up the box number and see it
belongs to a Lee H. Oswald. Then they pull his application to see if
this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess
what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package
to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address.
Something LNers can never answer is this question. If LHO was having
the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name?
IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was
ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?
IF he really wanted anonymity, just walk into a store and buy a rifle
with NO paper trail.
David Von Pein
>>> "The package comes in, it says A. Hidell on it along with the box number. They look up the box number and see it belongs to a Lee H. Oswald. Then they pull his application to see if this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address." <<<
Like a good mega-kook, Rob's up to speed -- i.e., ignore anything and
everything in officialdom that might lead down a path of guilt for the
patsy. Like these words uttered by Harry D. Holmes:
===============
Rob The Kook also misinterprets the words "allowed to receive mail".
He thinks this prohibits Oswald from picking up mail that has been
addressed to A. Hidell at Box 2915. But, of course, that's not the
case at all.
A letter addressed to "Rob The Moron" at Box 2915 would still have
been put inside Box 2915. And who would have received that letter
addressed to Rob? Oswald of course, when he opened his box next time.
Rob must think that ALL mail addressed to anybody but LHO & Marina was
not put in the PO box, instead it was confiscated and held back by the
post office and taken to the back rooms (with the large packages).
This premise, of course, is idiotic. I get mail occasionally addressed
to someone else, but it still gets delivered. That's because they
deliver to the ADDRESS....not the PEOPLE.
>>> "If LHO was having the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name? IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?" <<<
Yeah, it was pretty silly of the patsy framers to do something so
transparently obvious and phony....wasn't it Rob-Kook?
Why do you suppose the patsy framers did this? Esp. with sharp-eyed
idiots like Rob on the case to expose their obvious fraud?
tomnln
You're quoting a Proven Liar.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
Do you & Wally live together?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:10b88f85-c482-47e6...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
David;
You're quoting a Proven LIAR ! ! !
curtjester1
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
They refuse to reason. Of course they know no Postal regulations, no
mail order gun regulations, and only adhere to an 'expert' in Harry
Holmes, and of course they won't go further in scrutinizing Holmes on
his interrogation of Oswald testimony, or how he would vouch via
postal regulation how a postal money order was conjured up. If you
read 'Oswald Talked' one would know of the gun runners who knew Oswald
and he them, and would be privy to all sorts of weaponry that would
never be traced to an individual because it came from an Armory.
Rob, I have worked many a shift in a post office and stood in many a
line as a customer, and adhering to a Harry Holmes answer is not only
wrong, it has no merit in postal regulations. Clerks and carriers
usually take a lot of pride in their work, and the only way one is
going to hand over anything without heavy corroboration, is if they
have transacted with that person numerous times. EVEN THEN they would
not give it up to some alias. Again, there would be no purpose to
have any sign up cards or any restrictions on what was sent in the
mail, if one was simply able to find a key that matched a p.o. box.
And how easy it would be to just find a key or method to get in one.
A burglar would just go in the boxes especially after hours and make
an easy haul.
CJ
Bud
wrote:
> On Oct 21, 3:04 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 7:02 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 12:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 20, 8:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 20, 7:33 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > So, Hidell wouldn't have been able to pick it up as
> > > > > > his name wasn't on the P.O. box card no matter if it was Oswald
> > > > > > picking it up and showing Hidell ID.
>
> > > > > Excellent point, CJ.
>
> > > > As Harry Holmes explained, there was no showing of ID to pick up
> > > > items that were too large to fit in the PO boxes. Do try to keep up,
> > > > idiots.
>
> > > According to your thinking, Harry Holmes was the one who pioneered the
> > > not filling out of postal box forms, so they could just throw the key
> > > at the box buyer.
>
> > They knew who`s PO box it was. Oswald`s. Oswald could get mail sent
> > to it in any name he invented.
>
> What a bunch of bull.
<snicker> Kooks can`t even figure out mail, but consider themselves
researchers and investigators. Why are we only hearing idiots offer
their opinions, with no accompanying cited regulations?
> The package comes in, it says A. Hidell on it
> along with the box number. They look up the box number and see it
> belongs to a Lee H. Oswald.
No, they don`t look up to see who`s name is on the box, idiot. If
the mail has that box number, it goes in that box.
> Then they pull his application to see if
> this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess
> what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package
> to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address.
In retardland, this might me how it works. Harry Holmes explained
how it works with the USPS.
> Something LNers can never answer is this question. If LHO was having
> the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name?
What is known is that Oswald had a rifle sent to his PO box under
the name Hidell. He never said why he had it sent under that name.
Perhaps deniablity, he denied knowing anyone of that name, even though
it should have been familiar to him.
> IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was
> ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?
>
> IF he really wanted anonymity, just walk into a store and buy a rifle
> with NO paper trail.
He might have assumed that ordering it under a false name to a PO
box would allow him to avoid detection. Since he bought the rifle to
kill Walker, and intended not to leave the rifle, the police would
have nothing to trace (leaving it at his workplace gave the police
several leads to follow, the shooter`s description, the shooter`s
rifle, eventually the shooter`s name, which gave them too locations to
search for clues) at that crime scene. Had Walker been killed, the
police might have shown more interest, and canvassed the local gun
outlets looking for leads.
Bud
There is no reasoning necessary. The postal official explained how
the PO boxes worked. Kooks don`t like what he had to say, because it
interferes with the stupid shit they want to believe. What could
matter less?
> Of course they know no Postal regulations, no
> mail order gun regulations, and only adhere to an 'expert' in Harry
> Holmes,
We know how mail works. You kooks don`t. We offered an expert. You
kooks have offered nothing substantial to challenge his assertions.
> and of course they won't go further in scrutinizing Holmes on
> his interrogation of Oswald testimony, or how he would vouch via
> postal regulation how a postal money order was conjured up.
Why the misdirection, Curt? The issue we were examining s whether Oz
could have a rifle delivered to his PO box in a false name and get
that rifle. Holmes said it could be done, and you haven`t produced
anything but your displeasure at the information he supplied.
> If you
> read 'Oswald Talked' one would know of the gun runners who knew Oswald
> and he them, and would be privy to all sorts of weaponry that would
> never be traced to an individual because it came from an Armory.
> Rob, I have worked many a shift in a post office and stood in many a
> line as a customer, and adhering to a Harry Holmes answer is not only
> wrong, it has no merit in postal regulations. Clerks and carriers
> usually take a lot of pride in their work, and the only way one is
> going to hand over anything without heavy corroboration, is if they
> have transacted with that person numerous times. EVEN THEN they would
> not give it up to some alias. Again, there would be no purpose to
> have any sign up cards or any restrictions on what was sent in the
> mail, if one was simply able to find a key that matched a p.o. box.
> And how easy it would be to just find a key or method to get in one.
> A burglar would just go in the boxes especially after hours and make
> an easy haul.
More kook blather. Reading the above will give folks an idea just
how detached from reality CJ really is.
> CJ
curtjester1
> On Oct 21, 3:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 3:04 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 20, 7:02 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 20, 12:28 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Oct 20, 8:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Oct 20, 7:33 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > So, Hidell wouldn't have been able to pick it up as
> > > > > > > his name wasn't on the P.O. box card no matter if it was Oswald
> > > > > > > picking it up and showing Hidell ID.
>
> > > > > > Excellent point, CJ.
>
> > > > > As Harry Holmes explained, there was no showing of ID to pick up
> > > > > items that were too large to fit in the PO boxes. Do try to keep up,
> > > > > idiots.
>
> > > > According to your thinking, Harry Holmes was the one who pioneered the
> > > > not filling out of postal box forms, so they could just throw the key
> > > > at the box buyer.
>
> > > They knew who`s PO box it was. Oswald`s. Oswald could get mail sent
> > > to it in any name he invented.
>
> > What a bunch of bull.
>
> <snicker> Kooks can`t even figure out mail, but consider themselves
> researchers and investigators. Why are we only hearing idiots offer
> their opinions, with no accompanying cited regulations?
>
can you. I cited the postal regulation number concerning firearms.
You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
you ever do and is quite expected.
> > The package comes in, it says A. Hidell on it
> > along with the box number. They look up the box number and see it
> > belongs to a Lee H. Oswald.
>
> No, they don`t look up to see who`s name is on the box, idiot. If
> the mail has that box number, it goes in that box.
>
I am sure all have had a 'return to sender' for not putting on the
right postage or forgetting to put a name above an address. Anyway,
you're dead wrong. And having done that job personally before there
are 'acceptables' kept on file and visibly posted just in case there
is a sub used that day.
> > Then they pull his application to see if
> > this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess
> > what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package
> > to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address.
>
> In retardland, this might me how it works. Harry Holmes explained
> how it works with the USPS.
>
And you blindly and gullibly believe him.
> > Something LNers can never answer is this question. If LHO was having
> > the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name?
>
> What is known is that Oswald had a rifle sent to his PO box under
> the name Hidell. He never said why he had it sent under that name.
> Perhaps deniablity, he denied knowing anyone of that name, even though
> it should have been familiar to him.
>
It is not known. You just made it up and assume it and make it a
distorted 'fact'. Nobody even copped to giving him any package.
How could anyone who has their routes memorized not know?
> > IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was
> > ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?
>
> > IF he really wanted anonymity, just walk into a store and buy a rifle
> > with NO paper trail.
>
> He might have assumed that ordering it under a false name to a PO
> box would allow him to avoid detection. Since he bought the rifle to
> kill Walker, and intended not to leave the rifle, the police would
> have nothing to trace (leaving it at his workplace gave the police
> several leads to follow, the shooter`s description, the shooter`s
> rifle, eventually the shooter`s name, which gave them too locations to
> search for clues) at that crime scene. Had Walker been killed, the
> police might have shown more interest, and canvassed the local gun
> outlets looking for leads.- Hide quoted text -
>
Of course when the WHOLE process is a fabrication, a false P.O. box
name alias that is tied to an Oswald known in advance by a band of
conspirators would deem having this name the ONLY way to go. Bone up
on postal regs and all of Harry's deeds Bud. You'll end up needing
them.
CJ
David Von Pein
necessary to take that rifle out of Oswald's hands.
And not just on 11/22 itself -- but the kooks seem to practically want
to deny the existence of the Klein's C2766 rifle entirely....it's as
if it never even existed at all, despite the paper trail leading from
Oswald to Klein's and back to Oswald again (via the backyard photos
and C2766 with LHO's multiple prints on it in the TSBD on 11/22).
Why don't the kooks just pretend that JFK wasn't killed at all? Hey,
Brian David Andersen thinks that is what happened. And he's surely no
kookier than the Anybody-But-Ozzie retards here at acj, right? How
could he possibly be?
curtjester1
> You kooks just never stop, do you? You'll go to whatever lengths
> necessary to take that rifle out of Oswald's hands.
>
weapon. You can't even prove any weapon was fired. You can't put
Oswald there. Mostly, what is done is to use Marina and BY Photos.
The BY's are so easily proved false, and Marina lied, and waffled
almost at will, and even the WC acknowledged that. Of course her
husband already dead and a threat of deportation and the money rolling
in, would put her in a mood that any Oswald-did-it person or agency
would want. So, it's not a body taking it out of his hands it's a
contingency putting IT IN HIS HANDS. Now, all one has to do is stick
to evidence whether it's a paper trail, or a bank statement, or a
postal process, or a money order. All would have to connect, or all
would damn the connection. There is no paper trail or viable
evidentiary link to Oswald for 'that' rifle or any other rifle.
> And not just on 11/22 itself -- but the kooks seem to practically want
> to deny the existence of the Klein's C2766 rifle entirely....it's as
> if it never even existed at all, despite the paper trail leading from
> Oswald to Klein's and back to Oswald again (via the backyard photos
> and C2766 with LHO's multiple prints on it in the TSBD on 11/22).
>
And all they would have to have is bank statements with endorsements
with a proper way for paying for it, and it's all EMPTY.
> Why don't the kooks just pretend that JFK wasn't killed at all? Hey,
> Brian David Andersen thinks that is what happened. And he's surely no
> kookier than the Anybody-But-Ozzie retards here at acj, right? How
> could he possibly be?
>
Just pretend that two or more people involved themselves with his
demise. They don't have to have names, just the approval consensus
that people watching the motorcade said what happened. Once you fall
into David's labelling scenarios, you've just negated the evidentiary
and investigative process.
CJ
Bud
These things have nothing to do with the issue being discussed, but
how could a conspiracy kook know that?
> Anyway,
> you're dead wrong. And having done that job personally before there
> are 'acceptables' kept on file and visibly posted just in case there
> is a sub used that day.
You`ve still offered nothing substantial. Why is that?
> > > Then they pull his application to see if
> > > this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess
> > > what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package
> > > to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address.
>
> > In retardland, this might me how it works. Harry Holmes explained
> > how it works with the USPS.
>
> And you blindly and gullibly believe him.
You`ve given no reason not to. You`ve cited nothing to contradict
him. You just don`t like what he said, because it clearly means Oswald
could get the rifle sent to his PO box under the Hidell name and
receive it.
> > > Something LNers can never answer is this question. If LHO was having
> > > the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name?
>
> > What is known is that Oswald had a rifle sent to his PO box under
> > the name Hidell. He never said why he had it sent under that name.
> > Perhaps deniablity, he denied knowing anyone of that name, even though
> > it should have been familiar to him.
>
> It is not known. You just made it up and assume it and make it a
> distorted 'fact'. Nobody even copped to giving him any package.
> How could anyone who has their routes memorized not know?
<snicker> Nothing more pathetic than seeing a desperate kook
scratching around for justification for the stupid shit he wants to
believe.
> > > IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was
> > > ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?
>
> > > IF he really wanted anonymity, just walk into a store and buy a rifle
> > > with NO paper trail.
>
> > He might have assumed that ordering it under a false name to a PO
> > box would allow him to avoid detection. Since he bought the rifle to
> > kill Walker, and intended not to leave the rifle, the police would
> > have nothing to trace (leaving it at his workplace gave the police
> > several leads to follow, the shooter`s description, the shooter`s
> > rifle, eventually the shooter`s name, which gave them too locations to
> > search for clues) at that crime scene. Had Walker been killed, the
> > police might have shown more interest, and canvassed the local gun
> > outlets looking for leads.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Of course when the WHOLE process is a fabrication, a false P.O. box
> name alias that is tied to an Oswald known in advance by a band of
> conspirators would deem having this name the ONLY way to go. Bone up
> on postal regs and all of Harry's deeds Bud. You'll end up needing
> them.
Why, it`s not like there is any chance you can produce regulations
to contradict what he said about how a package too large to be put
into a PO box is routinely handled.
Bud
But you didn`t show that Klein`s ever abided by the regulation in
any rifle they ever shipped, did you?
If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
the fault of the IRS, idiot?
> You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations
from a mail carrier or post office.
> and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
> Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
> you ever do and is quite expected.
What a postal official said under oath is on record. Instead of all
this huffing and puffing, why not just cite something that contradicts
what he said about how over-sized packages sent to PO boxes are
routinely handled?
David Von Pein
>>> "First, any unbiased person would just label it [Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766] a suspect's or sniper's weapon." <<<
Why? Everybody knows that Rifle #C2766 (CE139) belonged to Lee H.
Oswald and was possessed by Oswald and was used by Oswald in the
calendar year of nineteen sixty-three.
Why would I have any desire to twist the evidence regarding LHO's
rifle into something it's obviously not?
>>> "You can't even prove any weapon was fired." <<<
Yeah, I guess JFK's and JBC's bullet wounds were caused by bows and
arrows (or maybe bricks and pop bottles).
>>> "You can't put Oswald there." <<<
Brennan does that for me.
Naturally, Howard must be dismissed as a fraud with horrible eyesight
by you ABO kooks.
>>> "Mostly, what is done is to use Marina and [Backyard] Photos." <<<
And Brennan.
And Fischer.
And Edwards.
And Rowland.
And Givens.
And Randle.
And B.W. Frazier.
And the fingerprints on C2766.
And the fibers on the rifle.
And the fingerprints on the boxes deep within the Sniper's Nest.
And the paper bag with LHO's prints on it.
And the fibers inside the paper bag.
And Oswald's obviously-guilty actions after 12:30.
And Oswald's multiple lies about the rifle that he told to the police.
And on and on and on....
But apparently conspiracy kooks think it is wise to stop at Marina and
the backyard photos when it comes to tying Oswald to the murder of JFK
and the murder weapon.
Nice.
And silly.
Lots of other stuff ties Lee Oswald irrevocably to the murder of John
Kennedy and to Rifle C2766 besides just Marina Oswald and the backyard
pictures.
>>> "The [Backyard Photos] are so easily proved false..." <<<
Which is why the HSCA said this in 1978, right?:
"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials." -- HSCA Report; Volume VI
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
>>> "...and Marina lied..." <<<
Yeah, it's always good to throw in a "s/he lied" declaration when
you've got no other evidence to back up your stupid way of thinking
about this whole murder case. Good job.
>>> "...and [Marina] waffled almost at will, and even the WC acknowledged that." <<<
But nobody at the WC or the HSCA thinks she waffled when it comes to
the central "Backyard Photos" question, which was:
DID YOU, MARINA, POSITIVELY TAKE THESE BACKYARD PHOTOS OF YOUR HUSBAND
SOMETIME IN EARLY 1963?
The answer to that last question is an undeniable 'Yes'. Even most
conspiracy theorists now seem to acknowledge the fact that Marina took
at least ONE of the backyard snapshots. You know, the one that was
positively linked via its negative to the Imperial Reflex camera that
was OWNED BY LEE OSWALD.
QUESTION -- "Was it on a day off that you took the picture?"
MARINA OSWALD -- "It was on a Sunday."
QUESTION -- "How did it occur? Did he {LHO} come to you and ask you to
take the picture?"
MARINA OSWALD -- "I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with
the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera
and asked me to press a certain button."
QUESTION -- "And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was
he?"
MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes."
================================
THE BACKYARD PHOTOS -- FAKE OR REAL?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/abf2ea54c9dddca4
================================
>>> "Now, all one has to do is stick to evidence..." <<<
Which no CT-Kook ever does, of course.
>>> "...whether it's a paper trail, or a bank statement, or a postal process, or a money order. All would have to connect, or all would damn the connection. There is no paper trail or viable evidentiary link to Oswald for 'that' rifle or any other rifle." <<<
You're an idiot. The paper trail that positively proves Oswald
ordered, paid for, and (logically) took possession of Rifle #C2766 is
a mile long.
A person has to be really, really stupid to believe otherwise.
>>> "And all they would have to have is [sic] bank statements with endorsements with a proper way for paying for it, and it's all EMPTY." <<<
WTF???
You think Oswald's (??) bank statement should have detailed
information in it about whether or not he purchased a rifle from
Klein's by mail-order with a postal money order??
Or are you talking about Klein's bank statements? (I guess you must be
talking about Klein's bank statements, right?, seeing as how Oswald
didn't even have a bank account of any type in 1963, as far as I am
aware; hence, he never would receive any statements from any banks at
all.)
Or (more likely) are you merely barking at the ABO moon again, just
for the sake of barking at it?
>>> "Just pretend that two or more people involved themselves with his demise." <<<
Which is exactly what conspiracy theorists always do -- pretend that
very thing. They have to. Because without "pretending", where are
they?
Answer -- Back to Oswald and that pesky C2766 rifle that you kooks are
so desperate to take out of his mitts.
>>> "They don't have to have names..." <<<
They never do....because they don't exist.
You're doing great here so far, Curt. Continue....
>>> "...just the approval consensus that people watching the motorcade said what happened." <<<
Which means Oswald's in the window with a gun. (Mr. Brennan was there;
he saw that.)
>>> "Once you fall into David's labelling scenarios, you've just negated the evidentiary and investigative process." <<<
No. Once you fall into my camp, you've become a non-kook -- i.e., a
reasonable person who looks at this murder case without feeling the
need to scream "It's Fake!" or "He Lied!" whenever confronted with
stuff that favors the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Conspiracy-thirsty kooks cannot (or will not) approach the case
without the compelling desire to label people "liars" or "cover-up
agents", etc.
They HAVE to do that, of course. Because if they didn't, where are
they?
Answer -- Back to Oswald and that pesky C2766 rifle that you kooks are
so desperate to take out of his mitts.
Like most CTers in this loony bin, Curt is an idiot. He should
probably just face that fact and move on.
Reasonably Yours,
David Von Pein
October 21, 2008
curtjester1
that and you can't show they ever even made the order filled or sent
it to any post office for any name. And you never showed it not to
be any industry practice, did you? And you never showed that anybody
picked up any rifle ever at the Dallas post office, and you don't ever
have anybody giving any recollection that any item or piece of mail
was ever picked up at any time by anyone in Dallas by a name of
Hidell, do you?
> If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
> the fault of the IRS, idiot?
>
You must think the nation's largest gun mail order business would be
apt to dodge inspectors and not comply with mundane, legal industry
paperwork? Is that what you are depending on? Geez, there was even
two guys in the same cell block with Oswald arrested for having
illegal rifles. There's lots of monitoring over guns.
> > You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
>
> Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
> ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
> information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
> don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations
> from a mail carrier or post office.
>
You know how mail is handled, LMAO? You can't even figure out why
they send you back mail for lack of postage or a name not put on the
envelope. You're totally ignorant of regulations, and that's why you
ask me for more proof. You don't want proof, you want to suck on a
Harry Holmes pacifier. Any postal employee would know he lied. Go
find a back up.
> > and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
> > Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
> > you ever do and is quite expected.
>
> What a postal official said under oath is on record. Instead of all
> this huffing and puffing, why not just cite something that contradicts
> what he said about how over-sized packages sent to PO boxes are
> routinely handled?
>
It would be easy just to say he lied just to save face because his
post office wasn't operating up to snuff, but it goes much deeper with
lying about firearms, and fabricaing a phony money order to help the
Feds find a way to convict their suspect. Just get a postal manual
if you want a cite. I already gave you 846.53a for firearms.
CJ
curtjester1
> >>> "First, any unbiased person would just label it [Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766] a suspect's or sniper's weapon." <<<
>
> Why? Everybody knows that Rifle #C2766 (CE139) belonged to Lee H.
> Oswald and was possessed by Oswald and was used by Oswald in the
> calendar year of nineteen sixty-three.
>
> Why would I have any desire to twist the evidence regarding LHO's
> rifle into something it's obviously not?
Because you like easy scenarios and don't like tough evidence
questions like all LNT'ers.
The WC had to find a path to tie the rifle to Oswald. Whether it was
just a means of cover up or whether it was bona fide in connecting a
party to a rifle is not the important thing, it's the points of
contentions that would proven step by step to connect those dots.
Unless you are willing to contest that then there's no purpose, as all
you have is allegory and no proof. Here are those contentions in
that process. And it shows why they are not a bona fide trail to get
anybody to any rifle. You can oppose that....
>
> Reasonably Yours,
>
> David Von Pein
> October 21, 2008
CJ
Bud
Then you don`t know, do you? So why are you representing your
ignorance as enlightenment?
> And you never showed it not to
> be any industry practice, did you?
I wasn`t using that form to make a point, you were. In order for it
to be an issue in this case, you`d have to show Klein`s complied
previously.
> And you never showed that anybody
> picked up any rifle ever at the Dallas post office, and you don't ever
> have anybody giving any recollection that any item or piece of mail
> was ever picked up at any time by anyone in Dallas by a name of
> Hidell, do you?
The only thing that can be shown is that Oswald would get the rifle
if it was sent to his PO box under the Hidell name.
> > If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
> > the fault of the IRS, idiot?
>
> You must think the nation's largest gun mail order business would be
> apt to dodge inspectors and not comply with mundane, legal industry
> paperwork? Is that what you are depending on?
I wasn`t the one try to make a point with this form. It is
irrelevant to the point of Oswald having the rifle sent to his PO box.
You want to claim something should have occurred by just saying that
is the case. You saying it should have occurred has no bearing on
whether it did.
> Geez, there was even
> two guys in the same cell block with Oswald arrested for having
> illegal rifles. There's lots of monitoring over guns.
More blather, more irrelevancies, more just saying things.
> > > You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
>
> > Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
> > ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
> > information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
> > don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations
> > from a mail carrier or post office.
>
> You know how mail is handled, LMAO? You can't even figure out why
> they send you back mail for lack of postage or a name not put on the
> envelope.
What do they do with it, Curt? Hunt down the individual who
neglected to put postage or write the name on the envelope? I suspect
they send it back to the LOCATION of the return address. Because mail
is sent to LOCATIONS, not to INDIVIDUALS, you retard. How many times
do you need this explained to you?
The reason the USPS requires a name is so that the individual the
item is meant for will be able to be determined once it gets to it`s
destination. If a letter with no name is sent to a house, and five
people live in the house, without a name, it could not legally be
oppened, because you aren`t allowed to open other people`s mail, and
with no name, you wouldn`t know whos mail it was. But it isn`t the
USPS that puts mail in an idividuals hands, they deliver to locations,
and the people at the location sort it out from there. Idiot.
> You're totally ignorant of regulations, and that's why you
> ask me for more proof.
More? You haven`t produced anything but blather.
> You don't want proof, you want to suck on a
> Harry Holmes pacifier. Any postal employee would know he lied. Go
> find a back up.
The postal inspector is on record under oath. You haven`t produced
one thing to show what he told the WC about how over-sized items are
routinely handled when sent to PO boxes. You haven`t in any of your
previous posts, and you won`t in any later ones. Why throw out Holmes,
because you don`t like what he said? Produce something tangible that
contradicts him.
> > > and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
> > > Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
> > > you ever do and is quite expected.
>
> > What a postal official said under oath is on record. Instead of all
> > this huffing and puffing, why not just cite something that contradicts
> > what he said about how over-sized packages sent to PO boxes are
> > routinely handled?
>
> It would be easy just to say he lied just to save face because his
> post office wasn't operating up to snuff, but it goes much deeper with
> lying about firearms, and fabricaing a phony money order to help the
> Feds find a way to convict their suspect. Just get a postal manual
> if you want a cite. I already gave you 846.53a for firearms.
More blather with no substance.
> CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The package comes in, it says A. Hidell on it along with the box number. They look up the box number and see it belongs to a Lee H. Oswald. Then they pull his application to see if this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address." <<<
>
> Like a good mega-kook, Rob's up to speed -- i.e., ignore anything and
> everything in officialdom that might lead down a path of guilt for the
> patsy. Like these words uttered by Harry D. Holmes:
LOL!!! Dave is going to "set the record straight" by quoting a proven
liar and a FBI informant! To quote Dave "Oh goodie, more kook stuff!"
> WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Now, supposing that Oswald had not, in fact,
> authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and
> that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact,
> one did at Post Office Box 2915; what procedure would be followed when
> that package came in?"
>
> HARRY D. HOLMES -- "They would put the notice in the box."
LIE!!! There would be NO reason to fill out a Page 3 (area for listing
additional names and aliases) on the application and keep it for 2
years AFTER the box was closed, now would there be??? There also would
be no need for this Postal regulation:
Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box
rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant
authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box
is closed."
in the Postal Manual, now would there be?
> MR. LIEBELER -- "Regardless of whose name was associated with the
> box?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "That is the general practice. The theory being, I have
> a box. I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my
> same name---well, a cousin. You can get mail in there. They are not
> too strict. You don't have to file that third portion to get service
> for other people there. I imagine they might have questioned him a
> little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don't know. It
> depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would
> be all right."
Pure lies, and this is borne out by the need for a Page 3 in the first
place. Surely ID and a signature would be needed as well so the
person can't claim later they never got the package. There was NO
signature for the rifle.
> MR. LIEBELER -- "So that the package would have come in addressed to
> Hidell at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in
> the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive
> mail from it?"
>
> 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."
How could they have NO recollection if they did indeed give the rifle
to LHO? There is NO proof LHO ever picked up any rifle, and there is
NO proof any rifle was ever shipped to LHO at his Dallas P.O. Box.
> 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."
Whoopee, I hope some people send a bunch of gold to my box by
mistake!!!!
> MR. LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that, in fact, is what
> happened in [this] case?"
>
> MR. HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what
> happened."
First he says it is a theory, then with NO proof to prove his theory
he states he assumes this is what happened! Only in political
assassinations can this stuff happen.
> ===============
>
> Rob The Kook also misinterprets the words "allowed to receive mail".
> He thinks this prohibits Oswald from picking up mail that has been
> addressed to A. Hidell at Box 2915. But, of course, that's not the
> case at all.
LNer trick #10, they apply you to the thinking instead of the evidence
that shows this to be the case. Again, here is the Postal Manual
regs:
Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box
rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant
authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box
is closed."
Part 3 is the page that allows you to list aliases and others who can
RECEIVE mail at your box, LHO listed NONE.
> A letter addressed to "Rob The Moron" at Box 2915 would still have
> been put inside Box 2915. And who would have received that letter
> addressed to Rob? Oswald of course, when he opened his box next time.
Notice the sleight of hand here folks??? He is comparing a letter to a
huge package with a rifle in it!!! Mistakes do happen and I'm sure a
person has gotten a letter put in their box by accident on more than
one occassion, but there is a protection against this error - it is a
FEDERAL CRIME to open someone else's mail.
Now back to the topic at hand, the rifle could NOT be accidently put
in the wrong box because it wouldn't fit in a box in the first place!
Dave can lie all he wants, but there is NO proof LHO ever picked up a
rifle.
> Rob must think that ALL mail addressed to anybody but LHO & Marina was
> not put in the PO box, instead it was confiscated and held back by the
> post office and taken to the back rooms (with the large packages).
See??? He is trying to confuse the issue again. He brings up a good
point though, EVEN Marina was NOT listed on his Page 3 so she wouldn't
have mail put in LHO's box either if it had been addressed to her.
> This premise, of course, is idiotic. I get mail occasionally addressed
> to someone else, but it still gets delivered. That's because they
> deliver to the ADDRESS....not the PEOPLE.
NO, it is because you live in Mayberry and your Postal workers make a
ton of mistakes. You are breaking a federal law if you open it, so
they know you will just turn it in. Packages and letters are two
different things, and you know this, you are just trying to distort
the record.
> >>> "If LHO was having the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name? IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?" <<<
>
> Yeah, it was pretty silly of the patsy framers to do something so
> transparently obvious and phony....wasn't it Rob-Kook?
NOT really since they really shipped any rifle there anyway. They made
all the paperwork up.
> Why do you suppose the patsy framers did this? Esp. with sharp-eyed
> idiots like Rob on the case to expose their obvious fraud?
They wanted to frame LHO after the crime, see, there were multiple
patsies, they didn't know if they needed the TSBD patsy or the Trade
Mart patsy (who knows how many others) so they couldn't make up phony
stuff too far ahead, so they did most of it post-assassination when
they knew LHO was the patsy. If anyone doubts this all you have to do
is read about RFK, there at least 3 patsies as they did NOT know which
way he was going to go when he left the stage. Furthermore, the SS
was far more worried about securty at the Trade Mart as it was a
securty nightmare.
Walt
> >>> "You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before." <<<
>
> Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.
>
> As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every
> package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it
> contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the
> recipient?
>
> Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or
> something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think
> Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a
> potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.
>
> Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE
> supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of
> the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers.
> The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between
> the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).
>
> Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and
> responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it
> from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't
> fulfill its legal obligations?
>
> Also:
>
> Do the CTers of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not
> meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell)
> the rifles they were ordering in 1963?
>
> >>> "By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product." <<<
>
> Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to
> do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway).
> And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes that I supplied
> earlier proves that fact.
>
> The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any
> laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.
>
> =================
>
> RIFLE-RELATED ADDENDUM:
>
> Whenever the topic of Oswald getting a gun through the mail comes up,
> I'm always reminded of an episode of a TV show ("The Fugitive"), made
> in 1966, not too many years after the JFK assassination.
>
> Now, I know I'll probably get blasted by the CTers for even mentioning
> a "TV show" script when talking about John Kennedy's murder, but this
> episode of "The Fugitive" always pops into my mind anyway when
> thinking about the subject of "mail-order rifles".
>
> The TV episode I'm talking about is called "In A Plain Paper Wrapper",
> and it co-stars a young Kurt Russell as the leader of this local gang
> of kids in a small U.S. town.
>
> Kurt and his buddies send away for a rifle by mail-order (and then
> they use it to try and capture "the fugitive", Dr. Richard Kimble).
> One of the kids in the gang, a 12-year-old boy, goes to the local post
> office and comes out with the mail-order rifle in his hands.
>
> A 12-year-old boy picked it up. (And the box was marked "firearms"
> too, if my memory serves correctly. I have the episode on VHS tape,
> but it's been a while since I've watched it.)
>
> Now, I'm guessing that famed producer Quinn Martin (who helmed "The
> Fugitive" from 1963 to 1967) probably always aimed for a certain sense
> of realism and accuracy in the scripts that ended up ultimately being
> filmed for the TV audience to watch.
>
> So I can't help but wonder if the script for "Paper Wrapper" wasn't
> actually pretty accurate with respect to the scene which has this
> small boy able to walk out of a U.S. post office with a rifle in his
> arms.
>
> Yes, this "TV" example of a boy picking up a rifle at the post office
> is proof of NOTHING with respect to this forum discussion about Lee
> Oswald's rifle. I'll readily admit that. And I'll even stress that
> fact.
>
> But I also can't help but wonder if that very same gun-purchasing and
> gun-obtaining scenario hasn't played itself out in just that way in
> hundreds of post offices around the USA over the years.
>
> And, as CTers like to point out so often when discussing Oswald and
> his mail-order rifle, evidently Oswald could have gone into any gun
> shop in the state of Texas and walked out with a rifle that "could
> never be traced" (to quote from Oliver Stone's movie).*
>
> * = BTW, I've always found that so-called fact to be very hard to
> believe. Didn't gun-shop owners, even in 1963, require purchasers to
> present any kind of I.D. at all? Seems very strange to me. But, I'll
> admit, I don't have the slightest idea what the regulations were in
> Texas for purchasing firearms in the year 1963.
>
But if it, in fact, is true that Oswald could have bought a rifle
that
"could never be traced" at a gun store in Texas, then what did
Klein's
do that was any different than what the gun-shop owners were doing,
Dud I do believe yer standing on yer head.... It's obvious to me that
Oswald ordered a rifle from Kleins SO THERE WOULD BE A PAPER
TRAIL....... Sure he could have gone in anynumber of hardware stores
or Army /Navy surplus stores or Sporting goods stores and laid down
$20.00 to $30.00 and walked out with a rifle that he could have bought
30.06 ammo for anywhere. There were gobs of 1917 Enfields and 1903
Springfields, available in he early 1960's, and the ammo for them was
readily available anywhere.... Even some gas stations carried 30.06
ammo.
And for $15.00 to $20.00 he could have bought many better quality
foriegn rifles , that also had ammo readily available and walked out
without any questions or ID required.
Oswald's handler chose a rather rare and unusual rifle deliberately
and for the express reason that any spent bullrt found at a "crime
scene" could easily be traced to that rare type of rifle.
circa 1963, when it came to gun purchases (from the standpoint of
ensuring that the weapon being sold was going to end up in the hands
of the right person)?
> Seems to me that the answer to that last question is --- Nothing.
>
> www.amazon.com/review/R1XTNJSG8AH0JV
robcap...@netscape.com
They are playing games as even they know they CAN'T PROVE or show LHO
picked up the rifle.
Walt
Rob...go play in the sand box....leave this discussion to adults, who
can reason.
curtjester1
to post the Form and what it says. You don't care that the
investigators didn't even inquire about those regulations or that
Klein's nor the Post Office offered anything. That's how blatantly
biased you are. I just stopped off at the post office and asked the
lady at the desk about ordering a rifle through mail order. She said
there would be an "incredible amount of paperwork" involved and yes
all the paperwork would be affixed to the rifle package. She said
there could be as much as seventeen signatures involved. I suggest
you find another source to support Holmesy or find something else to
support a 1963-they-did-it-that-way scenario/agenda.
> > And you never showed it not to
> > be any industry practice, did you?
>
> I wasn`t using that form to make a point, you were. In order for it
> to be an issue in this case, you`d have to show Klein`s complied
> previously.
>
But it shows you don't care about the issue or case. If it was a
standard industry practice you would just move on to another issue or
concoct some outer space scenario about a million in one shot that
might have happened.
> > And you never showed that anybody
> > picked up any rifle ever at the Dallas post office, and you don't ever
> > have anybody giving any recollection that any item or piece of mail
> > was ever picked up at any time by anyone in Dallas by a name of
> > Hidell, do you?
>
> The only thing that can be shown is that Oswald would get the rifle
> if it was sent to his PO box under the Hidell name.
>
Absolutly not, and if it were a docile big package, the post office
would only give it without interference is if they knew the customer
which most likely would be the case since people are long term
employees and personnel would know the individual since they have the
names on their routes memorized. And Hidell would not be memorized,
it would be a foreign name, and it would't be on the file list at the
sorter's station nor on the boxes themselves that sorter's have for
convenience sake especially for subsitute sorters.
> > > If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
> > > the fault of the IRS, idiot?
>
> > You must think the nation's largest gun mail order business would be
> > apt to dodge inspectors and not comply with mundane, legal industry
> > paperwork? Is that what you are depending on?
>
> I wasn`t the one try to make a point with this form. It is
> irrelevant to the point of Oswald having the rifle sent to his PO box.
> You want to claim something should have occurred by just saying that
> is the case. You saying it should have occurred has no bearing on
> whether it did.
>
It's just what is supposed to be with this form. You act like Klein's
ACTUALLY sent a rifle to Dallas and an individual picked it up, yet
you claim it has no bearing?
> > Geez, there was even
> > two guys in the same cell block with Oswald arrested for having
> > illegal rifles. There's lots of monitoring over guns.
>
> More blather, more irrelevancies, more just saying things.
>
It means guns are not treated cavalierly except by LNT'ers and Harry
Holmes when it's only convenient for them to do so.
> > > > You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
>
> > > Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
> > > ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
> > > information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
> > > don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations
> > > from a mail carrier or post office.
>
> > You know how mail is handled, LMAO? You can't even figure out why
> > they send you back mail for lack of postage or a name not put on the
> > envelope.
>
> What do they do with it, Curt? Hunt down the individual who
> neglected to put postage or write the name on the envelope? I suspect
> they send it back to the LOCATION of the return address. Because mail
> is sent to LOCATIONS, not to INDIVIDUALS, you retard. How many times
> do you need this explained to you?
>
And yet you say a rifle should not be sent back to a LOCATION when the
Post Office didn't even have a name for the one on the rifle, nor the
paperwork to complete the transaction. Don't do the retard dance,
Bud, it gets so old as it's soooo LAME. There is no logical
explanation for an item, especially a rifle, to NOT be sent 'return to
sender' just because the name doesn't match. There should not be
anyway that they should have put a yellow slip in the P.O. box for
pick up!! See???
> The reason the USPS requires a name is so that the individual the
> item is meant for will be able to be determined once it gets to it`s
> destination. If a letter with no name is sent to a house, and five
> people live in the house, without a name, it could not legally be
> oppened, because you aren`t allowed to open other people`s mail, and
> with no name, you wouldn`t know whos mail it was. But it isn`t the
> USPS that puts mail in an idividuals hands, they deliver to locations,
> and the people at the location sort it out from there. Idiot.
>
Because the letter won't get to the house, it will be returned to
sender. You make up scenarios that make no sense, and yet all you do
is call people names.
> > You're totally ignorant of regulations, and that's why you
> > ask me for more proof.
>
> More? You haven`t produced anything but blather.
>
Why don't you go to U.S.P.S.com, that's what the clerk told me to do
to look up a form or reg? All Harry Holmes did was lie, and yet you
think that is enough?
> > You don't want proof, you want to suck on a
> > Harry Holmes pacifier. Any postal employee would know he lied. Go
> > find a back up.
>
> The postal inspector is on record under oath. You haven`t produced
> one thing to show what he told the WC about how over-sized items are
> routinely handled when sent to PO boxes. You haven`t in any of your
> previous posts, and you won`t in any later ones. Why throw out Holmes,
> because you don`t like what he said? Produce something tangible that
> contradicts him.
>
Because he is lying and obstructing justice. If you don't believe
that, produce evidence he wasn't besides merely blindly going along
with what he says? Why was a money order pulled from a Dallas post
office carton that was 2 years in advance when they always went in
order? Because Harry D. Holmes knew he wasn't going to be any fall
guy as he knew he would be held in high esteem for going out of his
way to convict a 'commie scum'.
> > > > and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
> > > > Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
> > > > you ever do and is quite expected.
>
> > > What a postal official said under oath is on record. Instead of all
> > > this huffing and puffing, why not just cite something that contradicts
> > > what he said about how over-sized packages sent to PO boxes are
> > > routinely handled?
>
> > It would be easy just to say he lied just to save face because his
> > post office wasn't operating up to snuff, but it goes much deeper with
> > lying about firearms, and fabricaing a phony money order to help the
> > Feds find a way to convict their suspect. Just get a postal manual
> > if you want a cite. I already gave you 846.53a for firearms.
>
> More blather with no substance.
>
>
More perfunctory retorts to keep from investigating, and merely
agendaize.
CJ
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:9501d9d9-62b5-4552...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Wally wrote;
Rob...go play in the sand box....leave this discussion to adults, who
can reason.
I write;
Does that "reasoning" take very much time away from your family Incest
Wally???
Which Chokes you the MOST?
Your own Lying Stupid Bastard Lies?
ORRRRRRRRRRRRRR,
Your family penis's
Wally can RUN but, she CAN"T HIDE ! ! !
You never proved that 133-a had "Dual Sling Mounts".
When are you gonna Prove that LHO worked for RFK???
You never proved that Walker called Germany.
You never proved Oswald ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved Mike Paine gave the DOD a copy of 133-a on 11/22/63.
You never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car.
You never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle.
You never proved Walker believed LHO shot at him.
You never proved that Capt O A Jones said LHO shot AT Walker.
You never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was copper
jacketed.
You never proved LHO received a 40 minch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHO shot at Walker.
You never proved that LHO ordered a 40 inch rifle.
You never proved your claim that LHOI altered the chin in CE-133-a.
You never proved your claim that a 6.5 was fired from a "sabot".
You never proved your claim that the CIA was gonna "rescue Oswald".
You never proved your claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
You're a Warren Commission Shill! ! !
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'd bet a dime on a dollar Rob that it can't be proven that LHO ever
even rented a P.O. Box.
Bud
In other words you read it somewhere so you believed it.
> You don't care that the
> investigators didn't even inquire about those regulations or that
> Klein's nor the Post Office offered anything.
No, I don`t. But of course I`m not an idiot trying to distract from
a murderer`s deeds by huffing and puffing over irrelevant
technicalities.
> That's how blatantly
> biased you are. I just stopped off at the post office
<snicker> Did you notice that the PO boxes don`t haves names on them
like some idiot claimed?
> and asked the
> lady at the desk about ordering a rifle through mail order. She said
> there would be an "incredible amount of paperwork" involved and yes
> all the paperwork would be affixed to the rifle package. She said
> there could be as much as seventeen signatures involved. I suggest
> you find another source to support Holmesy or find something else to
> support a 1963-they-did-it-that-way scenario/agenda.
Stump thinking at it`s finest. A 2008 postal employee tells Curt
about the regulations concerning the mailing of firearms in 2008, and
Curt thinks this trumps a Postal official telling how PO boxes work in
1963. BTW, when you asked her whether mail is sent to individuals or
locations, and she told you locations, did you call her a disinfo
agent and storm out?
> > > And you never showed it not to
> > > be any industry practice, did you?
>
> > I wasn`t using that form to make a point, you were. In order for it
> > to be an issue in this case, you`d have to show Klein`s complied
> > previously.
>
> But it shows you don't care about the issue or case.
It`s an irrelevant issue that has no bearing on the case.
> If it was a
> standard industry practice you would just move on to another issue or
> concoct some outer space scenario about a million in one shot that
> might have happened.
You haven`t shown that Klein`s ever complied with this regulation.
If they never complied, than them not complying in this is not an
issue.
> > > And you never showed that anybody
> > > picked up any rifle ever at the Dallas post office, and you don't ever
> > > have anybody giving any recollection that any item or piece of mail
> > > was ever picked up at any time by anyone in Dallas by a name of
> > > Hidell, do you?
>
> > The only thing that can be shown is that Oswald would get the rifle
> > if it was sent to his PO box under the Hidell name.
>
> Absolutly not, and if it were a docile big package, the post office
> would only give it without interference is if they knew the customer
> which most likely would be the case since people are long term
> employees and personnel would know the individual since they have the
> names on their routes memorized. And Hidell would not be memorized,
> it would be a foreign name, and it would't be on the file list at the
> sorter's station nor on the boxes themselves that sorter's have for
> convenience sake especially for subsitute sorters.
More blather with no substance. Why don`t you try replying in the
"postal way" by citing some regulations that contradict the way Holmes
said PO boxes worked?
> > > > If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
> > > > the fault of the IRS, idiot?
>
> > > You must think the nation's largest gun mail order business would be
> > > apt to dodge inspectors and not comply with mundane, legal industry
> > > paperwork? Is that what you are depending on?
>
> > I wasn`t the one try to make a point with this form. It is
> > irrelevant to the point of Oswald having the rifle sent to his PO box.
> > You want to claim something should have occurred by just saying that
> > is the case. You saying it should have occurred has no bearing on
> > whether it did.
>
> It's just what is supposed to be with this form. You act like Klein's
> ACTUALLY sent a rifle to Dallas and an individual picked it up, yet
> you claim it has no bearing?
You haven`t shown that Klein`s included any such form when it
shipped rifles. For the form to have bearing, it must exist in the
transaction, and you haven`t shown that this form existed in any Klein
transaction. You saying it is "supposed to" doesn`t mean squat unless
you can show it was. And you can`t do that.
> > > Geez, there was even
> > > two guys in the same cell block with Oswald arrested for having
> > > illegal rifles. There's lots of monitoring over guns.
>
> > More blather, more irrelevancies, more just saying things.
>
> It means guns are not treated cavalierly except by LNT'ers and Harry
> Holmes when it's only convenient for them to do so.
It means kooks want to divert attention to irrelevancies because
they can`t speak to the real issues. Like whether Oz could get a rifle
sent to his PO box under a false name.
> > > > > You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
>
> > > > Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
> > > > ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
> > > > information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
> > > > don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations
> > > > from a mail carrier or post office.
>
> > > You know how mail is handled, LMAO? You can't even figure out why
> > > they send you back mail for lack of postage or a name not put on the
> > > envelope.
>
> > What do they do with it, Curt? Hunt down the individual who
> > neglected to put postage or write the name on the envelope? I suspect
> > they send it back to the LOCATION of the return address. Because mail
> > is sent to LOCATIONS, not to INDIVIDUALS, you retard. How many times
> > do you need this explained to you?
>
> And yet you say a rifle should not be sent back to a LOCATION when the
> Post Office didn't even have a name for the one on the rifle, nor the
> paperwork to complete the transaction.
You haven`t shown that the Post Office knew what was in the
package. Can you do that?
> Don't do the retard dance,
> Bud, it gets so old as it's soooo LAME. There is no logical
> explanation for an item, especially a rifle, to NOT be sent 'return to
> sender' just because the name doesn't match.
<snicker> You are just an idiot, Curt. As has been explained, the
post office is not in the business of putting mail into the hands of
the proper individuals (except in certain special mailings that
require the recipient`s signature), mail is sent to locations. Oz`s PO
box is the location that all mail with that PO box number on it would
be delivered, regardless of the name on it. That is the fact, a fact
you could have gotten during your trip to the post office.
> There should not be
> anyway that they should have put a yellow slip in the P.O. box for
> pick up!! See???
As has ben explained, anyone having the slip would have access to
the PO box. Whoever has access to the PO box would have access to the
mail sent to that PO box, regardless of the name. See???
> > The reason the USPS requires a name is so that the individual the
> > item is meant for will be able to be determined once it gets to it`s
> > destination. If a letter with no name is sent to a house, and five
> > people live in the house, without a name, it could not legally be
> > oppened, because you aren`t allowed to open other people`s mail, and
> > with no name, you wouldn`t know whos mail it was. But it isn`t the
> > USPS that puts mail in an idividuals hands, they deliver to locations,
> > and the people at the location sort it out from there. Idiot.
>
> Because the letter won't get to the house, it will be returned to
> sender. You make up scenarios that make no sense, and yet all you do
> is call people names.
You identify yourself as an idiot by writing idiotic things. When
they deliver to a house, how do they know who is in there? If the mail
carrier knows the Smith family lives at a residence, but one day he
finds a letter addressed to Jones at that house, you think he doesn`t
deliver it? He does what with it, returns it to sender? How does the
mail carrier know Jones isn`t staying there. How could the postal
employees keep track of everyone? Fact is, they don`t bother, they
deliver to locations, and any mail that has the address will be
delivered to that location, regardless of the name on the letter. And
you are an idiot.
> > > You're totally ignorant of regulations, and that's why you
> > > ask me for more proof.
>
> > More? You haven`t produced anything but blather.
>
> Why don't you go to U.S.P.S.com, that's what the clerk told me to do
> to look up a form or reg?
I don`t have to go anywhere, I know how mail works. You need to cure
your ignorance with a little research.
> All Harry Holmes did was lie, and yet you
> think that is enough?
Again, you haven`t cited anything that contradicts anything he said
about how the PO boxes worked.
> > > You don't want proof, you want to suck on a
> > > Harry Holmes pacifier. Any postal employee would know he lied. Go
> > > find a back up.
>
> > The postal inspector is on record under oath. You haven`t produced
> > one thing to show what he told the WC about how over-sized items are
> > routinely handled when sent to PO boxes. You haven`t in any of your
> > previous posts, and you won`t in any later ones. Why throw out Holmes,
> > because you don`t like what he said? Produce something tangible that
> > contradicts him.
>
> Because he is lying and obstructing justice.
More blather. You just can`t produce anything that shows the
information he told the WC was wrong.
> If you don't believe
> that, produce evidence he wasn't besides merely blindly going along
> with what he says? Why was a money order pulled from a Dallas post
> office carton that was 2 years in advance when they always went in
> order? Because Harry D. Holmes knew he wasn't going to be any fall
> guy as he knew he would be held in high esteem for going out of his
> way to convict a 'commie scum'.
Yah, the whole world was out to get poor Oswald. Rest, idiot.
> > > > > and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
> > > > > Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
> > > > > you ever do and is quite expected.
>
> > > > What a postal official said under oath is on record. Instead of all
> > > > this huffing and puffing, why not just cite something that contradicts
> > > > what he said about how over-sized packages sent to PO boxes are
> > > > routinely handled?
>
> > > It would be easy just to say he lied just to save face because his
> > > post office wasn't operating up to snuff, but it goes much deeper with
> > > lying about firearms, and fabricaing a phony money order to help the
> > > Feds find a way to convict their suspect. Just get a postal manual
> > > if you want a cite. I already gave you 846.53a for firearms.
>
> > More blather with no substance.
>
> More perfunctory retorts to keep from investigating, and merely
> agendaize. ...
>
> read more »
Bud
It probably couldn`t be proven to an idiot that LHO even existed, if
an idiot was intent on believing that were so.
Walt
Hey Dud.... You know that I'm very averse to agree with you about
anything....But even a stopped clock is right twice a day...... And
you're certainly right about Gary Bergman ( aka Curt ) he's so
irrational that he believes that the US government started creating
two Oswald's when Oswald was only about five years old, so the
government would have two agents available to assassinate JFK in
1963.
Bud
You are both looking at a cow. One of you calls it a pig, the other
calls it a goat. You are both retarded.
curtjester1
packing nil, just like Holmes wouldn't show that. You don't know
trump because you don't know how a post office operates or it's
regulations and you attempt a 'trumping' thing. You just don't
care. Locations? You just made that up. Nobody believes that.
> > > > And you never showed it not to
> > > > be any industry practice, did you?
>
> > > I wasn`t using that form to make a point, you were. In order for it
> > > to be an issue in this case, you`d have to show Klein`s complied
> > > previously.
>
> > But it shows you don't care about the issue or case.
>
> It`s an irrelevant issue that has no bearing on the case.
>
It's relevant because you argue for arguing's sake and don't care if
Oswald killed JFK because you just say stuff that has no evidentiary
value.
> > If it was a
> > standard industry practice you would just move on to another issue or
> > concoct some outer space scenario about a million in one shot that
> > might have happened.
>
> You haven`t shown that Klein`s ever complied with this regulation.
> If they never complied, than them not complying in this is not an
> issue.
>
How could anyone? They have been out of business for 35 years. You
don't care anyway, you just want to pretend to be logical. Nobody
ever falls for it.
> > > > And you never showed that anybody
> > > > picked up any rifle ever at the Dallas post office, and you don't ever
> > > > have anybody giving any recollection that any item or piece of mail
> > > > was ever picked up at any time by anyone in Dallas by a name of
> > > > Hidell, do you?
>
> > > The only thing that can be shown is that Oswald would get the rifle
> > > if it was sent to his PO box under the Hidell name.
>
> > Absolutly not, and if it were a docile big package, the post office
> > would only give it without interference is if they knew the customer
> > which most likely would be the case since people are long term
> > employees and personnel would know the individual since they have the
> > names on their routes memorized. And Hidell would not be memorized,
> > it would be a foreign name, and it would't be on the file list at the
> > sorter's station nor on the boxes themselves that sorter's have for
> > convenience sake especially for subsitute sorters.
>
> More blather with no substance. Why don`t you try replying in the
> "postal way" by citing some regulations that contradict the way Holmes
> said PO boxes worked?
>
IOW, you don't like logic, common sense or how the post office
operates. I told you how it was suggested to find postal
regulations. Did you care enough to try to find them?
> > > > > If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
> > > > > the fault of the IRS, idiot?
>
> > > > You must think the nation's largest gun mail order business would be
> > > > apt to dodge inspectors and not comply with mundane, legal industry
> > > > paperwork? Is that what you are depending on?
>
> > > I wasn`t the one try to make a point with this form. It is
> > > irrelevant to the point of Oswald having the rifle sent to his PO box.
> > > You want to claim something should have occurred by just saying that
> > > is the case. You saying it should have occurred has no bearing on
> > > whether it did.
>
> > It's just what is supposed to be with this form. You act like Klein's
> > ACTUALLY sent a rifle to Dallas and an individual picked it up, yet
> > you claim it has no bearing?
>
> You haven`t shown that Klein`s included any such form when it
> shipped rifles. For the form to have bearing, it must exist in the
> transaction, and you haven`t shown that this form existed in any Klein
> transaction. You saying it is "supposed to" doesn`t mean squat unless
> you can show it was. And you can`t do that.
>
Can you prove that any mail order gun dealer has sent mail without
paperwork, besides just sending a rifle?
> > > > Geez, there was even
> > > > two guys in the same cell block with Oswald arrested for having
> > > > illegal rifles. There's lots of monitoring over guns.
>
> > > More blather, more irrelevancies, more just saying things.
>
> > It means guns are not treated cavalierly except by LNT'ers and Harry
> > Holmes when it's only convenient for them to do so.
>
> It means kooks want to divert attention to irrelevancies because
> they can`t speak to the real issues. Like whether Oz could get a rifle
> sent to his PO box under a false name.
>
He didn't, and I have posted that for months, and you drop the ball or
don't care.
> > > > > > You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
>
> > > > > Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
> > > > > ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
> > > > > information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
> > > > > don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations
> > > > > from a mail carrier or post office.
>
> > > > You know how mail is handled, LMAO? You can't even figure out why
> > > > they send you back mail for lack of postage or a name not put on the
> > > > envelope.
>
> > > What do they do with it, Curt? Hunt down the individual who
> > > neglected to put postage or write the name on the envelope? I suspect
> > > they send it back to the LOCATION of the return address. Because mail
> > > is sent to LOCATIONS, not to INDIVIDUALS, you retard. How many times
> > > do you need this explained to you?
>
> > And yet you say a rifle should not be sent back to a LOCATION when the
> > Post Office didn't even have a name for the one on the rifle, nor the
> > paperwork to complete the transaction.
>
> You haven`t shown that the Post Office knew what was in the
> package. Can you do that?
>
What package?
> > Don't do the retard dance,
> > Bud, it gets so old as it's soooo LAME. There is no logical
> > explanation for an item, especially a rifle, to NOT be sent 'return to
> > sender' just because the name doesn't match.
>
> <snicker> You are just an idiot, Curt. As has been explained, the
> post office is not in the business of putting mail into the hands of
> the proper individuals (except in certain special mailings that
> require the recipient`s signature), mail is sent to locations. Oz`s PO
> box is the location that all mail with that PO box number on it would
> be delivered, regardless of the name on it. That is the fact, a fact
> you could have gotten during your trip to the post office.
>
Where did you invent this location theory? Any postal regulation for
that? Why do carriers keep lists of all the people in a household
and is on forms for people to receive mail? If a house is necessary,
the names wouldn't be. You wouldn't even care about registered mail,
just ask the people what their name is or just leave it as someone
will give it to them, or just give it to the person who answers the
door. Who cares? It went to a location. Just inane.
> > There should not be
> > anyway that they should have put a yellow slip in the P.O. box for
> > pick up!! See???
>
> As has ben explained, anyone having the slip would have access to
> the PO box. Whoever has access to the PO box would have access to the
> mail sent to that PO box, regardless of the name. See???
>
You can't provide a reason for the slip to be there. You haven't seen
yet.
> > > The reason the USPS requires a name is so that the individual the
> > > item is meant for will be able to be determined once it gets to it`s
> > > destination. If a letter with no name is sent to a house, and five
> > > people live in the house, without a name, it could not legally be
> > > oppened, because you aren`t allowed to open other people`s mail, and
> > > with no name, you wouldn`t know whos mail it was. But it isn`t the
> > > USPS that puts mail in an idividuals hands, they deliver to locations,
> > > and the people at the location sort it out from there. Idiot.
>
> > Because the letter won't get to the house, it will be returned to
> > sender. You make up scenarios that make no sense, and yet all you do
> > is call people names.
>
> You identify yourself as an idiot by writing idiotic things. When
> they deliver to a house, how do they know who is in there? If the mail
> carrier knows the Smith family lives at a residence, but one day he
> finds a letter addressed to Jones at that house, you think he doesn`t
> deliver it? He does what with it, returns it to sender? How does the
> mail carrier know Jones isn`t staying there. How could the postal
> employees keep track of everyone? Fact is, they don`t bother, they
> deliver to locations, and any mail that has the address will be
> delivered to that location, regardless of the name on the letter. And
> you are an idiot.
>
No I don't. You say that to everybody. It's your agenda, or are you
naturally mean-spirited with low self esteem? Which one?
> > > > You're totally ignorant of regulations, and that's why you
> > > > ask me for more proof.
>
> > > More? You haven`t produced anything but blather.
>
> > Why don't you go to U.S.P.S.com, that's what the clerk told me to do
> > to look up a form or reg?
>
> I don`t have to go anywhere, I know how mail works. You need to cure
> your ignorance with a little research.
>
Can you cite a postal regulation that shows you know how mail works?
They shouldn't have return to addressee stamps there, you should let
the people who receive the wrong and improper mail do it.
> > All Harry Holmes did was lie, and yet you
> > think that is enough?
>
> Again, you haven`t cited anything that contradicts anything he said
> about how the PO boxes worked.
>
I've written a lot, and nobody is siding with you. How come?
> > > > You don't want proof, you want to suck on a
> > > > Harry Holmes pacifier. Any postal employee would know he lied. Go
> > > > find a back up.
>
> > > The postal inspector is on record under oath. You haven`t produced
> > > one thing to show what he told the WC about how over-sized items are
> > > routinely handled when sent to PO boxes. You haven`t in any of your
> > > previous posts, and you won`t in any later ones. Why throw out Holmes,
> > > because you don`t like what he said? Produce something tangible that
> > > contradicts him.
>
> > Because he is lying and obstructing justice.
>
> More blather. You just can`t produce anything that shows the
> information he told the WC was wrong.
>
You don't read. You don't want to anyway.
> > If you don't believe
> > that, produce evidence he wasn't besides merely blindly going along
> > with what he says? Why was a money order pulled from a Dallas post
> > office carton that was 2 years in advance when they always went in
> > order? Because Harry D. Holmes knew he wasn't going to be any fall
> > guy as he knew he would be held in high esteem for going out of his
> > way to convict a 'commie scum'.
>
> Yah, the whole world was out to get poor Oswald. Rest, idiot.
You don't care that JFK was even murdered, so who cares about that?
CJ
curtjester1
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
And he steals names on the internet or treats emails by CT's by
abusing trust and privacy (without QUALMS) and then will LIE about
it. Is that worse than a WC Shill??!!
See.
On Oct 21, 12:33 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> Dear Gil.... I did not reveal the name of the person who sent me that
> post, but the fact that you recognize that the post is a genuine E
> mail that I received ..... is revealing.
Then you leave me no choice but to admit publicly that it was I who
sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
You failed to mention, however, that I wrote that letter a month ago
and since that time, I have seen who the REAL troublemaker is here.
Your ego is huge my man, and unless you can get off your high horse
and learn that you're not here to educate us and that we're all
equals
here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
And I mean "no class" in more than one way.
end
CJ
Walt
Gil could have just let the reader assume that he had inside knowledge
about where that Email had originated but he blew it.
Gil wrote:
"Then you leave me no choice "
But he did have a choice...he could simply have remained silent , but
instead he blurted out......
but to admit publicly that it was I who
> sent you that e-mail. I did so in the spirit of trust and honesty. It
> is now in that same spirit that I reveal myself as author.
>
> You failed to mention, however, that I wrote that letter a month ago
> and since that time, I have seen who the REAL troublemaker is here.
> Your ego is huge my man, and unless you can get off your high horse
> and learn that you're not here to educate us and that we're all
> equals
> here, then I'm afraid YOU'LL be the "teacher" with no class.
>
> And I mean "no class" in more than one way.
>
> end
>
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
Bud
It was your claim that this is done. Have you backed it up with
anything more than blather?
> just like Holmes wouldn't show that. You don't know
> trump because you don't know how a post office operates or it's
> regulations and you attempt a 'trumping' thing.
When it is the word of a postal inspector versus that of a retard
who can`t understand mail, yah, it`s a trumping thing.
> You just don't
> care. Locations? You just made that up. Nobody believes that.
Why didn`t you ask that woman at the post office while you were
there?
> > > > > � And you never showed it not to
> > > > > be any industry practice, did you?
> >
> > > > � I wasn`t using that form to make a point, you were. In order for it
> > > > to be an issue in this case, you`d have to show Klein`s complied
> > > > previously.
> >
> > > But it shows you don't care about the issue or case.
> >
> > � It`s an irrelevant issue that has no bearing on the case.
> >
> It's relevant because you argue for arguing's sake and don't care if
> Oswald killed JFK because you just say stuff that has no evidentiary
> value.
Actually, it`s you kooks just saying stuff, like Oswald couldn`t get
a rifle delivered to his PO box under the Hidell name. The evidence
clearly shows he could. Idiots, who don`t like that answer, blather on
about irrelevancies.
> > > �If it was a
> > > standard industry practice you would just move on to another issue or
> > > concoct some outer space scenario about a million in one shot that
> > > might have happened.
> >
> > � You haven`t shown that Klein`s ever complied with this regulation.
> > If they never complied, than them not complying in this is not an
> > issue.
> >
> How could anyone?
<snicker> But you are perfectly willing to accept it as a given.
> They have been out of business for 35 years. You
> don't care anyway, you just want to pretend to be logical. Nobody
> ever falls for it.
I`m sure you would never fall for logic, Curt.
> > > > > �And you never showed that anybody
> > > > > picked up any rifle ever at the Dallas post office, and you don't ever
> > > > > have anybody giving any recollection that any item or piece of mail
> > > > > was ever picked up at any time by anyone in Dallas by a name of
> > > > > Hidell, do you?
> >
> > > > � The only thing that can be shown is that Oswald would get the rifle
> > > > if it was sent to his PO box under the Hidell name.
> >
> > > Absolutly not, and if it were a docile big package, the post office
> > > would only give it without interference is if they knew the customer
> > > which most likely would be the case since people are long term
> > > employees and personnel would know the individual since they have the
> > > names on their routes memorized. � And Hidell would not be memorized,
> > > it would be a foreign name, and it would't be on the file list at the
> > > sorter's station nor on the boxes themselves that sorter's have for
> > > convenience sake especially for subsitute sorters.
> >
> > � More blather with no substance. Why don`t you try replying in the
> > "postal way" by citing some regulations that contradict the way Holmes
> > said PO boxes worked?
> >
> IOW, you don't like logic, common sense or how the post office
> operates. I told you how it was suggested to find postal
> regulations. Did you care enough to try to find them?
I don`t need them. I have high ranking postal official explaining
the procedure of over-sized packages sent to PO boxes. You need
something to contest the information he provided. Something besides
blather.
> > > > > > � �If Klein`s didn`t pay taxes on the rifles it sold, would that be
> > > > > > the fault of the IRS, idiot?
> >
> > > > > You must think the nation's largest gun mail order business would be
> > > > > apt to dodge inspectors and not comply with mundane, legal industry
> > > > > paperwork? �Is that what you are depending on?
> >
> > > > � I wasn`t the one try to make a point with this form. It is
> > > > irrelevant to the point of Oswald having the rifle sent to his PO box.
> > > > You want to claim something should have occurred by just saying that
> > > > is the case. You saying it should have occurred has no bearing on
> > > > whether it did.
> >
> > > It's just what is supposed to be with this form. �You act like Klein's
> > > ACTUALLY sent a rifle to Dallas and an individual picked it up, yet
> > > you claim it has no bearing?
> >
> > � �You haven`t shown that Klein`s included any such form when it
> > shipped rifles. For the form to have bearing, it must exist in the
> > transaction, and you haven`t shown that this form existed in any Klein
> > transaction. You saying it is "supposed to" doesn`t mean squat unless
> > you can show it was. And you can`t do that.
> >
> Can you prove that any mail order gun dealer has sent mail without
> paperwork, besides just sending a rifle?
I have no points concerning paperwork and the mailing of rifles. It
was you point that something involving forms should have occurred. But
you can`t show Klein`s ever did such a thing.
> > > > > �Geez, there was even
> > > > > two guys in the same cell block with Oswald arrested for having
> > > > > illegal rifles. � There's lots of monitoring over guns.
> >
> > > > � More blather, more irrelevancies, more just saying things.
> >
> > > It means guns are not treated cavalierly except by LNT'ers and Harry
> > > Holmes when it's only convenient for them to do so.
> >
> > � It means kooks want to divert attention to irrelevancies because
> > they can`t speak to the real issues. Like whether Oz could get a rifle
> > sent to his PO box under a false name.
> >
> He didn't, and I have posted that for months, and you drop the ball or
> don't care.
Why don`t you explain it in a "Postal way", and cite the postal
regulations that applied in 1963 regarding over-sized packages sent to
PO boxes? All I`ve seen is blather, and it looks like that is all I
can expect.
> > > > > > > You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office
> >
> > > > > > � �Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You`re the
> > > > > > ignorant party, I`ve tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The
> > > > > > information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just
> > > > > > don`t like it. BTW, it`s unlikely �I could get 1963 postal regulations
> > > > > > from a mail carrier or post office.
> >
> > > > > You know how mail is handled, LMAO? �You can't even figure out why
> > > > > they send you back mail for lack of postage or a name not put on the
> > > > > envelope.
> >
> > > > � �What do they do with it, Curt? Hunt down the individual who
> > > > neglected to put postage or write the name on the envelope? I suspect
> > > > they send it back to the LOCATION of the return address. Because mail
> > > > is sent to LOCATIONS, not to INDIVIDUALS, you retard. How many times
> > > > do you need this explained to you?
> >
> > > And yet you say a rifle should not be sent back to a LOCATION when the
> > > Post Office didn't even have a name for the one on the rifle, nor the
> > > paperwork to complete the transaction.
> >
> > � �You haven`t shown that the Post Office knew what was in the
> > package. Can you do that?
> >
> What package?
The package you claim should have forms attached to it.
> > > Don't do the retard dance,
> > > Bud, it gets so old as it's soooo LAME. �There is no logical
> > > explanation for an item, especially a rifle, to NOT be sent 'return to
> > > sender' just because the name doesn't match.
> >
> > � <snicker> You are just an idiot, Curt. As has been explained, the
> > post office is not in the business of putting mail into the hands of
> > the proper individuals (except in certain special mailings that
> > require the recipient`s signature), mail is sent to locations. Oz`s PO
> > box is the location that all mail with that PO box number on it would
> > be delivered, regardless of the name on it. That is the fact, a fact
> > you could have gotten during your trip to the post office.
> >
> Where did you invent this location theory?
I didn`t invent the system the USPS uses to deliver mail.
> Any postal regulation for
> that? Why do carriers keep lists of all the people in a household
> and is on forms for people to receive mail?
They do no such thing, retard. How the fuck do they know who is in
a house, let alone an apartment complex?
> If a house is necessary,
> the names wouldn't be. You wouldn't even care about registered mail,
> just ask the people what their name is or just leave it as someone
> will give it to them, or just give it to the person who answers the
> door. Who cares? It went to a location. Just inane.
Certified mail does work like that, idiot. They do give it to anyone
at the location, they just have the person they give it to sign for
it.
> > > There should not be
> > > anyway that they should have put a yellow slip in the P.O. box for
> > > pick up!! �See???
> >
> > � � As has ben explained, anyone having the slip would have access to
> > the PO box. Whoever has access to the PO box would have access to the
> > mail sent to that PO box, regardless of the name. See???
> >
> You can't provide a reason for the slip to be there. You haven't seen
> yet.
<snicker> Beat on the argument that an over-sized package sent to
Oswald`s PO box in Hidell`s name would be given to Oswald, you`re now
trying to switch the argument into a kook denial that a package was
sent from Klein`s to Oswald`s PO box. Typical kook trick to squirm in
another direction when cornered.
> > > > � �The reason the USPS requires a name is so that the individual the
> > > > item is meant for will be able to be determined once it gets to it`s
> > > > destination. If a letter with no name is sent to a house, and five
> > > > people live in the house, without a name, it could not legally be
> > > > oppened, because you aren`t allowed to open other people`s mail, and
> > > > with no name, you wouldn`t know whos mail it was. But it isn`t the
> > > > USPS that puts mail in an idividuals hands, they deliver to locations,
> > > > and the people at the location sort it out from there. Idiot.
> >
> > > Because the letter won't get to the house, it will be returned to
> > > sender. � You make up scenarios that make no sense, and yet all you do
> > > is call people names.
> >
> > � You identify yourself as an idiot by writing idiotic things. When
> > they deliver to a house, how do they know who is in there? If the mail
> > carrier knows the Smith family lives at a residence, but one day he
> > finds a letter addressed to Jones at that house, you think he doesn`t
> > deliver it? He does what with it, returns it to sender? How does the
> > mail carrier know Jones isn`t staying there. How could the postal
> > employees keep track of everyone? Fact is, they don`t bother, they
> > deliver to locations, and any mail that has the address will be
> > delivered to that location, regardless of the name on the letter. And
> > you are an idiot.
> >
> No I don't. You say that to everybody.
Not true. I say that to idiots. Not everyone that posts here is an
idiot.
> It's your agenda, or are you
> naturally mean-spirited with low self esteem? Which one?
This isn`t about me. This is about you being an idiot.
> > > > > You're totally ignorant of regulations, and that's why you
> > > > > ask me for more proof.
> >
> > > > � �More? You haven`t produced anything but blather.
> >
> > > Why don't you go to U.S.P.S.com, that's what the clerk told me to do
> > > to look up a form or reg?
> >
> > � I don`t have to go anywhere, I know how mail works. You need to cure
> > your ignorance with a little research.
> >
> Can you cite a postal regulation that shows you know how mail works?
A postal official has cited the information relevant to this
discussion, idiot. You`ve produced nothing that contradicts that PO
boxes operate in a way different than Holmes outlined.
> They shouldn't have return to addressee stamps there, you should let
> the people who receive the wrong and improper mail do it.
What obligation do the people who receive improper mail have? Why
should they perform the task? Are they in the mail delivery business
idiot?
> > > �All Harry Holmes did was lie, and yet you
> > > think that is enough?
> >
> > � Again, you haven`t cited anything that contradicts anything he said
> > about how the PO boxes worked.
> >
> I've written a lot,
It isn`t volume that counts, idiot, it substance. You wrote a lot
of blather, but you fail to support any of it with anything
substantial.
> and nobody is siding with you. How come?
How come whenever a LN put is two cents into a discussion involving
a conspiracy kook and a rational human being, the conspiracy kook will
invariably say "You need so-and-so to come help you out"? And why are
you folks so dedicated to being idiots?
> > > > > You don't want proof, you want to suck on a
> > > > > Harry Holmes pacifier. �Any postal employee would know he lied. � Go
> > > > > find a back up.
> >
> > > > � The postal inspector is on record under oath. You haven`t produced
> > > > one thing to show what he told the WC about how over-sized items are
> > > > routinely handled when sent to PO boxes. You haven`t in any of your
> > > > previous posts, and you won`t in any later ones. Why throw out Holmes,
> > > > because you don`t like what he said? Produce something tangible that
> > > > contradicts him.
> >
> > > Because he is lying and obstructing justice.
> >
> > � �More blather. You just can`t produce anything that shows the
> > information he told the WC was wrong.
> >
> You don't read. You don't want to anyway.
Give me something to read about the procedures involving over-sized
packaged sent to PO boxes, Curt. DVP produced what Holmes said, cite
some regulations, guidelines procedures, whatever that contests the
assertion that Oswald would get a package sent to his PO box that had
Hidell`s name on it.
> > > �If you don't believe
> > > that, produce evidence he wasn't besides merely blindly going along
> > > with what he says? � Why was a money order pulled from a Dallas post
> > > office carton that was 2 years in advance when they always went in
> > > order? �Because Harry D. Holmes knew he wasn't going to be any fall
> > > guy as he knew he would be held in high esteem for going out of his
> > > way to convict a 'commie scum'.
> >
> > � Yah, the whole world was out to get poor Oswald. Rest, idiot.
>
> You don't care that JFK was even murdered, so who cares about that?
You cover up for his murderer, which makes any professed cares you
have for the man idiotic.
> CJ
>
> > > > > > and make a legitimate inquiry instead of acting like 'Harry's Bud'.
> > > > > > > Nobody is fooled, it's just the usual Bud DisInfo Dance and it's all
> > > > > > > you ever do and is quite expected.
> >
> > > > > > � What a postal official said under oath is on record. Instead of all
> > > > > > this huffing and puffing, why not just cite something that contradicts
> > > > > > what he said about how over-sized packages sent to PO boxes are
> > > > > > routinely handled?
> >
> > > > > It would be easy just to say he lied just to save face because his
> > > > > post office wasn't operating up to snuff, but it goes much deeper with
> > > > > lying about firearms, and fabricaing a phony money order to help the
> > > > > Feds find a way to convict their suspect. � Just get a postal manual
> > > > > if you want a cite. �I already gave you 846.53a for firearms.
> >
> > > > � �More blather with no substance.
> >
> > > More perfunctory retorts to keep from investigating, and merely
> > > agendaize. ...
> >
> > > read more �
robcap...@netscape.com
I don't know on that one to be honest, I know he rented one in N.O.
The point is if he was going to have it sent to his OWN box (meaning
with his real name attached to it) why not just use his own name for
the alleged rifle order? OR if he was going to use Hidell why not
register the box under the name Hidell?
This is why CTers know this is all B.S. as he could have just
purchased one at a store if he wanted to be anonymous. This paper
trail was constructed to frame him.
Walt
No the paper trail was NOT constructed to frame him for a murder that
hadn't even been seriously plotted NINE months before he ordered that
rifle.
The paper trail was constructed to make it easy for the incompetant
FBI to find the trail after the STAGED shooting at General Walker's
house. His CIA handler ( G De M) wanted all the "proof" he could
create that Oswald was in fact a Castro lovin, radical communist
revolutionary. And he wanted the FBI to be able to pick up that
"proof" after Oswald had fled to Cuba, after attempting to shhot
General Walker.
tomnln
PROVE IT
robcap...@netscape.com
Walt is supporting the lies of the WC again as the paper trail was
constructed during the weekend of the assassination. LHO did NOT
order any weapons in January and March of 1963, this was all made up
later on.
> The paper trail was constructed to make it easy for the incompetant
> FBI to find the trail after the STAGED shooting at General Walker's
> house. His CIA handler ( G De M) wanted all the "proof" he could
> create that Oswald was in fact a Castro lovin, radical communist
> revolutionary. And he wanted the FBI to be able to pick up that
> "proof" after Oswald had fled to Cuba, after attempting to shhot
> General Walker.
Do you have any proof for this speculation?
tomnln
curtjester1
Something to consider Rob, is that Holmes was the conduit the WC
received the forms concering P.O. Boxes inre Oswald. The FBI
supposedly received the original's and the WC received Photostat's.
> The point is if he was going to have it sent to his OWN box (meaning
> with his real name attached to it) why not just use his own name for
> the alleged rifle order? OR if he was going to use Hidell why not
> register the box under the name Hidell?
>
> This is why CTers know this is all B.S. as he could have just
> purchased one at a store if he wanted to be anonymous. This paper
> trail was constructed to frame him.- Hide quoted text -
>
Yah, and having P.O. Boxes looks shady and would be most probably
NECESSARY for that construct and the control of it.
CJ