Questions for the self-proclaimed "more knowledgeable one", Hank Sienzant: Question # 24

[Gil Jesus]

There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.

QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/box_closed_2yrs.jpg

[Bud]

What reason did the person who discarded them give?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 03:11:52 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

Again Chickenshit runs from the evidence...

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

[Hank Sienzant]

Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.

We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.

== unquote ==
Mr. 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?
Mr. 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 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.
== unquote ==

Either way, he got it.

Which renders their whole argument moot.

[John Corbett]

It just shows that conspiracy hobbyists will use any little anomaly as an indication of conspiracy.
Some USPS employee didn't follow regulations to the letter and that is somehow an indication
of a cover up. Gee , that never happens. Government employees always follow regulations, don't
they? The conspiracy hobbyists focus on all the silly things and ignore everything that's
probative. No wonder they remain in a perpetual state of confusion.

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Either way, he got it.
>
>Which renders their whole argument moot.

Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil (or Ben or any other CT), what problems do you have with the above explanation? Did I summarize the critical literature adequately? Did I quote Holmes correctly?

And weren’t the backyard photos determined by the HSCA photographic panel of experts to be genuine and unaltered, and didn’t those experts also determine Oswald was holding the same rifle that Klein’s business records establish was shipped to Oswald’s PO Box under the alias of Hidell?

So doesn’t the evidence you’re ignoring establish the question you’re asking is moot, and “either way, he got it”?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:54:09 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:


>It just shows that conspiracy hobbyists will use any little anomaly as an indication of conspiracy.

If they didn't - we'd not be able to use them.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Either way, he got it.
> >
> >Which renders their whole argument moot.
> Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.

What was illogical about my argument and/or my quote of Holmes? Be specific.

Don’t change the subject as you’re trying to do below. *That* is a logical fallacy:

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 14:25:05 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:20:06?PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 12:26:48 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Either way, he got it.
>>>
>>>Which renders their whole argument moot.
>>
>> Logical fallacies are incapable of doing that.
>>

>> You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
>> description of the *location* of the large head wound.
>>
>> Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
>> paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?
>>
>> You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.
>>
>> Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?
>>
>> Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?
>>
>> Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
>> and exited the back of his head.
>>
>> More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.
>>
>> Are you proud of yourself?

Huckster runs....

EVERY

SINGLE

TIME!!!

[Ben Holmes]

[M Kfivethousand]

I bet he quits.

mk5000


yet still provided moments
to think.
sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
DIGITAL POET

[Bud]

He has been debunking conspiracy nonsense for over 30 years now, so yeah, any day now.

[Hank Sienzant]

One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQv7Tr8HbGE

It’s still amazing to me how people will reject perfectly reasonable explanations that align with the known facts to believe something else they like better.

> > mk5000
> >
> >
> > yet still provided moments
> > to think.
> > sky scapes melted to abstract realities,
> > and as fear was summoned,--"Jazz"
> > DIGITAL POET

Don’t quit your day job.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Here Hank pretends to be an expert on poetry.

[Hank Sienzant]

That was poetry in your view?

It appeared to be from a random word generator.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Here Hank shows that he knows nothing about poetry even though he pretends to be an expert.

[Hank Sienzant]

Never said I was an expert - that’s what you said about me above.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 19:08:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.

Indeed you can't...

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

That's stupid.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

That's stupid.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

That's stupid.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 15:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 9:19:45 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Oct 2023 19:08:49 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >One thing I’ve leaned in those 30+ years, in the words of Ron White, “you can’t fix stupid”.
> Indeed you can't...

God knows I’ve tried with you. You are intractable in your beliefs, and when stuck, simply delete the responses and call people names. Of late, you’ve been responding to any and all posts with the same canned responses having nothing to do with the thread topic.

Case in point is this thread, where Gil’s initial post asked: “ QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?”

Your response below has no bearing on that question. You RUN from discussing the assassination.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 30 Oct 2023 18:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>God knows I致e tried with you.

Yet you can't succeed:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

[Gil Jesus]

The question has to do with the post office's destruction of part 3 of the post office box 2915 application.
It has to do with PAPERWORK.
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/galanor1.jpg

It has NOTHING to do with the physical receiving of the rifle.
Your quoting of the testimony is irrelevant.
There's your first wrong answer for this question.
Try again.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 09:50:25 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:26:49?PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
>> On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 6:11:53?AM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

>> > On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:25:37?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
>> > > There are many questions that I have about this case and I feel compelled to go to a reliable source, the self proclaimed "more knowledgeable" one, Hank Sienzant. I'm sure Hank in his infinite wisdom and knowledge will have no problem answering my questions.
>> > >
>> > > QUESTION # 24: Why were the records of Oswald's post office box "discarded" after his box was closed, when according to Postal Regulation 846.5h, those records were to be kept for two years after closing ?
>> > >
>> > > https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/box_closed_2yrs.jpg
>> > What reason did the person who discarded them give?
>> Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.
>>
>> We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.
>>
>> == unquote ==
>> Mr. 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?
>> Mr. 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 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.
>> == unquote ==
>>
>> Either way, he got it.

ROTFLMAO!!! Don't tell me that Huckster can't recognize such a basic
logical fallacy!!!

>> Which renders their whole argument moot.
>
>The question has to do with the post office's destruction of part 3 of the post office box 2915 application.
>It has to do with PAPERWORK.
>https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/galanor1.jpg
>
>It has NOTHING to do with the physical receiving of the rifle.
>Your quoting of the testimony is irrelevant.
>There's your first wrong answer for this question.
>Try again.

Huckster's a proven coward... don't hold your breath...

[Gil Jesus]

On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:26:49 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:

> Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.
>
> We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.

Holmes lied to the Warren Commission when he testified that the regulation governing Part 3 required it to be destroyed after the box was closed.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/holmes-lies-about-part-3.gif

He also lied when he testified that the reason why New Orleans still had part 3 of their box application was because they didn't follow the regulation.

The FBI DID get a look at part 3 of the PO box application before it was destroyed and they reported that the name "A.Hidell" did not appear on it.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Hidell_not_on_3.jpg

This is the reason why part 3 of the box 2915 application was destroyed: to hide the fact that "Hidell" was not authorized to receive mail at that box.

New Orleans followed the regulation. They still had their part 3 of the application.
Dallas destroyed theirs in violation of the regulation.

The destruction of part 3 of the application for box 2915 is only one example of how Holmes lied under oath.

> Which renders their whole argument moot.

And renders you a wrong answer for question 24.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 03:35:22 -0700 (PDT), Gil Jesus
<gjjma...@gmail.com> wrote:

Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering
the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns
silent.

WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!

(It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to
correct him, Gil.)

[Gil Jesus]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns silent.
>
> WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!
>
> (It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to correct him, Gil.)

These Lone Nutters take a witness' testimony as fact if it serves their purpose. And they do it without trying to corroborate it.

If Holmes was telling the truth about the Part 3 being destroyed when the box was closed, how did the FBI see it ?
That box was closed May 14, 1963. Why would the FBI be looking at whose name was on Oswald's post office box application before May 1963 ?

They wouldn't. Which means the Dallas Post Office retained that part 3, per the regulation.
It means it was never destroyed when the box was closed.
More importantly, it means that that part 3 wasn't destroyed until AFTER the assassination, during the FBI investigation into the mailing of the weapons.

Holmes lied to the Commission about what the regulation said.
And this is Hanky's witness.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:17:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns silent.
> >
> > WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!
> >
> > (It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to correct him, Gil.)
> These Lone Nutters take a witness' testimony as fact if it serves their purpose.

Ironic, considering that conspiracy folk use things Holmes related when it suits them.

[John Corbett]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:17:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns silent.
> >
> > WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!
> >
> > (It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to correct him, Gil.)
> These Lone Nutters take a witness' testimony as fact if it serves their purpose. And they do it without trying to corroborate it.
>

Like we did with Sam Holland. Oh, wait. That was you. Never mind.

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:56:51 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 11:22:17 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:17:35?PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:

>> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:03:09?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>> Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns silent.
>>>
>>> WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!
>>>
>>> (It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to correct him, Gil.)
>>
>> These Lone Nutters take a witness' testimony as fact if it serves their purpose. And they do it without trying to corroborate it.

Logical fallacy deleted.

[Hank Sienzant]

Sure it does. You’re advancing this argument to argue Oswald didn’t receive the rifle. If you’re not advancing it for that reason, then the PO Box paperwork is meaningless. JFK did not die from a thousand paper cuts.

Leaving out any arguments bearing on the rifle, how is the PO box pertinent to anything, Gil?

> Your quoting of the testimony is irrelevant.

No, it’s not. It has a direct bearing on how Oswald received the rifle that was used to kill Kennedy.

> There's your first wrong answer for this question.
> Try again.

No need, you need to explain why you’re bringing up meaningless paperwork if it has no bearing on how Oswald received the rifle that was used to kill Kennedy.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 6:35:24 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 3:26:49 PM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> > Why conspiracy theorists pretend this matters: Oswald received the rifle he used to kill Kennedy through the mail, a rifle he ordered under an Alia’s. All the records weren’t discarded (Gil is wrong about that) but only the bottom portion that is supposed to be discarded two years after the box is closed. The bottom portion showed who was eligible to receive mail at the box. The critics argument is that if Hidell wasn’t named as a recipient at the post office box on the form, then Oswald could not have picked up the rifle there. And if he didn’t pick up the rifle, then — they argue — he couldn’t have used it to kill Kennedy.
> >
> > We don’t know who discarded that part 3, but Harry Holmes — a Dallas postal inspector — testified to that very point, saying the postal regulations weren’t followed precisely.
> Holmes lied to the Warren Commission when he testified that the regulation governing Part 3 required it to be destroyed after the box was closed.

According to you.

>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/holmes-lies-about-part-3.gif
>
> He also lied when he testified that the reason why New Orleans still had part 3 of their box application was because they didn't follow the regulation.

The regulations require the bottom portion be discarded after two years of the box being closed. But who is going to go back through all the PO Box paperwork to check when a box was closed and discard it after two years?

It’s more efficient to simply ignore the limitation (and discard the bottom portion when the box is closed).

>
> The FBI DID get a look at part 3 of the PO box application before it was destroyed and they reported that the name "A.Hidell" did not appear on it.
>
> https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Hidell_not_on_3.jpg

No, if the PO Box had no part 3 when the FBI looked it it, then they would also have reported that the name "A.Hidell" did not appear on it. You’re assuming it had the Part 3 still attached.

>
> This is the reason why part 3 of the box 2915 application was destroyed: to hide the fact that "Hidell" was not authorized to receive mail at that box.

Not necessary. Holmes testified to this:
== quote ==

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.

== unquote ==

>
> New Orleans followed the regulation. They still had their part 3 of the application.

Yes.

> Dallas destroyed theirs in violation of the regulation.

Yes. But don’t *assume* something nefarious by this. It’s simply the procedure that makes the most sense. *Prove* there is something nefarious by this. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

>
> The destruction of part 3 of the application for box 2915 is only one example of how Holmes lied under oath.

You’re assuming Holmes lied. You do make a lot of assumptions.

> > Which renders their whole argument moot.
> And renders you a wrong answer for question 24.

In your opinion, but you’re not an unbiased source to be judging the answers, are you?

[Ben Holmes]

[Hank Sienzant]

On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 12:17:35 PM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Watch as Corbutt runs for the hills. He whines about you not offering the answer key to the test - but when you do - he suddenly turns silent.
> >
> > WHAT A COWARD CORBUTT IS!!!
> >
> > (It goes without saying that Huckster simply lied. Good of you to correct him, Gil.)
> These Lone Nutters take a witness' testimony as fact if it serves their purpose. And they do it without trying to corroborate it.

What Part of the Federal Rules of Evidence I quoted to you did you not understand, Gil?

This part: “The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness”?

>
> If Holmes was telling the truth about the Part 3 being destroyed when the box was closed, how did the FBI see it ?

They didn’t. They reported Oswald didn’t indicate on the document they saw Hidell was allowed to receive mail at the PO box in question.

> That box was closed May 14, 1963. Why would the FBI be looking at whose name was on Oswald's post office box application before May 1963 ?

They weren’t. You are quoting from a FBI document prepared *after the assassination* and after the publication of a book called WHO KILLED KENNEDY by Thomas Buchanan. That book was published in May, 1964, and was the first to allege a conspiracy.

>
> They wouldn't. Which means the Dallas Post Office retained that part 3, per the regulation.

No, it means the document the FBI saw was the same one in evidence today. Nowhere on that document does it indicate Hidell was entitled to receive mail at Oswald’s PO Box.

> It means it was never destroyed when the box was closed.

Part 3 was.

> More importantly, it means that that part 3 wasn't destroyed until AFTER the assassination, during the FBI investigation into the mailing of the weapons.

Your conclusion is based on assumptions by you that have not been established.

>
> Holmes lied to the Commission about what the regulation said.

According to you. But that’s an assumption on your part.

> And this is Hanky's witness.

And a perfectly valid one, per the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Holmes gave “Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice.”

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 12:10:19 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

What part of this don't you understand, Huckster?

[Ben Holmes]

On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 11:54:58 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

According to you...

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil? Do you care to discuss the topic you brought up, or are you going to avoid this entirely moving forward?

[Hank Sienzant]

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:17:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


>Gil? Do you care to discuss the topic you brought up, or are you going to avoid this entirely moving forward?

Huckster? Do you care to discuss the topic YOU posted, or are you

going to avoid this entirely moving forward?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:16:39 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

Huckster? Are you going to keep running from this?

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:17:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Gil? Do you care to discuss the topic you brought up, or are you going to avoid this entirely moving forward?

> Huckster? Do you care to discuss the topic YOU posted, or are you
> going to avoid this entirely moving forward?

Don't you have enough responses to delete?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 6 Nov 2023 20:17:03 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 6, 2023 at 9:04:28?AM UTC-6, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Nov 2023 18:17:29 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gil? Do you care to discuss the topic you brought up, or are you going to avoid this entirely moving forward?
>
>> Huckster? Do you care to discuss the topic YOU posted, or are you
>> going to avoid this entirely moving forward?
>
>Don't you have enough responses to delete?

The coward afraid of the evidence again refuses to answer the
evidence...

Does cowardice from Chuckles surprise anyone?

[Hank Sienzant]

Gil has ducked out of the discussion thread once more. He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a discussion about the issue he raised.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Hank's asking for discussion is like Hitler asking Poland for a discussion. If Hank had the technical capacity, he would probably stage his own false flag invitations to discussion.

[Bud]

Yes, Gil is overmatched.

[NoTrueFlags Here]

Of course, Bud embraces the Hitler analogy. Presumably Hank is a bit smarter.

[Chuck Schuyler]

We know he's smarter than you.

But you're still more entertaining than anyone.

[BT George]

I'm surprised he didn't show up here earlier. He seems to be largely a true soul-mate for Holmes and here they can stroke each other's ego for being incoherant.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 03:13:38 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:12:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:


Huckster Sienzant has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.

He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a
discussion about the issue he raised.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 07:57:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
<chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:

>We know he's smarter than you.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

>But you're still more entertaining than anyone.

Fools are entertained quite easily...

[Bud]

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:39 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 07:57:20 -0800 (PST), Chuck Schuyler
> <chucksch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >We know he's smarter than you.
> You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Did Ben just make a Game of Thrones reference?

[Hank Sienzant]

Ironically, Ben has called NTF a troll in the past. Maybe they kissed and made up.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

[Hank Sienzant]

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:12:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Huckster Sienzant has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
> He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a
> discussion about the issue he raised.

I didn’t raise any issue. I pointed out the flaws in the issues Gil raised here.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/XkgphNnxpJ8/m/k4ytuwBOBgAJ

To date, no one has addressed my points. Ben hasn’t. NTF hasn't. And most certainly Gil hasn't.

Here they are again. Pretend I'm the one running all you like. It doesn't change the facts any.
— quote —

— unquote —

[Ben Holmes]

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:48:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:12:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Huckster Sienzant has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
>> He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a
>> discussion about the issue he raised.
>
>I didn’t raise any issue.

You can't convince people by lying...

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 16:02:10 -0800 (PST), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

[Hank Sienzant]

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 2:19:00 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 17:48:07 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 6:56:38?PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> On Sun, 12 Nov 2023 18:12:49 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
> >> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Huckster Sienzant has ducked out of the discussion thread once more.
> >> He raises an issue, rejects the answers, and then avoids having a
> >> discussion about the issue he raised.
> >
> >I didn’t raise any issue.
> You can't convince people by lying...

Yet you keep trying.

As I said above, and you ignored:

[Ben Holmes]