Davey Von Peiny - Proven Liar...

[Ben Holmes]

Davey Von Peiny lies:
> The fact is this -- Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed
> Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not. The likelihood is
> that he probably DID list that name, but the portion of the
> application that revealed such information was discarded after Oswald
> closed out the box.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html


Unfortunately for this moronic and wicked liar... that's not what the
evidence shows... I invite everyone to turn to CE 2585, and zip down
to page 4, where it states:

12. CLAIM: The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle
mailed was kept under both his name and that of "A. Hidell" Page 111.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not
indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell,"
would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office
Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9,
1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf

THIS IS THE EVIDENCE!!! And David Von Pein is perfectly aware of it -
YET HE BLATANTLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY POSTS AN ASSERTION THAT IS
COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THIS KNOWN EVIDENCE!!

David Von Pein is a proven liar.

And since he'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that he's been caught
lying, he's a coward too...

More amusing, not a *SINGLE* believer in this forum will acknowledge
that Davey Von Peiny is a proven liar...

[Scrum Drum]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:35:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:



I'll second it...

[Bud]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:35:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

> Davey Von Peiny lies:
> > The fact is this -- Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed
> > Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not. The likelihood is
> > that he probably DID list that name, but the portion of the
> > application that revealed such information was discarded after Oswald
> > closed out the box.
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html
>
>
> Unfortunately for this moronic and wicked liar...

When words like "wicked" start to appear in a crackpot fanatic`s rhetoric you know his sanity is leaving the reservation.

> that's not what the
> evidence shows... I invite everyone to turn to CE 2585, and zip down
> to page 4, where it states:
>
> 12. CLAIM: The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle
> mailed was kept under both his name and that of "A. Hidell" Page 111.
>
> INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not
> indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell,"
> would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office
> Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9,
> 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.
>
> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
>
> THIS IS THE EVIDENCE!!!

What is the evidence? I`m not seeing it here.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:23:17 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:35:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Davey Von Peiny lies:
>>> The fact is this -- Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed
>>> Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not. The likelihood is
>>> that he probably DID list that name, but the portion of the
>>> application that revealed such information was discarded after Oswald
>>> closed out the box.
>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately for this moronic and wicked liar...

LFD.

>> that's not what the
>> evidence shows... I invite everyone to turn to CE 2585, and zip down
>> to page 4, where it states:
>>
>> 12. CLAIM: The Post Office Box in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle
>> mailed was kept under both his name and that of "A. Hidell" Page 111.
>>
>> INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not
>> indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell,"
>> would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office
>> Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9,
>> 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963.
>>
>> https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf
>>
>> THIS IS THE EVIDENCE!!!
>
> What is the evidence? I`m not seeing it here.

I both quoted and cited it. This silly claim by you simply shows how
dishonest you are.

>> And David Von Pein is perfectly aware of it -
>> YET HE BLATANTLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY POSTS AN ASSERTION THAT IS
>> COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THIS KNOWN EVIDENCE!!
>>
>> David Von Pein is a proven liar.
>>
>> And since he'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that he's been caught
>> lying, he's a coward too...
>>
>> More amusing, not a *SINGLE* believer in this forum will acknowledge
>> that Davey Von Peiny is a proven liar...

Notice folks, that the first believer has weighed in with a logical
fallacy and an outright denial of the quoted/cited evidence.

As usual, I'm right!

[Bud]

You quoted and cited a claim. Claims are not evidence.

>This silly claim by you simply shows how
> dishonest you are.

The fact that you can`t say what the evidence is shows I was correct.

> >> And David Von Pein is perfectly aware of it -
> >> YET HE BLATANTLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY POSTS AN ASSERTION THAT IS
> >> COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THIS KNOWN EVIDENCE!!
> >>
> >> David Von Pein is a proven liar.
> >>
> >> And since he'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that he's been caught
> >> lying, he's a coward too...
> >>
> >> More amusing, not a *SINGLE* believer in this forum will acknowledge
> >> that Davey Von Peiny is a proven liar...
> Notice folks, that the first believer has weighed in with a logical
> fallacy and an outright denial of the quoted/cited evidence.

What evidence?

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 16:23:22 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

This is what happens when a moron doesn't read carefully.

>>This silly claim by you simply shows how
>> dishonest you are.
>>

>>>> And David Von Pein is perfectly aware of it -
>>>> YET HE BLATANTLY AND OUTRAGEOUSLY POSTS AN ASSERTION THAT IS
>>>> COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO THIS KNOWN EVIDENCE!!
>>>>
>>>> David Von Pein is a proven liar.
>>>>
>>>> And since he'll ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to acknowledge that he's been caught
>>>> lying, he's a coward too...
>>>>
>>>> More amusing, not a *SINGLE* believer in this forum will acknowledge
>>>> that Davey Von Peiny is a proven liar...
>>
>> Notice folks, that the first believer has weighed in with a logical
>> fallacy and an outright denial of the quoted/cited evidence.
>>

[Bud]

Produce the entire form. That would be the evidence.

[Sky Throne 19efppp]

David von Penis certainly is a liar, but at least a small number of his videos are useful.

[David Von Pein]

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 5:35:09 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:

My statement quoted previously by The Super Prick© [Holmes]....

"The fact is this -- Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not."

....is a perfectly accurate quote, based on the testimony of Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes (which is testimony that will forever be totally ignored by pricks named Holmes, of course)....

WESLEY 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."

[Source: 7 H 527.]

--------------------

Another of my archived comments regarding this issue makes far too much sense for any reasonable person to totally ignore....

"It also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail. But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-739.html

[John Corbett]

I'm wondering how that would have worked. I'm not sure a rifle would fit in the standard sized post office box. If not, I'm guessing a notice would be put in Oswald's PO box indicating he had a large package available for pickup at the front desk. I'm also guessing that to pick up the package, he would have to show some sort of ID. Would he have shown his own ID or the phony Hidell ID? Maybe the answer is in Holmes's testimony but I've always used McAdams website to check witness testimony and since it has been moved, my bookmark to it no longer works. If I was really ambitious I would figure out how to get to it but that is not the case.

[Ben Holmes]

And Davey jumps in to double down on his outright and proven lie.
Unforutunately, he's failed to address my points above, so I simply
deleted his whining.

[Hank Sienzant]

Or just the notice. See Holmes testimony quote below.

> Would he have shown his own ID or the phony Hidell ID? Maybe the answer is in Holmes's testimony but I've always used McAdams website to check witness testimony and since it has been moved, my bookmark to it no longer works. If I was really ambitious I would figure out how to get to it but that is not the case.

I use:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210525090144/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
or
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/wit.htm

Both work.


Harry Holmes answered that here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20191115225831/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes2.htm
== QUOTE ==
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 ==

[John Corbett]

On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 9:45:19 AM UTC-4, Hank Sienzant wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 8:18:03 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:

> > I'm wondering how that would have worked. I'm not sure a rifle would fit in the standard sized post office box. If not, I'm guessing a notice would be put in Oswald's PO box indicating he had a large package available for pickup at the front desk. I'm also guessing that to pick up the package, he would have to show some sort of ID.
> Or just the notice. See Holmes testimony quote below.
> > Would he have shown his own ID or the phony Hidell ID? Maybe the answer is in Holmes's testimony but I've always used McAdams website to check witness testimony and since it has been moved, my bookmark to it no longer works. If I was really ambitious I would figure out how to get to it but that is not the case.
> I use:
> https://web.archive.org/web/20210525090144/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm
> or
> https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/wit.htm
>
> Both work.

Thanks, Hank. Now I won't have an excuse for not looking up witness testimony in the future.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
<hsie...@aol.com> wrote:

>Or just the notice. See Holmes testimony quote below.

Huckster is TERRIFIED of the evidence in this case.

[Bud]

Can a bullet be seen in the AP x-ray?

Did anyone say that Kennedy`s throat wound looked ragged?

All you do is lie about the evidence in this case.

[Bud]

You`d need to produce the entire form to show him wrong.

> Unforutunately, he's failed to address my points above, so I simply
> deleted his whining.

You deleted what he wrote because he explained why you were wrong.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:49:23 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 2:24:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 06:45:18 -0700 (PDT), Hank Sienzant
>> <hsie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Or just the notice. See Holmes testimony quote below.
>>
>> Huckster is TERRIFIED of the evidence in this case.
>
> Can a bullet be seen in the AP x-ray?

Fragments of a bullet can be seen, yes. You're TERRIFIED of stating
where the largest fragments can be seen...

> Did anyone say that Kennedy`s throat wound looked ragged?

No-one that Bugliosi quoted, no.

> All you do is lie about the evidence in this case.

Empty claim.

[Ben Holmes]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:03:45 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>

LFD.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:52:13 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

I cited the entire CE2585. You lose!