Where is the CHECK/MO for Oswald's $10

[David Von Pein]

I think patsy Oswald might have been manipulated into buying the mail-order guns and/or moved into place thinking he was an intelligence agent working for Thomas Dodd's Senate Committee which was investigating mail-order gun houses and/or investigating a gunrunning operation going on in the TSBD.

That theory makes much more sense than the extremely goofy nonsense being spouted by people like James DiEugenio and his cohorts.

The above theory is still dead wrong, of course, because it's fairly obvious (to me anyway) that Oswald's reason for purchasing the rifle was to kill General Edwin Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting dovetails perfectly with Oswald having ordered and received his mail-order guns in late March of '63.

As I told DiEugenio the other day, it would be much better for conspiracy theorists if they would just admit to the obvious truth about Oswald ordering and taking possession of both the revolver and the rifle, because then the CTers could pretend that the evil conspirators attempted to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS. That's far more sensible than believing in the far-out theory that has the entire paper trail for BOTH the rifle and the revolver being forged and completely manufactured by the bad guys.

Plus, when thinking about all the complicated stuff that the "patsy-framers" would have had to fake and create out of whole cloth to make it look as though Patsy Oswald had really purchased the two guns in March '63 via mail-order, there's an additional level of fakery that DiEugenio & Co. must think the plotters engaged in regarding the revolver order: the REA skullduggery.

Because if the same rules and regulations for "C.O.D." mail and packages were in place in March '63 as they were in 2003, it would mean that the "plotters" who wanted desperately to make it look like Oswald had purchased a mail-order revolver from Seaport Traders could have faked the paper trail without using REA as the package delivery service at all.

They could have had Seaport deliver the gun to P.O. Box 2915 via the regular U.S. Post Office delivery, instead of using REA, even though a COD payment was due on the gun.

Which brings up another point -- If the whole paper trail for the revolver was completely phony, why in the world did the plotters want to have Oswald paying for the gun via COD? Why not just fake it to make it look like Oswald had paid for the entire purchase price when he ordered it, just like the Patsy Framers supposedly did with LHO's Carcano purchase? The mysterious plotters didn't have Oswald paying COD for the rifle. Why did they do that with the revolver? The COD angle adds yet another level of needless complexity into such "fakery", because "they" need Oswald to make two payments instead of just one.

Of course, just HOW they managed to place the phony paperwork in the REA and Seaport files is another matter, which is yet another level of the plot that complicates the whole works, just as it does with the Klein's paperwork in Chicago. Because it was the Klein's people who scoured their records all night on Nov. 22-23 for the paper trail of LHO's rifle.

Do the CTers think that Klein's employees, like William Waldman and whoever might have been helping him find the documents, were "in" on the plot too? It's so silly, it's truly beyond ALL belief that such a complicated plot of fakery could have possibly taken place (or that anyone with any common sense could believe that anything of the sort could have occurred in this case).

But instead of just faking the Seaport documents, these overworked plotters decided it might be nice to add more levels of complexity into their fakery, so they had Railway Express act as the package delivery service for Oswald's "bogus" gun purchase. Therefore, STILL MORE paperwork had to needlessly be faked and created from whole cloth in order to meet the conspirators' demands.

I wonder why more conspiracy theorists can't see the built-in craziness of such a "faked paper trail" scheme? But I sure can.

Edited December 2, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda ... but nothing whatsoever to say he DID.

Would you have preferred that I just go ahead and lie and pretend that that I know that Oswald picked up his revolver at such-and-such location (either REA or the Post Office)?

Make no mistake about what I'm saying -- LHO absolutely, positively DID pick up that V510210 S&W revolver in March '63. I'm just not sure WHERE he picked it up. But just basic common sense (coupled with the facts listed below) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered from Seaport:

1.) Oswald ordered a S&W revolver from Seaport in early 1963.

2.) Seaport shipped S&W revolver V510210 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63.

3.) Oswald was arrested with Revolver V510210 in his hands on 11/22/63.

To deny that Oswald took possession of the V510210 revolver under the above conditions is downright silly.

Plus, there's no indication whatsoever that REA sent the revolver back to Seaport, which certainly would have happened if the gun had never been picked up by anybody. And this same thing applies to LHO's Carcano rifle. That gun was never sent back to Klein's by the Post Office. Hence, somebody picked it up. And since Oswald is the person who ordered the rifle and paid for it, the person most likely to pick it up at HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is Lee Oswald. Isn't this just basic math? I think it is.

So you simply take it on faith and can offer no proof other than your absolute personal certainty, based on logic and not evidence, that this is the case. No problem. Seems reasonable. At least, to a "reasonable person," it does.

Does your definition of "reasonableness" extend to your religion as well? Race? Gender? I'm just trying to figure out how many "unreasonable" people there are out there in the world ... or how "reasonable" I might be.

I think patsy Oswald might have been manipulated into buying the mail-order guns and/or moved into place thinking he was an intelligence agent working for Thomas Dodd's Senate Committee which was investigating mail-order gun houses and/or investigating a gunrunning operation going on in the TSBD.

That theory makes much more sense than the extremely goofy nonsense being spouted by people like James DiEugenio and his cohorts.

The above theory is still dead wrong, of course, because it's fairly obvious (to me anyway) ...

As I told DiEugenio the other day, it would be much better for conspiracy theorists if they would just admit to the obvious truth about Oswald ordering and taking possession of both the revolver and the rifle, because then the CTers could pretend that the evil conspirators attempted to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS. That's far more sensible ....

... To you anyway?

-- continued next post

[Duke Lane]

Continued from previous post:

... Plus, when thinking about all the complicated stuff that the "patsy-framers" would have had to fake and create out of whole cloth to make it look as though Patsy Oswald had really purchased the two guns in March '63 via mail-order, there's an additional level of fakery that DiEugenio & Co. must think the plotters engaged in regarding the revolver order: the REA skullduggery.

Because if the same rules and regulations for "C.O.D." mail and packages were in place in March '63 as they were in 2003, it would mean that the "plotters" who wanted desperately to make it look like Oswald had purchased a mail-order revolver from Seaport Traders could have faked the paper trail without using REA as the package delivery service at all.

They could have had Seaport deliver the gun to P.O. Box 2915 via the regular U.S. Post Office delivery, instead of using REA, even though a COD payment was due on the gun.

Well, since you can't offer proof of what procedures were at REA for COD packages (nor at USPS, for that matter), I suppose anything is possible, such that USPS required identification where REA did not, hence, as you say, somebody could pick up the package - and did.

You cannot prove it was Oswald other than by inference.

Which brings up another point -- If the whole paper trail for the revolver was completely phony, why in the world did the plotters want to have Oswald paying for the gun via COD? Why not just fake it to make it look like Oswald had paid for the entire purchase price when he ordered it, just like the Patsy Framers supposedly did with LHO's Carcano purchase? The mysterious plotters didn't have Oswald paying COD for the rifle. Why did they do that with the revolver? The COD angle adds yet another level of needless complexity into such "fakery", because "they" need Oswald to make two payments instead of just one.

Of course, just HOW they managed to place the phony paperwork in the REA and Seaport files is another matter, which is yet another level of the plot that complicates the whole works, just as it does with the Klein's paperwork in Chicago. Because it was the Klein's people who scoured their records all night on Nov. 22-23 for the paper trail of LHO's rifle.

Do the CTers think that Klein's employees, like William Waldman and whoever might have been helping him find the documents, were "in" on the plot too? It's so silly, it's truly beyond ALL belief that such a complicated plot of fakery could have possibly taken place (or that anyone with any common sense could believe that anything of the sort could have occurred in this case).

But instead of just faking the Seaport documents, these overworked plotters decided it might be nice to add more levels of complexity into their fakery, so they had Railway Express act as the package delivery service for Oswald's "bogus" gun purchase. Therefore, STILL MORE paperwork had to needlessly be faked and created from whole cloth in order to meet the conspirators' demands.

I wonder why more conspiracy theorists can't see the built-in craziness of such a "faked paper trail" scheme? But I sure can.

Straw man, never even suggested here.

A very reasonable question, that I'd expect you should have a very reasonable, logically inferred answer that fits within the procedures and parameters of a criminal investigation (or at least the one conducted by WC/FBI), is that which I asked in my previous post:

"If the FBI was able to be so successful in tracking down the weapons so quickly (they were at Seaport Traders half-way across the country within eight days of the shootings), why in the remaining months did they simply not bother to look into the rest of the transaction with REA?"

C'mon. Seriously. The FBI had all the information they needed, but simply didn't bother to nail down this segment of the gun's travels. Or else, maybe they did and didn't like what they found (e.g., someone who looked as much like "Oswald" as the guy outside the Cuban embassy in Mexico City), so merely omitted it: after all, who - other than those Feebs who wanted to go home to Thule, Greenland - was going to buck Hoover's November 22-25 solution?

There has to be a logical, reasonable answer to that question, one that's at least consistent with the notion that they could and did track down the provenance of the pistol to Seattle inside of eight days, getting statements, copies of documents, etc. Ditto for the rifle.

I'm thinking maybe they were just too stupid to realize that, since the gun apparently wasn't delivered by USPS, that it must've been "delivered" by REA. Or that since REA generated paperwork to return COD payment to the shipper, they might also generate paperwork to establish delivery (I mean why bother when they're sending cash back, right?). Or they figured nobody would ask for proof (the defendant being dead and all), and in any case they'd already gotten an overwhelming amount of it, and "more" isn't always "better."

What "makes sense" here? To you, that is, and the thousands of other reasonable truth-seekers like you.

Y'know, you really can't disparage all those Hindus, Jews, Arabs and so many others who don't take it on faith that Jesus Christ is their personal Savior just because you do. I'll bet that they have perfectly reasonable reasons why they don't.

"Reasonable" to them, anyway. But it should be "obvious" that they're wrong.

So what's the answer to my "very reasonable question?"

Edited December 2, 2011 by Duke Lane

[Duke Lane]

Really, my point is that I'd expected better arguments than the old appeals to authority, claims of faith, and sheer speculation substituted as explanation.

[David Josephs]

Coulda, woulda, shoulda ... but nothing whatsoever to say he DID.

Would you have preferred that I just go ahead and lie and pretend that that I know that Oswald picked up his revolver at such-and-such location (either REA or the Post Office)?

Make no mistake about what I'm saying -- LHO absolutely, positively DID pick up that V510210 S&W revolver in March '63. I'm just not sure WHERE he picked it up. But just basic common sense (coupled with the facts listed below) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered from Seaport:

1.) Oswald ordered a S&W revolver from Seaport in early 1963.

2.) Seaport shipped S&W revolver V510210 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63.

3.) Oswald was arrested with Revolver V510210 in his hands on 11/22/63.

To deny that Oswald took possession of the V510210 revolver under the above conditions is downright silly.

Plus, there's no indication whatsoever that REA sent the revolver back to Seaport, which certainly would have happened if the gun had never been picked up by anybody. And this same thing applies to LHO's Carcano rifle. That gun was never sent back to Klein's by the Post Office. Hence, somebody picked it up. And since Oswald is the person who ordered the rifle and paid for it, the person most likely to pick it up at HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is Lee Oswald. Isn't this just basic math? I think it is.

Sorry Dave but #1 is yet to be proven... even the HSCA didn't touch those, these are the ONLY items the HSCA bothered with and they were both XEROX copies....

So on what evidence do you conclude that Oswald placed the 38 order? and if you can do that, please show us the transfer of funds from REA to Seaport... along with REA's reciept of the COD $1.27...

29. March 12, 1963. U.S. postal money order No. bearing handwritten fill-ins as follows: Klein's Sporting Goods, A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915. Dallas, Tex. Blue ink, ballpoint pen. Location: Archives. (CE 788; JFK exhibit F-509A and 509B.)

30. March 12, 1963. Enlargement of microfilm reproduction of Klein's order form for rifle from A. Hidell, superimposed on envelop, postmarked March 12, 1963, addressed to Klein's, Dept. 358, 227 W. Washington Street, Chicago 6, Ill., with return address: A. Hidell. P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. Location:Archives. (CE 773: Cadigan's exhibit 1; JFK exhibit F-504.)

#2 - REA shipped the product for Seaport and it was shipped to HIDELL, NOT Oswald. You can prove when Seaport processed the order (if, as you say Oswald waited to mail it) by simply showing us the $10 COD deposit slip... or any indication from Seaport when they rec'd the order...

#3 - Yeah, that's still up for discussion Dave... how about showing us the chain of possession for that gun once the DPD has it... I've been thru the archives... nothing... usually there is a CSS or Property slip that is created when evidence is brought in....

How can you PROVE that the gun in evidence was the gun taken from Oswald.... in LAW there is this little thing for evidence called AUTHENTICATION which allows us to believe THAT WHICH WAS FOUND is the same as THAT WHICH IS ENTERED IN TO EVIDENCE...

You can prove this we assume Dave?

thanks

DJ

[David Von Pein]

You guys can't possibly really be serious in questioning Oswald's ownership of Revolver V510210, can you? The evidence is a mile deep that Oswald, in his OWN WRITING (which you also dispute is his, naturally) ordered both the revolver and the rifle. This is a FACT beyond dispute (to reasonable people, that is).

In fact, if you were to poll conspiracy theorists off the street who know at least a LITTLE something about the details of the JFK & Tippit murder cases, I'd bet that a vast majority would concede that the revolver and the rifle were Oswald's. (And as I mentioned twice previously, the "Patsy" plot even makes much more sense from the POV that the two guns WERE really Oswald's. The evil patsy framers would then have framed Oswald with HIS OWN WEAPONS.)

And the assertion by some conspiracy theorists that the gun that was wrested from Oswald's hands during the scuffle in the Texas Theater was really not Revolver V510210 is an assertion that's almost too ridiculous to even talk about.

Because if the gun taken from Oswald in the theater wasn't V510210, then we'd have to believe that the Dallas cops (and/or the FBI) had a desire to frame Oswald for a cop-killing he never committed (which is REALLY absurd when thinking about the DPD doing this, since a lot of those guys knew the slain officer personally, and certainly wouldn't want to see Tippit's murderer go free).

And if the gun taken from LHO wasn't the V510210 gun, we'd also have to assume that the cops and Federal agents then engaged in a very swift and efficient sinister plot of faking all of the various records pertaining to Oswald's mail-order purchase for the revolver. The cops must have then somehow convinced at least SOME employees of Seaport Traders to join in their frame-up of Oswald, because the paperwork concerning Oswald's revolver purchase was found in the SEAPORT FILES on November 30th, 1963.

JOSEPH BALL -- "That [Michaelis Exhibit No. 2] was in your records, was it, as of November 30, 1963?"

HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "Yes, it was."

Did the FBI send an agent to Seaport to "pose" as a Seaport employee so that this covert agent could then "plant" the "Hidell" invoice in the Seaport files?

It's only when you get to Internet forums like this one do you find the incredibly silly theories being tossed around -- such as Oswald NOT shooting Tippit, Oswald NOT shooting JFK, Oswald NOT purchasing the revolver, Oswald NOT purchasing the rifle, and Tan Jacket Man "handing off" some suspicious item to somebody in a two-second film clip taken shortly after the assassination.

As an additional example of what I mean, this 2003 ABC poll shows that 83 percent of the 1,031 people being polled believed that Lee Oswald was a gunman in the JFK murder:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?".....

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%

ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%

OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%

NO OPINION ------------- 10%

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

How big do you suppose the percentage would be in those first two categories ("Only Oswald" and "Another Gunman [Plus Oswald too]") if the respondents consisted only of people who posted regularly at Internet forums?

Edited December 3, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

If the FBI was able to be so successful in tracking down the weapons so quickly (they were at Seaport Traders half-way across the country within eight days of the shootings), why in the remaining months did they simply not bother to look into the rest of the transaction with REA?

Probably because they didn't need to do that to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210.

Your question is particularly weak and unimportant because it deals with the shipping of Oswald's REVOLVER only. And since the FBI already knew (via the bullet shells that Oswald dumped at the scene of the crime) that the gun Oswald had on him in the theater was the SAME gun that murdered Tippit, then there was really no need to establish just exactly WHERE Oswald picked up the revolver.

The FBI knew it was Oswald's gun via just the Seaport documents. And I imagine that at least a few people in the FBI had enough common sense to add up the following things and arrive at the obvious conclusion that Oswald took possession of V510210 in March '63:

1.) Oswald ordered the revolver from Seaport.

2.) Seaport's paperwork establishes that they [seaport Traders, Inc.] received Oswald's/Hidell's order (probably on March 13th, 1963, via the typewritten date on Michaelis Exhibit No. 2).

3.) Seaport's paperwork establishes the fact that Revolver V510210 was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box (or at least a notification card was sent to the box, with Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself).

4.) The gun was never returned to Seaport as "undelivered".

5.) The Seaport paperwork further indicates that the revolver shipped to Oswald was definitely PAID FOR and the order completed on REA's end, because the proper forms are attached to the red copy of the invoice in Seaport's files. (And this is another fact that CTers on this forum apparently want to completely ignore; and this fact was established in Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony.)

6.) J.D. Tippit was murdered with Revolver V510210.

7.) Lee Harvey Oswald had Revolver V510210 in his hands (attempting to shoot a policeman with it) at approximately 1:50 PM CST on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD.

Given the above ironclad facts, tell me again WHY the Federal Bureau of Investigation (or anybody else for that matter) would have needed to go to the REA office to establish whether or not Lee Oswald picked up Revolver V510210 and whether or not Oswald shot Officer Tippit with that same gun?

In actuality, you could really throw out Items 1 through 5 above, because even without establishing those things, Oswald is still proven guilty of murdering J.D. Tippit. Just #6 and #7 by themselves establish that fact for all time.

Edited December 3, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

You simply don't get the point, David.

If we were all on a jury, it seems you'd be the guy who'd not only hold out because you're able to make a leap of faith – that what you or a witness presume to be true is true – that your fellow jurors (I hesitate to call them your "peers" in light of the next part) aren't able to, but you'd also berate them as "idiots and fools" for not seeing things your way.

A fine example is your comment "probably because they (the FBI) didn't need to do that (look into the REA portion of the transaction) to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210."

Seaport did not "establish and confirm" anything other than that they received an order, shipped it, and got paid for it; nothing about Seaport or its paperwork "established and confirmed" that Oswald had "undoubtedly picked up and took possession of" anything.

Likewise, Seaport's paperwork paperwork does not "establish the fact" that the pistol was either "sent to Oswald's P.O. Box," OR that "at least a notification card was sent to the box," OR anything about "Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself;" Seaport's paperwork ONLY shows that they shipped the pistol via REA and got paid for the order. That is all that Seaport's paperwork proves.

That Oswald "possessed" that weapon at the time of his arrest is a reasonable inference, but only if in fact it can even be proved that the weapon that was later in evidence is actually, absolutely, unquestionably the weapon that was taken from him in the theater; it cannot. I don't say that because I'd "like to believe" anything you disagree with, but merely because it's true based on facts.

It is also true that from the time the pistol left Seattle until it was transferred to the FBI in Dallas, absolutely nothing is firmly "established and confirmed" about the whereabouts or possession of that weapon.

(Nothing about any other weapon has any bearing on the disposition of this weapon, and diverting our attention to the rifle does not "establish and confirm" anything other than that you're willing to rely upon inference to "prove" your point.)

You mistake what you consider to be "reasonable conclusions" with what, in your mind, everyone should recognize as "ironclad facts" when they are not ... or at least you promote them as such when they are not, and attack those who don't find your "facts" to be as "ironclad" as you portray them, as if repetition and intimidation will convince them of the error of their ways.

Leading a Crusade against the Infidels in the East will do nothing toward convincing Buddhists that Jesus the Nazarene is the One True God born of a Virgin, or Muslims that Mohammed was a blasphemer; you'll not convince Jews that Christ is the Messiah, nor Methodists that Mary was a Virgin by telling them repeatedly that you believe all of those things to be true, or that you think they're foolish and crazy and hell-bound because they're not members of your Church.

Nor will anyone who believes anything among those things or more that you do not, convince you of the error of your ways: they could spend hours and days schooling you in human physiology, but if you believe in the Virgin Birth, you will still do so afterward: after all, how many Catholic MDs are there in the world?

In this case (or any other criminal matter), it's not what any of us believes to be true, but only what we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is true – to even those who may have some doubts – that matters. And the fact is that, insofar as the questions raised by this thread's topic are concerned, you cannot dispel doubts with facts, but only with inferences (and insults), and you haven't.

You have, however, established what you believe to be true, and that you think anyone who disagrees with you and what you consider to be "reasonable" is stupid. It still doesn't make any of it so.

[David Josephs]

Sums it up pretty well here Duke.... take care.

DJ

"Now what's to be found by racing around,

you carry your pain wherever you go,

Full of blues, and tryin' to lose,

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

You simply don't get the point, David.

If we were all on a jury, it seems you'd be the guy who'd not only hold out because you're able to make a leap of faith – that what you or a witness presume to be true is true – that your fellow jurors (I hesitate to call them your "peers" in light of the next part) aren't able to, but you'd also berate them as "idiots and fools" for not seeing things your way.

A fine example is your comment "probably because they (the FBI) didn't need to do that (look into the REA portion of the transaction) to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210."

Seaport did not "establish and confirm" anything other than that they received an order, shipped it, and got paid for it; nothing about Seaport or its paperwork "established and confirmed" that Oswald had "undoubtedly picked up and took possession of" anything.

Likewise, Seaport's paperwork paperwork does not "establish the fact" that the pistol was either "sent to Oswald's P.O. Box," OR that "at least a notification card was sent to the box," OR anything about "Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself;" Seaport's paperwork ONLY shows that they shipped the pistol via REA and got paid for the order. That is all that Seaport's paperwork proves.

That Oswald "possessed" that weapon at the time of his arrest is a reasonable inference, but only if in fact it can even be proved that the weapon that was later in evidence is actually, absolutely, unquestionably the weapon that was taken from him in the theater; it cannot. I don't say that because I'd "like to believe" anything you disagree with, but merely because it's true based on facts.

It is also true that from the time the pistol left Seattle until it was transferred to the FBI in Dallas, absolutely nothing is firmly "established and confirmed" about the whereabouts or possession of that weapon.

(Nothing about any other weapon has any bearing on the disposition of this weapon, and diverting our attention to the rifle does not "establish and confirm" anything other than that you're willing to rely upon inference to "prove" your point.)

You mistake what you consider to be "reasonable conclusions" with what, in your mind, everyone should recognize as "ironclad facts" when they are not ... or at least you promote them as such when they are not, and attack those who don't find your "facts" to be as "ironclad" as you portray them, as if repetition and intimidation will convince them of the error of their ways.

Leading a Crusade against the Infidels in the East will do nothing toward convincing Buddhists that Jesus the Nazarene is the One True God born of a Virgin, or Muslims that Mohammed was a blasphemer; you'll not convince Jews that Christ is the Messiah, nor Methodists that Mary was a Virgin by telling them repeatedly that you believe all of those things to be true, or that you think they're foolish and crazy and hell-bound because they're not members of your Church.

Nor will anyone who believes anything among those things or more that you do not, convince you of the error of your ways: they could spend hours and days schooling you in human physiology, but if you believe in the Virgin Birth, you will still do so afterward: after all, how many Catholic MDs are there in the world?

In this case (or any other criminal matter), it's not what any of us believes to be true, but only what we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is true – to even those who may have some doubts – that matters. And the fact is that, insofar as the questions raised by this thread's topic are concerned, you cannot dispel doubts with facts, but only with inferences (and insults), and you haven't.

You have, however, established what you believe to be true, and that you think anyone who disagrees with you and what you consider to be "reasonable" is stupid. It still doesn't make any of it so.

[David Von Pein]

Where is the evidence that the ten dollars was ever transferred to Seaport?

WTF are you talking about, Jimmy?

The initial $10 CASH deposit that Oswald mailed never needed to be "transferred" to Seaport by REA, because REA never handled or saw that ten dollars. Nobody else handled that $10 except Seaport. Oswald mailed it in an envelope directly to Seaport in Los Angeles. (Duh.)

Why are you even asking such a silly question?

Oh, yes, I know why -- Michaelis lied about Seaport receiving the $10 deposit IN CASH. Right?

Well, even if that were true (which it isn't), you're still out to lunch, because even if Oswald had mailed in a check or a money order, REA still wouldn't be involved in any way with THAT money. It would have been mailed directly by Oswald to Seaport, regardless of method of payment. Why are you trying to get REA involved in the initial deposit sent by Oswald? That's nuts. REA only became involved with the COD part of the shipment.

Plus, we know the $10 deposit WAS received by Seaport.

How can we know that for a fact?

Simple: Because if the $10 deposit had not been received by Seaport, then they (obviously) would never have shipped the gun to Oswald/Hidell at all.

Do you think that Seaport sent a $30 gun to "Hidell" without ever having received the 10% deposit at all?

You're a real piece of work, Jimbo.

Although, unfortunately, I do agree with you about the quite subpar "Lost Bullet" program on NatGeo. Here's why:

DVP REVIEW: "JFK: THE LOST BULLET"

Edited December 8, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

DAVEY:

There is no evidence that Seaport ever got the ten dollars, is there?

If there was, you would point it out, would you not?

And therefore, REA would be able to prove the balance owed minus the ten dollars.

Please show me the proof of this in the Michaelis interview.

Mr. MICHAELIS. We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash.

[...]

Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?

Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?

Mr. BALL. Five.

Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.

Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----

Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----

Mr. BALL. Two.

Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/michaelis.htm

===================

Why are you even questioning this stuff, Jim? It's beyond silly. And you know it is.

Plus, as I mentioned multiple times already, we can KNOW that Seaport received the initial $10

deposit -- because they would not have shipped the merchandise to "Hidell" in Dallas unless they had been paid.

That's the way businesses usually operate, Jim. A customer gives them money, then the seller ships the merchandise. Surely you know how that works, don't you?

And why in the world you think that a $10 bill sent in cash by Oswald would have to leave a detailed RECORD or paperwork trail for that SPECIFIC ten-dollar bill (or two fives) is also a silly thing to believe.

Seaport shipped the gun to Dallas....therefore, they definitely received the $10 deposit. Period.

And we know the gun WAS shipped by Seaport (via REA), and this REA document proves it:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

Edited December 8, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

"Now what's to be found by racing around,

you carry your pain wherever you go,

Full of blues, and tryin' to lose,

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."

Heh-heh! Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of place if you look at it right....

[Duke Lane]

If the FBI was able to be so successful in tracking down the weapons so quickly (they were at Seaport Traders half-way across the country within eight days of the shootings), why in the remaining months did they simply not bother to look into the rest of the transaction with REA?

Probably because they didn't need to do that to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210.

Your question is particularly weak and unimportant because it deals with the shipping of Oswald's REVOLVER only. And since the FBI already knew (via the bullet shells that Oswald dumped at the scene of the crime) that the gun Oswald had on him in the theater was the SAME gun that murdered Tippit, then there was really no need to establish just exactly WHERE Oswald picked up the revolver.

The FBI knew it was Oswald's gun via just the Seaport documents. ... I imagine that at least a few people in the FBI had enough common sense to add up [several] things and arrive at the obvious conclusion ....

I was reading JFK Assassination Logic this weekend after visiting with the good perfesser (and his cronies Mack, Perry and Aynesworth all meeting in Dallas to perpetuate the on-going cover-up through this next year: have photographic proof!!) and came across an interesting parallel to this discussion, which I'll take the liberty of posting mostly in full here regarding FBI/WC proofs of whether (and when) Oswald might have or could have received his final Texas unemployment check before (maybe/probably) debarking to Mexico (in which description McAdams freely admits that the FBI never was able to pin down where or even whether Oswald cashed checks, only that they were sent to him):

So, establishing [Oswald's] whereabouts comes down to the unemployment check. The check was cut on September 23 and picked up from the mailroom at the Texas Employment Commission in Austin at 5:15 p.m. The FBI meticulously traced the route it traveled from Austin to New Orleans. First the mail superintendent in Austin explained that mail to New Orleans was dispatched to Houston by truck on Star Route 48703-T at 10:00 p.m. on September 23. He went on to say that this route was "the only way regular mail could be dispatched from Austin, unless it were delayed or missent." He added that "regular mail is never diverted to airmail or to any other means than stated above."

In Houston, records showed that the mail truck from Austin arrived at 2:40 a.m. on September 24. The mail was placed on Southern Pacific train number 2, which the Houston officials said would arrive in New Orleans at about 6:00 p.m., but the train actually left Houston at 9:45 a.m., or twenty minutes late. Postal officials in New Orleans established that the train did arrive in New Orleans on time on September 24. Mail was then taken off the train and transferred to the branch post offices. The mail to the Lafayette Street Post Office (where Oswald retrieved it from his box) was dispatched at 4:55 a.m. No employees were on duty in the Lafayette Street station during the evening (between 5:45 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.), so the earliest the check could possibly have been put in Oswald's box was a bit after 5:00 a.m. on the morning of September 25.

As we can see here, the FBI indeed "meticulously traced" the exact route of Oswald's unemployment check, apparently just short of it actually arriving at the Lafayette Street PO (the earliest possible time the check could have been put in Oswald's box as a bit after the dispatch truck unloaded at Lafayette Street, which is not included in this report and might as easily have been 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. or even later), and not, per McAdams' caveat, determining that Oswald actually received it.

(He notes in the text that Oswald "supposedly cashed his check at a New Orleans Winn-Dixie supermarket in New Orleans on the morning of September 25, but no solid evidence rules out his having done so on the twenty-fourth," which effectively says that there is no evidence that the check was cashed anywhere at any particular time, and certainly not by whom. Likewise, while the check was traced as far as the distribution truck, there is no certain evidence that Oswald ever held the check in his hand, much less cashed it.)

So we are left with the curiosity that Feebs would track down the whereabouts of a check – which was not illegal to receive or to have or to cash or to do anything else with, and which was certainly not dangerous – but when it comes down to determining that a murder weapon actually came into the actual possession of the accused, they completely ignore – or at least neglect to report on – its journey from Seattle to Oswald via REA, which if others hadn't referred to it, we'd have known nothing about since the FBI sure as heck didn't.

That can merely be inferred, doesn't have to be proven, even to the extent that putting a check into Oswald's hands was?!? Of course, the WC wasn't a court of law, and as Hale Boggs(?) noted, they weren't "exactly following the rules of evidence," but we nevertheless have a situation where the FBI can and does track a single envelope through five "checkpoints," but doesn't track a pistol from origin to delivery, even though they were aware of the means of its shipping.

Instead, the fact of receiving an order, and some sort of notice possibly (provably?) appearing in Oswald's Dallas PO box, but no documentation whatsoever, indisputable or otherwise, to show that the pistol was ever actually delivered to him, or for that matter, was ever even in Dallas until November 22.

There is enough police testimony alone to construct a plausible scenario of someone "planting" the pistol on Oswald, and more that puts the provenance of the pistol in evidence into question – certainly enough to give rise to reasonable doubt – that absent putting the gun in Oswald's possession prior to November 22 is necessary to prove that he ever possessed it. It can only be done by inference. That might be enough to convince a jury, or it might be enough to hang it.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the FBI made no apparent effort to track the weapon from origin to delivery, which seems such a gross oversight under almost any circumstance, but particularly when such skill is utilized to track down a mere envelope. It is reasonable to conclude from that apparent negligence that this information was (and certainly could have been) gathered but not reported on because the information obtained was contrary to a determination of Oswald's sole guilt.

If the FBI can at least almost put an envelope in the killer's hands, they ought to be able to at least prove the pistol was delivered to a location in Dallas. Is the reason they did not, that they could not?

They were professionals trained to connect the dots one to the next. They did it with a check, but didn't do it with a gun? Is that really easy to believe?

[David Von Pein]

If the FBI can at least almost put an envelope in the killer's hands, they ought to be able to at least prove the pistol was delivered to a location in Dallas. Is the reason they did not, that they could not?

They DID prove that the revolver was delivered to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas. Why in the world do you think THAT fact is in doubt?

Re: REA and the "unknown" about exactly where and when Oswald picked up his revolver:

My guess on that is (as also stated in prior posts): The reason they did not pursue the REA matter was because they DIDN'T NEED TO. They already knew that Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his hands within 35 minutes of Tippit being killed. And the FBI certainly also knew that Oswald had positively ordered the revolver by mail-order via Seaport Traders. And the FBI also knew from the Seaport/REA paperwork that the Tippit murder weapon had been shipped to OSWALD'S post office box.

Good gravy, who COULDN'T connect those dots? You don't need to be in the FBI to do that connecting. A third-grader with a learning disability could connect those dots without a lick of trouble.

Why can't you, Duke?

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

The mail to the Lafayette Street Post Office (where Oswald retrieved it from his box) was dispatched at 4:55 a.m. No employees were on duty in the Lafayette Street station during the evening (between 5:45 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.), so the earliest the check could possibly have been put in Oswald's box was a bit after 5:00 a.m. on the morning of September 25

(He notes in the text that Oswald "supposedly cashed his check at a New Orleans Winn-Dixie supermarket in New Orleans on the morning of September 25, but no solid evidence rules out his having done so on the twenty-fourth,"

I'm confused. According to McAdams, this must be Oswald's mystical powers at work again, allowing him to cash a check before it even arrives into his mail box...

So we are left with the curiosity that Feebs would track down the whereabouts of a check – which was not illegal to receive or to have or to cash or to do anything else with

I'll have to do some digging on this to refresh memory, but wasn't there a problem, if not with this check, then some other, regarding interstate eligibility for the money?