Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Josephs

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

Recommended Posts

Jimmy D. said:
So now, suddenly, Davey has a religious transformation. Oswald went to REA, not because of all of my very sensible and accurate rejoinders. But because it's in Dale Myers post!

Not at all, Jim. I expressly quoted the reason as to why I changed my opinion on that matter (and, btw, I always maintained my uncertainty about how mail-order companies like Seaport dealt with C.O.D. orders in 1963, and I expressed my admitted uncertainty in my 2010 posts to you on this matter, which you will always ignore, as usual).

But it wasn't JUST because Dale Myers posted it, it was because of WHAT Dale Myers posted. Myers quoted REA Vice-President Robert Hendon, who said that in a similar case "a card was sent to the name and address" of the person who ordered the C.O.D. merchanchise.

That was the clincher for me and cleared up the confusion about the C.O.D. order, which was confusion that was actually started by Heinz Michaelis himself, who specifically DID say that the package containing THE GUN was mailed to Oswald's P.O. Box.

What he really should have said, however, was that a notification card was sent to the Post Office, who then put that card in Oswald's box, and the physical gun itself was retained by REA Express at the REA office in Dallas.

But do you really think Myers just MADE UP that quote from Hendon?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much proof that Oswald murdered Tippit, it's mind-boggling. And it's the BEST kind of evidence too -- ballistics (and yes, the bullet shells are irrevocably tied to LHO's gun, and why you're saying otherwise is a huge mystery; but you couldn't be more wrong on that point, as confirmed by Nicol, Frazier, Killion, and Cunningham....and others from the HSCA too) .... plus the fact that Oswald still had the murder weapon in his OWN HANDS just 35 minutes after the murder .... plus MULTIPLE eyewitnesses who said it was OSWALD, not somebody else, who either killed Tippit or fled the scene immediately afterward.

Just stay in fantasy land on this, Duke. That's where you apparently feel most comfortable.

The problems I have with Lee Harvey Oswald being Tippit's killer are numerous, and I wish the Dallas DA would convene a grand jury to investigate the crime and see if there is anyone who can be brought to justice for the murder of Tippit and other related crimes, including the assassination of the President.

For starters, it is said that Oswald killed Kennedy, so he therefore also killed Tippit, but since it can be conclusively shown that Oswald was set up as the Patsy for the assassination and wasn't even on the Sixth Floor at the time of the shooting, maybe Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder too.

To those who say that it was Oswald who killed Tippit, I ask them which Oswald? The Oswald who was framed for the assassination, the one who left a paper trail for ordering the weapons that he didn't pick up at the post office when he could have bought them at any pawn, gun shop or department store in Dallas without any record, or was it the Oswald who was seen in the car of Tippit's best friend near the scene of his murder?

Either way, both Oswalds are inextricably entwined with intelligence agencies and are connected to espionage networks that make whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza a covert intelligence operation, and not the work of a lone, deranged nut.

BK JFKcountercoup: Collins Radio Connections

Inextricable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inextricablein·ex·tri·ca·ble. adj \ˌi-nik-ˈstri-kə-bəl i-ˈnek stri-\. Definition of INEXTRICABLE. 1. : forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free. 2 ...

I want DVP to respond to this post. BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best evidence mean zilch to you conspiracy mongers (the bullet shells and the murder weapon being in LHO's hands when he was arrested, while trying to kill still more policemen with it, not to mention all the various witnesses either AT or NEAR the murder scene who positively IDed Lee Oswald).

But CTers have a built-in excuse -- It's all faked.

Incredible silliness. Does it ever end?

You cannot be serious with the bullet evidence.

I mean that stuff is so compromised it literally smells of garbage. But the point is you know all the problems with it, yet you still bring it up.

Why? In any other case it would be a liability. But yet you do not even detail it before accepting it.

For the prurient reader the sorry details are in Henry Hurt's book (pgs. 152-56) and Jim Garrison's (pgs. 197-201). ...

Therefore both the provenance of the revolver is in question as is the ballistics evidence.

Prurient (adjective): 1. having, inclined to have, or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc.; 2. causing lasciviousness or lust; 3. having a restless desire or longing.

That aside, I think you can get a bit more technical that the bullet evidence is "so compromised it literally smells of garbage," especially when you consider that two LEOs testified to the fact (or more exactly, their expert opinions) that the bullets from the Tippit scene could not be matched to the revolver with any degree of certainty, despite the WCR's claim that they stated the contrary.

Even everyone's favorite critic Dave Perry points these things out in his online article, "Conflicting Evidence of Bullets and Shells In The Shooting of J.D. Tippit."

Ultimately, what was offered as proof in this aspect of the case, can only be taken as proof if one is willing to accept it as such. It does not stand up to the legal burden of proof. Some people don't think that that's important, even if a judge said it couldn't even be considered by a jury.

They are probably of a similar mind that they should be welcomed onto a jury if they state, truthfully, that they've already made up their minds about the case they be asked to decide.

Or maybe they're just willing to accept what "sounds good" and "seems right" to them in any venue other than empanelled on a jury, or are just more willing to believe what they're told if they don't have to actually deliberate it.

In other words, "as long as I think you did it - nobody has to actually prove it to me - I'll string you up in a heartbeat." It amazes me that some of these folks actually live in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much proof that Oswald murdered Tippit, it's mind-boggling. And it's the BEST kind of evidence too -- ballistics (and yes, the bullet shells are irrevocably tied to LHO's gun, and why you're saying otherwise is a huge mystery; but you couldn't be more wrong on that point, as confirmed by Nicol, Frazier, Killion, and Cunningham....and others from the HSCA too) .... plus the fact that Oswald still had the murder weapon in his OWN HANDS just 35 minutes after the murder .... plus MULTIPLE eyewitnesses who said it was OSWALD, not somebody else, who either killed Tippit or fled the scene immediately afterward.

Just stay in fantasy land on this, Duke. That's where you apparently feel most comfortable.

The problems I have with Lee Harvey Oswald being Tippit's killer are numerous, and I wish the Dallas DA would convene a grand jury to investigate the crime and see if there is anyone who can be brought to justice for the murder of Tippit and other related crimes, including the assassination of the President.

For starters, it is said that Oswald killed Kennedy, so he therefore also killed Tippit, but since it can be conclusively shown that Oswald was set up as the Patsy for the assassination and wasn't even on the Sixth Floor at the time of the shooting, maybe Oswald is innocent of the Tippit murder too.

To those who say that it was Oswald who killed Tippit, I ask them which Oswald? The Oswald who was framed for the assassination, the one who left a paper trail for ordering the weapons that he didn't pick up at the post office when he could have bought them at any pawn, gun shop or department store in Dallas without any record, or was it the Oswald who was seen in the car of Tippit's best friend near the scene of his murder?

Either way, both Oswalds are inextricably entwined with intelligence agencies and are connected to espionage networks that make whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza a covert intelligence operation, and not the work of a lone, deranged nut.

BK JFKcountercoup: Collins Radio Connections

Inextricable - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster ...

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inextricablein·ex·tri·ca·ble. adj \ˌi-nik-ˈstri-kə-bəl i-ˈnek stri-\. Definition of INEXTRICABLE. 1. : forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free. 2 ...

I want DVP to respond to this post. BK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fatal flaw with von Pein's arguments, and he makes this mistake over and over, is that he ASSUMES that the fabricated physical evidence of the JFK assassination can be trusted. ...

No, I'd have to say that his mistake is that he believes that only his point-of-view can be correct, and he interprets evidence only in a manner that will support it. He cannot tolerate anyone interpreting evidence in any other way that reaches a conclusion other than that which he's reached because he's right and people who disagree with him are simply wrong.

In his world, witnesses are absolutely right when what they said supports his view in toto. Where the witness might be wrong, it can only be in a manner that provides greater latitude to reach the same conclusion.

Earlene Roberts, for example, could be "wrong" because she only thought Oswald was at the rooming house for three or four minutes when it really could have been as little as only one minute, which possibility he can explore in depth and reach the same conclusion. But she can only be "wrong" in the way he wants/needs her to be: she could not, for example, be wrong three or four minutes in the other direction, which we know with certainty because it would hamper if not eliminate reaching the same conclusion.

Helen Markham's time estimates can only be wrong in one direction because we must start at an acceptible conclusion (i.e., "Oswald shot Tippit between 1:15 and 1:16") and work around it, even if there's no direct evidence that the conclusion is correct. It is "wrong" to believe her time estimates are correct because they don't lead to the "obvious" truth.

We "know" Oswald received the pistol because he had it on him in the theater and he'd shot Tippit with it. It does not require strict proof to know this to be true, but it does require strict proof to even suggest otherwise. His "proof" is absolute because he believes it is, and finds anything contrary to his beliefs to be "silly" and "stupid."

For as perfect as he was, I don't think that even Jesus wasn't quite so arrogant.

(Part of this may be "cultural," in that the only word that goes with "conspiracy" is "theorist" ... which implies that anything that doesn't involve a conspiracy must be "factual." Sort of like Iran-Contra, right? It wasn't an illiegal conspiracy despite the wrong and improper convictions, while Clinton's deal - whose only "convicts" were Susan McDougal and her dead husband - very clearly was.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Bill, that word you propped up fits CTers very nicely. They always attempt to "form a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free".

The only problem is: Their theories don't hold together in any kind of cohesive or reasonable way. And they never have.

It's like building a house on a foundation of half-melted ice cream. It's not going to stand up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duke Lane said:
Earlene Roberts, for example, could be "wrong" because she only thought Oswald was at the rooming house for three or four minutes when it really could have been as little as only one minute, which possibility he [David Von Pein] can explore in depth and reach the same conclusion. But she can only be "wrong" in the way he wants/needs her to be: she could not, for example, be wrong three or four minutes in the other direction, which we know with certainty because it would hamper if not eliminate reaching the same conclusion.

Boy, what a rotten example to choose to prop up here.

Mrs. Roberts, via her own lips, told us that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".

Now, Duke, try to reconcile the above words of Earlene Roberts into a scenario where I should have gone in "the other direction" with my estimate when considering Mrs. Roberts' testimony (i.e., is there any way that those words spoken by Roberts could reasonably be interpreted to mean that Oswald was in his room LONGER than 3 or 4 minutes)? Of course not. That's silly.

Why on Earth would you pick out that Roberts example to bolster your criticisms of me?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim DiEugenio said:
Anyone who sees these pitiful displays or reads the column I wrote about him [DVP] will understand that he is not a guy to be trusted with the factual record. Since he has a full blasted, fuel injected, liquid rocket agenda which twists and turns every fact to favor the WC. And never places anything in context.

Oh, brother.

Let me repeat that, because just once isn't NEARLY enough to absord the utter hypocrisy of that "never places anything in context" statement made above by Mr. DiEugenio:

Oh, brotherrrrrr!

Quote
DVP has become so discredited that he now goes under false names. (Which he denies of course.)

I deny it because it's nothing but an outright lie. And it always was an outright lie. And even YOU know it's a lie, James. Even YOU have never referred to me on Len Osanic's weekly Anybody-But-Oswald Internet radio program as anyone other than who I am (DVP) -- except for that one time in late 2008, when Osanic had you nearly convinced that I was Dave Reitzes. But you later came to learn that I am not Mr. Reitzes.

So why are you playing the "false names" card now? You know it's a lie (originally invented by a really strange conspiracy loon named David G. Healy at alt.conspiracy.jfk, who took it upon himself to start believing that I was numerous different people who posted messages at that newsgroup).

Anyway, Jim, thanks for allowing me to get under your skin (yet again). More LNers should try it.

And if there is anyone in this world who fails to put things in the proper "context" (or "whole") regarding the JFK murder case, it is certainly a school teacher in Los Angeles named James DiEugenio, whose middle name should be "piecemeal", because that's how he treats all issues of the JFK case. He isolates everything and never ever sees fit to provide us with a coherent, reasonable "totality" or "whole" that would justify the utterly screwy things he seems to believe.

Which is undoubtedly why he has decided to almost totally ignore (to a large degree) some of the biggest areas of concern in the whole case -- e.g., The actual scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza and Lee Harvey Oswald's own incriminating actions and statements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63.

Jim is on record, in fact, saying that lately he doesn't really care too much about the "Who?" or the "How?" or the "How many gunmen were involved?" questions regarding JFK's murder. Those things aren't nearly as important to nail down when compared with ultra-important questions like these (paraphrasing):

"What happened to that envelope that Oswald supposedly mailed to Seaport?"

"Why does Capt. Fritz perform that little 'underhanded wave' just before Oswald is shot by Ruby?"

"Why didn't the Dallas cops pluck the five unfired bullets from Oswald's pocket during the 'fast frisk' in the Texas Theater?"

"Why didn't the FBI go to the Railway Express office to check the records about Oswald's revolver purchase?"

"How do we know Oswald ever purchased any bullets at all to put into his rifle or his revolver?"

"How do we know that that is REALLY Oswald's own signature in the hotel's register in Mexico City? Just because a whole bunch of handwriting 'experts' tell us it's his? Horse hockey! I think it's fake! To hell with the 'experts'!"

"How do we know that's REALLY Oswald's writing on ALL of the various documents for the rifle and revolver purchases? Just because a gob of handwriting 'experts' say so? Nonsense! I say ALL of those documents have been manufactured and are frauds! And TO HELL with the 'experts' who say otherwise!"

"How do we know that all of JFK's autopsy photographs and X-rays are REALLY legitimate? Just because 20 or so 'experts' on an HSCA panel say so? Fiddlesticks! I say they're all fakes! I couldn't care less what some Government shills tell me!"

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

And when Jimbo does decide to talk about anything having to do with the scene of the crime (the TSBD and Dealey Plaza), we get gems like this beaut from Jimmy:

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end. .... And I've always suspected there was a sniper in the Dal-Tex Building." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010 (Black Op Radio)

And a few more of my favorites from DiEugenio's lips are these gut-busters below:

"I don't think [Howard] Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 (Black Op Radio)

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009 (Black Op Radio)

"Somebody else might have done it [burned the first draft of the autopsy report and Dr. Humes' blood-stained notes]. .... Today, I think that's what really happened. I think that that whole thing about burning the notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008 (Black Op Radio)

"The story of this (these) paper bag(s), Wesley Frazier, his sister, and the curtain rods can be challenged every single step of the way. .... By the early evening of [November] 22nd [1963], the DPD had very little besides the notorious Howard Brennan. Shaky eye witness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor. As Police Chief Jesse Curry later admited [sic], they had no one who put Oswald in the building with a gun in his hand. Therefore, they needed Frazier and his "Oswald carrying a package" story." -- James DiEugenio; In "Part 6" of his Bugliosi review [no longer available to read at CTKA.net, however; only Part 1 is still available there]

"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; Part 6 of Bugliosi review

I've archived lots more of Jimmy's fantasies here:

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

In summary -- Given the above examples that illustrate some of the incredibly silly and flat-out ridiculous things that Jim believes, I cannot see how anyone with any logic or common sense (or true facts about the JFK assassination by their side) can take anything that is uttered by Mr. James DiEugenio seriously at all.

And yet, with his Hypocrisy Button set on "full speed ahead", Jim claims that I am the one who is exhibiting a "full blasted, fuel injected, liquid rocket agenda which twists and turns every fact".

Amazing.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Bill, that word you propped up fits CTers very nicely. They always attempt to "form a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free".

The only problem is: Their theories don't hold together in any kind of cohesive or reasonable way. And they never have.

It's like building a house on a foundation of half-melted ice cream. It's not going to stand up.

Well David, can't you think about the case, the evidence and the witnesses and suspects without falling into the Conspiracy Theorists - Lone Nut mode?

You didn't respond to my comments - if you think Oswald killed Tippit, then which Oswald was it? The one who also killed JFK, and shot Connally, or the one who was seen driving around Tippit's murder scene in his good friend's car?

Which Oswald do you think killed Tippit David?

If either Oswald is your suspect - he is inextricably's entwined with intelligence connections - as Sen. Schweiker also pointed out - so whatever it is you believe happened at Dealey Plaza or 10th and Patton was not the work of a lone nut but was the result of a covert intelligence operation.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inextricablein·ex·tri·ca·ble.adj \ˌi-nik-ˈstri-kə-bəl i-ˈnek stri-\. Definition of INEXTRICABLE. 1. :forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to get free.....

Covert Operation - An operation that is so planned and executed as to concealthe identity of or permit plausible denial by the sponsor. A covert operationdiffers from a clandestine operation in that emphasis is placed on concealmentof identity of sponsor rather than on concealment of the operation. See alsoclandestine operation; overt operation. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Departmentof Defense 2005.

BK

JFKcountercoup

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't respond to my comments - if you think Oswald killed Tippit, then which Oswald was it?

Don't be silly, Bill.

There was only one Oswald, and you know it.

Why play such games? I thought you were one CTer who rose above the "Anybody But Oswald" and "Double Oswald" silliness.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A pathetic last reply from DiEugenio.

Myers provided a DIRECT QUOTE from a person employed by REA. And Jimbo thinks I only said what I said because Dale Myers wrote it.

Back at ya Jimmy--what a crock (you are).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adjust your rear view mirror Davey and read your post 129.

I just did. A darn good post too. Good enough for Part 71 HERE.

Show us the evidence that, as Myers said, Oswald picked up a notice at his PO box and went to REA and picked up the handgun. How did Myers prove that was the case here?

He did not. And you know it. If that had been the case, and you could have shown it, you would have offered that up instead of your crazy theory about the USPS handling REA packages.

~sigh~

We don't need to know the details of how, when, or even WHERE Oswald picked up his revolver in late March 1963.

The fact that Oswald had that gun ON HIM on Nov. 22 proves he took possession of it at SOME POINT IN TIME prior to 1:50 PM CST on 11/22.

But you will never stop reaching for the chaff, will you Jim? It must be Garrison-itis. He never stopped talking junk either. Looks like you've inherited that trait.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The horn-honking police car means nothing. That activity was commonplace at 1026 Beckley--even on days when the President wasn't being killed.

Shouldn't the fact that cop cars stopped at that location to honk their horn on OTHER DAYS before 11/22 cause you to stop and pause and wonder about this incident a little longer?

But at least you were able to change the subject concerning Mrs. Roberts and her testimony that LHO stayed in his room just long enough to get a jacket and put it on.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee,

What do you think the horn-honking cop was doing at 1026 Beckley on 11/22/63, as he deliberately drew attention to himself by tooting his horn so that a non-conspirator (Mrs. Roberts) could easily hear him?

Dazzle me with your inane theory about that episode. I can't wait.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coincidence number 54,351...

I think a much more interesting "coincidence" is the one that has a DPD car honking its horn in the exact same "tip-tip" manner in front of 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff that Mrs. Roberts said had occurred on multiple other occasions PRIOR to 11/22/63.

Is there a statistician in the house? Because I'd like to know the odds in Vegas of those two things happening and NOT being related to each other in some fashion, with only the horn-honking incident on Nov. 22 being "conspiratorial".

Even a conspiracy clown like you, Lee Farley, certainly must admit that it's a tad bit odd to have had police cars do that EXACT same type of tip-tip horn-honking at that EXACT same house in Oak Cliff prior to 11/22, but have only the 11/22 episode being part of some kind of ill-defined "plot" or "signal" for Lee Harvey Oswald.

(I guess maybe Oswald would have stayed in his room all day long unless the cop came around and tooted his horn, huh? Is that why he required a "signal", Lee?)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...