Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Josephs

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

Recommended Posts

Go to Fed Ex and ask them if the USPS does it for them or has ever done it for them.

Not applicable, Jim. FedEx doesn't deliver to P.O. Boxes:

https://www.fedex.com/ratefinder/home?cc=US&language=en

And neither does United Parcel Service:

http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/resources/sri/ship_box.html

Jimbo strikes out again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the best response I can muster concerning the totally-unknown mystery of the honking police car on Beckley....

~shrug~

That's the best I can do.

That was banal enough for you, I hope.

What's your theory, Lee F.?

Thrill us with your exciting conspiratorial narrative.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go to Fed Ex and ask them if the USPS does it for them or has ever done it for them.

Not applicable, Jim. FedEx doesn't deliver to P.O. Boxes:

https://www.fedex.co...=US&language=en

And neither does United Parcel Service:

http://www.ups.com/c...i/ship_box.html

Jimbo strikes out again.

One rather interesting thing, among many others, about the USPO is the perhaps understandable confusion about the US PS and it. They are two different things.

buried in wiki

....

The United States Post Office (USPO) was created in Philadelphia under Benjamin Franklin on Wednesday, July 26, 1775, by decree of the Second Continental Congress. Based on the Postal Clause in Article One of the United States Constitution, empowering Congress "To establish post offices and post roads", it became the Post Office Department (USPOD) in 1792. Until 1971, it was part of the Presidential cabinet and the Postmaster General was the last person in the United States presidential line of succession.

The Post Office Department was enlarged during the tenure of President Andrew Jackson. As the Post Office expanded, difficulties were experienced due to a lack of employees and transportation. The Post Office's employees at that time were still subject to the so-called "spoils" system, where faithful political supporters of the executive branch were appointed to positions in the post office and other government corporations as a reward for their patronage. These appointees rarely had prior experience in postal service and mail delivery. This system of political patronage was replaced in 1883, after passage of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act.[7]

Ten years before waterways were declared post roads in 1823, the Post Office used steamboats to carry mail between post towns where no roads existed.[citation needed] Once it became clear that the postal system in the United States bla bla bla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the silliest arguments I ever saw is DVP saying that the USPS kept a special box for people picking up merchandise from private carriers. HA HA HA

Until today, I had never bothered to check on any kind of "official" United States Post Office regulations concerning the handling of C.O.D. mail by the USPS. But today I found an interesting page on the Internet that confirms that the USPS definitely DOES collect money from individuals who receive C.O.D. mail, and the USPS does forward payments to the sellers (or "mailers", as they are called in the regulations cited below). It evidently happens all the time.

The regulations cited below are not 1963 U.S. Post Office regulations (they're from August of 2003), and they don't deal directly with C.O.D. mail and packages sent to P.O. Boxes, but these regulations are certainly indicating that the USPS can and does handle cash and checks from people who receive C.O.D. mail. ....

Are we confusing the fact that something could've happened with the certainty that it did happen?

It strikes me that the basic premise of this thread is that there's a "hole" in the theory - and it is ONLY a theory since there doesn't appear to be anyone with direct knowledge of it - of how Oswald presumably came into possession of a weapon since there doesn't appear to be a complete paper trail that completes the link-up.

That "hole" can't be filled with supposition, as nice and easy as that would be to do.

The possibility exists that cash was sent to Seaport Traders for the pistol, but that is NOT proven by the check-mark on the Seaport form that could apply as equally to how they want to receive the balance of the payment (which seems to be a more substantial concern because if whatever the deposit was paid by is no good, they wouldn't fill the order and are not "out" any merchandise like they would be if a check for the balance bounced).

The same holds at the receiving end, where it is possible that cash was paid on receipt of the merchandise at the post office - presuming that the postal service would take responsibility for collecting a COD amount from an addressee when the item was not shipped via USPS, and USPS (apparently) wasn't paid for mailing and collection fees.

DVP appears to have established that USPS does in fact handle COD parcels, but there's no indication that it would take a package from another shipper and hold it for the addressee, and then collect the money and turn it over to the other shipper when there is no benefit (e.g., collection of shipping charges and collection fees) to USPS to ONLY take responsibility for the package and the money. That is, that USPS will take an original shipment on a COD basis, transport it (even across the floor of the post office), collect at the receiving end, and remit payment to the shipper for free, but not that they would simply take and hold-for-payment a package at the receiving end that was shipped by other means solely to act as a financial agent of the other shipper.

In any case, to prove that such was indeed the case, the USPS would, according to its own procedures (presumably the same 40 years earlier than the cited document), have maintained a record of the receipt of cash, and there would be some form of payment record - e.g., an endorsed draft - on file at USPS to show that the cash received was remitted to the sender, even if only to settle a dispute between USPS and the sender in the event the latter claims not to have been paid.

Given a lack of such records, it not only isn't proven that cash COD payment was made and received, it seems unlikely that it was since the usual paper trail wasn't generated or maintained.

The only "proof of payment" by anyone seems to be the appropriately-colored page of the multi-part form to which something from REA was attached. While that may have satisifed Seaport that they didn't have to go looking for the money, it hardly speaks to who originally paid the COD amount, how they paid it, or who paid it.

There likewise doesn't seem to be a trail leading from REA to USPS and back, and it just doesn't strike me as likely that a shipper would take a COD package down to the post office and say, in effect, "here, you guys collect the money" when they were perfectly capable of doing so themselves but for the fact that the delivery address was a PO box.

Even if a USPS regulation exists that says that they will take a COD package from another shipper for the express purpose of receiving and delivering the parcel (for which they were not paid) and collecting and remitting the funds (ditto?), there would still be a paper trail to show how the money was handled. (Alternately, someone could propose that REA simply took the parcel to a post office, paid the postage for its delivery plus COD fees, and either deducted that amount from what they'd charged Seaport, or somehow passed the charge along to Seaport in their final accounting.)

Does such a paper trail exist? Is there any documentation from REA that suggests a more complete answer to the original question? And, as an aside question, how was the rifle paid for?

Just because something presents a simple explanation of how something could've occurred, it hardly establishes that the "something" did occur that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only is the history of the USPO difficult to piece together. The history of the USPO PI D epartment is even harder. Near impossible, though I'm sure the information exists in various formats there doesn't seem to be any truly comprehensive history of it available anywhere. I've even gone to the state library and various university libraries and it's almost as if the USPO never existed. The Wiki article starts with , ~ the usps dates back to Franklin.- It doesn't, it dates to 1971. The USPO was an entirely different kettle of fish. One, IMO, can also see trails of two USPOs that date back 100 years from jfk when the confederates had their own POD with also a unique history that reverberates into the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
Given a lack of such records, it not only isn't proven that cash COD payment was made and received, it seems unlikely that it was since the usual paper trail wasn't generated or maintained.

But how do we know that, Duke? Did anybody ever go searching for the paper trail? The FBI? Anyone? ~shrug~

And to interject a note of common sense concerning this matter---

Since we KNOW that Lee Oswald certainly DID order (via his own writing) a revolver from Seaport at some point after 1/27/63, and since we know that gun was ON HIM on Nov. 22 of that year, doesn't it seem fairly logical to conclude that Oswald did, indeed, go to the Post Office or to the REA office and pick up (and pay for) the gun that he himself ordered?

For heaven sake--who orders something and has it sent to his PO Box, but then never bothers to go get it?

Frankly, Duke, that's kinda crazy.

And we know how the rifle was paid for, Duke. Oswald paid the full amount on Day 1 of the order (Mar. 12th) -- $21.45. There was nothing else due on the rifle after that first $21.45 payment.

And you're right in another part of your very good last post above, Duke -- If it weren't for the fact that the revolver was being shipped to a P.O. Box, then a lot of these questions and mysteries wouldn't exist at all. And if it were to happen all over again in 2011, there wouldn't be as many unanswered questions about the transaction, because (as I linked earlier) neither of the major package delivery services in the USA [FedEx, UPS] will even deliver to a P.O. Box at all. (Not sure about any smaller carriers, however.)

But, quite obviously, REA back in '63 did send stuff to P.O. Boxes. And part of the confusion still rests at the feet of Seaport's (Merchanteer's) Heinz Michaelis, who definitely gave the impression (via his WC testimony) that the GUN ITSELF was shipped to the P.O. Box of Oswald.

And then we have the words of REA VP Robert Hendon (via a Dale Myers' article I talked about earlier), where Hendon says that in other instances, a card was put in the PO Box of the recipient, telling the box holder that he has a COD package waiting at the REA Express office. Whether this happened with Oswald's gun package, nobody can confirm.

Of course, the whole topic about how Oswald came into possessioon of Revolver V510210 in March of '63 is really a great-big non-issue (and always was) -- and that's because we know beyond ALL DOUBT that Oswald did have the Tippit murder weapon in his possession 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.

Therefore, what real difference does it make WHEN he came into possession of the gun. He could have dug it out of a dumpster 2 minutes before he shot Tippit. The fact still remains he had the murder weapon on his person in the Texas Theater.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the USPS never handled private companies' packages for them, why would they do it for REA?

Are you kidding?

Because REA did deliver to P.O. Boxes in 1963. FedEx and UPS don't do that. So, naturally, this question about the Post Office handling the funds could never surface in the first place.

This is what Myer's argument is based upon. Remember, this is when you "saw the light" before. That is before you "saw the light" this time.

Not realizing that when you saw the light with Myers, kind of is paradoxical for "seeing the light" this time.

I'm not convinced one way or the other. And I also know that it's not the slightest bit important when it comes to answering the basic questions of:

Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever take possession of Revolver #V510210 in 1963?

and

Did Lee Oswald shoot and kill Policeman J.D. Tippit?

The answer to both of those questions is an undeniable and irrevocable --- Yes.

And I also decided to bring forth that USPS.com webpage about COD mail policies for another reason (which, I'll admit, I cannot confirm with 100% certainty; but I have a strong feeling I'm right in what I'm about to say about you; feel free to admit it if you like, but I doubt you will):

I'm guessing that you, Mr. DiEugenio, were of the opinion (before this morning; 12/1/11) that the US Post Office never forwarded cash to "mailers" (or sellers), regardless of who they were. You didn't think the USPS did that for COD mail PERIOD, did you Jim?

You have the BA of a pitcher in the National League. A weak hitting one at that.

I'll remind you that Bob Gibson batted .303 in 1970 for the Cardinals.

http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=gibsobo01

You, however, Jim, consistently swing the lumber below the Mendoza line. From the absurd theories you actually have the gonads to still endorse here in the 21st century (LHO being innocent of BOTH the JFK & Tippit murders; there possibly being NO SHOOTERS AT ALL on the sixth floor; Buell Frazier just MAKING UP the paper bag story; and Jim Garrison's nonsensical New Orleans plot to name just a handful of the bizarre things you have endorsed), it's a wonder that Mr. Stengel still lets you sit on the bench at all.

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/cincinnati-reds-memories.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the best response I can muster concerning the totally-unknown mystery of the honking police car on Beckley....

~shrug~

That's the best I can do.

That was banal enough for you, I hope.

What's your theory, Lee F.?

Thrill us with your exciting conspiratorial narrative.

Concise answer: "I can't explain it, so it's unimportant (and further proof of 'no conspiracy')." I like it, I really do! Is there a page reference in Assassination Logic where I can find the technical term for this logical mechanism, along with possibly some other examples of how it can be used as effectively?

Using this lesson, CTers can now shrug off anything they choose as well. Seems fair, doesn't it?

What's the logical inference from this? That Earlene Roberts did not see a police car where she says she did? Or that one was undoubtedly there just as she said, just as many other police cars had been there over the years and just as routinely?

All the cops denied being there, so the first seems the more likely choice, especially given Mrs Johnson's low opinion of Earlene's truthfulness ... which only begs the question what else she lied about in the course of her statements and testimony?

Or else a cop car was there, routinely or otherwise, and the question becomes why they all denied it (not to mention that the record shows the cops in Oak Cliff diverted elsewhere or were at lunch).

Either way, "unimportant."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee and Duke,

Would you have preferred that I concoct some imaginary theory about the honking police car, instead of my ~shrug~?

What am I expected to say about it? I haven't the foggiest what it was all about. And, equally as important, neither do you.

So why keep beating your head against the car door about it?

It reminds me of the Odio incident in a sense. As Jean Davison put it:

"The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- J. Davison

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given a lack of such records, it not only isn't proven that cash COD payment was made and received, it seems unlikely that it was since the usual paper trail wasn't generated or maintained.

But how do we know that, Duke? Did anybody ever go searching for the paper trail? The FBI? Anyone? ~shrug~

And to interject a note of common sense concerning this matter---

Since we KNOW that Lee Oswald certainly DID order (via his own writing) a revolver from Seaport at some point after 1/27/63, and since we know that gun was ON HIM on Nov. 22 of that year, doesn't it seem fairly logical to conclude that Oswald did, indeed, go to the Post Office or to the REA office and pick up (and pay for) the gun that he himself ordered?

For heaven sake--who orders something and has it sent to his PO Box, but then never bothers to go get it?

Frankly, Duke, that's kinda crazy.

And we know how the rifle was paid for, Duke. Oswald paid the full amount on Day 1 of the order (Mar. 12th) -- $21.45. There was nothing else due on the rifle after that first $21.45 payment.

You've hit the nail on the head of the problem: the only proof of Oswald's possessing the gun ever, is it being in his hand when he was subdued. Actually, as I've pointed out, it cannot even be proved that the gun that was taken from Oswald's hand in the theater is the one that ended up in evidence.

That you or anyone believes it to be the same does not mean that it was the same. There is more than reasonable doubt, "reasonable" of course being a different measure by each and every person's own standards. That's why, I suppose, juries are made up of twelve people and not just one. Not everyone in the courtroom is always guilty.

I'd have to say that the FBI did a bang-up job tracking a pistol (and rifle) through the mail in a matter of only about a week, getting receipts and invoices and even talking to the president of one of the companies (but not asking him any questions on the record), tried to get USPS records that didn't exist (but were supposed to have), but well, just "didn't bother" with REA because it was, what, unimportant?

Hey, he had the gun in his hand when arrested, why did they even consider a trial (some would say they didn't, really) or an investigation? It seems pretty unimportant when you've already got "all the evidence you'll ever need," and especially true if the accused wouldn't ever see the inside of a courtroom (which by November 30, Oswald wouldn't have) and rules of evidence wouldn't apply.

But yet ... they bothered. Why?

So somebody contends that somebody else (the real Alek Hidell?) could have maneuvered Oswald into filling out the order blanks, then ordered the guns and gone to pick them up. Somebody did, but there's no actual way of knowing who it was because the receipts aren't signed, and neither a check nor money order were apparently used to pay the COD charges.

I forget if shipping charges were included in the price of the gun or not, but if not, who paid REA for shipping? Were their procedures as far as checks' or money orders' payees the same as USPS's? What if "A. Hidell" used a money order made out to REA? Geez, someone could say that someone other than Oswald provably (at the time) paid REA, and the information was suppressed or destroyed because it implicated someone else. Never ask a question you don't want the answer to?

Of course, on a common-sense level and using the same rhetoric, why would someone pay for one weapon in full and only part of the other? He'd have to have the money in a couple of weeks when the goods arrived, and (by your supposition) he'd not only already waited a month or so to even mail the order, but couldn't wait a couple weeks to have and mail all the necessary money and avoid what amounted to a 10% COD charge (since he was so flush with cash and a notorious spendthrift)? And increase the likelihood that he might have to sign for the package and maybe even present some form of ID?

Seems ridiculous. Crazy. And lo, the weapon that he didn't pay for in full was the one he'd filled out the order form for first. That makes sense, too.

And you're right in another part of your very good last post above, Duke -- If it weren't for the fact that the revolver was being shipped to a P.O. Box, then a lot of these questions and mysteries wouldn't exist at all. And if it were to happen all over again in 2011, there wouldn't be as many unanswered questions about the transaction, because (as I linked earlier) neither of the major package delivery services in the USA [FedEx, UPS] will even deliver to a P.O. Box at all. (Not sure about any smaller carriers, however.)

But, quite obviously, REA back in '63 did send stuff to P.O. Boxes. And part of the confusion still rests at the feet of Seaport's (Merchanteer's) Heinz Michaelis, who definitely gave the impression (via his WC testimony) that the GUN ITSELF was shipped to the P.O. Box of Oswald.

And then we have the words of REA VP Robert Hendon (via a Dale Myers' article I talked about earlier), where Hendon says that in other instances, a card was put in the PO Box of the recipient, telling the box holder that he has a COD package waiting at the REA Express office. Whether this happened with Oswald's gun package, nobody can confirm.

Of course, the whole topic about how Oswald came into possessioon of Revolver V510210 in March of '63 is really a great-big non-issue (and always was) -- and that's because we know beyond ALL DOUBT that Oswald did have the Tippit murder in his possession 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed.

Therefore, what real difference does it make WHEN he came into possession of the gun. He could have dug it out of a dumpster 2 minutes before he shot Tippit. The fact still remains he had the murder weapon on his person in the Texas Theater.

The difference is that he could have had it pressed into his hand while being arrested, or only moments before the cops busted into the theater. It cannot be proved that the gun was ever in Oswald's posession at any time before his arrest, which is exactly what the investigation with Seaport was supposed to do. And the FBI had the REA receipt, so no matter what impression Heinz Michaelis left them with, I don't think anyone at the FBI didn't look at the REA receipt and wonder why, if it was shipped to a PO Box via USPS, was REA involved in any way?

Oh. Well. They were. Doesn't matter why. Oswald had the gun, we know that, so why are we even bothering with this? Screw it. It's a link in the chain that we don't really need, and as long as we know where the chain starts and ends, that's all we really care about anyway.

Of course, the real problem is that Michealis gave the Feebs a wrong impression, and having a PO Box involved and the USPS keeping all sorts of records made it just too damned difficult to figure out what happened with the damned thing, especially for guys with a law degree.

It's all about proof. Unfortunately it doesn't exist, and dismissing the facts won't bring it into being. You ask for it from CTers, but don't consider it necessary for yourself? Ridiculing a notion or disparaging its proponent disproves it? Nah, I'm not gonna buy those.

(If you believe that Oswald killed Tippit beyond ALL DOUBT, then you would obviously disagree with the notion that not all people in a courtroom are guilty: they'd never even have been arrested if they weren't guilty!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee and Duke,

Would you have preferred that I concoct some imaginary theory about the honking police car, instead of my ~shrug~?

What am I expected to say about it? I haven't the foggiest what it was all about. And, equally as important, neither do you.

So why keep beating your head against the car door about it?

It reminds me of the Odio incident in a sense. As Jean Davison put it:

"The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- J. Davison

Really?

I don't see a problem with an imaginary theory here; what's one more?

Earlene Roberts said it happened; DPD said it didn't. Either she saw it or she couldn't have. Both can't be right. Don't theorize, explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what cinched your argument from Myers, right?

Correct. Because Myers quoted someone who is familiar with REA procedures in 1963.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that I would accept BETTER EVIDENCE to trump evidence (or speculation) that isn't nearly as solid? Should I ALWAYS go with the mushy evidence, even when a guy like Hendon is telling us what was done in other cases where REA dealt with an order shipped to a P.O. Box?

Do you consider this "REA shipping" to post office boxes?

In a way, yes.

But in the Hendon example, the physical gun itself would have never been in the post office, that's true.

But if Hendon is not correct in the Oswald instance, and IF the Post Office COD regulations were the same in 1963 as they were in 2003 (which, I'll admit, I cannot know for sure, but if they were, then "Any mailer" could have used the COD mailing methods described in the regs I posted earlier), which then means there is another possible way that Oswald could have picked up his revolver in March '63.

Via such conditions, he could have picked it up right at the post office, with the P.O. then forwarding the money to REA, with REA then forwarding $19.95 to Seaport Traders.

But regardless of WHERE he picked it up, all reasonable people who have looked at this case know that Oswald DID pick up the gun that HE HIMSELF ordered in March 1963 from Seaport Traders, Inc.

And, once again, I'll ask this very logical question:

Who in the heck orders something by mail-order, and has it sent to his post office box, but then doesn't even bother to pick it up?

That'd be kinda crazy to do that, wouldnt it?

And, yes, Jim, I know that you and your CT buddies think that there's no evidence whatsoever to show that Oswald even ORDERED the Smith & Wesson revolver. But, again, we have to distinguish between the Anybody-But-Oswald "conspiracy clowns" (like you) and "reasonable people interested in the truth" (people like me and many thousands of others).

And when that distinction is made and observed, then the truth regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's 1963 revolver purchase becomes a lot clearer.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Why is it so hard for you to believe that I would accept BETTER EVIDENCE to trump evidence (or speculation) that isn't nearly as solid? Should I ALWAYS go with the mushy evidence, even when a guy like Hendon is telling us what was done in other cases where REA dealt with an order shipped to a P.O. Box?

Does this sum up what I've been saying throughout, that the LN stance is that better evidence (i.e., proved evidence?) is the bar over which CTers must pass, but that "solid, sensible speculation" is all that's required to maintain the no-conspiracy theory? Sort of the reverse of what's required in a criminal proceeding, and largely even that of a civil proceeding? "If the prosecution's theory makes sense, and the defense can't disprove each and every aspect of it, that sucka's gonna fry!"

Do you consider this "REA shipping" to post office boxes?
In a way, yes.

But in the Hendon example, the physical gun itself would have never been in the post office, that's true.

But if Hendon is not correct in the Oswald instance, and IF the Post Office COD regulations were the same in 1963 as they were in 2003 ... means there is another possible way that Oswald could have picked up his revolver in March '63.

Via such conditions, he could have picked it up right at the post office, with the P.O. then forwarding the money to REA, with REA then forwarding $19.95 to Seaport Traders.

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

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?

If someone was to say that it was because they actually did, but found something that undermined the Oswald-did-it-alone theory (e.g., a pick-up signature that was demonstrably not made by Oswald), all the LN set can counter with is that "the rest" of the investigation was "good police work," and if the FBI happened to miss something (or determine that it's "not material"), it's "understandable" considering that the rest of the "evidence" pointed most of the way toward Oswald's guilt, so why look any further?

After all, he'd never be going to court, and there'd be no defense lawyer raising questions (read "pulling tricks") to get him off, so "solid, sensible speculation" should be sufficient, nicht wahr?

But regardless of WHERE he picked it up, all reasonable people who have looked at this case know that Oswald DID pick up the gun that HE HIMSELF ordered in March 1963 from Seaport Traders, Inc.

Once again, as with standards of proof, it all depends upon what someone considers "reasonable." Generally, those standards are much reduced when the pontificator is not affected by the outcome, and greatly heightened when they are on trial.

And, once again, I'll ask this very logical question:

Who in the heck orders something by mail-order, and has it sent to his post office box, but then doesn't even bother to pick it up?

That'd be kinda crazy to do that, wouldnt it?

One answer could be "anyone who didn't actually order it." Another might be "someone who had second thoughts about it." A third, "someone who ordered it for someone else."

But who needs proof when you've got "solid, sensible speculation?" (Only those who don't believe!)

Clearly, I'm being unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

(Plus, there's no indication whatsoever that REA sent the revolver back to Seaport, which certainly would have happened if Oswald had never picked up the gun. 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 it 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.)

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

I think patsy Oswald might have been manipulated into buying the mail-order guns and/or moved into place by being led into thinking he was an intelligence agent working for Thomas J. Dodd's Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, which was investigating mail-order gun houses, and/or investigating for the FBI or Customs or whomever a gunrunning operation going on in the TSBD. The gunrunning theory reminds me of the the fact that the boxcar the three tramps were found in had a quantity of explosives inside it.

--Tommy :ph34r:

Edited by Thomas Graves

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...