David Von Pein

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. 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? 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

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.

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.

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.

Huh? I just showed you solid proof that the USPS performs actions regarding COD mail that you heretofore thought were totally unheard of. How is it, then, that I'm back where I started from?

Well, Greg, I just put "seller" in there as kind of a clarification word. That was just MY OWN interpretation of "mailer". I guess "mailer" (technically) is a better word. Which is why the USPS uses it in its official regulations. But, yeah, REA wasn't the one "selling" the revolver to Oswald. REA was just the middle man....which, when we look at those COD regulations I cited (assuming they were about the same in 1963, and why wouldn't they be?), it certainly appears that Seaport Traders THEMSELVES could have shipped Oswald's gun COD directly via U.S. Post Office regular (COD) mail. In such a case, REA would be taken out of the picture entirely, with Oswald's gun package then going straight to the Dallas Post Office via the USPS itself. The Post Office would have then placed a card inside LHO's PO Box 2915 saying that he had a COD package at the front desk. Oswald would then have presented the card to the USPS clerk, the clerk would have gotten some kind of I.D. from Oswald (or maybe this part was often skipped, per Harry Holmes), and Oswald would have then paid the $19.95 COD cost, and the clerk would have given Oswald his package. The USPS would have then forwarded the money collected from Oswald to the "mailer" (or seller)--Seaport Traders--and that completes the transaction. Now, why couldn't that very same process have been done in this case, with REA as the "mailer"? The 2003 regulation does say, after all, that "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient."

I already did. The first two words of the USPS regulation that I cited earlier provide the proof that you're wrong on this matter (unless you can provide some proof that these 2003 USPS regulations regarding COD mail are substantially different from the ones in effect in March 1963): "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient." Let me repeat that: "Any mailer..." It doesn't say "Any mailer (except the Railway Express Agency, because they are our competition)..." Try again, Jim.

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. Quoting from the "Domestic Mail Manual"; regulation "S900 Special Postal Services" ... "S921 Collect on Delivery (COD) Mail": "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer. The amount collected from the recipient may not exceed $1,000. COD service provides the mailer with a mailing receipt, and a delivery record is maintained by the USPS. .... 4.0 Delivery Delivery of COD mail is subject to D042. Except for Express Mail COD, a postmaster may restrict delivery of COD mail if the amount to be collected makes the carrier a potential target for theft or if previous experience indicates that the addressee will be unavailable to receive the article at the time of delivery. If payment is by check, the recipient’s check, made payable to the mailer, may be accepted by the USPS employee upon the recipient’s presentation of adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, in addition to the COD amount a money order fee is collected from the recipient." =============== Let me repeat this section of the COD regulation: "If payment is by check, the recipient’s check, made payable to the mailer, may be accepted by the USPS employee upon the recipient’s presentation of adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, in addition to the COD amount a money order fee is collected from the recipient." Source Link: http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/S921.htm ========================== ADDENDUM: I'm sure that some conspiracy theorists will be eager to jump on this part of the above USPS regulation: "And a delivery record is maintained by the USPS." And the CTers will probably ask: Well, Dave, where is the Post Office record showing that Oswald forked over the C.O.D. money for his revolver? And where is the record of the Post Office forwarding the money collected from Oswald to the Railway Express Agency? Fair enough questions. But my follow-up question would be this: Did anybody ever look or ask for any such "C.O.D." records from the Dallas Post Office following the assassination? If not, then we can never know whether any such C.O.D. documents were retained by the Dallas Post Office connected with Lee Oswald's pistol purchase.

Thanks, Duke. I appreciate your quick post to acknowledge your error. (Which is something I never saw from Mr. Morrow when he did that same thing recently.)

Duke, You've made the exact same mistake Bob Morrow made the other day (re: the Belin walking reconstruction).... I never said Belin walked from BECKLEY to PATTON in 5.75 minutes. I clearly said what I meant: "David Belin & Co. walked the distance from Neely & Beckley to 1026 Beckley in 5 min. & 45 sec." ~sigh~

And your latest "demonstration" to try and prove the evidence was "crap" is to highlight the totally unknown horn-honking incident? How does the honking thing prove to an "open-minded person" that all of the ballistics evidence that hangs Oswald was "crap"? You need to read Sturdivan (again): "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

Of course YOU don't have a hard time believing he took six minutes....because you erroneously think the time Tippit was shot was 1:10, right? In reality, of course, Bowley's call came about 3.5 to 4 minutes after the shooting (with Bowley getting through to the dispatcher at 1:18 after Benavides pumped the mike for 90 seconds). Which means Benavides got on the radio just about 2 minutes after Tippit was shot. A perfectly reasonable time estimate too. But 10 minutes is ridiculous.

And you, of course, will continue to ignore the OTHER stuff Roberts said IMMEDIATELY after she said "3-4 minutes" --- i.e., that LHO was in his room just long enough to get a jacket and put it on. (Which takes, what?, 15 seconds or so.) I'll bet you didn't even watch the Frederic Forrest re-creation of Oswald's "In His Room" actions, did you? This is the only "re-creation" like this I've ever seen done on this matter: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html

Still waiting for Farley's horn theory. Of course, as we all know, NO JFK CONSPIRACY THEORY about the horn-honking makes a lick of sense, but that fact doesn't matter to conspiracy-seeking clowns like Farley. He likes the idea that the horn-honking was "conspiratorial", so, ergo, it's going to be conspiratorial.

Nice job at explaining that horn-honking, Lee. I knew you'd "cop" out.

That is 100% correct. That is also correct. Hat trick. I usually either toss a coin (a '64 mint-condition Kennedy half-dollar, naturally)....or I call up my CIA handlers at Langley and they push my buttons and tell me what to type into this box. Either way, I still get paid a goodly sum. (And if my Langley boss is busy, I call up Marquette and get instructions from you-know-who.)

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?)

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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! 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.

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?

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.