Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

[Paul Trejo]

Grain of salt, David Josephs.

Do you honestly believe that the City of Irving had no Post Office Boxes on any corners anywhere?   Honestly?

And do you honestly fail to realize that Post Office carriers wait until the end of the day to go to empty all those corner Post Office boxes?   Honestly?

The facts remain plausible -- Lee Harvey Oswald deposited his "Soviet Embassy Letter" in a public mail box on November 12th, 1963. 

By the way, that Irving, Texas postmark really shows the "12" when blown up like that. 

Finally, that 5pm time stamp reflects the actual time that the Postal carrier deposited it into the Post Office.

So obvious,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

The facts remain plausible -- Lee Harvey Oswald deposited his "Soviet Embassy Letter" in a public mail box on November 12th, 1963

Proof please Paul...  How do you know Oswald did this?  A postmark from Irving on a Tuesday when he's in Dallas is not proof he did anything with that letter.

And you remain the only one seeing a "1" where there is none in that Irving postmark....

Thanks for proving my point. 

Bu-bye now...  

[Paul Trejo]

7 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Proof please Paul...  How do you know Oswald did this?  A postmark from Irving on a Tuesday when he's in Dallas is not proof he did anything with that letter.

And you remain the only one seeing a "1" where there is none in that Irving postmark....

Thanks for proving my point. 

Bu-bye now...  

Nice try, David, but you're still in DENIAL.

For one thing, David von Pein also sees that "1".   Also, Sandy Larsen chimed in here that he saw it. 

As for proof -- does it really take much logic to realize that a person could deposit an envelope in a public mail box on his way out of Irving, Texas early in the morning, and that the mail carrier would pick up that mail late in the afternoon, and deliver it to the Irving Post Office before 5pm?

That's simple logic.  Your DENIAL is getting in the way of your logic.

Sheesh,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Clark]

50 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Grain of salt, David Josephs.

............

So obvious,
--Paul Trejo

At least Paul provides a grain of the copious amount of salt which we must take with his assertions.

[Chris Newton]

3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

By the numbers:

5.  It's great that you posted the actual testimony of Ruth Paine about FBI agent James Hosty's visits to her home on November 1st and 5th, 1963.   Let's take a good look.

It is incorrect to presume that the first visit by Hosty was nothing but and "informal opening for confidence", although that is what Hosty said.  Hosty lied.  Hosty also lied when he said that his visit was about Marina Oswald, because she was a foreign national.  

How do we know he lied?  Because of Ruth Paine's further testimony.   Here is how James Hosty opened this first conversation, allegedly about Marina Oswald:

5.1.  Did Lee Harvey Oswald live there?   Ruth said no.

5.2.  DId she know where Lee Oswald lived?   Ruth said no, but she knew it was somewhere in Dallas.

5.3.  Did she know where Lee Oswald worked?   Ruth said, yes, but that Lee would be at her home on weekends, and that Hosty was welcome to drop by then to meet him.

So much for Hosty's "informal opening for confidence."

Notice that none of Ruth Paine's replies were "going off the rails."   Ruth Paine always remained cool, calm and collected.

6.  Now -- why did Ruth Paine not volunteer more information about Lee Harvey Oswald?   Because, as she testified later, Ruth had the highest respect for the FBI, and she honestly and truly thought that they had all the answers, anyway.  She said it was it was a little bit odd that the FBI didn't already know Lee Oswald's address, phone number, place of employment and so on, because well, they were the FBI!

NOTE: I agree with your premise, Chris, that the known wire-tap of Ruth's house on the day of the JFK assassination is almost certainly linked to these visits by James Hosty.  Hosty was not only watching Oswald -- Hosty was also watching Michael and Ruth Paine.

First off... I'm not interested in creating a narrative or fictional account whereby I tell you what Hosty or Oswald or either of the Paines were "thinking" or what their "intentions" were unless that bit of speculation is stated in evidence by their own testimony - about what they, themselves, were thinking. Everything else is hearsay, a legal term for "cow manure".

Your failure is your constant departure from reality, which is well represented by your post above. Everything you wrote above that was preceded by a number is a stinky steaming Texas sized cow patty.

It was Ruth's testimony wherein she describes the Nov. 1st meeting as an informal opening for confidence. I'm not quoting from Hosty's testimony.

Somewhere there is probably a forum for Ruth Paine fan fiction where you could practice "self-insert", if not I suggest creating it and peddling your wares there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction

 

[David Josephs]

 

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

. Everything you wrote above that was preceded by a number is a stinky steaming Texas sized cow patty.

At least Paul Trejo serves his cow patties in a gentlemenly way, and includes the salt.

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

 ...It was Ruth's testimony wherein she describes the Nov. 1st meeting as an informal opening for confidence. I'm not quoting from Hosty's testimony.

Somewhere there is probably a forum for Ruth Paine fan fiction where you could practice "self-insert"...

Chris,

Nice way of ducking out of my clear challenges to your weak position.

I know Ruth said those words, but SHE said that the words came from Hosty.  You just ducked my challenges -- typical.

As for your bias against Ruth Paine, it is very obvious.  You have nothing solid to support your bias, and you duck challenges.

Sheesh,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Nice way of ducking out of my clear challenges to your weak position.

I know Ruth said those words, but SHE said that the words came from Hosty.  You just ducked my challenges -- typical.

As for your bias against Ruth Paine, it is very obvious.  You have nothing solid to support your bias, and you duck challenges.

Sheesh,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, you prevaricate and manipulate and misrepresent what is in the record more than Ruth does; ostensibly to protect her. It has the opposite effect.

As noted by another member: "In his vigorous defense of Ruth Paine, He (Paul Trejo) has ironically achieved the opposite of what is intended... I am more suspicious of her than before. (Another intentionally unattributed quote (unattributed for the purpose of maintaining forum-decorum))

[David Josephs]

10 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I know Ruth said those words, but SHE said that the words came from Hosty

For G~d sakes

Mrs. PAINE - It was, as Mr. Hosty has described to me later, and I think this was my impression too of it at the time, an informal opening for confidence. 

Once again Paul... you stop short of a complete statement.  If one reads the entire thing one easily understands that Ruth was thinking the same thing and Hosty only offers the words she chooses to use in her testimony.  "Her impression at the time" and her previous statement which you also fail to include:

Mr. JENNER - The first interview, however, was a rather lengthly one? 
Mrs. PAINE - But it was not strictly speaking an interview. 
 

Paul...  exactly how many people here other than DVP must you hear telling you how bad you are at this?  How you simply cannot formulate a coherent argument nor do you bother with the details, per your own words.

Did you ever come up with an answer for why the evidence offers a 180-day visa application in support of Oswald's 15-day Visa?  or are those details too far beyond you?

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Paul...  exactly how many people here other than DVP must you hear telling you how bad you are at this?  

David...do you honestly believe that Truth is established by majority opinion?

Among the people who can be objective here, none has said I was bad at this.

You duck my challenges, too.

It's a '12' dude.  And a 5pm postal stamp from Irving, Texas is perfectly plausible.

Admit it.

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 3, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

David...that depends entirely on the IQ of the people.

Among the people who can be objective here, none has said I was bad at this.

You duck my challenges, too.

It's a '12' dude.  And a 5pm postal stamp from Irving, Texas is perfectly plausible.

Admit it.

--Paul Trejo

Paul, What David is referring to is research and debate. You do not do that. You are zealot who comes here to peddle your personal myth and fictitious prose about Ruth Paine and General Walker. That's all you do. It's zealotry and proselytization.

[Mark Knight]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Grain of salt, David Josephs.

Do you honestly believe that the City of Irving had no Post Office Boxes on any corners anywhere?   Honestly?

And do you honestly fail to realize that Post Office carriers wait until the end of the day to go to empty all those corner Post Office boxes?   Honestly?

The facts remain plausible -- Lee Harvey Oswald deposited his "Soviet Embassy Letter" in a public mail box on November 12th, 1963. 

By the way, that Irving, Texas postmark really shows the "12" when blown up like that. 

Finally, that 5pm time stamp reflects the actual time that the Postal carrier deposited it into the Post Office.

So obvious,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Your statement isn't completely true. My dad worked for both the US Post Office and the USPS. NOT ALL BOXES WERE "RUN" LATE IN THE EVENING. Some were picked up earlier in the day. You think the clerks in the back of the post offices worked ONLY in the early morning and late evenings? There was mail to run through the cancelling machine throughout the day, at various times. 

But unless you know what box the letter was deposited in, and what time of the day the local PO ran the box, it's simply speculation. You cannot say when the mail was picked up from the box without knowing the box it was deposited in.

Of course, I'm used to you passing off your speculation as fact. And while I'm used to it, I'm still not impressed by it.

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

David...do you honestly believe that Truth is established by majority opinion?

The truth of your inabilities does not require opinion Paul... all that's needed is for you to put keyboard to dialog box... and hit "Submit" when you're done.

Why do you insist on remaining so incredibly underwhelming, fact-less and perpetually annoying in your presentation here when you could take a minute, research what you're going to post and find out before you do it how wrong you are... save a little face once in a while....

Or you could just keep pi$$ing into the wind...  

My bet's on the wind.

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by David Josephs

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

David...do you honestly believe that Truth is established by majority opinion?

Yes, it's a debate and what you are experiencing, is called peer-review. Your submissions unfailingly get rejected and sent back for a do-over.

Among the people who can be objective here, none has said I was bad at this.

Wrong, there is an entire thread devoted to how little respect members have for your opinion. That's quite an accomplishment. I have little more than speculation to offer, but with some evidence and testimony, and acknowledging my speculation as such, I've received no thread personally dedicated to my folly.

You duck my challenges, too.

Your kidding, right? He is all over your myths and fallacies, and you just copy and paste them again in your next post

It's a '12' dude.

No it's not.

 And a 5pm postal stamp from Irving, Texas is perfectly plausible.

Not if he is in Dallas.

Admit it.

Good luck with that.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Michael Clark