the missing rifle receipt and the missing part 3 postal form

<< < (5/5)

David Zaitzeff:
If someone ordered firearms through the mail, that person was supposed to sign a receipt and that receipt be kept for 4 years after the sale.

There is no receipt of Oswald signing for a rifle.  There are no witnesses at the post office who remember Oswald receiving any package of any type, let alone a 5 foot long package of a rifle.

Oswald had box 2915.  He had not authorized anyone else to receive mail at this box, as is testified to by the local Postmaster and by the FBI:

A week after the assassination Harry D. Holmes was quoted in a New York Times article where he stated:

"No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box".

Holmes could not have made this statement unless he had seen Part 3 of Oswald's application form after the assassination.

Further confirmation that Part 3 of Oswald's application form existed after the assassination and that A. Hidell was not an authorized nominee can be found in the Warren Report (WR). To refute claims made by writer Thomas G. Buchanan in his book "Who Killed Kennedy?", the FBI produced a document that specifically addressed 32 different allegations made by Buchanan. Published in the WR, this document CE 2585, contained the following:

12. CLAIM: The Post Office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell.

INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

So, if a rifle was sent to box 2915, it would have been returned to sender.

Miles Scull:
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

My theory is you guys have way too much faith in the US Postal Service.


My theory is that you have too little faith in the US Postal Service. It's only Holmes & the FBI that are playing cover up.

You never answered these questions in maroon below. Why? Are you ignoring them as a cover up?      ideaxx

Section 846.53b of the postal manual in effect for 1963 stated: "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed."

Next is a quote by Harry Holmes from the November 29, 1963 New York Times: "No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box." If Inspector Holmes had never viewed part 3 of the rental application, how could he possibly have known this?

And then we come to CE 2585, which was the FBI's efforts to discredit the work of researcher Thomas Buchanan. Point 12 of that document raises the claim (by Buchanan): "The post office in Dallas to which Oswald had the rifle mailed was kept both under his name and that of A. Hidell." To which the FBI replied: "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an A. Hidell, would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas." How could the FBI have made this determination unless they had seen part 3 of Oswald's application?

Got a theory about this?

Miles Scull:
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I certainly did Miles. Twice now. Its called CYA. I have no proof, but you know what? Neither do you with your theory.


I like it! Your CYA theory is elegant in its profound simplicity. You are saying nobody has any proof of anything. WOW!

Therefore, the Texas School Book Depository Building was & is only a hologram & the 6th floor shooter was actually:

Oh, no? OK, prove it.

Miles Scull:
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Miles
Your comic book posts show me that you really can't handle serious challenges to your beliefs well. Really, its only a step away from the start of name calling directed at those who don't agree with you. Instead of posting some colorful picture, why not post a reply that does more than imply I am a comic book character with no foot in reality? Can you come up with something rational and sensible that pretty much stomps me and my idea in to the mud?

Here is my idea again: coming to a proof positive conclusion that the form must have existed because of what a story changing Postmaster said, and an FBI agent said, is not a very sensible thing to do.
Couple that with this idea: Federal agencies often don't follow their own rule books, procedures, or protocol during the daily administration of the operations they are responsible for. It can later result in some serious credibility issues when real events sometimes put them in the hot seat by the public, looking for explainations as to why something happened.
Geez, how many different agencies can I think of that have found themselves unexpectedly in the hot seat, squirming while they try and sound credible under questioning?
Lets see, there was NASA and the Challenger explosion, the Bureau of Mine safety with multiple coal mine tragedies, the FAA flight controllers with numerous fatal aircraft accidents; the ATF and FBI at Waco and Ruby Ridge, who can even begin to count the times the CIA was at the lead of one disaster or another, the numerous examples of the US Military trying to cover up friendly fire tragedies, would you like me to continue listing the ones I can think of? How about the way the post office seems to sometimes violate their own rules on how employees get treated, then later try and deny it after someone else has "gone postal"? How about DOT and Amtrak accidents? How about the various Federal banking and finance overseeing agencies when they try and explain what went wrong, why nobody blew the whistle, for all the bank failures, Wall St. shenanigans, or the biggest theft of cash in the history of the world (do you know what I am talking about?)? How many times in these agencies screw ups and later inquisitions (or other legal hearings) do we find out that paperwork isn't properly administered, or procedures are not followed?
There are plenty more I can think of too, as I bet other forum users could add plenty I have forgotten. It is a rare day indeed when later on they get up on a witness stand during an inquiry and admit that they have been making some grave errors for a long time, and that the whole thing is their own fault; the usual routine is to divert fault, point fingers, and that denial thing again. Thats how it has been for 100 years or more.
      


Nonsense. (BTW, I did not imply that you are a comic book character.)

Your ridiculous Cover Your Ass Theory (CYA) is a preposterous reductio ad absurdum. You are simply saying that anything can be explained by the simple notion that the opposite can be as valid as the seeming factual case.

This is solipsism in disguise, a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism

Ring a bell?

"I'll say this, not meaning that you are all wrong. Don't ever take anything I post here on this forum like that (BS), I just try to show that often there are other possible reasons and ways to explain things." -- Geoff Nis

Recognize this BS? It's a silly cop out at best & propaganda with an agenda at worst, a form of cover up foisted with the hope that it won't be identified or noticed as such. Yes, of course, one can say that every one has a lower orifice, therefore everyone is primarily busily engaged in job one: CYA. That implies that truth is always perverted and thus not ascertainable.

Therefore, I say again, prove that you are not an agent of misinformation, because you have offered nothing but this pathetic CYA theory that everybody is contradicting everything and anything all the time.  rofl rofl

 

Miles Scull:
As a guest, you are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Well, I'll agree that someone here has a huge ego, Miles high even.
I am not here to prove myself Miles. I am here to debate, and offer my opinions and observations on what other possible explainations there are to these events. I certainly don't have to prove myself to you. I don't care who reads what I post or even if others- like you in this case- think I am an  :cop: for saying the things I do.
I agree this was a conspiracy, but I don't share a lot of views that many mainstream CTs do. After reading some of what is posted here I don't wonder why there are many people out there who think us all whacked. I've seen too many errors in facts stated, too many conclusions reached without good evidence or proof. In short, I keep my mind open while calling foul when I see it. Claiming a form must exist based on the statements made by 2 Federal agents who very much had reason/motive to CYA, 1 who later seems to have changed his story, is foul Miles. If you were a prosecutor and tried to present that in a court room, you'd get shot down in quick time.



I am not here to prove myself Miles. I am here to debate, and offer my opinions and observations on what other possible explainations there are to these events.

Good for you. But actually your are only repetitively saying the same thing each time: "but that is explained by the fact that everybody was CYA (covering your ass)."

I've seen too many errors in facts stated, too many conclusions reached without good evidence or proof.

Don't forget "proof" is unobtainable in many instances, but truth is attainable on the preponderance of the evidence.

 In short, I keep my mind open while calling foul when I see it.  Sure, sure.   rofl  Claiming a form must exist based on the statements made by 2 Federal agents who very much had reason/motive to CYA, 1 who later seems to have changed his story, is foul Miles.

You miss the point. The form did exist because it was part of the original application, but was destroyed as a cover up. The 2 Federal agents goofed by saying it did not exist, after they had seen it.

 If you were a prosecutor and tried to present that in a court room, you'd get shot down in quick time.

Wrong, the jury wouldn't even need to retire to judge: GUILTY !

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page