USPS workers screwing things up i.e..LHO receiving c2766

[Walt Cakebread]

You have lost the plot. You lose control every time your opinions are challenged. Can't you disagree without resorting to abuse?

Oh, I'm sorry Mr, How Sly  ...   You clearly have a limited mentality....  and a limited ability to reason rationally.

If you can't follow along with the dialog than perhaps you should discontinue posting, and review the evidence...

[Steve Howsley]

Oh, I'm sorry Mr, How Sly  ...   You clearly have a limited mentality....  and a limited ability to reason rationally.

If you can't follow along with the dialog than perhaps you should discontinue posting, and review the evidence...

If I'm Mr, How Sly can I refer to you as Walt Cokehead?

[Rick McGlothlin]

Hey Walt,

Perhaps "forced" wasn't quite inappropriate.

I do recall seeing articles and such stating that anywhere from 60-70% of the public believe there was some type of conspiracy - or at least a 2nd gunman.  Unless figure has dramatically dropped down to below 40%, I guess I need to give our fellow Americans more than the slightest benefit of the doubt.

Remember seeing Mark Lane in 1975/76 at Purdue University. I was just a young teen but had already become immersed in the tragedy. From that point on,  I really couldn't/can't understand how anyone believed otherwise.

[Oscar Navarro]

So instead of relying on evidence you rely on silly unsupported theories like "someone screwed up ". Why is that?

Me;

Yep, I know. They're the official Oswald Hair Splitter Defense Club. They all carry a photo of Oswald with a halo. I just thought that if there's someone who is on the fence on this subject that PO clerks are prone to screw up just as all other normal human beings on the planet.

So instead of relying on evidence you rely on silly unsupported theories like "someone screwed up ". Why is that?


I rely on evidence. The purpose of the original post is to illustrate that some CTers make a big deal about there not being any proof that Oswald could have received the rifle because, according to some CTers, there were Postal regulations that would have prevented a postal clerk from giving the package containing the rifle, and addressed to A. Hidell, because there's no proof that Hidell was on the list of those authorized to receive mail at the PO box. If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented. Comprende!

[Oscar Navarro]

But it wasn't addressed to LHO.

Me;

Not just anybody but someone that had the key to the PO box and who picked up the form that let's Hidell know he has a package to pick up. In other words, Oswald.

But it wasn't addressed to LHO.

Hidell was an Oswald alias just as O. H. Lee was another alias used by Oswald at the N. Beckley rooming house. There's about a dozen examples of Oswald using Hidell as an alias or to represent a ficticious doctor in the forged immunization form and there's Marina's testimony about Oswald using Hidell. Jesus Christ, what the hell is wrong with you CTers. The evidence for this  Oswald = Hidell stands out like a Mike Tyson face tattoo.

[Oscar Navarro]

First, you don't know whether Oswald used the scope or not.

DUH!... It's clear that I need to remind you that the original reports released by the authorities, touted the deadly accuracy of the rifle because it was equipped with a scope.... 

You're a slow fool Mr, "Smith"... How many times have I stated that Lee Oswald was NOT one of the assassins ..He never fired that carcano a single time. ( nor did anybody else)    Can you get that through your thick skull, Mr Smith?

But IF ? any assassin had fired that Carcano he would have used the scope...AND any experience shooter would have made certain that the scope was zeroed...





Mr. EISENBERG - This test was performed at 15 yards, did you say, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. And this series of shots we fired to determine actually the speed at which the rifle could be fired, not being overly familiar with this particular firearm, and also to determine the accuracy of the weapon under those conditions.
Mr. EISENBERG - And could you give us the names of the three agents who participated?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Charles Killion, Cortlandt Cunningham, and myself.
Mr. EISENBERG - And the date?
Mr. FRAZIER - November 27, 1963.
Mr. EISENBERG - How many shots did each agent fire?
Mr. FRAZIER - Killion fired three, Cunningham fired three, and I fired three.
Mr. EISENBERG - And do you have the times within which each agent fired the three shots?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Killion fired his three shots in nine seconds, and they are shown--the three shots are interlocking, shown on Commission Exhibit No. 549.
Cunningham fired three shots--I know the approximate number of seconds was seven.
Cunningham's time was approximately seven seconds.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you at a later date confirm the exact time?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And you will do that by letter to the Commission, or if you happen to come back by oral testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - And your time, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - For this series, was six seconds, for my three shots, which also were on the target at which Mr. Cunningham fired, which is Exhibit 548.
Mr. EISENBERG - Could you characterize the dispersion of the shots on the two targets which you have been showing us, 548 and 549?
Mr. FRAZIER - The bullets landed approximately--in Killion's target, No. 549, approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1 inch to the right, in the area about the size of a dime, interlocking in the paper, all three shots.

On Commission Exhibit 548, Cunningham fired three shots. These shots were interlocking, or within an eighth of an inch of each other, and were located approximately 4 inches high and 1 inch to the right of the aiming point. The three shots which I fired were landed in a three-quarter inch circle, two of them interlocking with Cunningham's shots, 4 inches high, and approximately 1 inch to the right of the aiming point.

Frazier and Cunningham where firing to determine how fast they could fire three rounds and were not firing for accuracy. As has already been pointed out to you by Richard Smith, Frazier testified C2766 was "a very accurate weapon".

[Martin Weidmann]

Me;
So instead of relying on evidence you rely on silly unsupported theories like "someone screwed up ". Why is that?


I rely on evidence. The purpose of the original post is to illustrate that some CTers make a big deal about there not being any proof that Oswald could have received the rifle because, according to some CTers, there were Postal regulations that would have prevented a postal clerk from giving the package containing the rifle, and addressed to A. Hidell, because there's no proof that Hidell was on the list of those authorized to receive mail at the PO box. If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented. Comprende!

I rely on evidence.

No. You over exaggerate the signicifance of pieces of evidence in order to make them fit the narrative.

If that was the case, and I'm not saying it was, postal clerks screw up just as all human beings are prone to do and evidence of such screw up was presented.

Where, when and by whom was "evidence of such screw up" presented? So far, in this thread, all I have seen is a classic "could have happened" LN argument.