Time for Truth

[Martin Weidmann]

You're very confused and are still making zero sense?
Let me get this straight, Amazon processes and records completed paperwork which says that they sent out a package which contains a checkable specific serial numbered item by post/courier etc and on a certain date but in reality they don't send out the package?

JohnM

Never mind, John. I'll have better luck explaining it to a wall.

[John Mytton]

Never mind, John. I'll have better luck explaining it to a wall.

C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.

Amazon has stock in their inventory.
The stock is a specific item with a serial number say an Italian Carcano, Serial number C2766.
The paperwork indicates the item and serial number.
The paperwork is addressed to PO box 2915 Dallas Texas.
The paperwork is sent by PP Parcel Post.
The paperwork indicates it was sent on a specific date 3/20/63

A week later I don't receive the item so I complain, Amazon checks their inventory and search the entire complex for a very specific item and then Amazon tells me that the order was sent by parcel post and they don't have the item.

Conclusions

1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.

Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter, thus negating your piss poor analogy.

Try again!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.

Amazon has stock in their inventory.
The stock is a specific item with a serial number say an Italian Carcano, Serial number C2766.
The paperwork indicates the item and serial number.
The paperwork is addressed to PO box 2915 Dallas Texas.
The paperwork is sent by PP Parcel Post.
The paperwork indicates it was sent on a specific date 3/20/63

A week later I don't receive the item so I complain, Amazon checks their inventory and search the entire complex for a very specific item and then Amazon tells me that the order was sent by parcel post and they don't have the item.

Conclusions

1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.

Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter, thus negating your piss poor analogy.

Try again!

JohnM

C'mon Martin, Let's explore this and see where it goes.

Yes, let's....

Conclusions

1. The packer steals the rifle. Not likely because the rifle got to despatch
2. Despatch steals the item. Is it worth losing your job for a war surplus 20 dollar rifle? Not likely, and they probably have staff discount.
3. It was lost in transit. Perhaps, it happens. But the package was sent.
4. The guy receiving the rifle at the post Office steals the large package. But even if a postal employee did do a five finger discount it doesn't conflict with our original premise that Amazon sent the item.
5. If the item wasn't received by me and I complained that I didn't receive the item, then Amazon would produce paperwork to record that a customer didn't receive the item and after a thorough search the item wasn't on the premises.


All these "conclusions" start with the assumption that the package was indeed sent and are thus meaningless, because there is no evidence, other than the supplier's paperwork, that the article had indeed been sent. But it is telling that you ruled out from the beginning the possibility that the supplier had indeed not sent the package! Talk about dishonesty.

Therefore the rifle was sent and it went missing at some stage thereafter.

This is such a pathetic level of selfserving "reasoning"!

If a customer does not receive the package that he orders, it's up to the supplier to prove that it was sent in the first place and there isn't a sane person in the world that would accept the supplier's claim that it was sent because their internal paperwork says so.

Only a fool would accept a supplier's word for it. It seems I'm talking to one of those, right now.

[John Mytton]

But it is telling that you ruled out from the beginning the possibility that the supplier had indeed not sent the package!

WOW!
That's absolutely Bonkers.
Please explain why a hugely financially successful company like Amazon or indeed Kleins would take an order, produce paperwork indicating a specific serial numbered item, method of transit and date of despatch and then wouldn't send out the requested item?

I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

WOW!
That's absolutely Bonkers.
Please explain why a hugely financially successful company like Amazon or indeed Kleins would take an order, produce paperwork indicating a specific serial numbered item, method of transit and date of despatch and then wouldn't send out the requested item?

I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!

JohnM

Ladies and gentlemen, we've found him!

The only fool in the whole world who would blindly accept it when a supplier claims (without proof) that a product he ordered, paid for but never received, was in fact sent out!

I've always known you've got a screw loose but interacting with you over the last few days has proved that you are rapidly going down hill and I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
Please Martin, get out and get help!

And there is the ad hom attack again.... a sure signal that Johnny has his balls in a twist. But considering that the guy who is saying this has demonstrated beyond any doubt to be dumber than a box of rocks with no capability of any kind of sound judgement, I'll just rub my shoulders and let it pass.

I'll just let him claim victory (which he will do) and move on to avoid too much exposure to his wacky idiotic world.

[John Mytton]

Ladies and gentlemen, we've found him!

The only fool in the whole world who would blindly accept it when a supplier claims (without proof) that a product he ordered, paid for but never received, was in fact sent out!

No worries Martin, I fully agree that some of the biggest companies became absolutely massive because they totally screwed over their customers, I mean why sell 1 item once when you can sell the same item over and over again, how could I be such a fool not to see the obvious, I'm so glad you educated me!

JohnM

[Zeon Mason]

There is the Backyard photo of Oswald holding an MC rifle that looks similar to the one that was lifted by Lt. Day in Tom Aleyas film footage.

There is a mail order receipt for an MC rifle from Kleins that has the name Alex Hidell written in some kind of letter style that some hand writing experts claim Is Oswald’s handwriting.

There is a P.O.Box addressed to Oswald with a secondary name Alex Hidell whom also could receive mail at that same address.

That’s about all the evidence there is to link Oswald to the MC rifle Lt. Day held up for  the cameras.

But is that enough to really claim that Oswald actually owned that rifle or had possession of that rifle on 11/23/63?

Could not someone else have ordered the rifle, filled out an order form copying Oswald’s crude lettering, and opened a P.O.box using a fake Oswald ID and listing Alex Hidell as a secondary?

After all , there’s no mail clerk who ever came forward to Recount seeing an Oswald or someone representing themselves as Oswald, or having seen a long narrow box or seen  whom picked up a  long box at the post office.

So somebody else could have ordered the rifle and picked it up and gave it to Oswald with instruction to have  himself photographed with it in hand.

Then the rifle could have been stolen  from Oswald sometime later, wherever he kept it, whether at the Paines garage or at his boarding room.

An MC rifle could have been pre planted on 6th floor inside a wooden pallet stacked with boxes  ( Walt Cakebread theory) on the early AM hour of 11/23/63, by a gunman who entered the unsecured TSBD. He hid  on the 7th floor  until about 12:10 pm when he came down to the 6th floor  with his semi auto folding stock rifle w/center mounted scope , and he was momentarily near the  SW 6th floor window spotted by Arnold Rowland. He had to retreat because of seeing Bonnie Ray Williams, but the gunman returned after BRW left the floor about 12:24, and the  gunman placed a box on the SE window ledge just before 12:25 when it was captured in the Bronson film.