And you claim to have reasoning skills and question mine?! If the main post office in downtown Dallas, where the money order was bought, was so busy that there was a queue (line) almost out the door, then it would have taken Oswald even longer to get the money order.

I notice you declined to explain why Oswald would not have simply waited until his half-hour lunch break to go get the money order. 

I guess you never considered Oswald could have requested to take his lunch break a little early so as to avoid the long line during lunch hour at the Post Office. That was not an uncommon practice in the places i worked.

Do you ever think anything through? That's a rhetorical question that pretty much answers itself

Again, you claim to have reasoning skills? First off, none of the postal workers who worked the front counters would have had "thousands" of interactions in eight months, especially interactions that involved customers with post office boxes who were picking up a package that was at least 34 inches  long and weighed at least 8 pounds (including the packaging).

You still fail to explain why a postal employee would remember giving a particular package to a particular customer more than 8 months after the fact. Do you think that was the only long, heavy package that was handled during that time period. What reason would any employee have for making note of such a package?

Let's be generous and assume that the average post office worker who manned a front counter dealt with three customers per week who picked up packages addressed to their post office boxes because the packages were too large to fit in the box. Three such interactions per week x the 34 weeks from the day Oswald allegedly picked up the rifle to the day of the shooting equals 102 interactions. Now, how many of those interactions would you reasonably, honestly, credibly guess involved packages that were as large as the one that Oswald allegedly picked up, i.e., packages that were about 34 inches long or longer and that weighed over 8 pounds, huh? Seriously. Maybe, what, 10?

Still no reason to believe any employee would have remembered the package or the face of the person who picked it up. Even if it was longer and heavier than most packages, what reason would anyone have to remember it. We don't even know if that employee was still working at that branch. He/she might have transferred to another branch or taken a job elsewhere. Federal employees do tend to hang onto their jobs longer than those in private industry, but that doesn't mean the turnover is zero.

BTW, why was there no signed receipt or delivery log showing Oswald's signature to document that the package was picked up? For that matter, how would the package have even been delivered to Oswald's post office box in the first place since no "A Hidell" was listed as an authorized recipient for the box, and since, therefore, per postal regulations, any package addressed to an “A Hidell” should have been stamped “addressee unknown” and returned to Klein’s?

Your argument assumes postal employees follow every rule to the letter. Having spent half my working life in a government job, I know for fact that isn't true. I myself often bent the rules because I hated doing the paperwork.

And I notice you declined to explain why in the world anyone would have bothered to use an alias to order a rifle but then given their own post office box number as the address. The whole idea behind using an alias is to conceal your identity, right? So if you order a rifle using an alias, you're doing so because you don't want the rifle traced back to you, right? So the last thing you're going to do is have the rifle sent to your own post office box, right? Hello?

Why does that need explaining?

Like so many other items of supposed "evidence" against Oswald, this is yet another item that falls apart when you look at it with any degree of scrutiny and logic.

The evidence doesn't fall apart. Your arguments do.

Repeating that talking point won't erase the many holes in it.

The holes are in your head.

I would refer interested readers to the following articles for more info about the problems with the mail-order-rifle evidence:

"'Oswald's' Rifle"
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/

"A Presumption of Innocence"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-1

"The Klein's Rifle"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle

You know this is nonsense. Did you forget about the numerous exchanges you and I had on this very issue in the thread "A WC's Stunning Blunder on the Backyard Rifle Photos and the HSCA PEP"? Let me repeat some of the facts I documented for you therein, which facts you have once again ignored:

-- The HSCA photographic experts said the parallax measurements proved the differences between objects in the backgrounds were "very small." But you say they're "massive."

-- The HSCA photographic experts also admitted that the "very small" differences proved that the camera's vertical movement was "very small," that the camera moved only "slightly downward," and that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left between exposures, a practical impossibility given the way these photos were allegedly taken (cheap camera with a top-view view finder and a side lever for a button handed back and forth so Oswald could forward the film).

-- No, the photos are not "tiny." 133-A DeM is large, high-quality photo and was clearly made from a different negative than 133-A. Some of the other prints made were 5 x 9. 133-B is 2.5 x 2.5 inches. So we're not talking about "tiny photographs." Small 1 x 1-inch mini-prints can be considered "tiny," but the backyard photos most certainly are not tiny.

Finally, I note you said nothing about the problems I pointed out with the claim that Lt. Day found Oswald's palm print on the rifle's barrel and that Oswald was carrying a Hidell ID card on him when he was arrested.

Yes, readers can throw away an hour two of their lives that they will never get back.

Here's what we know. The rifle was ordered by an alias Oswald was known to have used. All handwriting for the transaction was identified as belonging to Oswald. The rifle was delivered to Oswald's PO Box. Oswald was photographed with the rifle. Oswald's palm print was on the rifle. Fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle matched the shirt he was wearing when arrested. Yet you would have us disregard all that and conclude it was not Oswald's rifle found in the TSBD because somebody either didn't fill out the required paperwork or misplaced it.

The above is a perfect example of how really, really bad you are at weighing evidence. Don't feel bad. Most CTs are really, really bad at it as well. 

We've always known that Griffith isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but now his deductive reasoning skills have reached a new low! As shown in your video, it's a simple fact that every day, Post Offices handle a huge amount of mail/packages, heck, every time I visit my local suburban Post Office there's always a queue almost out the door.

And you claim to have reasoning skills and question mine?! If the main post office in downtown Dallas, where the money order was bought, was so busy that there was a queue (line) almost out the door, then it would have taken Oswald even longer to get the money order.

I notice you declined to explain why Oswald would not have simply waited until his half-hour lunch break to go get the money order. 

And expecting a random postal worker to specifically remember one transaction from eight months previous, and considering that the postal worker has potentially had thousands of interactions in the interim is total insanity. And then thinking that this lack of memory of some unimportant obscure event from hundreds of days ago somehow advances your paranoid delusions of a conspiracy is, well, beyond desperate.

Again, you claim to have reasoning skills? First off, none of the postal workers who worked the front counters would have had "thousands" of interactions in eight months, especially interactions that involved customers with post office boxes who were picking up a package that was at least 34 inches  long and weighed at least 8 pounds (including the packaging).

Let's be generous and assume that the average post office worker who manned a front counter dealt with three customers per week who picked up packages addressed to their post office boxes because the packages were too large to fit in the box. Three such interactions per week x the 34 weeks from the day Oswald allegedly picked up the rifle to the day of the shooting equals 102 interactions. Now, how many of those interactions would you reasonably, honestly, credibly guess involved packages that were as large as the one that Oswald allegedly picked up, i.e., packages that were about 34 inches long or longer and that weighed over 8 pounds, huh? Seriously. Maybe, what, 10?

BTW, why was there no signed receipt or delivery log showing Oswald's signature to document that the package was picked up? For that matter, how would the package have even been delivered to Oswald's post office box in the first place since no "A Hidell" was listed as an authorized recipient for the box, and since, therefore, per postal regulations, any package addressed to an “A Hidell” should have been stamped “addressee unknown” and returned to Klein’s?

And I notice you declined to explain why in the world anyone would have bothered to use an alias to order a rifle but then given their own post office box number as the address. The whole idea behind using an alias is to conceal your identity, right? So if you order a rifle using an alias, you're doing so because you don't want the rifle traced back to you, right? So the last thing you're going to do is have the rifle sent to your own post office box, right? Hello?

Like so many other items of supposed "evidence" against Oswald, this is yet another item that falls apart when you look at it with any degree of scrutiny and logic.   

Oswald ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed C2766!

Repeating that talking point won't erase the many holes in it.

I would refer interested readers to the following articles for more info about the problems with the mail-order-rifle evidence:

"'Oswald's' Rifle"
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/

"A Presumption of Innocence"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-1

"The Klein's Rifle"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle

And get this, Griffith completely misrepresents the HSCA's photographic findings by insisting that microscopic differences in tiny backyard photos somehow correlates to microscopic movements of Oswald's camera!? What a Goofball.

You know this is nonsense. Did you forget about the numerous exchanges you and I had on this very issue in the thread "A WC's Stunning Blunder on the Backyard Rifle Photos and the HSCA PEP"? Let me repeat some of the facts I documented for you therein, which facts you have once again ignored:

-- The HSCA photographic experts said the parallax measurements proved the differences between objects in the backgrounds were "very small." But you say they're "massive."

-- The HSCA photographic experts also admitted that the "very small" differences proved that the camera's vertical movement was "very small," that the camera moved only "slightly downward," and that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left between exposures, a practical impossibility given the way these photos were allegedly taken (cheap camera with a top-view view finder and a side lever for a button handed back and forth so Oswald could forward the film).

-- No, the photos are not "tiny." 133-A DeM is large, high-quality photo and was clearly made from a different negative than 133-A. Some of the other prints made were 5 x 9. 133-B is 2.5 x 2.5 inches. So we're not talking about "tiny photographs." Small 1 x 1-inch mini-prints can be considered "tiny," but the backyard photos most certainly are not tiny.

Finally, I note you said nothing about the problems I pointed out with the claim that Lt. Day found Oswald's palm print on the rifle's barrel and that Oswald was carrying a Hidell ID card on him when he was arrested.

Dude, he says he's only 14, so his brain is still in development.  Hey, Matt, do you like, use A.I. and stuff like à lot of users here use ?           Thou art all wise, Duncan (all genuflect here lol)

Just because i'm 14 doesn't mean i'm dumb, i do use AI, sometimes, but if we're gonna use it for JFK info, we should probably fact check it if needed, i have tested some AI models, and ChatGPT will rewrite its response if the user says something it got wrong, which can lead to it hallucinating answers. Perplexity seems like a good choice but i haven't conducted thorough tests on it.

Oh! Okay! Ah-ha! So in a tightly controlled work environment where everyone in the main work area in each section worked in view of others, no one noticed that Oswald skipped out for least 25-minutes, even though Oswald was a trainee, huh?

The post office where the money order was bought was 11 blocks from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall. Assuming that Oswald speed-walked to the post office, that he didn't have to wait in line, and that it took him no more than 2-3 minutes to fill out the money order and have it processed and given to him -- assuming all these things, he would have been gone from his work table at least 25 minutes.

 

2 to 3 minutes at Dallas Post Office, conservatively.
7.5 to 8.5 minutes to briskly walk half a mile.

So yeah, 10 to 12 minutes late. BFD!





JohnM

Dude, he says he's only 14, so his brain is still in development.  Hey, Matt, do you like, use A.I. and stuff like à lot of users here use ?           Thou art all wise, Duncan (all genuflect here lol)