http://EducationForum.com
[NOTE -- Two other conspiracy theorists besides Jim DiEugenio also participate in the discussion below.]
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
If the USPS never handled private companies' packages for them, why would they do it for REA?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are you kidding?
Because REA did deliver to P.O. Boxes in 1963. FedEx and United Parcel Service don't do that. So, naturally, this question about the Post Office handling the funds could never surface in the first place [with respect to package delivery companies like FedEx and UPS here in the year 2011].
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
This is what [Dale] Myers' argument is based upon. Remember, this is when you "saw the light" before. That is before you "saw the light" this time. Not realizing that when you saw the light with Myers, kind of is paradoxical for "seeing the light" this time.
DAVID VON PEIN:
I'm not convinced one way or the other. And I also know that it's not the slightest bit important when it comes to answering the basic questions of:
Did Lee Harvey Oswald ever take possession of Revolver #V510210 in 1963?
and
Did Lee Oswald shoot and kill Policeman J.D. Tippit?
The answer to both of those questions is an undeniable and irrevocable --- Yes.
And I also decided to bring forth that USPS.com webpage about COD mail policies for another reason (which, I'll admit, I cannot confirm with 100% certainty; but I have a strong feeling I'm right in what I'm about to say about you; feel free to admit it if you like, but I doubt you will):
I'm guessing that you, Mr. DiEugenio, were of the opinion (before this morning; December 1, 2011) that the US Post Office never forwarded cash to "mailers" (or sellers), regardless of who they were. You didn't think the USPS did that for COD mail PERIOD, did you Jim?
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
You have the BA of a pitcher in the National League. A weak hitting one at that.
DAVID VON PEIN:
I'll remind you that Bob Gibson batted .303 in 1970 for the Cardinals.
You, however, Jim, consistently swing the lumber below the Mendoza line. From the absurd theories you actually have the gonads to still endorse here in the 21st century (LHO being innocent of BOTH the JFK & Tippit murders; there possibly being NO SHOOTERS AT ALL on the sixth floor; Buell Frazier just MAKING UP the paper bag story; and Jim Garrison's nonsensical New Orleans plot to name just a handful of the bizarre things you have endorsed), it's a wonder that Mr. Stengel still lets you sit on the bench at all.
DVP-Potpourri/Cincinnati Reds Memories
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
[Quoting DVP:] "And then we have the words of REA VP Robert Hendon (via a Dale Myers' article I talked about earlier), where Hendon says that in other instances, a card was put in the PO Box of the recipient, telling the box holder that he has a COD package waiting at the REA Express office. Whether this happened with Oswald's gun package, nobody can confirm." [End DVP Quote.] .... This is what cinched your argument from Myers, right?
DAVID VON PEIN:
Correct. Because Myers quoted someone who is familiar with REA procedures in 1963.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that I would accept BETTER EVIDENCE to trump evidence (or speculation) that isn't nearly as solid? Should I ALWAYS go with the mushy evidence, even when a guy like Hendon is telling us what was done in other cases where REA dealt with an order shipped to a P.O. Box?
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Do you consider this "REA shipping" to post office boxes?
DAVID VON PEIN:
In a way, yes.
But in the Hendon example, the physical gun itself would have never been in the post office, that's true.
But if Hendon is not correct in the Oswald instance, and IF the Post Office COD regulations were the same in 1963 as they were in 2003 (which, I'll admit, I cannot know for sure, but if they were, then "Any mailer" could have used the COD mailing methods described in the regs I posted earlier), which then means there is another possible way that Oswald could have picked up his revolver in March '63.
Via such conditions, he could have picked it up right at the post office, with the P.O. then forwarding the money to REA, with REA then forwarding $19.95 to Seaport Traders.
But regardless of WHERE he picked it up, all reasonable people who have looked at this case know that Oswald DID pick up the gun that HE HIMSELF ordered in March 1963 from Seaport Traders, Inc.
And, once again, I'll ask this very logical question:
Who in the heck orders something by mail-order, and has it sent to his post office box, but then doesn't even bother to pick it up?
That'd be kinda crazy to do that, wouldnt it?
And, yes, Jim, I know that you and your CT buddies think that there's no evidence whatsoever to show that Oswald even ORDERED the Smith & Wesson revolver. But, again, we have to distinguish between the Anybody-But-Oswald "conspiracy clowns" (like you) and "reasonable people interested in the truth" (people like me and many thousands of others).
And when that distinction is made and observed, then the truth regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's 1963 revolver purchase becomes a lot clearer.
DUKE LANE INTERJECTED:
Coulda, woulda, shoulda ... but nothing whatsoever to say he DID.
DAVID VON PEIN:
Would you have preferred that I just go ahead and lie and pretend that I know that Oswald picked up his revolver at such-and-such location (either REA or the Post Office)?
Make no mistake about what I'm saying -- LHO absolutely, positively DID pick up that V510210 S&W revolver in March '63. I'm just not sure WHERE he picked it up. But just basic common sense (coupled with the facts listed below) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered from Seaport:
1.) Oswald ordered a S&W revolver from Seaport in early 1963.
2.) Seaport shipped S&W revolver V510210 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63.
3.) Oswald was arrested with Revolver V510210 in his hands on 11/22/63.
To deny that Oswald took possession of the V510210 revolver under the above conditions is downright silly.
Plus, there's no indication whatsoever that REA sent the revolver back to Seaport, which certainly would have happened if the gun had never been picked up by anybody. And this same thing applies to LHO's Carcano rifle. That gun was never sent back to Klein's by the Post Office. Hence, somebody picked it up. And since Oswald is the person who ordered the rifle and paid for it, the person most likely to pick it up at HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is Lee Oswald. Isn't this just basic math? I think it is.
THOMAS GRAVES INTERJECTED:
I think patsy Oswald might have been manipulated into buying the mail-order guns and/or moved into place thinking he was an intelligence agent working for Thomas Dodd's Senate Committee which was investigating mail-order gun houses and/or investigating a gunrunning operation going on in the TSBD.
DAVID VON PEIN:
That theory makes much more sense than the extremely goofy nonsense being spouted by people like James DiEugenio and his cohorts.
The above theory is still dead wrong, of course, because it's fairly obvious (to me anyway) that Oswald's reason for purchasing the rifle was to kill General Edwin Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting dovetails perfectly with Oswald having ordered and received his mail-order guns in late March of '63.
As I told DiEugenio the other day, it would be much better for conspiracy theorists if they would just admit to the obvious truth about Oswald ordering and taking possession of both the revolver and the rifle, because then the CTers could pretend that the evil conspirators attempted to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS. That's far more sensible than believing in the far-out theory that has the entire paper trail for BOTH the rifle and the revolver being forged and completely manufactured by the bad guys.
Plus, when thinking about all the complicated stuff that the "patsy-framers" would have had to fake and create out of whole cloth to make it look as though Patsy Oswald had really purchased the two guns in March '63 via mail-order, there's an additional level of fakery that DiEugenio & Co. must think the plotters engaged in regarding the revolver order: the REA skullduggery.
Because if the same rules and regulations for "C.O.D." mail and packages were in place in March '63 as they were in 2003, it would mean that the "plotters" who wanted desperately to make it look like Oswald had purchased a mail-order revolver from Seaport Traders could have faked the paper trail without using REA as the package delivery service at all.
They could have had Seaport deliver the gun to P.O. Box 2915 via the regular U.S. Post Office delivery, instead of using REA, even though a COD payment was due on the gun.
Which brings up another point -- If the whole paper trail for the revolver was completely phony, why in the world did the plotters want to have Oswald paying for the gun via COD? Why not just fake it to make it look like Oswald had paid for the entire purchase price when he ordered it, just like the Patsy Framers supposedly did with LHO's Carcano purchase? The mysterious plotters didn't have Oswald paying COD for the rifle. Why did they do that with the revolver? The COD angle adds yet another level of needless complexity into such "fakery", because "they" need Oswald to make two payments instead of just one.
Of course, just HOW they managed to place the phony paperwork in the REA and Seaport files is another matter, which is yet another level of the plot that complicates the whole works, just as it does with the Klein's paperwork in Chicago. Because it was the Klein's people who scoured their records all night on Nov. 22-23 for the paper trail of LHO's rifle.
Do the CTers think that Klein's employees, like William Waldman and whoever might have been helping him find the documents, were "in" on the plot too? It's so silly, it's truly beyond ALL belief that such a complicated plot of fakery could have possibly taken place (or that anyone with any common sense could believe that anything of the sort could have occurred in this case).
But instead of just faking the Seaport documents, these overworked plotters decided it might be nice to add more levels of complexity into their fakery, so they had Railway Express act as the package delivery service for Oswald's "bogus" gun purchase. Therefore, STILL MORE paperwork had to needlessly be faked and created from whole cloth in order to meet the conspirators' demands.
I wonder why more conspiracy theorists can't see the built-in craziness of such a "faked paper trail" scheme? But I sure can.
You guys can't possibly really be serious in questioning Oswald's ownership of Revolver V510210, can you? The evidence is a mile deep that Oswald, in his OWN WRITING (which you also dispute is his, naturally) ordered both the revolver and the rifle. This is a FACT beyond dispute (to reasonable people, that is).
In fact, if you were to poll conspiracy theorists off the street who know at least a LITTLE something about the details of the JFK & Tippit murder cases, I'd bet that a vast majority would concede that the revolver and the rifle were Oswald's. (And as I mentioned twice previously, the "Patsy" plot even makes much more sense from the POV that the two guns WERE really Oswald's. The evil patsy framers would then have framed Oswald with HIS OWN WEAPONS.)
And the assertion by some conspiracy theorists that the gun that was wrested from Oswald's hands during the scuffle in the Texas Theater was really not Revolver V510210 is an assertion that's almost too ridiculous to even talk about.
Because if the gun taken from Oswald in the theater wasn't V510210, then we'd have to believe that the Dallas cops (and/or the FBI) had a desire to frame Oswald for a cop-killing he never committed (which is REALLY absurd when thinking about the DPD doing this, since a lot of those guys knew the slain officer personally, and certainly wouldn't want to see Tippit's murderer go free).
And if the gun taken from LHO wasn't the V510210 gun, we'd also have to assume that the cops and Federal agents then engaged in a very swift and efficient sinister plot of faking all of the various records pertaining to Oswald's mail-order purchase for the revolver. The cops must have then somehow convinced at least SOME employees of Seaport Traders to join in their frame-up of Oswald, because the paperwork concerning Oswald's revolver purchase was found in the SEAPORT FILES on November 30th, 1963.
JOSEPH BALL -- "That [Michaelis Exhibit No. 2] was in your records, was it, as of November 30, 1963?"
HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "Yes, it was."
Did the FBI send an agent to Seaport to "pose" as a Seaport employee so that this covert agent could then "plant" the "Hidell" invoice in the Seaport files?
It's only when you get to Internet forums like this one do you find the incredibly silly theories being tossed around -- such as Oswald NOT shooting Tippit, Oswald NOT shooting JFK, Oswald NOT purchasing the revolver, Oswald NOT purchasing the rifle, and Tan Jacket Man "handing off" some suspicious item to somebody in a two-second film clip taken shortly after the assassination.
As an additional example of what I mean, this 2003 ABC poll shows that 83 percent of the 1,031 people being polled believed that Lee Oswald was a gunman in the JFK murder:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
How big do you suppose the percentage would be in those first two categories ("Only Oswald" and "Another Gunman [Plus Oswald too]") if the respondents consisted only of people who posted regularly at Internet forums?
DUKE LANE:
If the FBI was able to be so successful in tracking down the weapons so quickly (they were at Seaport Traders half-way across the country within eight days of the shootings), why in the remaining months did they simply not bother to look into the rest of the transaction with REA?
DAVID VON PEIN:
Probably because they didn't need to do that to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210.
Your question is particularly weak and unimportant because it deals with the shipping of Oswald's REVOLVER only. And since the FBI already knew (via the bullet shells that Oswald dumped at the scene of the crime) that the gun Oswald had on him in the theater was the SAME gun that murdered Tippit, then there was really no need to establish just exactly WHERE Oswald picked up the revolver.
The FBI knew it was Oswald's gun via just the Seaport documents. And I imagine that at least a few people in the FBI had enough common sense to add up the following things and arrive at the obvious conclusion that Oswald took possession of V510210 in March '63:
1.) Oswald ordered the revolver from Seaport.
2.) Seaport's paperwork establishes that they [Seaport Traders, Inc.] received Oswald's/Hidell's order (probably on March 13th, 1963, via the typewritten date on Michaelis Exhibit No. 2).
3.) Seaport's paperwork establishes the fact that Revolver V510210 was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box (or at least a notification card was sent to the box, with Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself).
4.) The gun was never returned to Seaport as "undelivered".
5.) The Seaport paperwork further indicates that the revolver shipped to Oswald was definitely PAID FOR and the order completed on REA's end, because the proper forms are attached to the red copy of the invoice in Seaport's files. (And this is another fact that conspiracists apparently want to completely ignore; and this fact was established in Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony.)
6.) J.D. Tippit was murdered with Revolver V510210.
7.) Lee Harvey Oswald had Revolver V510210 in his hands (attempting to shoot a policeman with it) at approximately 1:50 PM CST on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD.
Given the above ironclad facts, tell me again WHY the Federal Bureau of Investigation (or anybody else for that matter) would have needed to go to the REA office to establish whether or not Lee Oswald picked up Revolver V510210 and whether or not Oswald shot Officer Tippit with that same gun?
In actuality, you could really throw out Items 1 through 5 above, because even without establishing those things, Oswald is still proven guilty of murdering J.D. Tippit. Just #6 and #7 by themselves establish that fact for all time.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Where is the evidence that the ten dollars was ever transferred to Seaport?
DAVID VON PEIN:
WTF are you talking about, Jimmy?
The initial $10 CASH deposit that Oswald mailed never needed to be "transferred" to Seaport by REA, because REA never handled or saw that ten dollars. Nobody else handled that $10 except Seaport. Oswald mailed it in an envelope directly to Seaport in Los Angeles. (Duh.)
Why are you even asking such a silly question?
Oh, yes, I know why -- Michaelis lied about Seaport receiving the $10 deposit IN CASH. Right?
Well, even if that were true (which it isn't), you're still out to lunch, because even if Oswald had mailed in a check or a money order, REA still wouldn't be involved in any way with THAT money. It would have been mailed directly by Oswald to Seaport, regardless of method of payment. Why are you trying to get REA involved in the initial deposit sent by Oswald? That's nuts. REA only became involved with the COD part of the shipment.
Plus, we know the $10 deposit WAS received by Seaport.
How can we know that for a fact?
Simple: Because if the $10 deposit had not been received by Seaport, then they (obviously) would never have shipped the gun to Oswald/Hidell at all.
Do you think that Seaport sent a $30 gun to "Hidell" without ever having received the 10% deposit at all?
You're a real piece of work, Jimbo.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Davey:
There is no evidence that Seaport ever got the ten dollars, is there?
If there was, you would point it out, would you not?
And therefore, REA would be able to prove the balance owed minus the ten dollars.
Please show me the proof of this in the Michaelis interview.
DAVID VON PEIN:
Okay.....
Mr. MICHAELIS. We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash.
[...]
Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?
Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?
Mr. BALL. Five.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.
Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----
Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----
Mr. BALL. Two.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/michaelis.htm
========================
Why are you even questioning this stuff, Jim? It's beyond silly. And you know it is.
Plus, as I mentioned multiple times already, we can KNOW that Seaport received the initial $10 deposit -- because they would not have shipped the merchandise to "Hidell" in Dallas unless they had been paid.
That's the way businesses usually operate, Jim. A customer gives them money, then the seller ships the merchandise. Surely you know how that works, don't you?
And why in the world you think that a $10 bill sent in cash by Oswald would have to leave a detailed RECORD or paperwork trail for that SPECIFIC ten-dollar bill (or two fives) is also a silly thing to believe.
Seaport shipped the gun to Dallas....therefore, they definitely received the $10 deposit. Period.
And we know the gun WAS shipped by Seaport (via REA), and this REA document proves it.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
They [the always-evil FBI] could not find any proof...about the ten bucks sent for the handgun.
DAVID VON PEIN:
How would you suggest the FBI "trace" a particular ten-dollar bill that was mailed IN CASH by a particular person?
Was the FBI supposed to collect every $10 bill in existence in 1963 and check each bill for Oswald's fingerprints or something?
You're again asking WAY too much of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
They [the FBI] could not interview a person from REA who recalled him [Lee Oswald] picking up the handgun. And that is not odd to DVP.
DAVID VON PEIN:
Why would that be considered odd, Jimbo? Nobody at the Dallas Post Office could remember Oswald picking up the rifle either. But he certainly DID pick it up. Marina took multiple pictures of LHO holding the gun just a few days later in the Neely backyard. (Oh, yes, those are fake too, aren't they Jimmy?)
Plus, as noted a dozen times already, the FBI had already established the critical things that needed to be established --
1.) Oswald having the Tippit murder weapon in his hands when he was arrested (which you will deny until the cows come home).
2.) Oswald ordered a revolver from Seaport, and Seaport shipped him what turned out to be the Tippit murder weapon.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
The obvious point is that the chain of possession for the handgun getting to Oswald is simply not there.
DAVID VON PEIN:
Can you get any goofier, Jimbo? Is it possible?
WHY do you want to believe in the silly idea that the cops planted Revolver V510210 on Oswald?
Plus:
If the gun Oswald had in his pants on November 22 wasn't Revolver V510210, then what gun do you think that was that LHO had on him in the theater?
There's no evidence that indicates Lee Oswald owned or possessed more than just one single revolver in 1963. And that one revolver that he owned was positively Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210.
An unborn child still in the womb could figure this stuff out. But, miraculously, school teacher Jim DiEugenio can't. Bizarre.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Uh, Davy, do you not think that cash deposits on things are eventually deposited into accounts?
DAVID VON PEIN:
Sure. And Seaport undoubtedly deposited the $10 that Oswald mailed them into their bank account. But please tell the world HOW the FBI is going to track or trace a specific $10 bill IN CASH that was deposited by Seaport? How is that done, Jimmy?
And, more to the point, WHY would the FBI need to do that? They already knew LHO ordered the gun (the mail-order coupon and the Seaport order form prove that fact for all time)....and the FBI knew that Seaport had received the $10 cash deposit (the fact that Seaport mailed the merchandise to PO Box 2915 is proof of that).
So why is there any need whatsoever to track down a particular $10 bill, which the FBI knew was paid IN CASH by Oswald (vs. a traceable check or money order)?
Your goofiness is reaching a new zenith, Jimmy.
JAMES DiEUGENIO:
Now, you say that this is expecting too much of the FBI, that is to trace the money for a transaction for an alleged murder weapon. Then why did they do it for Klein's?
DAVID VON PEIN:
I can think of two good reasons:
#1.) Because the Klein's rifle order was paid for via a money order (which was traceable through the U.S. Post Office).
#2.) Because Oswald was not caught red-handed with the Mannlicher-Carcano in his hands on 11/22/63. Therefore, additional means of linking the murder weapon to its owner (Oswald) were needed. And that was accomplished without a shred of a doubt.
But the #2 item above did not apply to the revolver, because Oswald was nice enough to keep that murder weapon on his person at the time he was fighting with the police in the theater.
Instead of focusing almost solely on Oswald's $10 cash deposit for Revolver V510210, you should be much more concerned about the $19.95 + $1.27 S&H that Oswald had to pay on the COD payment after the revolver was shipped.
Yes, it's true that apparently there is no official "tracing" of that COD payment made by Oswald. (But LHO probably paid cash for that part of the payment, too. In fact, the Seaport invoice does have the "Cash" box checked for a payment; whether that refers to the $10 deposit or the COD payment, or possibly both, I am not certain.)
But even without tracing the $19.95+, the FBI knew the revolver was Oswald's, and since he was caught with the gun on him on 11/22, the FBI actually was able to figure something out that Jimbo DiEugenio hasn't figured out to this day --- Lee Oswald, in March of 1963, picked up the gun that he himself ordered. (Gee, imagine somebody actually doing something like that, huh?)
This is very simple stuff to figure out, Jim. Why over-complicate it with your silly "REA" requirements?
David Von Pein
December 2011
