From: geowright1963@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 6:04:31 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 11:17:31 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote:    
   > > Fish Part Messiah isn't going to answer this, or at least answer it in any   
   substantive way. Fish Part is once again guilty of something called   
   presentism, which is the idea that the standards and practices of the past can   
   be judged retrospectively on    
   the standards and practices of today. It's possible that in today's world,   
   there might be records for some of the questions Fish Part brings up,   
   irrelevant as his concerns are, but not in 1963 America.   
   > No, just like you, I'm sure there weren't any such things in 1963 as work   
   schedules or records of assignments, like we have today.    
   > No, like you, I'm sure there were no records at the USPS or REA Express on   
   who worked their counters that week between 3/20 and 3/27, like we have today.    
      
   Your question wasn't who was working at the Post Office or the REA on the day   
   Oswald picked   
   up his mail order weapons. Your question was who handed it to him when he came   
   to pick them   
   up. My question to you was what records would you expect there to be that   
   would answer that   
   question. So far, you have yet to answer. I'll give you another 24 hours   
   before I grade you using   
   your standards.   
      
   > No, like you, I'm sure the same FBI that was willing to fingerprint every   
   employee in the TSBD, didn't have the time to interview the employees of the   
   USPS or REA, like they would today.    
      
   Why would they bother? What difference did it make who handed the packages to   
   Oswald?   
   They had a record of the weapons shipped to Oswald with serial number. They   
   had photos   
   of Oswald with the weapons. The rifle was found in the TSBD with Oswald's palm   
   print on    
   the barrel and fibers matching his shirt on the butt plate. Oswald had the   
   revolver in his    
   possession when arrested. Oswald having taken possession of these weapons from   
   the   
   USPS and REA is firmly established. I realize that requires you to connect the   
   dots, all three   
   of them, and that requires a bit of reasoning, which is a skill that is   
   foreign to you, but those   
   are the facts and those facts render your silly questions about which employee   
   actually handed   
   the weapons to Oswald moot.    
   >    
   > When you're talking a chain of custody, it's important to know who had   
   custody of the weapons.    
      
   The evidence that Oswald had taken possession of the weapons is firmly   
   established by the   
   evidence. That is all that is necessary.    
      
   > The tracking of the weapons must have been done by you, because it was done   
   half-assed.    
      
   No, Gil, it was very thorough. Using the serial numbers, they traced the   
   weapons to the retailer   
   and from the retailer to Oswald. Oswald having taken possession of these   
   weapons is firmly   
   established by the evidence I listed above. It doesn't matter which employee   
   of the USPS or   
   the REA handed Oswald his weapons when he came to pick them up. That's not   
   something    
   that would be required in any other murder case and it is ludicrous for you to   
   demand such    
   proof in this one. This is just another one of the silly games you are playing   
   to try to invalidate   
   the evidence that proves without a doubt that Oswald was the assassin.    
   >    
   > And no employee of either establishment ever came forward to identify   
   himself as the one who gave Oswald the weapons.    
      
   Why would you expect them to? Why would you expect them to remember handing a   
   package   
   to Oswald six months earlier?   
      
   > Even after Oswald became world famous, and his face was plastered in every   
   newspaper and all over every TV set in the world, you mean to say no one   
   recognized him ?    
      
   Do you think employees who serve members of the public remember every face   
   they come in   
   contact with over the course of many months? My first job was working at   
   McDonald's while I   
   was in high school. I came to recognize a few of the regulars and even once   
   served a local   
   TV news anchor. Other than that, the rest of them were nameless, faceless   
   people who I    
   would never remember having served. For all I know, I might have served Sirhan   
   Siirhan or    
   James Earl Ray.   
      
   > No one remembered his box # 2915 ?    
      
   And you expect that they would.   
      
   > No one remembered him coming to the counter with a notice ?    
      
   And you expect that they would.   
      
   > No one remembered a 40" package ?   
      
    And you expect that they would.   
   >    
   > No one at REA Express remembered handing him a package that was noted as, "1   
   crtn pistol"?   
      
    And you expect that they would.   
      
   At the time these packages were picked up, what would have been so special   
   about them that   
   you would think someone would remember them?   
   >    
   > Why wasn't anyone from REA Express ever called to give testimony, Chuckles ?    
      
   What would they be expected to testify to?   
      
   > Why was all the REA documentation autheticated by Heinz Michaelis, the   
   manager at Seaport Traders,    
   > who wasn't even employed by them when the transaction occurred ?   
      
   Why do ask so many silly, irrelevant questions?   
   >    
   > Why didn't the FBI interview the employees at the USPS branch where Box 2915   
   was located ?    
      
   What could they be expected to know that would add to the body of knowledge?   
      
   > They interviewed all kinds of people who had no knowledge of the crime.    
   > They interviewed a woman who knew a woman who babysat Oswald when he was 2   
   1/2 years old.    
   > They interviewed Dean Rusk.    
   > They accepted as an exhibit the bite pattern of Jack Ruby's mother.    
      
   Gathering evidence is like panning for gold. You sift through a lot of   
   worthless stuff to find the   
   occasional nugget. The WC put all the worthless stuff they gathered into 26   
   volumes. They   
   summarized the nuggets in the 888 page report. Had they not included the   
   worthless stuff in   
   the 26 volumes, you would be accusing them of destroying evidence.   
   >    
   > They took 18 pages of testimony from the emcee at Jack Ruby's club.    
      
   Panning for gold.    
      
   > But the guy who brought two rifles into the building that the President was   
   allegedly shot from only got two pages of testimony ?    
      
   Tell us why you think there should be more.   
   >    
   > What do all these deficiencies have to do with standards between 1963 and   
   today ? These weren't prehistoric times, this was 1963.    
      
   The deficiencies are imaginary. The investigation was thorough. It gathered   
   overwhelming    
   evidence that Oswald was an assassin and a cop killer. Far more evidence than   
   would be    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)