From: chuckschuyler123@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:04:31 AM UTC-5, 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.    
      
   Strawman. The question Bigdog brought up concerned whether or not employees   
   engaged in the day-to-day activities should remember a nobody like Oswald, or   
   whether there should be records pinpointing who handed him packages, etc.   
      
   > 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.    
      
   We know there were records, but you seem to be claiming employees should   
   remember this particular customer interaction.   
      
   > 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.    
      
   >    
   > When you're talking a chain of custody, it's important to know who had   
   custody of the weapons.    
      
   Was the rifle, for example, shipped differently to Oswald for this sale as   
   opposed to how other rifles were shipped in 1963?   
      
   > The tracking of the weapons must have been done by you, because it was done   
   half-assed.    
      
   Yes, not up to your standards again. Who cares?   
   >    
   > And no employee of either establishment ever came forward to identify   
   himself as the one who gave Oswald the weapons.    
      
   Can you remember the waitress who freshened up your cup of coffee at some   
   diner eight months ago?   
      
   > 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 ?    
      
   Plenty recognized him, some with false memories seeking attention and   
   notoriety, but few would have reason to remember him PRIOR  to 11/22/63 in the   
   ordinary transactions and activities that make up a day's routines.   
      
   > No one remembered his box # 2915 ?    
   > No one remembered him coming to the counter with a notice ?    
   > No one remembered a 40" package ?    
      
   He was a nobody AT THE TIME. Why would ordinary interactions picking up   
   packages, etc. burn an indelible memory in another ordinary person's mind   
   whose own life is filled with day-to-day ordinary tasks and concerns? Do you   
   remember the clerk who handed    
   you back your credit card seven months ago when you bought a can of paint at   
   some store?   
   >    
   > No one at REA Express remembered handing him a package that was noted as, "1   
   crtn pistol" ?    
      
   The dull day-to-day of the ordinary. Do you remember the face of the guy who   
   checked your ID a year ago when you were boarding an airplane to go somewhere?   
   >    
   > Why wasn't anyone from REA Express ever called to give testimony, Chuckles ?    
      
   For what reason?   
      
   > 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 ?    
      
   What has your research turned up?   
   >    
   > Why didn't the FBI interview the employees at the USPS branch where Box 2915   
   was located ?    
      
   Was it required?   
      
   > They interviewed all kinds of people who had no knowledge of the crime.    
      
   Yes, the investigation wasn't carried out to your high standards. We are aware   
   of that.   
      
   > 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.    
      
   And this is proof of something evil going on, or the collection of perhaps   
   peripheral background information that the report possibly could have done   
   without? Or is it proof of something else? You tell us.   
   >    
   > They took 18 pages of testimony from the emcee at Jack Ruby's club.    
   > But the guy who brought two rifles into the building that the President was   
   allegedly shot from only got two pages of testimony ?    
      
   Life isn't fair.   
   >    
   > What do all these deficiencies have to do with standards between 1963 and   
   today ? These weren't prehistoric times, this was 1963.    
      
   Yet you expect documentation for things that just wasn't done in 1963.   
   Nowadays, almost everything you purchase is tracked, and digital cameras--that   
   nearly every store or building has--can go back a long way and capture visits   
   to a store, etc. But not    
   in 1963.   
      
   > Why did they waste their time and manpower on shit that had NOTHING to do   
   with this crime, while at the same time neglecting to pursue leads and tie up   
   loose ends ?    
   > Enlighten us, Chuckles.   
      
   I'm not troubled by it. There is plenty of meat-on-the-bones in the report and   
   in the investigation, and the exhibits and documents that were collected lead   
   inexorably to the conclusion Oswald killed JFK, wounded JBC, and killed JDT.   
   Why hasn't Team    
   Oswald ran firing tests through limousine windshields and other locations with   
   a realistic mock motorcade Dealey Plaza set-up using ballistic test figures to   
   see if any of the crazy stuff you believe happened is even feasible?   
      
   But why don't you answer your own question, El Senor Lazy Bones? It's not like   
   I'm going to give you an answer that satisfies you, correct? Produce an   
   outline of how you would've run the investigation and why. Outline the tests   
   you would've conducted.    
   Where possible, run your own tests to back up your hobby points. Share the   
   tests and methodology. Invite your critics to look at your work.   
      
   Or, you know, sit on your ass in your cluttered little home and bitch about   
   the Warren Commission Report.   
      
   Get busy, Lazy Bones.   
      
   LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!   
      
   Decades spent sitting on your ass and bitching.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)