A LOOK AT LN DAVE VON PIEN

[fobrien1]

i have posted reviews of a few youtube videos , the point of these being that the review highlights inaccuracies , falsehoods and in some cases downright lies , but also the reviews i feel highlight the mentality of the LN in question and LNs in general .

not all LNs are the same , just as not all CT are the same . that is to say there are very clearly different people on both sides with different levels of research , being from little or no research right up to very well researched . when someone is quite well researched that is that they know the evidence and the witnesses and have studied the various jfk investigations (thus they know what they are talking about ) and they say things that are obviously or provably untrue one then must examine the person making the the inaccurate or untrue claim . no one knows absolutely everything about this case EVEN THOSE WE PRETEND THEY DO , if people refuse to study something (a video , book etc etc ) because they have decided they know ENOUGH well then they are closed minded people who stupidly think they are right so they dont need to study anything else that might prove them wrong on one or more parts of this case . if the truth is ALL that one seeks (no matter what the truth reveals ) then they have nothing to fear from being proven wrong , thus they have nothing to fear from studying anything that might prove them wrong .

mr von pien is an interesting man , he gets around a lot on line from his own blogs to various jfk forums . there is nothing wrong with being active on line in regard this case or a topic you are passionate about , im passionate about it , but when i post / write about it i try to give an honest accurate and unbiased look at the facts as is humanly possible . mr von pien for one thing is not exactly known for his open mindedness when it comes to this case . we will take a look at that , but also we will take a look at his approach and also look at and see what we can see in terms of his honesty , you people can judge for yourself .

lets start . the following is from von piens blog where he posts someones comment and then posts his replies .

"DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Rob Caprio is making stuff up (again).

The fact is this -- Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not. The likelihood is that he probably DID list that name, but the portion of the application that revealed such information was discarded after Oswald closed out the box.

If he listed Hidell on his New Orleans P.O. Box forms (which he definitely did), then why wouldn't he list Hidell on his Dallas P.O. Box form? Common sense would suggest that he likely treated those forms the same and listed Hidell on both.

[MARCH 2011 EDIT -- Although, yes, it is true that Oswald did not list "Hidell" on the application he filled out on 11/1/63 for Box 6225; but by that date, he had already purchased both of his guns via his Hidell alias, and he possibly felt he would no longer have any need to utilize that fake name for post office transactions in the future.]

But Rob doesn't know for a fact that Hidell wasn't on the Dallas P.O. Box application. In fact, Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes told the Warren Commission that Oswald might very well have put Hidell on the form. Let's take a gander, shall we?:

MR. LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it."

[Source for the above Warren Commission testimony: 7 H 528.]"
"

so dave started by stating that "Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not"

in fact WE CAN AND DO know for certain I WILL COME BACK TO THAT .

dave followed that up with the following

"The likelihood is that he probably DID list that name, but the portion of the application that revealed such information was discarded after Oswald closed out the box."

i have long said that ifs and buts and maybe , consistent with and indeed a LIKELIHOOD does not equate to proof in any way what so ever .

so above we have 3 claims

1/ nobody knows for certain whether oswald listed hidell on his po box application form OR NOT
2/ likelihood is he PROBABLY DID
3/ the application form that revealed such information was discarded as per p o regulations  (according to harry holmes )

now before i address the above 3 claims lets look at the remainder of his comment .


"[MARCH 2011 EDIT -- Although, yes, it is true that Oswald did not list "Hidell" on the application he filled out on 11/1/63 for Box 6225; but by that date, he had already purchased both of his guns via his Hidell alias, and he possibly felt he would no longer have any need to utilize that fake name for post office transactions in the future.]"

p o box 6225 was never linked to receipt of any weapons , it was in fact only used for fair play for cuba matters etc . so in regard receiving weapons the above p o box is moot . even more so as even mr von pien admits that hidell was never listed as being authorized to receive mail at that box . if one was asserting that oswald had a pattern that he followed and that when ever he opened a po box he did so under the names oswald and hidell well then both names should be found on all these p o box accounts . in this case even von pien admits hidell was NEVER LISTED . but von pien is trying to use this as a means to state HIS OPINION that at this point oswald didnt list the name hidell ONLY because he didnt need to HE ALREADY HAD HIS WEAPONS .

dave follows that up with this

"But Rob doesn't know for a fact that Hidell wasn't on the Dallas P.O. Box application. In fact, Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes told the Warren Commission that Oswald might very well have put Hidell on the form. Let's take a gander, shall we?:"

dave says ROB DOESNT KNOW "for a fact that Hidell wasn't on the Dallas P.O. Box application" and he cites harry holmes , holmes is a man for which a different thread might be best . but ROB CAN INDEED KNOW AS FACT and he does know as fact AS I KNOW AS FACT . so lets go back to the above 3 claims by von pien and put this to bed

1/ nobody knows for certain whether oswald listed hidell on his po box application form OR NOT
2/ likelihood is he PROBABLY DID
3/ the application form that revealed such information was discarded as per p o regulations  (according to harry holmes )

lets start with number 1 . mr von pien should know he is 100% wrong , after all its not as tho he is poorly researched .

lets see , here is the warren report claim

"It is not known whether the application for post office box 2915 listed "A. Hidell" as a person entitled to receive mail at this box. In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963. - WCR pg 121"

in reading the above we can see what dave von pien is doing , he is citing the official LN warren report line . now lets see the TRUTH

"INVESTIGATION: Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an "A. Hidell," would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963."

the above information is from the FBI , and its even got a warren commission exhibit number ce2585

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/WH25_CE_2585.pdf

the only way that the FBI could know who oswald did or did not authorize to receive mail at his p o box is if THEY HAD PART 3 of oswalds p o box application form . so we can KNOW AS FACT because the FBI had part 3 of the application form CONTRARY to what the warren commission falsely claimed .

so we can now dispense with von piens claim 1 and claim 2 as both the fbi and warren report PROVE hidell was NEVER authorized to receive mail at oswalds  dallas p o box 2915 , and as von pien admits hidell was never authorized to receive mail at oswalds other dallas p o box 6225 . so both his claim number 1 and number 2 are proven false and the proof is above in quote and in the link provided .

that leaves us with claim 3 , lets revisit it

3/ the application form that revealed such information was discarded as per p o regulations  (according to harry holmes )

is the above true ? lets see .



PLEASE SEE THE HIGHLIGHTED SEGMENTS OF THE ABOVE IMAGES , HIGHLIGHTED IN RED .

now we can see that post office regulations (CONTRARY to what harry holmes FALSELY claimed ) stated that part 3 of the p o box application form MUST BE KEPT FOR A PERIOD NOT LESS THAN 2 YEARS AFTER THE P O BOX IS CLOSED .  so holmes LIED .

"Members of Holmes' family have contacted JFK Lancer to say that their father should be remembered in the context of the times where it was considered a badge of honor to be an FBI informant and feel he did his duty in all areas of his responsibility in relation to the murder of President John F. Kennedy. "

http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.html

so now we can go back to rob caprio's original comment that mr von pien replied to and see the first part of mr von piens reply

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

You are presupposing there was a rifle to pick up! We know from the postal application form (page 3) that LHO listed NO aliases or other persons (including Marina) to be allowed to receive mail or packages at this post office box. So how would a supposed package made out to a "A. Hidell" get to him again?

====================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Rob Caprio is making stuff up (again).

as is PROVEN above in this case mr caprio was IN FACT correct and accurate .

and we will conclude this segment of this thread with a quote form rob caprio that mr von pien made no effort at all to try to dispute

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

Your witness, Harry Holmes, knew for certain when he told the N.Y. Times on 11/29/63 the following:

Quote on:

No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box.

Quote off

[fobrien1]

IAN KINGSBURY SAID:

Dave,

Who's speculating now?

There must have been a record. Even the British post keep records.

====================================

DVP SAID:

According to Postal Inspector Harry Holmes:

HARRY HOLMES -- "They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off [Part] 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915."

mr von pien persists with the above claim and again cites mr holmes , we can dispense with this nonsense as it is proven above to be untrue . part 3 of the p o box application form was not discarded THE FBI HAD IT and the warren commission knew about it .

as i said earlier these comments by LNs give a good insight into their mentality , which is that in a lot of cases DESPITE BEING PROVEN WRONG they still continue to assert as fact that which they now know to be untrue .

DVP SAID:

Post Office Addendum:

BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail.

But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form.


so above mr von pien is saying that mail is sent to an ADDRESS not a name of a person . meaning that a package would be sent to 25 north 10th street dallas regardless of whos name was listed before the address . however we are talking about post office boxes not a persons home . if this were the case oswald could have used the name mickey mouse and addressed the package to any address and received it there . but we are talking about a p o box and we are also talking about post office regulations WHICH MR VON PIEN BROUGHT UP .

mr von pien says that ONLY the address matters AS IN THE PO BOX NUMBER , in essence he is saying SO WHAT IF HIDELL WASNT AUTHORIZED ? . this is the LN mentality you see , he knows hidell was never authorized even tho he seeks to ignore that fact or get around it . and he seeks to do that by stating IT DOESNT MATTER WHOS NAME WAS ON THE PACKAGE . in essence then he dispenses with the need to prove that hidell was authorized , you gotta love the mentality for its simplicity if nothing else .

so does the name matter ? well if the name doesnt matter WHY DOES THE POST OFFICE BOTHER WITH PART 3 OF THE APPLICATION FORM ? . well its simple there are not just post office regulations but laws to be adhered to , especially when such things as weapons are being sent .

"The 1938 Federal Firearms Act spread a thin coat of regulation over all firearms and many classes of ammunition suitable for handguns. All manufacturers, importers and dealers handling guns shipped in interstate commerce were required to obtain federal licenses ($25 for manufacturers and importers, $1 for dealers). Licensees were prohibited from knowingly shipping a firearm in interstate commerce to some felons, a fugitive from justice, a person under indictment, or anyone required to have a license under the law of the seller’s state who did not have a license. All these prohibited owner classes were also forbidden to receive guns which were or had been in interstate commerce. Dealers were also required to keep records of firearms transactions. Enforcement responsibility was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, who delegated the assignment to the Internal Revenue Service."


"The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 said that "Nobody is permitted to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported, in interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition to any person, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a fugitive or is under indictment for, or was convicted of a crime of violence."

In order to prove that a weapons customer wasn't a fugitive or violent criminal, Texas law REQUIRED that a "certificate of character" be issued by a judge in the county of residence of the purchaser of a firearm. ( VERNON'S TEXAS PENAL CODE, article 489a ( 1925 ) )

No certificate of character" exists for the sale of the rifle."


i should for the record put in this quote from mr von pien dated march 13 2012

"The credit needs to go to Gary Mack, not me. I haven't said a word about this topic. In fact, I'm totally clueless about this particular matter of the "good character" certificate. I merely pasted in Gary Mack's e-mail." dvp

so mr von pien stated he was "CLUELESS" in regards the good character certificate , one would be clueless about things they are not bothered researching . my point being that david von pien is in the business of debunking so in that sense one can reasonably assert that he should be researching all these things . but then he doesnt , he decides what is worthy of his research OR NOT . for example in debate he attacked and dismissed the work / books of james di eugenio while admitting he never read them AND HAD NO INTENTION OF EVER DOING SO . dont LNs say HOW CAN YOU ATTACK THE WARREN REPORT IF YOU NEVER READ IT ? indeed they do , but then LNs like mr von pien will argue for one thing today and argue against it tomorrow if it doesnt suit them . as an example helen markham according to LNs saw oswald kill officer tippit ,LNs will tell you SHE IDENTIFIED HIM , so in effect they are saying she is a reliable credible witness . THATS TODAY lol , fast forward to tomorrow and the topic is the time of the shooting , and someone cites miss markham stating that it was 1.06 or 1.07 and all of a sudden LNs will attack miss markham . this is the mentality .

but lastly here back to the postal regulations . mr von pien in essence states that the name on a package sent to a p o box doesnt matter , all that matters is the p o box number (the address ) , is that so ? . well not according to the post office regulations highlighted in the pictures below IN RED .



i quote " section 355.111b(4) , prescribes that mail addressed to a person at a post office box , who is not authorized to receive mail , shall be endorsed "addressee unknown" and returned to the sender where possible .

so postal regulations regarding post office boxes required that the name of the person on the letter / package be authorized to receive mail at the p o box in question , if the name is unknown / unauthorized to receive mail at that p o box the mail is endorsed addressee unknown and usually returned to sender .

[fobrien1]

DVP SAID:

I contend that's it's logical to conclude (after reading Harry Holmes' testimony on the matter) that the only section of the multi-part post office application that needed to be retained was Part 1, which had the most pertinent info about the applicant on it.


above we see mr von pien persist with HIS VERSION OF WHAT HE BELIEVES , despite being shown proof to the contrary . he still persists with the story that part 3 of the p o box application form was discarded as per post office regulations . the regulations in this regard are posted above and they clearly state that part 3 of said form must be kept for a period not less than 2 years . so it wasnt discarded , further to that we know it wasnt discarded because the FBI had it . but as i have said earlier LN mentality always plays a part , and certainly the mentality where they on one hand argue against something WHEN IT SUITS but then they argue on the other hand that it doesnt really matter anyway lol .

that is what von pied did above . he started with the argument that part 3 of the p o box application form was discarded , but then tries to get around the fact that it wasnt by stating "the only section of the multi-part post office application that needed to be retained was Part 1" , so IT DOESNT REALLY MATTER THAT PART 3 WAS DISCARDED even tho it wasnt because in his view part 1 is sufficient lol . well the people who made the post office regulations obviously thought otherwise as they wanted part 3 kept , because unlike with part 1 it would contain any and all other additional names of people authorized to receive mail .

some of you may be asking your self why does this form matter ? . good question . if part 3 of that form stated the name lee oswald and A hidell WE WOULD HAVE SEEN IT , the only reason we didnt see it is because hidell wasnt on it . they got around not showing us this part of the form with a lie that postal regulations stated that it be discarded as soon as the p o box was closed . THIS WAS A LIE . but this lie allowed them to say oswald received the rifle in the name hidell at his p o box WITHOUT THEM HAVING TO PROVE IT , but if they had published part 3 of the form WITH HIDELL NOT LISTED they would then have a serious problem .