[Ben Holmes]

Garry Puffer Wrote:A very good question from Martin Hay, which shows from another angle that Oswald never received the Carcano through his PO box:

Martin Hay Wrote:Holmes and other inspectors at the Dallas General Post Office (GPO) were well aware of Oswald long before the assassination and had informed the FBI about Oswald receiving "subversive materials." On April 21, 1963, Holmes himself advised FBI Special Agent James Hosty that Oswald had been in contact with the Fair Play For Cuba Committee. (CD11, Report of SA Hosty, 9/10/63) And this in itself gives us further reason to doubt that Oswald had ever received the rifle. Is it reasonable to believe that Postal Inspectors felt it was important to report that Oswald was receiving subversive materials and literature written in Russian, but did not feel it was worth informing the bureau that an alleged communist had ordered a rifle?

It's also worth noting that Oswald was one of a relatively small number of people who fell under the CIA's HT/Lingual program - a program that opened all their mail. How could they have possibly missed a rifle?

Also worth noting, believers fall silent every time I mention the HT/Lingual program...

[Ben Holmes]

Jean Davison Wrote:HT/Lingual monitored mail between this country and the Soviet Union, not mail within the U.S. itself.

Some authors seem to think that because this program picked up some of the Oswalds’ mail to or from the Soviet Union it meant that the CIA was reading all of Oswald’s mail and monitoring his activities, but that’s not what the evidence indicates. (If I’m wrong about that, please show me.)

There’s a good bit about HT/Lingual at the maryferrell.org site because the HSCA looked into it in the mid-1970s.

This is the sort of nonsense that believers actually believe.

Let me try to sort this out...

If mail came from the Soviet Union - it went to another post office box that belonged to Oswald?

I'm just guessing, because Jean wasn't specific about how a program that intercepts & reads mail only to the Soviet Union would have been picked up mail without noticing a rather large package containing a rifle.

And, of course, she's simply wrong. HT/Lingual clearly DID NOT only target the Soviet Union... a quick Google search reveals names that had NO FOREIGN CONTACTS AT ALL - such as Martin Luther King.

Why is it that critics are constantly correcting believers on such easily located historical facts?

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:It's also worth noting that Oswald was one of a relatively small number of people who fell under the CIA's HT/Lingual program - a program that opened all their mail. How could they have possibly missed a rifle?

It seems odd I accept.The rifle was mailed to A.Hidell.

It is possible that a duty postal inspector was unaware of the alias - whether or not that happened I have no idea.

It is also possible that the box was overlooked - people make mistakes and a post office like that has hundreds if not thousands of boxes in process at any one time.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:It's also worth noting that Oswald was one of a relatively small number of people who fell under the CIA's HT/Lingual program - a program that opened all their mail. How could they have possibly missed a rifle?

It seems odd I accept.The rifle was mailed to A.Hidell.

It is possible that a duty postal inspector was unaware of the alias - whether or not that happened I have no idea.

It is also possible that the box was overlooked - people make mistakes and a post office like that has hundreds if not thousands of boxes in process at any one time.

That the box was "overlooked" is silly - this is how Oswald got his mail. He made a habit of using post office boxes, as I'm sure you know. To 'overlook' the P.O. Box meant that they were not intercepting Oswald's mail... I find that rather silly...

I quite doubt that any program that is intercepting mail is only concerned with the name, rather than the address. Particularly with a post office box - since people don't normally 'share' a P.O. box.

This is still unexplained...

[Patrick C]

I checked with Martin to see if Harry Holmes knew of the alias and as far as Martin knows , he did not - see below:

"Hi Patrick,
Thanks for the heads up. As far as I know, Holmes didn't know about the alias, no. Actually, that part of my writing that's been quoted was badly worded in that regard. "

I recall some one on Amazon accusing me of making stuff up that I knew Martin, was it Nickname ? Or was it Garry or David - I simply cannot recall...?

Anyway, this rather weakens the point - which I have to say was a good one - but no surprises there - I would suggest Martin is one of THE leading amateur JFK buff world wide and I would expect him to dig into the more worrisome areas of the conspiracy case.

(Incidentally Martin does not think the neck wound was an entrance either)

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:I checked with Martin to see if Harry Holmes knew of the alias and as far as Martin knows , he did not - see below:

"Hi Patrick,
Thanks for the heads up. As far as I know, Holmes didn't know about the alias, no. Actually, that part of my writing that's been quoted was badly worded in that regard. "

I recall some one on Amazon accusing me of making stuff up that I knew Martin, was it Nickname ? Or was it Garry or David - I simply cannot recall...?

Anyway, this rather weakens the point - which I have to say was a good one - but no surprises there - I would suggest Martin is one of THE leading amateur JFK buff world wide and I would expect him to dig into the more worrisome areas of the conspiracy case.

(Incidentally Martin does not think the neck wound was an entrance either)

Holmes didn't know what was on the registration paperwork for Oswald's P.O. Box???

ARE YOU KIDDING US?

Let's presume he didn't even know OSWALD'S name... then he'd had to have been reporting on the P.O. Box itself.

Which means that it doesn't "weaken the point" at all. But, of course; you're doing what you always do - you speculate, then use that speculation to overcome evidence you don't like. (Or, as you're doing here, presenting someone else's speculation)

And if Martin Hay doesn't accept the evidence that the throat wound was an entry, and actually believes in the SBT... then he's certainly no critic. I predict that he would do no better than you have in refuting the evidence of non-transit.

We've seen a lot of so-called "critics" who toe the line on the important issues.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:...doesn't accept the evidence that the throat wound was an entry, and actually believes in the SBT... then he's certainly no critic.

Actually Martin does not accept the SBT, but you CAN be a critic and accept the SBT - as I WAS in the 80s.......

So logically speaking your point there is shown to be spurious and frankly silly! You can still have a conspiracy and have the SBT ....!!!!

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:...doesn't accept the evidence that the throat wound was an entry, and actually believes in the SBT... then he's certainly no critic.

Actually Martin does not accept the SBT, but you CAN be a critic and accept the SBT - as I WAS in the 80s.......

So logically speaking your point there is shown to be spurious and frankly silly! You can still have a conspiracy and have the SBT ....!!!!

Since the SBT was created in order to evade the evidence that pointed to conspiracy - and was NOT based on the medical evidence, the "spurious & silly" is clearly on the other foot.

You know that when Dr. Dolce, the ballistics consultant, failed to agree with the emerging theory of the Warren Commission, he was simply never invited to testify. You also know that the doctors all disagreed that CE399 could have done what was claimed.

Anyone who believes the Warren Commission on these points cannot possibly be a critic, regardless of what they consider themselves to be.

Indeed, the very fact that you apparently have a good opinion of Martin is the most devastating evidence against him.

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:Indeed, the very fact that you apparently have a good opinion of Martin is the most devastating evidence against him.

What a silly statement. Martin and I disagree over the JFK assassination, but we have spent much time discussing the case over many years. It is what one might call a "foil" .

And have long remained friends. A disagreement over what happened in Dallas give no cause for judgement on a persons character or qualities. And my judgement of Martin is not just based on the JFK assassination!

Incidentally Prof Greg Gordon who you can google, is a leading expert on the laws around genocide and bringing to justice those who perpetrated such crimes, an adviser to your Govt and a friend of mine who rates Martin's insight into the JFK case and his challenges to the official view as important in any debate - and we have been debating for some 5 years plus now - I should add in a civilised manner.

Shame for YOU Holmes that you don't appreciate that. Speaks volumes.

[Ben Holmes]

Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Indeed, the very fact that you apparently have a good opinion of Martin is the most devastating evidence against him.

What a silly statement. Martin and I disagree over the JFK assassination, but we have spent much time discussing the case over many years. It is what one might call a "foil" .

You believe it to be silly - but believers never have a good opinion of solid critics... Look at Mark Lane, roundly hated by believers... Douglas Horne, ditto; Michael Griffith, ditto... even myself, though I'm not in the same league...

Patrick C Wrote:And have long remained friends. A disagreement over what happened in Dallas give no cause for judgement on a persons character or qualities. And my judgement of Martin is not just based on the JFK assassination!

Incidentally Prof Greg Gordon who you can google, is a leading expert on the laws around genocide and bringing to justice those who perpetrated such crimes, an adviser to your Govt and a friend of mine who rates Martin's insight into the JFK case and his challenges to the official view as important in any debate - and we have been debating for some 5 years plus now - I should add in a civilised manner.

Shame for YOU Holmes that you don't appreciate that. Speaks volumes.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, my definition of "civilized" is far different than your definition. It bothers me NOT AT ALL to point out when someone is lying... and strangely enough, you've not refuted a single charge I've ever made against you for specific lies.

Why is that, Patrick?

Why would anyone consider lying to be a part of "civilized" debate?