When it is noted that Oswald is linked to the alias used to order the rifle via an ID found in his possession upon arrest, the dishonest contrarian suggests further proof of this is necessary by dismissing the word of those who arrested Oswald (i.e. the very people who were there).
Disingenuous. You discount "people who were there" all the time when it doesn't fit your narrative. Just to name a few:
Arnold Rowland
Roger Craig
Carolyn Walther
Jean Hill
Vickie Adams
Ed Hoffman
Julia Ann Mercer
Acquilla Clemons
Bernard Haire
Sylvia Odio
O.P. Wright
Seth Kantor
Butch Burroughs
W.R. (Dub) Stark
Louis Cortinas
Carolyn Arnold
The question is, was there
any mention of this ID in any statement, document, or report made before the Klein's order turned up?
The only explanation given for them to lie is they were "cops" and "Oswald was dead." Perplexing how that raises any doubt whatsoever about the confirmation of Oswald being in possession of the fake ID.
There no special credibility conferred upon the word of a cop as opposed to anyone else. On the contrary, cops can and do lie to railroad suspects and to protect their own. There are hundreds of examples. Once the Klein's order turned up, they had incentive to connect Oswald to "A. Hidell". If you can find
any record of this ID existing prior to then, I'd sure like to see it.
If there were any doubt whatsoever (and there is not), the same alias is also found on a PO Box form linked to Oswald.
You mean the form that was supposed to have been destroyed per postal regulations? And how does this make "Hidell" an alias for Oswald?
Let me guess, we need a time machine to go back and confirm the post office didn't forge that form. It's a slam dunk that the alias used to order the rifle can be linked to Oswald. There is zero doubt.
So your argument then is that because there is no good evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, then we should just believe that's true based on weak circumstantial evidence and conjecture instead? "Zero doubt" is just LN-speak for "in my opinion". For one thing, how do you know Hidell is an alias at all?
Another example. The serial number is a match - to which the dishonest contrarian asks "a match to what?" Hmm. Let's think about that one. According to Klein's, a rifle with a unique serial number was mailed to Oswald's PO Box.
False claim. According to a Klein's VP who had nothing to do with processing the orders, a copy of a microfilm order blank had "PP" circled, which means that the order was supposedly sent via "Parcel post", but there is no record whatsoever of any such shipment.
A rifle with that same serial number was found at the TSBD (Oswald's place of employment). Now think real hard about where the match is.
What is this, proof by sarcasm? For one thing, there is good reason to think that the serial number may not have even been unique. And it's more correct to say that the perhaps not unique serial number on a rifle allegedly found in the TSBD (but reported by three deputies to have been a 7.65 Mauser) matched the serial number handwritten in on a photo of a microfilm copy of a Klein's order blank from microfilm that is now missing.
When it is noted that the rifle was found at Oswald's place of employment, the response is that "lots of people worked there." LOL. It is mind boggling to understand how that is relevant since none of these other employees have any link whatsoever to the rifle.
You're the one putting "found at his place of employment" forward as a relevant piece of evidence that he shot the president. It's not.
How many of these "other people" who worked there had this particular rifle sent to their PO Box under an alias that could be linked to them?
You haven't even demonstrated that
Oswald had this particular rifle sent to his PO Box under an alias that could be linked to him.
How many left their prints on that rifle?
What prints on that rifle? The ones that were useless for identification purposes? Surely not the partial palmprint that turned up a week later on an index card.
How many were photographed holding it?
You haven't demonstrated that
Oswald was photographed holding it.
How many carried a long package that morning that could never be accounted for then lied about it?
You mean how many carried a package too short to have held the alleged murder weapon? What difference does it make? You don't know he lied about it. You're assuming he lied about it because it conflicts with your baseless assumption that he carried in a rifle.
It wouldn't matter if a million people worked there because there is not a single other person who worked there that has even one iota of evidence that links them to the rifle and yet that is what the contrarian suggests could be the explanation for the rifle's presence while dismissing a mountain of evidence linking the rifle to Oswald. Good grief.
Then you've just admitted that "found at his place of employment" is just redundant rhetoric for the purposes of padding actual evidence and nothing else.
If you were actually characterizing the other evidence correctly, but the rifle had been found somewhere else (like in the Trinity River for example) would you suddenly say "oh, well it wasn't found at his place of employment, so I guess that exonerates him"? Of course you wouldn't. It's only "evidence" because you have contrived it to be evidence.
