17-07-2015, 10:09 PM
(This post was last modified: 18-07-2015, 03:27 AM by Albert Doyle.)
Something is wrong here and that form looks deliberately smudged up. Could it be because there's an application date on it?
Examination should be able to tell if it is a carbon copy or not.
In any case it doesn't answer the issue about the worn and dirty driver's license seen at the Public Safety office. They were obviously talking about a small card carried around in a wallet and not any application form. There's no way those employees would not vocalize the difference between the two. They were clearly talking about a driver's license that had been worn by being carried around in a wallet. They could have confirmed it but no one considered that they would have to be clarifying years later because deniers tried to claim it was an application.
Ms Frair:
Clearly a driver's license paper card that was designed to be carried in a wallet and not a letter-sized application form.
I guess the clincher is the creasing on that form is not folded as if it was carried in a wallet. Check it out.
Funny how Marina, Mrs Paine, or anybody else never noticed this.
Doubt it because of you pay attention to the top of the form there's a fee. If Lee Harvey Oswald applied previously he would have paid the fee. After having paid the fee it is unlikely he would have just filed another form and paid the fee again.
Good. The crude denier is obvious squirming on the hook realizing his application bs has fatally blown-up on him. I guess he's changed his story once again while somehow interpreting that as our failure. When you get him to go full Aussie he's really on the ropes. He's pretending this is a "fallible memory" issue when it is plainly obvious it was hard verified by 6 employees and sworn to to a District Attorney. Again, the investigators obviously disappearing documents somehow isn't a sign of their criminality and deception but is instead a weakness in our side.
.
Examination should be able to tell if it is a carbon copy or not.
In any case it doesn't answer the issue about the worn and dirty driver's license seen at the Public Safety office. They were obviously talking about a small card carried around in a wallet and not any application form. There's no way those employees would not vocalize the difference between the two. They were clearly talking about a driver's license that had been worn by being carried around in a wallet. They could have confirmed it but no one considered that they would have to be clarifying years later because deniers tried to claim it was an application.
Ms Frair:
Quote:Several other employees (5 or 6) of the Department saw the driver's license which was dirty and worn as though it had been carried in a billfold.
Clearly a driver's license paper card that was designed to be carried in a wallet and not a letter-sized application form.
I guess the clincher is the creasing on that form is not folded as if it was carried in a wallet. Check it out.
Quote:He also could have applied before April 1963, and then moved to New Orleans, then moved back, and obtained another application, believing he needed to re-apply.
Funny how Marina, Mrs Paine, or anybody else never noticed this.
Doubt it because of you pay attention to the top of the form there's a fee. If Lee Harvey Oswald applied previously he would have paid the fee. After having paid the fee it is unlikely he would have just filed another form and paid the fee again.
Good. The crude denier is obvious squirming on the hook realizing his application bs has fatally blown-up on him. I guess he's changed his story once again while somehow interpreting that as our failure. When you get him to go full Aussie he's really on the ropes. He's pretending this is a "fallible memory" issue when it is plainly obvious it was hard verified by 6 employees and sworn to to a District Attorney. Again, the investigators obviously disappearing documents somehow isn't a sign of their criminality and deception but is instead a weakness in our side.
.